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."
“Incidental” or not, being made without sin is better than being made with sin. You can’t just say “incidental” to try to make a liar of Scripture. Either Mary was the most blessed woman or not. “Incidental” or not.
Two points for you. My point still remains, that sinless is better than sinful. Don't you agree?
If one rejects the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, on what basis can one accept the Scripture that is of, by, and for that Church? Given that it was the Magisterium that codified the canon and promulgated the idea that that particular list of writings was inspired by God, why would someone who considers the Church a corrupt institution of man have any faith in the writings. For all they know, the Church could have made up the New Testament out of whole cloth. It makes no sense to me.
Matthew 18:20; Romans 12:5; I Cor. 12:12; I Cor. 12:27; Ephesians 3:6;.....the ‘church’ are believers who have accepted Christ and believed His Gospel. It does not have a name over the door, Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.
See, I'm just the other way. My humbleness for being given the unmerited gift of faith makes me more charitable towards others who struggle in error. I don't assume they are deliberately wrong, but rather that they are a product of their training and influences.
I do not 'try to make a liar of Scripture', and I draw no small offense that you would accuse me of it.
Either Mary was the most blessed woman or not. “Incidental” or not.
It is my suggestion that Mary's personal state of existence had nothing whatsoever to do with her being 'most blessed among women' prior to the tiding brought to her by Gabriel. It was those good tidings which made her blessed, that she of all women was destined to bring forth the Savior of all mankind.
That in and of itself makes her unique, for no one before her, nor any after her would ever have that honor bestowed... and it kicks the crap out of anything Eve ever did, that's for sure.
Please don’t change the subject. I was wondering what you make of Col 1:24, and please look at the Greek and NOT at the KJV before you answer.
Amen to that.
Thank you.
Evidently Alex did “get” a promotion: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2010892/posts#9
He forgot to switch profiles before posting his RM admonishment.
BTW Dr. Eck, I notice you didn’t want to discuss UFOTheology.
The phrase for “blessed” used of Mary is also used of Job in James 5:11. For his endurance. As you suggest, being blessed does not necessarily have anything to do with sin, but with being used by God.
I don’t think you got my point.
HOGWASH.
Sounds more like
another round of
RC’s enjoying yet another ABUSE BUTTON MARATHON SITTING SESSION.
As usual . . . when the heat gets too hot, they want the kitchen torn down instead of getting out of the kitchen.
She was created by God, that’s for sure - but not even indirectly from nothing.
But she was sinless until “the fall”. Perfection, which is what sinless is, certainly is better than sinful. That’s why all mankind needs Jesus - He alone is without sin.
An interesting, not directly related point: I’ve been taught all my life that humans - every one - is created in God’s image. In a book (Classic Christianity) that I recently read, the author points out Gen 5:1, which shows that Adam and Eve were created in God’s image, but all descendants have been born in the image of their Earthly parents. Being bron again, as the new creation in Christ, is when we are re-created in His image.
Gen 5:5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
That is certainly a part of it. But it defies reason to believe that Mary could be most "blessed" without being created without sin. Knowing God has this power and knowing Mary would be the mother of Jesus, why would Jesus not honor His mother by creating her this way?
Furthermore, the very understanding of Original Sin being a lack of a relationship with God becomes muddled if we are to consider a woman with God in her womb who simultaneously lacks a relationship with God. It does not follow.
Or shut up.
= =
So nice to see a Brother who believes in miracles in our era.
Thanks.
What's insanity is trying to argue that a woman created without sin, who then rebells against her creator, bringing a curse upon herself and all mankind is somehow greater.
I can only assume you either have no idea what Original Sin is,
I believe I have a better grasp than you do trying to produce a 'sinless' woman from two very human 'sinful' parents, i.e. Mary's folks. Unless you are now trying to maintain one of them was also sinless????? Luke 3 beginning in v. 23 never mentions this, perhaps you have an extra-biblical source? Again: Romans 3:23 - FOR ALL HAVE SINNED.......
Your logical leaps with Luke 1:48 (being lower than God doesn't mean one is sinful) can wait for another day till you sort out whether sin is beteer than no sin.
The word for 'low or humble' estate is ταπείνωσιν (tapeinōsin) My Greek Word study says the following:
ταπείνωσις (tapeinōsis 5014)
1. humiliation
a lowering, humbling, abasing; lowliness.
2. low estate
a making low, humiliation. in NT, the being brought low, low estate, humiliation.
3. vile
humiliation; here, generally, of humiliation.
ταπείνωσις (tapeinōsis, 5014), -εως, ἡ, (ταπεινόω), lowness, low estate, [humiliation]: Lk. i. 48; Acts viii. 33 (fr. Is. liii. 8); Phil. iii. 21 (on which see σῶμα, 1 b.); metaph. spiritual abasement, leading one to perceive and lament his (moral) littleness and guilt, Jas. i. 10, see Kern ad loc. (In various senses, by Plat., Aristot., Polyb., Diod., Plut.; Sept. for עֳנִי.) [See reff. s. v. ταπεινοφροσύνη.]*
Perhaps you'd care to explain how tapeinōsin which does mean humiliation, low estate, or even vile and which has no other meanings could mean anything else BUT SIN in Luke 1:48? Unless now you're trying to maintain that being pregant with the Son of God is a vile humiliation???? Think man and look at the text. I'm sorry but I'll take the authority of Greek scholars as to what this word means over you.
Depends on how "indirect" you want to consider. ;-)
And Sola Scriptura collapes. Thank you.
(I already answered your question. A lowly state does not need to imply sin. Being a perfect, sinless human being is still more lowly than being God. Anything other than humility before God would be sinful.)
Exactly. And in doing so, she is deserving of honor, more so than any other woman, that is true. But that is a whole different thing than the near deification that is proposed by our RCC FRiends.
Save your breath.
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.