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."
I gotta admit I haven’t thoroughly read the thread in meticulous detail (although I’ve skimmed over it, and also checked my ping list to be sure that this didn’t happen), but I haven’t seen any further response by you (Quix) or anyone (except for a few people who I’ve already replied to, who, by the way, never really addressed the central question) to my post #145 on this thread.
I’m sincerely interested in what you (everyone, and not just those pinged, hence the “All” in the ping) think of it. Even if you will post something that I already addressed with any one else about it, don’t worry about said “repetition” (I won’t scold you for it I promise! LOL)
I’m interested in everyone’s opinion about it, because I think it relates to the OP better than anything else that has transpired in the last 1000+ posts.
I’m pinging you Quix because you asked me to remind you about it. Again though, I’d like anyone’s opinion about it.
It seems this thread has (once again, that is, like many other Protestant vs Catholic thread) devolved, and yes, I use the word “devolved” for what should be obvious reasons to anyone who bothers to even skim it, into the typical issues of “Mary, the Saints in general, the Eucharist, etc”, even though that wasn’t the original post’s intent (which was sola scriptura, as far as I can tell).
General rant not directed at you particularly Quix, but at everyone: I mean, do we want to discuss issues to make progress, or do we want to “discuss” issues to “beat the other guy up”? Because if we don’t want to make progress in at least understanding the other side, I see little point to any of these types (Catholic vs Protestant) of threads.
Please, what do you all think of my post #145? This is the last time I’ll ask if my repeated question to that end is getting annoying to anyone and/or is simply ignored (and, if so, I’ll leave you all to “My belief is better than yours”, “discussion”, like Manfred the Wonder Dawg’s now huge thread “Conclusion from Peru and Mexico”).
“Truncate.” That’s the word. :-)
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explicitly define the terms 'co-redemptrix' and 'co-mediatrix', and how Mary came to win those titles, because to a Protestant mind, the 'co' prefix suggests partnership, and suggests a role in redemption and intercession that we would reserve particularly and singularly to Christ. It is blasphemous to suggest otherwise.
Whatever basis you may have would be favored by Scriptural references to back them up (there's that sola-scriptura thing again, pesky Protestants...)
Call it what you want, Petronski. I call it concern for you.
You never had to raise children and teach thme about rigt and wrong and teach them to unerstand the ramifications of their choices? They are not born with it.
Even if I grant that all infants are innocent, that then leaves no special role for Mary in that case.
The case of the infant or insane or retared person who does not sin because he lacks the capacity to do so makes the Bible's "All have sinned" a less-than-absolute statement. It allows exceptions.
Mary can be an exception. Mary can be without sin and not violate this Biblical passage because it is meant to apply to most every, but not all occassions and people.
Please don’t fear for me.
We all have enough to be concerned about with regards to our own pilgim progress. That should keep all of us well occupied.
I don’t want you take on any burden you many perceive that you have to carry for me.
I am in the Lord’s hands. He is my Shepherd. There is nothing I shall want.
ROE, Catholic
Do you read your own posts?
Didn't you just agree that a one-minute old baby could not have sinned?
That's an exception to your supposedly "iron clad" Biblical argument.
If exceptions are allowed, then Mary can be an exception.
Really? Let's see:
ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (130-202)
"We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith." (Adv. H. 3:1)
"Read more diligently that gospel which is given to us by the apostles; and read more diligently the prophets, and you will find every action and the whole doctrine of our Lord preached in them." (Adv. H. 4:66)
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
"They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." (Stromata 7:16:3)
ORIGEN
"In which (the two Testaments) every word that appertains to God may be required and discussed; and all knowledge may be understood out of them. But if anything remain which the Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for authorizing any knowledge or doctrine; but that which remains we must commit to the fire, that is, we will reserve it for God. For in this present world God would not have us to know all things." (Orig. in Lev., hom. 5, 9:6)
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
"Whence comes this tradition? Does it descend from the Lord’s authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For those things are to be done which are there written. ... If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed." (Ep. 74 ad Pompeium)
ST. ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA
"The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth." (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.)
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN
"How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?"(Ambr. Offic., 1:23)
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF ANTIOCH AND BYZANTIUM (347-407)
"[The Scripture], ....like a safe door, denies an entrance to heretics, guarding us in safety in all things we desire, and not permitting us to be deceived. ...Whoever uses not the Scriptures, but comes in otherwise, that is, cuts out for himself a different and unlawful way, the same is a thief." (Homily 59, in Joh. 2:8)
"Formerly it might have been ascertained by various means which was the true church, but at present there is no other method left for those who are willing to discover the true church of Christ but by the Scriptures alone. And why? Because heresy has all outward observances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true church, how will he be able to do it amid so great resemblance, but by the Scriptures alone? Wherefore our Lord, foreseeing that such a great confusion of things would take place in the latter days, ordered the Christians to have recourse to nothing but the Scriptures." (Hom. 9 in in 2 Tim. 1:9)
I hate to break it to you, but these guys lived before Luther.
Really? Let's see:
ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (130-202)
"We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith." (Adv. H. 3:1)
"Read more diligently that gospel which is given to us by the apostles; and read more diligently the prophets, and you will find every action and the whole doctrine of our Lord preached in them." (Adv. H. 4:66)
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
"They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." (Stromata 7:16:3)
ORIGEN
"In which (the two Testaments) every word that appertains to God may be required and discussed; and all knowledge may be understood out of them. But if anything remain which the Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for authorizing any knowledge or doctrine; but that which remains we must commit to the fire, that is, we will reserve it for God. For in this present world God would not have us to know all things." (Orig. in Lev., hom. 5, 9:6)
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
"Whence comes this tradition? Does it descend from the Lord’s authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For those things are to be done which are there written. ... If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed." (Ep. 74 ad Pompeium)
ST. ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA
"The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth." (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.)
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN
"How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?"(Ambr. Offic., 1:23)
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF ANTIOCH AND BYZANTIUM (347-407)
"[The Scripture], ....like a safe door, denies an entrance to heretics, guarding us in safety in all things we desire, and not permitting us to be deceived. ...Whoever uses not the Scriptures, but comes in otherwise, that is, cuts out for himself a different and unlawful way, the same is a thief." (Homily 59, in Joh. 2:8)
"Formerly it might have been ascertained by various means which was the true church, but at present there is no other method left for those who are willing to discover the true church of Christ but by the Scriptures alone. And why? Because heresy has all outward observances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true church, how will he be able to do it amid so great resemblance, but by the Scriptures alone? Wherefore our Lord, foreseeing that such a great confusion of things would take place in the latter days, ordered the Christians to have recourse to nothing but the Scriptures." (Hom. 9 in in 2 Tim. 1:9)
I hate to break it to you, but these guys lived before Luther.
Really? Let's see:
ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (130-202)
"We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith." (Adv. H. 3:1)
"Read more diligently that gospel which is given to us by the apostles; and read more diligently the prophets, and you will find every action and the whole doctrine of our Lord preached in them." (Adv. H. 4:66)
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
"They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." (Stromata 7:16:3)
ORIGEN
"In which (the two Testaments) every word that appertains to God may be required and discussed; and all knowledge may be understood out of them. But if anything remain which the Holy Scripture does not determine, no other third Scripture ought to be received for authorizing any knowledge or doctrine; but that which remains we must commit to the fire, that is, we will reserve it for God. For in this present world God would not have us to know all things." (Orig. in Lev., hom. 5, 9:6)
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
"Whence comes this tradition? Does it descend from the Lord’s authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For those things are to be done which are there written. ... If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed." (Ep. 74 ad Pompeium)
ST. ATHANASIUS OF ALEXANDRIA
"The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth." (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.)
ST. AMBROSE OF MILAN
"How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?"(Ambr. Offic., 1:23)
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM OF ANTIOCH AND BYZANTIUM (347-407)
"[The Scripture], ....like a safe door, denies an entrance to heretics, guarding us in safety in all things we desire, and not permitting us to be deceived. ...Whoever uses not the Scriptures, but comes in otherwise, that is, cuts out for himself a different and unlawful way, the same is a thief." (Homily 59, in Joh. 2:8)
"Formerly it might have been ascertained by various means which was the true church, but at present there is no other method left for those who are willing to discover the true church of Christ but by the Scriptures alone. And why? Because heresy has all outward observances in common with her. If a man, therefore, be desirous of knowing the true church, how will he be able to do it amid so great resemblance, but by the Scriptures alone? Wherefore our Lord, foreseeing that such a great confusion of things would take place in the latter days, ordered the Christians to have recourse to nothing but the Scriptures." (Hom. 9 in in 2 Tim. 1:9)
I hate to break it to you, but these guys lived before Luther.
Why do you believe He would make people suffer for so many centuries?
The earliest Christians had the Apostles. After that it was written down..to say they would suffer because they couldn't read limits God.. they didn't need 'traditions' for instruction....they just needed pastors and teachers, so hardly suffering. The real suffering comes in when false biblical teaching such as the papacy and sinlessness of Mary is presented as FACT and authoritative when it isn't.
“Children, especially newborns, have a great capacity for selfishness”.
Newborns are entirely helpless and must depend on others to provide for their every need. How can that be considered selfishness?.
And as for children, in general; they are the ones Our Lord wanted to come unto Him. They are the ones Our Lord used as examples of what we are to become in our relationship with Him
How easy it is to forget.
“We are God’s children now. What we will become is not yet known”.
You and God are the only ones who really know if you are saved or not. The Bible tells you how to know as well. Be sure your church is telling you the truth. Investigate it for yourself.
I don't know. I have never claimed to know. The Bible says that the curse has given us a sinful nature- not a propensity for sin, but sinful by default.
I don't know where that line is drawn, but then, neither do you. I am satisfied to rely upon the Scripture, and it says in no uncertain terms that ALL have sinned. It is pretty hard to parse that in any way.
See #1216
Prove from the New Testament that the power to intercede for sinners was granted to Mary rather than Christ alone. Prove also anywhere within the OLD or NEW testaments where God ever said the Mother of the Messiah would be without sin.
IF you can't do that, do not say I need Christ, because I am not following extra-biblical teaching - you are. Pretty bold of you to follow a blasphemous doctrine about Mary and then claim "I" am the one who needs Christ. LOL.
Yes it is!
It has the “cate” in it, and that’s what I pictured. Out came “concatenate.”
Blame it on buggy wetware.
Why did He wait so long in the first place? Why didn't He just have Jesus born of Adam and nip the whole nine yards in the bud? What of the eons prior to Christ?
Because I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, have read the Bible several times, and understand the fundamental doctrines of biblical Christianity. My issue with Catholicism is doctrine. False doctrine whether among protestants or catholics can seduce people to miss God and end up in hell. The unfortunate situation with Catholicism is the church itself is built upon false doctrine. This is th premises from which I speak.
We all need Christ.
John 5:39 - You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
Luke 24:27 - Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
I believe that command to look to Moses and the prophets would have been the Old Testament - and His command still stands - search the Scriptures. If you think today that doesn't also include the new take it up with HIM. And be sure and tell HIM ALSO that HIS COMMANDS are meaningless and 'tradition' is more important.......
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.