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??
Two questions:
1. How does one go about getting on the Christian bump list?
2. How does one access the Bump List Index from the FreeRepublic forum?
I have occasionally posted to *Religion, but have difficulty accessing the list itself--can't find a link on the main page.
Thanks
Quite true. One of the things I find odd about Protestant accusations about the Church (pre-Schism) and the Orthodox and Roman Catholics (post-Schism) is the accusation that the laity were denied access to Scripture. Have they ever been to a liturgy? Liturgy is practically nothing but Scripture! For those who attended Church regularly, and especially during such holy days as Great Lent, they were soaked in Scripture. A perfect gift, of course, to populations that were largely illiterate.
And of course Church iconography served the same purpose. So if the communicant's mind wandered during liturgy, and they missed words, their eyes settled on the Gospel in visual images instead. Someday, I'll ask a Protestant why illustrated Bible stories are wonderful teaching tools, but Church iconography is of the devil.
One more quote:
"The Orthodox spiritual tradition makes little use of systems of "discursive meditation"...One reason why Orthodox have usually felt no need for such methods is that the liturgical services which they are attending, especially at Great Feasts and during Lent, are very lengthy and contain frequent repetitions of key texts and images. All this is sufficient to feed the spiritual imagination of the worshipper, so that he has no need in addition to rethink and develop the message of the Church services in a daily period of formal meditation."
- Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way
Yes, you have the right idea, I think. The Church is not the Bible, the Church is a living Person -- the Bride of Christ -- who brings Christ to us because Christ lives and moves in her. The Bible is one of the expressions and sources of her faith -- but her faith, springing from Divine Revelation, is the primal element here. (Even a little baby can contain faith in its innocence.)
I understand the seeming necessity for some Catholics to become Bible verse beaters to play their opponents at their own game, but it makes me uncomfortable as a movement and such debates often across rather childish. I don't know if they convince anyone of themselves alone.
Anyway, today is a great day for Catholics as the SSPX'ers are back in the fold.
Amen! on reunion and let's keep praying for all the others to be reunited with Rome as well -- and for Rome to take a hard look at their complaints.
God bless.
The_Reader_David:
The scriptural supports the Latins adduce (from books dropped from the canon by Luther who perferred the judgement of the Christ-denying rabbis who shortenned the Jewish canon to the judgement of the pre-Christian Jews of Alexandria and of the ancient and undivided Church) for this innovation all indeed support the usefulness of prayer on behalf of the departed.
Ignoring the fact that the books in question didn't have full canonical status until after Trent, can you cite the passages in question, please? Can you show that Purgatory is a consistent teaching throughout Scripture, or do you have one or two references in a debatable book? And lastly, what then do you do with the thief to whom Jesus promised paradise that same day?
SoothingDave:
You sound so reasonable, I wonder why you have to include this piece of nonsense.
Perhaps because it is so often true. To date, of the dozens of Catholics that I have engaged on this forum, I have found a total of three willing to discuss the matters from the Holy Scripture, without the name-calling spoken of in my post. These three I happen to have great respect for. Those who give the kneejerk response, which is an evasion rather than a response, I have a hard time taking seriously. The point of my jibe was to head off that evasion before it started, and hopefully to prompt a few Catholics to deal with my position instead.
The position of whether priests can marry or not is a matter for the Church to decide. There is no great thrological question, the position is not infallible or etched in stone.
Except that it is etched in stone. Your position would not be as much of a problem in simply one denomination among many, but the RCC claims to be the one and only Church, and for a long time enforced its iron will with no alternative for those who lived in western Europe.
The fact remains that the RCC teaches one thing (celibacy), and the Scripture teaches another (marriage and children). Having one example in which there is no argument otherwise, why then should I or anyone else accept the RCC's teachings on salvation, Mary, the saints, Purgatory, or anything else as any less fallible?
Who would want a man who can't even rule his children to rule the Church? It is foolishness.
I agree. So does my father, who stepped down from his position as a deacon of our old church without compulsion from any of the elders after my brother came out of the closet. But this isn't the issue at hand. The issue is that the Bible allows for bishops and deacons to be married, and the RCC demands that they do otherwise. By what right does the RCC put a yoke of slavery on a man whom the Christ preached in the Scriptures has made free (against Gal. 5:1)?
patent:
You're one of the three I had in mind. Much of my response to Dave applies to your arguments as well: If Paul allowed the freedom for a bishop to have a wife, by what right does the papacy put the yoke of celibacy on him?
Nor, does he applaud married Bishops.
He assumes that bishops and deacons will be married. There is no hint that he ever considered celibacy to be a part of God's calling to the role of a teacher or elder of the Church.
Couple things, works of the law =OT, no?
In the context of Paul's struggle, yes. However, it is no more of a stretch to take the principles taught by the Apostles in the proper relationship between faith, works, and the Law and apply them to the RCC's particular brand of legalism (or to Seventh Day Adventism's, or the Watchtower's, or even some of the legalism in my own adopted denomination, the Southern Baptists [i.e. no dancing, no drinking, etc.]) than it is to see God's condemnation of child sacrifice in ancient Israel and extending it to include our present-day abomination of abortion.
They are the same thing, if you have true faith you obey Christ and do His commands, the works. If you have a false faith, if you carelessly rely on faith alone, but ignore the works, your faith is dead, and this is the faith alone that you are not justified by.
There are a couple of different takes on that relationship, but I think you've stated it well. However, when we are talking about "works" we do not mean, if we are learning from the Scripture, specific mandated external regulations and ceremonies. Consider the many Catholic holy days and fasts: If I do not keep them, do I sin or miss out on an indulgence? What if I have a steak on a Friday (as I just did)? On the contrary, that I do not feel compelled to keep them is actually commended as a show of strength and maturity in my belief (Rom. 14), and no one is allowed to judge me on that basis if they believe the Scriptures.
What then are the works that Scripture commends to us, if not the strict adherence to an external law? Faith expressing itself through love (Gal. 5:6). "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. . . But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather serve one another in love" (vv. 1 and 13).
ThomasMore:
It seems that there is a fourth Catholic that I can add to my list of those who are willing to discuss the issues and the Scriptures! I haven't seen you on FR before, but it's a pleasure to engage you.
So let's talk about assured salvation. I am not entirely once-saved-always-saved in my theology, as I do believe that a man can apostatize from the faith, and Christ plainly said, "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 10:33).
Yet Jesus also said of His followers, "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and the Father are one" (John 10:29-30). From that, Paul concluded, " For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38).
We cannot misplace our salvation, cannot be tricked out of it, can't lose it by committing our 491st sin of the day. However, we can purposefully walk away from it by denying Christ publicly before men (2 Tim. 2:11-13). Now, given the incredible pressure that Paul was under to do just that, is it any wonder that he should write as he did? And yet this same Paul also assured us, "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, Abba, Father" (Eph. 4:6), and "If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all--how will He not also, along with Him, graciously give us all things?" (Rom. 8:31-32).
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."--Rom. 5:9.
Frankly, Paul doesn't sound all that lacking in confidence about his or anyone else's salvation (2 Tim. 4:7), provided that they remain in Christ and do not purposefully disown Him. That's a far cry from Catholic teaching that missing Mass without good reason constitutes a mortal sin that, should you be killed by a bus the following day, will land you in Hell. Indeed, how can a person be truly set free from the curse of the Law (Gal. 5:1) if he is still in fear of the condemnation of the Law?
There are far too numerous scripture quotes exhorting us to good works...
Yes, but you don't take them out of context (the rest of Scripture, which says that faith saves, not adherence to the Law or works) and put the cart before the horse. As I said, the works are the effect of the believer's faith, the demonstration of that faith to the world, not a supplement to the faith in any way, shape, or form to contribute to salvation.
SMEDLEYBUTLER:
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.
It's similarly interesting to hear Catholics tell us what we believe, but let's not get into a spitting contest here. You try to nitpick at my argument (which was a reply to an argument that I have seen several Catholics on this forum advance) by citing all of the passages immediately surrounding the verses I cited, but not the one. What, I need to cut and paste whole pages of Scripture to make sure I don't leave a particular verse out that someone might use instead? How does this change the essence of my point at all?
Those who aspire to the priesthood are not forced to be celibate. They make that choice out of free will.
Uh-huh. And if they choose not to be celibate, are they still allowed to be priests? No? Then don't try to obfuscate the issue by calling a mandatory requirement a free choice! By whose authority is the freedom given to bishops to marry and have children, a freedom given by Christ and the Apostles, taken away from them?
Again, this isn't even a matter of the RCC adding to Scripture. It's a matter of Scripture saying one thing and Rome another. Which should I believe?
Sola Fide is bunk, based on Scripture.
I dealt with that in my original post, which you evidentially did not read very carefully. Go back, read my understanding of the proper relationship of faith and works, and then tell me just what the heck you do with John 3:16 and Gal. 2:16 if "faith alone" is bunk.
Yours in Truth,
We agree completely..scripture speaks of the washing of the word..It has the power to change lives.
It is the living word of God..a love letter to us..
You have to keep a bookmark or favorite of it since the link isn't on the Freerepublic home page.
There is no BUMP LIST to get on. The bump list is a list of topics.
He started his own religion.
Oh? I must have missed that part. Was it before or after he convened the first Council of Nicea that began formalizing the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and condemned Arianism? </sarcasm off>
I hope we start to turn a bit back on the Vatican II idea.
Christmas Eve Mass this year had our Priest throwing a baseball back and forth to the kids in the pews - he was trying to illustrate how you can't just depend on yourself, you need others. Good point I guess (but kind of basic) but I thought it was so irreverent to do that during Mass. Even the kids were kind of put off by it.
Seems like the right guy for the job at the time. We coulda all been PAGANS!
It makes me so sad to hear such things. We really have to pray for restoration at the moment.
A very ironic choice of words.
A very ironic choice of words.
And your point is...?
God would not say one thing to one person and something else to another. We mortals can't judge the hearts of others, so what matters is the answer you get yourself, not what others claim they got as an answer.
A person could just delude themselves to belive they got the answer they wanted, and others can even lie about getting an answer, but someone who is honest with themselves and really wants the truth won't do this, and when God does answer, you know it.
The Puritans have indeed gotten a "bum rap" from historians. Christianity has also changed a lot in America over the past two hundred years. It seems to be more liberal today than it once was, but perhaps that is merely on the surface.
Thanks for the reference. I will have to study the matter in more depth.
To me, it is still difficult to comprehend how with such a wide spectrum of beliefs (from Amish to Unitarian) Christianity is able to maintain a unity of faith without a unity of doctrine.
I guess when Christ comes back again, He will clear it all up for us.
I would like to address one thing in your post that struck me:
Uh-huh. And if they choose not to be celibate, are they still allowed to be priests? No? Then don't try to obfuscate the issue by calling a mandatory requirement a free choice! By whose authority is the freedom given to bishops to marry and have children, a freedom given by Christ and the Apostles, taken away from them?
A Priest freely takes a vow. Now for me, vows mean something. You don't get to change your mind and if you do, you can't play anymore. It's the same as being married except the Bride is the Church.
The Church discerned with time that the gift of celibacy from God (who alone can give such a gift), together with the desire to serve God and His people, was an indication of a vocation to the priesthood. should speak of some who would remain celibate ("eunuchs") for the sake of the Kingdom of God (Mt 19:12).
St. Paul not only continued his pre-conversion celibacy as a Christian but recommended it for those who would be dedicated to serving God in this world (1 Cor. 7:7, 17, 32-35). He was speaking to a general audience and so he does not oblige it. But observe what he says in verse 17, "Only, everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God called each one. I give this order in all the churches." This coincides with the admonition of Jesus to follow the vocation given by God, whether celibacy (Mt 19:12) or marriage (v.11).
There you are!
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.