—rubber histories are sufficient
—rubber ‘bibles’ are sufficient
—rubber dictionaries are sufficient . . .
Rubber critics...
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."
My husband said when he was an altar boy there was never a drop left; the priests managed to finish every glass (after making sure they "topped it off to the brim.")
Sigh. Luke 1:48 - Greek word for blessed = μακαρίζω (makarizō 3106) James 5:11 - Greek word translated happy = μακαρίζω (makarizō 3106). Again from my Greek word study makarizo means:
1. blessed (call)to call happy.
2. happy (count)to call happy, congratulate (this specific meaning occurs only in Luk 1:48).
No where does makarizo ever mean exalted, or greater in stature, as you catholics interpret 'blessed' in this passage. Keep laughing, you obviously don't know Greek, just how to twist the original language apparently in order to support a false doctrine and false worship of Mary. And then you mock those who DO know the text. However:
Blessed in Luke 1:28 is a different word. In this case its: χαριτόω (charitoō 5487) which means:
1. accepted to make lovely or acceptable.
Reference: Eph 1:6
2. favoured (highly)to make χάρις (charis 5485) (in the subjective sense) to grace, that is to say in passive as here, to be gracious or favoured (this specific meaning occurs only in Eph 1:6).
3. graced [marginal] (much)
So even when it does have the idea of 'favored one', or in this case 'special honor' it still don't mean greater in stature or exalted into some mythical 'union with Christ' or as a co-Savior or 'Queen of all things' as you Catholics describe in your catechism. I should be laughing at you, but note that I'm not, nor have I mocked you for this insane and blasphemous belief. I'm trying to get you to see the truth here from Scripture.
Not according to normal linguistic understanding of your wording.
However, Prottys are used to RC’s who twist and mangle words given their habits formed fromt he rubber dictionaries the RC edifice is so fond of.
That explains it!!
Good response. There is much that we could continue to debate in good faith. But your response is both reasonable and charitable, and points to where we need to focus.
Contender’s Ministry is not 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.
++++++++++++++++++++++
That’s a straw man.
You were never accused of using the word “cult.” The hate site cited was the one that used it. When looking at the RM’s profile (containing the “rules”), there’s no reference to the word “cult.”
It’s a hate site.
Citing the “reformation” as a giant “hate site” doesn’t change the fact that using references from hate sites like the one cited is inappropriate.
And you write this while pinging the moderator! Too funny.
To some, beliefs which they loathe or fear are called "cults."
To non-Christians, Christianity is a "cult."
The word "cult" is in the eye of the beholder.
Whether we pull a post that uses the word is a judgment call based on the context.
Contender Ministry is NOT a hate site.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
That’s not what I’ve observed. I’ve been told that if you want masses said, you must pay and it’s not a token offering in any sense. Maybe in your church but not around here.
Either way, regardless, this is an utterly despicable practice (not the mass, of course, but even expecting a token payment).
And I totally understand exactly what indulgences were, their practice before it became notorious, when they were getting out of hand, what the money was used for, and so on. I know masses are NOT indulgences, I’m only paralleling the payment of a fee for a service. This is not a tithe or offering in the true sense at all. I would like to think that the good Catholics are already paying the “light bill” and so would have masses said for free. I know they are not.
“Contender Ministry is NOT a hate site.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
You’re either not reading the stuff on that site or simply ignoring it. Citing that website is inappropriate.
—rubber histories are sufficient
—rubber ‘bibles’ are sufficient
—rubber dictionaries are sufficient . . .
Rubber critics...
I think it’s all there, and the martyr who authored the Belgic Confession seemed to think so too:
Article 7: The Sufficiency of Scripture
* We believe that this Holy Scripture contains the will of God completely and that everything one must believe to be saved is sufficiently taught in it. For since the entire manner of service which God requires of us is described in it at great length, no one— even an apostle or an angel from heaven, as Paul says—^2 ought to teach other than what the Holy Scriptures have already taught us. For since it is forbidden to add to or subtract from the Word of God,^3 this plainly demonstrates that the teaching is perfect and complete in all respects.
Therefore we must not consider human writings— no matter how holy their authors may have been— equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.
For all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.
Therefore we reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule, as we are taught to do by the apostles when they say, “Test the spirits to see if they are of God,”^4 and also, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house.”^5 ^2 Gal. 1:8 ^3 Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19 ^4 1 John 4:1 ^5 2 John 10
*****
Thanks for the Heavenly points from your personally assaultive attack.
:o)
Then why not just quote where the Bible says so?
I mentioned a group and a class of actions.
I’m not God. He alone knows if such applies in the specific cases.
Yes, in fact I do. I have in my possession a series of books that were published in 1866, entitled “The Great Reformation” by W. Carlos Martyn, who also happened to be the author of another work, entitled, “The Life and Times of John Milton.” The book I reference is Volume I: The Life and Times of Martin Luther.
Chapter X goes into great detail about Pope Leo X and his purchases of many antiquities with money from the indulgences and his desire to increase his treasure trove in part was the reason he stepped up the sale of indulgences big time. There was a lot of debate going on at that time amongst the various bishops because indulgences was not something new, it just wasn’t practiced that often or advertised quite so zealously.
One of the specifics mentioned is Leo’s acquisition of a manuscript of the 33rd book of Livy. Leo paid 147 gold ducats for this work.
You are correct that money from indulgences went to erect churches as well, but the ends do not justify the means and you are absolutely incorrect about it only being rogue bishops or other church hierarchy. Oh, if that were only true. There are numerous historical books that document this, including D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, Stebbings History of the Reformation, et al.
You can dig up anything you like and I’ll be happy to read it, but I can acknowledge the wrongs the church did and accept it for what it is. I don’t really have a “dog in this race” because I know that man is sinful and fallible and it has no reflection upon Christ. I know the Church has done horrible things and I know the things attributed to Martin Luther (his anti-semitism, for instance) and that does not diminish him or the Church in my eyes. It’s just that I can see her (the Church) even with all of her flaws and still love her.
There were all kinds of letters going back and forth during the period right before and during the Reformation about these “satisfactions” or “indulgences” so there is a lot of documentation.
Sometimes, it’s best to just accept the truth and move on. Just like the Catholic Church and her horrible treatment of Jews over the years. The Church finally made a formal apology. If the Pope can admit his wrong, surely you can.
Well you certainly don’t waste any time collecting your heavenly credits when a group and class of actions is mentioned.
Why do you make yourself equal with God by saying only he can judge individual cases, then you judge individual cases.
Oh, and I’m saving you the effort of running to the Moderator...I think my post can stand on what you’ve already written.
Incidently, I am curious: would you argue against the sufficiency of Scripture?
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.