happy halloween

DSC02876.JPG
Originally uploaded by summavitae.

quote

"Hearing nuns' confessions is like being stoned to death with popcorn."

Fulton J. Sheen

Luther vs. the Canon

Luther biographer Hartmann Grisar, S.J. (author of a massive six-volume biography), writes:

His criticism of the Bible proceeds along entirely subjective and arbitrary lines. The value of the sacred writings is measured by the rule of his own doctrine. He treats the venerable canon of Scripture with a liberty which annihilates all certitude. For, while this list has the highest guarantee of sacred tradition and the backing of the Church, Luther makes religious sentiment the criterion by which to decide which books belong to the Bible, which are doubtful, and which are to be excluded. At the same time he practically abandons the concept of inspiration, for he says nothing of a special illuminative activity of God in connection with the writers' composition of the Sacred Book, notwithstanding that he holds the Bible to be the Word of God because its authors were sent by God . . . . .

Thus his attitude towards the Bible is really burdened with 'flagrant contradictions,' to use an expression of Harnack, especially since he 'had broken through the external authority of the written word,' by his critical method. And of this, Luther is guilty, the very man who elsewhere represents the Bible as the sole principle of faith!

If, in addition to this, his arbitrary method of interpretation is taken into consideration, the work of destruction wrought by him appears even greater. The only weapon he possessed he wrested from his own hand, as it were, both theoretically and in practice. "His procedure regarding the sacred writings is apt to make thoughtful minds realize how great is the necessity of an infallible Church as divinely appointed guardian and authentic interpreter of the Bible.

(Martin Luther: His Life and Work, tr. Frank J. Eble, ed. Arthur Preuss, Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1930, 263-265)


full article by Dave Armstrong linked above

2 Thess. 2 v. 15

A STANDING COMMAND

2 Thessalonians 2:15 commands its readers to hold fast to all the Apostolic Traditions, whether written or oral. This is a standing command of the New Testament. As many in Reformed circles have noted, once God gives a command it is binding until he specifically revokes it. If God had not revoked the Mosaic ceremonies, such as the circumcision, food, and separation laws, they would still be binding on us.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 is a standing command of the Word of God and must be obeyed unless specific instructions to disregard it are given elsewhere. So if a critic wants to say 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is no longer binding on us, he has to come up with verses that say these Apostolic Traditions will cease to be binding at some point. But he can't do this. If an Apostolic Tradition was binding then, it would be binding now. The only question is how we can identify Apostolic Traditions, and that role is fulfilled by the Church, who as the living Bride of Christ continues to recognize and identify to her children the authentic voice of her husband.

THE PARADIGM SHIFT ARGUMENT

One last point: Everyone should admit that sola scriptura was not being used while the Bible was still being written. In the Old Testament there were prophets giving God's word, and if you asked a person, "Do you have to get all your knowledge of God from Scripture alone?" He would say, "Of course not. If God says anything, whether it is through Scripture or through a prophet, I have to listen to it. I am bound by the Word of God regardless of the channel through which it comes." The position of a person in Bible times would thus be sola verba, not sola scriptura.

In the New Testament period there were the Old Testament Scriptures, a few New Testament prophets, and the Traditions of the apostles, all of which were binding. If you asked a New Testament believer, "Do you have to get all of your knowledge of God from Scripture alone?" He would say, "Of course not! I have to heed the word of God regardless of how it comes to me, whether in Scripture or in the Traditions of the apostles!" His position, like the Catholic's, would also be sola verba, not sola scriptura.

Thus someone who denies the Catholic position is going to have to admit that the principle used in Bible times was not sola scriptura. To show sola scriptura is binding now, even though it was not binding then, the critic will have to show the New Testament teaches there will be a massive paradigm shift at the end of the apostolic age. He must produce verses that state the Apostolic Traditions will all be written down so that there is now only one source of Apostolic Tradition.

But he can't do this. There are no such verses. Furthermore, since the Apostolic Traditions passed down outside of Apostolic Scripture do not have to be materially different from those in Apostolic Scripture, but simply restatements or authentic interpretations of Apostolic Scripture, a critic would have to prove the impossible proposition that no authentic interpretations of Apostolic Scripture have been passed down from the apostolic age. And he simply can't do this.

-excerpt from a paper on Inspiration of Scripture by Jimmy Akin

smile

smile
Originally uploaded by summavitae.

One of Isaac's first smiles.