Calvin contra Rome on Scripture (Part 1)

Reformation21 ^ | March 10, 2015 | Aaron Denlinger

[Elsie]

“dropping it” is not an option. we are COMMANDED to keep all the Apostolic Traditions, whether communicated by letter or word of mouth.

 

 

 

 

---

 

Micah 6:8

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

---

John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?

 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

---

1 John 3:21-23
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him.
And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

---

James 1:27

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

 

---

 

 

 

[Elsie]

“dropping it” is not an option. we are COMMANDED to keep all the Apostolic Traditions, whether communicated by letter or word of mouth.

---

Letters you say???

---

Acts 15

The Council at Jerusalem

 ¹ Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” ² This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. ³ The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. ⁴ When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

 ⁵ Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

 ⁶ The apostles and elders met to consider this question. ⁷ After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. ⁸ God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. ⁹ He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. ¹⁰ Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

 ¹² The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. ¹³ When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. ¹⁴ Simon^[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. ¹⁵ The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

 ¹⁶ “‘After this I will return
   and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
   and I will restore it,
¹⁷ that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’^[b]—
 ¹⁸ things known from long ago.^[c]

 ¹⁹ “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. ²⁰ Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. ²¹ For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers

 ²² Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. ²³ With them they sent the following letter:

   The apostles and elders, your brothers,

   To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

   Greetings.

 ²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

   Farewell.

 ³⁰ So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. ³¹ The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. ³² Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. ³³ After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. ^{[34] [d] 35} But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.

Disagreement Between Paul and Barnabas

 ³⁶ Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” ³⁷ Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, ³⁸ but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. ³⁹ They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, ⁴⁰ but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord. ⁴¹ He went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.

[paladinan]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to people—I was taken out by a nasty case of strep for the best part of a week!

[paladinan]

There is a far, far, far stronger case in Scripture for Sola Scriptura than 95% (estimate) of Catholic doctrine that y’all claim to have found in Scripture.

:) "95%"? Really? But that, aside...

Your multiplication of the word "far" doesn't substitute for evidence, FRiend. "Sola Scriptura" is an absolute claim (i.e. no standards other than Scripture--specifically, the 66-book Protestant Bible--are to be used as the norm of faith), and it needs clear proof... not wishful thinking or self-serving eisegesis.

Let me try to explain, briefly (which is a challenge for me, I'll admit! :) )...

For [x] to be a legitimate authority (aside from God, Whom we can say is authoritative by definition), [x] needs to do two things: (1) avoid self-contradiction, and (2) be confirmed as an authority by some external and competent authority. #1 flows from the Law of Non-Contradiction (i.e. no self-contradiction can possibly be true), and #2 flows from avoidance of the "circular argument" fallacy (i.e. since testifying to oneself is logically vacuous, and it proves nothing).

Just to be clear: for the moment, I'm focusing on #1, re: "sola Scriptura". If nothing but Scripture is to be used as the norm of faith (which begs very many questions--but those are issues for later), then "sola Scriptura" MUST, by necessity, be contained--provably and unequivocally--in Scripture, in order to be used. If "sola Scriptura" is not provably and unequivocally in Scripture (but is, perhaps, only a conjecture which some people feel is LIKELY to be what Scripture "really meant"), then "sola Scriptura" demands that--until the burden of proof IS satisfied, "sola Scriptura" is NOT TO BE USED.

This principle can be illustrated easily, when talking about (for example) the Blessed Virgin Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant:

Old Ark of the Covenant
-----------------------

1) contained the symbols of God's Word (10 commandments), bread from Heaven (manna), and the High Priest (staff of Aaron), cf. Hebrews 9:4;

2) made of incorruptible (Acadia) wood and pure gold (Exodus 25:9-22);

3) was the "seat" at which the uniquely-present "shekinah" (to borrow a Rabbinic word) glory of God was present among His people (Exodus 25, etc.)

4) When King David first tried to bring the Ark (in the wrong manner) to Jerusalem, resulting in the death of Uzzah, King David feared to bring the Ark, saying, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?" (2 Samuel 6:9)

5) King David delayed, and sent the Ark to the house of Obededom, in the hill country of Judea, where it resided for three months (and blessed the household of Obededom). (2 Samuel 6:10-11)

6) King David then brought the Ark to Jerusalem, dancing before the Ark with all his might. (2 Samuel 6:12-14)

Blessed Virgin Mary (New Ark of the Covenant)
---------------------------------------------

1) Contained within her womb God's Word (John 1:1), the true Bread from Heaven (John 6:35, etc.), and the Great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14), all of which were merely symbolized and typified in the old Ark.

2) Incorrupt, sinless, ever-virgin (unanimous consent of the Church Fathers--skip over this one for now, if it distracts).

3) God, Himself, dwelt within her in a unique, unrepeatable way (by carrying Jesus, Who is God, Himself).

4) When Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth, Elizabeth (inspired by the Holy Spirit) cried out, "How is it that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

5) Mary delayed there at the home of Zechariah, in the hill country of Judea, for three months, before returning home. (Luke 1:56)

6) When Mary and Jesus came before Elizabeth, John the Baptist leapt for joy in his mother's womb (Luke 1:41 and 1:44)

...and to top it off, St. John describes the Ark (Revelation 11:19-12:6), seen in heaven, as "a Woman clothed with the sun, etc." who was shown to be the mother of Jesus (Revelation 12:5).


Now, when many Protestants see all that, they (despite the sheer volume and clear parallelism) often respond with something approximating: "Bah! Eisegesis, Scripture-twisting, wishful thinking, twisting into pretzels to try to prove your point! Argh!" To which I say: "I thought something didn't explicitly need to be on the face of the text, but only in Scripture, to be believed?"

Translated: "sola Scriptura" very quickly becomes, in the hands of many Protestants, a device for weeding out that which they simply don't like, whether it's in Scripture or not; they feel free to stretch interpretations to extraordinary lengths (especially to avoid things like James 2:24, John 6, Matthew 16:18, etc., and to support things like "sola Scriptura", "sola fide", "once saved, always saved", etc.) to cover their own preconceived notions, but they don't extend the same generosity to non-Catholics, or anyone else with whom they disagree.

Okay... so that wasn't very brief. :) But it highlights a point: how can some Protestants feel so free to "interpret away" whatever displeases them (even if it's explicitly in Scripture: for crying out loud, how much clearer can you get than "a man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone" [James 2:24], "My Flesh is REAL food, and My Blood is REAL drink" [John 6:55], etc.)? What point is there in trying to discuss ANYTHING with such people, who are willing to move the goal posts to wherever is most convenient for them, at a moment's notice?

Besides, did you see what happened up top? How Calvin didn’t even use Scripture to argue for Sola Scriptura? Care to dissect that?

I did notice. I'll have a go at it, though it'll make my non-brief comment even less brief...

The burden of proof that something other than Scripture constitutes a source of "saving truth" -- whether that something be "unwritten traditions" or Chinese fortune cookies -- rests entirely with those making such claims.

Back up. This is not only wrong, but it's disingenuous of the original author to say such a thing. There are many things which logically precede this "prove that anything other than the Bible is the Word of God" quip: the definition of "Word of God", the identity of the true Sacred Scriptures (as opposed to apocrypha), the firm establishment of the authority by which the true contents of Scripture are established, and so on. To say that "Protestants and Catholics both agree that the Bible is the Word of God" is disingenuous and slippery--not only because they believe it FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, but also because they don't agree on the contents THEMSELVES! (Corrent me if I'm wrong: you don't accept 2 Maccabees, for example, as Scripture... do you?)

This is often overlooked by would-be Roman apologists who require Protestants to defend from Scripture their principle that Scripture alone is authoritative, and fail to realize that sola Scriptura is not a positive claim per se, but a denial of the positive claim that "unwritten traditions" or anything else deserve the moniker "Word of God."

And again: this is a disingenuous "sleight-of-hand" (logically, it's called "unwarranted shift of the burden of proof"). Here is Luther's definition (in two slightly different forms):

"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9).

"We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (Ibid., 3).

All rhetorical flourish aside, these are certainly positive claims--i.e. that the Scriptures are, and should remain, the SOLE norm of doctrinal matters. To follow this up with, "Well, prove that it's NOT the only one! Prove the legitimacy of your others!" would be not only dishonest, but silly. (Even sillier would be the demand which I've often heard in discussions like this: "Prove the legitimacy of Sacred Tradition, using Scripture alone! Where is it in the Bible?" Can we say 'circular reasoning', anyone?)

In summary:

A) Before we even talk about "sola Scriptura", we need to establish the contents of "Scriptura", first, and explain how we know those contents with certainty (and by what authority). It'd be pointless, for example, to argue about the identity of the best potato-peeler in the world, if we don't yet have a clear definition of "potato" or "peeler"... right?). The first requirement for any sound logical argument is "clear definitions".

B) If "sola Scriptura" can be shown to be self-contradictory, then NO ONE need ever heed it, since it'd be false no matter WHAT it means. (Example: if I told you that I owned a cat which is both completely squarblig and NOT completely squarblig, you could immediately write my comment off as nonsense, without even knowing what "squarblig" means; no contradiction is true, and contradictions are recognizable by the mere structure of the statement, independent of the meaning of the terms; "A and not A" is a contradiction, and therefore false, no matter what "A" might be.)

That should do, for the moment.

[paladinan]

Sorry... caught a text omission (while copying/pasting between multiple "notepad" files):

Translated: "sola Scriptura" very quickly becomes, in the hands of many Protestants, a device for weeding out that which they simply don't like, whether it's in Scripture or not; they feel free to stretch interpretations to extraordinary lengths (especially to avoid things like James 2:24, John 6, Matthew 16:18, etc., and to support things like "sola Scriptura", "sola fide", "once saved, always saved", etc.) to cover their own preconceived notions, but they don't extend the same generosity to [Catholics, or to other]non-Catholics, or anyone else with whom they disagree.

(Missing portion in []'s)

[paladinan]

the doctrine that revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle is one the Church teaches based on Apostolic Tradition

Nice catch! I'd never put those particular pieces together, before...

[RnMomof7]

This principle can be illustrated easily, when talking about (for example) the Blessed Virgin Mary as the New Ark of the Covenant:

Really??? The Ark of the Covenant is only Mary for a heretical church that is determined to make Mary a god

Jesus told the disciples that the ENTIRE OT was about HIM not His momma (Luke 24:25).. The Ark was a type of Christ, containing the OT elements that were types of Him... the manna, the budding staff and the law.. all symbols of the promised Savior they were contained in the ark..the tabernacle

The cover was the place of Mercy, where the High Priest can and poured the blood of a Bull..first for his sin and then for the sin of the nation .. When God came down, His glory reside above the mercy seat—between the cherubim... Mary has no mercy to give.. Mary is not the source of Grace or Mercy ..

That Ark was kept in the tabernacle .. It was where they went for mercy ..That is Christ not His mother.

That Ark led Israel into battle.. do you think that Jesus would send His mother in front of the army? Would Jesus allow His mother to be captured by the enemies?

The psalms make clear who the ark was .. the Ark is called "the strength and glory of God"; , it is spoken of as "the ark of the strength of the Lord.

Was Mary the strength of God?

One more thing..could you please produce the infallible magisteium position on this ?? Don't forget to let me know where the document or statement that contains the interpretation is stated to be infallible.

[rcofdayton]

TRADITION
A search on 2 April 2015 of the King James Bible at kingjamesbibleonline.org revealed 13 instances of the word tradition in the bible including:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

2 Thessalonians 3:6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

1 Peter 1:18 “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers”

Let’s look for other instances as well.
2 Tim 2:2 “what you heard from me … entrust to the faithful.”
1 Cor 15:2 “Hold fast to the word I preached you.”
2 Thess 3:6 “shun any brother who conducts himself … not according to the tradition.”
2 John 12:3 (instead of writing all information, the author says he plans to visit and speak face to face)
Matt 28:20 “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

[rcofdayton]

TRADITION
A search on 2 April 2015 of the King James Bible at kingjamesbibleonline.org revealed 13 instances of the word tradition in the bible including:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

2 Thessalonians 3:6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

1 Peter 1:18 “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers”

Let’s look for other instances as well.
2 Tim 2:2 “what you heard from me … entrust to the faithful.”
1 Cor 15:2 “Hold fast to the word I preached you.”
2 Thess 3:6 “shun any brother who conducts himself … not according to the tradition.”
2 John 12:3 (instead of writing all information, the author says he plans to visit and speak face to face)
Matt 28:20 “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”