Who Interprets tradition: From a curious Evangelical

[michaelp]

enanneman:

I’ll happily your first question when you make it less symbolic and more straightfoward. What exactly are you asking here? I assume you are referring the concept of “once saved, always saved,” but I would request a clearer question.

As for number two, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is inspired, but written by men, who used the language and metaphor of the day. So, obviously, it is not necessarily easy to understand the meanings of the words of the New Testament written by a dozen authors 2000 years ago. But, to answer your question more directly, God is not obscure, and he does speak in a language we understand. He came down to Earth to save us and give us a church, not a book. And, the church speaks in a very clear language.

I’ll await clarification on the first question.

I remain, your brother in Christ,

Eric

Thanks Eric, I really appreciate your closing line “I remain, your brother in Christ.”

Here is the first question again:
John 10:7 says. "So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.”

Do you believe that Christ is teaching here that he is a literal door that swings on hinges and lets literal sheep in an out? Justify your answer whatever it may be.

Your brother as well,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

enanneman:

As for number two, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is inspired, but written by men, who used the language and metaphor of the day. So, obviously, it is not necessarily easy to understand the meanings of the words of the New Testament written by a dozen authors 2000 years ago. But, to answer your question more directly, God is not obscure, and He does speak in a language we understand. He came down to Earth to save us and give us a church, not a book. And, the church speaks in a very clear language.

This is where I would part ways with you. I like the system. I think it would be great to have the Church as the infallible interpreter of Scripture (those part that need outside interpretation), but the system is not justifiable in my mind. It arose in response to heritics who derived their heresies from their twisted readings of Scripture. It works to silence them, but this is a pragmatic argument at best.

The straitforward comon sense reading of Matt. 16 “Apon this rock I will build my church” does not justify the entire system. How could you get all of that from one passage like this? If you say that the Church says so, that is question begging (using the conclusion to justify the premise). In other words the conversation would go like this. How do you know that they church has ultimate authority equal to that of Scripture? Answer: because the Church as the ultimate authority equal to that of Scripture says it does.

Do you see where my struggles are coming from. Don’t you understand them at all. Are my arguments in any way understandable to you? Not that you have to agree, but don’t you see that this is very difficult thing to accept. I don’t think that I am just trying to be difficult.

Thanks again,

Michael

 

[enanneman]

michaelp:

Thanks Eric, I really appreciate your closing line “I remain, your brother in Christ.”

Here is the first question again:
John 10:7 says. "So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.”

Do you believe that Christ is teaching here that he is a literal door that swings on hinges and lets literal sheep in an out? Justify your answer whatever it may be.

Your brother as well,

Michael

Well…(you’re going to love this)…as the Church has not (to the best of my knowledge) delivered an authoritatvie interpretation on this verse, I am free to believe what I wish about it, as long as my interpretation does not conflict with any teachings the Church has authoritatively taught.

So, having said that, my fallible interpretation is that Jesus is speaking figuratively here, in that only those who come to Him may come to the Father.

But, my interpretation on this verse may change with additional knowledge.

Eric

 

[michaelp]

enanneman:

Well…(you’re going to love this)…as the Church has not (to the best of my knowledge) delivered an authoritatvie interpretation on this verse, I am free to believe what I wish about it, as long as my interpretation does not conflict with any teachings the Church has authoritatively taught.

So, having said that, my fallible interpretation is that Jesus is speaking figuratively here, in that only those who come to Him may come to the Father.

But, my interpretation on this verse may change with additional knowledge.

Eric

Thanks Eric.

 

[enanneman]

michaelp:

This is where I would part ways with you. I like the system. I think it would be great to have the Church as the infallible interpreter of Scripture (those part that need outside interpretation), but the system is not justifiable in my mind. It arose in response to heritics who derived their heresies from their twisted readings of Scripture. It works to silence them, but this is a pragmatic argument at best.

The straitforward comon sense reading of Matt. 16 “Apon this rock I will build my church” does not justify the entire system. How could you get all of that from one passage like this? If you say that the Church says so, that is question begging (using the conclusion to justify the premise). In other words the conversation would go like this. How do you know that they church has ultimate authority equal to that of Scripture? Answer: because the Church as the ultimate authority equal to that of Scripture says it does.

Do you see where my struggles are coming from. Don’t you understand them at all. Are my arguments in any way understandable to you? Not that you have to agree, but don’t you see that this is very difficult thing to accept. I don’t think that I am just trying to be difficult.

Thanks again,

Michael

Believe me, Michael, my heart does go out to you, which is why I’ve spent several hours over several days talking with you.

I thing the main difference we have is that you’re looking for the Bible to find the foundations of the Catholic Church. You’re looking to us to show you scripturally where the authority that the Catholic Church wields comes from.

But, of course, we cannot do that. And, that is because the Church existed before the New Testament. We are not a bible-based Church. The writers of the Epistles were writing to the leaders of the early Catholic Church to supplement the teaching they had been orally taught. These oral teachings are where the doctrines and dogmas come from, which are reinforced in the New Tetstament. But, the books of the New Testament were never intended to be a complete catechism.

Of course Matthew 16 does not justify an entire system. What is does to is allude to how the system came into being. It’s an historical conversation that the Catholic Church can point to as to where its foundations began.

Now, to use your question, do you understand where I am coming from? I am Catholic because it is the Church that Christ founded, and it has the Sacraments that Christ created, and we celebrate our faith because Christ told us to. We are simply following His instructions.

Baptism? Matthew 28:19
Eucharist? Matthew 26:20-28
Reconciliation? John 20:23 and James 5:16
Annointing of the Sick? James 5:14-15

These passages aren’t the basis for the sacraments, they simply point to where their foundations began.

I don’t know if I’m answering your questions clearly. I hope and pray that I am. Please let me know how I can be of further service.

Eric

 

[Strider]

michaelp:

Strider (Great name!!),
This principle cannot be dismissed just by quoting Matt. 16 and 18 and interpreting it you have proposed. I must be honest with you, while I am open to God doing this, I have not seen the proof that God required not only of the Old Testament prophets, but of Jesus and the Apostles (read 2 Cor. 12:12). To overturn this principle simply on your reading of Matt. 16 and 18 is, forgive me for being so forthright, eisogesis (reading something into the text that is not there in order to confirm a preunderstanding). Honestly, don’t you see this? If not, we may have just come to an impass.
BTW: This does not make any sense to me, “I think your use of Deuteronomy in the context of your original question is misplaced. When Deuteronimy was being written, God was patiently teaching the Israelites about his ways, his person and the plan he had for them. It took him a long time.” I really don’t know what you are trying to say here. Do the principles no longer appy? If so, this must be justified better than this, don’t you think?
Michael

Michael, let’s begin with Deuteronoimy 13. In verses 1& 2, a prohet arises among the peoplke, and hise prophesies come true. As you requiure, he shoiws signs. Then he tires to lead the opeople to false gods. God tells the people not to listen to the man for, “God is testing you.”
In the New Testament, I cant recall a passage in which “God tests the people,” in the same way.
What I was trying to say is that many of the Old Testament writings, while inerrant and written by the Holy spirit through a man, do not apply to the New Testament and Christ establishing his Church. This has been explained to you far better in other posts.

What I am saying is that with the things that matter most, the Bible is increadibly clear and forthright. Why would God be obscure about these things?

Michael,if you really believe this, in spite of 2 Ptr 2:20 and 3:16, I don’t see what problem you have with my reading of Mt 16 an 18 that I gave; it is straight out of the Catechism of the Cathoilic Church and is therefore MAGESTERIAL interpretation of those passages. You see, Jesus gave the magesterium to His Church as its teaching authority. It interpreted and taught the meaning of Mt. 16 18. Just because this doesn’t agree withYOUR PERSONAL interpretation of these “incredibly forthright” passeges, you dismiss them.
Do you see, now what I was getting at? And, do you see what the Magesterium does?

 

[ChrisR246]

michaelp:

Good question. The answer is no. Unless you are claiming to speak for God about the interpretation of the Scripture.

You “see in a mirror dimly” as do the rest of us. We are fallible people trying our best to understand an infallible God. Most things should be clear to you since God did not write in some “angelic” language. Thankfully, He contextualized His message to us. For the most part, a comon sense hermenutic will be sufficient for anyone.

You are created in God’s image and are able and responsible to understand the Scriptures. Just “pick up and read.”

Eric covered a lot of what I was getting at. I’m not trying to be rude, but simply make a point - absent a miracle, we have no reason to accept your interpretation of Scripture.

 

[michaelp]

Eric, I do appreciate you concern and you good answers. They are VERY helpful.

I try to think that an unbeliever in these circumstances so that I am not bound by my presuppositions (although I realize that this is almost impossible).

So, there is one deposite of faith that is evidenced in both tradition and Scriture. I get this. Here is what I have trouble with. The Scripture is something tangible. It can be demonstrated to be authentic in many ways. It was written by those who lived in the first centuries. We have documents of them that go back to the 2nd century. They were written by prophets and people who knew Christ or the apostles. Their message is well attested to.

Tradition on the other hand is intangible isn’t it? If so, how is it passed on. What form does it take. Is it a wisper in the ear of the Pope’s successor? Is it just passed on by the writings of the Church fathers. If so, why so many disagreements? Justin Martyr does not agree with Augustine on the nature of Christ. Do you just choose those that are consistent throughout Church history and say that this represents infallible church tradition? If it is evolving, how? In what form does it exist in before it evolve? How does one justify speaking for God when they do not demonstrate the signs of an Apostle (2 Cor. 12:12). How would we know that Peter passed on his authority to the Pope when it is not demonstrated in early tradition or in Scripture? The infallibility of the Church tradition and the Pope seems to be circular reasoning.

I don’t even argue that Scripture is infallible because it says it is. This if circular. There has to be some type of evidence or signs that say it is. This is what I believe makes Christianity unique. Any religion can claim authority with this type of reasoning. But God has always demonstrated Himself through undeniable signs. This is the entire premise of His apologetic in Isa 40-48. It is a very powerful arguement to me. It means that His word will alway be authenicated.

I know that this is alot, and I do not expect you to answer or respond to everything. I guess that this is just another way to show you where I am at. I just don’t see the justification for this system other than that, pragmatically, it is nice to have.

Thanks again for all your time and dilegence.

Michael

 

[Exporter]

MichaelP wrote the following paragraph:

Tradition on the other hand is intangible isn’t it? If so, how is it passed on. What form does it take. Is it a wisper in the ear of the Pope’s successor? Is it just passed on by the writings of the Church fathers. If so, why so many disagreements? Justin Martyr does not agree with Augustine on the nature of Christ. Do you just choose those that are consistent throughout Church history and say that this represents infallible church tradition? If it is evolving, how? In what form does it exist in before it evolve? How does one justify speaking for God when they do not demonstrate the signs of an Apostle (2 Cor. 12:12). How would we know that Peter passed on his authority to the Pope when it is not demonstrated in early tradition or in Scripture? The infallibility of the Church tradition and the Pope seems to be circular reasoning.
Michael------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The underlined sentance was not written for any and all Prophets! In my Douay - Rheims Bible the commentary of this verse was written by Archbishop Kendrick. He writes that the verse applies to St. Paul.It is an old story , answered frequently that Peter was in charge of all the Apostles, see “Peter” in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It HAS been demonstrated in the writtings of the Early Fathers!
This address will take you to the Catholic Encyclopedia which has an Imprinture (approved by a Bishop). It will open at prophet. You can use this for any word. See the alphabet.
newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm It will answer your questions.

 

[Sherlock]

Michaelp,

You wrote: " But I will say to Sherlock that this idea of unity confuses me. You see, Protestant to not look at the Catholic church and see an entity of believers that are unified like you believe yourselves to be. Again, I see very little unity on these threads."

That may be because you, and other Protestants, may not understand the difference between docrine and discipline; between orthodoxy and heterodoxy; between Tradition and tradition. There is great freedom within Catholicism to disagree about non-essential matters. In those cases it may appear to the outsider that Catholics can’t agree on anything; the “insider” knows that we’re just arguing about non-essentials. Also, some differences represent dissent, pure and simple—these differences don’t carry any weight whatsoever as they are contrary to Church teaching. In this case it might appear to the outsider that Catholics aren’t unified; the “insider” (orthodox Catholic) knows that it’s merely the black sheep of the family baaahhing in futility (hey, it’s a family and we’re stuck with 'em). The point is, of course, that we have a standard by which we can call dissent what it is—dissent. On what basis can one Protestant call another Protestant’s doctrine on salvation wrong? If one “truth” is based on the Bible, and another one is as well, can they both be true?

You wrote: "1. What is better, unity in actuality or unity in theory? unity in heartfelt belief or unity in confession? Cerianly it would be unity in actuality and hearfelt belief. Theory and confession are only the means to bring true unity. They are meaningless if there is not true unity. Right? "

I would hardly frame the dilemma this way at all. What is important is Truth. If the Church presents us with a doctrinal or dogmatic Truth, it is still truth whether a majority or a minority of Catholics accept or understand it. Truth has that dividing effect, you know: Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother…” It is the duty of the Church to protect and teach that Truth. It cannot be sacrificed for “unity”, real or theoretical.

You wrote: “2. What about Vatican II. Catholics are not unified on their interpretation of it. That is why this thread was started.”

Sure, some used the ambiguity of some of the Council’s language to further their own dissenting agendas. That’s why there have been further clarifications. It usually takes about 100 years for the effects of a Council to sort of “shake out”, so to speak. So what’s so terrible about this?

You wrote: “3. What about “outside the church there is no salvation.” If that is not essential, I don’t know what is. There is not unity here among the Roman Catholic laity. If you say that it is just some people who interpret it wrong, then we have moved back to square one of this tread.”

If you are confused on this topic, read the Catechism, which is the “sure norm”, as JPll says, and represents the teaching of the Magisterium. Don’t rely on strangers on an Internet forum. And I don’t think that the CCC is confusing on that point, by the way: a person with even moderate intelligence should be able to understand what is being said.

to be continued…

 

[Sherlock]

continued…

You wrote: " 4. What you have to ask yourself is this: Was Christ’s prayer for unity an ontological one or a functional one? In other words, did Christ pray for the Church to be unified in essence by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as I believe) or in every confession that is made? (Which is obviously not the case as is demonstrated by this debate.) I believe that all those who have trusted in Christ are ontologically one by virtue of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Hence there is only one true Church–the Body of Christ (an ontological definition, not functional)."

I think you have made this more complicated than is necessary. And why should I accept your interpretation? You yourself stated, “The problem that I have with the Pope, traditions, and the Magisterium is that they do not follow the pattern that God laid out for those who claim to speak for him (Deut 13 and 18). I certainly would be willing to follow the Pope if he met this criteria. But, from what I know, he has neither predicted the future nor shown and signs of an apostle that would compel me in any way. I am bound by Scripture to these guidelines”----what signs of an apostle have YOU shown that would compel me in any way to trust any interpretation of yours?

You wrote: “Protestants are united on much more than you think (although this is not a burden of my argument since we believe that the unity is an ontological unity, just a side note).”

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I was a Protestant for some years, attending a variety of denominations in that period. I saw very little unity in doctrine despite the same authority (Scriptures alone) being employed. The Baptist preacher at the church I attended for a long time (excellent speaker, by the way), taught a very different theology than the others I attended.

You wrote: “We agree on who Christ is, the hypostatic union, the Trinity, the second coming, that salvation is by faith alone, that the Scriptures have primary authority in our lives, the necessity of belonging to a local church, that the church is one, holy, apostolic church, that we cannot listen to Rock and Roll (just kidding), that God wants us to trust Him no matter what, that Christ rose from the grave, that He died for our sins, that we are sinners, I could go on and on”

But those are precisely the areas wherein I encountered differences! The Second Coming was not agreed upon at all: a Lutheran pastor I knew completely dissed the teaching of an Assembly of God church in this area, saying that the AG’s teaching amounted to a Third Coming. But the AGs based their theology on the Scriptures, and I was told by that church’s ministers that “those who don’t teach the Rapture will be Left Behind”----which includes those Lutherans. As for the “necessity of belonging to a local church”: many of my Evangelical friends would disagree with you: desirable, yes—but “necessity”? As for the church being “one, holy, apostolic church”, don’t you know that it’s only certain Baptist churches that meet that criteria? Everyone else is going to Hell. Anyway, all of this relativism left a nasty taste in my mouth.

 

[michaelp]

"I think you have made this more complicated than is necessary. And why should I accept your interpretation? You yourself stated, “The problem that I have with the Pope, traditions, and the Magisterium is that they do not follow the pattern that God laid out for those who claim to speak for him (Deut 13 and 18). I certainly would be willing to follow the Pope if he met this criteria. But, from what I know, he has neither predicted the future nor shown and signs of an apostle that would compel me in any way. I am bound by Scripture to these guidelines”----what signs of an apostle have YOU shown that would compel me in any way to trust any interpretation of yours?’

My friend, you are just going to have to read it responsibly. I don’t claim to be speaking for God, so I don’t have any signs to give . . . wait a minute . . . nope, thought I had one in my pocket, but I don’t

How can you understand the Scripture? You are in God’s image. You have great ability to understand things. More than you give yourselves credit for. You will have to make up your own mind on alot of very important things in this life. You will eventually have to give account for yourself, not the Church or with the Church. We will all one day stand alone before God, and we are not going to be able to blame anyone else for our beliefs.

Sorry if this sounds harsh. Maybe I have had a long day. Just got back from driving for a long time, arguement with the wife, kids crying, etc. Hope you don’t take it the wrong way. I am still around and will reread tomorrow.

Have a great night.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Sherlock:

continued…
But those are precisely the areas wherein I encountered differences! The Second Coming was not agreed upon at all: a Lutheran pastor I knew completely dissed the teaching of an Assembly of God church in this area, saying that the AG’s teaching amounted to a Third Coming. But the AGs based their theology on the Scriptures, and I was told by that church’s ministers that “those who don’t teach the Rapture will be Left Behind”----which includes those Lutherans. As for the “necessity of belonging to a local church”: many of my Evangelical friends would disagree with you: desirable, yes—but “necessity”? As for the church being “one, holy, apostolic church”, don’t you know that it’s only certain Baptist churches that meet that criteria? Everyone else is going to Hell. Anyway, all of this relativism left a nasty taste in my mouth.

Dude, I just meant that we agree that He is coming back. The timing and details are a non-essentials, even to RCC.

 

[Sherlock]

Michaelp,

You wrote: “Dude, I just meant that we agree that He is coming back. The timing and details are a non-essentials, even to RCC.”

Perhaps you did not read my post carefully (and I am sorry you’re having a rough night): the AG church that I had attended was quite clear: the timing and details were VERY essential, the ministers there quite adamant that “those who don’t teach the Rapture will be Left Behind”—that is, will not be saved (meaning, in this case, other Protestant ministers).

God bless.

 

[Beaver]

michaelp:

If this were the criteria, then no ancient history at all could be understood. I don’t think that you are willing to go there.

Again, it takes work, but history can be understood. There are alot of good commentaries (some by Roman Catholics) that seek to understand the historical circumstances of the day. They do a great job. Here are some links to some:

Ah! But now you are using something other than scripture alone. You are using a commentary of scripture. No, No you said scripture alone.

Originally Posted by michaelp
* You are created in God’s image and are able and responsible to understand the Scriptures. Just “pick up and read.”

No commentery here, just a brass statement, bible alone.
*

 

[michaelp]

Sherlock:

Michaelp,

You wrote: “Dude, I just meant that we agree that He is coming back. The timing and details are a non-essentials, even to RCC.”

Perhaps you did not read my post carefully (and I am sorry you’re having a rough night): the AG church that I had attended was quite clear: the timing and details were VERY essential, the ministers there quite adamant that “those who don’t teach the Rapture will be Left Behind”—that is, will not be saved (meaning, in this case, other Protestant ministers).

God bless.

Thanks. I am sorry that you had that kind of experience. I think that we lose witness to a postmodern world when we do not focus on the essentials. Here is an article I wrote about this if you are interested. bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2452

Have a great night.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Beaver:

Ah! But now you are using something other than scripture alone. You are using a commentary of scripture. No, No you said scripture alone.

Originally Posted by michaelp
You are created in God’s image and are able and responsible to understand the Scriptures. Just “pick up and read.”

No commentery here, just a brass statement, bible alone.

OK, you got me. I believe in sola scriptura and prima commentaria.

Its a joke!!!

Good night all,

Michael

 

[Beaver]

michaelp:

OK, you got me. I believe in sola scriptura and prima commentaria.

Its a joke!!!

Good night all,

Michael

We all wish we had a burning bush in our backyard, one we could get the answers from, one that would tell us what to do next. I will be praying for you!

 

[Exporter]

MichaelP,

May I ask a simple straightforward question. A “Yes” or a “No” answer would be sufficient. Lets not get complicated, please.

Originally Posted by michaelp
OK, you got me. I believe in sola scriptura.
Do you belive that the King James Version of The Bible, when read by normal people, can be interpreted by each individual and any other individual and be in complete agreement with one another?
:tiphat: If “No”, why not?

 

[michaelp]

MichaelP,

May I ask a simple straightforward question. A “Yes” or a “No” answer would be sufficient. Lets not get complicated, please.

Originally Posted by michaelp
OK, you got me. I believe in sola scriptura.

Do you belive that the King James Version of The Bible, when read by normal people, can be interpreted by each individual and any other individual and be in complete agreement with one another?

:tiphat: If “No”, why not?

Please rephrase. I don’t understand.

BTW: The KJV is not the best example since it is based on inferior manuscripts in the Greek. So whatever your question is, I am not partial towards the KJV (like most textual critics).