“Nothing In My Hand I Bring” by Ray Galea
My favourite type of book: short, interesting and educational.
Galea chronicles his Catholic upbringing and the process he went through to convert to Protestantism. This included the arduous task of going against his family.
He struggled with aspects of the Catholic Church as he explored the bible and found some major differences between the denominations, some were surprisingly huge.
The obsession with Mary, mother of Jesus, I found particularly interesting. Some of the Catholic rituals even have no biblical reference whatsoever.
This book would be good especially for reformed or reforming Catholics or those Protestants wanting a broad overview of Catholicism.
Posts
6 comments:
Are any dogmas or decrees issued by the Catholic Church infallible?
if they're based on the bible they can be infallible. Problem is that many of the decrees in Catholicism have just been invented by man with no biblical basis such as the reverence of Mary.
Thanks Tim, what you implicitly touched upon in your brief review and comments that I find interesting - actually, of fundamental importance - is the basis on which a Church declares a doctrine to be infallible. I'd like to explore this issue in particular if you'll indulge me. If you'd just as soon watch grass grow, feel free to tell me to buzz off. I'll promise to do so without protest :)
To the topic though, I suppose it goes without saying that this standard you mention would apply equally not only to the Catholic Church but to any Christian Church or body.
The standard being, if I understand you correctly, something very close to:
"Statements of infallible truth (i.e. no possibility of error) with regard to Christianity (doctrine/dogma. decrees) must be based on the Bible in order to qualify as being infallibly true."
That's not to say any biblical statement(s) quoted and wildly interpreted must be held to be infallibly true, only that in order to be a candidate for infallible truth it must be, at least, based on the Bible.
Conversely, if not based on the Bible (i.e. having "no biblical reference whatsoever", lacking a "biblical basis") then it must necessarily be classified as an "invention of man" and whatever else might be said of it (it might be pious or sweet sounding etc) it cannot be considered infallible truth. It may or may not ultimately be true, but one cannot know for certain.
Is that a fair reading?
It's true that as Christians we believe in an 'absolute truth'. It's why most new agers don't like Christianity and call us intolerant.
People seem to interpret the bible n a way that suits their agenda sometimes. Most are very wrong, others partially, and people need to be discerning. This might be hard to new Christians especially.
I am no theologian, but would say you assessment is pretty good.
You're quite right about this prevailing "Christians are intolerant" attitude, due, as you said, to our belief in absolute truth. It seems to be based solely on the false equivalence "disagreement = intolerance" which, of course, back-fires on the accuser. Are they not just as "intolerant" of the Christian's view? Ironically, the truth is tolerance requires disagreement (you don't tolerate someone with whom you agree fully) and has more to do with how you deal with the fact of disagreement (with respect? with insults? with a beheading?).
Regarding infallible truths needing to be based on the Bible (and only the Bible), it appears to me that while it seems good something important is lacking with this rule. That is: what could be the basis on which the Bible itself is declared infallible, inerrant, inspired?
Since the Bible itself does not self-authenticate it, by definition, cannot pass the "Biblical basis" test (there is no book within it containing a list of infallible books, nor a command that only said books shall establish infallible truths).
In short, the question is (a) is it necessary for the Bible to be infallible, inerrant, inspired; and (b) if yes, how can we be sure that it is in fact so?
About Rev. Galea's book, would you recommend it to someone interested in these questions that touch on the fundamental basis of authority within Protestantism as compared with Catholicism? I'm uncertain whether Rev. Galea addresses this in his book (thus my search which led me to your recent review :) but given the book's subtitle I would imagine a comparison of Protestantism and Catholicism would deal with authority at some stage. If you recall any useful insights from the book, please include the gist or some quotes.
You've got a live one, Tim! Owen - I'd just like to compliment you on the respectful, thoughtful and logical way you approach this issue of prime import. A world populated with more people like you would literally be Heaven.
I will add something. Firstly I disagree with Tim. Even dogma based exclusively on the bible is fallible. All dogma is fallible because it must pass through the fallible human mind during its production. Thus, the answer to Owen’s original question is “no”.
On the question of the inerrancy of scripture, I am afraid we have a problem. You are correct in your suspicion – it cannot be proven. The belief that the bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired word of God is an article of faith. We must simply trust that it is true.
However, there is some hope. While it cannot be proven, there are many good reasons to believe that it is true, and no good reasons to believe otherwise. In other words, it is reasonable to believe that the bible is infallible – you don’t have to leave your brain at the door! Here are my reasons for such a belief:
1. It can be proven that there must be absolute truth. The bible claims to be this, in various places, in various ways. One is 2 Tim 3:16.
2. Internal consistency. Despite many books written to the contrary, I have found no contradictions in the bible. Though it claims to have been written by over 40 different people over a period of at least 2500 years, it is entirely consistent in every way.
3. External consistency. What is written in the bible corresponds with what I observe. Always. While there might be things I don’t understand, there is nothing that contradicts the reality of my human experience.
4. Higher wisdom. There are no better sources of wisdom than the bible, and its wisdom has never failed anyone who trusted it. Also, it tells me more about me than I can discover for myself, yet what it tells me about me invariably turns out to be true.
5. Authenticity and prevalence. As far back as we can know, the bible has remained unchanged and has endured.
6. The West. Our civilisation is based on its principles. Look at its success.
7. The church. The fact that so many have relied on it for so long shows it better than your average book.
8. The Jews. The bible provides the only plausible explanation for the existence and endurance of the Jewish people. It also, freakishly, predicted their return to Palestine.
There are many others. These aren’t proofs, and some of them aren’t even exclusive to the bible. But taken together, they make a strong case.
LB
Post a Comment