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 point is critical.
Was she created that way? Was she made to be damned?
I don't blame God for the Fall. Eve was created sin-free, completely gratuitous blessing from Go Himself. Mary can not be less in this way.
No, he brought an undiscovered message that was already presented to all. They would have rejected it if it was not supported by the word.
Of course it is. That is the only logical reason you capitalized it in this discussion. Now you backpedal furiously, but it's no use for you.
You don't get it...You are trying to use your logic as some sort of authority...
Why would the Bereans try to interpret the Scripture??? They believed 2Pet.1:20...
I was so happy to read your post. Most people just watch the knuckleheads on television. Other than Charles Stanley and Billy Graham, who have been on TV, all the really good preachers are usually on the radio, of which there are many. Most people have not heard of them outside of the born-again Christians I know.
A few of the really good ones that come to my mind are David Jeremiah, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, Irwin Lutzer, and Tony Evans.
The Bereans never would have thought about it if they behaved as many here do, with their minds closed to any thought that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker. The Trinity is only believed out of some sort of weird inertial effect.
The problem, though, is that one of the Popes bought a lot of those treasure you see in the Vatican with money from the indulgences. It’s nice we have those antiquities but the way they were purchases was really pathetic and definitely not Christlike.
Obviously not; she was created with free will.
"Was she made to be damned?"
In a sense, yes, since her sin was necessary for God's ultimate plan to unfold.
No, I recognize logic as a tool, not a curse. A helper, not a trap.
Do you believe in the Trinity?
Why would the Bereans try to interpret the Scripture??? They believed 2Pet.1:20...
Maybe because Paul showed up telling them about Jesus. Don't you think they had to think about what he said and go study the Scriptures to see if it fit?
That's interpretation.
Of course, but still not new. It was new to you and me too, once, but it was still ancient at that time.
So she was not created accursed. She was created completely without sin. Now, would you consider that to be a blessing?
It is astonishing how difficult it is for some to concede the obvious.
I’m throwing my hat in the ring here. I think we ARE better off now that the Reformation occurred. Otherwise, we’d probably still be buying indulgences from the Church so the Church could buy more “stuff.” FWIW, the Catholic church still does this to some degree by allowing people to “PAY” for masses. If the Catholic church really believes that masses are integral for the souls of the departed, they should do it for FREE. Jesus didn’t charge his disciples.
As for Osteen, Swaggert, et al, they are no worse (and I’d like to be very clear here that I despise these people; Osteen is probably the least offensive - he doesn’t preach a wrong Gospel, he just preaches the “happy” parts, unlike Hinn who is just a moonbat) than many of the Popes that you and I both know have done insidious things.
As for Protestants defining themselves by the Catholic church, the name has apparently stuck. Why are you still called Catholic since you aren’t really universal at all? I don’t refer to MYSELF as a Protestant but as a Christian and most of my Christian brothers and sisters say the same, even many of the Catholics I know.
Finally, it is a sad fact that the West is declining in the number of faithful. This can be blamed on many things (post modernism for example) but, of course, we know who is behind all of this. Nothing has changed from the beginning in the Garden, nor will it until our Lord returns. The good news, however, is that Christianity is growing in leaps and bounds in places like Africa and China.
Let’s try to spend our time on stopping the spread of Islam and preaching the Gospel to those who are truly lost.
ALANINSA: It calls Catholicism a cult. ‘Nuff said. It’s a hate site.
As the rules of Free Republic state, the word "cult" is not outlawed or a cause for pulling a thread (although I don't recall my ever using the word "cult" in any comment, Catholic, Mormon or otherwise.)
The RM has said we can use the word "cult," therefore you can say my Presbyterian church is a cult and I won't try to get your comment pulled. I'll simply offer reason and evidence why your assessment is wrong.
It's called "discourse."
Contender Ministries is not a "hate site," and any essays on that site can be posted, according to Free Republic rules.
As has been shown time and again, according to many Catholics any website or sermon or comment or thread that discusses the errors of Rome is (incorrectly) labeled a "hate site."
According to Rome, the Reformation was one, giant "hate site" which needs to be curtailed.
As if.
Is this some more of yur logic??? It certainly isn't scripture...
The Jews and Romans had already killed Jesus before Paul showed up...Many, many Jews did follow Jesus...
The Jews that rejected Jesus didn't care for the type of Messiah Jesus would have been...That's why they rejected Him...
Paul didn't preach a new radical interpretation...The Jews became temporarilay blinded (by God) to Paul's gospel of the Grace of God...
The Bereans KNEW and BELIEVED every word of the Scriptures...
They didn't have to reason...They had to search...
Do you have any source documents showing what Pope supposedly spent money donated via indulgences on treasures? Most of the abuses in the “selling” of indulgences were done by rogue confessors, and the legitimate indulgences weren’t sold by the Church, but a monetary donation was required as part of the penance - that money was used to build Churches, Hosptials, etc. I can go dig up the info if you’d like!
Ha...That's because they are told to...How many of them search the Scriptures for themselves???
No, they don't. If you understood what indulgences are, you would know that a Mass is not an indulgence.
And for that matter, a customary and token offering is made when a Mass is dedicated to a loved one. It's not like there is a fee schedule and it is understood that you are literally underwriting the temporal aspects of the Mass (e.g. paying the light bill) and not buying some specific spiritual bag of goodies.
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.