Debating the Take of Casey Cole

Franciscan Casey is Half-Right and Half-Wrong in Explaining the Bible · Debating the Take of Casey Cole

vincewarde

WOW!

Yet again this evangelical minister is blown away by your work. This is an excellent explanation of how to properly interpret God's Word.

Dvd Ortiz

The Catholic Church does not interpret the Bible. She explains it as the Lord did on their way to Emmaus

[Bill P.]

[responded to the first or the following by vincewarde]

vincewarde

@Dvd Ortiz So you disagree with Fr. Casey? Do you not think that your priests and deacons are not taught these principles of Biblical interpretation? Do you actually think that every Catholic theologian agrees on the interpretation of every Biblical text? Do you not think that Catholics need to know how to read and understand their Bibles?

Finally, do you really think that God did such a poor job of producing his WORD that it is impossible for us to understand the essential truths communicated in it without the Church?

vincewarde

@Bill P. First I appreciate your spirit.... and I hope I can reply in the same way....

"Who determines what are the “essential” tenets of the faith?"

I believe that the Bible is completely clear on these matters, as does, in reality, the Catholic Church. That is why the Catholic Church recognizes some groups outside it's organization as Christian, while others are not. I think we can agree that things such as the Deity of Christ, including His virgin birth, His death upon the Cross for our sins, His literal resurrection and His certain coming again are so clear in Scripture as to be impossible to miss.

"Is baptism salvific?"

Not without faith (hence Catholic confirmation). I would say that the Scriptures are clear: Believers are to be baptized. I would even go so far as to say that baptism is a sacrament that seals salvation. However, there are examples - which are not normative - of people being saved without baptism. The early church faced the issue of martyrs who had not yet been baptized and decided that they were baptized in their own blood....

"Is Christ present in Holy Communion?"

Yes!!!!

"If so, how?"

Supernaturally and really.

"How do we know which books are to be considered Sacred Scripture?"

By the evidence - including the witness of the early church. Ultimately, this resulted in the canon.

"How exactly is someone “saved”?"

By faith in Christ, which results in repentance, baptism and a transformed life.

"Rhetorical questions, but seriously, if the church is unnecessary in determining essential matters such as these, then why is there so much disagreement between Protestant sects concerning them?"

As a Wesleyan, I would never say that church tradition is unnecessary. I would say that it must be subject to Scripture. The collective wisdom of the church through the ages cannot and should not be ignored.

"If a person disagrees on an “essential”, then what? They find a new denomination that caters to their presumably erroneous tenets? Is this really what Christ intended? Was he incapable of creating a lasting institution that would guard the truth through time?"

In reality, the differences in evangelical groups are mostly about non-essentials. There is no disagreement between Baptists and Pentecostals about how one is saved. Why? Simple: The Bible is clear about this.....

In closing, let me say that I frequently defend my Catholic brother and sisters. I know that people somehow miss the Gospel in Catholic Churches - but they must be blinded, because I see it clearly every time I visit. I'm sure that some miss the Gospel in evangelical churches and find it in the Catholic Church - I know this because it happened to two of my aunts....

May God bless you!

Vince

Sniper Pro nerf mods

^false teacher

VecturHoff

@Sniper Pro nerf mods why hes a false teacher?

Sniper Pro nerf mods

@VecturHoff Matthew 16:18, ESV: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus ordained peter as the first pope, Catholicism is the fullness of truth!

My following

comment is directed at vincewarde's first comment:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wait till you see the original in St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas!

vincewarde

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I have read some Augustine and studied some Aquinas 30 years ago in college. Many evangelicals highly value Augustine!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@vincewarde Good for you, but how come you don't notice the discrepancy between their point and some of the things Casey is saying?

vincewarde

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Perhaps I have not yet read the sections of their writings to which you refer?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@vincewarde Summa Theologica, I pars, Q I, A 10.

It doesn't seem that the literal history is recorded simply by a fallible human author.

If God made sure to put metaphors about even higher truth into historical events, He would also make sure these events were correctly, inerrantly recorded, right?

vincewarde

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I'll look that section up. Thx.

OK, and you point from this section is? I see nothing that I would object to, nor any real contradiction with Fr Coles video....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@vincewarde Here I'll cite three time stamps on which I commented, and adversely:

1:20 "the fallible human author" / "the infallible divine author"
1:38 "at face value without the use of reason"
2:56 - he had confused the idea of not taking obvious figures of speech as literal statements with the idea of "historical critical method" (like believing in Marcan Priority, Deutero-Isaiah, NT books reflecting "doctrinal development" ...)

So, basically after the first minute, there are at least two minutes where he's saying lots of anti-Fundie stuff with no basis at all in Sts Augustine or Thomas, nor in Catholic tradition. If you missed it, I didn't.

vincewarde

@Hans-Georg Lundahl OK, well here we go....

1:20 "the fallible human author" / "the infallible divine author"

I took that to mean that not everything the inspired authors ever wrote about anything is inspired. Additionally, all humans are fallible - it is the divine author who both inspired and superintended the writing of Scripture so that the Scripture ,as they originally wrote it, is without error. In reviewing his statement here, I thin he is saying that same thing.

1:38 "at face value without the use of reason"

That statement is not what Fr. Cole is advocating, it is what he is criticizing. I would join with him in that statement. It was taught that "If the literal sense makes sense, seek no other sense - or you will end up with nonsense." However, if the literal sense does not make sense, you had better seek another sense or you will also end up with nonsense. Additionally, even when a passage can legitimately be read literally, reason and common sense still apply. Just because Mark says that some believers will safely handle snakes, that doesn't mean we should make it the center of our church.

2:56 - he had confused the idea of not taking obvious figures of speech as literal statements with the idea of "historical critical method" (like believing in Marcan Priority, Deutero-Isaiah, NT books reflecting "doctrinal development" ...)

If I have share any real concern with you, it would be here. I fully agree with Fr. Cole (and Pope Benedict) that there may very well be more in a particular passage of Scripture than the original human author could have possibly understood. I also agree with him concerning the typological reading of OT passages that, in light of the NT, clearly foreshadow Christ. I also agree with his statements on the Moral sense of Scripture - although cultural context is always important. As for the last method (anagogical), evangelicals very occasionally use this too.

As for "historical critical method", I agree that this was a very poor choice of words. If one means by this that the historical settling (context) of the passage must be considered, I cannot help but agree. However, if what is meant is that we use some form of what we would call "higher criticism" - placing oneself above the Scriptures and deciding which parts are inspired and which are not, I completely disagree. If he meant what you describe - and I am very familiar with the idea of "doctrinal development" - I certainly disagree.

Your thoughts?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@vincewarde I "I took that to mean that not everything the inspired authors ever wrote about anything is inspired."

If that's the case, why would "the fallible human author" even need to be considered as fallible in the connexion of the writing of hagiography.

"all humans are fallible - it is the divine author who both inspired and superintended the writing of Scripture so that the Scripture ,as they originally wrote it, is without error"

That's precisely what you and I agree about hagiographers.
It's what he and I agree on Popes.
The problem is, I think it is not what he agrees on hagiographers.

II "That statement is not what Fr. Cole is advocating, it is what he is criticizing. I would join with him in that statement."

Well, I think he's criticising a straw man.

"if the literal sense does not make sense, you had better seek another sense or you will also end up with nonsense."

I think Casey Cole unfortunately counts literal historicity of first 11 chapters of the Bible here.

"Just because Mark says that some believers will safely handle snakes, that doesn't mean we should make it the center of our church."

The handling of snakes was fulfilled by St. Paul, on Malta.
The drinking of poison (the Greek has the present infinitive, which can mean "begin to drink") was fulfilled when St. Benedict made the sign of the cross over a cup he intended to drink and it burst due to God protecting him from poisoning.

I don't think snakehandling sects are even close to "at face value without the use of reason" - because they are not even close to "at face value."

I think if that's where the picture to that timestamp came in, it's not the first time that snakehandling sects are used to lampoon Ken Ham ...

III The "historic critical method" unfortunately historically to a university audience in theology today means precisely the confusion of the two.

Making according to some at least the Jews in Babylon, not Israelites in the Desert, audience of Ezra, not of Moses, the first audience of Genesis 1 to 11.

vincewarde

@Hans-Georg Lundahl First of all, thanks for using italics, I didn't know you could do that in YouTube comments....

I think you make your points well - and that at this point Fr. Cole should probably be the one to defend himself, rather than a Protestant evangelical......

Thanks for a very interesting exchange - and may our Lord and Savior Bless You Richly!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@vincewarde You are welcome.

_ here is how you do italics _
delete spaces:
here is how you do italics

For bold, use asterisk instead.

@vincewarde And thank you too.