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."
Why does Paul speak of prayers for others and thank others for their prayers for him? If your understanding is correct, no one should pray for another, lest they be an intercessor.
God has given Christian believers authority on earth, to heal the sick and brokenhearted, to be his hands and feet and voice. We could do greater things than Christ accomplished if we would just DO it and believe it.
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.
Sure they do.
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.
That is a false definition. Protestants rely upon tradition, even RCC tradition, to a great degree. A better definition is that the Scripture is the final authority- Those traditions cannot be held to the same state of authority as the Scriptures, for the self evident reason that one could, by that assumed authority, change what the Scriptures provide.
This, for much the same sensible reason that the common law is not codified into our Constitution, and that extraordinary means must be met to physically amend the Constitution. The Canon should be treated in the same way for the same reason.
It is also somewhat misleading to accuse the Protestant of accepting external sources by way of the Gospels (and etc), accepting those things that were oratory at the foundation of the Church, as we all know that those Gospels simply codify the spoken traditions which the Scripture does in fact approve. You also accept them as authoritative.
We begin our disagreement in your extension of those traditions beyond the formal Canon, and what disagreement we have in regard to the Canon itself, namely the Apocryphal books.
Nevertheless, What we as Protestants recognize as Scripture, namely the Protestant Canon, is well defined and is the point at which we begin any sola scriptura arguments, as that Canon defines what we call Holy Scripture, regardless of the matter of it's adoption. Any argument must reasonably fall within those parameters.
Parallels between the 1st passover and the timing of the last supper and Christ’s crusifixtion. Both are accepted to have taken place in the spring of the northern hemisphere. Both involved a sacrifical young, blemish-free, male lamb. The lamb was obtained 4 days before it’s killing. Both were killed 3PM with no broken bones and by the leader of the household.
The bitter herbs symbolizing a slaves life in Egypt, and sin and suffering for us and Christ, respectively. The lamb’s blood, the use of which in faith in an unashamed way, permitted the user to escape judgement upon the family, within a shelter of safety. Those who hid under the blood were ushered into a land of promise and safety. The lambs meat, a source of physical energy for the upcoming journey...none of which was to be brought out of the house for the journey so as to only rely upon the Lord’s provision and not one’s self. The lack of leaven in the bread a symbol of spiritual purity, lack of arrogance, haste and of daily sustenance for the spirit.
We're solving a puzzle. We have a box with pieces. When the pieces are put together, we will have a beautiful finished product. The manufacturer guarantees that the pieces are all there.
Along comes a dear friend who loves to do puzzles together with us. He has a box with pieces in it. The picture on the box certainly looks similar. But his box does not have the same manufacturer's guarantee. And his puzzle has 500 pieces.
He insists on mixing his pieces with those from our box, arguing that we will still get the same picture. But now instead of a 500-piece puzzle, we have 1000 pieces.
Along the way, our friend, who is a real puzzle buff, finds the same picture in another box, and we repeat the process, but now we are trying to assemble 1500 pieces, when the original 500 would have gotten the beautiful picture we want.
Of course, the Catholic Christian says that the second and third boxes do have the manufacturer's guarantee. But even if it were so, a simple puzzle has grown unnecessarily complex.
Paul said that the scriptures were able to make one wise unto salvation. From that point on, my premise becomes that scripture is sufficient to salvation when applied.
Well articulated.
Loosely speaking our prayers go up as offerings of confession, faith, thanksgiving, and praise, those being the primary interactions expected by God.
I believe an intercessory prayer to be a prayer of faith, having no intercessory power in it's own right, as we submit everything to the will of the Father, by the authority of the Son who is the intercessor (High Priest). Had we intercessory power of our own, those prerequisites would not apply.
The power of intercessory prayer, be it a matter of soul-saving, healing, imparting of knowledge or discernment and etc, comes from the faith and confidence with which it is offered, ergo it is the earnestness and faith which moves the Father to do intercessory works within His will.
In that sense, 'intercessory' is merely a label to provide for definition, not the act of intercession itself.
Now take what you just said and apply it to Mary and the saints in Heaven. Our beliefs about their having "no intercessory power" of their own absent the will of the Father is exactly identical.
So you do understand the role of Mary or a saint.
I maintain for all practical purposes this is a distinction without difference. The very multiplicity of Protestant denominations argues the Scripture is NEVER the "final" authority even among Protestants.
Those traditions cannot be held to the same state of authority as the Scriptures, for the self evident reason that one could, by that assumed authority, change what the Scriptures provide.
Again, I disagree. There can be no "new" traditions by definition, and the traditions that exist do not contradict Scripture insofar as Catholics understand both witnesses.
It is also somewhat misleading to accuse the Protestant of accepting external sources by way of the Gospels (and etc), accepting those things that were oratory at the foundation of the Church, as we all know that those Gospels simply codify the spoken traditions which the Scripture does in fact approve. You also accept them as authoritative.
I'm sorry. I do not understand this paragraph. Could you rephrase, please?
We begin our disagreement in your extension of those traditions beyond the formal Canon, and what disagreement we have in regard to the Canon itself, namely the Apocryphal books.
Nevertheless, What we as Protestants recognize as Scripture, namely the Protestant Canon, is well defined and is the point at which we begin any sola scriptura arguments, as that Canon defines what we call Holy Scripture, regardless of the matter of it's adoption. Any argument must reasonably fall within those parameters.
I see no reason to accede to your terms, if I'm understanding you correctly.
Christ quoted from the Septuagint, and the Septuagint contains the Deutero-Canonicals.
Again, I see no reason to exclude Scriptures the Post-Temple Jews and Protestant reformers both excluded for the same reason: to take credibility away from Church.
Oh, we are largely in agreement on the structure and mechanics of the thing. Where we differ is in the praying to others rather than going right to the Wellspring. That is a very serious difference. I may as well be praying to you.
We also do not recognize praying to those who are dead, and we recognize every Christian as a saint, having no need for the pantheon of beatified saints as offered by the RCC. I find it to be confusing, as Christ said we are all brothers, with none being lesser or greater, to include your beatified saints and Mary as well.
So you do understand the role of Mary or a saint.
I understand what you present it to be, I just disagree.
You may, though, ask me or another to pray for you. You don't always go straight to the Wellspring, it is quite typical for Christians to ask for and receive the prayers of others.
We also do not recognize praying to those who are dead
Yes. And we don't believe the saints are dead. Death holds no grip since Christ defeated it.
and we recognize every Christian as a saint, having no need for the pantheon of beatified saints as offered by the RCC. I find it to be confusing, as Christ said we are all brothers, with none being lesser or greater, to include your beatified saints and Mary as well.
Saints are recognized by the Church to serve as examples for us to emulate. But by no means are the officially aproved "canonized" saints thought to be the only saints that exist.
I understand what you present it to be, I just disagree.
Which is a lot better than far too many who criticise.
Okay, you’re really trying to get over on this puzzle analogy, and I understand why, but you are literally boxed in logically. You need to accept that.
The purpose of the puzzle analogy was to accomplish one thing and one thing only, that is to refute your statement from post 1812.
“If scripture provides the things that produce completeness in the believer, as the passage clearly says, then it is sufficient, even if the word “sufficient” doesn’t appear.”
The above quote is a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. The puzzle analogy demonstrates this by showing “that which produces completeness is NOT ‘sufficient’ in and of itself.”
And yes, Paul did say the Scriptures were able to make you wise unto salvation. You go on to extend that by saying the Scriptures are sufficient to salvation when applied, but that’s the hitch. Just because you know it (wise), doesn’t mean you can do it (apply).
That takes grace.
I’m not saying you can’t get the grace you need right where you are. What I’m telling you is that for twenty years I lived in spiritual torture because I didn’t get the grace I needed to realize the promise of freedom from the law of sin and death as Paul explains in Romans 7, but I received that grace through the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus in the reception of His Most Holy Eucharist.
Now I can finally say along with our beloved St. Paul “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”
I couldn't agree more that more is needed than holding on to scripture. I couldn't agree more that I cannot (will not) apply it to myself apart from the grace of God. I'm fallen, and holding my Bible to my head all day won't change anything inside of either of them.
I too love the Eucharist (we don't like to use the word, but it's sure biblical), although I don't necessarily attach exactly the same significance to it that you do. I take "the Lord's Supper" every Sunday, or maybe more, and in it I am transported to the foot of the Cross (acc to MadDawg this may be ok doctrine).
But I don't know the significance of Eucharist or baptism or the Cross for that matter apart from Scripture. Someone taught me and I also studied it on my own. My definition of sufficient is that scripture provides sufficient information about, and understanding of, these things without any other intervention. Yes, brothers will differ without a central authority, but my experience is that the differences get blown out of proportion by that form of argumentation that says, "Gotcha."
I understand the torment you experienced -- I did too. All my life being told to do the ordinances of God, like baptism and the Lord's Supper, and then "live a Christian life." Well, what's that supposed to mean!?! Even very young, I could see that there was something wrong with that picture. I couldn't do it. If I tried, I would be poking out eyes and cutting off hands right and left.
I won't make it a boring testimony, but suffice it to say that I discovered that by God's Spirit, Jesus will live his resurrection life out in me. I can't, but he can, because he already did it. "Walk by the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh," replaced "Quit fulfilling the lusts of the flesh, and maybe you'll deserve the Spirit." The hard part, for me, of being a Christian is to believe that he will, and is, doing it in me. To me, that's what faith is.
If I have led you to believe that what I mean by "sufficient" is that scripture has magical saving power, I apologize. That would be idolatry. God has saving power through the Cross of Christ, and offers saving hope through the Resurrection, and life through the Holy Spirit. There is where I take my stand.
But I only know these things through scripture. God's grace is there to accept or reject.
Now I suppose there are about a dozen things you would like to nail me on in what I just said. And I probably still haven't interpreted you accurately. But I've been robbing my employer and my students for a couple of days with all this, so got to go. God bless.
In the Catholic Church, the priest is NOT "an intercessor", he is "Christ's waldo", through whom Christ makes present his ONE sacrifice to the Christians there to receive it. You have to understand the direction of action---it is NOT from the congregation to the priest to Christ, but from Christ to the recipient through the priest.
The RCC has always used the term "priests" as synonymous with "presbyters", as they do "episkopos" with "bishop". Why they don't use "hierus", I can't say.
OF course, we WILL have to burn you at the stake, but I'll let you eat some of the marshmallows I bring before you expire. (or perspire, or whatever.)
I think this: The notion that God loves us, because, well because He does and it's a free country.... That is VERY hard for us, in our fallen state, to hold onto.But I also know they do not hear it anywhere else, no matt4r how excellently it is preached. It just seems to take an extraordinary act of the Holy Spirit to wake up each individual to the amazing truth of the Love of God.
It was as a (mostly) Calvinist Episcopalian that I believed, preached, and prayed about the love of God. And somehow that led me to Rome.
God says, "The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be still." I think the right understanding of all askesis and piety is tht it is learning how to be still in the confidence and peace that arises from believing that the Lord will fight for us and we have only to be still.
There may be language about indulgences and how this or that prayer or Rosary or Novena or whatever is rich in graces. And, s a matter of fact, I believe a lot of that stuff, having (unless, as is possible, I delude myself) But underlying all my piety is a conviction which can be expressed in a number of ways: "It's ALL gift," is one; "The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be still," is another.
But you win the metaphor of the night prize.
This is IMHO, excellent doctrine and piety.
Please, when you have time to kill, do me the honor of visiting here and scrolling down to the Sermon on the Beatitudes.
(Just so you know, as a lay Dominican my name "in religion" is Dominic Gabriel. This may help clarify some silly stuff on the site.)
Now that's doing analogy.
You will be receiving Jesus Himself, and He will help you to become more like Him, in order to have life everlasting. “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.” John 6:51,53-58
If you receive in a state of grace, you will receive Jesus. All your venial sins will be wiped away and you will receive love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control (Galations 5:22-23). You will gain strength to “take up your cross and follow Him.” Jesus said, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” Jesus will dwell in you! He said, “Be of good courage, I have overcome the world.” Of course you won’t be perfect, but you will be on your way ... (”Be ye perfect as my heavenly Father is perfect.”)
It is my observation that the differences between denominations, and even between confessions, tend to spring from extra-Biblical traditions, and those which afflict the Protestant denominations are largely a matter of things they failed to reject when removing themselves from the influence of the RCC.
Again, I disagree. There can be no "new" traditions by definition, and the traditions that exist do not contradict Scripture insofar as Catholics understand both witnesses.
It is my understanding that the RC position states that there is nothing "new", but only things that were there all along, waiting for a revelation.
But that is a thin defense for adding something "new". I would offer that the proposal to assign the honor of "co-redemtrix" to Mary is a perfect example of a "new" thing being added.
If such a proposal were to be accepted, how long before "Mary, co-redemtrix" has a body of apologist works, and how long before those works are considered to be part of the Tradition?
WRT "the traditions that exist do not contradict Scripture insofar as Catholics understand both witnesses", considering the nature of our differences, I am sure you would expect me to disagree, which I do.
It is also somewhat misleading to accuse the Protestant of accepting external sources by way of the Gospels (and etc), accepting those things that were oratory at the foundation of the Church, as we all know that those Gospels simply codify the spoken traditions which the Scripture does in fact approve. You also accept them as authoritative.
I'm sorry. I do not understand this paragraph. Could you rephrase, please?
I am sorry, In my zeal I may have pointed something at you which you do not own. I had thought it a part of the conversation between yourself (and others) with ConservativeGramma.
The charge coming from the RC side was as such (paraphrased):
The Gospels cannot be counted as Scripture in a sola scriptura environment because at the time of the Apostles they were not yet written, but were transmitted orally.
My reply, which I laid upon you, leans upon this verse:
2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
(e-Sword: KJV)
At the time of this exhortation, the "traditions" Paul refers to are the written words and the oral teachings of the Apostles, themselves. The written words, most obviously are the Epistles.
But the oral teachings, I would argue, are the witness and experiences of the Apostles themselves, as yet to be written down, but later to be codified into the Gospels and the Acts, etc.
In saying so, I submit that the Gospels fit perfectly well in a sola scriptura environment, and as such the New Testament is the full containment of the Scripture and the Tradition of the Apostolic Church.
The following two paragraphs from my previous post were a continuation of the argument:
[We begin our disagreement in your extension of those traditions beyond the formal Canon, and what disagreement we have in regard to the Canon itself, namely the Apocryphal books.]
[Nevertheless, What we as Protestants recognize as Scripture, namely the Protestant Canon, is well defined and is the point at which we begin any sola scriptura arguments, as that Canon defines what we call Holy Scripture, regardless of the matter of it's adoption. Any argument must reasonably fall within those parameters.]
My argument is that the very definition of Scripture to a Protestant is in fact the Protestant Canon. The "remove the Gospels" argument above has absolutely no bearing whatsoever, as the Protestant Canon is the starting point, not the individual books therein.
I see no reason to accede to your terms, if I'm understanding you correctly.
Christ quoted from the Septuagint, and the Septuagint contains the Deutero-Canonicals.
You need not accede to anything, as I did not mean to level terms at all.
I have no aversion to the Apocryphal books, and would be willing to extend the arguments here to include them (though with lesser authority than the Books we all agree upon), though many of my fellows may not.
Again, I see no reason to exclude Scriptures the Post-Temple Jews and Protestant reformers both excluded for the same reason: to take credibility away from Church.
I cannot speak for our Jewish friends, but that is not the reasoning I had learned. The major reason given to me was that the extant copies were corrupted by Hellenization, a determination I would agree with.
That is not an accusation against the RCC, by any means, but more a question of validity in the face of the rather obvious Greek flair and influences. The same charge was laid against the lion's share of the NT Psuedepigrapha by both of our confessions, as I am sure you understand. It was a significant problem at the time.
As to my own opinion, I love the Apocryphal books despite the rather Grecian flavor. I own them, bound apart from my Bible, though I admit that volume is far less worn than my Bible itself.
Oh, but I DO. Every chance I get. I would rather be in the Spirit than anywhere else.
Hello everyone! My name is Bruce, and I am a Spirit addict.
[...] it is quite typical for Christians to ask for and receive the prayers of others.
True enough, And each of them go running to the Wellspring too, at the mere drop of a hat. By asking them to pray, one gives them another good excuse to jump back in and catch another ride in the Spirit, so one is actually doing them a favor, see? /funnin :D
[We also do not recognize praying to those who are dead]
Yes. And we don't believe the saints are dead. Death holds no grip since Christ defeated it.
That argument is on my side of the aisle too, and is accepted by some, though I am not convinced. It is a somewhat ambiguous subject. What I cannot seem to get around are these two points:
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
(e-Sword: KJV)
I am well aware that the argument has weight on both sides, but in my normal fashion, I would hope to err to the side with the least damage when the outcome is not explicit. I have no need to pray to the dead, and I have unlimited access to the Wellspring, where I may drink to my heart's content.
Saints are recognized by the Church to serve as examples for us to emulate. But by no means are the officially aproved "canonized" saints thought to be the only saints that exist.
But not every Christian is a saint?
Which is a lot better than far too many who criticise.
Thanks for that, though I am as guilty as any here of beard-pulling. ; )
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.