Posted on 02/11/2015 12:02:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
Today, even as in the time of the Reformation, thousands of Catholics worldwide are leaving Roman Catholicism for biblical Christianity. And once again, the rallying cry of the sixteenth century, Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, is being heard.
Roman Catholic defenders have responded to this challenge by going on the offensive. A typical argument sounds something like this:
Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:
The unforgettable experience of two early disciples shows the fallacy of thinking that the first Christians were ever without Scripture as their rule of faith. Three days after the crucifixion, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking home. A fellow traveler, whom they took for a stranger, joined them along the way. The conversation quickly turned to the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. With deep sorrow, the disciples told the story of how the chief priests and rulers of the nation had sentenced Jesus to death and had Him crucified by the civil authorities.
To the disciples’ shock, the stranger rebuked them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25, NIV). Then beginning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets, the stranger explained to them the truths concerning Jesus in the Old Testament Scriptures.
Eventually the two disciples realized that their fellow traveler was no stranger at all but the Lord Jesus Himself! Later they recalled, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32).
The experience of those two early disciples was not unique. With the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost, and with the aid of the apostles’ teaching, Jewish Christians rediscovered their own Scriptures. Their common conviction was that the Old Testament, properly understood, was a revelation of Christ. There they found a prophetic record of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection.
The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God.
Roman Catholic descriptions of the origin of the New Testament stress that the oral teachings of the apostles, Tradition, preceded the written record of those teachings, Scripture. Often the New Testament is presented as little more than a written record of Tradition, the writer’s recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ’s teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture—or, more precisely, drops Scripture to the level of Tradition.
But the New Testament Scriptures are much more than a written record of the oral teaching of the apostles; they are an inspired record. A biblical understanding of inspiration makes clear the significance of this distinction. Peter writes,
Here we see that Scripture is not “the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, NIV). The word translated “interpretation” means to solve or to explain. Peter is saying that no writer of the New Testament simply recorded his own explanation of what he had heard Jesus teach and had seen Him do. Scripture does not have “its origin in the will of man” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). The writers of the Bible did not decide that they would write a prophetic record or what would be included in Scripture. Rather, they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).
The word translated here “carried along” is found in the New Testament in Mark 2:3. There it is used with reference to the paralytic whose friends carried him to Jesus for healing. Just as the paralytic did not walk by his own power, a true prophet does not write by his own impulse. He is “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Men wrote the New Testament; “men spoke” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Their writings reflect their individual personalities and experiences. But these “men spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21). Men wrote but God was the author.
For these reasons, Scripture is revelation perfectly communicated in God-given words:
The phrase “inspired by God” is the translation of a compound term made up of the words God and to breathe. The verse can be translated: “All Scripture is God-breathed. . . “(2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). Scripture is therefore rightly called the Word of God.
In reducing Scripture to simply written Tradition, Catholic proponents are able to boost the importance of Tradition. But in doing so, they distort the meaning of inspiration and minimize the primary difference between Scripture and Tradition.
It is true that the New Testament does not contain a record of everything that Jesus did. John makes this clear in the conclusion of his gospel:
John’s point in concluding his gospel with this comment was to acknowledge that the life of the Lord Jesus was far too wonderful to be fully contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for Tradition. Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. Indeed, earlier in his gospel, John implies the opposite:
We can infer from this statement that John included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Significantly, he makes no reference to seven sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, or an institution such as the Roman Catholic Church—all necessary for salvation according to Roman Catholicism.
The Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: “that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV). They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith. Unlike Tradition, the Scriptures are accessible and open to all. Translations of the entire Bible have been made into the primary languages of the world, 276 in total. It is the most widely distributed and read book in all of history.
To define Roman Catholic Tradition as a font of extra-biblical revelation is to add to God’s Word. Scripture warns us “not to exceed what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). “Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). The last book of the New Testament ends with this solemn warning:
There are hundreds of verses in the Bible establishing the truth that the Word of God is the church’s sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of God’s Word. The Lord Jesus taught:
Though Scriptures can be multiplied on this theme, it is not necessary to do so. The Roman Catholic Church agrees that the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith and that all theology must rest upon it. There is no question as to the sufficiency or authority of the Word of God.
The controversy revolves around the identity of God’s Word. Namely, is the Word of God Scripture and Tradition? Or, is the Word of God Scripture alone?
In the ongoing debate, Roman Catholic proponents enjoy taking the offensive by challenging non-Catholics to prove that God intended that the Scriptures alone were to serve as the church’s rule of faith. “Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?” they demand.
Though this tactic is effective in putting their opponents on the defensive, it is in fact misleading. Both sides agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority. The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture.
The point of controversy is Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradition is also the Word of God.
The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church’s rule of faith? This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate. And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradition and the Magesterium, the burden of proof lies with Rome.
Adapted from The Gospel According to Rome (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1995).
A response that unfortunately I was expecting. Not addressing the questions, actually just ignoring and/or avoiding. By the way, what does the wealth of either the combined 40,000+ protestant churches to the RC Church have do with what I was addressing? Seriously, your acting like this is some kind of popularity contest given your comment or the fact that you even said it which amazes me. Your acting like you are of the world. This is in the territory of pride, a deadly sin for the soul. Not good at all.
Well I do like the link, but perhaps you should read the sub headline and quote just under:
Records reveal that 10 of the country’s top church leaders defy the Pope’s example and live in residences worth more than $1 million
“How I would like a Church which is poor and for the poor!”— Pope Francis
Bishops and priests living in apostasy against the faith’s teaching and the Pope reminding them of that.
By the way, are you suggesting that those of us in the RC Church who do actually believe in our faith, are not Scandalized by this or any other violation? That is very arrogant assumption which I have to assume was your intent since you are attempting to place yourself above in this matter despite the problem is more common in your ranks than you want to admit just based on how you phrased your words. A sinner is a sinner, and we are all sinners. You lack the humbleness of our Lord and what he commands of us just like those priests and bishops you pointed out in that article. It’s amazing how the irony is lost on you.
The culture in this country and the world has decayed to the point where this is going to lead to massive persecutions. If a large chuck of the clergy of the RC Church who do not have any supernatural faith and do not believe in our Lords Church(His Word) finally throw in with the world, and they will, what will you and the other protestants due to defend yourselves from the shield the Church has afforded to you thus far? You are fractured and continue to fracture more so with each passing year in an effort to try and remain true to our Lords teaching and avoid those protestants who continue to water it down. While at the same time the Clergy in the RC Church are acting like protestants. I don’t think you have any idea how hard it is going to be for you to maintain your belief when this occurs. You will be forced to choose either being Catholic, or being pagan. Sadly many are choosing the pagan route irrespective of whether they proclaim themselves Catholics or Protestants for they have NO supernatural faith. I can only pray that you and all the others(protestant,Catholic,pagans) including myself make the right choice when that time does come, and come it will.
John (and his book) testify to Jesus, how can either be superior to the thing they testify of?
Indeed, John lays that out explicitly both in his gospel and in his first epistle:
(John 20:31)
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.(1 John 1:1-4)
We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us— we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.
If you say, Christ, then I can replace the magisterium in your formulation with the Book of John and generate an absurd result, ie that you should reject John because Christ Himself is superior.
Really — and then why should you believe? Because some priest told you?
Don't you know what Jesus said to the Pharisees about the scripture? that they testified of Jesus:
(John 5:39-47)So we see that the testimony is inferior to the thing itself, and yet the rejection of that testimony indicates rejection of the thing itself.
“You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. I do not accept glory from human beings. But I know that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”
Then, to make any point at all, you would need to argue that Jesus did not intend the Church to have authority.
That's incorrect; just because there is some authority that is given to individuals/the church
or anything does not mean that such authority is independent of Jesus. (The nature of authority is that he who is sent is not greater than the one sending.) — To claim that the church having authority does not mean that scripture does not, indeed we can see this in our own government: just because a judge has authority does not mean that the sheriff does not… but the scope [and purpose] of their authority is limited. (Neither can, for instance, legitimately demand you pay them personally a sum of money or else.) — Or, in the military, a sergeant in charge of a gun range can physically disarm an officer for violating safety protocols.
If you prove that point, your argument about which is better is beside the point, for one is infintely good and the other is nothing at all. If on the other hand you don't prove that point, then the argument that Christ is superior to the magisterium doesn't establish anything more than my example argument about the Book of John.
Jesus is infinitely superior to John.
I can think of no Christian who would, given a choice of having the book [or even apostle] of John or having Jesus [in the physically-present sense] would choose John… precisely because Jesus is better than John. (Just like the Law and the Prophets, which testified of Jesus were rendered obsolete by the reality of Jesus because they were merely shadows
of the thing-to-come: God incarnate.)
Well, thank you, kind sir. (er, I presume...)
I was scanning the RM's posting history for something the other day and noticed that an awful lot of the *Don't make it personal* admonitions are directed towards the RC's. Probably outnumbering the one's to non-Catholics about 8:1.
But instead of recognizing that something is wrong in the RC camp, they'll just don the martyr complex and accuse the RM of favoritism and bias.
Now, consider this logically (without any emotional sentiment--however understandable--getting in the way), according to your logic if souls were able to search/consult the Scriptures - which they abundantly did in the NT - in then a definitive "table of contents" must have been decided.
none of the Biblical books name any specific books as "Scripture"
Regardless, we know where the quotations affirmed as being Scripture came from, yet your argument here suffers from another problem, for as is typical of RCs regarding SS, it relies upon a straw man of SS, one that presumes explicit statements or teaching is required under SS.
However, as Westminster itself affirms,
“all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.
And that
“there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”
And also,
“It belongeth to synods and councils [not as assuredly infallible but as a help in grace], ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word. (WESTMINSTER, cp. 1, VI. VII; Cp. XXXI, ` )
And as said, as we clearly men (without an infallible magisterium) correctly discerning both men and writings as being of God - essentially due to their distinctive Heavenly qualities and attestation - and thus a canon being established, if not yet complete (and not universally then or now), then Scripture clearly provides for more books being added, and finally for a settled complete canon.
I merely point out (among other things) that the Scriptures are not meant to be used ALONE, and that they never make that claim for themselves.
Indeed, as even reason and discernment is needed, and teachers, etc., but as a source of Truth, Scripture alone is the supreme sufficient (in its formal and material aspects) standard for Truth and Faith as the wholly inspired word of God. Which the oral preaching of the NT was subject to testing by. And as said in a more extensive reply on this subject,
• 1. What other transcendent objective, comprehensive body of revelation is wholly inspired of God? Infallible decrees? No, not even according to Rome, which only hold these utterances - and not even the reasoning or arguments behind them - are protected from error. But which does not the anointed power of the word of God, which is alive "and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)
Are the words of the church which express Tradition wholly inspired of God? No, Catholic teaching says these are not either. She does claim oral (as oral) tradition is, however that exists in a nebulous amorphous form, the authenticity of which rests upon the premise of the perpetual magisterial infallibility of Rome, which is the alternative Staples must establish but only assumes is true.
• 2. What body of Truth is said to instrumentally be used for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and to make one "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works? That the man of God can be complete because he has available to him this body of Truth? (2Tim. 3:15,17)
• 3. What body of Truth did the Lord establish His Truth claims by, and specifically open the minds of the disciples to? (Lk. 24:44,45) It was not Cath. tradition.
Thus we see that Scripture has a unique status and is uniquely qualified to be the supreme standard for Truth and obedience, and being the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters, and indeed, as written, it manifestly became that standard, which oral preaching depended on.
Outstanding hosepipe. The hinge upon which your point hangs.
Fixed it for you
Yeah that must be what it is. /Sarc
We all reveal something of ourselves when we post.
One little html strikethrough isn't going to "fix" years of revealing ourselves.
What does that have to do.... with what I said.. in THAT post?..
obviously you have no idea what I actually said..
went right over your head.. ZOOOOM..
(The truth is that the only "convoluted twisting" in your post there was your response, Elsie.)
That is from a Psalm, written by David, about a thousand years before Mary gave birth to Jesus Christ, and it was written by David about himself, and his great contrition for his sins and the evil he had done. (Jesus Christ did not sin, and Jesus Christ did no evil. Jesus Christ was not "conceived in iniquities"; and the Mother of Jesus Christ did not "conceive Jesus Christ in sins".)
This is a case where it actually might be helpful to "post it ALL" (i.e., the whole chapter of Psalm 51), as it is all actually relevent to the matter being discussed here. Here is that Psalm:
Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy steadfast love; according to thy abundant mercy blot out my transgressions.
Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin!
For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.
Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in thy sight, so that thou art justified in thy sentence and blameless in thy judgment.
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward being; therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart.
Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Fill me with joy and gladness; let the bones which thou hast broken rejoice.
Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquities.
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from thy presence, and take not thy holy Spirit from me.
Restore to me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me with a willing spirit. Then I will teach transgressors thy ways, and sinners will return to thee.
Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation, and my tongue will sing aloud of thy deliverance.
O Lord, open thou my lips, and my mouth shall show forth thy praise.
For thou hast no delight in sacrifice; were I to give a burnt offering, thou wouldst not be pleased.
The sacrifice acceptable to God[e] is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Do good to Zion in thy good pleasure; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, then wilt thou delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on thy altar.
Psalm 51
You are correct that Mary is not listed in that text, and neither are Peter, James, John, Paul, or any of the other Apostles, or any of the other writers of the "books" of the New Testament, etc. Does that mean they weren't part of the Church body, or that somehow they were not an important part of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, or that they are no longer important for Christians today?
(See http://biblehub.com/text/colossians/1-18.htm, for a typical translation example.)
Are you saying that all those teams of Bible translators, and all those people who wrote those definitions for "ekklesia" in all the Koine Greek/English Lexicons/Dictionaries, got that word wrong, and you are the only one who has it right CynicalBear?
Do you think you know Koine Greek better than all those highly educated and skilled Greek language experts do? (Frankly, I certainly don't believe that, and I'm certain that only the most naive and gullible people here might think that that is the case.)
Actually, whether Trent actually closed the canon is something some RCs themselves debate, but as it did define 73 books as being Scripture then many rail against Luther for "removing" books, though these were never infallibly defined as being Scripture till after Luther died, and such dissent had notable scholarly company.
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.