Warning – More Theological Stuff Below.
While we have been on the subject of intolerance as it relates to religion, I thought I may as well beat the dead horse oto death completely – and then kick it in the jaw for good measure.
Dan’s post about the vitriolic bigotry spewed by the hateful commentariat (any time and every time an article is written about the Pontiff, the Catholic Church, or anything relating to the Church) and the posts of a particular “Jeremy” (a self-proclaimed Born Again) made me think about one particular aspect that bothers me about Protestant Christians who rip on the Church.
Here is what kept crossing (so to speak) my mind:
The Catholic Church was the only game in town for the first 1000 years after the time of the Christ. Then we had the Great Schism. But in Europe Proper, She (the Church) was the singular Christian Tabernacle for 1500 years – until a certain Martin Luther instigated the Protestant Rebellion Reformation. And then of course we had Henry VIII who at first suppressed and then served as catalyst for the split from Rome – giving birth to the C of E.
Given that the main of American Christians can trace their origins to Europe Proper, I will confine this post to the Protestant Reformation.
I’ll be honest: when I see/hear/sense bigotry toward the Church, I am quite literally offended. Here is why: Which Church is it, specifically, that promulgated the Christian Faith through those first 1500 years? To which Church, specifically, belonged the thousands upon thousands of Martyrs that quite literally gave their lives for the Faith? Which Church, specifically, is responsible for defending Christendom from the aggressions of the Moors? How many Christian women, children, and other defenseless believers were spared? Maybe most importantly, which Church, specifically, preserved the Word, published the Word, spread the Word, promoted the Word, defended the Word, and re-introduced the Word to Europe Proper after the fall of the Roman Empire? From which Church, specifically, came the most brilliant of the Theologians? To which Church did, say, St. Paul belong? St. Peter? St. Catherine of Sienna? St. Thomas Aquinas? I will not even go into the Gifts the Church and Her members have bestowed to all of Mankind (for free) with regard to Feminism, Science, Literature, Education, Medicine, the Arts, etc, etc. I will ignore all of that…
But I do want to ask all that bash the Church who call themselves Christians, “Do you owe nothing to Her? Do you think the Faith was buried in a time capsule from the time of Christ’s Crucifixion until Luther dug it up in the 1500s?”
And finally, I would ask, “Why are you so spiteful of those who transmitted the Good News throughout the ages so that you, today, could come to ‘hear and believe’? Many have sacrificed for you to bring the message to you. And yet you spit and beat them with the reed. Why?”
Ron Kuby is right about this:
“[Mohammed's] goal in the legal system is not to beat the rap. His goal is to use the legal system as a forum for his own ideas and to embrace martyrdom through that system.”
I hope I am wrong on how this plays out, but I suspect that “Judgment at Nuremburg” this will not be. Holder and Obama gave KSM a hell of a last request, a chance to play (granted KSM’s own sick twisted version) of “A Man of All Seasons.” Take your choice.
But talking about reformation and all, KSM and Henry V had somethings in common, both like more than one wife, both were fat, both got food caught in their beards, and both probably smelled bad. Still, while I was no big fan of Henry V, I really want to see KSM get his send off to Allah. And to you born again anti Catholic commentators, I think you have bigger fish to fry right now. Let’s put the papist schism to the side for the time being.
That was Henry VIII. Henry V is the Branagh one.
Still, Matt, I don’t think you ought to get so worked up about Jeremy. The farce is strong with that one.
This is me, non-Christian, non-religious believer in a Power Greater, applauding. ((()))
Thank you.
Just out of curiosity, have you ever read THE PILGRIM CHURCH by E.H. Broadbent?
Not that it´s the only one, but it is one book that comes to mind that could call into question some of the rather dogmatic statements you´re making equating Catholicism and its history to true(?) Christianity.
“Burried in a time-capsule,” no, but ‘burried’ in a sense, as in kept from the people and “dispensed” for various intents and purposes.
Not being spiteful, spitting or beating, just questioning your own historical perspective a bit.
Mike – I am NOT by any means saying that the Church Militant is without it’s darker days… wherein people behave more like people than like Apostles. Not by a long shot am I saying that… yet, even taking the darkest of these moments into account, would one really have anything whatsoever amount to much of anything that would balance the scales anywhere near out of Her favor in the aggregate? Not so much.
I will read it on your recommendation, as I have no need for hanging on to beliefs that cannot be challenged and withstand scrutiny.
In return for the favor of recommending The Pilgrim Church, I would recommend How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Thomas E. Woods Jr..
I´ve been meaning to get on Amazon for weeks. I´ll absolutely look it up (i.e. order/read it).
One thing I´m most curious about though. Your rhetorical question “To which Church did, say, St. Paul belong?” I understand the RCC equates Peter to the Papacy, but how is it that Paul is seen as a Catholic when many/most of his teachings are considered questionable, at best, by the same?
Mike – I don’t know what you mean. The letters of St. Paul are included in the Canon. Yes, St. Peter was the first Pope. St. Paul did not know Christ first-hand (I mean, as in he came to believe after Jesus had been crucified). Yet, St. Paul is much revered in the Church. For instance I have an image of him next to the image of Divine Mercy in my car.
So I am honestly at a loss as to how to answer that question, as it is the first I have heard anyone indicate the RCC has anything but love for ALL of his teachings. In fact, he can be seen as one of the foundations of the Faith and Tradition – specifically for his passion, conviction, and the Truth he taught and spread.
Now, as for how he is considered Catholic – as I have, there was no other church at the time – there was one Church only. And, as St. Paul’s letters (as well as others illuminate), the Church really was a Church – and, yes, with a hierarchy already in place: St. Peter to the Jews – St. Paul to the Gentiles – meetings about doctrine – what was official Teaching versus what was heretical. So, if not the Catholic Church, the only one in existence at the time – to which St. Paul would have been said to belong is a strange question. Especially, since it is largely due to his efforts to build the very same Church that the foundation of the Temple was laid.
These are odd questions you pose, as I have never even heard that these particular questions existed.
Well, for example, your statement “Paul did not know Christ first-hand,” when in fact, according to scripture, he had met the risen Christ (first-hand) on the road to Damascus and subsequently, as scripture states, in the desert, being personally taught by Him concerning the gospel of grace (among numerous other mysteries), is a bit confusing to me.
I realize it´s very difficult to carry on these types of conversations in this format, so, thanks for your patience. Also, I think there is really only one way to hold a rational conversation concerning things of the christian faith, and that´s to have a basis for argumentation. My only basis is what I read in the Bible. I have read much of the RCC´s Catechism along with its companions, but do not hold them in a position of equal, much less, higher authority to what I read in the Bible. Just to be clear.
if you read my comment, I wrote, “St. Paul did not know Christ first-hand (I mean, as in he came to believe after Jesus had been crucified)”
I am aware of the Road to Damascus – had I not been, I would have called him Saul!
I am still trying to figure out the question – or where you got the notion that somehow we Catholics do not revere him…
Mike – also,
I have read much of the RCC´s Catechism along with its companions, but do not hold them in a position of equal, much less, higher authority to what I read in the Bible. Just to be clear.
Is that to say it is your impression that Catholics spend more time with the Catechism than the Bible? The Catechism is simply what we believe as Catholics, as informed by 2000 years of theological contemplation precisely about the Word (the Bible) – with a good amount of revelation by the Holy Spirit who illuminates silly humans who spend that amount of time praying for understanding.
The Catholic Church was the only game in town for the first 1000 years after the time of the Christ. Then we had the Great Schism.
The Copts and Arminians split off well before that, actually, but that’s a quibble.
I meant Armenian. Arminian is a different thing.
There was also a Celtic strain that was submitted to Rome. The Roman and Orthodox Churches weren’t able to get their mutual act together in time to prevent the fall of Constantinople, alas, despite the Councils. Some would say that the Catholic Church’s treatment of Judaism historically has shown some of the same intemperance, until recently.
More to the point though, there are churches that are nominally Protestant whose beliefs and practices are more similar to those of Roman Catholics than they are to other also nominally Protestant churches. That’s one of the things that makes the special animus of a Jeremy toward the Catholic Church so simultaneously amusing and dismaying.
I can’t believe I got my Henry’s wrong. But that is what happens when I get high before going to church. But you know us Catholics, that is just the way we roll.
We have all seen this before, but it could make a cool game.
Plug in the name of the blogger who best fits the awkward science fair projects.
Henry the Fifth doing all that Catholic saint feast day stuff.
I’m not offended so much as sad for those who have rejected their mother.
I grew up in the South [South Carolina, Georgia, North Carolina], and I got to hear plenty about the eeeeeevils of our pagan church. Then I went to NY, and I heard plenty from the atheists and bitter ex-Catholics. So I’m used to it.
What’s sad are the obstacles blocking people from the Church, some of which is plain misinformation; in other cases, it’s pride. In many cases, there’s just basic disagreement, and it’s not a matter of clearing up misunderstanding. I can deal with real, honest differences, but I just get so tired when I hear for the umpteenth time about how I worship statues.
Also, the bit about Jesus zapping a fig tree is one of my fave bits in the Gospels. Something surreal about it.
I remember reading about the Celtic Church, and how it took some time for them to work out their differences with Rome, once Rome finally returned to the British Isles.
The main point as I read it, Dan, is the tendancy to so completely bash the Roman Church even to the extant of calling her the “whore of Babylon” and the Pope the antichrist. I am an Orthodox Anglican priest, and while I think the Roman Church is in error on some issues, they certainly do not deserve the demonizing they receive. The Church is divided because of sin – sin on the part of ALL of the various expressions who call Christ Lord. Fact is, all who are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit belong to the Body of Christ, and that is the Church. Thank you for your post, Dan.
Reverend – nice to have your input here. You are absolutely correct – we are all brother and sisters in Baptism. Thank you for your service and for answering The Call.
Father Jerry, thanks, but in this case it was my brother Enoch who wrote the post. I am in substantial agreement with him, as you’ll see if you look in the comments of the Breitbart.tv post that we were referencing . . . and leaving aside the Nestorians and Copts and Ethiopians, for the moment. But thank you very much.
You know, I’ve even read the Reverend Hyslop and some of the other crazies to try to understand the mentality of the Church’s detractors, but I just cannot fathom what they are on about.
Enoch, the title of your recommendation to Mike reminded me of a book I once read. I think it was, How the Irish Saved Western Civilization.
I actually use some parts of it in teaching my Honors classes about the Dark Ages.
Yes – also a great book – and highly recommended. In particular, we should reflect on what is owed by all Christendom to those Irish monks who from the periphery re-introduced the Faith it had kept alight by candle light.
I enjoyed this book as well [being an Irish Catholic and all... hmmmm....]
The Dark Ages weren’t as Dark as people make them out to be, and there were some cultural [and definitely technological] flourishings before the official start to the Renaissance.
but, but, but… that’s not what I was erm taught! What about the damnable Church!
As I mentioned to Dan on twitter the night he was jousting with commenters on Breitbart, there is a real lack of historical perspective – and knowledge – on the religious right and progressive religious left. You couple that with the slippery slope of fracturing: “Well, we don’t agree with these teachings, so we’re going to rip a few books out of the bible and start our own religion with what’s left.”
Of course, it’s inevitable that some in the new religion will use the same excuse, re-interpret the teachings and Fracture again. And so on and so on. And they have to defend all these changes in teachings and messages. What’s allowable, and what isn’t.
Which brings us to your point. In order to defend their own splits, schisms, fractures and “re-messaging” of the original church, they have to attack, defame and marginalize the original and all it represents. At least, the rabid anti-Catholics do. They can’t help it, because they have no other defense.
They must dismiss 1500 years of tradition, teaching and history in order to justify themselves.
The Anchoress has a semi-related post today discussing a “new” christian church that won’t be mentioning Jesus at all. That is what all this leads to.
Be well,
Mike (in New Haamshah)
Christianity is under constant attack by secularists, agnostics and atheists who control the most powerful proselytizing machinery in the history of the world. Strangely enough, this appears to be the signal for the faithful to engage in petty squabbles about whose Christian denomination sucks less than the others.
Jesus said to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves. A lot of people seem to be getting this reversed.
K – this set of exchanges, the comments in this thread, are very mild-mannered. I don’t remember anyone upthread mentioning which denomination sucks less. Unless I am missing your point entirely.
I think K pretty much agrees with you, Enoch.
oh. well, then I suck the most.
No, no *I* suck the most!!
While I’m not here to open old wounds, you might check out this in terms of your concept of a Roman Catholic monopoly, ever.
I’m here to serve Christ. There is every need to speak positively of Christ, and refute all non-Biblical doctrine en passant.
tell me something non-Biblical and we can start there.
Hey, this is not about picking a fight.
The very content of the Bible itself is an issue.
All you’re going to get out of me is a very straightforward Baptist read on pretty much everything.
If you care to discuss a point in a positive way, I’m happy to share ideas.
The general point of departure is going to be Holy Bible vs. holy tradition, which I’m simply not going to capitalize.
I suggest you go read the Breitbart.tv thread that was the beginning of this excursion, Smitty.
Yeah, life’s too short to go tearing people down.
If there has been any left-handed value in the last decade, it’s been to show who the real friends are, and the lack of any need to tear down those with whom we don’t agree.
Yes – the general point of departure is likely to be the Holy Bible vs. Tradition, which I simply cannot not capitalize!
The point of the post was not to say there was a monopoly on the Faith – but it cannot be argued that She had any such peer in regard to the preservation of the Faith for later schismatics… or anything even close to or approximating anything beyond a sliver-sized fiber compared to a dresser reaching the height of a vaulted ceiling.
This is not prideful – it is simply accurate.
As for Baptists, there is little I know about your sect. We are all brothers and sisters in Baptism – so, I would start there.
As for your concept of Tradition and your beef with it, I would welcome at least hearing the argument (and I did not capitalize argument, for I don’t feel like arguing… but rather hearing a Baptist’s perspective). If you are open to indulging my curiosity, I would welcome it. I am fascinated with these sorts of things, you see.
Simply, and perhaps obtusely put, everything that happened after the ink dried on The Revelation of St. John the Divine is of historical interest only.
One prayerfully reads the Bible for oneself (KJV or equally reputable translation–I’m not as reactionary about the NIV as some), attends a Biblically sound church and lets the Holy Spirit do the teaching.
So, one can question:
–The translation
–The authority
–The whole sole scriptura attitude,
just to anticipate a few objections from past discussions with Catholics online.
Fire away, boss. We all win with communication that glorifies Christ.
One prayerfully reads the Bible for oneself, attends a Biblically sound church and lets the Holy Spirit do the teaching.
No problem there – no argument from me.
Of particular interest, however, and my main pivot point would be “lets the Holy Spirit do the teaching.”
Is it your position that, say, St. John of the Cross for instance was not informed by the Holy Spirit? How about St. Catherine of Sienna (one of my personal favorite spiritual coaches), or for that matter Cardinal Newman? Were they not letting the “Holy Spirit do the teaching?”
Of course, it is silly to think that one can ride their coattails over the bridge to Eternal Bliss. But isn’t it foolish not to heed their wisdom? Not aside from one’s own contemplation of the Good News – not at all. But surely it is silly to not avail oneself of the encouragement and instruction (informed by the Holy Spirit of course – and impossible without it) of these Holy Men and Women. Wouldn’t it?
Thanks Smitty, for the reasoned and measured comments. I don’t contribute to this blog, just another commenter. As such, I must mention my issues with your entire argument about the content of the Bible, and the fact that you think everything penned after Revelation is just a historical tidbit.
The fact is that the Catholic Bishops at the Synod of Hippo sanctioned the Books of today’s Bible. More Synods were held up to the mid 5th Century Before the final Bible was decided.
Now, I don’t know if your comment meant “every book written after Revelation” is to be discarded, or “Everything that happened with Christianity” after he wrote it is irrelevant.
I would just point out that the books of the Bible (whatever version you read, KJV I assume) were approved by the Catholic Church. Many others were discarded. And the KJV is a translation from early 1600s which the Church of England modified so the Puritans wouldn’t get mad. SO I would submit that the KJV doesn’t pass the smell test by your own measure, as it was partially politically motivated.
Again, I appreciate your civil tone, and honest debate.
God Bless,
Mike
Is it your position that, say, St. John of the Cross for instance was not informed by the Holy Spirit? How about St. Catherine of Sienna (one of my personal favorite spiritual coaches), or for that matter Cardinal Newman? Were they not letting the “Holy Spirit do the teaching?”
Of course, it is silly to think that one can ride their coattails over the bridge to Eternal Bliss. But isn’t it foolish not to heed their wisdom? Not aside from one’s own contemplation of the Good News – not at all. But surely it is silly to not avail oneself of the encouragement and instruction (informed by the Holy Spirit of course – and impossible without it) of these Holy Men and Women. Wouldn’t it?
All Christians are born of the Holy Spirit. No problem there. Whether or not anyone subscribes to the idea that there has been any growth in 2Tim3:16 material since the Revelation is a separate question.
In my 20s I read most of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich ’s theology, which is largely liberal navel-gazing bunk, but was quite profound in its approach.
For a stimulating read, http://www.amazon.com/Love-Power-Justice-Ontological-Applications/dp/0195002229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258335803&sr=8-1
To ATFQ, I’d say a diet that is substantially stuff you know is good, along with some opposition research is worthwhile. I have a copy of the Koran that I’ll get to Real Soon Now.
The fact is that the Catholic Bishops at the Synod of Hippo sanctioned the Books of today’s Bible. More Synods were held up to the mid 5th Century Before the final Bible was decided.
Now, I don’t know if your comment meant “every book written after Revelation” is to be discarded, or “Everything that happened with Christianity” after he wrote it is irrelevant.
I would just point out that the books of the Bible (whatever version you read, KJV I assume) were approved by the Catholic Church. Many others were discarded. And the KJV is a translation from early 1600s which the Church of England modified so the Puritans wouldn’t get mad. SO I would submit that the KJV doesn’t pass the smell test by your own measure, as it was partially politically motivated.
1. What you’re getting in me is someone falling squarely in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_receptus tradition.
2. I’m perfectly willing to criticize the KJV, though I use that for personal study. In particular, I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman is daft.
3. I think a possible 11th Commandment could be “Thou shalt not take thyself too seriously.” The topic, the opinions of others, sure; but heaven forbid any discussion be All About Proving Me Right.
Smitty – if you could speak to the question I posed that would be great. About whether there is anything worthwhile to be gleaned from the works of the Saints… I mean for a contemporary Christian – is there anything instructive to be learned from their works/lives?
@Enoch_Root
About whether there is anything worthwhile to be gleaned from the works of the Saints… I mean for a contemporary Christian – is there anything instructive to be learned from their works/lives?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to duck the question.
Absolutely–I think there is tremendous spiritual and historical value in learning about and studying the lives of the saints.
Where I begin to taper off is when there is an effort to capitalize the ’s’. The entire doctrine/process of canonization makes the brow furl.
Should you, for example, go http://stjohndc.org , you can see an icon that contains an object which is purportedly a piece of the noggin of John the Baptist.
Now, as a Baptist, we’re sort of leaning towards John’s ascetic/minimalist style.
Honestly, it doesn’t matter to me whether the contents of the nodule in the icon are or not the cranium of John. I would leave the question unasked.
However, I do think that, given the attention paid this completely peripheral object by the members of that congregation, saint John would lovingly chide them for having spent time on such.
Coming back to the question of saints, the thing to which the saint’s life points is far more important than the saint proper.
For a specific example of someone whose testimony I admire, see this post:
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/04/one-day-i-will-meet-this-servanthero.html
Absolutely–I think there is tremendous spiritual and historical value in learning about and studying the lives of the saints.
this is good to hear. what I would say is the best way to consider the Catechism (if that is a source of concern), what we believe, as a repository of all that has been revealed to Saints such as mentioned above in conjunction with (and never separate from) the Teachings of Christ – illuminating the Path for those of the Church Militant. Imagine thousands of Lamps placed on the walls of The Bridge, lighting the Way and providing sustenance for weary travelers. It is not a matter of pointing to Christ alone, but rather living as Christ lived and helping – of course not-separate from the Holy Spirit whatsoever – show us the Way to Eternal Life. 2000 years of such Holy Men and Women… it would seem imprudent to ignore their words of wisdom and encouragement. We call this, among other things, the Treasury of the Church. It’s sole purpose is to guide the Faithful to live into their Baptism and to live as Christ would have us live. For the glory of God.
Where I begin to taper off is when there is an effort to capitalize the ’s’. The entire doctrine/process of canonization makes the brow furl.
Canonization is interesting (the process of it), as we recognize several things in so doing:
1) Saints are saints, whether or not they are recognized as such by the Church. That is, the Church does not make Saints. Saints are Saints. What the Church does in discerning those who are Saints is to make sure humans do not inadvertently, in their zeal, claim sainthood for someone who is not, near as can be discerned, clearly a saint. Similar to how the Church is very careful in verifying/dismissing miracles.
2) there are many more Saints than we are even aware of. Most are never celebrated or even known to the Church. Nevertheless, they are Saints. And in no need of canonization as such.
3) Canonization is a manner in which the Church can assure the Faithful that so-and-so of note was indeed a Saint – and with that comes the confidence of, for instance, reading a so-and-so’s works without fear of being led astray.
Sorry I had to break off for a while there. I live in Spain and the time dif can be a huge conversation killer. Looks like the reply link ducks out after 3 or 4 in the same thread, so I´m just responding new.
Is that to say it is your impression that Catholics spend more time with the Catechism than the Bible?
It has been my experience that Roman Catholics often rely on the Catechism to tell them what the Bible teaches, rather than just read the Bible for themselves. The Bible is inspired by God (God breathed) and very capable of interpreting itself. The Bible teaches, quite clearly in 1 Corinthians for example, that in believing the gospel of the death, burrial and resurrection of Christ with the purpose of being saved by it, the believer is indwelt by (or sealed with – ref. Ephesians) the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, being God, knows the mind of God. The same Spirit indwells the believer, and gives him the ability to understand all God has revealed to man in the scriptures.
I´m not suggesting one should not read anything that man writes concerning the scriptures, but I do believe whatever has been written outside of the completed revelation contained in the books of the Bible are the teachings of men and should be thoroughly scrutinized by the Word of God and not vice versa, which, again, in my experience, has often been the case when conversing with Roman Catholics on issues of Biblical doctrine.
Well, Mike, as you know, I’ve complained that when I teach literature full of Bible references, such as “Young Goodman Brown,” at St Michael’s College, which is Catholic, I have to keep on explicating the references. You are correct to say that more Catholics ought to avail themselves of the Bible.
Still, there are are Catholics who do know scripture rather well.
When the Pope spoke about Islam and talked about the debate between the Emperor of Byzantium and the Turk, he mentioned that Roman Catholicism also proceeeds out of the philosophic tradition of the West. Indeed, Ficino spent his career retranslating Plato in particular but other Greek philosophers as well into Italian in part as an exercise in spiritual devotion, and Dante honors the great Greek philosophers as well as having taken the human intellect as far as it could go unaided by revelation. Now, whether or not one believes that Jesus was influenced by such ideas, it’s clear that Paul was, just to cite one example. And as they form the epistemological underpinnings, still, of what we consider broadly to be Western culture, it’s difficult to say whether it’s possible for someone nowadays to bring a mind-set uninformed by them to the consideration of the Bible.
This is where the issue of convention comes in. Jeremy would have one believe that everything about his worship and its community is authorized or prescribed by the Bible. And that is why I asked him the question (quite apart from typological considerations of the nature of the Word) about the two Temples. Of course everything about his own faith seems quite natural to him. And yet, in humility, we can but trust that our own mode of worship will be–to use the term of a carpenter–justified by its acceptance, for nothing human can be worthy in and of itself.
Consider this, then: why is the sacrifice of Abel accepted, and that of Cain rejected?
You see what is in that thread. We are accused of Satanism. How is it then that so many Catholics who really are in communion with the Church are opposed so vehemently to abortion, to take but one example, and so many adherents of “mainline” Protestant churches do not find it so appalling? It is, as Father Jerry notes, a matter of sin. It is the pride of the Tower of Babylon.
Hey Dan, I´m sure there are Catholics who know scripture, not only “rather well”, but rather weller than me
However, I just wanted to be clear about my foundation for any debate and what angle I would be approaching or answering any question concerning Biblical doctrine. Not from either a Roman Catholic or a Protestant (or any other “denominational” point of view), but relying solely on what the Bible has to say when interpreted literally, grammatically and historically concerning any subject.
If I get the gist of your reply, you brush against numerous aspects of Bibliological understanding, including the inspiration, translation, preservation, dual authorship, innerency, interpretation and illumination of the written word we call scripture. As well, the doctrines of canonicity, authority and animation have been touched on above. Obviously each one of those subjects has occupied much time in thinking, writing and teaching throughout the history of Christianity and can´t easliy (if ever) be resolved unless there is a basis, or foundation, agreed upon by which to judge any assertions in any of the given areas. That´s why I always enter any conversation concerning Biblical or “religious” subjects with a clear statement that I will base any of my arguments or conclusions on the Word of God alone. And even that has been labeled many things and caused divisions, but it is the only point of view I have to offer.
On the question of why is the sacrifice of Abel accepted, and that of Cain rejected? I would offer a dispensational solution. The same was expected of all Adam´s offspring, from the fall of man until the flood: Man, was no longer innocent and no longer in the garden. He had knowledge and was guided by his conscience to decide right or wrong. He was responsible to know the difference between good and evil and to choose good. There was a refusal to admit sin and ultimately led to widespread evil that was judged by a worldwide cataclysmic flood. I get that all based only on a literal, grammatica, historical reading of Genesis 3:7-8:14.
As far as calling Roman Catholics satanists, I have no answer. I don´t do it. Only thing I can say is that Satan is the god of this world (according to scripture), and, as Bob Dylan said, “Ya gotta serve somebody.” It´s either God, through the obedience of faith in the gospel (death, burial and resurrection of Christ), or, ultimately, Satan, by disbelief (or unbelief) in that very same gospel.
And I don’t dispute that Bob Dylan might be right about that, either. However, it’s possible to interpret what is said about Cain and Abel in relation to mankind’s attempt to control his environment by means of agriculture, which places less faith in the hands of God. In other words, it wouldn’t be inconsistent with the ethos of the Israelite herdsman to state that that is a criticism of the basis of what we consider to be civilization from a purely historical reading of the difference between the offerings. Yet, who will now so criticize the farmer? Certainly, at a different point in Jewish history the activity of agriculture was considered differently, as it is in the parables.
Thus, some agreement on the method of interpretation becomes of paramount importance. I believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Language is not normally expected to work otherwise. And since Christians are given instruction to handle accurately (or rightly divide) the Word of Truth, it stands to reason that it must be “handlable” and/or “divideable.” That cannot very well be done if the Bible was written on an allegorical level.
I also believe one must pay attemtion to the way of life, culture and other particulars of the time and place the particular Scripture was written (i.e. what dispensation), along with the grammar: Who is speaking? Who is being spoken to?
All scripture does not speak to all people. The context must always be considered. Scripture must, in my opinion, be compared to and interpreted by scripture.
Nobody argues that the Bible is written strickly as allegory at all. Indeed, it is the often-and-vehemently expressed view of the Church Fathers that where the Bible may be intelligently interpreted literally, it ought so to be.
There is no text anywhere that is able to contain all of the information necessary for its expression. In other words, the Godel principle extends to language as well as to mathematics. It is inarguable that Jesus expressed himself in parables not merely because so many of his audience were illiterate, but also because he was expressing revelation in terms that could be grasped by our limited intelligence.
Where we will break absolutely, I am afraid, is on the issue of the comprehensivity of the Bible. Let’s take for example ammonites, the beautiful fossils. We know that the Romans and others prized them, particularly mineralized ammonites, because ancient civilizations have left us jewelry that contains them. Some of the fanciful ways in which fossils of extinct creatures were interpreted come to us from writers such as Pliny the Elder. Early 19th Century naturalists explain them as being antediluvian. Indeed, many Christians are quite insistently creationist. Nowhere does Christ say what these phenomena represent. It’s unlikely that many in his time thought very much about it, though certainly quarry workers would have stumbled across such strange remains.
I don’t personally put down those who believe these to be fabrications of the devil in order to justify their belief that all of human history is contained in the Bible. I don’t believe it, though, and I don’t think it’s material one way or the other when it comes to the most important aspects of human inter-relation. I think it would be strange if the Creator permitted Satan to create such detailed post-hoc remains of the distant past, down to the preserved DNA of a now-extinct insect preserved in amber, but if that is the way someone else believes, by all means, let him do so. I am unperturbed.
I don’t see it that way, though, nor does my Church. How God should choose to effect his creation is not a matter for my second-guessing, however it might be represented in Genesis.
Shall we come to blows over this? If so, why?
My only problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that its theology is wrong, like many churches. That was Luther’s only problem too – he wanted the church to return to Biblical principles and theology that it had strayed so far from.
Which part? The Trinitarianism?
No, no . . . I’ll tell you what. Let’s do this a different way. Please list the Christopher Taylor-approved churches in descending order.
Its a longer list than yours
Do you really think so, Christopher?
I´m just gonna add a little argument to the “inarguable” then: Luke 8:10: And [Jesus] said, “To you [disciples] it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest in parables, in order that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.”
And, yes, it seems we will have to agree to disagree on comprehensivity. I believe God to have accurately and literally transmitted the information we need to understand His creative acts that brought the heavens and the earth and all that inhabit them into existance. However, I also believe that science supports the creation theory far better than that of any other theory to date. But that´s another argument altogether. One that I´m more than willing to have, and do participate in on a regular basis in different forums.
I will put one thing out on the subject, just for your consideration. If God tells us that He created a world for man, and it was good, and death entered that world of man through man´s own sin against his creator, and before man sinned there was no death in that world, and death is the penalty for sin, and Jesus Christ (God the Son) became man only to offer Himself as a willing and worthy sacrifice for man´s sin(s) to save us from the penalty of sin, that being death; and if, on the other hand, evolutionists, mere sinful men, tell us (with no inarguable basis in fact) that man came into existance, rather, through a process of billions of deaths that took place regardless of whether there was sin introduced to any living race, thereby making it simply a natural process of life, rather than the consequence of rebellion against God and needing a remedy (willful and worthy sacrifice);
A) What does that say about the truthfullness of God´s Word, and, following the logic, the truthfullness of any “faith” based on that “Word?”
B) What was the point, the value even, of the sacrifice Christ made on our behalf if death came before sin? What exactly was he “redeeming” us from?
The Catholic church has done many undeniably wonderful and worthy things, and deserves an honored place in our history for its efforts to hold Western Civilization together when things looked pretty bleak. But it is ultimately a human institution, composed of humans, fallen sinful humans like all of us are, people who will continue to sin no matter what wonderful things they do at other times or regardless of vows they take. That’s just an inescapable part of our nature. That’s why we daily ask the Lord to deliver us from temptation, because it is always there and we are always subject to it. The Protestant Reformation and the subsequent (and on-going) Counter-Reformation were vital, important and needed actions to pull the Church away from sins it was committing. I’m Presbyterian, and at my church we always talk how we are reformed but ever reforming; fully aware how our fallen nature is inescapable and unsolvable but through the Grace of Christ.
Mr. Bingley – no doubt. the Catholic Church, comprised of human creatures, has its share of Judases. Like any other. On the score of continued “reformation,” I would point you to this… a wonderful piece by one of my very favorite living authors, John C. Wright, a recent convert and former Lutheran turned Atheist:
He writes on his online journal [March 21, 2008]:
After three years of prayer, thought, and debate, and an honest attempt to follow where the spirit leads me, I am joining the Roman Catholic Church this Easter. Normally, I would keep this private, since I am not inclined to stir up sectarian debates between the two or three parts of the shattered church; but since several people on this website have said I was Catholic, and since I corrected them and said I was not Catholic, I did not want anyone who trusted me what I said that, to be surprised when that information turns out to be out of date.
For my Protestant friends, all I can do is assure you that that Church you broke away from in centuries past has been reformed of the abuses you complained of at that time. The Pope no longer sells indulgences. The theological differences are minor enough that Christly love, if you imitate His love, will cover them. I was raised Lutheran, and drank in anticatholicism with my mother’s milk, so I assure you I am aware of most or all the objections, subtle and obvious, which you consciences in good faith might raise. The shock that came to me when I looked into Catholicism is that the Catholics do not teach what my teachers told me they teach. In any case, Protestant friends, I will be closer to you than I was when I was an atheist, so please consider this progress.
For my pagan friends, rejoice! My Protestant friends tell me my Catholic friends are pagans anyway! So I will be closer to you than I am now. And there is certainly some truth in the idea that Catholicism is a child of Jewish and Hellenic thought: the ancient civilization of Europe is still alive in the Catholic Church. If you worship Brigit, and I revere St. Brigit, this will be a common bond between us.
For the Atheist friends, give thanks! You may think of Catholicism as the most backward and obscurantist of the Christian sects. Not so! Not only does the Catholic Church acknowledge Darwinian evolution, the approach of at least some of the writers (St. Aquinas, for example, or St. Justin Martyr) is as rigorous and as rational as even the best of atheist writers, and darn mile more clear and rational than the worst of atheist writers (who are the only ones we hear about these days). Catholicism, in many of its branches, is not given to the religious enthusiasms of revivalism that so many atheists find disquieting. (Whether this lack of revivalism is a good thing or not, I leave for the reader to decide. Certainly more enthusiasm and crusading spirit would not be a bad thing for this Church at this hour of history.)
No doubt, Enoch, the Catholic Church and many Protestant strains are drawing closer and I for one feel this is cause for joy.
Amen to that,
And more wine!
Hey, if Jesus himself can supply the wine at the wedding who am I to say no?
How’s the THS? I can put up a link to her wares, if you like, in time for Christmas.
That’s very kind, Dan.
(I think she’s a little ticked at me because that link is one of the many things I haven’t gotten around to updating when I changed the Swilling from MT to WP a few months ago…)
Uh oh. Give me that link again, would you?
Here ya go.
Thanks!
Wonderful theory. I like it. Appreciate your posting