That's Not in the Bible: Contemporary Dilemmas with Sola Scriptura

Some time ago, I had a religious discussion with a co-worker that took on an unexpected twist. We were out at a local pub after the last day of a logic class I teach to our company’s support staff about problem-solving and decision-making. One of the members asked me, “So what else do you teach?” I responded, “Some technical product training and some religious education, specifically, confirmation class…I’m Catholic.” He said inquisitively, “Really?” I said, “Really.” He went on to tell me about how he gave his life to God a few years back and how it has completely changed his life; he described himself as a born again Christian.

As the discussion continued, he began to express his frustration with other Christians that do or teach things that are not found in the bible. I set down my beer, sat-up straight, took a breath and began to brace myself for what you know would be next. I was expecting him to barrage me with a litany of things Catholics do or teach that are not (explicitly) found in the Bible, but it never came up. Instead he began to complain to me about other “born again” Christians.

He is a member of what Catholics would call a parish council over at his church. He complained that his pastor taught that ANY consumption of alcohol was sinful. One drink leads to two; two will lead to three, and so on. Therefore, starting this process with even one drink would be sinful even if you stopped at one. A Catholic might call this kind of reasoning inviting the “occasion of sin”. There is some logic there, but my coworker had a big problem with this. The problem was not that he likes alcoholic drinks. His objection was, “that’s not in the Bible”.

Were you just applauding?
Really?

On another occasion he was invite to a piano performance by his niece during a worship service at his brothers’ non-denominational church. He began to applaud after the performance, but immediately noticed that no one else was applauding. Additionally, he received some icy stares as he began to applaud. Afterward, it was explained to him that during a worship service they only applaud for God. Applauding for others in church is taking away praise from God and is wrong. My colleague had a big problem with this also. Once again, the objection was “that’s not in the Bible”.

I thought to myself, "All Christian churches will do or teach things not specifically found in the Bible. What clear, real-world examples of how the teaching of Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) relentlessly affronts reason". Bible Christians do not actually use the bible alone; they use the bible along with whatever interpretations their leaders may have, and different interpretations results in different denominations as a natural consequence. I was going to tell him that using ONLY the Bible is also something that’s not in the Bible, but I was afraid he might self-destruct right there in front of me.

 

Instead, I went on to talk about how scripture is subject to different interpretations and how the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus actually founded one, and only one, universal Church for everybody; a visible & authoritative Church that uses imperfect men, together with the Holy Spirit, to guide us in faith & morals. If there really is a God and He really cares about people, He would provide a way for us to know what is true or what to believe (faith), and how to behave (morals). A good Father would not just leave a book behind and for us to “figure out”; a good Father would not leave His children as orphans.

This got his attention on Catholicism, but he suddenly changed the subject to the 2nd coming of Christ. He said, “I believed Jesus is coming back very soon. What’s the Catholic take on that?” I mentioned Mat 24:36 “But of that day and hour, no one knows…”, but also added a twist of my own for him to think about.

I told him that some Catholic thinkers speculate that since the 1st coming of Jesus came through Mary, it is conceivable that His 2nd coming will also come through Mary, except this time He would not come as a helpless baby. This could explain some of the increased Marian activity and apparitions around the world in the last couple of centuries as a kind of “spiritual pregnancy” for the 2nd coming (I also made it clear that is only speculation, not formal Catholic teaching). He said, “You know, that makes a lot of sense. I’ve never thought of that before”. Since he did not do very well in the class, I thought to myself, "I bet there are many things you’ve never thought of before".


On the surface, bible alone Christianity might make more sense than Catholicism to a believer that just wants to praise God and “be saved”, but as one asks probing questions about both faith & reason that go deeper and deeper, a reversal takes place. Catholicism stands-up to battering questions like that house built on rock we read about in Matthew 7:24-27. Bible alone Christianity crumbles like a biblical house built on sand.

Final Tribute to Professor Ratzinger

The origins of this blog came from a gripping desire to share what we have learned over the years about the seamless compatibility between faith & reason, and how this is realized in the Catholic faith as an accurate model of our world; our cup ranneth-over and spilled into this blog, so to speak.

For me, the cup’s tipping point came after I had read “Introduction to Christianity” by (then) Father Ratzinger. A series of posts based on insights from that book can be easily found by clicking “Professor Ratzinger” in the left column blog tags or HERE. Between you, me and the blogosphere, my personal favorite is “Professor Ratzingeron Modern Physics” (blew me away).

And now the Pope is resigning and we’ll need to say goodbye. I did not imagine that the first post, which was a tribute to B16 seven years on would not lead to a completed eighth year, but it is comforting to know that “seven” is a number that represents completeness or perfection in scripture. As one last post, here are a few quotes from that book that I double starred and highlighted, but never incorporated into a full post. Maybe I will someday, but for now I’ll just share them as a tribute to this amazing man.

Ø  On Christian Sacrifice:

“Christian sacrifice does not consist in a giving of what God would not have without us, but in our becoming totally receptive and letting ourselves be completely taken over by him. Letting God act on us – that is Christian sacrifice.”

Ø  On the Historical Method:

“It is quite often forgotten that the full truth of history eludes documentary verification just as much as the truth of being escapes the experimental approach. So it must be said that historical science in the narrowest sense of the term not only reveals, but also conceals history.”

Ø  On Reason:

“Reason can speak about God; it must speak about God, or else it cuts itself short.”

Ø  On Being a Christian:

“Let us be blunt, even at the risk of being misunderstood: The true Christian is not the denominational party member, but he who through being a Christian has become truly human; not he who slavishly observes a system of norms, thinking as he does so only of himself, but he who has become freed to simple human goodness.”

 

Thank you good & faithful teacher!

 

Fatigue Makes Cowards of us All

What could Jimmy Johnson, former coach of the Dallas Cowboys, and St. John of the Cross possibly have in common? Both speak of “fatigue”.

One evening I caught part of a motivational talk given by Jimmy Johnson on the NFL Network. He was sharing a football philosophy he learned from another coach about how football rewards great conditioning. When we think of a great football player, with think of a tough guy with great strength, speed and natural ability, but it means nothing without conditioning. Regardless of your ability, fatigue will cause you to lose focus and make mistakes; you will lose the will to fight and you will lose the will to win. Nearing the end of a game, a player should be smiling. The player who is hunched over and sucking-wind in the 4th quarter becomes a coward. Even if your opponent is more talented, you can still win by exhausting your rival.

When I was younger I played some soccer. Now my eleven year old son plays on the local travel team. At the end of the last spring season we had a “kids vs. the parents” game just for fun. I do some jogging to try and keep fit, but it is nothing like the conditioning needed for the frequent, fast sprints required in soccer.

Although the Dads were bigger, stronger and in some cases more talented than the boys, by the end of the game fatigue made a coward out of me. I lost the will to play and I lost the will to win. I started to make mistakes. I began to hope the ball would not come my way in fear of being embarrassed by some speedy kid. I knew what to do, but I could not do it; my body could not react to my will because of fatigue. It was like Romans 7:19 was coming to life right there on the field, “For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want”. The Dads did win in the end, but no thanks to me.

After seeing coach Johnson’s talk the night before, I happened across a reflection from St. John of the Cross the very next morning which spoke of fatigue. We may be familiar with the analogies that compare spiritual conditioning to physical conditioning. An athlete prepares for an event through training and practice; it’s a lot of hard work and discipline. It may even be described as suffering and sacrifice. The same is true in the spiritual life if we want to defeat our adversary. But St. John touches on something a little different; something that is dangerous even for those who are spiritually well disciplined. It’s what happens when we are fatigued by divided desires.

He says:

“Weakness and tepidity are another kind of harm the appetites produce in a man. For the appetites sap the strength needed for perseverance in the practice of a virtue…. A man whose will is divided among trifles is like water which, because of some leakage, will not rise higher and consequently becomes useless.”

St. John of the Cross

If we pour out too much of our time, talent and treasure like a libation to the gods of power, possessions and pleasure, we leave ourselves open to spiritual attack, even if we have routine spiritual practices. Too much work, too many hobbies/activities, too much on the social calendar; the devil loves worldly busyness and helps to keep us pulled in many directions in order to exhaust us. This can happen even with ministry work and other “good deeds”. Once fatigued, his temptations have greater effect. He knows we will lose focus in our spiritual life and make mistakes, we will lose the will to fight and we will lose the will to win. If not careful, we too will become useless, living life as described in Romans 7:19 because fatigue makes cowards of us all.

God as Father

Monday is the feast day of St. Thomas Aquinas. This reminds me to share something from his compendium of Summa Theologica that helps to explain God as Father.

God is pure spirit and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear that He has no gender in paragraph 239, “We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God.” One might conclude that there is no particular reason to call God Father other than our own sexist bias. Why not say “Mother”, “Divine Parent”, “Great Spirit” or “The Big Man Upstairs”?



INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

Whenever I hear some refer to God as “The Big Man Upstairs” there seems to be a strong correlation between that title and a deficient (or non-existent) relationship with God.

I’ve heard it said that the reason we should call God Father is simply because Jesus called Him Father and we should follow suit. I suppose this is a reason, but it leaves me uninspired. Inspiration (for me) comes from reading St. Thomas Aquinas, and of course, other theologians who help explain Aquinas.

Before getting to Aquinas we can first step into some High Christology from John’s Gospel where we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). We also read, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…” (John 1:14). From here we can make some distinction between a word and an idea or a thought. Physical words are meant to express some other “thing”, idea or thought. The Word of God as described in John’s gospel is not a physical vibration from vocal cords formed by the mouth, tongue and lips; a thing of the air. We might say the Word of God is more like the “thought” of God.

We also should make a distinction between the thought and the thinker. If you were to think of yourself, you would have some imperfect image of yourself in your mind. If God were to contemplate Himself, there would be no deficiency in it; this would be a perfect thought or perfect image, or God himself. Going back to the beginning of John’s gospel, it can be helpful to use “thought” in place of “word”, so we would have, “In the beginning was the Thought, and the Thought was with God, and the Thought was God.”, “And the Thought became flesh (God incarnate), and dwelt among us,…”

What do these seemingly useless mental gymnastics have to do with St. Thomas? Chapter thirty-nine of his compendium of theology is entitled Relation of the Word to the Father. Aquinas relates a thought in the mind as a kind of offspring of the intellect when he says, “What is conceived in the intellect is a likeness of the thing understood and represents its species; and so it seems to be a sort of offspring of the intellect”. The intellect itself can resemble a mother, whose function is such that conception takes place in her. The thing thought about resembles a father since it acts on the intellect to make an offspring, which is the idea or thought.

Example:

Ø  An object, let’s say a bird, acts on the human intellect through sensory input from the sight, sound, smell, (taste?), and touch of a bird.

Ø  The bird flies away, but the idea of the bird conceived in the intellect remains as an imperfect image of the bird.

Ø  The image of the bird is a product (offspring if you will) of both the intellect and the bird itself.

Therefore, if the thing being thought of is God, it is God acting on the intellect resembling a father, so to speak. Now if God’s intellect were to contemplate and understand Himself, the thought conceived would be a perfect image of God better known to us as the second person of the trinity (the Word was God). Therefore, the thought, or the Word, or Jesus relates to God as a Son relates to a Father.

Although God has no gender, Father is the most reasonable term for us to use considering the logic above along with the kind of close family relationship God wants with us. The nature of God, the wisdom of the Church and St. Thomas Aquinas all come together to give us a whole new perspective on that modern-day phrase…“Who’s Your Daddy?”

To Know Christ Jesus – The Later Years

 

As you last recall, I recently finished a book called “To Know Christ Jesus” by theologian Frank Sheed. The book goes through the entire life of Jesus offering analysis you may not have run across in other literature, or heard in a typical Sunday homily. The last post highlighted some insights from the first thirty years of Christ’s life; this post will cover some things from the last three. Consider that this could be of immense use to you the next time you’re stuck in a game of Christian trivia, so here we go.

Ø  The public life of Jesus starts after the wedding at Cana. What were the very last words of Mary in the gospels? At Cana she says, “Do whatever he tells you.” If there must be last words from Our Lady, what could be more appropriate?

Ø  What really drove out the moneychangers during the cleansing of the temple in the second chapter of John’s gospel? Jesus was of average stature and He was “cleansing” with a whip made of ropes. It’s not like Jesus was 6’5” and 300 pounds. He did not have a knife, sword or spear. He was a carpenter, not a professional whip maker and there is no indication that His followers jumped-in to help. If buying and selling at the temple was a significant part of my livelihood, I might have grabbed a few friends and said, “Let’s take this guy out before he gets to our tables!”, but this was not the case.

What made the moneychangers scatter? Sheed suggests there must have been something in His manner as God that they could not stand against. Perhaps it was the blaze from God’s own eyes burning a fiery condemnation upon them.

 

Ø  What was the first record of Jesus saying He was the Christ? The woman at the well says, “I know the Messiah is coming” and the Lord answers, “I am he, the one who is speaking with you” (John 4:26). He had always avoided this direct statement until now. It is startling that this is first revealed by Him to a Samaritan, and a woman.

Ø  What was the most astonishing phrase to ever come from Jewish lips? After the beatitudes Jesus speaks of the law. “Moses said……, but I SAY to you”. This was unspeakable arrogance or madness, or – what? To make this sort of claim and not be stoned to death would indeed take a miracle worker.

Ø  What were the first words of kindness we hear from Jesus? When Peter tells the Lord to depart from him because he was a sinful man, the Lord replies, “Fear not” (see Luke 5:8-10). Peter did not know at the time that the more you were a sinner; the more you needed Jesus. It reminded me of JPII’s “be not afraid”.

Ø  What did Jesus do just before choosing the twelve Apostles? He spent the entire night in prayer (see Luke 6:12-16). Seems appropriate given the indescribable amount of permanent authority He would pass on to them.

Ø  What was the curious request of Jesus from the demons of Legion? “And they begged him repeatedly not to order them to go into the Abyss” (Luke 8:31). Sheed speculates that demons not only torment humans, but may also torment each other, to the point where some would prefer the company of pigs to the company of other demons in the “Abyss”. It reminded me of The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis when the older demon, Uncle Screwtape, was getting frustrated with the younger demon, Wormwood.

The case in which our Lord says of a demon, “This kind cannot be cast out, but by prayer and fasting” (Mark 9:29) seems to confirm a higher and lower level of demonic power, yet even the highest fall subject to those who totally subject themselves to God.


 

Ø  What was the only miracle of Jesus to appear in all four Gospels? The feeding of the five thousand. Sheed remarks that the Gospels do not state that the loaves were first multiplied and then passes out; it was more the presence of the loaves that was somehow multiplied. Multi-LOCATION of loaves might be a more precise term than multiplication of loaves. This reminded me of the Eucharist as being more of a Multi-LOCATION of Jesus instead of a multiplication of Jesus.

 

Ø  For those who think the bread of life discourse is figurative language, Sheed mentions that figures of speech are used to make obscure ideas more clear. Eating flesh and drinking blood would be monstrous examples of figures of speech, and would NOT help to make things more clear. Jesus was not known for this kind of bizarre figurative teaching.

Ø  Why did Jesus seem so harsh to those that would not accept Him? “For unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:24). To those who truly want to do God’s will, the grace to accept Him would have been given. Remember that Jesus could read the heart. The failure to accept was sure proof to Jesus that they desired their own will, not God’s. His harshness was reserved for those who had set their will against his Father’s.

Ø  When was the only time the invitation from Jesus to “follow me” was refused? The rich young man went away sad in Luke 18, Mark 10 & Mat 19. Jesus must have been sad too.

Ø  Who was the only character in all the parables of Jesus to have a name? Lazarus (see Luke 16:19-31). The name means “God has helped”.

Ø  One more piece of evidence that Satan is not omniscient is in Luke 22:3, when he entered into Judas, which ultimately led to the crucifixion of Jesus. Satan helping to bring about the death of Jesus, and thereby his own destruction, demonstrates a startling misjudgment on his part.

Ø  On the cross, Jesus says to His mother, “Woman, behold your son” and to John, “Behold you mother”. This is not merely a domestic arrangement. If He chose to say it at this time it must be a part of the redemptive process. John went on to live with Mary and one can only imagine the dinner conversation in that house and how much they must have learned from each other, but we would suspect John learned more from Mary by virtue of her immaculate intellect. John’s gospel is said to be of “High Christology”; since he spent so much time with Mary, it would be strange if it were otherwise.

Ø  For those who hold that the resurrection of Christ is a myth, Sheed points out that a myth-maker would surly elaborate on a spectacular emergence from the tomb, but there is not a word about it in the Gospels. The angel had rolled away the stone, but this was not to let Him out, but to let others in. His resurrected body would have been able to pass through a sealed tomb just like He passed through a locked door in the upper room later on. This is a body wholly subject to the soul, to which the matter of our world was no longer a hindrance. The glorified body was not even at the mercy of men’s eyes, since many did not recognize Him unless He willed it.

Ø  When is the first and only time we hear Jesus addressed as God? When doubting Thomas believes and says, “My lord and my God”.

There are many other such reflections in the book not mentioned here, but I’d like to end with a direct quote that relates to the very blueprint of the Church and The Great Commission. “Catholicity is in it, for catholic means universal, a word which brings together the two ideas of “all” and “one”. Here is the threefold “all” – all nations, all teaching, all days – brought into “one” – in Him”.

Amen.

 

To Know Christ Jesus – The Early Years

Frank J. Sheed
1897 - 1981

I recently finished a book called “To Know Christ Jesus” by theologian Frank Sheed. Is there a better way to end the old year and start the new than getting to know Christ Jesus better? The book goes through the entire life of Jesus using all of the gospels in a chronological kind of way and this author has tendency to mention what is obvious, and yet not so obvious; you’ll see what I mean. It’s like someone giving you a tour of the life of Jesus, pointing-out things along the way that you did not notice or consider on other expeditions.

As a result one can get better at Christian trivia all the way from alpha to omega, so why not share for learning and for fun. Here are some insights, considerations and reflections from the life of Christ in the early years that might be new to you. Since this blog is geared a bit toward men and men are simple creatures, I often like to use bullet points and pictures.
 

Ø  Between the betrothal and a wife’s entry into her husband’s house, the marriage act was not customary among the Jews, but if it did take place, it was NOT sinful and a child born of it was legitimate. Only Josephs’ word of not being the father would have brought shame to Mary. All he needed to do was to trust God and take Mary as his wife.

Ø  What was the first wedding Christ was present at? Cana? No; the wedding of Joseph & Mary; He was already conceived and therefore present. No royal wedding had ever had a glory to compare with that. Today the poorest Catholic can have the same presence within the context of a nuptial Mass.

Ø  Mary had three months to spend at the house of Zechariah & Elizabeth, and Zechariah would have had access to the scriptures since he was a priest. In light of the supernatural events they had experienced in regard to the conception of their two children (Jesus & John the Baptist), never had three people better reason to carefully study the scriptures together. Imagine being a fly on the wall during that Bible study!

Ø  One more piece of evidence that Mary was not just “anybody”. She is the only person, human or divine, that can say to God the Father, “Your son and mine”.

 

Ø  Who were the ONLY ones who died to save Jesus from men who would slay Him? On Dec 28th we celebrate the feast of Holy Innocents; the boys slaughtered by Herod right after Christ was born. Sheed estimates that this would have been about 20-30 children given the size of Bethlehem. Sadly, this immediately reminded me of the 20 innocent children slaughtered in Newtown, CT also around Christmas time.

Ø  At age six Jewish boys began school. His school teacher was spared one difficulty His parents may have felt. No doubt the boy Jesus was a good student, but the teacher would not have known there was anything special about the boy or what the angel Gabriel said to His mother. It would have been a difficult secret to keep for so many years.

Ø  Imagine the boy Jesus reading the Old Testament, learning about the Messiah. It is hard to think the He did not discuss any of it with His parents as children would do. Imagine the dinner conversations! Once again, I envy the fly on the wall.

Ø  Thirty years old and not married? Men of Palestine usually married around age 20. Fathers of eligible daughters in the area must have weighed Him up and found Him more than worthy. Many must have wondered why He was not married by now, but His mother knew. It was probably the only peculiar thing about Him at the time.

Ø  To what human person did Jesus give the most praise? John the Baptist. “Among those born of women there is none greater than John” (Luke 7:28). Baptism was not something John had invented; almost all the main pagan religions had something like it as a way of spiritual cleansing. So what was special about John’s Baptism? Part of it was the insistence that the individual confess his own sinfulness.

Ø  Why did Jesus wish to be baptized if it was about confessing sins? The second thing Jesus says in all the gospels, after the incident at the temple when he was twelve, was “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Mathew 3:15). It may have simply been because He saw John’s ministry and Baptism as a high point of the Old Testament and as a Jew, wished to submit Himself to it before proceeding to establish a new order.

Ø  After the baptism of Jesus, Sheed points out many interesting things about the duel in the desert between Jesus and Satan. The author reminds his readers that we humans do not have a fraction of the power and intellect of Satan, so he must have known that Jesus would probably not have fallen into his trap. Even we mere mortals get the feeling that if the goal was to get Jesus to sin, Satan could have done a better job.

So what might have been the real goal? Satan has a powerful intellect to be sure, but he is NOT all-knowing like God, so he may not have known exactly who Jesus was, nor had a clear understanding of the Trinity. Sheed suggests the real purpose of the temptation in the desert was to “study” Jesus, to learn more about Jesus through his answers and reactions, but Jesus would have known the real goal and left him frustrated, never giving any clear indication about who He was.

The early years covers about thirty years and the later only covers about three. I’ll continue with more insights from the later years in my next post. The baptism of Jesus is the luminous mystery that leads us to the proclamation of the kingdom of God on earth, a kingdom which requires a profound spiritual change from within to make possible. This would be the main theme behind all the teachings of Jesus in His public life in the last three years.

The Logic of Moral Relativism

The doctrine of subjectivism is a curious thing.  It claims that for each person, truth is different.  There is no absolute truth.  If this is indeed the claim, it is easily refuted as this claim itself is an absolute statement.

I suspect that subjectivists take a more soft line in this respect (in order to avoid this embarrassing conundrum) and might say "there may be an absolute truth, but we may or may not know what it is."

Applied to morality, subjectivism becomes moral relativism.  As far as moral judgments are concerned, an act's moral goodness or badness depends upon the perspective of the people involved.  

One argument in favor of moral relativism is that one culture may consider an act to be good and another culture may consider it to be bad.  Here is the argument:

1. If an act is good for one culture
2. And the same act is bad for another culture
3. Therefore the act's moral value is relative to the culture

The premises of this argument can be shown empirically by looking at two cultures that have different values about a particular act.  For example, cannibalism or killing the elderly are variously considered good and bad among different cultures.

Let's look more closely at those premises.  Premise 1 is "If an act is good for one culture."  What makes an act good?  In this case, the culture must consider it to be good.  That is, the culture's opinion of this act is what makes it good or bad.  Isn't this hidden premise begging the question?  That is, if the culture's opinion of what makes an act good or bad actually makes it good or bad, that is a restatement of moral relativism.  The argument assumes what it is trying to prove.

Here is a restatement of the argument for clarity

1. If an act is considered good for one culture
2. And the same act is considered bad for another culture
3. And an act's moral value is determined by the culture (hidden premise)
4. Therefore the act's moral value is relative to the culture

You can now see that the new, third premise is equivalent to the conclusion.

This new premise is very interesting in that it means that one should never disobey one's cultural morality.  Whatever the culture considers right is, in actuality, right.  In essence, relativists can never object to the law.  They can only be status quo conservatives and therefore moral absolutists are the only ones that can be progressive and radical!   Only a moral absolutist has a trans-cultural standard by which to judge actions and can say to Hitler or Saddam Hussein, "what you are doing is wrong and must be stopped."  Relativists can only say, "different strokes for different folks, I happen to disagree but that's all."


It’s amazing how the public perception of these roles are the exact opposite of what I have just outlined.  Moral relativists are typically depicted as the liberal agents of change, while moral absolutists are supposed to be conservative dogmatists.  We can now see that moral relativists are secretly dogmatic and moral absolutists are radical and agents of change for good in the culture!

Those of us who understand that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong are agents of change. To settle into a comfortable conservatism is a surrender of the moral leadership that is required and expected of us. The reversal of the relativist and absolutist roles in the culture today will be addressed in Part Two.

Thanks to Peter Kreeft for much of the material for this post