Posted on 09/11/2014 12:08:50 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
There are one billion Roman Catholics worldwide, one billion people who are subject to the Pope’s authority. How, one might ask, did all of this happen? The answer, I believe, is far more complex and untidy than Catholics have argued. First, I will give a brief explanation of what the Catholic position is, and then, second, I will suggest what I think actually took place.
The Catholic Explanation
The traditional Catholic understanding is that Jesus said that it was upon Peter the church was to be built (Matt. 16:18−19; see also John 21:15−17; Luke 22:32). Following this, Peter spent a quarter of a century in Rome as its founder and bishop, and his authority was recognized among the earliest churches; this authority was handed down to his successors. Indeed, the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) re-affirmed this understanding. Apostolic authority has been handed on to the apostles’ successors even as Peter’s supreme apostolic power has been handed on to each of his successors in Rome.
The problem with this explanation, however, is that there is no evidence to sustain it. The best explanation of Matthew 16:18–19 is that the church will be built, not on an ecclesiastical position, but on Peter’s confession regarding Christ’s divinity. Correlative to this understanding is the fact that there is no biblical evidence to support the view that Peter spent a long time in the church in Rome as its leader. The Book of Acts is silent about this; it is not to be found in Peter’s own letters; and Paul makes no mention of it, which is strange if, indeed, Peter was in Rome early on since at the end of Paul’s letter to the Romans, he greets many people by name. And the argument that Peter’s authority was universally recognized among the early churches is contradicted by the facts. It is true that Irenaeus, in the second century, did say that the church was founded by “the blessed apostles,” Peter and Paul, as did Eusebius in the fourth century, and by the fifth century, Jerome did claim that it was founded by Peter whom he calls “the prince of the apostles.” However, on the other side of the equation are some contradictory facts. Ignatius, for example, en route to his martyrdom, wrote letters to the bishops of the dominant churches of the day, but he spoke of Rome’s prominence only in moral, not ecclesiastical, terms. At about the same time early in the second century, the Shepherd of Hermas, a small work written in Rome, spoke only of its “rulers” and “the elders” who presided over it. There was, apparently, no dominant bishop at that time. Not only so, but in the second and third centuries, there were numerous instances of church leaders resisting claims from leaders in Rome to ecclesiastical authority in settling disputes.
It is, in fact, more plausible to think that the emergence of the Roman pontiff to power and prominence happened by natural circumstance rather than divine appointment. This took place in two stages. First, it was the church in Rome that emerged to prominence and only then, as part of its eminence, did its leader begin to stand out. The Catholic church has inverted these facts by suggesting that apostolic power and authority, indeed, Peter’s preeminent power and authority, established the Roman bishop whereas, in fact, the Roman bishopric’s growing ecclesiastical prestige derived, not from Peter, but from the church in Rome.
The Actual Explanation
In the beginning, the church in Rome was just one church among many in the Roman empire but natural events conspired to change this. Jerusalem had been the original “home base” of the faith, but in a.d. 70, the army of Titus destroyed it and that left Christianity without its center. It was not unnatural for people in the empire to begin to look to the church in Rome since this city was its political capital. All roads in that ancient world did, indeed, lead to Rome, and many of them, of course, were traveled by Christian missionaries. It is also the case that the Roman church, in the early centuries, developed a reputation for moral and doctrinal probity and, for these reasons, warranted respect. Its growing eminence, therefore, seems to have come about in part because it was warranted and also, in part, because it was able to bask in some of the reflected splendor of the imperial city.
Heresies had abounded from the start, but in the third-century, churches began to take up a new defensive posture against them. Would it not be the case, Tertullian argued, that churches founded by the apostles would have a secure footing for their claims to authenticity, in contrast to potentially heretical churches? This argument buttressed the growing claims to preeminence of the Roman church. However, it is interesting to note that in the middle of this century, Cyprian in North Africa argued that the words, “You are Peter …” were not a charter for the papacy but, in fact, applied to all bishops. Furthermore, at the third Council of Carthage in 256, he asserted that the Roman bishop should not attempt to be a “bishop of bishops” and exercise “tyrannical” powers.
Already in the New Testament period, persecution was a reality, but in the centuries that followed, the church suffered intensely because of the animosities and apprehensions of successive emperors. In the fourth century, however, the unimaginable happened. Emperor Constantine, prior to a pivotal battle, saw a vision and turned to Christianity. The church, which had lived a lonely existence on the “outside” up to this time, now enjoyed an unexpected imperial embrace. As a result, from this point on, the distinction between appropriate ecclesiastical demeanor and worldly pretensions to pomp and power were increasingly lost. In the Middle Ages, the distinction disappeared entirely. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory brazenly exploited this by asserting that the “care of the whole church” had been placed in the hands of Peter and his successors in Rome. Yet even at this late date, such a claim did not pass unchallenged. Those in the east, whose center was in Constantinople, resented universal claims like this, and, in fact, this difference of opinion was never settled. In 1054, after a series of disputes, the Great Schism between the eastern and western churches began. Eastern Orthodoxy began to go its own way, separated from Roman jurisdiction, and this remains a breach that has been mostly unhealed.
The pope’s emergence to a position of great power and authority was, then, long in the making. Just how far the popes had traveled away from New Testament ideas about church life was brutally exposed by Erasmus at the time of the Reformation. Pope Julius II had just died when, in 1517, Erasmus penned his Julius Exclusus. He pictured this pope entering heaven where, to his amazement, he was not recognized by Peter! Erasmus’ point was simply that the popes had become rich, pretentious, worldly, and everything but apostolic. However, he should have made his point even more radically. It was not just papal behavior that Peter would not have recognized as his own, but papal pretensions to universal authority as well.
Isa 8:19-20 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? (20) To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.Peace,
The law of God is good, but it is a ministry of death. You only have to believe Paul to get that. He said it repeatedly. Do you dismiss his apostolic authority? The ministration of grace through the Gospel of Jesus Christ is life from the dead, life by the power of God's own Spirit. It cannot be matched by anything in the Old Covenant.
Jesus said that John the Baptist was greatest among those born of women, but the lowest person in the kingdom of Heaven is greater than John. If it wasn't for the fact that Jesus has taken us to a whole new level in the New Covenant, then how can John be below any ordinary Christian? He was the last of the Old Covenant prophets. He marks the beginning of the end of the Old Covenant era:
Mat 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
That which was good, but had no power to save, has been replaced by the better, through which comes eternal life:
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
If I had said that as a First Century Christian, that the Old Covenant is decaying, getting old, and ready to vanish away, wouldn't that be inconsistent with the idea of the law continuing on just as it always had? Of course it would. I understand you see great good in the law. All people of good will do. But there is something even better, if you believe the apostles, the Gospel of God's grace in Jesus Christ, by whom we are delivered from the curse of the law, and raised to new life in the Spirit, all by grace, and nothing by our own failed humanity.
Peace,
SR
No. Are you a preterist ? Do you agree that heaven and earth have not passed yet ? Do you make Jesus' teaching of none effect by claiming it does not apply in this age (I think some Baptists do this with Matthew 5) ? Do you agree that pornography is adultery and excludes those who use it from the Kingdom of God ? Do you agree that the OSAS doctrine is of men and gives false hope which they use to imagine they can sin without eternal consequence, when there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth except they repent again and have their sins remitted ?
I am not sure how to respond. Your link is to the Catholic Catechism, and much of it reads like any standard Protestant treatise on the same subject, with some difference to be expected due to our differences over imputation versus infusion of righteousness, and perhaps others I could discover on a more careful reading. But in the critical point of our own disagreement, it appears to agree with the position I have taken, and not you:
“1972 ... a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law”
I have never dismissed, nor has any Protestant here dismissed the instructive value of the Old Covenant law, nor the universal and eternal nature of the moral law of God. God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. We come to a knowledge of our need for Him by our failure against that standard of the righteousness of God revealed in both the Old Covenant and more fully in the New.
But our salvation cannot come from a ministration of death. The law condemns us. Jesus saves us. But He does not save us so we can submit ourselves again to the law as if IT were our savior. Jesus is our savior, and He is actively involved in redeeming us. He truly becomes our shepherd and we His sheep.
But what happens is some do not have that life of the Spirit. Like Nicodemas, they cannot picture such spiritual realities, and they grasp after some physical meaning, something they can do, which establishes them as visibly righteous, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to cling to the “ritual and juridical observances” of the law, and elsewhere it says the “provisional” and “imperfect” elements of the Old Covenant system.
This is where you get folks coming along and pushing their own “betterness” by advertising they eat kosher, or they observe the best holy days, etc. etc. It is an exercise in futility. Those were never central to the heart of the law. They were teaching tools pertaining to the Old Covenant God made with national Israel, and have no place in the New, except as free options. If someone wants to eat kosher, God bless ‘em. But don’t sit there wondering if someone else doesn’t love God because they eat bacon. It gets beyond ridiculous to downright pernicious.
I have to get to work, so I don’t have time for treatment of Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS), except to say that Once Elect Always Elect (OEAE) is a much better expression of the Biblical doctrine. OSAS is mostly caricature. In real life, nobody does that, “woo hoo now I’m free to sin” thing. There are other, more realistic ways to break that down, and anyone who thinks God will let them off for remaining in unrepentant sin will find that God is not mocked. Don’t think that Protestants don’t understand that.
Anyway, must go now.
Peace,
SR
I think the Catechism describes the critical point as "the Old Covenant has never been revoked." If you can admit this I think we can agree on most other aspects. The Spirit that gives life shows how Messiah explained the Law, holding us to a higher standard, and at the same time, giving us liberty and safety from judgment if we walk in the Spirit. I like how the Catechism explains it.
I have to get to work, so I don’t have time for treatment of Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS), except to say that Once Elect Always Elect (OEAE) is a much better expression of the Biblical doctrine. OSAS is mostly caricature.
Concur, much better, OEAE, like Israel.
In real life, nobody does that, “woo hoo now I’m free to sin” thing. There are other, more realistic ways to break that down, and anyone who thinks God will let them off for remaining in unrepentant sin will find that God is not mocked. Don’t think that Protestants don’t understand that.
I think some (many ?) are lulled into a false sense of security because they can point to a day they had a salvific experience. They believe all their future sins are covered by that day and ignore, or forget, the many warnings of the LORD and his apostles. They think their mortal sins don't count against them and could only end their life on earth early, with them still gaining an immediate entry into heaven no matter what they do after that event.
And yet Catholics DO think that non-Catholics don't understand that.
What Catholics fail to understand as well, is the revulsion to sin that the born again believer usually has towards sin.
Nobody can sin comfortably with the Holy Spirit living in them prodding at their consciences.
For the believer who does go into sin like that, it's often a long process of hardening their heart towards the Holy Spirit for a long time. It's certainly not a flippant, Now I've got fire insurance mentality.
What it shows me is the attitude that believers are often accused of having, is the very attitude the accuser has towards sin and is an indicator of how they've behave if they had no EXTERNAL factors forcing their behavior.
IOW, they are projecting, revealing what's in their heart, what they would do if they thought they were saved and secure.
It's not a false sense of security. It's real security because it's a done deal.
We are saved by faith but are not kept by works.
If our works are not adequate to save us, they are not adequate to keep us.
They believe all their future sins are covered by that day and ignore, or forget, the many warnings of the LORD and his apostles.
ALL our sins are covered and forgiven. We have been (past tense) crucified in Christ, we have died IN Him.) We are clothed in the righteousness of Christ, and given a new nature. That new nature is righteous and when the physical body dies, the flesh dies with it and all that remains is the new sinless nature.
They think their mortal sins don't count against them and could only end their life on earth early, with them still gaining an immediate entry into heaven no matter what they do after that event.
That's true, because God does not count the record of debt that stood against us. It was nailed to the tree.
Colossians 2:13-14 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.
But the function of the law is different in the New Covenant. We are no longer dealing with the insignia of a theocratic nation, but with the universal body of Christ. Thus the body of law that is inherently temporal and not eternal has indeed been set aside. The very term Old is a consequence of God Himself calling this revised use of the law a New Covenant. See Hebrews 8:13.
So we have that the eternal law does not pass away, but the Old Covenant does, and has, passed away. Not so much a revocation as a fulfilment of purpose. Not unlike a Chrysalis, it has done what it was supposed to do, lead us to Christ, and now it is an empty shell. The life within it has moved on to the higher life of living in God's grace by His Spirit, through faith in Jesus Christ.
But the relation it has to the believer is no longer a function of condemnation:
(KJV)Romans 8:1-4 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. [2] For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. [3] For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
So although we say that OSAS, if indeed it is used as a naked excuse for wallowing in sin, is serious error, we also say the law has no more power of condemnation against us. Our justification is forensic, by operation of divine law we are acquitted of all guilt because we have identified with the crucified Christ.
But for those who believe in Jesus it doesn't stop there. They also receive God's Spirit as a pledge that He will follow through on the entire work of fulfilling all the consequences of our salvation. The witness of His Spirit with ours that we belong to Him is real. It is experienced by everyone born of the Spirit, born from above, born again.
And it is transformative. The new birth does not leave you the same person you were before. All things have become new. Old things have passed away. It's no longer about dodging divine lightning bolts. It's about living out the new life of love God Himself has birthed within your heart. That's what it means to be elect. Unlike Israel of old, where the nation was chosen but individuals might fail, no one chosen for salvation in Christ will fail. There may be intermediate lapses, and with those lapses will come God's chastisement. But chastisement is not retribution. Retribution for our sins, all of them, was placed on our Savior. It was our sin that held Him to the cross.
But we do experience chastisement. Which as you may recall, is not administered to strangers and outcasts, but only to true sons and daughters. It gives evidence of His love for us. But it is not condemnation. It is not MSML, many times saved and many times lost, always worrying if some last second lapse, a moment of unjustified anger, a brief flicker of unseemly lust, might undo a lifetime of doing righteousness to the max. That is not reflective of the adoption we have as sons and daughters. Adoption is a steady state. It doesn't fluctuate. There will be good days and bad days, but always a Father and His child, working it through, faithful till the end. He who has begun a good work in you will finish the job He started. That's what I'm talking about.
Peace,
SR
AMEN!!! PREACH IT, Brother.
Your posts have been awesome.
Thanks for stating what so may of us believe so concisely.
...”The Old Covenant has done what it was supposed to do, lead us to Christ, and now it is an empty shell. The life within it has moved on to the higher life of living in God’s grace by His Spirit, through faith in Jesus Christ”.....
Exactly!...and Amen!
Well said and spot on!!
I am soooo saving that post....
Not one jot or tittle of the Law or Prophets has passed away. No Protestant has the authority to revoke the law. A Preterist will argue it is revoked, and all over now. I believe the LORD Jesus Christ who said Elijah will indeed come and restore all things. Just as Messiah will come twice, Elijah will come twice and now Malachi 4 makes sense with Matthew 5. Elijah and Messiah are sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. They have unfinished business.
4 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. 2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts. 4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. 5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
As long as Israel remains blinded and in unbelief the Law of Moses must remain in effect. After Messiah saves all Israel and heaven and earth pass away, well then we shall see all things become new.
On the contrary, I find that line of reasoning to be problematic and the Catholic view to be scriptural, although I would characterize it as avoiding sins unto death. Jesus was, no doubt, deadly serious serious when he warned to pluck out an eye or cut off a limb rather than to grievously sin with them. He knew we love our own bodies so much only a lunatics would do so, but that we must very zealous to eschew such sins. 26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Indeed, I have thought about that eye-plucking business many times. Has your eye ever been an occasion of sin to you? If not, then I commend you for going your entire life without stumbling over something your eyes have seen. But if you have so stumbled, did you keep your eye? Or did you give it up? I’m not trying to be funny. I have a reason for asking this. If you will provide an answer, I’ll explain myself more clearly.
Peace,
SR
Just where do you see the CCC saying that, outside of upholding the moral law?
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9:10)
My ramblings on that .
Not so much a revocation as a fulfilment of purpose. Not unlike a Chrysalis, it has done what it was supposed to do, lead us to Christ, and now it is an empty shell. The life within it has moved on to the higher life of living in God's grace by His Spirit, through faith in Jesus Christ.
That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:4)
Our justification is forensic, by operation of divine law we are acquitted of all guilt because we have identified with the crucified Christ.
By faith, which is what we have the warnings against casting that away, and exhortations to cleave to the Lord, (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12,14; 10:26-39) who works to bring about repentance, lest we be condemned with the rest of the world. (1Cor. 12:32)
See post 283, first quoted paragraph of the Catechism.
“121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.”
Learn to make paragraphs, and do not make the entire text a hyperlink.
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.