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."
He named no one. Against whom did he bear witness?
We do not know, but we can be reasonably assured. See below.
To me, this is the ultimate destruction of sola scriptura. If we claim the Church is incapable of teaching authoritatively [...]
Teaching authoritatively is different than the preservation of the Word. It is to our great convenience, and to the RCC's credit, that they did preserve the Holy Text, confining their 'changes' or elaborations to their traditions and extra-canonical documents.
We certainly can’t claim it “verifies itself”, as a general distortion of all Scripture could still “verify itself”; it would be “verifying” error though.
I would be happy to stand upon that claim. There are two witnesses bound within the Book. The Prophecy and the Word. They are inextricably bound together with such an intricacy that the only way to explain them otherwise is to assume a conspiracy spanning thousands of years, and working in the world, even unto this very day. With such a ludicrous suggestion set aside, the Prophecy proves the Word, and revelation in the Word proves the Prophecy.
One might also suggest that Protestant forces, no friend to the RCC in such matters, have largely served as an external sourceof confirmation- Taking what extant ancient sources as do exist and subjecting them to translation and interpretation outside of the control of the RCC. In doing so, the result was largely the same as that of the RC determination.
We all do agree wrt the Scripture, albeit not perfectly, though sufficiently.
My contention lies in the Traditions of the RCC, their supposed infallibility, and certainly, and most rigorously, in their elevation to the authority of Scripture by the RCC.
Sola scriptura, in the Protestant sense, does not suggest '*only* Scripture', as is often tossed about, but instead demands that nothing can rise to the authority of Scripture. No tradition, Protestant, Catholic, or otherwise, may trump that authority.
Oddly enough, the contention among the Protestant branches lies mainly in how much of the RCC tradition to adhere to- Those things which the various denominations cling to that are extra-Biblical (Sunday Sabbath, baptism by sprinkling, infant baptism, ad etcetera), as well as extra-Biblical Protestant ideas (Calvinism, etc) are the cause of disunity among the Protestants as well as the disunity between the Protestants and the Catholics.
Are you speaking physical, mental, emotional or spiritual age?
LOL.
God knows.
I'm not allowed to say.
Yes its the earth. But then again I mentioned I was there FIVE YEARS ago. THEN, the painted scene was little more than clouds and blue sky. It looks like they may have changed it. So perhaps its not the earth now, I don't know, and maybe they've repainted over the scene, I don't know that either since I have not been there since 2003, but in 2003 it was the earth and there were clouds painted behind it. BTW: YOU are the one who mentioned the painted scene so why don't you answer your own statement about it? BTW again, are you also calling me a liar??????
Did you photograph the globe in 2003? Have you any other proof of what you claim? Or must we take your word for it?
No, I didn't.
BTW again, are you also calling me a liar??????
No. Somebody above pointed out that it was from Revelation. And you talked about the stars around her head. If it is from Revelation, it is the moon. That's all.
May God be with you in your travels brother, Blessings and safety on your way.
Wow. What a cleansed version of the truth from the murderers themselves. I would have expected better from you.
Try this...and if you have the patience to read maybe you can link the religion with the politics of the day....but to start off, a backdrop of the rcc in which Tyndale grew up:
The popes of Tyndale’s day were very powerful and very wicked. Sixtus IV (1471-1484) established houses of prostitution in Rome. Innocent VIII (1484-1492) had seven illegitimate children, whom he enriched with church treasures. Alexander VI (1492-1503) lived with a Spanish lady and her daughter, and reveled in the grossest forms of debauchery. "The accounts of some of the indecent orgies that took place in the presence of the pope and [his daughter] Lucrezia are too bestial for repetition" (Kerr, pp. 228,29). He had five children, and his favorite son, Caesar Borgia, murdered his brother and his brother-in-law.
So much for infallibility and holiness of the papacy.
Now, the REAL story and the REAL man
We do know that Tyndale was condemned and burned on the authority of the Roman Catholic clergy. Hall’s Chronicle of 1548 contained the following information (we have modernized the spelling): "This year in the month of September William Tyndale otherwise called Hitchens was by the cruelty of the clergy of Louvain condemned and burned in a town beside Brussels in Braband called Vilvorde" (Westcott, History of the English Bible, p. 172).
The story of Tyndale’s betrayal comes upon good authority, having been recorded by historian John Foxe (1517-1587) from the mouth of Thomas Poyntz, one of the key figures in these events. Tyndale had been living for almost one year with a true friend, the aforementioned Thomas Poyntz, when Henry Phillips discovered him and gradually befriended him. Just hours before the betrayal, the wicked Phillips borrowed forty shillings from Tyndale, knowing he would not have to repay it. Phillips lied, claiming that he had lost his purse during a journey. That afternoon Phillips invited Tyndale to be his guest for dinner that evening, but the gracious Tyndale protested that he, instead, would provide the meal at his expense and that Phillips should be his guest. Phillips brought officers with him and they laid in wait outside of the house while Phillips met Tyndale at the door and pretended that he was ready to go to dinner. As they were leaving the house, at the prearranged signal Tyndale was seized by the officers of Emperor Charles V, a bitter opponent of the Reformation, and he was imprisoned at the castle of Vilvorde.
It is interesting to note at this point that God is not mocked. Henry Phillips was later charged with treason against England’s king, and he was pursued from city to city on this account. In the end he was destitute and friendless. "We take our leave of him, disowned by his parents, cast aside by his friends, denounced by his country, shunned by the very party for whose sake he had marred his life, mistrusted by all, valued only as a tool, friendless, homeless, hopeless, destitute, fated to go down to history as the author of one perfidious deed" (Mozley, William Tyndale, p. 323).
The imprisoned Tyndale was convicted of heresy by the Romanist authorities under the laws of the Inquisition and condemned to die. One of the Catholic theologians conspicuous for his zeal to prosecute Tyndale was Ruwart Tapper, Doctor of Theology, Chancellor of the University of Louvain. Tapper "was conspicuous for his untiring and unsparing zeal in opposing and suppressing the encroachments of Protestantism." He is said to have vowed the maxim, "It is no great matter, whether they that die on account of religion be guilty or innocent, provided we terrify the people by such examples; which generally succeed best when persons eminent for learning, riches, nobility, or high station, are thus sacrificed" (Robert Demaus, William Tindale, p. 175).
For sixteen months the godly Bible translator remained in the cold, lonely prison. This encompassed one long winter. During part of that time he was examined by Catholic theologians from the University of Louvain, who sought to prove his heresies. In a pitiful communication to an authority in the only letter from those days which has been preserved in his own hand, discovered in Belgian archives in the 19th century, Tyndale made the following entreaty:
I entreat your lordship, and that by the Lord Jesus, that if I am to remain here during the winter, you will request the Procureur to be kind enough to send me from my goods which he has in his possession, a warmer cap, for I suffer extremely from cold in the head, being afflicted with a perpetual catarrh, which is considerably increased in this cell. A warmer coat also, for that which I have is very thin: also a piece of cloth to patch my leggings. My overcoat is worn out, as also are my shirts. He has a woolen shirt of mine, if he will be kind enough to send it. I have also with him leggings of thicker cloth for putting on above; he also has warmer caps for wearing at night. I wish also his permission to have a lamp in the evening, for it is wearisome to sit alone in the dark.
But above all, I entreat and beseech your clemency to be urgent with the Procureur that he may kindly permit me to have my Hebrew Bible, Hebrew Grammar, and Hebrew Dictionary, that I may spend my time with that study.
And in return, may you obtain your dearest wish, provided always that it be consistent with the salvation of your soul. But if, before the end of the winter, a different decision be reached concerning me, I shall be patient, abiding the will of God to the glory of the grace of my Lord Jesus Christ, whose Spirit, I pray, may ever direct your heart. Amen (Andrew Edgar, The Bibles of England, 1889, pp. 66-69).
Though Tyndale was bound, the Word of God was not. Even during his imprisonment, three editions of his New Testament were printed, as well as editions of some of his books.
On the morning of October 6, 1536, he was led forth to the place of execution. He was tied to a stake, strangled, then burned. At his death Tyndale prayed, "Lord, open the king of England’s eyes."
Tyndale’s spiritual character was evidenced by his life in prison. "Such had been the power of his doctrine, and the sincerity of his life, that during the time of his imprisonment, which endured about one whole year and a half, (or rather a year and three-quarters,) it is said he converted his keeper, the keeper’s daughter, and others of his household. The rest that were in the Castle, and conversant with Tyndale, reported of him, that if he were not a good Christian man, they could not tell whom to trust: and the Procurator-General, the Emperor’s attorney, being there, left this testimony of him, that he was ‘Homo doctus, pius, et bonus’—a learned, pious, and good man" (Anderson, Annals of the English Bible, I, pp. 517,18).
John Foxe, who was contemporary with Tyndale and who diligently interviewed people then living about the events we have described, drew this picture of the man: "First, he was a man very frugal, and spare of body, a great student, and earnest labourer in the setting forth of the Scriptures of God. He reserved or hallowed to himself two days in the week, which he named his pastime, Monday and Saturday. On Monday he visited all such poor men and women as were fled out of England, by reason of persecution, into Antwerp, and these, once well understanding their good exercises and qualities, he did very liberally comfort and relieve; and in like manner provided for the sick and diseased persons. On the Saturday, he walked round about the town, seeking every corner and hole, where he suspected any poor person to dwell; and where he found any to be well occupied, and yet over-burdened with children, or else were aged and weak, those also he plentifully relieved. And thus he spent his two days of pastime, as he called them. And truly his alms were very large, and so they might well be; for his exhibition that he had yearly, of the English merchants at Antwerp, when living there, was considerable, and that for the most part he bestowed upon the poor. The rest of the days of the week, he gave wholly to his book, wherein he most diligently travailed. When the Sunday came, then went he to some one merchant’s chamber, or other, whither came many other merchants, and unto them would he read some one parcel of Scripture; the which proceeded so fruitfully, sweetly and gently from him, much like to the writing of John the Evangelist, that it was a heavenly comfort and joy to the audience, to hear him read the Scriptures: likewise, after dinner, he spent an hour in the same manner" (Anderson, I, pp. 520,21).
The noble translator fought a good fight and finished his course, and we now leave him to rest in Glory and to await the fulfillment of these times.
parsed from http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/williamtyndale.htm
That is hardy a fair assessment, but even were it true, that end is the result of RCC manipulations which were the cause for reform in the first place.
Long answer: (Entirely from memory, I'm supposed to be doing something else here, so no time for research or checking) As to East: The association between Jesus and the rising Sun is Biblical: Whereby the day-spring from on high hath visited us - Somewhere in Luke, Zacary's song. At least when I was young the architectural association with east was so strong that the "altar end" of a church was often called the "East end" whichever direction it happened to be in the real world.
AS to which way the priest faces. I don't know the canons, but I do know at least the custom up to the 1960s was that most of the time the priest and the people all faced the same way - "east". The GOOD side of that is that it "says" that the priest is kind of the spokesperson for this crowd behind him and they all together are addressing God, it's just that he's the one doing the talking. To ,me it emphasizes the oneness of people and priest.
The bad sides are that it feels funny talking to a wall and, more seriously, the thinking was that ad orientem (I think it's called) was seen as suggesting that God was "out there" somewhere, rather than "Immanuel", God with us.
Some older churches seem to suggest that "Ad orientem" was NOT universal in the middle or towards the end of the first half of the first millenium. But, be that as it may, the versus populum position was touted in the 60's (era from hell) as being more intimate and as stressing the presence of God.
My problem with it is that it sort of separates (as one might NOT expect) the priest from the people. An Episcopal friend's grandmother said, "You look like the clerk at the Bon Temps! (I take it that was a lady's clothing store - anyway it cracked me up.)
But what we have with versus populumIS all the offishul clergydudes on ONE side of the altar, with maybe a couple of acolytes and lay helpers, and on the other side, us slobs. It's less like something we're all doing together, and more like something the clergy are doing for us.
In my current parish the church is a kind of "in the round" affair, which makes me always feel like I'm watching the umpire at a tennis match -- a SLOW tennis match, his head oscillating from right to left, when he preaches. There was an Episcopal Church, St. Clements in Alexandria VA, where I was almost getting seasick watching the poor man!
The deal, as far as I'm concerned, is that each of these "Styles" has its merits and its faults, and NO style can say everything that is to be said anymore than a paragraph or sonnet can be utterly comprehensive. A rigid adherence either to versus populum or ad orientem is to me a sign that people don't have enough to worry about.
I hope that was responsive and useful.
Verse says, 'examine yourself'...
Jesus says, 'break the bread' to remember my broken body...Jesus says, 'drink the cup' to remember His shed blood...
His life, He has given for us, if we repent and turn to Him...
If we participate in 'communion' without repenting, or without examining ourselves, we are as guilty as those that hung Him on the Cross...We are unworthy to claim victory in Jesus...THAT is the 'being guilty of the body and blood...
Look, no one at the Crucifixion went up and licked His ankles or 'gnawed' at His feet...If Jesus was literal, and His disciples believed He was speaking literally when he said 'whoever eats this flesh will have eternal life, I would have run right up there and got my fill of His flesh before it was sealed in the tomb...Would have been nothing left but a skeleton...
Even if you guys may not have spiritual discernment, what happened to that God given common sense???
It is very fair, and true. Look at all the conflicting doctrine regarding salvation among the various Protestant denominations. The Holy Spirit isn't in conflict with the truth.
that end is the result of RCC manipulations which were the cause for reform in the first place.
Reform, yes. But the Reformation wasn't about reform, it was about starting separate churches, with each adherring to its own traditions of man, based on their individual interpretations (and sometimes manipulations) of Scripture.
You think men like this are above extorting Suzie for her money in exchange for a heretical indulgence if it can get them another hours with a prostitute?
The popes of Tyndale’s day were very powerful and very wicked. Sixtus IV (1471-1484) established houses of prostitution in Rome. Innocent VIII (1484-1492) had seven illegitimate children, whom he enriched with church treasures. Alexander VI (1492-1503) lived with a Spanish lady and her daughter, and reveled in the grossest forms of debauchery. "The accounts of some of the indecent orgies that took place in the presence of the pope and [his daughter] Lucrezia are too bestial for repetition" (Kerr, pp. 228,29). He had five children, and his favorite son, Caesar Borgia, murdered his brother and his brother-in-law.
Some 'church' you got there. Pure EVIL.
That’s OK.
God reads the thoughts and intents of our hearts.
The statue of Mary is designed to be the main and likely the only focus in that setting...
You show that picture to a child and ask him/her what stands out more than anything in this picture...I think we all know the answer we will get...
Nice try, but it still breaks down in light of the Discourses on the Bread of Life in John Chapter 6.
Foxe was a fraud. When you cite him, you show your hand.
Totally wrong.
There is no authority but the Lord himself. Each of us report directly to the Father, under the authority of the Son. There are no middle men in the Kingdom.
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.