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??
There are never any "different interpretations" of the Bible among Christians when it comes to the *essential doctrines* of the Christian faith. I perceive that you don't understand the difference between the essential (core/cardinal) doctrines and the non-essential doctrines of the historic, orthodox (small "o") Christian religion.
It is a common observation that somehow Catholics are immune to discention in the church.Various councils have proved otherwise. The way Rome handles this is just to ignore it and pretend that everyone agrees with the "offical doctrine". The truth is if you lined up all the various factions in the church they would rival the protestants in number.
Here is a link on the resolution of one long standing seperation that Rome pretended didn't exist
The "Christian worldview" that underlies America's founding documents, comes from the Puritans who got it from the Holy Scriptures. They are responsible for originating America's *once great* universities / seminaries which have been allowed to become totally feminized (weak in doctrinal clarity and conviction) and ruined by the Marxist Left.
The Marxist Left (that would love to get rid of our Constitution which guarantees individual rights) has never given up *revising* and *re-writing* history in their efforts to undermine and discredit who and what the Puritans were.
Very interesting. So a denomination may merely be masquerading as Christian? How does one know for sure if the church he is attending is genuine?
For Example, Church A preaches that baptism is mandatory for salvation. (John 3:5)
Church B preaches that belief in Christ is enough for salvation; no baptism is required.
Are both correct?
You are right. Even the angels exist to bring focus and glory to Him. John the Baptist said that he must decrease and Christ must increase. As a former Catholic I used to pray to the saints because I was taught that way. As I grew into my teen years I used to wonder how God can be omniscient and too busy to hear me at the same time. If he knew my heart, how could a saint better convince him? I settled for the benefit of intercession as my answer. Now that I've been reading the bible for 30 years, I find that we are asked to intercede for each other and to ask each other to do the same, but nowhere ask the dead to pray for us. If it were otherwise, should we not find some reference showing where the angels pray for us too?
You are misinformed.
Church B preaches that belief in Christ is enough for salvation; no baptism is required.
Are both correct?
Both are correct. Understanding what baptidzo, a Greek word--not English, means is essential to reconciling church A and church B.
If you can not see the foolishness an inconsistancy of this of this ....well ...
Sometime we'll have to chat about the Puritans. They get a "bad rap." Truth is, they were some of the best people to set foot on this continent, and we could use more of them today.
But they, like the religious liberals today, can all be judged in the light of the objective, unchanging, written Word.
Gotta run.
Dan
If the Church is the earthly Body of Christ,
and
Holy Scripture is God's Word,
then
Holy Scripture is the Word of the Church.
If: Only Christ (God) can definitively interpret His Holy Scripture,
and
the Church is the earthly Body of Christ,
then
Only the Church can definitively interpret Holy Scripture.
Now, when she does this (as she has only rarely done when a truth of the Faith of the Apostles has come under grave threat), Holy Church -- one organism, Christ's Body -- speaks through Peter, whose office as Christ's Vicar Christ Himself established (since she couldn't very well speak through all her members all at once, could she? -- just as you don't speak through your pinkie.)
Oh, yes! don't forget:
2 Thess. 2:14 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle."
Roman Catholics are blessed with the fulness of the Apostolic Faith, whose source is ONE: Divine Revelation, given to men both in the holy writings and holy tradition of the Apostles and miraculously preserved intact and defended by their successors.
You don't know what you're missing! I hope you find out.
God bless you.
In the essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.
Maybe you misunderstood what I previously wrote? In a genuine "Christian" organization there is unity around the CARDINAL doctrines. The very definition of heretical beliefs means: "characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards". UNorthodox.
Heresy: "Adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma" (doctrine).
You wrote: "For Example, Church A preaches that baptism is mandatory for salvation. (John 3:5)
Church B preaches that belief in Christ is enough for salvation; no baptism is required.
Are both correct?
Your key words are "mandatory" and "required".
Any organization that teaches that water baptism is "mandatory" for salvation, is teaching a non-essential doctrine as if it was an essential doctrine. Therefore it is teaching false doctrine.
Any organization that teaches that a person shouldn't be baptised with water if possible, is teaching false doctrine.
You will never see God's people (Christianity) teaching that baptism shouldn't be done ... but you will see Christians disagreeing over how it ought to be done.
Hard to use that to justify the doctrine that Mary lived and died a virgin.:>)
The point is that this is an example where "A until X" does not imply that A occurs after X has occurred.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
Needless to say, I stand on the opinion of St. Jerome. It's a great read.
You obviously didn't understand my post, it was not an insult, but a little example of how the wrong usage of the word "until" gives us the wrong results. No offense intended.
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.