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."
The way you redefine them, they might.
What part of 'born in sin' can't you comprehend? And no the statement does not allow exceptions. If you don't believe this as well why does YOUR church practice INFANT BAPTISM?
As to Mary, please provide one New Testament verse that specifcally says she was born sinless.......
Amazing bigotry there.
Hatred does not become you.
It is impossible to know. But it is also a moot point, as the sins of children are not held against them till the age of reckoning (14 years AFAIR).
Please explain Genesis 3:15. Who is “the woman” what is the enmities that protect her seen (Jesus Christ) from Satan (note: the enmities are the SAME) and why is the woman crushing Satan’s head?
Gen 3:15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring [a] and hers; he will crush [b] your head, and you will strike his heel." Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
(e-Sword: KJV)
(e-Sword: ASV)
(Bible Gateway: NIV)
I think it would be more accurate to say something like . . . take the Greek, put it in a VitaMix blender on high; pour it out and mix it with the spatters from the bottom of the parrot cage . . . then spray to the 4 winds in a hurricane . . .
Then claim that there's sufficient solid, sensible, logical foundation left to build a skyscraper thereon.
I mean, it's hard to avoid resulting in a Protty rubber dictionary given our persistent associations with the rubber book factory . . . but we have to be diligent and try to keep the terms sensibly accurate.
Great points, as usual. Thx.
The part where you think "born in sin" means an infant "has sinned."
Personal sin and original sin are two different things. The Bible verse you are wearing out says "all have sinned."
But you agreed that this infant in question did not, and could not have sinned. So the Bible verse must allow for exceptions.
If you don't believe this as well why does YOUR church practice INFANT BAPTISM?
Because of original sin. Not becasue we believe a two-day old child is guilty of pooping his pants.
Is it? Really? You can't tell if a one-day old infant has committed a sin? Maybe he got a little gluttonous with his Mama? Maybe he tried to annoy dad by pooping during the big game?
But it is also a moot point, as the sins of children are not held against them till the age of reckoning
It's not a moot point. If the text in question allows for exceptions, then it is not an absolute refutation of the idea of a person being free from sin.
That’s my point, sorry you missed it.
Playskool gibberish.
I try to avoid speaking beyond the expectations and perceptual skills of my readers/listeners . . . sometimes . . .
though not always.
The only difference between an infant and a tyrant is the amount of applicable power. Among mankind, there is no more selfish and self-centered a creature, quick to anger, inconsolable, uncompromising, and without consideration. Were it not for instinctive protections imposed upon the mature, the human race would have died out long ago. ; )
It's not a moot point. If the text in question allows for exceptions, then it is not an absolute refutation of the idea of a person being free from sin.
It is impossible to gauge the mind of an infant. Your position is formed upon something that cannot be proven, athough subjective evidences within my observations are not in your favor.
If the Bible says ALL have sinned, then I will believe that it is true.
That notion is ridiculous. How does an infant form intent to sin?
I think you may not have a complete understanding of sin. Sin is the choice to do what is wrong. Children and the mentally deficient lack the capacity to fully understand right and wrong and the consequences of their choices. That's why we don't imprison the insane.
I have no idea of an infant's capacities within it's soul, and neither do you.
The post was meant to be facetious, Petro. That's what the little winky-face was for.
Yes, that's right.
But, then you hypocritically attack sola scriptura as not being valid since a verse does not specifically say 'sola scriptura' (even though I Cor. 4:6 does indeed say not to exeed what is written).
Tell me you really didn't write that.
The phrase "sola scriptura" is NOT the basis of my argument. The fact that the concept is neither stated nor implied is the real basis of my argument.
even though I Cor. 4:6 does indeed say not to exeed what is written
We already did this. "What is written" does NOT say anything about the Bible.
Paul was referring to anything that contradicts Scripture.
Prove it.
Including the unbiblical and contradictory 'Mary was sinless' Catholic Doctrine which is refuted by Romans 3:28 - All have sinned.................
If Christ Himself doesn't violate your reading of 3:28, why does Mary have to? I see no qualifier in that verse.
Probably the same reason there are contradictory RCC 'traditions'.
Hardly, we don't spin off another congregation every time a significant portion of the church think the color of the new carpet isn't sanctified enough.
Yes, I do believe in an age of accountability. It was I that had made mention thereof. That does not mean that children don't sin, but that their sins are not held against them. That is a significant difference.
Tricky subject.
Something slightly relevant to consider are the words King David found in 2nd Samuel 12:23.
Just some food for thought.
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.