Why all the Fuss on the Reformation?

[GKC]

As GKC pointed out, it’s a paraphrase of Chesterton, not a direct quote. That is in fact exactly what I said. I did not say it sounded like something he might say, but that it was a restatement in other words of something he did say.

By “stole” I meant “imitated very closely using his own words.” He got the image from Chesterton. Which, again, is what I said in that other post. I think we have another academic/non-academic misunderstanding here. You’re only counting direct quotations as “stealing.”

Of course, since Mark’s post was not academic work, I was not implying a moral criticism by using the word “stole.”

Edwin

Sort of reminds me of the points I found, where Archbishop Sheen was highly inspired by some of Chesterton’s phraseology.

GKC

 

[Contarini]

Well if you have time check it out again. After long dialogues of Job and the famous three friends, the lesser known fourth speaks. After he speaks God speaks and pretty much says the same thing as Elihu and more, and orders repentance for the three but not Elihu. No, I think Elihu is my hero here.

I agree that Elihu and God sound very similar, but I think there are significant differences:

1. Elihu condemns Job and calls him wicked. God says that Job has spoken what is right.
2. Elihu appeals primarily to God’s power. God appeals to the mystery and wonder of creation.
3. Elihu portrays God as so high and mighty that Job is irrelevant to God. God doesn’t say that. Indeed, God’s showing up at all seems to indicate that Elihu is wrong about God’s unconcern.

Our difference of interpretation hinges, I think, on how we read two key statements put into the mouth of the Lord:
Job 38:1: does it apply to Elihu or to Job? Most people seem to think it applies to Job. Scholars who are primarily relying on historical criticism ignore Elihu’s speech because they think it was interpolated later (which may be true, but we still need to deal with the canonical version, which is inspired Scripture). On those premises, God would be speaking to Job. But in the text as we have it, God’s words follow right after Elihu’s speech. I think it’s reasonable to read the words as referring to Elihu. You point out, rightly, that Elihu is never condemned. (On historical-critical premises, that may be because his speech was a later insertion.) But neither is he praised. He’s simply swept aside, because God is concerned with Job. Job is the only one actually worth answering, from God’s point of view. Which leads to

Job 42:7. This is probably the key verse for interpreting the whole book. God says that the three friends (ignoring Elihu) have not spoken right of God, as Job has. Those who follow a more “anti-Job” interpretation say that God is talking simply about Job’s final confession. But this seems unlikely. After all, there’s no indication that the friends have refused to confess similarly that God is sovereign. Their entire arguments have presumed God’s sovereignty. If Job is being praised for belatedly admitting that he is wrong and can’t argue with God, then why is this being contrasted with what his friends have said throughout the debate? Doesn’t it seem a lot more probable that God is praising Job’s contributions to the debate over against those of his friends (obviously the praise has to be read in light of Job’s “capitulation” when God does show up)? And if that’s true, then Elihu must be wrong in saying that Job’s words are wicked.

Elihu is certainly a difficult problem, which is why the historical critics try to write him out as a later interpolation.

Edwin

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Wrong.

We believe the Bible is God’s Word because He says it is - not because the Catholic Church says it is.

OK, great. Could you please point out where God says that the Letter to the Hebrews is theopneustos? I looked, and couldn’t find it.

You think the Bible is His Word because the Church says it is?

No, but it is because the Holy Spirit operates through His Church that this has been revealed.

God the Holy Spirit never speaks to you, never whispers, never convicts, never acts in your life, except strictly through the sacraments and the homily? Grace is only delivered through the priest? God is not allowed to do anything? I don’t think so. I think in the end you will realize that you believe Hebrews is God’s Word because He convinced you it is, not because anyone else says it is. The Church may point, may teach, etc., but in the end it is God acting to convince you.

While the Holy Spirit can and does influence us, our influence MUST be compared to the Church’s teaching, or else it is not the Holy Spirit talking.
If your theory is correct, then the Holy Spirit must be telling conflicting “truths” to different denominations, all of whom believe that their beliefs are based on the Spirit’s prompting.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

If the Bible is God’s Word, then every book in it is it also.

Sure thing. Including 1,2 Maccabees, etc.

God spoke and these are the translations from the inspired autographs.

Alas, no. We don’t have the inspired autographs from which to translate.

Yet none of the textual deviations in the Greek New Testament manuscripts in their thousands requires a change in doctrine.

Well, true, if you follow Catholic doctrine.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Give Him, not the Church, the glory.

The Church is His creation. He build it (he said so). It is His Body, and His Bride.

Dissing the Church is dissing Christ.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Another problem is that what I have written has been reactive against a perception that Catholics here are requiring someone to believe something ONLY because the Catholic Church teaches it as true. Unless a priest or bishop is involved, it’s suspicious. God is not allowed to move without permission from the Church Authorities? That is my impression of what some people are saying: I am not allowed to trust the Scriptures unless the Church tells me these are trustworthy.

Our conversations here would probably be more fruitful if you’d respond to what is written, rather than caricaturing our beliefs based on your impressions.

All without addressing the questions actually asked.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Everything you’ve just said presupposes the Roman Catholic understanding of what happened in the sixteenth century, namely that new churches were set up rather than old ones reformed. For obvious reasons that isn’t going to convince any Protestants.

Think about it, though:
Just prior to the 16th century “reformation” there was a Church, endowed with authority by Jesus. It was, according to St. Paul, the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.” It was this Church to which people should go to resolve disputes, as the ultimate arbiter.

Now, the “reformers” take it upon themselves to NOT follow Jesus’ prescriptions and promises, and St. Paul’s words.

How do you go about “reforming” the old Church by disobeying it, and in doing so disobeying Christ? “He who hears you hears me …”

No, the only licit way to correct any practices in the Church is from INSIDE the Church. If you don’t have the patience to do it that way, breaking away from the Church isn’t the way to do it since this makes you OPPOSED to Jesus’ commandment.

But that’s another subject …

 

[Contarini]

Everything you’ve just said presupposes the Roman Catholic understanding of what happened in the sixteenth century, namely that new churches were set up rather than old ones reformed. For obvious reasons that isn’t going to convince any Protestants.

It has convinced quite a few Protestants, because the evidence supports it. At least in the sense that there was a clear break in continuity.

When Luther stood up at Leipzig and said that he didn’t care what either popes or councils said, that could no longer be spoken of simply as “reforming the old Church.” At that point he was throwing aside any authority structure except Scripture. That’s quite reasonably described as starting a new church.

Edwin

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Yes, just like how did Jews know which prophet to listen to

They usually killed 'em.

 

[PRmerger]

PR -

Need to add the bible itself to this list. It’s the first place to start. There is no sign on the cover of the Book of Hebrews that says

[SIGN]This writing is the inspired and inerrant Word of God[/SIGN]

In fact, the words above are found no where in the writing itself, on any page.

PnP

Indeed.

And even if it did, does that make it inspired?

I’m pretty sure that the BofM claims self-inspiration.

As does the Koran.

So…

 

[PRmerger]

As GKC pointed out, it’s a paraphrase of Chesterton, not a direct quote. That is in fact exactly what I said. I did not say it sounded like something he might say, but that it was a restatement in other words of something he did say.

By “stole” I meant “imitated very closely using his own words.” He got the image from Chesterton. Which, again, is what I said in that other post. I think we have another academic/non-academic misunderstanding here. You’re only counting direct quotations as “stealing.”

Of course, since Mark’s post was not academic work, I was not implying a moral criticism by using the word “stole.”

Edwin

Okey dokey, then.

However, it certainly does sound like, when I say it came from Mark Shea, you’re pointing out that it’s really Chesterton.

And when I say it came from Chesterton, you’re pointing out that it’s really Mark Shea.

Whatevs…

They both are making similar penetrating and incisive commentary regarding the Prot Ref’s dismissal of the Catholic Church while taking our Holy Book and declaring it to be an infallible oracle.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Tomi,

If by self-attesting, one is questioning whether scripture is true or not, of course Catholics would say yes, since scripture is the inspired and inerrant written Word of God, it is in that sense, self-attesting: True.

I might be misreading what you’re saying here, but THIS Catholic would not say scripture is self-attesting.

Neither is this Catholic.

I could read some biblical texts on one hand, and then something like the shepherd of hermas on the other, and in reality, I wouldn’t be able to discern which was or was not scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

As GKC pointed out, it’s a paraphrase of Chesterton, not a direct quote.

I do not see GKC’s responses anymore. He knows that.

 

[PRmerger]

I might be misreading what you’re saying here, but THIS Catholic would not say scripture is self-attesting.

Neither is this Catholic.

I could read some biblical texts on one hand, and then something like the shepherd of hermas on the other, and in reality, I wouldn’t be able to discern which was or was not scripture.

Indeed.

And what is so “self-attesting” about “Saul went into a cave to relieve himself”?

If one is going to be able to read Scripture and discern whether those are inspired words, the most reasonable conclusion any logical person would make is, “Not even close!”

Thankfully, though, I don’t rely on my own prayer and hermeneutics to discern whether something is theopneustos or not.

Nor, really, does any Christian, no matter how much he claims to reject the authority of the CC because they’re just a group of fallible old men.

 

[GKC]

I do not see GKC’s responses anymore. He knows that.

Yes, I guessed that.

Will post, as seems fitting, anyway.

GKC

 

[benhur]

Tomi,

If by self-attesting, one is questioning whether scripture is true or not, of course Catholics would say yes, since scripture is the inspired and inerrant written Word of God, it is in that sense, self-attesting: True. But if the question is whether scripture is so clear, that anyone can understand it and interpret it on their own, then we should have universal agreement whether:

• we are saved by faith alone
• the number of books in the bible should be 66, 73 or another number
• Once saved, always saved is correct
• baptism is required for salvation
• infants should be baptized
• the Eucharistic meal is symbolic only or the true body and blood of our Lord

and so on…

Actually, scripture itself indicates it is hard to understand. St. Peter says St. Paul’s writings are difficult and the Ethiopian Eunuch asks who can understand scripture, it is difficult.

Removed from the Church and the apostolic faith that brought it forth, it is indeed hard to understand at times.

PnP

Because it is hard sometimes we change the method of obtaining understanding ? Augustine in Confessions speaking of the surpassing authority of Holy Writ says it is, “easy for everyone to read… and accessible to all men”.

 

[benhur]

]All this was a Protestant invention and theological novelty.

as pointed out by earlier post by Tomi, if it is numbers game yes but if it is narrow gate no. Certainly anything protestant was way before 1500 just not the status quo by then.

 

[pablope]

Because it is hard sometimes we change the method of obtaining understanding ? Augustine in Confessions speaking of the surpassing authority of Holy Writ says it is, “easy for everyone to read… and accessible to all men”.

But I do not think Augustine said…apart from or in separation from the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Because it is hard sometimes we change the method of obtaining understanding ? Augustine in Confessions speaking of the surpassing authority of Holy Writ says it is, “easy for everyone to read… and accessible to all men”.

But NOT easy to interpret and understand.

If it were, there would not be tens of thousands of different denominations.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Because it is hard sometimes we change the method of obtaining understanding ? Augustine in Confessions speaking of the surpassing authority of Holy Writ says it is, “easy for everyone to read… and accessible to all men”.

… and given to us by the Church as authentic:

“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.”
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.

But I do not think Augustine said…apart from or in separation from the Church.

Most decidedly true.