Posted on 02/03/2012 3:51:42 PM PST by Gamecock
Our confidence that the account of the flood and Noah’s ark happened in space, time, and history is grounded in the Bible, not in remnants of ancient timber.
For centuries, an inordinate and unhealthy attention has been directed to certain items claimed to be relics of Christ, Christian leaders, or illustrious Christians. The veneration of relics has been a major feature of Roman Catholic popular piety since the earliest centuries of its history, reaching its highest official sanction in 787, when the Second Council of Nicaea decreed that every church should have some relic at the altar.
Now, much attention is being paid to the first public display of the so-called “Shroud of Turin,” in Italy. As David Farley explained in USA Today, “The Catholic Church’s most famous (and infamous) holy relic is being exposed to the faithful for the first time since the year 2000. The Shroud of Turin, on display until May 23 in the handsome northwestern Italian town, can be shown by permission only from the pope.”
Evidently, more than 1.5 million people signed up for reservations to see the shroud during its brief display. Clearly, the artifact means something to many people — indeed, it means a very great deal.
The shroud is but the most famous of the relics held to be holy by so many Catholics. Various churches hold items claimed to be portions of the crib of Jesus, items from the disciples and prominent saints, and various body parts of leading figures. David Farley recently wrote a book on what must certainly go down as the most bizarre claim concerning a relic — the claim of a church in the tiny Italian village of Calcata to hold the remains of Christ’s infant circumcision. Of course, the special status of this relic was the fact that, according to the claim, this skin was the only remnant of Christ’s body on earth.
As Farley documents, eventually there were many churches and communities that claimed to possess this special holy relic. Eventually, the Roman Catholic Church became embarrassed by the claims, and Pope Leo XIII threatened excommunication to any Catholic who even mentioned the relic. That did not end the fascination.
The veneration of relics, still a part of popular piety among many Roman Catholics worldwide, is a grotesque distortion of biblical piety. The authority for our faith is not based on the evidence of relics, but on the fact that God has spoken to us in his Word. We are to trust the truthfulness of the Bible, not the existence of some relic, authentic or not.
Of course, most of these relics are not authentic — a fact easily determined by even a casual review of the story behind the item. Furthermore, the existence of contradictory claims, such as were made by competing villages with respect to the circumcision remains of Christ, demonstrates the embarrassing fact that these claims cannot be trusted.
The best evidence concerning the “Shroud of Turin” is that it dates to the medieval period and is probably an artifact of human artistry. In David Farley’s words, “a medieval fake.” Nevertheless, more than a million and a half people are lining up to see it, representing far more than historical curiosity. Farley also reports that relics associated with St. Therese of Lisieux went on a 28-city tour of Britain last year, also drawing huge crowds. Clearly, interest in and veneration of relics is not a thing of the past.
In his essay, Farley acknowledges that many people retain belief in the power and authenticity of relics such as the “Shroud of Turin,” and then comes to this conclusion:
If they accept the shroud as the real deal, then, in their minds, in their hearts, in their conceptions of heaven and the afterlife, it is the real thing. They will pray in front of it and it will give them happiness and relief.
And isn’t that what we all want, for ourselves and for each other? Which is exactly why holy relics and the Shroud of Turin still matter in this world.
No, that is not what we are to want. The “happiness and relief” found in these relics is empty and delusional. Christians are to find happiness and relief and infinitely more in Christ alone. The obsession with relics comes at a grave cost — the confusion of the Gospel, the marginalization of Christ, and the subversion of the Bible’s sufficiency.
The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church has failed its members and betrayed the Gospel by embracing and allowing various forms of the veneration of relics, and this particular feature of Catholic piety and theology cannot be isolated from the larger project of Catholic doctrine.
Evangelical Christians observing the veneration of relics by Catholics are rightly horrified by the practice, but may be wrongly satisfied that nothing like this marks evangelical piety.
This temptation should be checked by the realization that many evangelicals fall prey to similar modes of thinking. Consider the attention given in recent days to the claim that remnants of Noah’s ark had been found on Mount Ararat in Turkey. A team from “Noah’s Ark Ministries International,” based in Hong Kong, claimed that wood found on the mountain came from Noah’s ark — with a certainty of “99.9 percent.”
Archaeologists remain skeptical about the claims, and the controversy is likely to continue for some time. But Christians should not give too much attention to such claims in the first place. Our confidence that the account of the flood and Noah’s ark happened in space, time, and history is grounded in the Bible, not in remnants of ancient timber.
If archaeologists later agree that the fragments are indeed from Noah’s ark, that will be a matter of real interest to Christians, but this should add nothing to our confidence in the Bible. If the fragments are determined to be authentic or, most likely, if there is no consensus at all, this will not detract anything from the truthfulness, authority, and sufficiency of the Scriptures.
Our confidence is in the Bible as the Word of God, not in gopher wood.
Ping
1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
2) Where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
4) Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?
Jesus always appealed to Scripture
2) Where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
Good point. Let's throw out the totality of Scripture.
2Tim 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
3) Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
4) Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?
Holy Spirit guided it long before the heretics/Papists forced themselves on Rome.
The best evidence concerning the “Shroud of Turin” is that it dates to the medieval period and is probably an artifact of human artistry. In David Farley’s words, “a medieval fake.”
Well I’d sure like to know HOW it was faked. So far no one has been able to answer that.
1) Jesus' appeals to Scripture were made by way of convincing Torah-studying Jews of who He is, and in His earthly ministry He used "Scripture" (as did the Apostles) to refer only to the Old Covenant Scriptures. In contrast He said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through Me." The Christian Faith if based on a Person, not on a book.
2) and 3) You argue as if the word "all" meant "only". It does not, nor does the Greek πᾶσα have the double sense of "all" and "only" -- it is correctly translated as "all". Thus your answer is no answer at all, even leaving aside that it is the Holy Apostle Paul writing to Timothy not Our Lord Himself, and FatherofFive asked about Jesus.
4) Again a non-answer. I agree that the Holy Spirit led the Church to correctly select the canon of Scripture, but you deny the process by which the Holy Spirit did this: a series of councils held by the ancient Church, one at Carthage, that because it took place in the Patriarchate of Rome and received a papal assent, the Latins regard as having settled the matter, and the disciplinary session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (called in the west the Trullan Synod or the Quinsext Council) which accepted the canons of Carthage, including the enumeration of the books of Scriptures, as binding on the whole Church. The same authority which fixed the canon of Scripture -- an Ecumenical Council of the ancient and undivided Church -- also approved the veneration of icons and of relics.
Rather than projecting your modern anti-Papist biases back into the first century, why don't you read the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers who knew the Apostles to see what the ancient Church was like even before it collected the canon of Scripture, when the Faith was transmitted by personal preaching: the letters of St. Ignatius (the seven genuine ones), the Didache, the (First) Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians, and the Martyrdom of Polycarp taken together give a nice picture of the Christian Faith and the life of the Church in the first generation after the Apostles. The promise that the Spirit would lead us into all truth applied as much to the Christians living in those days as it does to us.
Of course, the special status of this relic was the fact that, according to the claim, this skin was the only remnant of Christ’s body on earth.
Does it, like, glow? Or is it just a leathery scrap, having not passed through death to a triumphant resurrection life? What are the implications of this for uncircumcised males?
Consider the attention given in recent days to the claim that remnants of Noah’s ark had been found on Mount Ararat in Turkey. A team from “Noah’s Ark Ministries International,” based in Hong Kong, claimed that wood found on the mountain came from Noah’s ark — with a certainty of “99.9 percent.”
As long as I can remember there have been people claiming to have come back from Ararat with bits of the ark.
“Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’ “
So you use the Christian canon that encompasses the same Septuagint Christ and the Apostles quote from, not the revised Pharisee canon, right?
It is sad that some people think straw men like these are accurate.
Dishonest Christians like this author give Christianity a bad name.
Did Jesus promise the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them in what to write or not? If He did isn’t it the Holy Spirit who’s words are recorded rather than Paul’s?
>> also approved the veneration of icons and of relics.<<
That group also protected pedophiles.
Obama is in a bit of a confrontation with members of the Catholic Church right now. So, I have a question here for the anti-Catholics (they should know who they are) that may give some insight into how the they view the situation.
Who do you dislike more: Obama or the current pope?
Knowing the antics of the anti-Catholics on this site, we can’t count on honest answers. Nevertheless, the replies should be edifying.
I doubt you’ll get any responses from certain quarters.
That group also protected pedophiles.Do tell, what denomination has been free of that crime, oh peerless poster?
If your premise were correct there would not be so many different “bible-based” denominations.
No amount of contrived accusation can change that.
No, he didn't. Do you just make things up to support your bias.
Will you concede "He taught as one having authority?"
I agree.
As another poster pointed out, some people here may think that the pope is the anti-Christ. Therefore, no matter who the Church is facing off against, they’ll always side with the Church’s enemies, even if they are Communists, Muslims, Nazis, etc.
I’m sure most on this site who hold that view would not like to admit it.
Where did you post this from?
As of now, it’s unattributed.
Are you comparing apples to oranges or apples to apples? Or maybe the Vatican has the ability to name itself an apple or an orange, depending on the situation of the moment. As far as I have seen, Obama has no religious organization that he is head of.
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.