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."
Thanks. I have spent a lot of time with devoted Catholics and Charismatic Catholics, with Pentecostals, with Southern Baptists, with solid Presbyterians and numerous other denoms, and of course, with Lutherans since I’ve been attending a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church for 20 years.
What I know now is that I know very little, even after studying the Bible for 30 some years. I’m finally at peace about it. Yes, my mind still struggles to know FOR SURE about some things and I still question things in my mind (e.g. can people “lose” their salvation or is it just, as the Baptists believe, that they never really HAD it to begin with but it just looked like it; OR, the biggie of all time, transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation. My head hurts on that one; Another big one is the doctrine of the elect. In fact, my Bible Study Class which has been convening for about 15 years have a few topics that whenever they come up, we all just groan in unison because we know we’re never going to solve it - ha ha). I’ve read Augustine and the other early church fathers and thankfully my Lord doesn’t require that I understand everything intellectually. I just know HIM. He called me and I heard his voice and I know that only his sheep know his voice. I will never understand why he called ME and why I heard; I just know I am so eternally grateful and joyful that HE did and I did - another mystery of faith.
I am so fundamentally concerned over the truly lost in this world - the atheists, the secularists, the Muslims, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so on that when I meet a brother or sister in Christ that doesn’t quite dot his “I” the way I do, I just rejoice that he loves my Lord. Obviously, there are some big doctrinal issues that cannot be played with (Christ’s divinity for instance)but I think we can be charitable to one another in this challenge. I do think it is good that we all debate these things because we can all learn some things from one another - especially patience, forebearance and self-control (right?)
As the Bible says, “Come let us reason together.”
The doctrine of the Trinity never rested on Scripture for the Catholic Church. Even so, the observation is irrelevant to supporting your original contention.
Do you concede?
Incidently, I am curious: would you argue against the sufficiency of Scripture?
Absolutely. I should think that would be obvious.
Sounds like blaming the victim to me. If they tell him doing x, y, and z, will guarantee salvation...how can they then tell him doing q thirty years later proves he never did x, y, or z in the first place?
Heads they win. Tails you lose.
What besides Scripture and what is contained therein would you seek? What would you as a man add to God's written Word?
And complicated ones often indicate an intention to avoid the question.
That the Bible does not testify to its own sufficiency and completeness.
What besides Scripture and what is contained therein would you seek? What would you as a man add to God's written Word?
...the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1Tim 3:15
Do you have anything to contribute beyond vacuous gainsaying?
"I always thought it sounded like James was the head of the church."
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Ephesians 5:23
"Bible Christians say they ONLY follow the word of God in the Bible (unlike CAtholics they say), yet Jesus commanded us to EAT HIS BODY and DRINK HIS BLOOD, yet they don’t do this.....yet they INSIST they follow Jesus’s words.....WHY?"
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:
And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.
1st Corinthians 11:23-25
"We pray to Mary to ask her for INTERVENTION....she can do nothing on her own......you must be REALLY anti-Jesus’s Mother to not get this difference.....I’ll ask Mary to ask Jesus to help you....she’ll ask Jesus and maybe He’ll help you not diss HIS Mother so much. Storming Heaven for you!!!"
Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
John 14:5-6
"What is wrong with some of you Protestants? You don't like Catholics, you don't like Mormons, you don't like some other branches of Christianity and you think you are So Christian.Anyone who has been baptized in Christ and worships Him and keeps His Commandments is a CHRISTIAN!"
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.Mark 16:16
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.Romans 10:9
Can you tell me when calling Mary the Queen of Heaven became a usual Catholic thing, or, for that matter, when hot cross buns came into general use?
The first thing my piano teacher taught me to play when I was 6 was "Hot Cross Buns." She was Protestant. So was I.
It is remarkable that Paul, who writes so beautifully and compellingly about the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice would later make a statement like this.
I like to say that in Faith in which "One" (as in "one God") doesn't mean what the average person thinks it means, "Complete" may have some surprises as well.
Now I just don't think name calling and perseveration leads to any good thing. So if you want to fight about religion, I am NOT your boy. If you want to talk about it as brethren seeking some common ground, that's another story.
I THINK most students of the languages involved would say that that is a Semitic superlative form. The way I think of it is, "You got your rams; among them THAT one is the big one." Which comes down to, "That's the biggest ram."
Amen!
What is wrong with some of you Protestants? You don't like Catholics, you don't like Mormons, you don't like some other branches of Christianity and you think you are So Christian.
On the contrary ... animosity toward other Christians began with the Catholics ... who had a nasty habit of burning those who didn't agree with their confessions.
Officially, Catholics did not even regard Protestants as brethren until about 1960 or so.
Most Protestants merely regard Catholics as another Church denomination, albiet with some strange and, perhaps, unbiblical practices.
That isn't to say that there doesn't still exist some bastions of distaste for Catholics, but it's nothing like what has been typical from the other side.
You're not speaking truth.
You’re thanking him for trying to suppress my speech?
That speaks volumes about you.
Furthermore, the very understanding of Original Sin being a lack of a relationship with God becomes muddled if we are to consider a woman with God in her womb who simultaneously lacks a relationship with God. It does not follow.
Hi Dave ...
Mary's relationship with God need only have been established at some point prior to her conception.
Furthermore, as Christians, we all house the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?God can take what is unworthy ... and make it worthy.
I happen to agree with you. Christ's sufferings and atonement on the cross is complete, its sufficient, and He said, 'It is finished'.
This is precisely why it is so utterly repugnant to seek to add anything to His finished work. To claim the cross + anything makes the cross a mockery. And it makes the cross insufficent in direct contradiction to your above statement when you seek to add sacraments, and ordinances, and decrees, etc. etc. to salvation.
I am also not seeking to 'attack' anyone's religion. I am seeking to present what Scripture says. If you want to believe Mary is 'Queen of all things' and is a co-Savior knock yourself out. I am simply presenting the fact the Scripture does not teach that. (BTW: This thread was an 'attack' on those who believe in Sola Scriptura so its a matter of viewpoint who is attacking whom here).
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.