Posted on 05/03/2008 4:38:34 PM PDT by NYer
Scripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true?
It's not an easy question for Protestants, because, having jettisoned Tradition and the Church, they have no objective authority for the claims they make for Scripture. There is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of St. John's Apocalypse) claim to be inspired. So, how does a "Bible Christian" know the Bible is the Word of God?
If he wants to avoid a train of thought that will lead him into the Catholic Church, he has just one way of responding: With circular arguments pointing to himself (or Luther or the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries or some other party not mentioned in the Bible) as an infallible authority telling him that it is so. Such arguments would have perplexed a first or second century Christian, most of whom never saw a Bible.
Christ founded a teaching Church. So far as we know, he himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he commission the Apostles to write anything. In due course, some Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Most of these documents are ad hoc; they are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian revelation. It's doubtful that St. Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would some day be read as Holy Scripture.
Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and "apostolic" writings were floating around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the "Shepherd" of Hermas, St. Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.
But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had. On what basis, then, do they accept the canon of the New Testament? Luther and Calvin were both fuzzy on the subject. Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, the so-called Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible; his pretext for doing so was that orthodox Jews had done it at the synod of Jamnia around 100 A. D.; but that synod was explicitly anti-Christian, and so its decisions about Scripture make an odd benchmark for Christians.
Luther's real motive was to get rid of Second Maccabees, which teaches the doctrine of Purgatory. He also wanted to drop the Letter of James, which he called "an epistle of straw," because it flatly contradicts the idea of salvation by "faith alone" apart from good works. He was restrained by more cautious Reformers. Instead, he mistranslated numerous New Testament passages, most notoriously Romans 3:28, to buttress his polemical position.
The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority--sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is "useful" (which is an understatemtn), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an "intolerable paradox."
Newman also wrote: "It is antecedently unreasonable to Bsuppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself...." And, indeed, once they had set aside the teaching authority of the Church, the Reformers began to argue about key Scriptural passages. Luther and Zwingli, for example, disagreed vehemently about what Christ meant by the words, "This is my Body."
St. Augustine, usually Luther's guide and mentor, ought to have the last word about sola scriptura: "But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel."
So Peter was a liar, eh???
But then Peter's books likely were not inspired either...
For a religion that couldn't figure out for 300 years that there is an actual Trinity, I wouldn't put much stock in much of anything that came from their leadership...
The religion of Diana, Queen of heaven...
And (ha ha) the scripture they don't believe in, they claimed a half dozen verses and built a religion on it...
Logic, like common sense, are for people who don't know Truth...
Here's a clue:
Jesus personally picked ALL of the real Apostles...Jesus did not pick THAT apostle...
Guess what that means...
There are 12 Apostles mentioned in the book of Rev...Guess what that means...
Likely they will ignore your salient question...
At Pentecost, of course. As to the rest, Peter was imperfect, as all Popes are, which is why they have the special guidance of the Holy Spirit to keep them from screwing up in a way that causes "the gates of hell to prevail against it (the Church)". That's what "papal infallibility" is all about.
On his visit to Jerusalem "to see Peter and James", Paul spent fifteen days closeted with PETER (I wonder why?? Do you think they might have been discussing something important??)
And you appear to have forgotten when Paul and Barnabas appeared before the Apostles to be confirmed in their roles as bishops (by the "laying on of hands"---aka the Sacrament of Holy Orders). So it appears that Paul DID think it was somewhat important to have the blessing of the the other Apostles.
"He wasn’t at Rome in 58 A.D. when Paul wrote to the church at Rome. He wasn’t in Rome when Paul was first imprisoned there in 61 A.D nor in his last imprisonment in 67 A.D. for there is no mention of him in Paul’s letters."
So?? Peter traveled to found Churches just as Paul did. He just wasn't as prolific a letter writer.
"He specifically states in his last latter to Timothy all had forsaken him and none stood with him. The only one with him at the time of the writing was Luke."
And why would Peter "be with him"?? They both had responsibilities to be about the Lord's business, not spend time crying on one another's shoulders.
I suggest you read "On This Rock" by Stephen K. Ray. He documents (in exquisite detail) the Scriptural and historical evidence for Peter's primacy, and totally blows the Orthodox and Protestant "positions" away.
I’m not sure that I understand your comment. Care to clarify?
“And you appear to have forgotten when Paul and Barnabas appeared before the Apostles to be confirmed in their roles as bishops (by the “laying on of hands”-—aka the Sacrament of Holy Orders).”
I must have missed this. Where do you find this in the scriptures?
“On his visit to Jerusalem “to see Peter and James”, Paul spent fifteen days closeted with PETER”
You forgot he was also with James, the Lord’s brother. I think he would have learned more from him than Peter.
“Peter traveled to found Churches just as Paul did.”
List just one church that Peter founded. It wasn’t the Jerusalem church since that was established by the Apostles and they selected James, brother of John, as the first leader and then James, the Lord’s brother. It certainly was not Rome since there is no mention of him in Paul’s letter.
Really??? The Church Fathers must have found it because they quote voluminously from the scriptures and in most cases verbatim.
They all believed them to be authoritative -- solely authoritative. They didn't cite each other or each other's writings as authoritative -- just the scriptures.
Perhaps you all need to reread your own church fathers to see how out of touch you are with them. For as Irenaeus wrote [but you all seem to have forgotten], "in matters of importance, one should defer to the writings of the apostles".
Just when are you all going to start doing that???
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
St. Augustine of Hippo (Church Father), Against the letter of Mani, 5, 6, 397 A.D.
We ADORE the TRINITY, we revere His Mother.
If after seeing this explained a thousand times, and one STILL says that Catholics ADORE Mary, then I consider them anti-Catholic bigots.....or stupid, ignorant hillbillies.
Isn’t that idolatry?
Bible Christians say they ONLY follow the word of God in the Bible (unlike CAtholics they say), yet Jesus commanded us to EAT HIS BODY and DRINK HIS BLOOD, yet they don’t do this.....yet they INSIST they follow Jesus’s words.....WHY?
Of course not.....but you obviously haven’t been taught the difference in ADORATION and REVERENCE. It;s VERY simple...let the scales fall.
Of course it is. Finally we have an admittance from a Catholic that they DO INDEED pray TO Mary.
What do YOU think Jesus meant???? Good Grief. Don't any of you Protestants ever THINK DEEPLY about Jesus's words and what they meant?? What are you afraid of? How could anyone interpret THESE words differently?
I just adore fence posts but it accomplishes very little but personal fellings of well being
We pray to Mary to ask her for INTERVENTION....she can do nothing on her own......you must be REALLY anti-Jesus’s Mother to not get this difference.....I’ll ask Mary to ask Jesus to help you....she’ll ask Jesus and maybe He’ll help you not diss HIS Mother so much. Storming Heaven for you!!!
Your quote proves the point. Even in this well-worn quote, Augustine admits that his faith was "in the Gospel" not the Catholic Church -- which was merely an "influence". In matters of importance, he deferred to the writings of the apostles --
That is a loaded statement considering the “line” continues.
What I don't get is since the Holy Spirit is suppose to “pick” the next in line, do those in the conclave who pick the “looser” not have the Holy Spirit in them? I guess those who picked the looser needs to go to the confessional more often.
The sworn secrecy bit of the conclave is even far more troublesome. What would happen if the majority does not vote “through the Holy Spirit” and strong arms (An RCC of version of Bush vs. Gore with no outside “authority” as referee) the minority? At least the current Pope put things in some perspective:
“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the pope. ... I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”
So now the Holy Spirit is an educator instead of directly picking the process? Hmmm. They cut Jesus out of the process, He is now just an observer “directing”/making “suggestions” on the conclave. What happens when the majority does not want to be educated?
Questions, questions but that is the pitfalls of traditions.
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.