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."
I didn't think so...The Spirit of Truth came when Jesus was crucified and ascended...Amos is speaking of 2000 years after Jesus ascended...
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?
The people that followed Jesus were a mixed bag...People followed Him for different reasons...Some believed He was who He said He was...Others didn't...
As always in mixed company, Jesus was again talking in parables...He didn't want to spill the beans in front of good ole' Judas...
I will guess that you want to make the claim that the Spirit of Truth was offered to the Apostles only...There is way too much evidence in the rest of the scripture that the Spirit of Truth was given to all Christians...Just one of the many examples:
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
“No, my salvation rests solely on Jesus Christ no matter what any human may say.”
“On Christ the Solid Rock I stand
All other ground is sinking sand
All other ground is sinking sand”
And that's exactly how I know you are wrong.
The early Church was under the guidance of the Holy Spirit when it led them to produce what became the canon of Scripture. This does not apply to every other thing the Church has ever done or ever taught, especially when what the Church teaches goes against the clear direction and sayings of Scripture.
My, how convenient. And by what authority do you make this otherwise gratuitous and empty assertion?
...occasionally we need to remind our Catholic brethren that Sola Scriptura doesn't mean "the Bible alone"...
Tarting up a false doctrine doesn't make it any less false.
Like I said, pretty easy, but of course, leave it to the Catholic Church to try and distort or complicate the issue.
Easy answers more often indicate a lack of understanding the question.
I read that but they're still selling the prayer cards...
“You know, Manfred, it doesn’t seem quite fair that your excellent thread was pulled today, THE EUCHARIST CHRIST, while this thread, “Protestants and Sola Scriptura” is permitted to be posted by a Catholic and remain on the forum.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps had it not been posted from a hate site...then it would still be up. What’s next? Quoting Jack Chick and getting upset when it gets pulled?
Because since Christ's resurrection they have the Beatific Vision.
You, do not.
...but many Catholics do put her before Christ. I’ve seen it personally myself. Calm down.+
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
That’s suppose to have something to do with me?
Interesting.
Careful. Your “coping mechanism” is showing...
Love it.
Thanks.
I’ve wondered where to find that. I think it’s a riot.
However, it also wouldn’t surprise me if far too much of that turned out to be true—too true for comfort or laughter.
A good friend of mine who just converted to Catholicism just said the other day that your good friend made that up.
= = =
Speaking of
MADE THAT UP
and of
Exodus 20:16 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL.
Certainly with respect to this time/space dimension, their mortal bodies are dead.
And, I believe that their Heavenly bodies are focused entirely Heavenward . . . certainly on the whole and most of the time.
We don’t know what “coud of witnesses” means.
Now, Mary, Dear Heart . . .
some folks are so ingrained in their habits . . . it would take an atomic blast or a Damascus road experience to change them in the slightest.
Probably a tanker full of compassion is in order.
LOL.
INDEED!
God forbid most fiercely!
Really?
Says . . . . oh, yeah, . . . you!
LOL.
Perhaps you’d enjoy elaborating for our amusement.
I hope y’all have many more months, even years of laughter about it.
Besides, if y’all started believing the truth, I’d probably have to shut up about it for my own safety.
LOL.
So...the X-Files was a documentary, huh?
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.