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."
Well, Acts 12 says Herod Agrippa died before the Antioch laying on of hands. Josephus reports he died in A. D. 44. Paul's first missionary journey began between 46-47 A.D. Paul was in Arabia for three years after his conversion and then spent one year at Antioch. Galatians 2 says he went up to Jerusalem after 14 years.
It is impossible for for your scenario to have taken place. Paul was sent out by the church at Antioch before his visit to Jerusalem mentioned in Galatians 2.
“Uh, did you forget Antioch, which Peter DEFINITELY founded??”
Acts 11:19-26, “Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.
21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch. Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.
For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”
I see the persecuted “men of Cyprus and Cyrene”, and Barnabas and Saul, but I don't see Peter mentioned. Where do you find Peter founding the church at Antioch?
“Eden is not the natural state of man.”
Eden is the natural state of created man. We live now in the unnatural state because of the “original sin” of Adam. The reason one considers it “blessed” is comparing it to the state that now obtains.
I don't think so. Whether Peter was something MORE than Pope or not, he was still Pope first. The official list of Popes is good enough for me. Linus I may have been the first to be merely Pope, but he was the second Pope, after Peter.
Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Martin Luther is in a lot of trouble.
Were you one of the group that sat on the jury of the OJ Simpson trial???
Please do not make this personal.
How does that change the fact you were wrong?
Is God only good because He exists in contrast to evil?
We correct you guys so often (with scripture) on this fallacy and I didn't want you to think you beat us down, or finally convinced us of this perversion of scripture by us not mentioning it...
So I thought I'd mention it, again...
History. The FACT of Peter founding the Church of Antioch is well-documented in the historical record, including records from the first century AD. But, as I said, because "...it's not in the Bible...", you'll simply blow off the evidence (which, to me, is rampant intellectual dishonesty).
There are other sources of truth than the Bible, buddy.
Well, that’s your claim anyway.
You are correct...Your church only burned and tortured men, women, children and babies when there was a Protestant bible involved...
So logic is no good, but vacuous bragadocio is OK?
Wrong again. The Church did no such thing. Secular authorities may have, but there was certainly no lack of violence from either side of the “Reformation.”
When that's all you've got...
What do you mean, 'must'??? God blessed all kinds of things and people...Nothing else ever became sinless because of a blessing by God...
Blessed does not mean sinless any more than red means popcorn...
Is the the logic and reasoning God gave you guys as a gift???
“Is God only good because He exists in contrast to evil?”
What has that to do with the question?
So is finding my car keys in the morning...
You guys need to come to grips with a rational, biblical definition of 'blessed'...
Blessed does not mean sinless any more than red means popcorn...
Is the the logic and reasoning God gave you guys as a gift???
Whoops...that teaching is actually rather involved relating to the peculiarities of the greeting by the Angel. I have no doubt you'd never sit through the actual teaching itself, but suffice to say there is justification for it that the poster does not allude to.
No, you need to come to grips with the fact the Bible is not defined by english.
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.