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."
BTW: You are calling ME a liar,,,,,where's the moderator now????? Like I said if you have a problem contact St. Mary's in Evansville and ask THEM why they've put Mary over Christ. Unless YOU have been in that church don't accuse me of lying about it.
I NEVER claimed the statute is not as you say. I have known nothing of it until this moment.
Fine, then don’t call me a liar. You’ve been doing that repeatedly and getting away with it!
How do we know any Bible we have today is an accurate representation of what was written in the first and second centuries? We have no “original documents” to verify such a claim, independently, apart from the Church. I do believe that the oldest existing document we have from the first century is a fragment of the book of Matthew. (or some Gospel, I can’t remember which one with 100% accuracy).
We can know that by several means . . . .
1. Holy Spirit within us is our witness.
2. There is adequate scholarship to demonstrate that what we have is QUITE CLOSE ENOUGH to the original artifacts that we can be confident that what the Scriptures we have tell us about forming an eternal relationship with God are reliable.
3. It IS logical, as well, that God would protect HIS WRITTEN WORD sufficiently to show us how to relate to Him; gain eternal life and relate to one another.
4. It is plausible, given His fierce exhortations against idolatry that He would have caused the original artifacts to disappear lest they become idols as well.
5. It is logical that He would have insured that there were a diversity of secondary artifacts, fragments of some diversity of location and origin so that no one little clubby clique could claim any RELIGIOUS NOR SPIRITUAL monopoly.
6. The Scriptures we have are congruent with the Old Testament description of God The Father.
7. The Scriptures we have are congruent with reality about man; the heart of man; man's tendencies in relationships; man's tendencies toward arrogance and idolatry . . .
8.The Scriptures we have are congruent with history and prophetically have been validated repeatedly in terms of fulfilled prophecy.
Doesn’t this fact shock people? Doesn’t the fact that we have, at best, “copies of copies” force people to realize that we need an authoritative body to verify, through continual witness to the fact, that the “bible” we have today is indeed a fair (if not 100% accurate) representation of what was written in the first century? How do we know that what we have today wasn’t corrupted between the first, and early part of the second century, and when it was finally compiled in the 4th century?
Actually, I'm much more shocked that any group of people with IQs above that of a slug could even FANTASIZE OR PRETEND that the RC edifice and magicsterical has had any serious semblance of a "continual witness" even from 400 AD on. And the idea that they did from Christ chatting with pebble Peter on is beyond hysterically ludicrous.
It is also hysterically ludicrous that any rational RC folks would really buy into the utter unmitigated farce that the RC magicsterical has been a seamless, homogeneous, UNIFIED, STRICTLY KOSHER AND RIGHTEOUS WITNESS even from AD 400 to this . . . in the face of an abundance of historical record to the contrary.
To me, this is the ultimate destruction of sola scriptura. If we claim the Church is incapable of teaching authoritatively, then we are left with nagging doubt, “How do we know the english Bible I have in my hand accurately represents what was originally taught back in the 1st and 2nd centuries?” We certainly can’t claim it “verifies itself”, as a general distortion of all Scripture could still “verify itself”; it would be “verifying” error though.
Holy Spirit has been more than adequate in my life to fulfill that role. Sorry so many RC's are so disinclined/unable/unwilling to ear HIM on such scores. Christ died that we might have 1:1 direct fellowship with The Father.
It seems to me that the RC magicsterical and edifice have been concocting and fabricating out of thin air all manner of rationalizations to do the opposite--tu construct untold numbers of layers between the individual and God; to construct untold layers of hierarchy and fantasized jr god personages to get between the individual and God.
And on top of such blasphemous heresies as that--they expect us to think that THEIR interpretation of Scripture is the more SOUND one!????
That's about like putting the most faith as young parents in a Jeffry Dahlmer book on the care and feeding of sons to prevent child abuse and canibalism.
Off to supper. Maybe more when I return.
Why would God allow his Word to be corrupted to the point that people had to rely on the RCC to interpret it for them?
If God can give the RCC divine direction to interpret his Word correctly, then he certainly can give those copying the NT source documents divine direction to avoid corruption.
If God allowed the NT source documents to be corrupted, how do you know he isn’t allowing the RCC to misinterpret it?
If the NT source was corrupted and the RCC was misinterpreting it unknowingly, how would you know the truth?
If you cannot trust the foundation a tower is built on, you cannot trust the tower.
If God has given the RCC the divine direction necessary to interpret corrupted NT sources, then the RCC has enough divine direction that they don’t need the NT sources.
I did no such thing.
You just did - again
"You bear false witness". I believe that's calling me a liar.
Then why don't you inform me, genius. Then I can have a good laugh at more Protestant lunacy.
This isn’t going anywhere:
May I recommend a voluntary timeout before the Religion Moderator recommends a mandatory timeout?
Thanks.
If the infant dies before that selfishness is manifested, then all have not sinned.
I think that we can understand that Paul's teaching would be directed to those who could understand it.
I think your onto something.
Good advice, thanks. Will have to put him on ignore.
In the writings of the Church Fathers (which are historical documents, and well validated).
"Eusebius--The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303])."
From here:
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_peter's_presence_in_rome.htm
Which also has a number of quotes from other early writers about Peter being in Rome.
I also refer you to this link:
http://www.saintpetersbasilica.org/Necropolis/JW/TheBonesofStPeter-9.htm
which covers VERY recent archaeological studies providing yet more evidence of Peter's presence in Rome (possibly including his actual bones).
Bearing false witness is making a false statement. Lying is making a false statement intentionally.
Since I am not permitted to read minds or draw conclusions about state of mind, I do not do so.
Nonetheless, your statement about me is false.
You have been standing firm on the Rock of our salvation - my thanks to our Lord for you. The advice to ignore rabid RCC watchdogs is very good. I’ve been harassed by such who claim victim status and project that onto me or others (such as you) as the protagonist; kind of like the kid that smacks his big brother and screams as if he was the victim.
That one watchdog in particular is on top of my list to ignore. Lord knows it’s oft difficult to do, but He does not need our defense and we must not allow our flesh to strike back.
In His grip of grace because mine is palsied.
Amen, so very well said. Thanks for the excellent advice and encouragement.
Just go back to the post that you responded to.
Catholics are spiritually dead, so it obviously is difficult for all of you, but read it again. The kingdom that the keys unlocked is here now for those for whom the keys are intended.
First you have to accept the salvation that comes from the blood shed at the cross, and stop watching the pagan ‘priest’ try to hang our Lord back on the cross every day to repeat the payment. Then the spiritual gifts will open the kingdom to you. You’ll never see it as long as you adhere to pagan traditions; they block the Holy Spirit from working.
Depends on one’s observational experiences and how one articulates how one is generalizing from the sample.
Generalizations from samples are made all the time and quite soundly and fittingly.
Otherwise, Gallup, Harris et al would be out of business.
I think maybe in a later post someone said something about blacks stealing bicycles.
Of course I would not assert that because a black stole one bike from my extended family that all blacks steal bicycles.
However, if out of 10 black families in a neighborhood, 7 of them had kids who stole bikes, I might logically guesstimate that bike stealing was attractive to a significant percentage of black kids.
Or, to use another example, how many folks hereon would feel AS comfortable sitting next to an overtly Muslim young man on a plane when he had several other tough looking Muslim young men . . . all of whom seemed to be communicating with coded signals; who seemed to be nervous; who seemed to be dazed, if not crazed in theirs eyes
vs
a similar number of similar aged Mennonite young men???
Inferences are inherently hazardous. They are not 100% always 100% worthless.
Yep, we don’t complain about their crackers, grape juice and rattle snakes.
= = =
Depends on what you mean by complain.
On the face of it, your sentence above is wholesale false hereon because such are routinely decried rather derisively and usually as a vehicle for a personal assault—usually on me. I’d guesstimate such has occurred maybe 15-25 times in the last 5 years or maybe in the last 3 years.
So what was that again about RC’s NOT complaining about rattle snakes???
GTTM!
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.