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."
That's wise. No need to bother continuing the futility.
I'll help you again.
Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it.
You would agree Christ is God?
Yes.
Therefore would you not agree that any 'union' that is 'inseparable' would be = to deity?????
No. As I said already, I aspire to an eventual union with God. It is my destiny, by the grace of God. Doesn't mean I am divine.
Furthemore, you seem to not read English very well.
What is "inseperable" in this sentence is Mary's "role" not her union with Christ.
Take out the propositional phrase "in the Church" and read it again.
Mary's role is inseperable from her union with Christ.
Like I said, she is nothing without Christ. Anything else you read (or mis-read) in this passage must be read in this light.
Good work... gramma.. Unfortualty when boxed in a corner (by scripture) most RCC supporters turn into MOONBATs and fly on to the next post.. Are they VAmpires?.. Sadly some are.. As 8 Billion in legal expenses clear show..
Pit Bull? ;o)
I know of no dead, pagan, blasphemous Roman churches (I've never studied archeology). Nor do I know about this Toronto Airport Church...What is their holy scripture...the maintenance manual for a Boeing 747-400?
Her brazen misrepresentation of Catholic teaching IS blasphemous.
That’s a strange post, since the post just before it (582) and others already demonstrate the bankruptcy of her claim.
Uh, much more than that. To a first century Jew keeping the Law was hundreds of commandments, not just circumcision. Plus, it included hundreds upon hundreds of 'traditions' which Christ rebuked over and over (start with Matthew 23 & 24). This is akin to Roman Catholic sacraments and traditions.
Furthermore the idea that its Christ + sacraments, or Christ + tradition, or Christ + Roman Catholicism is more blasphemy. It slaps Christ in the face and tells Him, "I'm sorry but your suffering and death wasn't enough for me...I need to add to it." You go ahead and do that and hope it works out for you.
When He asks me why He should let me into His Heaven, all I'm going to do is point to the cross and say "It was finished" and throw myself on His mercy.
Well you go ahead and carry on following the teachings of men via popes, and saints or whatever. I’ll stick with what I know came from God. Thanks.
Many don't realize the depths of blasphemy that are contained in the catechism. Thank you for posting that reminder.
What part of Christ’s statement: “It is finished” don’t you understand????? If there was anything more that WE could do would He have said, “Its finished”???
That’s the kind of comment that we all expect from you.
No it is not. As Christians, Paul specifically tells us we are to set aside the obedience to the Jewish law. Instead Christ gives us His new law: the Holy Scripture and Holy Traditions of His Church, the Roman Catholic Church, founded at Pentacost with Peter as its head.
Toronto Airport Church? Apparently you can get “soaked” there: http://www.tacf.org/Default.aspx?tabid=290
(I cannot believe they used that terminology! Talk about a set-up!)
Actually The RCC very strange attention to mary the mother of Jesus flesh.. is a direct MOCKING of the Bride of Christ.. as is the Echarist a MOCKING of the Holy Spirit.. and ultimately Jesus SPirit..
Some people simply don't think thats CUTE...
It does no such thing. Christ instituted the Holy Sacraments as gifts to us.
You bear false witness. Contender Ministries is not a "hate site."
The thread posted by Manfredthewonderdawg, which for some unknown reason the Lead Moderator chose to delete, was NOT from a "hate site," but I do realize EVERY site which exposes the errors of Rome is considered as such by some of its members.
For the record, this is not a "hate site" nor a Jack Chick" site, and it is still unclear why it was pulled when this thread, posted by a Catholic regarding what he considers to be Protestant errors, was allowed to stand.
That’s the type of comment Catholics have been getting from the lot of you over this and scores of other threads. I didn’t make the soup, I only served it.
Many more than you, apparently.
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.