Posted on 01/23/2011 5:12:54 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
Did Martin Luther Act Infallibly in Defining What Books Belong in the Bible?
If Luther did not act infallibly:
- How can Protestants be certain that they have an infallible collection of Books in Holy Scripture?
- How can the Bible be the sole rule of faith, if no one knows with certainty which books belong in the Bible?
If Luther acted infallibly:
- How do you know?
Because the Book of Isaiah testifies to the truth of the 66-books of the Bible.
Changing the order or adding books to the Bible destroys the pattern noted in the book of Isaiah..
“the Church does that there is nothing the Church holds which contradicts Scripture or Tradition.”
Tradition? True. Scripture? False.
Catholics have priests, which were unknown in the New Testament. It requires them to be celibate, which scripture says is wrong for church leaders.
It holds to the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is contradicted. It says that the sacrifice of Jesus was insufficient, and we need further cleansing in Purgatory, and that we can buy our way out thru giving gifts to the Church.
It says the mass partakes in a perpetual sacrifice of Jesus, when scripture explicitly teaches the sacrifice was once for all.
It relies on the traditions of men, and the continual revelation via the Magisterium when Paul says he taught the full counsel of God.
“The revealed Word of God is so profound that to constrain it to just the surface is to try to constrain the ocean.”
Good way to avoid paying attention to scripture. It is just too hard to understand, so we need Priests and Popes to tell us what it means, and accept that it means something contradictory to what it actually says.
That is why the Catholic Church opposed common men from getting their hands on scripture. It was OK for the rich, because they had too much to lose from contradicting the powerful Church - but common men? It was too great for us, because it would lead us away from the centralized church, and the false teachings that gave it power and money.
My observation is that the vast majority rel articles are that of Catholicism (at least 15 today), some of which are self-promotion and may even bait Prots, but only the open threads take off.
However, I am sure that is not what causes unreliability, while i think it makes FR more likely to show up in searches.
You need to read informed unbiased history. Calling Tyndale's translation a “Good translation” is a prime facile example of the prideful private interpretation employed to deceive the faithful. Tyndale has many heretical problems and is one of those false prophets Jesus spoke of in the bible. See Mt 7:15.
You need to pray for divine inspiration to discern Truth and excise the uninformed false teaching your exhibit in your rants on this forum.
You wrote:
“Whatever church you belong to, or none, or whatever faith you have, or none, OF COURSE you believe it is the one true faith. Who adheres to a belief system he does not believe is true?”
Actually, if you ask many Protestants here, they will tell you they do NOT believe their sect is the one true Church. They will make the obvious distinction between faith and Church which is necessary for Protestantism to survive.
“Of course, true believers acknowledge that what they believe they believe by faith.”
No. I believe what I believe about the Church based on historical fact. Yes, my faith is based on faith, but my view of the Church was first historical.
“And rational believers have no reason to attack other faiths, even though they may believe those faiths are wrong.”
False. It is the MOST rational thing to do to attack that which is false if the stakes are high. There is no stake higher than eternity.
I take it you have not read all the posts in this thread so I will reiterate for you what I said earlier regarding the many voices of dissent or the internal debate among church theologians and such.
The Church sifts through all the theologies and such that are proposed or postulated by her scholars and teachers and determines which is to be held as true by her members.
She separates the wheat from the chaff so that when she declares as binding a doctrine, a Catholic can trust in the infallibility of that declaration. This has happened in only a few cases by the way. The Church does not hamper or discourage free and independent thought, but she does reserve for herself the final call on what is truth to be held by all her members.
Christ entrusted the deposit of faith with the Church so that it might protect the revealed truth reverently, examine it more closely, and proclaim and expound it faithfully. Code of Canon Law, 747
I do not believe I have cast stones or aspersions on any other faith in this thread. I have certainly asked questions, offered my own opinion and defended my faith and the Church.
I also haven’t referred to any other sect as a cult. Just saying.
Mr. Rogers and Cynical Bear and I have had quite a respectful debate.
This entire post is a profound misunderstanding of Catholicism and the Catholic Church.
I do not care to dredge up all these, not because I fear them, but because they are not relevant to the topic at hand.
It is ridiculous to say that the Church avoids Scripture in light of the considerable effort she has put forth for its preservation.
One in attacking the Church can certainly imbue her actions and such with sinister meaning, but one would be wrong to do so.
We can debate the interpretation of specific Scripture, and believe me I have, on another thread.
Church often means congregation, if translated correctly.
Let’s look at Corinthians:
Who is the letter written to?
” 2To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:” - 1 Cor 1
So it is to the local congregation, and to all believers.
And one of its central themes is for unity in the congregation at Corinth:
“11For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
Notice people were following individuals. And what does Paul say?
“17For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 18For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written...”
Golly, he calls for unity. But notice what he doesn’t do: He never tries to unify the congregation or the believers by referring to Peter.
According to Catholic theology, Peter was the Vicar of Christ and the earthly head of the Church, so in a call to unity, Paul SHOULD have mentioned Peter. Instead, what happens?
19For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
But, as it is written,
“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,
nor the heart of man imagined,
what God has prepared for those who love him”—
9For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.”
Paul relies on two authorities when dealing with their divisions: scripture, and his authority as an Apostle (which is why we use his writings as scripture).
Not once does he appeal to Peter, or to Rome.
I might question or challenge another faith, but if my is to convince or convert another, attacking is no way to accomplish it.
“It is ridiculous to say that the Church avoids Scripture in light of the considerable effort she has put forth for its preservation.”
The Catholic Church hid scripture, and didn’t want it to get into the hands of common men. It held, as you do, that scripture is too difficult for common men to understand, so why bother them with it? Yet the NT letters were written to common men, in the congregations.
>> Who decides? The Holy Spirit? Yet both claim him as their inspiration.<<
Can’t go wrong with Sola Scriptura.
And because we take it as Scripture, it is useful for teaching all the church and not just in Corinth.
Paul didn’t have to call on Peter here because he was an Apostle and as such his authority was recognized.
Later, when the Apostles are all gone is when we see all the church throughout the area turning to Rome to settle differences.
Just as we see the Apostles claiming authority based on their relationship to Jesus, though that relationship is very different in the case of Paul, we see the Church claiming authority based on her connection to the Apostles through succession.
And look at the fruit of universal public education in the 20th century. Literacy rates have DECREASED steadily.
People were literate before because they recognized the importance or being able to read so that they could read the Scripture that the Catholic church had denied it's adherents for so long.
Another ridiculous claim.
The Church protected its physical copies of Scripture due to the difficulty and expense in copying it.
But, since the beginning, the Word has been proclaimed in Mass.
The Church’s concerns are truly realized in protestantism and in today’s dissenting Catholics. It’s motives were nothing more than to protect her members from the heresies and such that we find them succumbing to now.
Her motives are not sinister, nor were they then.
Your opinion, brother, which is not an infallible one:)
>> there is nothing the Church holds which contradicts Scripture or Tradition.<<
Then find the ascension of Mary or the perpetual virginity or the prayers to dead people in scripture.
‘And since the Church wouldn’t allow the common person to learn latin it made it a tad difficult.’
That is one of the nuttiest things I have ever heard. How was the Church able to prevent a literate parent from teaching their child how to read and write?
I honestly don’t have time to spend on these topics, having spent too much time in this thread already.
They have all been endlessly debated here on FR and I have participated in many of those discussions. No amount of proof or exegesis has been enough to convince most protestants here, but that is not the purpose is it? Only the Holy Spirit can move the human heart to belief.
The topic of the original thread is the one I have tried to adhere to, with only a couple of tangents I hope. It struck a chord with me, as I state in one of my earliest posts and that prompted my participation here.
Alas, that participation must come to an end as I have other duties to attend.
I have enjoyed it and I especially appreciate the mostly amiable exchanges.
A very excellent post.
God Bless
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.