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'm actually curious now what you think it means.
ROFLMBO!!!!! So true....LOL.
Yes it is. Not my problem you reject the passages because it contradicts the RCC. It is supported and stated as much as the doctrine of the Trinity is, and it is MORE supported and stated than your belief in the papacy which is not supported in any way from the NEW TESTAMENT.
What is written" does NOT say anything about the Bible.
Prove it.
If Christ Himself doesn't violate your reading of 3:28, why does Mary have to? I see no qualifier in that verse.
Thanks so much for affirming your belief that Mary is equal to Christ and therefore God herself. Yep - Goddess worship.
That's intellectually dishonest. He made no such equivocation.
You can't actually believe he did, can you?
So, doesn't change a thing. And you never mentioned it was 'subjective'. As to 'YOUR' account....didn't read the source citations did you?????
The contention made by some here is that Paul considered the New Testament to be “complete,” I was simply pointing out that this is IMPOSSIBLE.
No one is suggesting that Paul ever said the NT was 'complete'....only that it was 'sufficient' in what had already been given (II Timothy 3:16). John is the guy said it was 'complete' and not to 'add to it' (Revelation 22:18-19)
How can you believe he didn't when you own catechisms elevate Mary to being a co-Savior and equal with Christ???? There is no way to spin your way out of that although you're trying really hard.
But you do, so you know what I'm saying is on par with the blind seeing and the lame walking.
I have no need to spin out of that claim. It is false.
Your catechisms are false, that’s interesting.
Your previous statement about them is false, as is your current statement about my words.
Better stand back. I think she’s gonna blow!
You need to take a deep, cleansing breath. You’re really coming unhinged.
Breathtaking the logical chasm you just jumped to reach that conclusion.
But another poster did point out the "semitic superlative" that Gabriel's greeting to Mary entailed. So, I agree with you that this greeting is stronger than Job's "blessedness." Doesn't change the meaning of the word 'makarizo,' however, or in any way elevate Mary to some level of Queenship over all creation. That's just a big stretch from a simple statement.
You know, philosophically speaking, what has happened by the elevation of Mary seems to me an example of hellenistic vs hebraic thinking. Hellenistic thinking builds huge thought systems (e.g. theological or mariological) and thrives on "consistency" and "understanding" within the system, even when the system contradicts logical thought outside the system. Hebraic thinking just takes things at face value, and scorns theological systems. The highest good for a hebraic is obedience, for a hellenist is understanding (Matthew Arnold). The Bible was written by hebraic writers.
My point of view tends toward the idea that the hellenization of scripture leads to the Roman Catholic superstructure of doctrines/systems/authority. And the same hellenistic thinking leads among protestants to fractures/denominations/intellectual systems.
I get the distinct feeling that the gospel is a lot simpler than either of these. It is simply based on the hebrew concept of truth as "that which happened (e.g. "gospel" in 1 Corinthians 15:1ff)," and the greatest hebrew good of "responding in obedience to what happened."
ARTICLE 9
"I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH"
Paragraph 6. Mary - Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church
I. MARY'S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH
Wholly united with her Son . . .
964: Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death";
Union with Christ exalts Mary to equal status and exalts here to becoming a god I don't care how you spin it - its there.
Reasoning with you is like reasoning with a Mormon who refuses to acknowledge what is written in his own church's teachings.
It does not.
Religion Forum rules do not permit mindreading or assignment of motives.
What do you know! Mine, too.
And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb." -- Luke 1:28,42"And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women...
Apparently the RCC foists this deception off on an unsuspecting laity to further their opinion that Mary is a "co-redeemer" and a "dispensatrix of all grace."
Blasphemy upon blasphemy.
1st off that is a fallacious argument. The word 'Trinity' doesn't appear either and we know its there. Secondly, the concept of the papacy is not anywhere in the New Testament either and you believe in that from extra-biblical teaching sources. Thirdly, the concept of sola scriptura is indeed there, you just refuse to see it because it contradicts the RCC.
What mind reading???? I quoted you your own catechism which does clearly say that Mary has been 'united' with Christ. That makes her a GOD. You say no it doesn't and that's a lie and I say to you that you are lying - Because that is EXACTLY what your catechism says. Perhaps you need a dictionary with a definition of 'united'?
Like I said reasoning with you is akin to reasoning with a Mormon who is in denial about what Mormonism's true history is or what has actually been SAID by his leaders........
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.