OCR Text |
Show CHRISTIANITY INSEPARABLE EROM DOGMA Credible Witness Regarding Historical facts. Not Credible as to InspirationLiberal Christian)7 More Logical Than the Orthodox Who Reject the Authoritative Authori-tative Teaching of the Church. (Written for the Intennouniain Catholic) Dogma is a doctrine or article of faith accepted accept-ed on the authority of a teacher divinely commissioned commis-sioned to teaeh. Catholic fail It i rc-t ridel to the revealed word of God. All that i- of faith, or dogmatic in Catholic teaching is (1) founded on the .Scriptures, (-) excludes doubt, and (') is ci t-tain. t-tain. As expressed by a French divine: "All and only that is of Catholic faith, which is in the revealed re-vealed word of God. and proposed by the church . to all men to be believed with divine faith. Kr any doctrine to be ;m trticle or dogma of Catholic faith, it is necessary first of all that it should he revealed by God through Christ, the prophets, tin; apostles, or the canonical authors." 1 hen it follows fol-lows that the Catholic church can not propose any : c dogma or article of faith that is not revealed by God. and handed down front the beginning through the prophets, and from the time of Christ, through I the apostles, and canonical authors. Hence, the , church in her teaching capacity, by. which is meant ', her infallible, authority, could ' introduce n new f doctrine that is not embodied in the revealed word. For the revealed word itself reason demands de-mands an authoritative witness that it is God who speaks. Satisfied that the witness of the revelation re-velation has not erred in declaring what has been revealed by God. then it follows that reason, in its last analysis, has the authority of God Himself in eliciting an act of faith, or professing its ad- hesion to dogmatic articles of faith. Who is the witness, that God revealed Himself to man? Here f is an important question. I The witness must be (1) unimpeachable, and (2) unerring. To preserve those two essential qualities, God must vouch for the authority of the witnesses who testify to the genuineness ot Jus - revelation.- Inner. tesiiiuuuy of ... the individual, I however sincere and honest the individual may I be, is not sufficient and would not be admitted in I a civil court, much less- in matters which pertain to God and life overhisting. They may claim tho veracity of God. but for that claim they can pro- I duce no witness, and in the supernatural order which transcends reason no one will accept mere I human fallible testimony of an individual who I may claim the veracity for his inner illumination. Then to be (1) unimpeachable, and (2) unerring, ' I God must vouch for the authority of tho witnesses f who testify to the revelation itself. We trace ' Christianity to its fountain-head and here wo find the church. Catholic in time as well as in I space, the sole witness that her founder was di- 1 vinely authorized to testify to the veracity of God revealing himself to man. But. the testimony of t the Son. transmitted through the church which 1 was his contemporary, would not be sufficient un- less reason is satisfied that he was the Son of God. I Hence the truth of the protestant'divine that "the f essence of belief is the belief in the divinity of I Christ." I j Those who deny the divinity, or divine authority I of Christ stand at zero, and can no more establish j the revelation made, by God in the New and Old j Testament than the IJindo can establish the in- f spiration of the Vedas. But for Christians who I admit the divine character of Christ, aaid reject J the church to which he entrusted the deposit of f faith, there is no less a difficulty in establishing . J for the Infidel and Rationalist the authenticity, ' I veracity, and inspiration of the old and new te9- tament, because they haje no witness, i.e.. no un- . I I impeachable and unerring witness of what God r&- j vealed, or that God revealed anything. . The witness, who testifies to a supernatural f fact, should be the contemporary of our Lord and his apostles. They, who reject the Catholic ' f ' ' church, were born long subsequent to the time I of Christ, their testimony can not extend directly , farther back than their origin; indirectly it goes I through another channel, namely the Catholic church. Hence their profession of faith in the re- ' 1 vealed word of God, as far as they believe at all, I rests solely on the authority of tho Catholic church. But to establish the fact that God made a revelation the witness who testifies must be nner- . ring, otherwise there could be ho certainty at all as to what is. or is not the revealed word of God. ; Can those, who reject the infallible testimony of the Catholic church as a witness of divine revelation, reve-lation, prove' that the Bible is inspired? Impossible. Impos-sible. Like those who claim to be Christians but .; deny the divinity, they stand at zero because the .. New Testament was not written until periods dating dat-ing from four to sixty years after the Ascension of Christ into heaven. Admitting their credibility credibil-ity as historical records, reason is convinced thau Christ was God. But their credibility as historical ' records does not establish their credibility as to . ' . their inspiration. Yet this is the only argument ' ' '; which those, who reject the divine authority of ' f the church, have or can have to prove the inspir- j ation of the Bible. The former comes under the natural order attested by the same evidence that ' ; . we have for all historical facts. As Schelling expresses ex-presses it: "We do not need the Gospels to attest at-test his (Christ's) greatness; on the contrary, we ' must first admit his greatness, if we would understand under-stand the gospel narrative." But for the latter, namely, inspiration, which belongs to the supernatural super-natural order the credibility of the Gospels, in historical evidence, is no proof. So say Rationalists Rational-ists and Infidels. So said Russeau and his follow- I ers. It is also the dictum of logic, because it in- t" volves the fallacy of drawing two different concluu- ' ions from the same premises, or as expressed hv I logicians, a transition from one species to another ! ' ': species. : (Continued on Page -1.)' - N CHRISTIANITY IXSEPAKABLK ! DOGMA. Continued from Page 1.) This important point mu.-t not i.e :&;,- slightly ,for it marks the dividing line bet-.v. , lateral lat-eral and orthodox protectants, and -win!-: :'; former possess less of true Christianity in their -inductions which lead to so many denial-. ;! . .,. sess more logic than their orthodox .-r i t i To show how logically defective the h.r -. in proving the inspiration of .the Script ur, - ,. give their assumptions as a specimen t !!.':; ic. The books of the New Te-tamenr. we a:, t..l'i. . ; are credible as bearing testimony to the v.eu.ieifal or miraculous works of Christ. Therefore ,,f 1,U divinity. Now mark the transition, a specie h 1 speciem. Being admittedly credible of what tln-y relate of 'Christ; ergo also credible of th-ir ,,v.a inspiration to which they also testify. That i-. because the Gospels, as historical document-, ar credible in matters which pertain to the natural order; therefore also are they credible in at tearing tear-ing to their own inspiration which transcends t; natural order, and belongs solely to the supernatural supernat-ural order. This conclusion is defective, and .i direct violation of the rules of logic which says that two different conclusions from the same premises prem-ises are not valid conclusions. The credibility ef the gospels in regard to the life, words, and decU of Christ which pertains to the natural order A -not in any sense make them credible in' regard t inspiration which belongs to the supernatural order. or-der. Yet that is the argument of all who reject tin; church. They assume, that because the Cath"la: church adduces the credibility of the Gospel narratives nar-ratives to prove the divinity of Christ, that th'-v can. a pari, adduce them to prove the inspiration of the Scriptures, and that if they are incredible in one case, so are they-also in the other. From this specious reasoning we get the absurd condition, condit-ion, that a witness is not credible at 'all, unh-s credible in all things. This would destroy the value of all human testimony. Every honest sincere, sin-cere, upright man is credible in what he knows to be facts, but take that same honest, sincere, upright up-right man w-hose testimony is not doubted by tho-o who know him when he testifies to what he sec-, hears, etc., and let him proclaim himself to be inspired, in-spired, how few will accept his testimony. In the history of the past we have many religious en- thusiasts who were honest and sincere, and believed themselves to be inspired. Wc may take Sweden- borg or George Fox as examples. There is no reason rea-son to doubt their sincerity, or that they intended or wished to deceive. But because we reject their ' mere say-so that they were inspired, we would net ; be justified in rejecting their credibility as wime- ; scs in matters which came directly under their ; : : senses. The only testimony for inspiration, which , does not come under the senses, is an infallible j teacher divinely commissioned to proclaim it dog- ; 1 matically. Then it is the church as a dogmatic I teacher or nothing. Between both there is no al- ternative. Hence the downward march from or- j j ; thodox to liberal protestanism. and from the Lit- I f ter to infidelity, and all this.' because an infallible f teacher is a bugbear which they do not under- I j stand. " F. 1. I |