Posted on 03/30/2011 10:52:11 AM PDT by WPaCon
“leap” = “leaf”
““the Bible became the standard “ after Luther tossed out the Books that didn’t quite fit his worldview notably Maccabees.”
I don’t think Luther acted alone.
There are many studies devoted to the reasons why some books are accepted as part of the canon and some are not.
I think the reasons are meticulous and solid, but I won’t re-write the arguments on this thread. Just to say there is historical, logical, and biblical support for the Protestant Bible; and to say that in the early years the Roman Catholic church, (such as it was, it was not called the Roman Catholic church at the time) used the same one. Maccabees and so forth were accepted later in church history; and rejected again after a few centuries.
Since almost no one had a Bible during the Middle Ages there was not a lot of scrutiny going on. Things were at a standstill, essentially, until people started getting access to the Word of God again.
This I regard as the most wonderful fruit of the Reformation. God’s word, faithfully translated, available to anyone without criminal penalty in their own language. Amazing.
Although, with God anything is possible. So maybe in these kinds of scenarios, both can be correct, even though to us it doesn’t appear possible.
There's confusion in every denomination on earth and always has been.
Catholic ping!
ok thanks
Yes, “perseverance of the saints,” that is also a point of contention.
But in all these misinterpretations (again, I say misinterpretation, because both sides can’t be right) there is no loss of salvation.
I believe true salvation can’t be lost. But if you think differently, you are still a Christian.
I believe in basically post millenialism. But if you are a dispensationalist, you are still a Christian.
Our salvation does not depend upon our perfect doctrine on each and every point. Thank God, or who would be saved?
Our salvation rests on Christ alone, who covers our sins and makes us able to walk faithfully with him.
Thanks as usual!
I believe I read that Jews in general do not consider Maccabees to be inspired. The main reason is that it elevated the kingship of the Maccabees rather than that of the Davidic line. I find that factoid very interesting.
You are very welcome.
“Our salvation rests on Christ alone”
Well said. Again.
Private interpretation of the Bible is not condoned (2 Peter 1:20). Iindividual interpretation of Scripture was not practiced by the early Christians or the Jews. (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the "founder" of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that "any milkmaid who could read" would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her "interpretation" of the Bible. Luther opened a "Pandora's Box" when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. That is why we have more than 30,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations.
Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. When it comes to interpreting Scripture, individual non-Catholic Christians claim the same infallibility as the Papacy. If one were to put two persons of the "same" non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their "interpretation" of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn't they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be "Yes." But would that really happen? History has shown that the answer is "No." Now, in the case of Catholics, the Church which Christ founded and is with forever (Matthew 28:20) interprets the Bible, as guided by the Holy Spirit, (Mark 13:11) for the "sheep" (the faithful). The Church (not individuals) interpret Scripture. In Catholicism, Scripture is there for meditation, prayer and inspiration, not for individual interpretation to formulate doctrine or dogma.
Good post. Thanks!
As an Evangelical Christian, with a particular interest in the history of the Reformation, I enjoyed reading the post, fully recognizing that it was written from a Roman Catholic perspective. Obviously, Belloc saw things through the “prism of his own ideology”, namely Catholicism. I do come to the conclusion that he must have been an intellectual heavyweight. I note that he died in 1953,
I noted his reference to the English attempt to destroy Catholicism in Ireland and the French attempt to do the same to Protestantism in France. What he didn’t state was the absolute failure of the English and the success of the French through the revocation of The Edict of Nantes in 1685.
It’s a shame that he isn’t alive today. I’d love to get his take on things like Vatican II, the collapse of at least “cultural” Christianity in Western Europe, the growth of Islam in so called “Christian” countries and the rapid growth of Evangelical Christianity in Latin America.
Thank you for the posting and God Bless.
And the Catholic Church wasn’t anti-semitic?
I believe in basically post millenialism. But if you are a dispensationalist, you are still a Christian.
Our salvation does not depend upon our perfect doctrine on each and every point. Thank God, or who would be saved?
Our salvation rests on Christ alone, who covers our sins and makes us able to walk faithfully with him.
AMEN!
“Private interpretation of the Bible is not condoned (2 Peter 1:20).”
I think the Bereans were commended for it. We are commanded to search the Scriptures. So I think when we are told that no Scriptures are of private interpretation, I think that means we are to submit to the lawful church authorities (the elders we are explicitly told to elect and submit to).
Were the verse you cited the only one on the matter, I’d agree with you. But since there are other verses that say we are indeed to search and read and study and make our calling and election sure, I think this verse refers to our need to submit to legitimate church authority.
“individual interpretation of Scripture was not practiced by the early Christians or the Jews. (Acts 8:29-35).”
In the verse cited, the Ethiopian eunuch asks how he can understand without a man to teach him. I don’t see that as equivalent as saying he can’t understand without a Pope on the throne.
The apostles, as well as Apollos and Priscilla and Aquila and many others mentioned in the Bible were definitely witnessing, teaching and preaching without a Pope.
The Pope you believe was first, Peter, was actually disciplined by Paul for his insistence on circumcising converts. And Paul was not taught by Peter.
So I think you are incorrect on this point.
Acts 5:29 “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”
“If one were to put two persons of the “same” non-Catholic Christian denomination (i.e., two Presybterians, two Lutherans, two Baptists, etc.) in separate rooms with a Bible and a notepad and ask them to write down their “interpretation” of the Bible, passage for passage, shouldn’t they then produce the exact same interpretation? If guided by the Holy Spirit as Scripture states, the answer should be “Yes.””
You are right, and in heaven it will be so for all of us.
But you neglect the obvious problem of the sinfulness of man.
Even when we are trying hard to be really honest, we are frankly stupid.
The Holy Spirit certainly enables us to know enough to be saved. But no, obviously, he does not make us to agree on every point. That is our fault, not His.
You’re welcome! Glad you like it!
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.