Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"What is Truth?" An Examination of Sola Scriptura
Coming Home Network ^ | Dwight Longenecker

Posted on 03/26/2008 5:30:38 PM PDT by annalex

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: Iscool
As the article states, there is no evidence of Apostolic succession in the scriptures

So when Paul and his co-workers appoint overseers (Gk episcopoi, bishops) "in every town", if that's not apostolic succession, what is it?

41 posted on 03/27/2008 10:45:32 AM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Campion
I just Googled "co-mediatrix" and got 1900 hits. Of the first 50 sites I looked at, most of them were Roman Catholic, and they all used that term. So, somebody thinks that term is appropriate.
42 posted on 03/27/2008 10:48:27 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
Yet, in the Old Testament, we read time and again of the apostasy of both the priests and the kings. But, having been put in place originally by God Himself, the Levites, the Aaronic priesthood and the high priesthood itself carried-on in terms of legitimate succession. The sins of the fathers, in other words, did not militate against the "authenticity" of the various forms of the priesthood, nor did the kingship become illegitimate via the apostasy of any given king. In similar fashion, the Catholic Church, while it has weathered the storms of scandal and inconsistency of vocation more than once over its 2000-year history, continues in its line of succession and mission, having been instituted in the first place by Christ Himself. A dirty plate simply needs to be cleaned, not smashed.

Furthermore, your example falls short, on the grounds that, from all eternity, Jesus knew that He would be establishing a new covenant in His blood, and the Law, which had hitherto sufficed, would now be replaced by Grace, won for us on the Cross. A new order had to be instituted accordingly, and the old order, now rendered insufficient for anyone's salvation, not just that of the Jews, was to pass away. Besides, on a relative scale, the Jews of Christ's time were much more faithful to the God of Abraham - even taking into account their hypocrisies - than their forebears before the Exile were, so it wasn't so much on the basis of widespread infidelity that Jesus supplanted their rule.

43 posted on 03/27/2008 10:55:23 AM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
And how, exactly, do individuals ascertain that their assumptions about the Holy Spirit's guidance are, in fact, correct? Every wind of doctrine claims inspiration from, or direct institution by, the Holy Spirit, yet they are very often mutually exclusive. Who decides which, if any, are truly led by the Holy Spirit, and which are derived from...other sources?

In any event, Catholics consider Sacred Tradition to be the work of the Holy Spirit, and therefore on a par with Scripture, yet it is rejected across the board within Protestantism as being "extra-Biblical." How is our version of the "work of the Holy Spirit" inoperative and ipso facto rejected, while far more novel doctrines, mutually exclusive as noted previously, are given a free pass as "the work of the Holy Spirit"?

44 posted on 03/27/2008 11:05:05 AM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
In any event, Catholics consider Sacred Tradition to be the work of the Holy Spirit, and therefore on a par with Scripture, yet it is rejected across the board within Protestantism as being "extra-Biblical."

I don't have much issue with stuff that is 'extra-Biblical', it is only when it seems to conflict with the Bible when I have problems with it.

45 posted on 03/27/2008 11:10:39 AM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
I'd say right there in the 1st Century

But...but...I thought the Catholic Church only began with Constantine in the 4th Century! Are you suddenly acknowledging that the Catholic Church has roots that can be found nearly 300 years earlier? Which is it?

46 posted on 03/27/2008 11:15:35 AM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
seems

There's the problem! While it "seems" to conflict with what you think the Bible says, it "seems" to harmonize perfectly with the Bible in the minds of any number of Catholics. Who decides who is right? In Protestantism, at bottom, it is the individual believer. But, as already discussed, their mileage may - and does! - vary considerably. They have no equivalent of the Magisterium to make such determinations. Indeed, that role as final arbiter is possibly the best common-sense support of Catholic Scriptural argument in favor of the role of the Magisterium. Its absence leads, quickly and inevitably, to doctrinal chaos.

47 posted on 03/27/2008 11:24:05 AM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
But, as already discussed, their mileage may - and does! - vary considerably.

Yep, and just as the Catholic Church varies over time. There are no perfect answers, but we all must seek God with all our hearts. If you want to rely on the Church for the answers, that is your call, but that is not what I see the Bible says.

Deuteronomy 4:29
But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.

1 Chronicles 28:9
"And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

48 posted on 03/27/2008 11:36:47 AM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Better understanding of the Truth over time - what we call "development of doctrine" - is not the same as doctrinal contradiction. To mine Scripture and Tradition for greater nuance or expansion of applicability to new situations is not necessarily to create fundamental contradictions or novelties. Besides, all denominations do this, otherwise, the only Christian book sold should be the Bible itself; all other books treating to Christian themes - expansions or "development" of the Bible itself - should be considered illegitimate and unnecessary by all believers! Yet we see a vast proliferation of edifying books on Christian themes - including, especially, non-Catholic "commentaries" on the Bible! - sold everywhere, by every denomination.

The Church certainly lays claim to the right to development of doctrine. It is not, however, guilty of creating doctrine out of wholecloth. If the fundamental core of any doctrine cannot be found in the Deposit of Faith, then it cannot be "doctrine" at all.

A good example of this is the prohibition of women in the priesthood. The bottom-line, according to JP II, is that the Church "has no authority" to ordain women, because such an action is not found in the Deposit of Faith: it is not a teaching of the Apostles, nor can it even be "developed" from any teaching of theirs. Certainly, in today's climate, it would be expedient for the Church, at least in the West, to allow women to be ordained. Yet, against popular opinion, the Church steadfastly refuses to do so, on the grounds that it hasn't "authority" in the matter. Those who say or imply that the Church simply makes up stuff as it goes along would do well to consider this modern parable to the contrary!

49 posted on 03/27/2008 11:52:59 AM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

Most protestants applaud the Catholic Church for sticking to Conservative principle on many things. The core beliefs of Catholics make them brothers in Christ. But Where most Protestants scratch their heads is this nearly religion of Mary that has been created. I am OK if you want to pray for intercession or if you want to display artwork of the virgin Mary. It is Mary is the co-Redeemer that goes to the point of conflicting with the Bible. The Catholic Church takes their Mary doctrine way too far, and even if you want to argue that the official Church position does not cross the line, the doctrine takes many Catholics to the point where they do cross the line into worshiping Mary. And that is how many non-Catholics see it.


50 posted on 03/27/2008 12:29:28 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Hmmmm.... Evangelicals involved with extra-biblical revelation? Are you sure about that?


51 posted on 03/27/2008 1:10:11 PM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Well, to begin with, Mary as co-redemtrix is not formally defined yet, though its roots go back to the early Church's understanding of physical and spiritual martyrdom, the Communion of Saints, and the harmonization of - among other verses - Luke 2:35 with Colossians 1:24.

Second, Mary is not, by any stretch, the primary cause of our Redemption. Christ alone is. Hers is a secondary adjunct to our redemption, and the aforementioned Luke 2:35 passage is the best simply human fulfillment of what St. Paul is talking about in Colossians 1:24. Nothing we aver about Mary is any more contradictory to the facts of Christ's redemption of the human race than what St. Paul says in Colossians. No outcry is made about his statement, likewise, none should be made about the proper understanding of Mary's role.

Third, none of this has anything to do with the worship of Mary. She is not divine. She is merely - and solely and completely! - human. To worship Mary is idolatry, pure and simple. To give her the honor, love, respect and veneration she is due is not "worship."

Indeed, on a lesser scale, the Early Church similarly honored, loved and venerated the martyrs, upon whose graves the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was said, a practice documented to the early 2nd Century (and likely extending back earlier). If the practice of veneration of the Saints and Martyrs is inherently "wrong," then take it up with the earliest Church. But, if they were wrong, then the fact that such "wrong" practices have continued from their day to ours demonstrates a wretched lack of providential care for His Church by God, and provides evidence that the whole of the Christian Faith is a sham and a fraud. Consider the implications of that a while before casting stones at the veneration of the Saints! It is the perfect logical correlary to what St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:14.

The problem with Protestant objections to Catholic beliefs and practices is that they are based on "novel" doctrines. Every one of them dates no further back than the 16th Century; many aren't even half that old. There is therefore, little logical point in calling various Catholic practices "unbiblical" when the Apostolic Era and its immediate aftermath are shown to harbor and nurture them again and again. The authority for them rests in their ancient lineage, and it is cheeky, at best, to object to them on the basis of understandings that can only trace their origins 1/4 of the way back to the beginning. Unless, of course, God did not exercise providential care for His Church, which He promised would both withstand the gates of Hell (Matthew 16:18) and be directly guided by God to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20) to be "the pillar and bulwark of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

But, again, if God either did not, or could not, exercise the providential care for His Church that He promised, we are - all of us, Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox alike! - wasting our time in a false religion! I prefer to think that he meant what He said, and the Church He founded has not, can not and will not stray from the Deposit of Faith in any matter. Because He promised!

52 posted on 03/27/2008 1:27:16 PM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster

“I don’t trust that at all”

Which is why we also have written scripture and histories of various Christian “fathers of the faith”(both Catholic and Protestant) by which we can also measure our growth and to know when we are going astray. We also have our brethren in our various chuches, who when seeing that we are over-taken with a fault can come and attempt to gently lead us back to the path of Christ. We are also surrounded by a whole cloud of witnesses who have gone on to Christ before us, who are praying and rooting for us. We have the Holy Spirit so that we are never alone and totally powerless! It was all designed by Christ to be that way, it is called his church, his BRIDE!


53 posted on 03/27/2008 3:45:31 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: magisterium

“A dirty plate simply needs to be cleaned, not smashed”

1.Destroy THIS temple, and I will rebuild it in 3 days.

2. At that hour, there was a great earth quake and the temple veil was torn.

3. You don’t pour new wine into old wine sacks, you pour new wine into new wine sacks.

Christ did mean to smash the old order by of man made rules and regulations by showing himself to be full embodiment of the law as it was always meant to be fully lived by men. Christ came not to destroy the law but to fullfill it and to show that men could have God’s law written into hearts of flesh, incorporated right into our minds by the work of the Holy Spirit.

We have been washed by his blood and cleansed of sin so that the penalty of the law has been lifted from us. Christ was always blasting the religious leadership of his time, they were not faithful to the law, they created a system of extrapolative thought that skirted around the exact full blooded meanings of the Mosaic code so that they could be soothed in their consciences while ignoring the neediest of men. If Jesus was often calling the pharisees and scribes...generations of vipers, “full of dead men’s bones and other corruption”(the worst insults you call a Jew back then), then you cannot say that they were faithful to the sense and spirit of the law. They were small minded and vicious,human shrews, ignoring the marvelous power of miracles that Jesus displayed, fearing the loss of their earthly prestige and power and willing to put their Saviour to death for worldly trifles that have all decayed to dust.

No, Jesus came to smash the old powers of sin and death by fullfilling the law in his person. The wages of sin was death, but Jesus had no sin so he should not have had to die. Thus the perfect storm which at the end Christ was left with the keys of death and hell...the lamb that was slain and now and for ever worthy to reign!


54 posted on 03/27/2008 4:08:33 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
no reason to believe that your church fathers that you cite are not the same people Paul is referring to

No reason to believe that they are either. The truth is that the early Christians left us a great deal of material, some of it heretical and some -- not. To attach a single verdict to all of them is absurd. Often an authority is accepted but partly, such as Origen or Tertullian. Still, there is a core of thinkers who formed the mind of the Church in 2-3cc and that is the same Church that also produced the Canon of scripture, so if you believe in the scripture you better believe in what they wrote at least where they express views held catholically (i.e. commonly).

there is no evidence of Apostolic succession in the scriptures

Sure there is. "Go ye teach every nation"; "Do this in memory of me", "He who hears you hears me", "I send you as my father sent me", "How can they preach unless they are sent?", "do not impose your hands lightly on any man" -- any of that sound familiar?

55 posted on 03/27/2008 5:13:01 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
Your post only serves to demonstrate that you seem to have entirely missed the point of mine, which I thought was rather clear, even if you disagree with it.

Yes, as I said, Jesus' passion, death and resurrection both signaled and necessitated the breaking of the Old Covenant and the creation of a new and eternal Covenant. Indeed, He said at the Last Supper: "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20). This covenant will endure till the end of the age, for we will walk in Grace, and not in the Law, until He comes in glory.

Therefore, His new covenant, presently in force, must be maintained with care. He is always faithful, even when we are not so faithful. When our end of the covenant is broken, it needs to be repaired within its own framework. The framework was established and ordained by Him; it cannot under any scheme of mere men be changed. To that extent, it is directly analogous to a dirty plate that must have its situation remedied by cleaning it, not by smashing it. Remedying the hypocrisies and corruptions in the Church is in order whenever they occur, not the creation of ersatz "new, new covenants," "new, new, new covenants," etc., which have absolutely no divine sanction and cannot be demonstrated to have come from from God's mandate.

Even the Old Covenant, while it was in force, and until its time had come through Christ's passion and death, was always held in force by God, which is why, as I said before, the Levites, the priests and the high priests were left in their proper succession, however unworthy they might be (and they were often amazingly unfaithful, idolatrous and apostate at various times!). The "cleansing of their plate" was accomplished by The Exile, and, subsequent to it, the Jews were, despite their other hypocrisies and penchants for legalism, were nearly immune to idolatry and apostasy.

The Church is to be considered in the same way when it strays corporately through human weakness, and the result will be better, for, again, we live under Grace, not under the Law as the Jews did.

56 posted on 03/27/2008 6:25:58 PM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Trouble with posting articles in rebuttal of a given article is that the rebuttal article is not addressing points made in the material being rebutted.

the earliest Church Fathers placed a strong emphasis on the authority of Scripture over verbal tradition.

Case in point. Sure they did, -- they were, after all, Catholic. But that only reinforces the fact that the Church Fathers were the men who, guided by the Holy Ghost, produced the Christian Scripture and explained the Jewish Scripture as we know it in the first place. If we do not study their collective mind, we do not properly understand the scripture, --exactly what the Catechism teaches.

Catholic apologists have attacked sola Scriptura with a vengeance. If they can topple this one doctrine, all the Reformers' other points fall with it.

Why, other Protestant doctrines fall independently, for example, the sola fide doctrine is refuted by the Holy Scripture, even in its truncated Protestant version, alone, -- it is plain controverted in Romans 2 and James 2. But it is correct that the Sola Scriptura superstition is how most Protestant arguments against Catholicism are constructed, often self-defeatingly.

it is possible to debunk sola Scriptura by using Scripture alone!

[...]

Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Exactly, and this is why Sola Scriptura is unscriptural: the knowledge that "everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture" is surely necessary to avoid the alleged error of Catholic reliance on the patristic Holy Tradition and magisterial teaching. Yet, that assertion is not in the scripture: to the contrary, both scripture and tradition are praised at least in some measure in the scripture. This is another case where the rebuttal article does not address a point already made in the main article.

Scripture clearly claims for itself this sufficiency—and nowhere more clearly that 2 Timothy 3:15-17. A brief summary of that passage is perhaps appropriate here as well. In short, verse 15 affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation: "The sacred writings . . . are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Verse 16 affirms the absolute authority of Scripture, which is "God-breathed" (Gk. theopneustos) and profitable for our instruction. And verse 17 states that Scripture is able to equip the man of God "for every good work." So the assertion that the Bible itself does not teach sola Scriptura is simply wrong.

The reader will notice how the single thought contained in "profitable ... that man of God may be perfect" is mangled into two seemingly unrelated segments by the author's paraphrase. If St. Paul wanted 2 Timothy 3:15-17 to say that the scripture is sufficient, I am sure he did not lack the eloquence to say so. Instead, he said that the scripture known to Timothy since infancy (in other words, the Septuagint) is profitable for his priestly formation, and also is inspired by God. The author of the rebuttal article is apparently unaware of the fact that the Septuagint in its entirety is the Catholic Old Testament Canon and is taught in seminaries, exactly as 2 Timothy 3:15-17 teaches.

57 posted on 03/27/2008 7:09:54 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; magisterium
I am OK if you want to pray for intercession or if you want to display artwork of the virgin Mary. It is Mary is the co-Redeemer that goes to the point of conflicting with the Bible.

You know, I disagree that co-Redeemer is unbiblical, -- more on that in a moment -- but first, what you say here is remarkable because it is a reasonable position. When Catholicism is denied because of veneration of saints or the Holy Images (that is not "artwork", tsk tsk), that is plain absurd, but it is fair to point out that devotion to Mary seems out of proportion at times. Thank you for the reasoned tone of your post.

The dogmatic position of the Church is that Mary is a central figure of the Incarnation and has a mystical connection with the Catholic Church. The former is, of course, because of her uniquely intimate and uniquely miraculous involvement in the Incarnation. The latter is based on her adopting the "disciple Jesus loved" at the foot of the Cross, as well as, of course on her mystical ability to "magnify the Lord" so that through her maternal suffering "out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed".

Co-redeemer would be heretical is this relationship between Christ and the Church, -- based, in truth, on Mary's admonition to us "do what He tells you", -- is allowed to become a relationship of equals. I am not aware of anyone's Marian devotion to take on that tilt, but in theory it is a danger of the co-redeemer title. If it is ever recognized officially, solid catechism on that will be required.

If "co-Redeemer" is understood, correctly, as Mary in her scripturally detailed role in the Economy of Redemption, then, of course, it is inobjectionable. It also has a spiritual benefit to us pedagogically, as it is useful to meditate on the Gospel through the eye of Mary, -- a human being like us, but most intimately involved in the mystery of our salvation. This is the usefulness of the Rosary prayer to all Christians.

58 posted on 03/27/2008 7:31:52 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Iscool
Still, there is a core of thinkers who formed the mind of the Church in 2-3cc and that is the same Church that also produced the Canon of scripture, so if you believe in the scripture you better believe in what they wrote at least where they express views held catholically (i.e. commonly).

No, we need not believe them- at least not with the force of the Holy Scriptures themselves. We certainly take their words under advisement. We can also treat them with respect, even as we may respect Luther and Calvin without necessarily adhering to every concept that comes from their mouths.

The point of contention, I believe, comes partly from this: That the Roman Catholics insist on reverence toward their traditions that we do not impart even to our own traditions.

The Protestant mind uses such works for guidance, surely, but discernment is left to the beholder, and is not ultimately left in the hands of the church- In the great bazaar of Protestantism, there is always another church to flee to; one that holds to views which more closely mirror one's own interpretations.

While this does indeed defeat the homogeneity the RCC desires- namely one in which the RCC is the only, and monolithic church, it also neatly prevents heresy from any ability to triumph totally, it having to survive in a multitude of environments rather than usurping power from a singular leadership.

I would submit that such diversity could be a Divine construct.

59 posted on 03/27/2008 8:08:08 PM PDT by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: annalex

The whole passage in which 1 Timothy 3:15 is found is this (NIV):

14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He[c] appeared in a body,[d]
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

Paul is saying that what he is writing are the instructions the Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, should follow in order for Christians to know how to conduct themselves in the church!

In other words - Paul is CLEARLY saying that HIS WRITING (Written, Holy Word of God) is what should be obeyed - in the church....which is (as it obeys The Written Word such as Paul is providing) the pillar of the truth.

This passage very clearly gives support to “Sola Scriptura” not to the belief that the CHURCH is what is to be obeyed....but the written instructions are to be obeyed...again giving the authoritative endorsement of this letter as part of the authentic Word of the Living God!

God breathed, Paul penned.

Sola Scriptura! Praise His Holy Name Forever!


60 posted on 03/27/2008 8:30:36 PM PDT by Freedom'sWorthIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson