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."
Quix/Petro/others, it is disengenuous to post articles that oppose others and expect those others not to respond.
To the extent that Protestants post articles detailing or couching their opposition to Catholicism, a protestant is out of touch with reality if he expects Catholics won’t respond.
To the extent that Catholics post articles detailing or couching their opposition to Protestantism, a catholic is out of touch with reality if he expects Protestants won’t respond.
One would hope for arguments based mostly on fact, but, on the other hand, anyone surprised at seeing occasional emotional responses probably isn’t that committed to their own faith.
This is the “town-square” type of thread, if I am not mistaken.
****************
I'm sure most Protestants believe they are committed to their faith.
I can understand why ‘someone’ might not be able to handle more than one laughing dog per post.
Is that why you are only allowed one gif per post?
Or are there other reasons that I’m about to catastrophically learn about...
"This is the “town-square” type of thread, if I am not mistaken."
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
| Locked on Sat 10 May 2008 09:21:38 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
That kind of thing will end when the anti-Catholic fetishism subsides.
Borat.
I’m sorry, I hit the post button in error too soon.
I meant to say “Borat comes to mind.”
meaning??
Are you saying that you will continue to be childish until the anti-catholic fetishism ends?
At first glance, it appears that what you were saying.
Perhaps you should clarify.
I have seen Borat mentioned, but thats all I know.
"meaning??"
Never mind. Not important.
Since Mar 22, 2008
*******************
Ah, kids.
LOL!
When the anti-Catholic fetish subsides, and false posts about what I believe have ended, the combative tone will subside.
I envision the religion forum as a European cafe where folks of differing beliefs gather to discuss philosophy (in this case, more specifically: theology). We can go point for point for hours on end, often with voices raised, but in any case each speaking about why their belief is more faithful to Scripture, etc. Great stuff, and highly educational.
But some of the things said about Catholicism over the years I have been here have been all about Catholics being told what they believe--falsely.
It's not "Why isn't what you do a deification of Mary?" or "If I did what I think Catholics do, I'd be worshiping her."
No.
Instead, its "Catholics worship Mary, their Catechism deifies her." False and False. (And that is but ONE example.)
And this does not mention the vicious insults hurled from the bleachers.
Finally I figured out that this is not the quaint cafe I wish it was, it is a town square, and it has been made what it is by those who figured out long before me precisely what is permitted in this square.
Now that I know, I am bringing it in kind.
Welcome to the town square.
If you don't like my tone, all I can say is "I did not make the soup, I only serve the soup."
Ah, retreads.
Whoops, wrong forum.
FichoriSince Mar 22, 2008
*******************
Ah, kids.
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.