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 general, it confers grace, which is God's unmerited gift. Grace transforms us into holier people.
(Grace exists only because of the Ultimate Sacrifice of Christ, which is the font (source) from which all graces flow into the world.)
So you're mad that your basic operating promise is never clearly spelled out in Scripture?
And you're mad that we aren't held to the same rules of sola scriptura because we don't adhere to that notion?
Is that about it?
Ummm, sola scriptura is more spelled out than the sinlessness of Mary is.
And if you don’t ‘adhere to that notion’ (sola scriptura) why get so mad if somebody else ‘adds’ to Scripture then as Petronski keeps claiming? I would think that would be ‘allowed’ in your viewpoint.
Or is it only RCC traditions and additions that are ‘allowed’?
But those terms (presbyter, episkopos, etc) are leaders in the form of the "elders" or "wise ones", not priest. Priest implies intercession, which is incorrect in the Christian structure. there is only one Intercessor. One Priest.
If you care to suppose 'priest', why would the writer use 'presbyteros' or 'episkopos' when hiereus is the proper term, used in it's variants throughout the New Testament. In fact, to my meager knowledge, it is the ONLY word used in the New Testament where intercession is known to be involved (ie: Christ as Archiereus).
You’re contradicting yourself now.
I appreciate your honest answer.
Have you thought about or accept any parallels (if that is the best term to use) between the passover and the last supper?
“my wife says I am a lot nicer, too”
:D
Thanks for your gracious reply. The fallacy is that in the logical order of Paul's transition from scripture to the conclusion (completeness, thoroughly equippedness), he does not make scripture one of the pieces of the puzzle, rather the container of the pieces. I have stated this several times.
Really?? Please explain how.
Wrong. Christ is the High Priest (as in Israel). You "do" recall that there were ancillary priests serving in the Temple?? All offering sacrifices. (And note that Christ is called "Arch" hierus by your own reference).
There is no barrier in Scripture to the presence of others with priestly offices.
You may find more evidence for your theory, but that doesn't mean it's right.
And if you don’t ‘adhere to that notion’ (sola scriptura) why get so mad if somebody else ‘adds’ to Scripture then as Petronski keeps claiming? I would think that would be ‘allowed’ in your viewpoint.
I only point out when you appeal to external authorities, since that violates your principle.
Certainly. What exactly do you have in minds?
Yes, what is wrong with *you*? It's like you think by yelling you can make someone who doesn't speak english understand you.
We Catholics go by a different set of rules than you Protestants do. You can't blame us for pointing out the internal inconsistancies of your rules, particularly when your co-religionists use those self imposed rules craft accusations against US.
Look at the title of this thread, 'sola scriptura' and your refusal to accept this belief because there is no specific verse (even though the principle is indeed strongly alluded to in I Cor. 4:6; Col. 2:8; II Tim. 3:16-17).
First, those verses DO NOT strongly allude to sola scriptura; they are just the best ones Protestants can find in defense of their doctrine, and even those are not conclusive.
Second, it is completely unreasonable to dogmatically insist the Bible is the only authority for faith and practice when the Bible itself makes no such dogmatic pronouncement.
Furthermore, to deny the authority it DOES grant is not reformation, but rebellion. That the rebellion has been self sustaining and much celebrated does not change the fact that it is and always was a rebellion.
You go on a complete witch hunt bashing protestants and cry foul when someone else points out to you that some of your doctrines are not specifically found either. That's what's wrong with me!
This is nonsense. We have no NEED to base our doctrines soley on Scripture, because our authority structure does not require it. That we CAN point to hints is quite satisfactory to us.
It is not satisfactory to Protestants because they are motivated by a need to accuse us of violating or contradicting Scripture in order to "share the rebellion." But we absolutely deny any such violation, and when the items are examined systematically, the only thing we are guilty of is not agreeing with Protestants.
This notion we "cry foul" over scant biblical evidence is nothing but projection. What we cry foul over is all the nastiness Protestants throw at us for not accepting THEIR standards when we discuss differences in faith and practice.
(Rom. 3:28, ALL have sinned, you can't even find anything 'alluding' to the sinlessness of Mary ANYWHERE in the New Testament or Old)
Yes, we can. You just don't accept it.
Are you so blind you can't even see the remotest hypocrisy in this at all?
No, but I am sufficiently educated to recognize the reason a child screeches about the impropriety of an equation "with letters in it" is because that child doesn't know anything about Algebra.
I understand that is your premise. What I don't understand is how you conclude the text supports that premise.
Could you demonstrate, please?
The only conclusive statement I can draw from the text is that the man of God CAN NOT be "complete" without knowing the Scriptures. That is a very different proposition than claiming the Scriptures alone "complete" him.
"Have you thought about or accept any parallels (if that is the best term to use) between the passover and the last supper?"
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
1st Corinthians 5:7
Hebrews spends a lot of time denying your statement, but here is the crux of it:
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.
Heb 10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Heb 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
Heb 10:21 And having a high priest over the house of God;
Heb 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
(e-Sword:KJV)
Since we are all perfected by Christs singular sacrifice, since there are no further sacrifices required, and since we may boldly enter directly into the Holy of Holies, confident in the Blood of Christ, there is no need for any other intercessor. What function, then, the hiereus (priest) over the presbyter (elder)?
(And note that Christ is called "Arch" hierus by your own reference).
I used the 'Archiereus' reference specifically to illustrate unquestionable intercessory Priesthood, as I had stated. It has been a while since my study of this concept, but AFAIR, there is not a single use of 'hiereus' in relation to Christian worship whatsoever, with the singular exception of Christ as Archiereus.
There is no barrier in Scripture to the presence of others with priestly offices.
Nor is there any need.
That’s right. I love doing good works and helping people, but it’s not going to get me into heaven. Only my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour will.
That’s right. I love doing good works and helping people, but it’s not going to get me into heaven. Only my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour will.
Paul declares four areas that properly applied in the persons life are adequate "so that..." the person can be complete, perfect, equipped thoroughly for every good work. He says that the scriptures provides those four things. There is nothing, I suppose, that says those things could not come from another source, but scripture of which Paul writes is a sufficient God-breathed package for the making of sanctified disciples of Christ.
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.