|
Hi Bill,
You said:
In reality, the Bible is inspired and has
authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made
it so.
You are correct. However, how would we know and trust the writings in
the Scriptures to be inspired unless we had the Church to tell us? How
would we have sorted out all the myriads of competing 1st century books
which claimed to be apostolic? The books have their own authority being
the written Word of God, but does not the question arise, which books represent
the written Word of God, and which of those that claim to be the Word of
God are false?
Quoting part of your question:
"...Holy men of God spoke as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:21). "Heaven and earth
will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Matt. 24:35). "The
grass withered, and the flower has fallen--but the word of the Lord endures
forever." (1 Pet. 1:24-25).
To be fair, each of these quotes pertains, not to Scripture, but to the
spoken Word of God (you left out the verse that follows 1 Pet 1:25.
Quoting part of your question:
The Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their
assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic
Church.
That is not our assumption. The argument is that without the Church, we
would not have an infallible list of infallible books. I would say that
the canon is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church (who was
guided by the Holy Spirit, the ultimate authority), not that the Bible itself is.
Quoting part of your question:
The Bible does not owe its existence to the
Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.
We would not see these as opposed. The authority, power, and providence
of God was manifested through the Church, which is the Bride of Christ.
The Church is merely the instrument; God is the authority.
Quoting part of your question:
It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic
Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when
both it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation
from God.
Yes, but you only accept it as a revelation from God because we told
you it was, to be frank.
Quoting part of your question:
However, it is an attempt to weaken the Bible
as the sole authority and to replace it with their man-made Church. If
it is true that we can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic
Church, doesn't that make the Catholic Church superior to the Bible?
No.
Can we accept the Gospel only on the basis of the testimony of the Evangelists?
Yes. Does that make the Evangelists superior to the Gospel? No. Fact is,
Bill, humans were involved in authenticating the Bible; the inspiration
and contents of the Bible are not revealed to each one of us by a personal
epiphany from God. That does not make the humans who are, essentially,
custodians of the Bible superior to it.
"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is
its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine
command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly,
guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully." (Divine Revelation,
Vatican II, #10).
Quoting part of your question:
This is exactly what Catholic officials want
men to believe. Their only problem is that their doctrine comes from
their own human reasoning rather than from God.
No, the doctrine comes from the Word of God, both written and oral (cf.
2 Thess. 2:15).
Quoting part of your question:
Their logic is a classic example of their "circle
reasoning." They try to prove the Bible by the Church (can accept
the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church) and prove the Church
by the Bible ("has ever grounded her doctrines upon it").
Not really. We try to prove the Church to you by the Bible, not because
we think the Church's authority truly depends on it, but because it's the
only thing you consider authoritative, and the only thing you believe.
We try to prove the Bible by the Church -- or rather show that the canon
of the bible depends on the Church -- in order to demonstrate the absurdity
of putting so much trust in the 'bible alone' while demonizing the only
reliable witness to the fact that the bible is trustworthy. We also try
to prove the bible by the Church to show that you accept a canon determined
by a Church that at the time believed many things you would reject as "unbiblical".
It seems odd that a Church would admit books to the canon that so contradicted
its teachings ... much less get the canon right in so doing. From your perspective,
the fact that the Church in 390 got the canon perfectly right despite
its ostensibly grossly corrupted doctrine should be proof that the
decision was miraculous!
Circular reasoning is pointing to 2 Tim. 3:16 and claiming that proves
that 2 Tim is inspired. If that's true all I need to do is say "This
email is inspired of God, and suitable for correction, reproof, and training
in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for
every good work," and BOOM, it would be inspired, just like that.
Obviously 2 Tim 3:16 is meaningless unless you already trust
that 2 Tim. is inspired. (Never mind the fact that the verse tells you
that Scriptures are inspired, but never mentions what those scriptures
are.) The way to prove 2 Tim's inspiration is outside of the Scriptures.
There is nothing within the Scriptures that can prove their inspiration.
Quoting part of your question:
Such is absurd reasoning which proves nothing.
Either the New Testament is the sole authority or it is not. If it is
the New Testament, it cannot be the Church, and if it is the Church,
it cannot be the New Testament.
Why can't they both be authorities, each in their own way?
We're not denying that the Scriptures are inspired, nor claiming that
the Church is the sole authority (although it is the ultimate authority
for interpretation).
Quoting part of your question:
The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed
until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is
not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament.
Obviously, we'd take issue with that, but that's another argument. I'd
encourage you to study what the early Christians actually believed, beyond
the testimony of the Scriptures.
Quoting part of your question:
The New Testament books were written by members
of the Lord's Church, but they are not its author. God Himself is the
author of the New Testament.
Agreed.
Quoting part of your question:
The Catholic officials claim that without
the Catholic Church there would be no Bible; they argue that mankind
can accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the Catholic Church which
gathered the books and determined which were inspired. Surely the Catholic
Church cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament Scriptures. The
Old Testament came through the Jews (God's chosen people of old) who
had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul said, "What advantage
then remains to the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in
every respect. First, indeed, because the oracles of God were entrusted
to them." (Rom. 3:1-2; see also Rom. 9:4-5; Acts 7:38).
Insofar as it set the canon for the Old Testament, and insofar as it is
the New Israel, it did give us the Old Testament, but I understand your
point.
Quoting part of your question:
The Old Testament books were gathered into
one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ
came to earth. The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy scholars
at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C., and this was the version
Christ and His apostles used.
Yes. And did you know that the Septuagint included several books that
we accept but that you do not? The Apostles used and authenticated this
Bible; yet you reject books in the Septuagint that the Apostles accepted.
Why is that?
Quoting part of your question:
Christ did not tell the people, as Catholics
do today, that they could accept the Scriptures only on the basis of
the authority of those who gathered them and declared them to be inspired.
He urged the people of His day to follow the Old Testament Scriptures
as the infallible guide, not because man or any group of men had sanctioned
them as such, but because they came from God.
How did they know they came from God?
Because men told them so!
Quoting part of your question:
Furthermore, He understood that God-fearing
men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal)
which books were of God and which were not; thus, He never raised questions
and doubts concerning the gathering of the inspired books.
Ok, Bill -- describe to me the process by which you discerned that the
66 different books of the Bible were inspired and inerrant, and no others
-- without reference to the early Church.
Quoting part of your question:
If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does
it nowhere mention the Catholic Church?
Because it wasn't called that until around 110 A.D.
Quoting part of your question:
Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal,
an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic
order?
Question for you.
Do you look the way you looked when you were born?
No? Are you the same person? Yes?
What does a mustard seed look like when it is planted?
What does it look like when it grows? Same plant, no?
Why does it surprise you that the Church in Acts doesn't look like the
Catholic Church today? It was an infant; a seed then.
There were seeds. Peter was the first pope, although obviously he lacked
the trappings. Bishops are mentioned. Priests (which comes from presbyter,
the Greek word in Scripture often translated "elder") are mentioned.
The enrolled widows were the forerunners of our nuns. Acts says that all
the believers lived in common and shared everything, which describes a
religious order.
Quoting part of your question:
If the Bible is a Catholic book, why are auricular
confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration
of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic
Church, left out of it?
You've covered a lot of ground. First I'd say we do NOT "adore" Mary.
Worship is due to God alone. We venerate her,
but we do not worship her. Many of the things you mentioned are there in
one form or another.
Quoting part of your question:
If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics
account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married
but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He
should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control
and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household,
how is he to take care of the Church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible
says "he must be married."
No, you are misreading it. It says that he cannot be married more than
once. Paul was a bishop and was not married, do you think he violated his
own rule?
Quoting part of your question:
Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book,
why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting
footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from
believing what is in the text? Huh?
Both Protestants and Catholics publish bibles with footnotes, because "His
letters contain some things which are hard to understand, which ignorant
and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their
own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)
Quoting part of your question:
If the Bible is a Catholic book,
* 1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
I don't see how this condemns clerical dress? Note that it does not condemn
tassels and phylacteries, just ostentatious ones. The point of clerical
dress is more to remind the cleric of how to conduct himself and to hold
him accountable, rather than to impress men.
Quoting part of your question:
* 2. Why does it teach against the adoration
of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
Well, we do not teach the adoration of Mary, so that is not a problem.
Quoting part of your question:
* 3. Why does it show that all Christians
are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
We affirm that all Christians are priests. Catechism of the Catholic Church
(CCC) #784, #786.
Quoting part of your question:
* 4. Why does it condemn the observance of
special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
Two points:
1) St. Paul was referring to going back to the Jewish Law. He was not
condemning special days in general.
2) You obviously overlooked Col 2:16.
Quoting part of your question:
* 5. Why does it teach that all Christians
are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
It does: CCC #823: "The Church, then, is "the holy People of
God," and her members are called "saints." (Acts 9:13; 1
Cor 6:1; 16:1.
Quoting part of your question:
* 6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration
of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
Actually, Scripture commands the making of images: Exodus 25:18-19, Numbers
21:8. It is not the making of images that is condemned; it is the adoration
of images, which we do not do. "The honor paid to sacred images is
a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone." (CCC
#2132)
Quoting part of your question:
* 7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion
instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
The preferred form of baptism is by immersion, but if not feasible, baptism
by pouring is acceptable -- see Ezekiel 36:25. Also see the first century
document the Didache, chapter 7, vv. 1-3: "But concerning baptism,
thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize _in
the name of the Father and of the Son _and of the Holy Spirit_ in living
(running) water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other
water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast
neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
Quoting part of your question:
* 8. Why does it forbid us to address religious
leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
You've misread the verse: it says "Call no man on earth father."
What do *you* call the man who raised you?
Quoting part of your question:
* 9. Why does it teach that Christ is the
only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
What then do you make of Eph 2:20?
Quoting part of your question:
* 10. Why does it teach that there is one
mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
We do not teach that there is any other mediator between God the Father
and man except Jesus Christ.
Quoting part of your question:
* 11. Why does it teach that a bishop must
be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
I covered this one.
Quoting part of your question:
* 12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of
Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
You're getting ridiculous now.
Quoting part of your question:
* 13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory?
(Luke 16:26).
Ummm, how does this "oppose" purgatory? Seems to me this whole
verse *proves* it, as the rich man cannot be in Hell, because he shows
love for his family, and men in hell cannot love.
What do you make of 1 Cor 3:10-15? How do you explain Matthew 18:32 and
Matthew 6:15 and James 5:3 and Luke 12:47-48?
Quoting part of your question:
* 14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism,
instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary,
the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
Why is it completely silent about altar calls and "accepting Jesus
as my personal Lord and Savior" and referring to "Father-God" and
the four spiritual laws and "quiet times" and forbidding polygamy
and wedding rings and the Trinity and so forth? Is it totally forbidden
to do things that are not explicitly permitted by Scripture?
But to answer your question, infant baptism is justified for several reasons.
First, baptism is the New Testament circumcision (Col 2:12), and since
infants could be circumcised, they can be baptized. Second, Acts 2:38-39
says that baptism is for you and for your children. And Matt. 19:14 says, "Let
the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the
kingdom of heaven." (Remember that for us, baptism saves us, 1 Pet
3:21). Third, the Bible gives many instances of whole households that were
baptized, which likely included children (Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, 1 Cor.
1:16). Why would it say "household" if only adults and older
children were baptized?
With respect to confession, it's implied in John 20:22, and auricular
confession is commanded in James 5:15-16. Does your church fulfill this
command?
With respect to the Rosary, besides the fact that it's absurd to suggest
that a prayer is invalid unless it is printed in Scripture, it is comprised
mostly of the Our Father (which is in Scripture) and the Hail Mary, which
comes from Scripture as well.
I am not sure what your point is about the Mass. Clearly the Eucharist
is Scriptural. If you've ever been to a Mass most of the text comes from
or alludes to Scripture. The only descriptions of Christian worship in
the New Testament are in Revelation 5 and Hebrews 12, and both of these
are mystical descriptions. If our Mass is not in Scripture, then neither
are your services.
Quoting part of your question:
Catholics argue that since the Council of
Hippo in 390 A.D. proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed
them in one volume, all are indebted to the Catholic Church for the New
Testament and can accept it only on the authority of the Catholic Church.
There are several things wrong with this. First, it cannot be proven
that the Church which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was the same
Church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. For example,
the Church of 390 had no crucifixes and images because, "The first
mention of Crucifixes are in the sixth century" and "The whole
tradition of veneration holy images gradually and naturally developed" (Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667).
Well, what's interesting is that several churches separated from the Catholic
Church in 425 A.D. (as far flung as Egypt, Syria, India, Ethiopia, and
Armenia), and all of these churches use and venerate images. Either something
very sudden happened worldwide in that 35 years, or images were in use
in 390 as well. Given that images are found in the Catacombs in Rome, I
doubt images were foreign to Christians in 390.
The fact that the first mention of crucifixes we can find is in the 6th
century is no proof that there were no crucifixes prior to the 6th century,
any more than the fact that the word Trinity did not appear for several
hundred years after Christ proves that the first century Christians did
not believe in the Trinity. "We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling
block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Cor 1:23).
What do you make of Galatians 3:1:" You foolish Galatians! Who has
bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed
as crucified"? The Galatians did not see the crucifixion. They were
a thousand miles away when Jesus was crucified. Why does it say "clearly
portrayed as crucified" instead of " crucified"? If early
Christians used no images and the Galatians could not witnessed the Crucifixion,
what does this verse mean?
Quoting part of your question:
The Church of 390 took communion under both
kinds because that was the prevailing practice until it was formally
abolished in 1416 A.D. (See Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Vol.
I, p. 111). The Church of 390 was a Church altogether different from
the Roman Catholic Church today.
That doesn't mean it's not the same Church. People change; their appearance
changes and so forth, but they are the same people. What difference does
it make whether they administer communion in the same way then as they
do now? Do you really think that's essential to the Gospel?
Quoting part of your question:
Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Council
of Hippo, the bishops did not mention nor give the slightest hint that
they were for the first time "officially" cataloging the books
of he Bible for the world.
Why would you expect them to? What difference does it make whether it
was the first time it was "officially" decreed? Trent didn't
give any hints that its canon was the first time an "official" catalog
of the OT was made, but that didn't make any difference.
Quoting part of your question:
It was not until the fourth session of the
Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking officials
of the Catholic Church "officially" cataloged the books they
thought should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences
of all Catholics. (See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp.
17-18).
That's at least true for the Old Testament; I'm less sure it's true for
the New Testament.
Quoting part of your question:
Secondly, God did not give councils the authority
to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred
books only because of councils or on the basis of councils.
And on what basis *does* he expect men to receive His sacred books?
Quoting part of your question:
It takes no vote or sanction of a council
to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly
discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical
councils and men can do so today.
Oh? And how might men do so today? Explain.
What do you make of all these people who claim today that the Catholic
Church "hid" and suppressed certain inspired books of the Bible?
Do you think they are credible claims?
Quoting part of your question:
A council of men in 390 with no divine authority
whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books
were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only
on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
Absolutely.
Quoting part of your question:
Thirdly, it cannot be proven that the Catholic
Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New
Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books
were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the
Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council
of Hippo.
That may or may not be true, depending on your definition of "long".
It's quite well established, historically, that the NT canon was fluid
for centuries. Even after Hippo, in the East, the debate still raged over
the canonicity of Revelation, such that to this day, the book is not publicly
read in the Orthodox churches.
If you want to argue that the canon of the NT was pretty much set by the
early to mid 4th century, I'd buy that. If you want to argue it was sealed
and circulating as a book by the end of the 1st century, you just don't
know your history.
Quoting part of your question:
New Testament books were in existence in their
present form at the close of the apostolic age. As a matter of fact,
the apostles themselves put their writings into circulation. "And
when this letter has been read among you, see that it be read in the
church of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves read the letter
from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16). "I charge you by the Lord that
this epistle be read to all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27).
The holy Scriptures were written for all (1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1) and all
will be judged by them in the last day (Rev. 20:12; John 12:48). Jesus
said that His Word will abide forever (Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25).
Yes, that is not in doubt. The question is which writings in circulation
were authentic, since there were many books which claimed to be apostolic,
but weren't.
Quoting part of your question:
Fourthly, the Catholic claim of giving the
Bible to the world cannot be true because they have not been the sole
possessor of the Bible at any time. Some of the most valuable Greek Bibles
and Versions have been handed down to us from non-Roman Catholic sources.
A notable example of this is the Codex Sinaiticus which was found in
the monastery of St. Catherine (of the Greek Orthodox Church) at Mount
Sinai in 1844 and is now in the British Museum. .... This manuscript
found by a German scholar named, Tishendorf, who was a Protestant, and
this manuscript which is the most complete of all has never been in the
hands of the Roman Catholic Church.
You forget that the Greek Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church
were the same Church until 1054. So this *was* in possession of the Roman
Catholic Church.
Quoting part of your question:
Another valuable manuscript that has never
been possessed by the Roman Catholic Church is the Codex Alexandrianus.
It, too, is now on exhibit in the manuscript room of the British Museum
in London. It was a gift from the Patriarch of Constantinople (of the
Greek Orthodox Church) to Charles I in 1628. It had been in possession
of the Patriarchs for centuries and originally came from Alexandria,
Egypt from which it gets its name. Scholars are certain that this manuscript
was also made in the fourth century and, along with the Codex Sinaiticus,
is thought to be one of the fifty Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied
by Constantine.
Again, these were originally part of the one united Catholic Church before
the Great Schism. These weren't people who came up with the Scriptures
independently from the Catholic Church. They were *part* of the Catholic
Church in 390 and so accepted the decision.
In any case I don't see what difference it would make if other churches
are in possession of the Scriptures. You'd have to prove that they independently
came up with the Scriptures apart from any influence from us. After all,
Protestants merely copied the NT from us; you didn't independently verify
the inspiration of the books (although Luther tried).
Quoting part of your question:
The boastful claim of the Roman Catholic Church
that it has been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures
down to the present, is nothing but pure falsehood. The Bible is not
a Catholic book. Catholics did not write it, nor does their doctrines
and Church meet the description of the doctrine and Church of which it
speaks. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century,
A.D. The things in it do not correspond to the Catholic Church which
hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into
what it now is. The Catholic Church is not the original and true Church,
but a "church" born of many departures and corruption's from
the New Testament church.
I challenge you again to study the early Church -- the Church before the
legalization of Christianity in 325, during the persecutions -- and see
that the doctrines you think are "biblical" are contrary to the
doctrines they took for granted as "biblical". Read St. Clement
of Rome (1st century), the Didache (1st cent), the Shepherd of Hermas (1st
century), the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch (110 A.D.), St. Justin
Martyr (mid-2nd century), and St. Irenaeus (think mid-3rd century). It
will open your eyes.
For example, the fourth bishop of Rome, Clement, wrote a letter in 80
A.D. to the Corinthians rebuking them for overthrowing their presbyters.
(Why could he do this? He was Pope.) He wrote,
"And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there
would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. For this cause
therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the
aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if
these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their
ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward
by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have
ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully
and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with
all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.
(44:1)
This demonstrates that apostolic succession was operating from the very
beginning.
He also wrote of the distinction between clerics and laity: "For
to the high priest [bishop] his proper ministrations are allotted, and
to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their
proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances
for the laity." (40)
Ignatius of Antioch wrote about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
in 110 A.D.:
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of
Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions
are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer
because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior
Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father,
in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing
in their disputes." (Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6)
Justin Martyr (2nd century) also testifies to this:
It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call
Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are
true, who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness
of sins and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us.
For we do not take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink.
Just as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and
took on flesh and blood for our salvation, so also were we taught that
the food, for which thanksgiving has been made through the word of prayer
instituted by him, and from which our blood and flesh are nourished after
the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who was made flesh. (Apology,
I.66-67)
Note not only that he says that the bread and wine are not "ordinary" but
are "changed" into the flesh and blood of Christ, but he also
calls baptism the "washing unto rebirth". In other words, being
born again refers not to an emotional conversion experience, but to baptism.
He elaborates on this in 61:
For indeed Christ said, "Unless you be reborn, you will not enter
into the Kingdom of Heaven." ... For thus was it said, "Wash,
make yourselves clean, remove the evils from your souls, defend the orphan
and do justice for the widow; and come let us converse together, says
the Lord. And if your sins are like purple, I will make them white like
wool; and if they are like scarlet, I will make them white as snow." (Is
1:16-20)
We learned this doctrine from the Apostles. In our first birth we were
born unconscious, according to necessity, out of the human seed from
the intercourse of our parents, and we grew up in evil customs and bad
habits. But in order that we may not remain children of necessity and
ignorance, but of election and understanding and may obtain remission
of sins previously committed, the name of God the Father and Master of
the universe is invoked in the water over the one who has chosen to be
reborn and who has repented of his sins.
This name alone is the one which he invokes who is leading the candidate
to the washing.... This washing is called "enlightenment",
since those who have learned these things are enlightened in their minds.
So the early Church believed that being born again meant being baptized.
Quoting part of your question:
It still remains that the Catholic Church
is not following the Bible and is contrary to the Bible.
The Church is following the Bible, and this is clear when you understand
the Bible as it was understood by the early Christians.
Quoting part of your question:
Furthermore, even if the Catholic Church could
show conclusively that it alone is responsible for gathering the books,
it does not prove that the Catholic Church is infallible, nor does it
prove that it is the author of the Bible. God has at times used evil
agencies to accomplish His purpose (Jer. 27:6-8; 43:10; Hab. 1:5-11;
John 11:49-52).
You are correct, it does not prove that, but what it does prove is that
you must, in part, rely on the Church rather than the Bible alone.
The Catholic Church is not the author of the Bible, God is. "For
holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31;
2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the
Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred
and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
they have God as their author and have been handed on such to the Church
herself [1]." (Divine Revelation #11)
Quoting part of your question:
The Catholic Church argues that since one
of its councils in 390 selected the sacred books, one can accept them
only on the basis of its authority. We have answered by showing: (1)
The Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared
it so but because God made it so. (2) Jesus did not teach the people
in His day that they could accept the Old Testament Scriptures only on
the basis of those who placed the books into one volume.
Actually Jesus never discussed the Old Testament canon at all. (I don't
mean to imply that Jesus never referred to the Old Testament) You're making
certain claims about Jesus and the Old Testament canon, but He never commented
on how we know which books belong in the Hebrew canon.
Shalom,
Eric
|
