the RC magicsterical
had
AVOIDED
of you
will become
arrogant
in behalf
of one
against
the other
AVOIDED
THAT
REAL
WELL!
LOL!
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."
I read it and was unimpressed.
Awwwwwww
Really?
Interesting.
Actually, we're just not as cavalier about adding our opinion and calling it "the word of God" as Protestants are.
You see, we have an authoritative mechanism for resolving disputes over Biblical text...which is probably why there is only one of us and so many of you.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, yes,
The authoritative magicsterical . . . which has supported all manner of evil chief political religious pontificators/power-mongers and even wars in their name . . . as well as a host of dogmatic gyrations . . . over many centuries.
Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo impressive! LOL.
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other - I Cor. 4:6
Is there a point to this display of Scriptural Tourette’s?
If the Scriptures said what you claim, it would only take one quote.
"Actually, the only 'authority' mentioned in the NT is James, the 1/2 brother of the Lord, who is acknowledged as the "Bishop of Jerusalem," and the only one that any apostle turned to for approval in their ministry."
Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.Luke 9:1
Who are you?
Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other - I Cor. 4:6
We wrote them down, just like Paul did.
Unless you're claiming to be an Apostle, you added to the Bible. Thanks for affirming that.
Where does Paul say what he was referring to was the Bible?
If the Scriptures said what you claim, it would only take one quote.
= = =
DITTO to the RC magicsterical’s fabrications out of thin air . . . the skyscrapers built on Biblical toothpics . . .
ditto . . . to the RC’s . . . about several hundred thousand times . . .
Where does it say it wasn't????? Furthermore where in the New Testament is the word 'Pope' ever found or that Peter was the first 'Pope'?
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
Seems to me Paul had something to say about following after traditions rather than the revealed word of our Lord.
That is a loaded question from more than one point of view. Yes—it is very personal.
You mean . . . like the pontificating RELIGIOUS power-mongering Jewish magicsterical did 2,000 years ago? . . . that ruling RELIGIOUS political clique that Jesus railed so fiercely against! Like them thar guys that added layers upon layers of extrapolated LAW for the serfs to bear!??
You mean the RC magicsterical has been following in that clique's footsteps incredibly faithfully in all their power-mongering poliltical "excellence?"
Who'd a thunk!?
/sar
"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." [emphasis mine]
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.John 13:34
Hardly, we don't practice the farce of Sola Scriptura...a fact Protestant apologists seem to be congenitally unable to grasp.
I’ll take
Sola Scriptura
over
Sola RC-magicsterical-Pontificalocotura
ANY day, wee, month, year, decade, century, millenia . . .
On this, I’d have to agree with you. Of course, there is scripture to support both points.
“It’s not my opinion; it’s textual fact”
(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. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.”
Notice who is doing the preaching in Antioch. It is those who were scattered due to the persecution; it is not Peter.
22 “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.”
Notice that the news of people being converted was “news” to the Jerusalem church, so much so, that they sent Barnabas to authenticate it. Now pay close attention. If Peter had started the church, it would not have been “news” to the Jerusalem church and they would not have had to send Barnabas to corroborate what Peter had done since they had already discussed the Cornelius conversion with him.
25 “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.”
Notice that when Barnabas retrieved Saul and brought him to Antioch, there was now an established growing church.
What the passage shows is that the beginning of the church was with the preaching of the scattered believers; it came as news to the Jerusalem church which sent Barnabas to authenticate it; the church grew while he was there; he went to get Saul and brought him back to the church where they taught for a year. Peter had nothing to do with the church at Antioch. Those are the “textual” facts!
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.