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."
In Christ, all the saints are higher than the angels. (I thought that was not argued about. Oh my.)
That’s what I always thought and I was unaware that Protestants felt differently.
Thanks. I hate the sight of blood, especially my own. I’ll stay away from that puppy.
Are you starting to notice a pattern with your criticisms of Catholic faith and practice yet?
Surely you know that that some Protestants believe there are people predestined for hell while others believe in free will; some believe you must be baptised to be saved while others believe baptism is only symbolic; some believe you must only believe while others believe you must also live your faith; some say you can sin boldly, etc.
I don't deny that result, but that was not the intent.
Not the intent? So, Martin Luther accidentally started his own church. Jean Cauvin accidentally started his?
Not to mention saving the thief on the cross without baptism though it is required for the rest of us.
Your thoughts please?
There who is? All that Catholics see are inanimate objects. Since we don't worship inanimate objects like statues, we aren't concerned about which statue is bigger, or where it is placed. We leave that for you non-Catholics to worry about.
If God is bound to live by the commands he gave to man, but does not.
Does that not make him a sinner?
He commanded man ‘thou shalt not kill’.
Yet the bible has many accounts of God killing people.
And in The Revelation, he claims he will continue.
I knwo the Wesley boys didn't at first intend to break with the C of E, but when they got enough resistane they, as I was told, reluctantly began ordaining ministers.
So it wouldn't surprise me if that weren't often how it started. "I REALLY disagree with you about this or that but I'd like for us to work it out," And only later "Okay, that's it, I'm outta here."
The thief also NEVER read the New Testament (of course neither did 99%+ of Christians prior to the late 15th Century).
Where did I quote you?
I was only referring to Matthew 22:30
All I asked for was a Scriptural reference.
After all, you condemn using science to investigate God, and philosophy IS a science. Your answer is nothing if not a philosophical postulate.
False, as has been demonstrated to you over and over again. Perhaps that reality conflicts with sola Cauvin or sola Machen but I do not care. Traditions of Errant Men are of no concern to me.
How did you get that picture. I thought my homies had taken every record of Mad Dawg morphing into Wuss Dawg out of circulation.
My boys will be over at your place. Would prefer having your knees broken with an aluminum bat or the traditional Louisville Slugger?
"In Christ, all the saints are higher than the angels. (I thought that was not argued about. Oh my.)"
Then saith he unto me, See [thou do it] not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.John 22:9
;OP
"Creation vs. evolution, threads that make ANY Catholic vs. Protestant thread look civil."
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.