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."
exalt themselves to the status of God.
When mere man says that he is infallible, in any way, he is saying that he is like unto God -- answerable to no one.
"What angel was prophesied in the Bible?"
That saying of John has no relevance to the status of Mary. Why are you using it?
Good point, I stand corrected.
The Pope of the Catholic Church is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and doctrine, but is most certainly answerable to God.
Just like protestants who claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of the Scriptures...
Oh sure, y'all don't claim infallibility in principle, but you sure claim it in practice.
We've certainly heard the defensive cries of "false" from the RCC, but we've seen very little "demonstration" of Scriptural counter arguments.
So you would apply that to the fully redeemed, blessed, sanctified, and resurrected saints in heaven?
"Fellow servants" yes, but though a general and a newly-minted 2nd louie are "fellow officers", it doesn't mean one doesn't outrank the other. And, of course, God wasn't "done with" John at that point.
Well it's a new thought for me. In the Old Covenant we are "A little lower than the angels" (maybe) but I guess my thinking was that we have a union with Christ more profound in its nature and astonishing in its consequences than angels do.
Humma humma (Noise of Dawg thinking ....)
Gotta go. Play nice, kiddies.
AMEN!
We are asked to believe the Holy Spirit can guide Pastor Billy in his reading of scripture—or any of the worshipers in Billy’s worship center—but the Holy Spirit CANNOT guide the leader of Christ’s own Church on earth—and Vicar of Christ—in teaching Christian doctrine.
In other words, we are expected to believe the Holy Spirit is an anti-Catholic bigot.
What was that old joke about man re-creating god in his own image?
You’ve seen plenty of Scriptural proof, but you haven’t eyes to see.
We need some info, here. We papists (and it used to be true of Piskies back when the Episcopal Church believed something specific) think that in Christ all the saints are "higher" than the angels. Mary, being in Christ would be "brighter than the Seraphim// More glorious than the Cherubim" as the hymn ( a paraphrase of St, Francis ) has it, but because the saints are "in Christ" they all are higher as He is higher.Your thoughts please?
Again, though, did you say above that I misquoted you about your belief that the Pope is the antichrist?
Or was it just a prospective warning against doing so?
Hooowee, now there's a sight I bet. Must be a powerful technique involved to be worguzzling outta all those itty bitty glasses. :P
WE end up using a sledgehammer where tweezers and scalpel are called for.
That is probably more true than we would like to believe.
We each believe we have something precious. We each believe the other to be wrong in some important (if not ultimately important) ways.
We each are holding onto the very same precious thing- What is absurd is that we would fight on how to use it when it came with an Instruction Book. To borrow from an internet vulgarity, RT*M!, eh?
I have a feeling that when the King is on His Throne in Jerusalem, He will have a thing or two to say to each and every one of the confessions, and it ain't all going to be nice. "What's so hard? I wrote you a book you know..."
"After all, you condemn using science to investigate God" [excerpt]
Anyone who tries to explain God with science will only make a mockery of both.
To me, this is one of the BIG indicators. Protestants don't seem to ever acknowledge the existence of any kind of sin beside lie, cheat, steal, and chase women. Apparently all forms of intellectual, philosophical, and civic malfeasance is perfectly acceptable.
"That saying of John has no relevance to the status of Mary. Why are you using it?"
Big deal, you were engaging in philosophical argumentation to “explain” the nature of God. My original assertions still stands, despite your caviling.
Recall YOUR POST #652 HERE.
"PETRONSKI: I was very pleased to see you admit that you think the pope is the antichrist."
I "admitted" no such thing. As I've said four times now, I find nothing in the WCF to disagree with.
And unlike Rome, I and the WCF have supported our beliefs with Scripture.
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.