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've said twice that I agree it is not a hate site.
But it IS filled with hate.
Wow. The Lord's own words is not truth now because it contradicts the RCC. Guess the only scripture you care about is papal decrees (the words of men). Guess this explains why the RCC didn't even want you reading the Bible until about 1960. Thanks for making a great case FOR sola scriptura.
You said that, not I.
Absolutely false.
Um, no. I quoted Scripture, I gave you the Greek text even and its definition. You came back with, "You don't speak truth". So sorry but you attacked the Word of God, deal with it. Unless you think "I" am the author of the Bible?!?!?
In terms of salvation, what role do you think the Bible plays?
And it makes the cross insufficent in direct contradiction to your above statement when you seek to add sacraments, and ordinances, and decrees, etc. etc. to salvation.
Which "above statement", please?
Looks like I need to dig up the historical sources during the Reformation whereby the Roman Catholic church burned protestants for merely possessing a Bible........
Yes—absolutely false and such a statement should be refuted.
Thayer's has:
G3106 μακαρίζω
makarizō
mak-ar-id'-zo
From G3107; to beatify, that is, pronounce (or esteem) fortunate: - call blessed, count happy.
Compare that to your false claim: "It means happy. That's it...."
That’s Strong, not Thayer.
It is the Bible which tells us the HOW.....unless you were there 2,000 years ago in person you need something that instructs you.
Which "above statement", please?
Sigh. You know very well 'which' statement, I quoted you at the top of my last post to you. Your statement affirming the SUFFICIENCY of the cross. Go back and look at it again.
Go for it. A metric ton of such references would not establish your claim that the Catholic Church did not want Catholics reading the bible until about 1960 or so.
When you do, be sure to note if translation was an issue.
Please do not tell me what I know (unless you are SURE you're right, and even then ...). I didn't understand your sentence about sacraments and such. Since there is so much assuming going on, I thought it would be better to be sure I understood what you were saying.
It is the Bible which tells us the HOW.....unless you were there 2,000 years ago in person you need something that instructs you.
I don't see how that is different from "the Cross plus".
I concede I may have to look up Thayer's. But since Thayer's adds a meaning that neither Strong's or other Greek word studies include make it somewhat suspect as to reliability in my opinion. I have a suspicion it is probably a Catholic word study with additions to seek to support Maryology. So who is 'false' here is a matter of opinion. But I will look it up. In spite of this; however, your definition states:
From G3107; to beatify, that is, pronounce (or esteem) fortunate: - call blessed, count happy,
Even Thayer's definition does not mean to make a Co-Savior, or to make 'Queen of all things' or to 'make intercession' as your cathechism states. In addition, even Thayer's does include the term 'happy' as I said, so I was not wrong in my statement (and Strong's) that it means happy. And it is translated 'happy' in James 5:11 in the KJV. Makarizo is not translated beatify, or pronounced fortunate in James 5:11 in any version - why?
Sorry, but Scripture says different. There is NO indication in the Bible that the grant of the keys was to anyone other than Peter. The "power to bind and loose" WAS given (later) to the other Apostles, and the Church has always taught that that authority continues in the authority of the Pope, and to a more limited extent, to bishops and priests.
It still doesn't change the fact that this passage definition of 'pronounce favorable' is still a far cry from Catholic exaltation of Mary to 'co-unity with Christ' and 'Queen of all things' to be a major stretch and horrible exegesis.
Hello yourself.
Mary's relationship with God need only have been established at some point prior to her conception.
Yes. But God knew Mary when she was first created, so then would have been a good time.
Furthermore, as Christians, we all house the third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit.
Yes. Or rather, yes! We gain this through our baptism, which wipes away our Original Sin. There was no sacramental baptism when Mary was born, so she had to be "wiped clean" in some other way.
God can take what is unworthy ... and make it worthy.
Again, yes! Exactly our point. God can do this for us, He could do it for Mary.
I agree - and am glad to see you said that with a :-) After all, the classic joke about the Aggie scientist (I live in Texas) gets at the crux of the biscuit:
An Aggie scientist who does not believe in God thinks he has figured out to create life. He declares his wisdom to God, Wh0 - surprisingly - responds, “Show me how you did it.” The Aggie says, “It’s simple. First you grab a handful of dirt, ...” The Lord of creation stopped him short - “Wait a minute - make your own dirt.”
The theologians tell us God created “out of nothing” the Earth, et al. Man only discovers and organizes what God has created.
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.