N
Newsy
Guest
I was approached by my Pentacostal in-laws on this subject. They had been taught that the verse in question outlawed calling any man “Father”. It was a simple fix, but there are those who ask the question.
Why is there not a single Protestant Understanding of the Bible?
- Status
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Andrewstx,
I will do my best. First it would be good to get a reference to get a foundation:
newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm
Basically, there are multiple types of writing in the Bible - just like there are multiple types of writing or literature in our own culture. Today, no one tries to hold scientific analysis to a poem - while this appears obvious - somehow this gets thrown out when considering the writings in the Bible. So, to claim that every word holds up to absolute scientific scrutiny is not reasonable - because we do not do this with our own literature…or with anyone else’s literature.
Where the concept of inerrancy comes in is that the truths of God’s message - error free - comes through in the words of men. For example, in the Genesis account of creation the error free message is God created everything freely out of nothing, God directly intervened in the creation of man, that God saw everything He made was good, and man freely chose to disobey God and sin entered the world. That is the message (well, part of it…
) and the human writers put this into words under the inspiration of God.
So, is the message error free? Yes.
Is this term inerrancy the same for Catholics as for Protestants? No.
Where the Catholic Church comes in is to say that certain parts of the Bible have a very particular, specific and defined meaning. Was there a fruit tree? talking serpent? fig leaf aprons? I don’t know and don’t push hard on the description because I do not think every word is a literal fact. Was all of creation the total and unforced work of God’s Will and design? Yes - and, I will stand very firm on that.
This is more of a personal answer - but, one that I feel is accurate and one that I believe.
Hope this helps.
God bless
I will do my best. First it would be good to get a reference to get a foundation:
newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm
Basically, there are multiple types of writing in the Bible - just like there are multiple types of writing or literature in our own culture. Today, no one tries to hold scientific analysis to a poem - while this appears obvious - somehow this gets thrown out when considering the writings in the Bible. So, to claim that every word holds up to absolute scientific scrutiny is not reasonable - because we do not do this with our own literature…or with anyone else’s literature.
Where the concept of inerrancy comes in is that the truths of God’s message - error free - comes through in the words of men. For example, in the Genesis account of creation the error free message is God created everything freely out of nothing, God directly intervened in the creation of man, that God saw everything He made was good, and man freely chose to disobey God and sin entered the world. That is the message (well, part of it…
) and the human writers put this into words under the inspiration of God.So, is the message error free? Yes.
Is this term inerrancy the same for Catholics as for Protestants? No.
Where the Catholic Church comes in is to say that certain parts of the Bible have a very particular, specific and defined meaning. Was there a fruit tree? talking serpent? fig leaf aprons? I don’t know and don’t push hard on the description because I do not think every word is a literal fact. Was all of creation the total and unforced work of God’s Will and design? Yes - and, I will stand very firm on that.
This is more of a personal answer - but, one that I feel is accurate and one that I believe.
Hope this helps.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Newsy,
Maybe this will be helpful:
catholic-forum.com/churches/luxver/father.htm
aquinasandmore.com/catholic-articles/call-no-man-father/article/291
cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=106
God bless
Maybe this will be helpful:
catholic-forum.com/churches/luxver/father.htm
aquinasandmore.com/catholic-articles/call-no-man-father/article/291
cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=106
God bless
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is true.
However, where we differ from Protestants in their disunity is that Catholics have an authority–a Magisterium which can make a definitive decision when there are questions and “different thoughts.”
Protestants don’t have this, and thus each one is left to the chaos and confusion of not knowing if their interpretation is the correct one.
Also, these “different thoughts” offered by orthodox Catholics on, say, EWTN, are absolutely MINOR when compared to the magnitude of differences among Protestants.
Indeed, they are TRIVIAL.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes–isn’t it wonderful to be able to read different commentaries on Scripture?
You are aware, of course, that these commentaries, while useful and insightful, are not to be mistaken as teachings of the Catholic Church, right?
That’s a good idea. Why don’t you offer one thing from the list?
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are mistakenly applying your Protestant paradigm to the CC, Publisher.There’s no single Protestant understanding for the same reason there is no single Catholic understanding…just review the thread in Sacred Scripture on this forum.
Why don’t Catholics have a single understanding of scripture…“Catholics believe all the same things” is often said on this board…not so it seems…yet Protestants are to have a “single understanding”?
There are the teachings of the Catholic Church, Publisher, and then there are those who have divorced themselves from these teachings.
P
PRmerger
Guest
The answer, Luv, is quite simple…
How do we know when we should take the Scriptures literally or not?
Wait for it…
Wait for it…
The answer: the Church tells us!
It’s the same way you know the answer to this question that an atheist might ask you: how do you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired but the Gospel of Thomas is not?
The answer: the Church told me!
A
andrewstx
Guest
Thanks Tom, that is very different from the Fundamentalist Version of inerency that I was taught. So much better and more reasonable. I actually have friends who moved from Midland to Spring, but you probably won’t know them since they are Greek Orthodox, Joel and Helen Norton.Hi, Andrewstx,
I will do my best. First it would be good to get a reference to get a foundation:
newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm
Basically, there are multiple types of writing in the Bible - just like there are multiple types of writing or literature in our own culture. Today, no one tries to hold scientific analysis to a poem - while this appears obvious - somehow this gets thrown out when considering the writings in the Bible. So, to claim that every word holds up to absolute scientific scrutiny is not reasonable - because we do not do this with our own literature…or with anyone else’s literature.
Where the concept of inerrancy comes in is that the truths of God’s message - error free - comes through in the words of men. For example, in the Genesis account of creation the error free message is God created everything freely out of nothing, God directly intervened in the creation of man, that God saw everything He made was good, and man freely chose to disobey God and sin entered the world. That is the message (well, part of it…
So, is the message error free? Yes.
Is this term inerrancy the same for Catholics as for Protestants? No.
Where the Catholic Church comes in is to say that certain parts of the Bible have a very particular, specific and defined meaning. Was there a fruit tree? talking serpent? fig leaf aprons? I don’t know and don’t push hard on the description because I do not think every word is a literal fact. Was all of creation the total and unforced work of God’s Will and design? Yes - and, I will stand very firm on that.
This is more of a personal answer - but, one that I feel is accurate and one that I believe.
Hope this helps.
God bless
P
PRmerger
Guest
What we are saying is that there is One Faith, One Church, One Baptism.
And those that deviate from this have deviated from the Word of God.
P
pismopal
Guest
I am going to round off what I meant. It is not an itchy scalp that is the issue…mine or yours. The issue is why you keep refering to yourself as a “Catholic”. By your own admission you do not cling to the same faith and this could be verified by you by a simple visit with your priest…assuming that you have one. You have put the claims of islam on the same level with Christianity, as if truth means nothing…and that truth is relative. Read your own post here. You think truth is found anywhere it is claimed. This is total barking at the moon nonsense and this cannot be sugar coated and I am not going to do so. Everyone has some minor doubts in their faith, at least on occassion but to reject the Sacrament of Holy Communion, the center piece of the faith and still claim to be claim to be Catholic is nothing less than absurd and the most outrageous of your contributions here and that is an accomplishment of the worst kind.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, Catholics have to believe the Truth.
Just like Christians do.
And asking whether a belief is “necessary” to believe is a peculiar question, IMHO. It speaks to a great ignorance of what it means to be a Christian.
From Catholic apologist Mark Shea:
Depends on what you mean by “enough”. If you mean “enough to be saved” then I submit this is Minimum Daily Adult Requirement thinking. No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?” Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to Christ.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, to her credit Luv has honorably changed her religious ID to “Christian”. It did say “Catholic” at one point, I do believe.
I think it was the right thing to do, to avoid scandal and having lurkers see an ostensibly “Catholic” poster making such uninformed comments about the faith.
So it’s good that she changed her profile ID.
And Luv has stated she is church shopping. I pray that in her faith journey that she understands that God is not going to match up with her own views, but rather God is going to demand that she conform her views to His.
Right, Luv? Please make sure that you find a Church that was founded by Christ, and that whatever this Church teaches, you believe and change to agree with.
Otherwise, if you shop around for something that meets your needs, you will have found a false god.
C
CMatt25
Guest
I see there ya go again PR with QMs around the word, Catholic
and praising a change in ID despite what the Church that you believe was founded by Christ teaches about who is Catholic. That too could be confusing to lurkers because it suggests someone is not a Catholic when the Church’s answer is they are. But what if Luv during her shopping were to find love and Christ in a church, I know aka an ecclesial community to some, that both meets her needs well enough and where she is also able to conform?
Think of it like this. You’re out at the mall shopping for a dress. You find the exact length you are looking for. A nearly perfect fit. Maybe only the shade of color is a bit different than you wanted. But you can change your preference in shade and conform to wearing to the dress because it meets most if not ever single one of your needs in the dress.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Are you and other Catholics here denying (I noticed Pismopal for one also registered the same complaint against Luv) the Church teaching that according to a bishop I contacted, teaches Baptism imparts an indelible, permanent character upon one’s soul and makes one a member of the Catholic Church, albeit with possible distinctions in differing degrees of practice and adherence?
C
CMatt25
Guest
I think Luv was asking was it necessary for a Catholic to believe in the Assumption of Mary before 1950.
C
CMatt25
Guest
PR, I think maybe what Luv was asking is was it necessary for all those Catholics before it was formally defined for them in 1950, to believe, even though you say it was believed for centuries before it was defined into a formal belief.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Andrewstx,
Glad to be helpful
Spring is a nice place … but, getting used to the traffic and Houston drivers is not for the faint of heart…
Hmmmmm … very soon my wife and I will be moving back to Louisiana - maybe that is … ‘faint heart syndrome’…
While I have not met your friends, I hope they enjoy their relocation to Spring.
God bless
Glad to be helpful
Spring is a nice place … but, getting used to the traffic and Houston drivers is not for the faint of heart…
Hmmmmm … very soon my wife and I will be moving back to Louisiana - maybe that is … ‘faint heart syndrome’…While I have not met your friends, I hope they enjoy their relocation to Spring.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, CMatt25,
What I said has nothing to do with one’s Baptism.
When a Catholic willfully denies an Article of Faith (e.g., denying that Christ is physically present in the Consecrated Host under the appearance of Bread and Wine [the Real Presence]) one excommunicates themselves Latae sententiae. Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae Simply stated, one can not deny a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church and still remain a Catholic.
The character of Baptism is permanent, but it does not prevent one from denying the Truths of the Faith and renouncing their Catholic Faith. Here is a link on what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Baptism: scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm Your attention is specifically directed to items 1272-1274.
God bless
What I said has nothing to do with one’s Baptism.
When a Catholic willfully denies an Article of Faith (e.g., denying that Christ is physically present in the Consecrated Host under the appearance of Bread and Wine [the Real Presence]) one excommunicates themselves Latae sententiae. Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae Simply stated, one can not deny a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church and still remain a Catholic.
The character of Baptism is permanent, but it does not prevent one from denying the Truths of the Faith and renouncing their Catholic Faith. Here is a link on what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Baptism: scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm Your attention is specifically directed to items 1272-1274.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, CMatt25,
I am not really sure what it is you are addressing here. I re-read the post from PRmerger you quoted and found no error. Now, PRmerger is quite capable of responding on her own … but, when I read your post, it just called out to me to offer a thought or two.
While I have no personal knowledge of how Luvtosew identified her Religion when she began with CAF, she chose to state that she is a Christian - just as you chose to leave this section blank. It should be pointed out that Luvtosew identified in posts that she is a Catholic and has been one for 50 years, yet denies she believes in the Real Presence. Based on this and other comments Luvtosew freely made, she appears to have no real knowledge of the Catholic Faith and continues to use a Protestant model in describing her religious beliefs.
While Baptism is the usual way one becomes a Catholic - the reception of this Sacrament is not enough to keep on a Catholic. For example, Martin Luther was Baptized and received the Sacrament of Holy Orders - yet - he freely chose to leave the Catholic Church because he refused to believe its teachings. Luther then went on to invent his own beliefs and ‘traditions of men’. There was no doubt about Luther having been a Catholic. The real issue is that he chose not to remain a Catholic. From my reading of your post, I do, however, see some confusion - and that is you are using a present tense verb ‘…who is Catholic…’ when what we apparently need is a past tense verb as in, ‘was Catholic’. I took the liberty of highlighting this in your post below.
Hopefully, this clarifies the matter for any lurkers you are concerned about.
I must commend you on using an excellent metaphor - shopping - to present your idea. While not a new idea, it was refreshing to see you use this so well. Let me offer a Scriptural context for what you are presenting. In John 6:60 we find Christ addressing a group of Jews that apparently had followed Christ expecting a free meal. Christ presents the ‘Eucharistic Discourse’ - and these Jews, who were apparently shopping for doctrine or a Messiah or a preacher - rejected Christ. These people were not ‘buying’ what Christ was offering (in this case His Flesh for them to eat) and they walked away.
Our role in Salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ through the Church He founded on Peter (Matthew 16:18) and then to act (works) on that belief… like as identified in Matthew 25. Our role is not to try and find a Savior of our own creation - one made in our own image - one that will ‘conform’ to the shade of color that we have determined we now want. This is what the Jews did in John 6:60, it is what those who lead the Protestant revolt beginning in 1517 did - and that continues to splinter to this very day.
God bless
I am not really sure what it is you are addressing here. I re-read the post from PRmerger you quoted and found no error. Now, PRmerger is quite capable of responding on her own … but, when I read your post, it just called out to me to offer a thought or two.
While I have no personal knowledge of how Luvtosew identified her Religion when she began with CAF, she chose to state that she is a Christian - just as you chose to leave this section blank. It should be pointed out that Luvtosew identified in posts that she is a Catholic and has been one for 50 years, yet denies she believes in the Real Presence. Based on this and other comments Luvtosew freely made, she appears to have no real knowledge of the Catholic Faith and continues to use a Protestant model in describing her religious beliefs.
While Baptism is the usual way one becomes a Catholic - the reception of this Sacrament is not enough to keep on a Catholic. For example, Martin Luther was Baptized and received the Sacrament of Holy Orders - yet - he freely chose to leave the Catholic Church because he refused to believe its teachings. Luther then went on to invent his own beliefs and ‘traditions of men’. There was no doubt about Luther having been a Catholic. The real issue is that he chose not to remain a Catholic. From my reading of your post, I do, however, see some confusion - and that is you are using a present tense verb ‘…who is Catholic…’ when what we apparently need is a past tense verb as in, ‘was Catholic’. I took the liberty of highlighting this in your post below.
Hopefully, this clarifies the matter for any lurkers you are concerned about.
I must commend you on using an excellent metaphor - shopping - to present your idea. While not a new idea, it was refreshing to see you use this so well. Let me offer a Scriptural context for what you are presenting. In John 6:60 we find Christ addressing a group of Jews that apparently had followed Christ expecting a free meal. Christ presents the ‘Eucharistic Discourse’ - and these Jews, who were apparently shopping for doctrine or a Messiah or a preacher - rejected Christ. These people were not ‘buying’ what Christ was offering (in this case His Flesh for them to eat) and they walked away.
Our role in Salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ through the Church He founded on Peter (Matthew 16:18) and then to act (works) on that belief… like as identified in Matthew 25. Our role is not to try and find a Savior of our own creation - one made in our own image - one that will ‘conform’ to the shade of color that we have determined we now want. This is what the Jews did in John 6:60, it is what those who lead the Protestant revolt beginning in 1517 did - and that continues to splinter to this very day.
God bless
I see there ya go again PR with QMs around the word, Catholic
But what if Luv during her shopping were to find love and Christ in a church, I know aka an ecclesial community to some, that both meets her needs well enough and where she is also able to conform?
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, PRmerger,
I have known some Protestants in my day … and I would estimate that about 1/3 of them grew up in a particular faith and have remained with it. The remaining 2/3’s have changed from one church to another - looking for a pastor that fills their needs and says what they want to hear.
No one could live long enough to ‘shop’ through the 30,000+ Protestant denominations - and when one is willing to claim ‘truth’ in Islam - well … I have no idea what kind of numbers we are really looking at. I just do not think that this kind of ‘shopping’ is practical or even has a future. But, then, given the other comments maybe it is just the journey and not the destination that matters.
God bless
I have known some Protestants in my day … and I would estimate that about 1/3 of them grew up in a particular faith and have remained with it. The remaining 2/3’s have changed from one church to another - looking for a pastor that fills their needs and says what they want to hear.
No one could live long enough to ‘shop’ through the 30,000+ Protestant denominations - and when one is willing to claim ‘truth’ in Islam - well … I have no idea what kind of numbers we are really looking at. I just do not think that this kind of ‘shopping’ is practical or even has a future. But, then, given the other comments maybe it is just the journey and not the destination that matters.
God bless
- Status