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."
Mary is a separate category, just like the Elders who are similarly saints and DO make intercession.
didn’t read the post, did you? Your ignorance of the bond between the corrupt papacy and governments is telling. Ever study European history? Sheesh! [beating head on wall]
your grasping at straws. Your confidence in your political ‘church’ dwindeith. I know. I can hear it! ;P
“Foxe was a fraud. When you cite him, you show your hand.”
Oh for Pete’s sake! Is that the best U got bro? How wacked is that?
Then you do not disagree with its claim that the Pope is the antichrist. Is "not disagreeing" the same as "agreeing?" Do you not want to say?
"Mary is a separate category, just like the Elders who are similarly saints and DO make intercession."
I think you should pay grave attention to the character of the men you follow. It sure ain’t Christ......yet. ;)
You know very little about the Holy Roman Empire (which was none of those). You want to believe Foxe’s view of it and I leave you to your choice.
Just don’t try to pretend it is the reality in which the rest of us live.
There is only agree and disagree, right?
Did Cauvin or Machen invent something new for you?
not much more I can say to you. Maybe some day you will come around.
"Big deal, you were engaging in philosophical argumentation to “explain” the nature of God. My original assertions still stands, despite your caviling."
...and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. (Rev 5:8)
And reject the Holy Eucharist?
Never.
How do you know the saints mentioned are dead?
According to Acts 9:32, not all saints are dead.
If the saints in question are dead.
Then those prayers went from the living saints, to the dead saints, to either God, or the elders who give them to God.
That would be a direct contradiction to John 14:6
You are simply incorrect. Philosophy was the beginning of all sciences. What you call empirical science was originally called natural philosophy. That is where the degree PhD comes from. It means Doctor of Philosophy.
Regardless, when I answered your question with simple science, you tried to claim it was inapplicable. When I answered your question with scripture, you want to jump to philosophical postulates.
Are you familiar with the verse in Luke where our Lord loses patience with those who are like children that will not dance when playing wedding and will not mourn when playing funeral?
Saints aren’t dead. Where would you get such an idea? It kind of misses the entire point of the Resurrection.
I only take such advice from those who demonstrate intellectual integrity by supporting their accusations or withdrawing them.
"Saints aren’t dead. Where would you get such an idea? It kind of misses the entire point of the Resurrection."
32 And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda
?????
That would be a direct contradiction to John 14:6
I'm recalling your "direct contradiction" from Exodus, and I have to say I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan's quip about our friends that know so much that isn't so.
It isn't argued about. Christ, as the Head, is above all things:
1Pe 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
(e-Sword: KJV)
As the Head is knit to the body, and as the body is attached to the Head, How can the body be in subjection to any other?
As the body of Christ, we are exalted with (and because of) Christ, who is above all powers and principalities, to include the angels.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 1Co 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? (e-Sword: KJV) Col 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, [...]
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
My point is that you should’t try to force the emotions, and that you shouldn’t use them as a reliable indicator in determining the state of your soul.
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.