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."
It was YOUR proof text, not mine. You can't expect me to accept a proof text that doesn't provide proof.
Furthermore where in the New Testament is the word 'Pope' ever found...
I believe right next to the word "Trinity."
Seems to me Paul had something to say about following after traditions rather than the revealed word of our Lord.
The Traditions of the Church are not the traditions Paul was writing about.
Furthermore, if the word of the Lord is so "revealed" why are there so many Protestants that disagree on what it is and says?
"Sacraments are how we are saved by Jesus.""With all due respect: BUNK. That is competely unbiblical. If sacraments are the 'how' we didn't need the cross! All God needed to do was institute the sacraments and spared His son a grueling death. Can't you see that???"
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9
Sure did, unless being right is "arrogant" now.
Of course you would. What child doesn't want dessert before dinner?
"No one is arguing that Scripture is not needed to be "thoroughly equipped."
The Protestant argument is that Scripture is sufficient (Sola Scriptura). This passage does not say that only Scripture is required.
See the difference?
I may say that gasoline is profitable so that the motoring man may be fully equipped for every good journey.
That doesn't mean i only need gasoline. I also need other things, like a car, a driver's license, a map, etc." [underline emphasis mine]
That's not what the text says. You can massage it all you like, but it's still not going to say what you want it to.
Except the "news" you are so fixated on is the presence of converted greeks, not the presence of a Church.
Such declarations from nothing but conjecture...no wonder there are so many of you!
Okay n00b, you can stay ;o>
“Except the “news” you are so fixated on is the presence of converted greeks, not the presence of a Church.”
No, the text says Jews and Greeks were converted.
“Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.”
But what difference, Peter had already evangelized the Gentiles to the consternation of the Jerusalem church so that this would not have been news to the church if Peter had started it. The news here was that the scattered persecuted christians were evangelizing and many people were being converted. Out of this evangelization came the church at Antioch.
I see . . .
the old . . .
6 igloos X 12 chickens = 1,500,000 drunken Trebbles
fantasy . . . pretending to be an argument.
Are you telling me you can’t see the “two waves” in that passage?
You are assuming Peter’s preaching to the gentiles was consistent, but we know from Galatians that Paul opposed Peter to his face at Antioch for not being faithful to the calling of the gentiles.
But "I'll take mine over yours, anyday" is a legitimate argument?
The rcc is a political entity that veered far off the path of Christianity when it started vested its ‘magesterium’ with executive powers.
“hey little Suzie....your Momma’s in hell. But tell you what I'm gonna do. For a measly $500 bucks....”
Sisera got ‘pegged’.
Ah, you admit that beliefs you hold such as the papacy and the word Trinity cannot be found in the New Testament, yet you believe it and affirm it. (I would agree the concept of the Trinity is found, nothing regarding the papacy). But, then you hypocritically attack sola scriptura as not being valid since a verse does not specifically say 'sola scriptura' (even though I Cor. 4:6 does indeed say not to exeed what is written). Okay, got it. Only those 'beliefs' you hold count.
The Traditions of the Church are not the traditions Paul was writing about
Paul was referring to anything that contradicts Scripture. Including the unbiblical and contradictory 'Mary was sinless' Catholic Doctrine which is refuted by Romans 3:28 - All have sinned.................
Furthermore, if the word of the Lord is so "revealed" why are there so many Protestants that disagree on what it is and says?
Probably the same reason there are contradictory RCC 'traditions'. (There are many traditions in the Roman Catholic Church that are not all harmonious. Some traditions in the church support the office of the universal bishop; other traditions denounce the office of a universal bishop (read Gregory the Great and Cyprian).
It's interesting and telling to listen to the Sunday after service and dinner conversation in catholic and protestant families. I've been in both.
The Protestant will speak of the message given, events and the way the Lord acts through them, prayers answered, end-of-times signs, catch up on friends life events.
The catholic speaks of pretty decorations in their Church, who's under the arch bishop and where he came from, the latest political ‘church’ events, how cute the new priest is and ‘what a waste’, how many times a week they attended mass, the good deeds they do and how many candles they lit, various other gossipy tidbits about clergy. That is if they even decide to stay around for fellowship after church. Many bail even after communion...can't wait to get out. AND ALMOST NO ONE BRINGS THEIR OWN BIBLE TO MASS FOR NOTE TAKING AND FOLLOWING ALONG.
The state of spirituality is very evident from simple observation and listening to the words of one's mouth, all academic arguments aside.
Outstanding post! And so very true..........
I do feel remorse for the rcc. It is so missing the mark and the attenders and members think they know what they know....they don’t even know that they don’t know the Lord...and that is the rcc leaderships fault.
It’s so hollow, procedureal, unloving, unemotional, heirarchical....
I mean DAMN! My sins are forgiven! Thats CRAZY emotional! I’m not doomed to hell, but redeemed! CRAZY WONDERFUL STUFF! PRAISE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND HIS MERCY! He achomplished all I need....and the rcc is left holding the bag big with a huge Vatican mortgage payment.
This post is formed on a faulty foundation from the outset. The current rcc has no recognizable link to the Church Paul and the apostles formed.
The rcc is a political entity that veered far off the path of Christianity when it started vested its ‘magesterium’ with executive powers.
“hey little Suzie....your Momma’s in hell. But tell you what I’m gonna do. For a measly $500 bucks....”
= = =
INDEED.
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.