Was Jesus a proof texter?


#1

Seems to me that throughout the gospel, Jesus taught much of the time with parables and prefered the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law.

Why are Catholics so shaken up by proof texting and verse memorization from non-Catholics?

Thanks in advance.


#2

I don’t think they are shaken up, and I think many would agree that verse memorization of choice passages is good.

The problem is when non-Catholics (although Catholics can be guilty of this to) do what I call Scripture Spam, just a bunch of quotes as if a list is an argument. It assumes way too much like complete perspecuity, authoritative interpretation, and the appropriateness of the passage to the topic. Also, usually what happens we actually get analysis of the proof text, the only thing the person demonstrates is that he can interpret a passage differently, to which the only reply is, “So what else is new?”

A great example is Jesus in the desert. Satan quotes Scripture, Jesus quotes Scripture. Why is one right and the other wrong? It comes back to the question of authority and shows that just because one can toss out Scripture passages doesn’t make one right.

Scott


#3

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

[quote=Scott Waddell]Scripture Spam
[/quote]

That’s a great expression!

I also love the signature. But I never liked Fenders.


#4

[quote=mark a]Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

That’s a great expression!

I also love the signature. But I never liked Fenders.
[/quote]

I thought Fenders were terrible and boring for the first fifteen years of my musical career. Then (having no gear from leaving the scene) I was forced to live with a borrowed Fender. Fell in love, and now own two, and will probably never bother with anything else. (Except maybe a Rick for nostalgia) :slight_smile:

Scott


#5

[quote=Scott Waddell]I don’t think they are shaken up, and I think many would agree that verse memorization of choice passages is good.

The problem is when non-Catholics (although Catholics can be guilty of this to) do what I call Scripture Spam, just a bunch of quotes as if a list is an argument. It assumes way too much like complete perspecuity, authoritative interpretation, and the appropriateness of the passage to the topic. Also, usually what happens we actually get analysis of the proof text, the only thing the person demonstrates is that he can interpret a passage differently, to which the only reply is, “So what else is new?”

A great example is Jesus in the desert. Satan quotes Scripture, Jesus quotes Scripture. Why is one right and the other wrong? It comes back to the question of authority and shows that just because one can toss out Scripture passages doesn’t make one right.

Scott
[/quote]

Just remember that David, Paul, Peter, John quoted ancient scriptures without worrying about what history behind it etc.

To know the context of a bible passage is good, but not always necessary. Why ? Because the highest layer of truth is always truthful regardless the context.

For example “Jesus the messiah, the son of the living God”. This is truthful in all context. Because God declare it as truthful and therefore it is according to our faith. Of course this is questionable for those who does not believe.

Another example: Psalms 22. When we read it we know it was about Jesus’s crucifixion. But funny that David wrote it. Surely David wrote it when he was under a dangerous situation or even at war. But does it really important? Psalms 22 prophesied about Jesus regardless David’s situation when he wrote it. David himself might not really aware of why he wrote it except his own situation. But God use this passage to a bigger context than what David must have ever think of.

Other examples :

“You are my beloved Son, in whom I am pleased”
“I have written your name on the palm of my hand”
“even if your mother forget about you, I will never forget you”
“Your faith has saved you”

These are God’s words. And it has no context whatsoever for those who believe that those are God’s words.

Ofcourse it is different when we talk to an unbeliever, in the context of science/ history/ language/ culture, etc. But as for our faith, it has nothing to do with worldly truths. Our faith should be higher than knowledge. For if we believe because we have knowledge about it, it is not faith. So faith is a matter of higher Truths, above all things : “because God says so, so it is”

So in this humble situation we-- unlike Eve who dicided to take the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge-- we submit to whatever God says, and we believe whatever He tells us, regardless our knowledge and understanding of it’s contexts.

And it’s true that bible does speaks to everyone personally. Because these texts-- although regular, similar to any other texts–become the word of God for those who belive.

May God bless us all.


#6

[quote=fransisca]If you insist on “good works” then

Isn’t good works THE FRUIT OF FAITH? For if you do something without faith, it’s ain’t good works!
[/quote]

But the Council of Trent said,

*Canon XXIV: If anyone saith that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema. *

I think good works are done and merited in the faith of the graces merited for us by Christ’s infinitive sacrifice – not the other way around. Just an observation. :eek:


#7

I never implied that context was always everything. I was refering to the tendency of some to automatically assume what I mentioned, post a list of scripture and then triumphally declare or imply that their point is proven. The trouble comes when two believers disagree. Without a clear basis for authority, the only thing left for both are insipid appeals to the Holy Spirit. I’ll conditionally agree Faith is higher than knowledge (I would be more inclined to think that they are inextricibly entwined, but I’m not married to that idea), but all faith has to have a some kind of basis or it’s merely abstract ideological bluster.

Scott


#8

[quote=Scott Waddell]I thought Fenders were terrible and boring for the first fifteen years of my musical career. Then (having no gear from leaving the scene) I was forced to live with a borrowed Fender. Fell in love, and now own two, and will probably never bother with anything else. (Except maybe a Rick for nostalgia) :slight_smile:

Scott
[/quote]

Sorry for straying from the topic, but I had a 76 Fender Strat that I traded for a 57 Les Paul Gold Top. All I can say is WOW. I though the Strat was THE instrument, but I will put my Gibson against a any Strat any day of the week and twice on Sunday.


#9

[quote=Apologia100]Sorry for straying from the topic, but I had a 76 Fender Strat that I traded for a 57 Les Paul Gold Top. All I can say is WOW. I though the Strat was THE instrument, but I will put my Gibson against a any Strat any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
[/quote]

I should mention that I’m a bass player, not a guitarist. Guitarwise, I like both Gibson and Fender for different reasons. (So do many guitarists I imagine). Basswise, I acknowledge that Gibson basses like the Thunderbird and SG bass version sound awesome, but I don’t care for their style. (Although as I understand it, Gibson distributes the G&L’s which, by all accounts I’ve heard, are incredible.)

Scott


#10

[quote=mrS4ntA]But the Council of Trent said,

*Canon XXIV: If anyone saith that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits * and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

I think good works are done and merited in the faith of the graces merited for us by Christ’s infinitive sacrifice – not the other way around. Just an observation. :eek:
[/quote]

Yeah… increase of faith because of our own works : this kind of “faith” is nothing but “calm conscience”. Paul and John wrote about it : that we will dare to come near God with calm consciense. For if we are so blessed, how can we let our brothers without food, etc. In other words, we can’t fool ourselves nor God. But John says that even if our conscience accuse us, God is greater than our conscience. God’s Mercy is greater than our sins and our conscience.

Anyway, such itsy bitsy definition could nullify the main definition : our justification is by grace through faith : UN-EARNED FREELY GIVEN period.

As for our works : that will happen automatically, because God has put His law in our hearts. Since then, we can’t be idle anymore. Our hearts will be full of God’s praise, and our body is full of energy to serve. The lack of energy to give praise and to serve automatically shows the absence of faith.

God bless.


#11

[quote=mark a]…Why are Catholics so shaken up by proof texting and verse memorization from non-Catholics?..
[/quote]

I never knew Catholics were shaken up by Scripture, 25% of a Mass IS Scripture! There is more Scripture recited in Mass then in any protestant service I attended over a 27 year period. And yes, Catholics, at least those that sing or recite during Mass, have at least some Scripture memorized. They just may not know it.

Jesus said to follow His commandments. He never said to memorize Sacred Scripture. Jesus said to obey His appointed leaders on earth, to remain united, to be of one mind, to not be schismatic, etc. Catholics I guess are just “so shaken up” because so many non-Catholics memorize Scripture verses but fail to follow Scripture or memorize only the parts they like - “Buffet Line” theology at work.

I was “so shaken up” as a protestant at “Buffet Line” theology that I followed the truth home. Home in the Catholic Church that is. The truth will lead everyone accross the Tiber and Home to Rome - or the eastern rite too:rolleyes: !


#12

[quote=Scott Waddell]I never implied that context was always everything.

[/quote]

I agree.

I’ll conditionally agree Faith is higher than knowledge (I would be more inclined to think that they are inextricibly entwined, but I’m not married to that idea), but all faith has to have a some kind of basis or it’s merely abstract ideological bluster.

Right.

And the basis of our faith has to be God and His Promise to us (His Word & Love = Jesus = salvation = forgiveness of sin). If we fall from this foundation, we have nothing but pieces of disintegrated truths : sacraments, liturgy, rites, laws, etc. Our faith in His Love has to be the ideological bluster, otherwise those are nothing but “dead works”. Faith in His Love is very personal. It is in the personal relationship with God whom we call Father. It requires the Holy Spirit (by whom we cry “Abba Father”). The Holy Spirit makes us enter the intimate Father - son relationship. And this relationship is our strength in our daily walk. It literally defends us from all kinds of difficulties and fear.

God bless u scott.


#13

[quote=francisca]Yeah… increase of faith because of our own works : this kind of “faith” is nothing but “calm conscience”. Paul and John wrote about it : that we will dare to come near God with calm consciense. For if we are so blessed, how can we let our brothers without food, etc. In other words, we can’t fool ourselves nor God. But John says that even if our conscience accuse us, God is greater than our conscience. God’s Mercy is greater than our sins and our conscience.

Anyway, such itsy bitsy definition could nullify the main definition : our justification is by grace through faith : UN-EARNED FREELY GIVEN period.

As for our works : that will happen automatically, because God has put His law in our hearts. Since then, we can’t be idle anymore. Our hearts will be full of God’s praise, and our body is full of energy to serve. The lack of energy to give praise and to serve automatically shows the absence of faith.

God bless.
[/quote]

I don’t think that how the Church defines justification by grace through faith… :frowning:

I think work comes voluntarily, *not * automatically, from one who strives to do the good, in good faith and conscience.

Then, that work is together justified by grace and by the merits of the Cross and the concerned person’s faith.

Just a quick question, sisca: what’s your religious backgroud. Lutheran? :o


#14

[quote=mrS4ntA]I don’t think that how the Church defines justification by grace through faith… :frowning:

I think work comes voluntarily, *not * automatically

[/quote]

Ok, I agree with you that word “volutary” is a more acurate word to discribe good works. Because once we are free, we are truly free to choose to serve or not to serve. Yet, without any faith experience, one usually think that they are free, but keep falling and falling again and again. The truth is, if you keep falling and falling again to the same sin, no matter how hard you have tried, then it means you are not free (these condition usually involve mortal sins, or at least an oppression of certain condition). Those who has experiece of faith must tell them that they can be free from the desire that makes them sin again and again. God can root out that desire/ temper/ agressiveness/ moodiness/ fright/ pain/ anxiety etc which are not healthy and is an opression to their faith & life.

Unluckily this kind of experience of faith usually comes from charismatic world-- which are not very popular in the catholic church-- but very progressive nowadays in protestant’s .

, from one who strives to do the good, in good faith and conscience.

Man who strive to do good is God’s beloved. This is just undebateable. But not by our own strength, but by God’s. Otherwise, what is the difference between believer and non-believer? Non believers strive to do good things too.

Then, that work is together justified by grace and by the merits of the Cross and the concerned person’s faith.

Let’s say I am trying to be helpful at work. Is this good work? Let’s say I love my husband, so I try to make him happy. Is this good work? But non believers do these too. Even if you talk about helping the needy, some of non believers do these social works too.

Just a quick question, sisca: what’s your religious backgroud. Lutheran? :o

Roman Catholic. But yeah… I am very “progressive” because I read bible a little too much ! :slight_smile: To tell you the truth, I don’t care about denomination anymore. But it happens that I was baptized in this church. Do you thing I am a Lutheran? Now that you know that I am not, do you think it would be better if I leave the church?

To tell you the truth, I don’t really think I have violated anything of my catholicism.


#15

:confused: Really? I asked because some of your views sounded very Lutheran to me… :confused:


#16

[quote=francisca]…

Unluckily this kind of experience of faith usually comes from charismatic world-- which are not very popular in the catholic church-- but very progressive nowadays in protestant’s .

[/quote]

Sorry but I have to beg to differ from that. The spirituality of Catholicism is much, much more rich thatn that. Personally, I consider myself a contemplative – and many saints’ stories include intense “experience of faith” (as you called it) and ecstasies that lead to a life of contemplation (or even preceded by it) rather than otherwise. My spiritual heroes are all contemplatives.

Man who strive to do good is God’s beloved. This is just undebateable. But not by our own strength, but by God’s. Otherwise, what is the difference between believer and non-believer? Non believers strive to do good things too.

… whence comes the teachings of “invincibly ignorant” thingy


#17

[quote=mrS4ntA]:confused: Really? I asked because some of your views sounded very Lutheran to me… :confused:
[/quote]

All Vatican II documents are my reference.

Being charismatic does not mean that you are a Lutheran (in fact, not all lutherans are charismatics). And yes there are stereotypes and labels easily paste on people, creating sentiments instead of understanding. Without really look deeper, charismatic equals protestanism. But this is superficial.

The Holy Spirit charisms are all over the gospel and the apostle’s letters. They are the sign of the church’s existance and is very important in all aspects of our spiritual life.

Walking with the Holy Spirit guidance, one can understand deeper what “obedience” and “submission” really means. Suppose Jesus was following Jews’ majority of understanding (in submission), He would have had not to die at all. But submission only makes it’s true meaning when you are doing something… not the kind of submission that does not do anything. This is how Jesus’s submission was : that He died PROCLAIMING what is Truthful, to make known The Truth


#18

[quote=francisca]I agree.

Right.

And the basis of our faith has to be God and His Promise to us (His Word & Love = Jesus = salvation = forgiveness of sin). If we fall from this foundation, we have nothing but pieces of disintegrated truths : sacraments, liturgy, rites, laws, etc. Our faith in His Love has to be the ideological bluster, otherwise those are nothing but “dead works”. Faith in His Love is very personal. It is in the personal relationship with God whom we call Father. It requires the Holy Spirit (by whom we cry “Abba Father”). The Holy Spirit makes us enter the intimate Father - son relationship. And this relationship is our strength in our daily walk. It literally defends us from all kinds of difficulties and fear.

God bless u scott.
[/quote]

What are we arguing about then? I think there is some miscommunication. Are we off-topic? We were talking about proof-texting, but now seem to be discussion something similar to Sola Fide or fideism. :confused:

Scott


#19

[quote=francisca]All Vatican II documents are my reference.

Being charismatic does not mean that you are a Lutheran (in fact, not all lutherans are charismatics). And yes there are stereotypes and labels easily paste on people, creating sentiments instead of understanding. Without really look deeper, charismatic equals protestanism. But this is superficial.

The Holy Spirit charisms are all over the gospel and the apostle’s letters. They are the sign of the church’s existance and is very important in all aspects of our spiritual life.

Walking with the Holy Spirit guidance, one can understand deeper what “obedience” and “submission” really means. Suppose Jesus was following Jews’ majority of understanding (in submission), He would have had not to die at all. But submission only makes it’s true meaning when you are doing something… not the kind of submission that does not do anything. This is how Jesus’s submission was : that He died PROCLAIMING what is Truthful, to make known The Truth
[/quote]

Go and read my post. again.

Nowhere did I state that Charismatic movements are bad. The abuses of them are. In fact, I haven’t stated a single comment bellitling charismatic movements.

Nowhere, also, did I state Lutherans = Charismatics. My guess that you were a Lutheran was based on the argument you proposed – justification by faith alone. That’s what. Not because you said you were Charismatic. Please don’t judge me shallowly as well – I don’t judge people shallowly.

Quoting the documents of Vatican II out od context also doesn’t do anything. The Holy Father once said, concerned about the state of the Church, “now that we have reformed the Church, let’s sit down and read again the documents of the Council [of Vatican II].” :thumbsup:


#20

[quote=mrS4ntA]Go and read my post. again.

Nowhere did I state that Charismatic movements are bad. The abuses of them are.

[/quote]

This is not the first time I read such comment (the blue color). Yet, the first comment try to cover the second. I have seen this too many times. I knew just where it was going.

I was trying to show you that being charismatic is different than being a lutheran, to answer your question about me : that I am a charismatic, and not lutheran. That is my point.

My guess that you were a Lutheran was based on the argument you proposed – justification by faith alone. That’s what. Not because you said you were Charismatic.

I have read the joint declaration, and I know now that even protestants believe in works too. And based on that document, the church give permission to catholic-- together with the separated bretheren-- to focus our eyes on the Lord Jesus to believe in the fulfillment of the Promise-- although we are still insecure when looking at ourselves.

We all know that this document “joint declaration” exists. And yet… I am held suspect that my believe is “faith alone”.

Let me clear up this : we are charismatic people can understand our separated bretherens “faith alone” better, because when we see healing and miracles happen, we know for sure that those are not because of any of human works. Not because the action of attending Mass, confession, etc. We can see and we know that even the ones without works at all receive freely gifts of the holy spirit. Therefore, we then realize that all what we believe is the same God, the same Spirit.

But this does not mean that I rebel the church teaching. I only understand it better. Justification by grace through faith means unearned freely given. In this we agree with the “faith alone” protestants. Itsy bitsy difference in the Trent Council about “our works” should not change the main definition. Instead, our separated bretherens agree that one still need to work, and it is impossible to have faith without works (they admit James’s letter as correct). So this “faith alone” thing consist works inside it. They do believe in works too. And I agree with them on how we see works. And moreover, the joint declaration document makes everything clearer : that our works are not to be held as “accountable” regarding our Justification because it is freely given unearned grace.

Quoting the documents of Vatican II out od context also doesn’t do anything. The Holy Father once said, concerned about the state of the Church, “now that we have reformed the Church, let’s sit down and read again the documents of the Council [of Vatican II].” :thumbsup:

Go and read them. Then post your argument about the abuses. I really would like to listen. But without any explanation, please stop using this word “abuse”, because you and I can point finger to each other using the very same word. The word “abuse” is conclusive. We can’t use conclusive words as a statement. It will only create errors in our conclusion (sentiments and prejudices). The word “abuse” should come with explanation otherwise it means nothing.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.