Posted on 12/10/2009 2:08:47 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
When a teacher or preacher speaks of the Supremacy of Scripture he is almost always referring to a doctrine that understands Scripture as the supreme source for truth, and in fact the exclusive source for spiritual truth. In the language of the Reformation it is known as Sola Scriptura, which means that the basis for our beliefs is not tradition or experience or ecclesiastical dictate, it is the written Scriptures alone. And it is true that this doctrine has been eroding and that many religious organizations either completely deny it or dilute its essence.
Luther desired nothing but proof from Scripture when it came to doctrinal truth, and forms of that battle have continued into today. There are many books and messages that deal with the Supremacy of Scripture and the reasons for such a foundational doctrine. And this doctrine has provided a forum for what some call the "truth war" which indicates a battle between those who espouse the supremacy of Scripture and those who in one way or another do not. Some project their opinion with academic reasoning within Scripture while retaining some civility, while others speak and write with acrimony and self righteousness.
I am one who espouses the Supremacy of Scripture, for in the end the opinions of men are just that. But I continue to have a problem with some of those who are the leading and most outspoken proponents of that doctrine. Luther himself espoused the supremacy of Scripture at the possible expense of his own life, however after establishing the doctrinal foundation of Sola Scriptura he seemed to dismiss the core of that doctrine when it came to personal obedience. His reckless language, combined with his indulgence of alcohol, and his overt hatred for the Jews was in stark contrast to his doctrinal espousing of the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy. Without dismissing Luther’s importance in core doctrinal realignment, I suggest he did not strive to live up to the personal mandates of Scripture which are every bit an indispensible part of Scriptural supremacy.
What Luther’s example has shown us is that it is entirely possible to be an outspoken proponent of the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy while denying it wholesale in practice and tone. And such is the case in many quarters of today’s evangelical community. To what benefit is it to aggressively contend for the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy while overtly denying it in the methodology you use to defend it? That scenario becomes a paradox in orthodoxy which dismantles the very doctrine you are supposedly defending. The supremacy doctrine is never limited to the overarching eternal truths concerning the Godhead, it must include the admonitions and commands that are consistent with the personal manifestations of the Incarnate narrative, as well as the dictates of the epistles.
It is indeed counterproductive to argue doctrine in the abstract without the personal revelations, or at least the obvious and genuine pursuit, of the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture which are designed to restrict the carnal “end justifies the means” template of defending the truth. In the end, defending the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy by abrogating the preponderance of Scripture as it applies to love, grace, and personal humility is neither Christian nor Scriptural. It is an overt revelation of disobedience and rejection of the very doctrine you portend to defend. Christ Himself was the antithesis of masculine domination and powerful usurpation, which at its core is why so many were drawn to Him while others rejected Him.
So many today stand on the mountaintop of hubristic judgment of almost everyone who are at varying degrees of doctrinal variance, but are blind to their own Scriptural disobedience. The world knows nothing of our doctrinal squabbles, serious or secondary, but they can see clearly the tone and attitudes that are in direct conflict with the Christ we preach. The cross is the core of our redemption, but it also carries with it the essence of how we are to interact with the world and each other. These “Attila the Hun” expressions of doctrinal dialogues do despite to the Spirit of Christ, and may in fact win the debate but lose the Spirit.
What is our calling? Are we to win the “truth war” or are we to live and project Jesus Christ? And those who claim they are in fact one in the same are seriously misguided. Winning the “truth war” is indeed more about living Christ than it ever was about a round table discussion about doctrinal issues on YouTube that draw “amen’s” from the doctrinal Bourgeoisie and elevate the wisdom of men resulting in the applause of other men. The sounds of “did you see so and so on Larry King, didn’t he really give it to them” are only meant to create a greater self righteousness within those who have chosen sides at the expense of deep compassion for those who are blind and deep gratitude for those of us who have been enlightened by His grace.
We have been sold a doctrinal bill of goods that has camouflaged the truth inside a methodology that is in direct violation of the same Scriptural mandates. Would it be Scriptural to defend the doctrine of the Trinity by murder? Of course not, you say. Then how can it be Scriptural to defend Scripture by self righteousness, demeaning personal attacks, and hubristic dismissiveness? We cannot exalt the supremacy of Scripture if we ignore those Scriptures that apply directly to us.
And here lies the challenge. Are we humble enough to defend cardinal doctrines of the faith in such a way that leaves the outcome to God Himself, or are we to speak in such a way that leverages the battle upon the fulcrum of our own words and the core viciousness of our attacks? God looks after His own Word and His instructions to us are never in contrast to that same Word. Speak the truth in love, says the Spirit, not speak the truth in visceral hatred and that is in itself love. The constant stream of unchristian language directed at the same people over and over again reveals an unwillingness to trust God concerning His own Word and its defense. Is there a God, and has He spoken, and is He able to bring about His purposes in spite of those who have strayed doctrinally, or is He in dire need of our constant attacks and redundant reminders of the same Scriptural shortcomings of others? And is our Biblical teaching so fleeting, so shallow, and so temporary that without the continuing stream of identifying the same false teachers people will stray immediately?
The supremacy of Scripture is not some “pin the tail on the donkey” doctrine that we stick on others, no, it is also high time that we examine our own adherence to the personal aspects of that same doctrine. Doctrinal truth must be lived as well as preached.
Doctrine without works is dead.
*sigh* because you may have read and never grasped it...to even dismiss it as “a New Testament” is proof of that.
without the Spirit of God helping you, the text might as well be Braille. I know plenty of atheists that have read the Bible cover to cover (AND in their original languages!)
God told the prophet Isaiah:
“But this is the one to whom I will look:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit
and TREMBLES AT MY WORD.” ~ Isaiah 66:2
(So God will look to those who TREMBLE at his Word.)
“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.” (also from Isaiah)
(God’s WORD will never and can never be irrelevant even though everything else will.)
King David proclaimed “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.” (Psalm 119:105)
(Does the WORD act as a lamp to YOUR feet?)
I’d say “the desert island” is relevant question because people like Paul and John and Augustine experienced Christ most in depth and wrote their most illuminating thoughts while in absolute isolation: no sacraments to partake in, no wafers and wine. Nada.
Do you think you could ever relate to the words of Paul when he said:
“Yes, everything else is worthless when compared with the infinite value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have discarded everything else, counting it all as garbage, so that I could gain Christ and become one with him. I no longer count on my own righteousness through obeying the law; rather, I become righteous through faith in Christ. For God’s way of making us right with himself depends on faith. I want to know Christ and experience the mighty power that raised him from the dead.!” ~Phillippians 3: 8-11
Do you KNOW Christ?
Then by whom do your children cast them out?
to even dismiss it as “a New Testament” is proof of that.
It was your hypothetical, not mine. Why is it okay for you, but "dismissal" for me?
I’d say “the desert island” is relevant question because people like Paul and John and Augustine experienced Christ most in depth and wrote their most illuminating thoughts while in absolute isolation: no sacraments to partake in, no wafers and wine. Nada.
How does an extraordinary circunstance invalidate the ordinary? Are you claiming they had bibles in isolation?
(Does the WORD act as a lamp to YOUR feet?)
Are you using "the Word" as a synonym for scripture? If so, where does the OT reveal Simeon would not taste death before seeing the messiah?
“Born again” is a metaphor. You are not expected to physically be born again.
“Eat my flesh” is a metaphor. You are not expected to physically eat his flesh.
“Hunger and thirst” are metaphors for desiring God.
After all, the entire passage in John 6 starts “26Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves [feeding of the 5000] and were filled. 27 Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”
In 1 Corinthians, Paul discusses the Eucharist in conjunction with eating food sacrificed to idols.
“15I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”
One the one hand, he says food sacrificed to idols isn’t really significant, in itself - see verse 19-20, also 27. However, those who eat it identify themselves with idolatry, which is to identify themselves with demons.
I don’t see any sign that Paul believed in ‘real presence’ for demons - he specifically denies it. For Paul, it is identifying oneself, before God and man, with either the idol or Christ.
It is a public proclamation of who you follow...”For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
I’ll admit, I’m bewildered that it is even possible to have a conversation like this with an adult. If you read the scripture for teaching, it is plain. If Columbus held up an apple and said, “This is the earth, we will sail around it”, would anyone think Columbus meant the earth was really present in the apple?
“Indeed, we are told five times of the need to eat his flesh and drink his blood, as opposed to “born again” only two or three (i forget which).”
Jesus also said, “26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.” - Luke 14
Do you literally hate your family? Do you walk around with a cross on your shoulders? What would make anyone think this is supposed to be taken literally?
“You are the victim of shallow catachesis, not understanding the meaning and power of the sacrements.”
Speaking for myself, I deny they are sacraments - something that imparts the grace of God by itself, apart from faith. I’m a Baptist, but as Peter put it, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”
“not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience”
It isn’t the water of baptism that saves, but the grace of God acting thru the faith of the person being baptized!
If I were left on a desert island with no chance of leaving it, and all I had to read was a New Testament, of course I would be reading it over and over, for major portions of each day! Why would I not? Do you suppose that I do not read the New (or Old) Testament at all now?
But, as a Catholic, there would be more for me to do. I would first of all find time each day to implore God's mercy, that He would give me the grace to be perfectly sorry for my sins (in other words, sorry for them solely because they offend an all-good, all-holy, all-loving God, and not because of any self-interested fear of punishment for them. I would do that because, absent the ability to obtain forgiveness through the Sacrament of Penance, I know I would have no real chance of salvation otherwise. And I know that my purpose in life is to spend eternity with God in Heaven, and it is not inherently "selfish" to pursue that goal, since it is ultimately only the pursuit of cooperation with God's positive Will. I would, then, hope for the grace to develop a totally pure and selfless relationship with my God, who, apparently, in this scenario, I will ultimately meet unshriven.
Flowing from that grace, or as a result of additional grace that God may condescend to grant to me, I would cultivate a much stronger prayer life than I currently pursue. I would hope, over time, to be able to wrap my arms around a contemplative state of prayer that I could only dream of now, surrounded as I am by the mundane cares and distractions of day-to-day life in the world. To develop such a state of prayer would be a foretaste of Heaven itself, even while imprisoned on this island your scenario places me on.
I would offer my life, and my fate on this island, in reparation for my own sins, the sins of those whom I knew in life, and the ongoing sins of the wider world around me, even those sins I will never directly know about in this life due to my being utterly cut off from them. "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (James 5:16). I would pray that God would so construct me, through His grace, to be worthy of that verse!
So I would hope to submerge my being into the very Will of God, beg forgiveness of my sins, and hope that God would grant me the graces to walk with Him in such a way that I could intercede with Him, along with the very saints and angels in Heaven, for the furtherance of His Kingdom among my fellow men, whom I will never see again.
In other words, I would embrace my trials and death alone on this island as a vocation to become a living holocaust, submerging it into the One True Holocaust which Jesus was for us all. In this, my life on this island would come to a "purpose" far beyond anything I could likely embrace in my current, "normal" circumstances.
And, yes, a continued and ever-deepening reading of the New Testament would be a large part of my life in the scenario you suggest. But it would be a part of a greater whole, certainly. Were I left with nothing but a Tridentine Missal, I could offer that to God and achieve a similar end. For it's all about God's grace, not necessarily what I have available in tangible things. I could do as well without any printed word, provided God might be so inclined to enlighten my mind in some of the other ways I have suggested. Do you not suppose that my memory of Scripture and other pious reading would be enhanced by Him over time?
To use Scripture alone as a guide in this issue is silly, really, since its accounts of early Church practices only spans the timeframe of Saint Paul, who died by the mid-60s AD. That's really just the middle of the second generation of Christianity at most. Certainly, in the first generation or two, it would be expected that a good number of the bishops and priests would be married. The Church was already growing in such a way that the far greater portion of Christians came from among the Gentiles, who had absolutely no prior emphasis on celibacy among males. Unless one were to ordain no one at all who was an adult former pagan, who would be left to ordain? As time went on, and people were raised as Christians from infancy with greater frequency, it was less and less necessary to have the clergy come from the ranks of the married. It still happened, of course, but with less and less frequency, such that, by the 4th Century or so, it was positively rare in the West, and not even that common in the East.
Your understanding of 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 is likelwise faulty. You say this: "At the judgment seat of Christ believers are told that carnal works will be burnt up, (1 Cor. 3:11-15) but they themselves will be saved, so as by fire, which does not convey suffering an indeterminate time in purgatory, but of a man who loses everything but himself is saved, the context here being about rewards."
But, first, understand that the Day in verse 13 is the Judgment Day of God, where the totality of a man's works and life will be laid bare for all to see. Everything about that man's llife will be in the past tense at that point. It's not that he will lose everything, as you say, in some earthly sense. He will need to undergo purification for all of the things he has altready done. The judgment on him is that he will "be saved, but only as through fire" (verse 15). This means that the "judgment" of the man in this scenario St. Paul depicts will, on the one hand, concern the actions of his entire past life, yet will consist of a purification that has yet to happen. That describes the circumstances of Purgatory quite well, without using the word explicitly.
And do not gloss over 2 Maccabees 12 (and by implication, the rest of the Deuteros) so glibly. It was part of the canon of Scripture every bit in good standing from the codification of the 4th and 5th Centuries down to our own day. Largely because of this very part of 2 Maccabees 12, involving a clear reference to Purgatory, a way had to be found to jettison the entire book. This could not be credibly dne without a wider excuse. The excuse came in the form of citing the Hebrew canon only. But how does Jewish authority exercised at the Council of Jamnia, some 60 years after the birth of the Church, and 20 years after the end of Temple sacrifice and the Jewish priesthood, have any mandatory bearing on what the Christian Church decides is canonical Scripture?
After all, that same council specifically denied the Scriptural nature of what would eventually constitute the entire New Testament! If the Christian canon of Scripture was a settled matter for over a thousand years before the so-called Reformation, where was the authority found in the upstarts, who deliberately and radically cut themselves off from continuity with the historical Church, to unilaterally reformulate the canon 14 centuries after its components were written and 1100 years after their nature was determined, to the exclusion of a host of other candidates? Since both Catholics and Protestants have the same New Testament canon, and those books, too, were canonized by 4th and 5th Century Catholic councils, why is that authority thrown aside in attempts to meddle with the Old Testament canon those councils also dealt with?
You would do better to contemplate the fact that all of the historical Churches that have a claim to Apostolic ties (Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox) recognize 1 and 2 Maccabees, and have some notion analogous to, or equivalent with, the Catholic concept of Purgatory. A reasonable person might conclude that this notion, then, is part of the Ancient Faith, part of the Deposit of Faith that comes from the very beginnings of Christianity. It might make you want to explore how, and by what authority that connects to the beginning, the heretofore accepted concept of Purgatory was suddenly chucked out the window by certain Christians in the 16th Century! That you assert 2 Maccabees is "is not worthy to be classed with Scripture," being part of the "apocrypha," is your opinion only. That opinion can only piggyback onto other opinions no more than 480 years old, one-fourth of the way back to the Apostolic Era and, thus, utterly removed from the Deposit of Faith.
Finally, you speak of a "revived church." This implies that, for some interval (I would suppose this is on the order of 1200 years, from the time of Constantine or so, no?), there was no legitimate Church teaching the authentic Gospel to the world, until the "Reformers" showed-up in the 1500s. This betrays a great lack of faith in the providential protection of God for the Church He Himself established, precisely to preach the Gospel to the whole world! Does Jesus say that He will be with His Church all days until the end of time in Matthew 28:20, or not? Does He not promise the protection of the Holy Spirit in the revelation and continued teaching of the Truth through the Church in John 16:3, or not? Does St. Paul maintain in 1 Timothy 3:15 that the Church is the "pillar and ground of the Truth," or does he not? Does not all of this put together form a clear indication that God will preserve His Church from error in order to have it fulfill this fundamental aspect of its purpose as a purveyor of the Truth, from the moment of its establishment until the end of time? Is it not a massive breach of faith for anyone to suppose that there was a "break" in the legitimate exercise of this charism for x-hundred years before the "Reformation" got things back on track? Is there real organic continuity with the early Church to even indicate that, in fact, the Reformation did get things back on track, and that, somewhere, this alleged "authentic Gospel" existed through the whole span of the Christian Era?
The heart of the matter of our dispute rests in this question: Did Christ mean what He said in Matthew 28 and does the Holy Spirit preserve the Truth through all time since Pentecost? If God intended these things, then He accomplished them through the agency of the Church He established for those ends. Otherwise, He is not only not omnipotent, He evidently had not the foresight to be able to really guarantee His promises. That's what the Mormons believe! it is not something any actual Christian should believe!
I trust in God, in spite of the acknowledged sinfulness of many of the members of the Church He established. He always said there would be tares among the wheat. But the tares should not scandalize anyone into thinking that the doctrine they have taught since the times of the Apostles is tainted by their sins. The Mystical Body of Christ, which is His Church, is comprised of sinful men, yet its teachings are pure, inspired by God, safeguarded by Him, and will endure until the end of time. You need to ask yourself why you subscribe to a system of belief that, on many points of doctrine, cannot trace itself back more than 1/4 of the way to the Deposit of Faith Christ and the Apostles left us. Many of your teachings appear out of nowhere in the 16th Century or later. "Sola Scriptura" is but one of them.
Catholics broke with their Church's teachings more than most other groups, with just six out of 10 Catholics affirming that God is "a person with whom people can have a relationship", and three in 10 describing God as an "impersonal force." 7.5The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
Only 33% of Catholics strongly affirmed that Christ was sinless on earth. 7http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=92
88% of Catholics believe that they can practice artificial means of birth control and still be considered good Catholics. New York Times/CBS News poll, Apr. 21-23, 1994, subsample of 446 Catholics, MOE ± 5%.
70 % of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus [it is, of His death], indicating they do not believe it is Jesus actual body and blood [as Rome erroneously teaches]. New York Times/CBS News poll, Apr. 21-23, 1994, subsample of 446 Catholics, MOE ± 5%
Only 30% of Catholics said believe they are really and truly receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ under the appearance of bread and wine. 1992 Gallup poll
Age 65 and over, 51% of Catholics said they believe in the above doctrine. New York Times and CBS poll of Catholics. http://www.catholicapologetics.com/ba3.htm
26 percent of Catholics polled strongly agree with the Church's unequivoval position on abortion. Catholic World Report; Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut.
Only 20 percent strongly agreed with the Church teaching that only men may be ordained. ^Roper Center for Public Opinion
33 percent go to confession less than once a year. ^Roper Center for Public Opinion
Only 30 percent said they read the Bible more than once a month. ^Roper Center for Public Opinion
46 percent of Catholics who say they attend mass weekly accept Church teaching on abortion; 43 percent accept the all-male priesthood; and 30 percent see contraception as morally wrong. ^Roper Center for Public Opinion
73 percent of Catholics rejected Catholic teaching artificial methods of birth control. ^Roper Center for Public Opinion
31% of faithful Catholics (those who attend church weekly) say abortion should be legal either in "many" or in "all" cases. Copyright © 2004 -- The Gallup Organization Gallup Survey for Catholics Speak Out: 802 Catholics, May 1992, MOE ± 4%
Catholic women have an abortion rate 29 percent higher than Protestants. Alan Guttmacher Institute http://www.catholicleague.org/research/catholic_women_and_abortion.htm
66% of Catholics supported women's ordination to the priesthood, and 73% approved of the way John Paul II leads the church. Surveying the Religious Landscape: Trends in U.S. Beliefs by George Gallup, Jr. and D. Michael Lindsay (Morehouse Publishing, 1999). Copyright © 2004 -- The Gallup Organization www.gallup.com
80% of Catholics believe it is possible to disagree with the pope on official positions on morality and still be a good Catholic. Time/CNN nationwide poll of 1,000 adults, conducted by Yankelovich Partners, Sept. 27-28, 1995; subsample of 500 Catholics, MOE ± 4.5%
77 % of Catholics polled "believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing. 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter. http://www.catholictradition.org/v2-bombs14b.htm
59% of all Catholic women of childbearing age practice contraception—a rate of usage statistically equivalent to that of the general population (60%). Calvin Goldscheider and William D. Mosher, "Patterns of Contraceptive Use in the United States:
Approx. 50% of Catholic priests do not agree with Human Vitae (RC teaching on birth control). Catholic Parish Priests and Birth Control: A Comparative Study of Opinion in Colombia, the United States, and the Netherlands, by Gail A. Shea, Thomas K. Burch, Gustavo Perez, Miriam Ordonez, Joseph Van Kemanade, Jan Hutjes and Andre E. Hellegers © 1971 Population Council.
30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. ^8.5Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). Arthur Jones, 2002 National Catholic Reporter. Gale Group. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_2_39/ai_94129129/pg_2
53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations, : 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never. ^8.5
71 percent responded that it always was wrong for a woman to get an abortion, 19 percent that it often was, and 4 percent seldom/never. ^8.5
28 percent judged that is always was sin for married couples to use artificial birth control, 25 percent often, 40 percent never. ^8.5
49 percent affirmed that it was always a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, often, 25 percent; and never, 19 percent. ^8.5
To take one's own life if suffering from a debilitating disease: always, 59 percent; often, 18 percent; never, 17 percent. ^8.5
15 percent of the current clergy listed themselves as "gay or on the homosexual side." Among younger priests 23 percent did so. ^8.5
44 percent of the priests said "definitely" a homosexual subculture'--defined as a `definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary'--exists in their diocese or religious order. ^8.5
Only 30 percent of Catholic (97% claim to be so) in Italy attend church. In larger cities as Milan, the ratio is only 15 percent, according to church officials. Famiglia Cristiana,Catholic weekly magazine.
In Catholic France (76% claim to be so) only 12 percent say they go to church on Sunday (Vatican officials say only 5 percent in cities such as Paris). Georgetown University's Center for the Study of Global Christianity. Charles M. Sennott, Globe Staff, May 2, 2005 ©Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company. http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/05/02/catholic_church_withers_in_europe?mode=PF
In Catholic Ireland (90%) less than 50 percent attend Mass even once a month, (down from 91% 30 years ago) estimates a recent church study. ^
>Though it is only a church law, celibacy shows contempt for Scripture
>>Now this is just plain biblical ignorance.<<
Not very convincing.
Please justify requiring all bishops/elders to have the gift of celibacy when, if anything, the Bible expects (and may even require) them to be married.
(1 Cor 7:7) “For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.”
A bishop then must be...”One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; {5} (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Tim 3:2a,4-5)
“If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.” (Titus 1:6)
Whether these specific instructions mandate marriage is debatable, but whether celibacy can be mandated for this entire class of clergy is not, but such is the result of autocratic presumption to authority over Scripture, an error which the Pharisees were also guilty of.
“the basis for our beliefs is not tradition or experience or ecclesiastical dictate, it is the written Scriptures alone”
That is the ultimate objective authority, yet Sola Scriptura does not hold that miracles, history, and reason play no part is discerning what Scripture means, nor that God cannot “speak” to souls today (esp. during the offering:), but that all such is subject to the Bible as in determining its veracity.
This compilation of assertions proves nothing whatsoever regarding the truths of Catholicism, though. If anything, I'm surprised that, rather than try to wedge this into a "proof" that Catholicism is false, more Evangelicals don't point to these sorts of things as yet another sign of The End they're forever predicting for our own generation. After all, one day, Christianity (presumably the "authentic" kind, however one wishes to define that) will in fact, undergo a general apostasy. Scripture is quite plain on this point. So, without any lack of Scriptural consistency, I could use all of your statistics and demonstrate that Catholicism is "the true Christian faith" because it is undergoing at least the beginnings of the very apostasy foretold! After all, one has to be a real believer before one can apostatize! Same thing with a homogeneous body of believers.
I'm not at all sure that we are that close to the End really, though I often wonder if we are at the "beginning of sorrows" Jesus spoke of in Matthew 24:8. But your stats, again, might provide evidence not only that we are near the End, but that Catholicism is, in fact, entirely true, insofar as an apostasy is blooming within it at this very time. So the inferences we are supposed to make from your posting of this compilation of data fall through. In fact, even if this current falling away is reversed, and we enter another Golden Age lasting 10,000 years, I would expect another apostasy out of Catholicism, truly leading to The End. The fullness of the Deposit of Faith mill be mirrored by the fullness of darkness, and it only makes sense that people will embrace the latter by undertaking a nearly universal falling away from the former.
What you say is counterscriptural. Nowhere is the Holy Scripture described in these terms in the Bible. However, the sacraments of the Church -- at least, the baptism and the Eucharist are expressly said to save our souls (1 Peter 3:21, John 6:55). Obviously, I say with St. Paul that it is the knowledge and imitation of Christ that makes us righteous and leads us to everlasting life. This is why I am Catholic.
>Paul was clearly celibate and was an Apostle! ,
If you read what i referred to as clergy, you would see that it was Bishop/Elders, which formal office Paul ordained others to, but which he does not claim for himself (unlike Peter), but that he was “ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.” (1 Tim 2:7)
Regardless of the celibate state of Paul and Barnabas, I was not arguing that a bishop/elder cannot be single, but that requiring an entire class of clergy to have the gift of celibacy is Biblically unwarranted, and if anything, is contrary to what is explicitly stated on the ordination of bishops/elders.
Nor does what the church later practiced necessarily determine what the Bible taught, as deviations and disagreements were often seen, while celibate marriages are also abnormal, presuming ability and normal drives. (Gn. 2:24; 1 Cor. 7:2)
As for your regarding the use of Scripture alone as a guide in this issue to be silly, while aspects such as cultural context have their place, nothing exists that can justify mandating celibacy for an entire class of clergy (though Eastern O priestly converts are mercifully allowed to keep their wives). hat is worse than silly, and the office of Bishops/elders is nowhere shown to be reserved to such. Moreover, if there is any historical data that might modify teaching in this regard, it would be that Paul was preparing his flock for the traumatic times that occurred during and after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D, in which families could add extra travail.
>Your understanding of 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 is likelwise faulty>
No, your understanding of the believers judgement is faulty.
1 Corinthians 3:11-15 is about gaining or losing rewards, NOT about purification. All must appear before Christ, (Acts 17:31; 2Cor. 5:10; Rom_14:10-12), and some evidence suggests tow different judgments, (Rev. 11:8; 20:4-6,12-15) but while the Bible very explicitly warns about the kind of post-death judgment the lost will receive, when it speaks specifically about the judgment of saved believers in the afterlife, it nowhere speaks about purification, but about rewards or loss of them. (1 Cor. 4:5; Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:24)
The chastisement of believers in this life is what is purposed to bring repentance, (1 Cor. 5:1-15; 11:31,32), and purify them, that they “might be partakers of his holiness.”
(Heb. 12)
The lack of any clear description of post-death purification of believers, and that the only description of their post-death experience of believers is positive, and and fact that all those who are raptured will be forever with the Lord, is far more substantial than the doctrine of purgatory, which is based upon ambiguous texts
While praying for deceased idolaters may be compassionate, if problematic, as Rome excludes there is hope for those who die in mortal sin, and I would not see this as necessarily damning those who may ignorantly engage in such, in no place will you find this being sanctioned inany other book of the Bible. Not among the multitudinous precepts of the comprehensive sacrificial system, nor under the New Testament.
As far as the Jewish canon is concerned, which is not the only reason for its rejection, that a canon had to exist is internally evidenced in the N.T., as referring to the Scriptures presumes they knew what it consisted of, even before Jamnia, and Josephus explicitly rejected the Apocrypha. Nor does their rejection of the Christian texts invalidate their weight in this matter, because unto them were committed the oracles of God (Rm. 3:2; an explicit testimony Rome can only wish it said of them.)
Meanwhile, rather 1100 years of canonization as you would seem to infer, the full R.C. canon was itself not infallibly defined until over 1400 after its last book was written, and early lists were not uniform, while internal R.C. dissent continued later on . The premier scholar Jerome rejected the apocrypha, and specifically mentioned that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd “are not in the canon”. (though later on they were added to his vulgate) John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado and others also doubted the canonicity of the apocryphal books.
However, the Bible did not become the worlds best seller because of ecclesiastical decree, though it helped gain the right to print it when Rome controlled such, but because, like any classic, they possess unique qualities which placed them on the saints “best seller list”. Rome’s recognition of them does not establish their canonicity, any more than her sanction of praying to Mary or other unwarranted practices validates them. Conversely, her unBiblical Crusades and Inquisitions (the church is not established to rule over those without, or use carnal force in chastising its members) and later facilitation of liberalism impugns the credibility of the Bible.
>Finally, you speak of a “revived church.”<
Indeed i do, but you could saved yourself some effort if you had not assumed I meant resurrected rather than “revived”. True believers always existed, but always as a remnant, and the church exists, as did the faith of Abraham and the Israel of God, even when one organic form of it becomes corrupt.
And while God tolerated Rome, and used it to a degree, it was duly reproved and the church moved forward after the Reformation, spiritually and with structurelly, though the Reformation must yet continue.
Israel was not preserved by an infallible magisterium, which even the Orthodox do not hold they were, but because God raised up men whom they rejected, to call them back to repentance, or the flock would be scattered. Luther, despite some faults, was your prophet, and his compelled (by Scripture and conscience) break actually helped to bring about needed reformation within Rome, while resulting in far more souls being added to the kingdom, and indeed a more glorious America (though liberals deny the effects of the Great Awakenings).
Rome is in need of more Luther, and I dare say that until it gets its own house in order it has no business even seeking to convert Bible believing evangelicals into it, and preaching faith in a church. And until it gets the gospel right then it is not even a true church, regardless of its advertised size and troublesome historicity. “to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.” (Eccl 9:4)
>The heart of the matter of our dispute rests in this question: Did Christ mean what He said in Matthew 28 and does the Holy Spirit preserve the Truth through all time since Pentecost? If God intended these things, then He accomplished them through the agency of the Church He established for those ends.<
The answer is yes to all, the truth is preserved even though Rome persecuted men who preached the gospel which results in evident regeneration. The issue is your last sentence presumes that Rome must be that church, but while it is based upon and preaches basic truths, it makes them of no salvific effect by fostering confidence in the church and one own merit for salvation. The former is effectually conveyed, as evidenced by what Catholics typically express is their hope of salvation, while the later is based upon Trent: “nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life.” (Trent, 1547, The Sixth Session Decree on justification, chapter XVI)
Of course, we need someone to interpret Trent, and someone to interpret the interpreters, but rather than admitting the solution of Rome is not one, it is easier to attack those who hold to Sola Scriptura, whose confidence come from searching the Scripture, not trusting in Rome or similarly, the Watchtower society or the “living Prophet” of the LDS. Etc.
As for the Perpetuated Petrine papacy, upon which every aberrant teaching of Rome is based, this is dependent upon faith in Rome’s self declared infallibility, not persuading souls by Scripture, as that is problematic for Rome.
As for history, while many religions can boast of their historicity, the authenticity of the one true church is not based upon formal organic ecclesiastical linkage, any more that of a true Jews is based upon physical lineage back to Abraham. (Rm. 2:28,29) But in both cases it is based upon Abrahamic type faith, in the gospel of grace, which Rome officially, and effectually does not preach. Yet it is close enough that some seen through its trappings and do trust Christ and His blood alone to save them, not trusting in part upon their merit or the power of their church for salvation, and which brings forth evident fruits of salvation. And that is what i share, despite my short-comings, not faith in a religious system.
>Many of your teachings appear out of nowhere in the 16th Century or later. “Sola Scriptura” is but one of them.,
That is simply another of your errors. I do not implicitly trust in any man or teacher, while the longevity of Rome’s errors do not validate them, which is your major premise, and it is praying to saints and such like that appear without Biblical warrant.
You didnt list prohibitions and your understanding on this issue is not supported by any or most scholarly theologians. Sir, your arguments on this issue are nothing more than anti-catholicism rants.
The same rants that most theologians have discarded as propaganda in the last 40 or more years.
I think there are two issues that need to be addressed here with you.
First, That Paul puts no stock in the 'real presence' for one does not preclude his belief in same fore the other. Indeed, I find it strange you seem to look past Paul's comment about participating in the body and blood without any recognition those words have meaning.
Next, many non-Catholics don't seem to be able to break out (in the intellectual sense) of the fact Catholics do not accept the scriptures as the sole source of special revelation.
The doctrine of the Real Presence, like the doctrine of the Trinity, does not rest on scripture, but on Sacred Tradition, and is equally inscrutable. So while no one is denying our Lord's use of metaphors, one of the tasks of the Church is to identify and clarify those things in scripture which can be twisted to destruction.
The presence or absence of authoritative Church teaching.
How on earth would you conclude we believe sacraments impart grace apart from faith?
More importantly, WHY would you think Catholics believe such a thing?
“First, That Paul puts no stock in the ‘real presence’ for one does not preclude his belief in same fore the other.”
It does not preclude, but in the absence of other information, it is an indicator. He uses the same sort of language for sacrifices to idols as he does to the Eucharist:
“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”
“I find it strange you seem to look past Paul’s comment about participating in the body and blood without any recognition those words have meaning.”
And what does it mean to eat without discerning the body? Just before that verse, we find:
“For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.”
The congregation is the body of Christ. Yet the Corinthians are split by factions, as though the body of Christ can be split! When they meet, they acts as individuals instead of one body. Each eats when and what he wants, and the rich humiliate the poor.
In the next chapter, Paul continues to talk about the congregation as the body of Christ, with the Spirit giving gifts as He desires, but all needing each other together.
Paul isn’t talking about the physical body of Christ, but the Church - the Body of Christ - and unity, and love, and caring for one another, and using gifts to build up the body, not the individual. When they have factions in the congregation, and treat each other shabbily, partake of the Eucharist like every man for himself and aspire to gifts that build up the individual but not the whole, they fail to discern the body of Christ - the Church.
It isn’t that they fail to discern the physical body of Jesus hiding in the accident of bread, but that they fail to discern that they are one body, the body of Christ. It is the reality of the Church that they are missing, not transubstantiation.
“More importantly, WHY would you think Catholics believe such a thing?”
Because Catholics are the ones telling me to take things literally, when Jesus said:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.”
Where is the talk of faith? Why don’t you take it literally?
There is also this, from the Council of Trent: “CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.”
After the consecration is complete. Not if the recipient has faith, or if taken with faith, but “after the consecration is completed”, transubstantiation has taken place and the bread-looking stuff and wine-looking stuff are the flesh and blood of Christ, suitable for worshiping.
And Jesus said, “Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
“Catholics do not accept the scriptures as the sole source of special revelation.”
Understood. Yet Paul said he had taught the “full counsel of God”, and John wrote that “Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.”
So how have you developed doctrine from sacred tradition hundreds or a thousand years after the Apostles? John said to ABIDE, and not to GO ON AHEAD.
Yet the Catholic Church has gone ahead and developed what the Apostles did not know. And John goes on to write, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”
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.