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."
LOL!
Some are wise beyond their years, aren't they?
:>)
There is nothing combative about someone saying the catechism deifies Mary, IF that is what they actually conclude from an honest perusal.
******************
I would guess that many of us here envisioned the same place, but were rudely brought to reality. It's unfortunate, but it seems we must work with what we have.
I think they say “love makes the world go round”, which may result in the same thing. :)
Easy Petro.
I Never accused you of anything.
I only said thats what it LOOKED like you said AT FIRST GLANCE and asked you to clarify.
I never believed that you meant what appeared to be implied.
Thank you for clarifying.
That’s what the mod tells us.
Is this deja vu all over again?
"I think they say “love makes the world go round”, which may result in the same thing. :)"
I’m a protty and I actually know of NO one in our area churches who are UFO fans. So, find someone else to insult.
Please forgive me. You did not accuse me of anything.
Your question insinuated childishness on my part, but it was NOT an accusation.
Yep, and he’s had a field day with the one true church theology. Cheez.
Apology accepted.
And your right, I should have been more careful with my wording.
I shall try to be more careful in the future.
Judith Anne, we already DO know the abiding truth. We are a part of the one true church, the body of Christ, with our Lord as its head. Jesus is our Saviour, our Lord, our Way, Truth and Life.
That European cafe is what I want from the religion forum. Hour upon hour, but with respect.
I can smell the cigarettes and taste the rich stark espresso in the demitasse in my hand.
Just a place where I’m free to say “I think you believe X and I disagree” and the other guy is free to say “I don’t believe x, I believe non(x)...you missed (a) (b) and (c)” and I’m free to say “I don’t think I missed them, but I see why you agree non(x); I don’t agree, but I understand...”
And so on.
Yes, we are committed to our faith in Christ. Sometimes we don’t act like it, but...we are human. Sigh.
Be well new Freeper. Let us both try to be more polite than the other. If we’re both trying, it cannot fail.
It will probably not end until Christ returns...smile.
Yeah, but he’s a really GOOD kid.
I guarantee to you that when Christ returns the anti-Catholic fetishism will end.
Taking things out of context in order to feel
personally insulted for something which does not concern one specific poster
is, well, hilarious.
OR WOULD BE
If the person doing it were not in the rabid-dog attack mode for no discernible reason. Typical of the protties, though, and in sorrow for their sins,
I ask Blessed Mary, Ever Virgin, to pray for us, to the Lord Jesus Christ.
INDEED
"Be well new Freeper. Let us both try to be more polite than the other. If we’re both trying, it cannot fail."
********************
Cough, cough. :) I'll be sitting at one of the umbrella tables on the sidewalk, usually with a cup of tea. Once in a while an espresso would be heavenly.
It sounds lovely.
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.