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 was talking about that one, too.
Evidently the alternate reality perspective necessitates new glasses for . . . some . . .
I could say the very same thing about you just now.
Evidently. I hope you get help soon.
Ann, it’s not that we don’t LIKE Catholics. We like the truth and there are so many falsehoods and heresies in the Mormon and Catholic faiths that when we point them out, you have a fit. We don’t believe in infant baptism as a salvation experience. It’s a command to believe and be baptized for sure, but infant baptism has nothing to do with your salvation. Receiving Christ into your life as your Lord and Saviour IS.
We will never agree.
Hah!
We like the truth and there are so many falsehoods and heresies in the Mormon and Catholic faiths that when we point them out, you have a fit.
But your "facts" are so wrong.
Just in this thread you've joked that St. Christopher was kicked out of the sainthood but we still sell the prayer cards . . . anything to make a buck, I guess...smile.
That's all wrong. Are you even concerned whether you're right or wrong? Do you even care that you're impugning the motives of about a billion people, on false information?
Please do not distort the meanings of my words FRiend. I clearly indicated in the post you replied to (that I’m replying to now) that the Church was never the Roman Empire. This was to make the point to proudtobeanamerican1 that “I do not reject the authority of the Church simply because the Roman Empire persecuted early Christians.”
My point was/is that the Church was never the Roman Empire. This is historical fact. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the phrase “never a political body”, but this was clearly modified/clarified by the phrase “never the Roman Empire”.
Nah, she didn’t. She was a good catholic, had 12 children!
Nah, she didn’t. She was a good catholic, had 12 children!
Suuuure.
Make it 14. What the heck.
I’ll hazard this assertion . . .
Relatively early on . . . unable to constrain himself any longer . . . and in response to assaults on
beliefs,
ideas,
habits,
practices,
and the like . . .
the usual culprit began to repeatedly let loose with
fiercely pointedly personal, personhood assaults.
That’s this Protty’s memory of that thread . . . and I’ll hazard, the memory of most Prottys . . . what say ye, Prottys?
However, I understand the dynamics of selective perception and don’t need to get into a protracted go around on it. I just wished to note the more REALITY BASED perspective, for the record.
Nah, she finally discovered what caused them...
I noted your qualification.
I do think it’s important to stress the political nature of the power-mongering elite in all RELIGIOUS organizations. It’s part of what makes RELIGION so deadly—of any flavor.
No, she actually did have 12 children. Can’t even count the grandkids and great grandkids.
I noted your qualification—silently, to myself.
The facts according to Petronski are wrong.
First hand, apparently.
I just wished to note the more REALITY BASED perspective, for the record.
Let me know when you make the attempt.
Do not make this thread about individual Freepers.
If you are referring to the Catholic Church, you are wrong.
Don’t write me again...EVER....or I will report you again.
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.