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."
The Roman Catholic Church has been, and is now and always has been.. political(Vatican).. And is merely the extension of the Roman Empire.. with all its pagan proclivities.. Rome has always absorbed the GOD(s) of those they conquered.. It is indeed, THE Synagogue of Satan.. (Rev)
The RCC Eucharist is a very public MOCKING of the Holy Spirit..
Most/many protestants have not noticed that .. YET..
Crap. Heaven is and will be sinless in nature.
....LOL........
Those keys were given to all believers, not just Peter, and they consist of salvation by the shed blood of Christ, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which are the heart of the true church to this day. To those that accept the gifts of the spirit, the Kingdom is here, today. ("These works, and greater shall ye do...")
Ha...Your own church says St. Christopher, like many of your other Saints are legends...That’s FAKE...
I’ve been slapped side the head...sniff.
Please do not use potty language on the Religion Forum.
That's not scriptural.
The RCC Eucharist is a very public MOCKING of the Holy Spirit.. Most/many protestants have not noticed that .. YET..
Yes, I already conceded to Quix that my usage of the phrase "never a political body" was a poor choice of words. This doesn't change any of the other things I discussed with him regarding his response to my post to proudtobeanamerican1. That is, the Catholic Church never was the Roman Empire; it never was an "extension of the Roman Empire" either.
Thus, with regards to my post #145, I don't find it unreasonable to accept the teaching of the Church, since the Church at no time was the Roman Empire (thus, was never responsible for the destruction of the original documents of the Gospels and Epistles, etc)
Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it.
This means without Christ, Mary is nothing. Hardly the position of a goddess.
Why continue to debate when you miss the very first sentence?
Those who require some kind of magisterium to adjudicate their posts perhaps shouldn’t enter into these discussions in the first place.
= = =
Indeed.
Or perhaps they could petition Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary to teleport them a pair of magical goggles that they could read FR with . . . that would automatically screen out the Protty posts and their truth.
Ummmm your catechism clearly teaches that you do worship Mary unless you don’t understand the meaning of worship???? Or maybe you don’t believe your own catechism??? Or perhaps you’d like to explain why Mary if the focal point at the altar of a Catholic Church if SHE isn’t the one being worshipped?
But that’s okay. You go ahead and trust Mary for your salvation and the sacraments and ‘traditions’. Hope that works out for you.
I on the other hand will throw myself at the foot of the cross and trust Christ and Christ alone depending on His mercy through His atonement (not Mary’s). Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Christos, Sola Scriptura.
= =
Very well, accurately and profoundly put. Thanks.
Then your articles were incomplete.
In Geneva, you couldn't be burned at the stake for denying some "truth" not found in the Book.
Nobody I know has ever said that everything which is true is in the Bible, in fact, John's gospel says exactly the opposite.
What we say is that all truths necessary to salvation are found there, and this belief carries some protection against the vanities and errors of men.
Good grief, I’m staying out in the pasture with the cows
I wonder if the
ABUSE BUTTON SITTING MARATHONS leave
. . . a brand?
God have mercy . . . just so they don’t start trying to SHOW us that a la LBJ! LOL.
SADLY, that’s overwhelmingly true.
Really? Chapter and verse?
Don't you desire to be united with God?
I sure do. It won't make me divine, but it's kind of the entire point of Jesus -- He is humanity and divinity united.
He bridges the gap. He is the Way. His Person makes it possible for we humans to be united to God.
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.