Much appreciated. However, I'm only allowed one gif per post.
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."
Personal to whom?
Please identify the personal attack of which you so persistently complain, as I have no wish to attack anyone, only to speak the truth God has revealed through the Holy Catholic Church.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . .
the endearing fantasies of the RC edifice.
That their standards shall be everyone’s standards.
How quaint.
No sweat.
Thanks thanks.
Suuuuuuuchhhhhh a mundane personal attack.
But then, creativity must wane after 1600 years.
It will be very helpful for as many RC’s as possible to maintain this fantasy construction on reality.
That will enable THE TRUTH
when THE TRUTH breaks through in fractured yet devastating portions bit by bit over the next months and years . . .
that will enable THE TRUTH to break through with
much more devastating THUDS and WHAMS.
So, that’s really appreciated.
Helps achieve parts of one objective, at least.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . .
the enduring teachings of the One True Church’s mission,
That Christ’s standards shall be everyone’s standards.
How faithful to the Savior.
Much appreciated. However, I'm only allowed one gif per post.
Please identify the personal attack. If I have maligned any poster I apologize; my only intention is to bring everyone to the abiding truth.
Alas, some pretend to misunderstand.
Mary, however, consoles me by reminding me of the suffering of Her Son, who died that all may be forgiven and reign with Him for eternity.
Besides, the thin skins of some RC’s indicate that they are not really able to handle well more than one laughing gif at a time.
***********************
I'm sorry, but "abiding truth" must be all-caps, like so:
If I have maligned any poster I apologize; my only intention is to bring everyone to the
ABIDING TRUTH
Get it?
I suppose thoughtful Prottys could leave such to twist in the wind . . . alone . . .
were it not such a waste of wind.
I’m trying to keep in mind your exhortation about Scripture . . . alas, so many that come to mind would readily rightfully be interpreted as a personal attack.
. . . a personal attack of the truth . . .
It’s important that we recognize the disruptors for what they are, and stop giving them the attention that they crave.
There’ll be plenty of surprises in that to go around.
Arrogance, whether on the part of
political power mongers heading groups
the groups themselves
or whomever . . . .
ARROGANCE is just not one of God’s favorite values.
My . . . fascinating.
There is that, alright.
Thanks again.
Is this the serious scriptural discussion you wanted? I’m just asking...
Because heretical protties seem to have just as much difficulty with that as they falsely accuse Catholics of having.
And then, they seem to find their own comments risible. On taht we can agree, as I do, as well.
Duh! *slaps forehead*
And we shall all account for every word. God is reading this thread, Quix.
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.