In the happy debates between Protestants and Catholics, we Catholics are often charged with holding to un-Biblical beliefs, then when we give the Biblical support for those beliefs we are charged with \u2018twisting Scripture\u2019; \u2018taking Scripture out of context\u201d or the Protestant simply says (on no authority other than the \u2018proof text\u2019 displeases him) but \u201cBut that\u2019s not what that passage means.\u201d<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s an example: Protestant says, \u201cYou Catholics hold to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but it\u2019s totally un-Biblical.\u201d So we refer them the story of the annunciation where Mary is greeted with the term \u2018full of grace\u2019. (Luke 1.28) We conclude that if she was \u2018full of grace\u2019 then she had no sin for the Biblical definition of sin is to \u201cfall short of the glory of God.\u201d (Rom. 3:23) If she was \u201cfull of grace\u201d then we only have to ask when this fullness started and we conclude logically that it must have started when her life started, and life starts at conception so she must have been conceived without sin. We refer to Genesis 3:15 where God says that as a woman has given in to Satan, so a woman will trample the head of Satan, and we refer to Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and teh other Fathers who refer very early on to the Blessed Virgin as \u2018the second Eve\u2019 and conclude that as the first Eve was created perfect, so was the second. Now, we are happy to admit that this does not amount to Jesus Christ himself saying to his apostles, \u201cMy mother was conceived without sin and thou shalt believe this and teach it until I come again in glory.\u201d We also admit that the doctrine (while implicit in Scripture) was not defined formally until fairly late. That\u2019s okay. We believe in the possibility of the development of Doctrine, and we have theologians who help us define how and when that happens validly.<\/p>\n
Compare this however, with the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura<\/i> which has no Biblical proof texts, no evidence from the early Church fathers, and was invented by the sixteenth century reformers and is held to by all their followers as a foundation tenet of their belief system, and this from people who deny that doctrine develops, believe every doctrine must originate in the primitive Church, and say \u201cIf it\u2019s not in the Bible you\u2019re not to believe it.\u201d The same applies to the Protestant bedrock doctrine of sola Fide <\/i>or faith alone. The only reference to faith alone in the Bible is James 2:24 where such a concept is formally repudiated.<\/p>\n
Without any agreed interpretative authority the Bible means whatever people decide it means. Here are a few other \u2018Biblical interpretations\u2019 I\u2019ve heard over the years. I have deliberately chosen a range of Protestant traditions so the conservative Evangelicals can\u2019t say, \u201cYes, but those are the kooky liberal Anglicans.\u201d and the Anglicans can\u2019t say, \u201cYes but those are the kooky American fundamentalists.\u201d<\/p>\n
First\u2013one of my favorites\u2013the snake handlers. They interpret Mark 16:18 literally and so they pass around rattlesnakes and vipers at their worship services and they drink poison to see if they will survive. We know Christians who insist that their women cannot wear trousers because of a verse in the Old Testament and Seventh Day Adventists who only worship on Saturday because they don\u2019t find Sunday worship in the Bible. Lest people think I am only giving radical, way out and insane examples, we have to include the vast majority of Evangelical Christians who take the whole package of late-invented dispensationalist \u2018end days\u2019 Biblical interpretations with the utmost seriousness.<\/p>\n
Then there was the Anglican vicar who counseled a friend of mine to have an abortion because Jesus says, \u201cLet the little children come unto me and forbid them not.\u201d There\u2019s the female Baptist minister who admitted that her abortion was killing but quoted the Old Testament idea of sacrifice and one person laying down a life for the good of another. Another Anglican friend explained quite sincerely how homosexuality was okay because Jonathan and David loved one another and John was the disciple Jesus loved. The incident when Peter had a dream of unclean beasts and was told to \u2018kill and eat\u2019 has been used to convince people that the otherwise forbidden innovation of women priests was okay after all, and the \u2018youth who ran away naked\u2019 from the garden of Gethsemane has been used to support Christian naturism.<\/p>\n
I understand how non-Catholics may not see or accept the Biblical basis for Catholic beliefs, but what I don\u2019t get is how they miss the lack of Biblical support for some of their foundational beliefs and the amazingly weird Biblical interpretations some in their own ranks hold to with utmost sincerity.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In the happy debates between Protestants and Catholics, we Catholics are often charged with holding to un-Biblical beliefs, then when we give the Biblical support for those beliefs we are charged with \u2018twisting Scripture\u2019; \u2018taking Scripture out of context\u201d or the Protestant simply says (on no authority other than the \u2018proof text\u2019 displeases him) but […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":557,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-839","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n