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."
Bravo! Such a concise summation of Anti-Catholic's "dirty little secret."
One looking for the "Blame Canada" character of Catholic-basher's rhetoric need look no further.
I’m sorry you lack understanding. I will pray for you.
Why are you speaking in other tongues without an interpreter???
“Why are you speaking in other tongues without an interpreter???
????
You want to clarify that statement?
Do you need it in French or German?
Other than that and an impaired use of English with constantly split infinitives, that’s all I can translate.
Well is it, or not???
Kinda like it's not logical that Jesus would give us sinners total forgiveness just out of the goodness of His heart...
We must do something to earn it...
Is that the truthful, logical reasoning God gave you???
No.
See, actually they did but their voices were stifled until the bible was available to the common people to read and understand for themselves. Then they saw that Paul didn't need Peter or the Jerusalem church to teach him when he was first saved; the Holy Spirit had already called him and set him apart as a missionary to the Gentiles.
“But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)”
“And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”
All that was recognized here was a division of labor in the partnership of the gospel. No grace was bestowed nor authority given since the Holy Spirit had already set Paul apart.
I don't need logic when it comes to Christianity...I need Truth...
Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
You keep banging away with your logic...I'll stick with the Truth...
Because you say so?
No, because God says so...One had to be a witness of the crucifixion/resurrection to be an Apostle...
Your church did write the scripture, right??? And you do believe your church, right???
Really?
Really?
There is a false dichotomy if ever there was one.
God is hoping we will grow in the knowledge of the truth...
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
But a lot of folks are incapable...
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
The scripture says knowedge will increase;
Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
But obviously not knowledge of God...
Amo 8:12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it
And I suggest, as a mere conjecture, that Our Lord promised that the Holy Spirit would guide, well, someone, into all truth -- though he had many things to say which could not be borne at the time.
But where is the truth??? God says "Thy word is Truth"...
People are turning from the Truth of God's words in droves...You guys think the truth is in your church...God says His words are Truth...
As more and more Protestants turn from the word of God, knowledge will DECREASE in numbers of people who are looking for knowledge, but I believe the quality and depth of understanding and wisdom will INCREASE in those who see history unfolding before their eyes IN THE WORD OF GOD...
If you disagree with that statement -- or have some idea that the fellowship of non-Catholics is somehow inferior or incomplete...
You should likely stop reading here....
***************
Furthermore - according to Scripture, all Christians remain likewise indwelt by the Holy Spirit having received justification through faith in the propitiation of Jesus Christ, and the promises of the New Covenant purchAsed ONCE FOR ALL... in his own blood.
All of his true followers... the converted disciples of all generations have a similar inheritance in Christ and the reconciled Kingdom of God...
As for the Bread and the Cup....
We had a wonderful and intimate communion at our fellowship this Lord's Day morning...
And I trust you were also blessed in worship this day?
HOWEVER (Speaking for myself and not for others):
As a general viewpoint ....
We do not purport to agree with the several prominent and/or longstanding extra-Biblical doctrines and practices that Roman Catholic tradition has embraced over the years:
(1) Co-worshipping or praying through Mary... placing her in equality with God in any way or form...
(2) Praying to/through the saints, when the Scriptures tell us we have through Christ open, free and unrestricted access to God in worship, prayer, and fellowship in the Holy Spirit...
(3) Holding conventions and conferences that publish results of those gatherings that somehow becomes more than church doctrine or law: being given equal weight and authority alongside the canon of Biblical Scripture....
(4) Reverence/homage to religious icons and stygmata...
(5) Doctrine of purgatory
(6) Doctrine of penance required for forgiveness of sins/restoration of fellowship
(7) The papal bull -- a fatwa??
(8) The selling of indulgences -- that people of means may "pay" through extraordinary and church-solicited "charity" to have their sins induled( those committed or contemplated - pronounced "forgiven" -- sometimes in advance!)
Stuff like that... makes up the bulk of our traditional differences...
***********
At some point we have to search out and discuss those matters of faith and fulfillment that we DO agree upon...
Again just my humble POV....
Have a great week...
God knows we live in time and space...He created it for us...
He gave us a book so we could to a degree, understand Him...
Id say my understanding of God's time and space are far more accurate that anything you or your chuch invented...
You have no argument...
You think God wants to keep Jesus on the cross until you guys are done with Him???
There is another way to understand it. If you are interested in understanding what we think before you reject it, I'll leave it to you to figure it out.
There is your leap of logic (oh wait, you eschew logic).
Jesus said to those in the upper room, after Judas had left, "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth." You seem to construe Amos to contradict our Lord.
Instead of telling me how very wrong I am, which must get boring after a while (it certainly doesn't do much for me), could you please tell me what you think was going on when Jesus told NOT all his followers but those in the upper room after Judas had left, that that Spirit of truth would guide them into all the truth?
Hail Mary full of Grace the Lord is with Thee, etc. etc. On rosary beads. Born to a Jewish Mother but grew up Catholic because of my father's faith, but became a Baptist when I was 39, because I could not get real answers from the Catholic Church, also I was excommunicated because of a divorce..
Rules that were not in the Bible.. When I questioned our priest he would only say " It's in the faith". I could not believe that there was no answers to religious question other than it is in the faith. Sorry but the Bible to me is
Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth! B-I-B-L-E
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.