Posted on 03/24/2008 3:36:37 PM PDT by annalex
Will do, please suggest the list of them.
More than you think.
Well, considering that almost every Catholic FReeper who comments on these issues loudly endorses evolution, denies total Biblical inerrancy, or else never says a word on these subjects I think I can be forgiven for not knowing this.
“How many will consider him a “closet Protestant” because of them?”
None.
I don't know about that. Lots of Catholics who argue against Biblical inerrancy assume that the concept was invented by Protestants and is inseparable from sola scriptura. They seem to think that shooting the Bible full of holes vindicates the magisterium and Catholic oral tradition. Even the British Catholic creationist Daylight Origins Society traces the acceptance of evolution in the Catholic Church to a mistrust of the Bible that began at the time of the reformation. Never mind that liberal, anti-inerrantist Protestants are every bit as anti-inerrancy as any atheist, and they are just as much sola scriptura as Fundamentalist Protestants are.
“There are few communities smaller and lonelier than that of inerrantist Catholics. And I should know, ‘cause I used to be one.”
I doubt it.
Of course you know all about me. How dare I say something about my own personal experience of Catholicism when I was obviously dreaming or something?
I agree with him. I hadn't "rush(ed) to lay praises on him," of course; I never rush.
You wrote:
“Well, considering that almost every Catholic FReeper who comments on these issues...”
Wait. Almost every Catholic Freeper who comments on inerrancy denies inerrancy?
Do you have proof of that?
“Lots of Catholics who argue against Biblical inerrancy assume that the concept was invented by Protestants and is inseparable from sola scriptura.”
So, of course you point them toward Dei verbum, right?
“Of course you know all about me.”
I know you have shown no particular knowledge of the Catholic faith so why would anyone conclude you were once Catholic?
How dare I say something about my own personal experience of Catholicism when I was obviously dreaming or something?
Huh? Calvin postulated that? No, God's holy word "postulated" that, and Calvin rightly affirmed it.
Calvin makes it clear that in saying Scripture is "self-authenticated," he does not mean to be taken literally and absolutely. He does not mean that some Bible text or other affirms that the 66 books, and they alone, are divinely inspired. As we observed in step 4 above, nobody ever could claim anything so patently false.
But that is exactly what Calvin wrote and meant and claimed and affirmed...for all those with ears to hear.
Calvin simply means that no extra-Biblical human testimony, such as that of Church tradition, is needed in order for individuals to know that these books are inspired. We can summarize his view as Proposition D: "The Holy Spirit teaches Christians individually, by a direct inward testimony, that the 66 books are inspired by God."
Isn't this exactly what the author said Calvin didn't do?
The trouble is that the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical authority as much as a Pope or Council.
Yep. Spoken straight from Rome -- "the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical authority."
BBWWWAAAHH!!!
Adding insult to injury, this goofy author continues to show his ignorance by actually equating in some manner or another the Holy Spirit to "a Pope" or "a Council."
And this author is attempting to show the illogic of the Protestant faith?
Illogic is believing there is "another Christ" and that there is a "Co-Redeemer" and that there is another mediator between God and men but Christ Jesus. That's illogical at best, and at worst, those words will condemn those who believe them.
As soon as any "intelligent opposition" shows up, let us know.
My pastor had a wonderful message on Resurrection Sunday. In the message he discussed Thomas and the difference between honest doubters and dishonest doubters. Thomas when he actually touched the wounds on Jesus the Resurrected LORD he immediately cried out "My Lord and my God!".
I mention this because I really don't see the opportunity for an honest discussion. Alex Murphy was even pinged just so a flame war could be started.
THANKS THANKS.
Hello. A Happy Easter wish to all (a day after Easter).
This person’s argument against Protestantism seems to be based on the canon of scripture - the “66 books” as he calls it.
I would like to ask all the Catholic Christians who care to answer - because I really do not know the answer to this question:
Which books of “the 66 books” does the Catholic Church deem not accepted as part of the Canon of Scripture to which the Catholic Church looks for the basis of our shared faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord?
Thanks in advance.
IIRC, Thomas did not need to touch . . . he cried out when he merely saw The Lord face to face.
Intersting article. He starts out asking the right questions, but ends up relying on Aristotelian Greek logic to arrive at a false conclusion about a decidedly Hebrew subject. If he would have just simply read the story of the NT apart from all the ridiculous human tradition that we’ve shellacked upon it, he would have found a much simpler and more pure destination.
Of course the Old Testament is older, but the Christian Canon of it is set forth by the Church, while the New Testament, the tool that unlocks the Old Testament for us, is a direct product of the Church.
Happy Easter. Christ is risen!
Doctor, would you care to defend Calvin's ridiculous view on the self-authenticating scripture, somehow? A scriptural eveidence of such self-authentication would help.
Pinging Alex Murphy guaranteed dishonesty of the discussion?
“No, God’s holy word “postulated” that, and Calvin rightly affirmed it.”
All things necessary to become a Christian, live as a Christian, and grow as a Christian are clearly presented in the Bible. Without the Bible we could not know these things. Jesus said in Matthew 4:4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” As God’s very words, the words of Scripture are more than simply true; they are truth itself (John 17:17). They are the final measure by which all supposed truth is to be gauged.
The Bible is our only source for clear and definite statements about God’s will. While God has not revealed all aspects of his will to us, for “the secret things belong to the Lord our God”, there are many aspects of his will revealed to us through the Scriptures, “that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:2). Love for God is demonstrated by keeping “his commandments” (1 John 5:3). And his commandments are found on the pages of Scripture.
The New Testament affirms that its words are the very words of God. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter refers to all of Paul’s letters as one part of the “Scriptures.” This means that Peter, and the early church, considered Paul’s writings to be in the same category as the Old Testament writings. Therefore, they considered Paul’s writings to be the very words of God. Paul, in 2 Timothy 3:16, makes this clear when he writes that “all Scripture is breathed out by God.” and as Paul told Timothy, “the sacred writings ... are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15).
Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:18, writes that “the Scripture says” two things: “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain” and “The laborer deserves his wages:’ The first quote regarding an ox comes from the Old Testament (Deuteronomy. 25:4). The second comes from the New Testament (Luke 10:7). Paul, without any hesitation, quotes from both the Old and New Testaments, calling them both ”Scripture”; the very words of God. That is why Paul could write, “the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).
Since the Old and New Testament writings are both considered Scripture, it is right to say they are both, in the words of 2 Timothy 3:16, “breathed out by God.” This makes sense when we consider Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would “bring to” the disciples’s “remembrance” all that Jesus said to them (John 14:26). It was as the disciples wrote the Spirit-enabled words, that books such as Matthew, John, and 1 and 2 Peter were written.
The “extra-biblical authority” Holy Spirit, doesn’t change the words of Scripture in any way; he doesn’t supernaturally make them become the words of God (they always have been). He does, however, change the reader of Scripture. The Holy Spirit makes readers realize the Bible is unlike any book they have ever read. Through reading, they believe that the words of Scripture are the very words of God himself versus the extra biblical writings and traditions. It is as Jesus said in John 10:27: “My sheep hear my voice … and they follow me”.
The New Testament canon of the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible are the same with 27 Books.The difference in the Old Testaments actually goes back to the time before and during Christ’s life. At this time, there was no official Jewish canon of scripture.
The Jews in Egypt translated their choices of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the second century before Christ. This translation of 46 books, called the Septuagint, had wide use in the Roman world because most Jews lived far from Palestine in Greek cities. Many of these Jews spoke only Greek.
The early Christian Church was born into this world. The Church, with its bilingual Jews and more and more Greek-speaking Gentiles, used the books of the Septuagint as its Bible. Remember the early Christians were just writing the documents what would become the New Testament.
After the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, with increasing persecution from the Romans and competition from the fledgling Christian Church, the Jewish leaders came together and declared its official canon of Scripture, eliminating seven books from the Septuagint.
The books removed were Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom (of Solomon), Sirach, and Baruch. Parts of existing books were also removed including Psalm 151 (from Psalms), parts of the Book of Esther, Susanna (from Daniel as chapter 13), and Bel and the Dragon (from Daniel as chapter 14).
The Christian Church did not follow suit but kept all the books in the Septuagint. 46 • 27 = 73 Books total.
1500 years later, Protestants decided to keep the Catholic New Testament but change its Old Testament from the Catholic canon to the Jewish canon.
The books that were removed supported such things as
- Prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45)
- Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7)
- Intercession of saints in heaven (2 Maccabees 15:14)
- Intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12-15)
The books they dropped are sometimes called the Apocrypha.
Here is a Catholic Bible website: http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/
The author does not argue that the 66 books are not inspired. They are. But the Protestant Canon is truncated to avoid scriptural contradictions of Protestantism, which illustrates the point that an extrascriptural authority is required to even form the canon, let alone interpret the content.
... then what? The proper Old Testament canon will emerge? Illogic becomes logic? Scripture will self-authenticate?
In isolation from the Old Testament the "sola scriptura" superstition looks even worse, since Jesus, unlike Moses, did not write or instruct the Apostles to write the New Testament, while He did found His Church with them. and gave her the teaching authority and the juruducal authority.
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.