Posted on 01/23/2008 12:25:36 PM PST by Gamecock
In a videotape titled "The Pope: The Holy Father," Catholic apologist Scott Hahn claims the proliferation of Protestant denominations proves the Reformers' principle of sola Scriptura is a huge mistake:
Do you suppose that Jesus would say, "Well, once I give the Church this infallible scripture, there really is no need anymore for infallible interpretations of scripture. The Church can hold together just with the infallible Bible." Oh, really? In just 500 years, there are literally thousands and thousands of denominations that are becoming ever more numerous continuously because they only go with the Bible. It points to the fact that we need an infallible interpretation of this infallible book, don't we[?]
A tract titled "Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth" (published by Catholic Answers) makes a similar charge:
The "Bible alone" theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among "Bible-believing" religions. Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians. Just open up the Yellow Pages of your telephone book and see how many different denominations are listed, each claiming to go by the "Bible alone," but no two of them agreeing on exactly what the Bible means.
That is a favorite argument of Catholic apologists. They are convinced that the unity Christ prayed for in John 17:21 is an organizational solidarity that is incompatible with both denominationalism and independency. As far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the only way true Christian unity will be fully and finally achieved is when "separated brethren"—non-Catholic Christians—reunite with Rome under the authority of the Pope.
Keith Fournier, Catholic author and Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice, sums up the typical Roman Catholic perspective:
Throughout Christian history, what was once intended to be an all-inclusive (catholic) body of disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ has been fractured over and over. These fractures threaten to sever us from our common historical and doctrinal roots. I do not believe that such divisions were ever part of the Lord's intention, no matter how sincere or important the issues that undergirded the breaking of unity. [Keith A. Fournier, A House United? (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994), 37.]
Fournier says he is "not advocating a false non-denominationalism or superficial irenicism that denies distinctives of doctrine or practice." [Ibid.] But he is suggesting that doctrinal differences, "no matter how . . . important," should not cause organizational divisions. Moreover, fewer than five pages earlier, he had berated those who "fight over theology." [Ibid., 25.] And (ironically) just a few pages before that, he had expressed outrage at John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, and Jim McCarthy for saying they believe Roman Catholicism's rejection of justification by faith alone is "doctrinal error" [Ibid., 21-22.]
Notice carefully, then, what Fournier is saying: He claims he wants unity without "superficial irenicism," and yet he objects when anyone contends for sound doctrine or (worse still) labels Roman Catholic doctrine "error." It seems the "unity" Fournier envisions is merely the same kind of unity the Roman Catholic Church has sought for hundreds of years: a unity where all who profess to be Christians yield implicit obedience to Papal authority, and where even individual conscience is ultimately subject to the Roman Catholic Church.
Although Fournier politely declines to state who he believes is to blame for fracturing the organizational unity of Christianity, [Ibid., 29.] it is quite clear he would not be predisposed to blame a Church whose spiritual authority he regards as infallible. And since the Catholic Church herself officially regards Protestantism as ipso facto schismatic, Fournier's own position is not difficult to deduce. Although Fournier manages to sound sympathetic and amiable toward evangelicals, it is clear he believes that as long as they remain outside the Church of Rome, they are guilty of sins that thwart the unity Christ prayed for.
Of course, every cult and every denomination that claims to be the One True Church ultimately takes a similar approach to "unity." Jehovah's Witnesses believe they represent the only legitimate church and that all others who claim to be Christians are schismatics. They believe the unity of the visible church was shattered by the Nicene Council.
Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims the Church of Rome was being schismatic when Rome asserted papal supremacy. To this day, Orthodox Christians insist that Eastern Orthodoxy, not Roman Catholicism, is the Church Christ founded—and that would make Roman Catholicism schismatic in the same sense Rome accuses Protestants of being schismatic. One typical Orthodox Web site says, "The Orthodox Church is the Christian Church. The Orthodox Church is not a sect or a denomination. We are the family of Christian communities established by the Apostles and disciples Jesus sent out to proclaim the Good News to the world, and by their successors through the ages."
All these groups regard the church primarily as a visible, earthly organization. Therefore they cannot conceive of a true spiritual unity that might exist across denominational lines. They regard all other denominations as schismatic rifts in the church's organizational unity. And if organizational unity were what Christ was praying for, then the very existence of denominations would indeed be a sin and a shame. That's why the Orthodox Web site insists, "The Orthodox Church is not a sect or a denomination."
Furthermore, if their understanding of the principle of unity is correct, then whichever organization can legitimately claim to be the church founded by Christ and the apostles is the One True Church, and all others are guilty of schism—regardless of any other doctrinal or biblical considerations.
That is precisely why many Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have focused their rhetoric on "unity." Both sincerely believe if they can establish the claim that they, and no one else, are the One True Church instituted by Christ, then all other Protestant complaints about doctrine, church polity, and ecclesiastical abuses become moot. If they can successfully sell their notion that the "unity" of John 17:21 is primarily an organizational unity, they should in effect be able to convince members of denominational and independent churches to reunite with the Mother Church regardless of whether she is right or wrong on other matters.
The plea for unity may at first may sound magnanimous and charitable to Protestant ears (especially coming from a Church with a long history of enforcing her will by Inquisition). But when the overture is being made by someone who claims to represent the One True Church, the call for "unity" turns out to be nothing but a kinder, gentler way of demanding submission to the Mother Church's doctrine and ecclesiastical authority.
Nonetheless, in recent years many gullible Protestants have been drawn into either Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy by the claim that one or the other represents the only church Christ founded. Having bought the notion that the unity Christ prayed for starts with organizational unity, these unsuspecting proselytes naturally conclude that whichever church has the most convincing pedigree must be the only church capable of achieving the unity Christ sought, and so they join up. Many recent converts from evangelicalism will testify that the proliferation and fragmentation of so many Protestant denominations is what first convinced them that Protestant principles must be wrong.
In a series of posts over the next couple of weeks, I want to examine the topics of like-mindedness, disagreement, and divisiveness; the culpability of popes, feuding bishops, and differing denominations when it comes to causing schism; and the kind of unity Christ prayed for.
Some more food for thought in your discussion with jo kus. Korah in Numbers 16 rose up before Moses and Aaron and said:
"Enough from you! The whole community, all of them, are holy; the LORD is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over the LORD'S congregation?"250 men were swallowed up by the earth because they refused to accept the authority God had invested in Moses and Aaron and thought they could do as well without such intermediaries.When Moses heard this, he fell prostrate. Then he said to Korah and to all his band, "May the LORD make known tomorrow morning who belongs to him and who is the holy one and whom he will have draw near to him! Whom he chooses, he will have draw near him.
The concept of an Office is essential in understanding the role of Peter and his successors in the Petrine office. If we look at the story of Christ, Peter, and the Keys in Mt. 16, the symbol handed on by Christ is that of the Keys to the Kingdom. This hearkens back to Eliakim (in Isaiah), who was the chief officer in the Davidic Kingdom, and who carried actual keys. This office was passed on to another upon his death.
In the new Davidic Kingdom, Christ chose one Apostle to serve as the chief officer, the new keybearer... that keybearer was Simon, whom Christ gave the name of Peter. Upon his death, a successor was chosen, and held the same authority among the remaining Apostles and their successors that Peter held among the Twelve. That authority is one where whatever he binds on earth is bound in heaven, and what he loosens on earth is loosened in heaven.
Good point, the importance of “office” is also seen in the election of Mathias to fill the post of Judas.
Of course, Jesus was speaking to all the Disciples at this time. vvs 13 & 16, which bracket the keys verse you note, make this clear.
What is the Rock, in your opinion?
First, thank you for the compliment. Secondly, it appears that God has ALWAYS worked through "clay vessels". As you no doubt can quote me, we are all sinners - and yet, God acts through "damaged vessels". In my opinion, based on 2 Cor 12, God's power is seen most clearly when working through weakness. We know the type of men Peter and Paul and Moses and Abraham and Jacob were! What is interesting is how God's people continue to place their trust in God who uses these instruments. I do agree we are not to place our trust in THEM, per sec.
Why would you presume that after offering Christ as a sacrifice for all, God would place the success of that monumental event into the hands of another man?
Salvation doesn't depend on another man, in the final analysis. I believe it is clear that God continues to reveal Himself through other men, whether they are Christain neighbors who are fine examples to us, or the Pope who fights for the unborn child in his pronouncements and against the cat-calls of the world. God works through them, and in His own way, He calls us through them. Our salvation depends on how we utilize God's graces - which at times, comes through our experiences through other people.
It is only man who desires man to lead the Church. God is the head, and that was the reason for Christ. If leadership of the Church was possible through humans, there would have never been a need for Christ to be crucified.
I disagree with that conclusion. The Acts of the Apostles clearly shows men, elders, bishops and so forth placed over their spiritual charges. The entire Pastorals is based on an authoritative model. Even in the very beginning, the Apostles held positions of authority. But none of that damages what Christ did - as Christ Himself established a community with men given the power to bind and loosen and forgive sins. The people in this community followed the apostles and those placed above them, meaning, they accepted this model as from God.
Prior to the NT, can you name a single man that was granted the powers of infalliblity by God? After tearing down the curtain, why would God quickly erect a new one in the form of mortal, and therefore sinful, leadership?
Any time a person put pen (quill?) to paper, and it was later dubbed "Scripture". And while the living leaders of Jewry were not considered "infallible" on the same level, per sec, they were presumed to have been given a higher authority. Recall what happened in Numbers 16 and the revolt against Moses? Even Jesus recognizes this God-given authority - such as Matthew 23.
As for Galatians 1, Paul is warning against straying from diligent study of the Word with the Spirit’s guidance
I apologize, could you point that out for me? Where does Paul talk about "studying the Word with the Spirit's guidance"? The "word" is Paul's teachings - which were yet unwritten traditions given by Paul to the Galatians at an earlier time! You are projecting your own ideas on how things should be onto the biblical era that is not warranted, nor does it make sense (since the NT was not written yet - so what did they "study"?)
Can you explain to me the difference between the Magesterium and the Levitical priests and groups that strayed from God’s word?
Individuals certainly strayed, but this same pedigree produced the likes of Joseph and Elizabeth, people whom are called righteous for following what they had been taught. While I am not saying that the Levites were infallible, God certainly guarded the core teachings that He wanted presented, making it available to the hearts of those who would walk by faith. The Scriptures clearly show an ongoing body of teachings culminating with Christ, fulfilled, if you will. As such, God guided that initial body of teaching, just as He did and does today.
Regards
Yet Jesus selected someone else, who preached THE GOSPEL for three years before meeting with other Apostles, Paul. Do we ever hear from Mathias again?
***The pope, when speaking ex cathedra is guided by the Holy spirit, he doesnt need to have that interpreted, unless you doubt the Holy Spirit.***
Huh. You mean I’m guided by the Holy Spirit more than the Pope. Oh, well, I guess part time guidance is better than none.
BTW, your logic doesn’t follow (if it has not already been pointed out): John, in writing his Gospel, was guided by the Holy Spirit.
Should I, then,...
a). conclude that John doesn’t need interpretation using your logic, making the Pope irrelevant.
b). conclude that the Pope needs interpretation opening up every Catholic to the charge they make against Protestants: Every Catholic his own pope.
You make the call, but it doesn’t look good if you look to the Pope.
If you agree that the trust does not belong in clay vessels, then how can you put your complete trust into papal office and various councils?
I wasn’t speaking of Salvation, I was speaking of God’s plan for his Church. People come to Christ through the Church, and through Christ come to salvation.
As for the Bible’s teachings on corporate structure, you should also note that Paul and other’s direction was for how the church should manage itself, the scripture never states that all churches should submit divine interpretation to a particular person or group of people.
You correctly note the infallibility that the Spirit emparted on many people in the penning of the Scripture - most (some would argue all) of which was written not by the appointed king at the time.
As for Gal1, the word Paul is referring to is Christ’s gospel, and at no point does he claim for himself divine authority. The fact that it was not written in now way means it was not known, surely you agree with that given the oral tradition of Jewish history. I would also suggest that Paul is including the OT texts in his comment, as much of what Jesus said was direct and indirect quotations of the OT.
“God certainly guarded the core teachings that He wanted presented, making it available to the hearts of those who would walk by faith.”
You’ll agree that this was very rarely done through the established corporate heads. It was almost always done by those outside the established human religious authority, who’s understandings were inspired and challenged the established authority.
Why would Christ tear down the curtain, and then ask man to put it back up?
***Some more food for thought in your discussion with jo kus. Korah in Numbers 16....***
Poor Catholics: still living in an OT oligarchy when Christ bestowed a royal priesthood on all.
I am a king and a priest, after the order of my Lord who is priest FOREVER. If you want to stay with the OT system of priests, whose priesthood ends, then, whatever makes you happy. But, there is something better. A greater than Moses is here.
For the same reason WE trust the Scriptures. They are all God's instruments for the salvation of man. I trust the office, not the individual. God guides the person who happens to occupy the office. My trust in "him" is limited to how God works through him as occupier of that office.
As for the Bible’s teachings on corporate structure, you should also note that Paul and other’s direction was for how the church should manage itself, the scripture never states that all churches should submit divine interpretation to a particular person or group of people.
Oh, but they do. God has given the Church "apostles, evangelists, teachers, pastors, etc." While the Spirit occupies the individual, there is no warrant that He is our personal exegetical helper in lieu of the Church's office to preach and teach. Paul tells Timothy this in one of the most quoted passages of Scriptures in Protestantism - 2 Tim 3. The "man of God" is the magistrate, Timothy himself. Other Scriptures tell us that Scripture interpretation can "lead to destruction". Thus, Scripture was originally intended for the teachers for the purpose of teaching.
...most {Scripture}(some would argue all) of which was written not by the appointed king at the time
Why would the king have to approve of or write something before it becomes "God's Word"?
As for Gal1, the word Paul is referring to is Christ’s gospel, and at no point does he claim for himself divine authority.
How about:
But [even] if we, or an angel from heaven, were to preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so do I say now again, If anyone preaches any other gospel unto you than what ye have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I make known unto you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not according to man. For I did not received it nor learn it from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. Gal 1: 8-12
Those are the words of a man who KNOWS he is correct - even if an angel comes and tells them something else! Note, angels are the ones who delivered the Law to the Jews!!! Pretty strong statement... I don't know how Paul could have stated it more simply that he was infallible without using the word "infallible".
You’ll agree that this was very rarely done through the established corporate heads. It was almost always done by those outside the established human religious authority, who’s understandings were inspired and challenged the established authority.
Certainly, there has always been a "struggle" between authority and prophetic men. I see this as part of God's means of keeping abuses in check. I do believe that reform is ongoing and continuous. But I see no precedent from Scripture to LEAVE the Church or community. Paul calls this sin of dissension a reason to be excluded from the Kingdom...No doubt Luther would have been a great saint if he hadn't thrown the baby out with the bath water...
Why would Christ tear down the curtain, and then ask man to put it back up?
The Old Testament sacrifices and sacraments are no more. The one Temple has outlived its purposes. Now, God can be worshipped everywhere within the context of the New Covenant sacraments. I do not agree with Protestant exegesis that this means that all men now can come to God unabated or without priests or sacraments, etc. God has not mixed the holy with the profane by this symbolic act.
Regards
Why would you even need scripture?
because that’s the language the Spirit speaks in.
AMEN!
Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God." -- Hebrews 3:1-4"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
How do you know this?
Look, I don't know how it works for you but for me the presence and understanding of the Spirit fills me most when I study scripture after praying asking for the same. That's how the Spirit talks to me. These are the times when I stand most convicted too, which isn't pleasant but I know I need it most of all. When I am deep in scripture is when the understanding of Christ comes to me deepest and when the answers to most of the issues currently pressing me become clear. Things click and I am greatful. And the more I understand and study Scripture as a whole, the more I get from any certain chapter or verse. While I enjoy the essential Christian fellowship and teaching and community of the Church, I am never more filled with the complete (but mostly transitory) understanding of Christ and the Spirt than when I am exercising my quiet time deep in prayer and scripture. From conversations with literally thousands of Spirit filled brothers and sisters, this seems to be how it works for them too.
Actually, and hopefully this is the last time I have to bring this up, (but I know that people being people will just keep throwing this chestnut out there, ignorantly), this is a false quote from Augustine, and probably just a twisted paraphrase, that is oft repeated by Catholics that have not a clue...
"Roman Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz, S.J., addressed this quote in, Papal Primacy (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996, p. 34-35). Schatz, received his doctorate at Rome's Gregorian University in 1974 and since 1975 has taught Church history at the St. Georgen School of Philosophy and Theology in Frankfurt, Germany. Schatz is not fringe Catholic scholar. He believes in the development of the papacy."
[The following is from Dr. Schatz's book...]
“In the case of North Africa it is interesting to note the attitude of a self-confident and organizationally intact Church toward Rome. The saying of Bishop Augustine of Hippo (396-430), Roma locuta, causa finita ("Rome has spoken, the matter is settled") was quoted repeatedly. However, the quotation is really a bold reshaping of the words of that Church Father taken quite out of context.
Concretely the issue was the teaching of Pelagius, an ascetic from Britain who lived in Rome. Pelagius took a stand against permissive and minimalist Christianity that shrank from the moral seriousness of Christian discipleship and used human incapacity and trust in grace alone to excuse personal sloth. He therefore emphasized an ethical Christianity of works and moral challenge for which grace was primarily an incentive to action; human beings remain capable of choosing between good and evil by their own power. This teaching was condemned by two North African councils in Carthage and Mileve in 416. But since Pelagius lived in Rome, and Rome was the center of the Pelagian movement, it seemed appropriate to inform Pope Innocent I of the decision. Ultimately, the struggle against Pelagianism could only be carried on with the cooperation of Rome. The Pope finally responded in 417, accepting the decisions of the two councils. Augustine then wrote: "In this matter, two councils have already sent letters to the apostolic see, and from thence rescripts have come back. the matter is settled (causa finita est); if only the heresy would cease!"
This was found at Beggars All blog
Note that the Pope had to be told what to think on the matter. So much for his divinely guided infallibility...
Why emphasize the discontinuity between the priesthood of the old covenant, when God took such care in his establishment of it and the priesthood of the new. Why claim that the old order was repudiated when the Gospel says that it was fulfilled? That it never pass away? Christians see the New Covenant foreshadowed in the Old, and since the New Convenent was established fifty days after the New Passover, by the assent of the people, then we see Peter as the new Moses, revaling the new Torah to the nations gathers in Zion. No nation can dispense with a leadership, and it is instructive that the Reformation leaders did not simply repudicate the Catholic hierarchy, they functioned in its place. In this they simply affirmed the divine order proclaimed at Sinai. We believe that the Lord showed himself to us, but then he withdrew behind the Cloud, and sent his Spirit to speak to us, but he spoke in a special way to the select few. The Reformers simply claimed to be the rightful possessors of that office. I fail to see that the mantle of Paul somehow fell upon them, as by special revelation.
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.