Posted on 01/18/2002 6:11:04 AM PST by 1stFreedom
Folks, I'm reposting this article, edited so as to not appear to be attacking anybody.
I'd like your opinion, as this is an article in working progress. If you agree, disagree, have facts & figures, I'd appreciate your comments.
I've purposely left out the controversy over the OT beacause 1. I need to do some research, and 2. The focus of this article is on the agreed upon NT cannon. (It's more for discussion of NT amongst different denominations). I'll write another article on the OT, or incorporate it here.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE BIBLE
INTRODUCTION
Many schools of theology contend that the Church had a falling away, or went apostate, not too long after the death of the last Apostle. The approximate date varies, with 100AD for Jehovah Witnesses and 312AD for Calvinists and Mormons.
ERRANT CHURCH
If the Church had indeed fallen away from the faith, then this presents a very serious problem for the Church. The problem is so large it is a showstopper and it calls into question the validity of the faith itself.
The problem is this: If the Church was indeed apostate, then how could anything handled by the Church be trusted? Could any major (not minor) tenant taught or produced by the errant Church be considered valid? If so, then how can the modern Church accept a major tenant from an apostate Church?
EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Contrary to the current wide availability of the New Testament, the first believers did not have a copy of the New Testament.
The first Christians had the blessing of hearing the teachings of Christ personally. The apostles carried these teachings to various foreign lands for many years afterwards.
These Christians had no cannon of Scriptures, and in fact, some of the scriptures were being written during this period. (Such as the Epistles, which were letters to the various churches.)
Those who came after the time of the twelve apostles continued to teach the Gospel as well as the writings of the Apostles.
But there were also other writings that were considered to be inspired. One could even go as far as to argue that the Didichae or the Shepard of Hermas could be candidates for consideration of being divinely inspired. The early Church had to determine whether or not various writings were inspired. This didn't happen overnight.
Through the course of time, well after the earliest possible date (100ad) of a supposed apostasy, various writings were examined, tested, debated, and validated/invalidated by the Church.
THE CANNON IS RECOGNIZED
Thee first real recognition of the cannon of the New Testament came in the late 300’s (two synods, one in 382 and one in 392). This recognition is not the absolute “official” cannon, but rather just recognition of the NT cannon of Scripture.
NOTE: The Church rarely puts a stamp of official approval on anything until there is a serious dispute. This is why it wasn’t until the Council of Trent that the “official” cannon was “certified” – there was no serious dispute till that time frame (minor disputes? yes). The “unofficial” “official” cannon was recognized for centuries, but only certified at Trent.
THE ACHILLES HEAL OF AN APOSTASY
This formal recognition of the NT Cannon is the problem for believers.
If the Church was in error in the proposed range (100ad-312ad), then how could the errant church be trusted to be correct about the cannon of Scripture? How can one say for certainty that the cannon is correct. Maybe the Didichae belongs in there?
It's an error in logic, a paradox, to say that "An errant Church, misguided and corrupt, produced an infallible cannon of Scripture which is the foundation of the faith for non-Catholic believers."
While it is true that an errant church can teach valid truths, it is not true that an errant church can define the entire faith on which these truths rest.
CONCLUSION
A common reaction to the question of the cannon of the NT is that the Holy Spirit has confirmed it to individuals and the Church. If the Spirit indeed does confirm that the NT cannon is correct, then one has to admit that the either an apostate Church produced an infallible NT cannon (a contradiction) OR, that in fact, the Church wasn't apostate after all.
To reasonable people, the conclusion "that in fact, the church wasn't apostate after all or if it was then the NT cannon and the faith as well is in serious doubt", is inescapable.
-----
Comments??
True, but I suspect all of us here would not accept that conclusion. But it is an alternative.
Duh. I spelled it right the first two times.
I don't need Calvin to know the RCC (leadership) of the 16th century was corrupt. If it were not, why the need for a Catholic counter-reformation?
This is not to say all were corrupt; they were not. Political forces, who took the brand of Catholicism but not the spirit, took control of RCC institutions gradually. Fortunately, much of the corruption was thrown off.
I accept it, and think that it's a shame that so many other Christians are so scared to consider it and evaluate it fairly.
The KJV Bible itself has changed over time, if that can happen in the era of printing presses and computers, how can it be reasonable to conclude that it never changed over the centuries before when it was hand copied and translated by unknown persons with unknown adgendas?
God used Pharoah's hardened heart to His own ends, does that venerate Pharoah?
Many schools of theology contend that the Church had a falling away, or went apostate, not too long after the death of the last Apostle.
Be careful here. "The Church" can never be apostate or else it wouldn't be "The Church." Nor is "The Church" dependent upon human organization -- it is plainly from God, not man.
The debate is not whether "The Church" went into apostacy, but whether Catholicism constitutes "The Church." To do so, Catholicism's first test is adherence to scripture, a test that it fails as plainly as the nose on your face.
Now this is a curious thesis; "assured salvation"!
When I read Paul, I must be reading Catholic theology. He says, for instance...
"Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead." [Phil 3:8-11]
St Paul isn't quite assured of his resurrection! He also thinks he can be disqualified!
"Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." [1 Cor 9:24-27]
If Paul is assured salvation through his faith, why does he question himself.
And another...
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. [Phil 2:12-13]
Sounds to me like Paul is establishing Catholic doctrine.
Jesus also said...
"Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' [Mat 7:21-23]
as to works...
We are saved by grace; our faith (a gift from God) and good works cooperate with His grace
There are far too numerous scripture quotes exhorting us to good works...
"Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." [Gal 6:2]
"For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury." [Rom 2:6-8]
"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." [Mat 25:31-46]
All these things Jesus speaks of are works!
Dan
Dan
(Boom!)
God Bless
TM
These C vs P threads are a downer. God has the same requirements for each man, regardless of church background. One either complies or one does not; one is in good standing with the Father or one is not; one seeks to be justified or one justifies self. Whether or not El Papa is infallible does not change the teaching of Scripture. Luther led a rebellion and, although he made the attempt, did not change God's Word by one letter. One does not have to become a Protestant or a Catholic in order to be saved. Grace is God's grace and by definition it is undeserved. It cannot be dispensed in a method contrary to the nature of Christ himself. Sigh.
God never used such characters for continued good. He did convert some, but they remained good.
>>Be careful here. "The Church" can never be apostate or else it wouldn't be "The Church."
Now you are getting somewhere.
>> Nor is "The Church" dependent upon human organization -- it is plainly from God, not man.
Uhh, it was dependant on humans from the beginning my friend. From Christ himself ( although He was also God) to his apostles who organized the worldwide universal (Catholic) Church, the Church has been dependant on human organization. There was only one Church up till like 500ad when the monophysytes were condemned/broke off or whatever happened. (Catholic is latin for universal)
>>The debate is not whether "The Church" went into apostacy, but whether Catholicism constitutes "The Church."
Nope. Not really. In the first 500 years of Christianity, there was no church cept the what was called the Catholic Church till some minor and major breaks. You are confusing the term Catholic with a denomination. Catholic is merely the universal faith that existed in / post Christ, taught by the Apostles, and by the successors of the Apostles.
>> To do so, Catholicism's first test is adherence to scripture,
Nope my friend, that is YOUR test, based upon the ideology that Scripture is the sole authority (which is NON BIBLICAL).
Actually the criteria to determine what is the Church and what isn't is the history of the Church. Catholicism, the Orthodox, and a few sects can be historically traced to the Apostles (Apostolic lineage). Modern, post "reformation" church's, for the most part, can't. (Some Anglican priests and others can.)
Actually, it's Greek.
Dan
There is a passage in which Paul speaks directly to the marital status (among other things) of bishops and deacons, 1 Timothy chapter 3. In it, he assumes that many bishops will be married and have children, and insists only that they have but one wife (v. 2), and that their children be obediant and respectful (vv. 4-5). Now, if the Apostle, taught not by men but directly by God (Gal. 1:1 and 12) applauds marraige and children in the bishops of the Church, by what right does Rome demand celibacy? Rome has not simply added a tradition to the Holy Scriptures, she has declared herself to be greater than the original Apostles and able to ignore what they taught!
Martin Luther, who every Catholic would be good to read
It's always interesting to read and or hear a Protestant tell a Catholic what the Catholic Church believes and what the Bible, which the "Reformers" took from the Catholic Church and then edited to their liking, says.
Regarding your first Scriptural reference, you are wrong in stating that 1 Corinthians 7:25-26 is used by the Roman Catholic Church as a basis for celibacy. Refer to Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1579. Let's take a look at those passages in Scripture that do deal with celibacy and that the Catholic Church bases it's vow of celibacy for nuns and priests upon:
1 Corinthians 7:8 "But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I."
1 Corinthians 7:32-35 "But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment."
Matthew 19:12 "For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have nmade themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it."
The Catholic Church allows it's permanent deacons to be married. Those who aspire to the priesthood are not forced to be celibate. They make that choice out of free will. If they choose not to take the vow, then they freely forego the priesthood. The Church also allows those Anglican priests who are married that convert to Catholicism to remain married. Additionally, in the Eastern Church, a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry. Prior to receiving Holy Orders he may. Also, bishops in the Eastern Church are chosen solely from celibate priests.
As for Luther, yes it is important for all Catholics to read the many contrdictory statements that Luther made. One in particular is the following. "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists - that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." Luther's Commentary on St. John, chapter 16.
James 2:17 "So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself." Sola Fide is bunk, based on Scripture. I can provide you with Biblical justification for Purgatory, a word which, like Incarnation and Trinity does not appear in the Bible, as well, if you so desire. In the future when you tell Catholics what we believe and what the Church teaches, do your homework, first. To quote Fulton J. Sheen "Not one hundred in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think that the Roman Catholic Church is."
Absolutely correct. There is not one teaching from the Pope that has changed the teaching of scripture. Of course, when one teaches from scripture there is interpretation. That is why St. Peter wrote:
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." [2 Pet 1:20-21]
The Church has always believed that its interpretation of scripture, pertaining to faith and morals, has been protected from error through the Holy Spirit.
Luther led a rebellion and, although he made the attempt, did not change God's Word by one letter.
Unfortunately, he tried. By adding the word "alone", so as to render "by faith alone", to the Letter to the Romans. He also eliminated 7 books of the old testament as well as seven from the new testament. Of course 50 years later the Lutherans added back the seven NT to include James, II and III John, Revelation, Jude, and I and II Peter.
PS: That quote from 2 Peter is one of the reasons why it was excluded from the canon as "Inspired"
Two authorities can not contradict. For the heirarchy of the Catholic church to authenticate itself, it must not contradict scripture.
You are correct. That is why they do not contradict Scripture.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.