The Roman Catholic religion says (a) “we have the authority
to tell you things that are different from Scripture”, and then they say (b) “but
when there is an apparent contradiction, you have to trust our interpretation,
rather than your own, because we are authoritative”.
As a Roman Catholic, you can’t really even trust your own
instincts. So, it’s no wonder that for the Roman Catholic convert, the
motivation seems to be one of warding off “buyer’s remorse”, of convincing
oneself, “yes, I’ve joined the right club. All the right people are here, see?
G.K. Chesterton. Lewis got away. But look at Bouyer and Scott Hahn “the Great”
and Richard John Neuhaus. They’ve done this. That’s how I know I’ve done the
right thing”.
But in those moments alone, in prayer, it always becomes, “Who
are you Lord?” Do I understand you correctly?
For the Protestant, it always comes down to Paul’s question:
“Who are you Lord?” And we trust the answers we find in the Scriptures.
The Roman Catholic is motivated by an inferiority complex,
which is always looking to others for assurance. The Protestant looks to Christ
alone, and makes sure he understands him aright.
"The Roman Catholic is motivated by an inferiority complex, which is always looking to others for assurance. The Protestant looks to Christ alone, and makes sure he understands him aright."
ReplyDeleteLooking to other people to validate one's own ideas is unavoidable, whatever the denomination. It could be elders of the church or more learned theologians, maybe even family members. Despite the brash confidence of some, I still doubt that most people will insist that their instinctual understanding of passage "x" is infallibly correct by mere virtue of the fact that the interpretation is theirs.
Hands up who can honestly say with certainty, that if there were no christians in the world, and the bible was lost, but dug up in some cave in Qumran, that you would be the first one to believe in it, all by yourself?
ReplyDeleteWell, if the Bible was "dug up in some cave in Qumran," then it wouldn't be lost.
DeleteHands up who can honestly say with certainty, that if there were no Christians in the world, and the Bible was lost, but dug up in some cave in Qumran, that you would be the first one to believe in it, all with the help of the Orthodox sect? (And, yes, the existence of the Orthodox sect and the statement "no Christians in the world" is arguably consistent.)
DeleteYou're not familiar with the concept of losing something then finding it. How odd.
DeleteNot really sure the point of your rebuttal hypothetical, or how it is a response to mine. But let's run with it. If the orthodox were the only group proclaiming Christ is risen, but having lost he bible foe 2000 years. Then the bible was found. I think that would be very vindicating for the orthodox. You didn't really think this through did you?
John said:
Delete"Hands up who can honestly say with certainty, that if there were no christians in the world, and the bible was lost, but dug up in some cave in Qumran, that you would be the first one to believe in it, all by yourself?"
I said: "Well, if the Bible was 'dug up in some cave in Qumran,' then it wouldn't be lost."
John said: "You're not familiar with the concept of losing something then finding it. How odd."
At the risk of stating the obvious, if something has been lost and then found, it's not lost. Anyway, cool to see you agree with my criticism!
"Not really sure the point of your rebuttal hypothetical, or how it is a response to mine."
That's okay, I didn't expect you to get it.
"But let's run with it. If the orthodox were the only group proclaiming Christ is risen, but having lost he bible foe 2000 years."
People should keep in mind you're qualifying your original statement by tacking on "2000 years." This particular instance isn't a big deal to me, but it is evidence that you're adding qualifiers which weren't part of your original statement. I bring this up for a few reasons. First, in case you do it again, so people can observe how you behave. Also, no one can respond to something before you said it. Finally, it's a bit of a cheat since you're trying to pass it off as part of your original contention.
"Then the bible was found. I think that would be very vindicating for the orthodox."
You're assuming it's the Orthodox who found the Bible. But you didn't specify that in your original statement. After all, it could've been secular atheists who made the discovery at Qumran given your little story.
By the way, this could be another instance of you trying to add a qualifier to your comment which wasn't originally present.
"You didn't really think this through did you?"
I'd say the same to you, but in your case, it's actually true.
I said: "the bible was lost".
DeleteYou said: if something has been lost then found, it's not lost"
So you're not familiar with the past tense. How odd.
As for the tacking on "2000 years" I thought that was obvious to well informed folks by the reference to Qumran, and how long the documents there were lost for. And it's not as if it could have plausibly been lost at any time since the dawn if Christianity. Sorry that you are ignorant of these things, but don't blame me for it.
And no, the hypothetical never said the orthodox found it. That is irrelevant. Apparently you are a troll, since you seem so genius in non-sequiturs.
John said:
Delete"I said: 'the bible was lost'."
Actually, here's what you said: "and the bible was lost, but dug up in some cave in Qumran"
"So you're not familiar with the past tense. How odd."
So you're not familiar with your own words. How odd.
Anyway, this is pretty silly. You're really your own worst enemy here. Your own words testify against you, as it were. After all, it's easy enough for anyone to simply read or re-read your words above and see how desperate your point has become.
"As for the tacking on '2000 years' I thought that was obvious to well informed folks by the reference to Qumran, and how long the documents there were lost for. And it's not as if it could have plausibly been lost at any time since the dawn if Christianity. Sorry that you are ignorant of these things, but don't blame me for it."
So you're not familiar with basic English. How odd.
You should try re-reading what I wrote above including the three specific reasons I gave for why I brought up the point in the first place. None of the reasons had anything to do with "how long the documents there were lost for".
"And no, the hypothetical never said the orthodox found it. That is irrelevant."
So you're not familiar with your own argument. How odd.
But I'm quite happy you agree with my point that you made an irrelevant argument when you said: "Then the bible was found. I think that would be very vindicating for the orthodox." After all, you were the one who brought up "the orthodox" in the first place.
"Apparently you are a troll, since you seem so genius in non-sequiturs."
For better or for worse, it doesn't take genius to prove you wrong. It just takes common sense!
This post makes the quite arrogant assumption that no one has ever come to believe the Roman Catholic viewpoint by reading scripture. Why would the Council of Nicea have approved a Bible they disagreed with?
ReplyDelete"Why would the Council of Nicea have approved a Bible they disagreed with?"
ReplyDeleteThe Council of Nicea "approved a Bible"? Was it the Vulgate?
I think it was the KJV.
DeleteJohn said:
Delete"I think it was the KJV."
Given the intellectual paucity of his comments thus far, it's a bit hard to tell whether John is trying to make a joke or whether he's serious and actually believes the KJV was around at the time.