Posted on 06/10/2017 7:22:24 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
With so much talk lately about the Gospels, I wonder, who wrote the Gospels and how do we know? To answer this question we must first be clear on how the Gospels were formed and what constitutes authorship. Citing Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), the Catechism has a very succinct presentation on the formation of the Gospels (cf. No. 125-127). The foundational premise is that
Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy maintained and continues to maintain, that the four Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke and John], whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while He lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day when He was taken up. (Dei Verbum, No. 19) After the ascension of Jesus, the Apostles went forth preaching the Gospel, handing on to others what our Lord had done and taught. Having been instructed by the Lord and then enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they preached with a fuller understanding. Eventually, the "sacred authors" wrote the four Gospels. Each author, guided by the Holy Spirit, selected from the events and teachings of our Lord which perhaps they had witnessed or which had been handed on either orally or in written form.
Sometimes the authors may have synthesized some of these events or teachings, or may have underscored parts or explained parts with a view to a certain audience. This is why the Gospels oftentimes tell the same story, but each will have certain details not included by the others. In a similar way, if each member of a family had to write a family history, each member would tell basically the same story, but each member would also highlight certain details he considered important and would keep in mind who would be reading the family history. Nevertheless, the sacred authors wrote "in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus" (No. 19). Therefore to suggest that the third-century Church "wrote" the Gospels in some kind of vacuum, almost to "create" Jesus, is without foundation.
So did Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write the Gospels? Is the sacred author also the saint? Remember only St. Matthew and St. John were among the Twelve Apostles. We must keep in mind that in the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways: First, the author was clearly the individual who actually wrote the text with his own pen. Second, the individual who dictated the text to a secretary or scribe was still considered the author. Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his thought and in his spirit even though a "ghost writer" did the actual composition. In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition; for example, David is given credit for the Psalms even though clearly he did not write all of the Psalms. Whether the final version of the Gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints [they are named for] is hard to say. Nevertheless, tradition does link the saints to their Gospels. St. Mark, identified with the Mark of Acts 12:12 and the Mark of I Peter 5:13, is mentioned in a quote contained in a letter from Papias (c. 130), Bishop of Hierapolis: "When Mark became Peter's interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what the Lord had said or done." St. Irenaeus (d. 203) and Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) support this identification. The Gospel of Mark is commonly dated about the year 65-70 in conjunction with the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.
St. Matthew is identified with the tax collector called as an Apostle (Mt 9:9-13). Papias again attests to the saint's authorship and indicates that he was the first to compile a collection of Jesus' sayings in the Aramaic language. For this reason, the Gospel of Matthew, at least in a very basic form in Aramaic, is considered the first Gospel and placed first in the New Testament, although the Gospel of Mark is probably the first in a completed form. St. Irenaeus and Origen (d. 253) again support this authorship. Nevertheless, some scholars doubt the saint's direct authorship because we only have the Greek version, not the Aramaic, and no citations are made from the Aramaic version in Church literature. The version of the Gospel we have was probably written between 70-80.
St. Luke, the beloved physician and disciple of St. Paul (Col 4:14), has consistently been recognized in Christian tradition as the author of the third Gospel, beginning with St. Irenaeus, Tertullian (d. 220) and Clement of Alexandria. The Gospel [has long been assumed to have been] written about 70-80.
St. Irenaeus identified the author of the fourth Gospel as St. John the Apostle. He does so based on the instruction of his teacher, St. Polycarp (d. 155), who himself was a disciple of St. John. Throughout this Gospel, the numerous details indicate the author was an eyewitness. Also scholars generally agree that "the beloved disciple" mentioned in the Gospel is St. John. This Gospel was written probably about 80-90.
Whether the actual saint wrote word-for word, whether a student did some later editing, or whether a student actually wrote what had been taught by the saint, we must remember the texts — whole and entire — are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yes, the human authors used their skills and language with a view to an audience; however, they wrote what God wanted written. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation clearly asserted,
Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Sacred Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth, which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures. (No. 11) So no matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired. Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Rev. Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, has analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date to the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry. Father Jose O'Callaghan, S.J., studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship [and dating] but also supporting the traditional authorship.
Perhaps some mystery surrounds these texts and the identity of the authors. Nevertheless, we hold them as sacred, as inspired and as truly the Word of God.
One last point: Given the blasphemous book The Da Vinci Code and its promotion of the Gnostic gospels, why were the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John included in the canon of the New Testament and no other supposed gospels? The simple reasons for their inclusion is as follows: First, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rooted in the apostolic tradition and can be attributed to apostolic authorship, as noted above. Second, these Gospels are orthodox in their teaching, particularly about the identity and person of Jesus. Third, they were used in the Mass and other liturgical functions. Fourth, they were accepted by the whole Church, not just by some sect. The Gnostic gospels do not fit any of these criteria, and therefore were rejected and condemned by the Church.
Fr. Saunders is pastor of Our Lady of Hope Parish in Potomac Falls and professor of catechetics and theology at Christendom’s Notre Dame Graduate School in Alexandria. Father has been writing his weekly "Straight Answers" column for the Arlington Catholic Herald since 1993. The above article is one of those "Straight Answers" columns. Father Saunders is the author of Straight Answers, Answers to 100 Questions about the Catholic Faith, a book based on 100 of his columns and published by Cathedral Press in Baltimore.
Let's see if we can make that true to the Gospels: "When the Early Church baptized ‘In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’, and ate and drank the BREAD AND WINE in remembrance of the body and blood of Christ Sacrificed for us and for our Salvation ..."
.
>> “the church?” <<
.
The church is imaginary. No church was ever founded, nor does scripture indicate so. The Assembly (Kehillah) is where the idea of a church came from. The Kehillah is ancient, the Bride of Yeshua through all time, from Adam forward.
Yeshua is the Rock, the foundation.
.
.
Correct.
.
Conflating the EKKLESIA with the org (rhymes with Borg) that is the Catholic Church is a typical deception. But you will deny you are practicing to deceive yet continue to make that specious conflation, right?
.
The Assembly (definitely not a church) mikvahed in the name of Yeshua, as declared in the Acts.
Father and Holy Spirit are not names, but titles.
The assembly did the Mikvah long before Yeshua was born. It has been a part of joining the assembly since Yochannon son of Zechariah (John the Baptist) began his ministry. (perhaps longer, but unknown)
.
St. Paul was very plain about it....the Word of God encompasses both written and oral knowledge, both passed on by the Apostles. The idea that "only the written Bible" is the authority just doesn't fit the historical reality, and was a complete modern innovation invented out thin air.
"The church is the body of believers, not a building, or a foundation of truth."
If the church isn't the foundation of truth, nothing is. Yes, the PHYSICAL church on earth is the body of baptized believers. But like it or not, that ties the Protestants back into the Catholic church.
Wrong. It is the body of believers, before there was a Catholic Org to which the Catholic ORG seeks to connect itself ... and is proving every day that it is in the dark, still.
Sorry, but no. Neither the Jewish faith nor the early Christian faith had a defined written canon as sole authority. The written Jewish canon wasn't even officially defined until well after the death of Christ, and was done partially as a reaction to Christianity. This is just simply the fact of the case.
Circular logic. Now, what is "God's Word"??? Written Scripture has NEVER been understood to be the whole story...not by the Jews for the Old Testament, and not by ANY Christians until Luther invented the notion out of thin air.
NONE of Christ's teaching during his incarnation on earth was written. ALL of it was done by the spoken word.
In the above, are you defining the word anamnesis to mean as you wrote - a 'making present'?
That may be so among present-day RC apologist who tend to stretch the truth, and go so far as to apply definitions to words which did not exist in more original usage -- to nearly the extent that would be required to effect change of physical substance ---transubstantiation-- from wheat, starch and water to actual corporeal flesh.
Not according to my understanding (and the most common understanding?) of definition of the word "actual", anyway.
Anamnesis (philosophy) speaking of present in mind
Anamnesis (Christianity) first -- it is remembrance, and here again from oldest practices, a coming to mind, a remembering, and that "present" in mind, not necessarily in physical (corporeal) there & then presence.
Where the Church of Rome at least used to convey the idea that the Lord would be "made present" was at utterance of a priest of the words of institution presented as it's own segment, or identifiable stage/portion of liturgical progression.
In contrast to that, although among the Orthodox there has also some degree of development of liturgy (the Orthodox holding fast to liturgy from 5th century or so, for the most part) it is common view among them to not pinpoint any particular time when the Lord is made present. There is among the Orthodox a lack of stress upon there being physical, "corporeal", fleshly Presence -- the Body and Blood of Christ that is being spoken of being something partaken of by one's own spirit (and soul, perhaps?) rather than chewed with one's own teeth, swallowed, then passed into the draught along with all other product of the usual human bodily digestive processes.
* The Apostles ate the Body and drank the Blood of Christ.
How so? Literally?
It is quite clear to me that they did not. It was also the opinion of many notable authors (bishops, and "priests") among the early Church that what was being said regarding memorial remembrance thanksgiving of: the actual life, and earthly "fleshly" physical death, and resurrection of Christ --- was in thanksgiving (Eucharist) not necessarily regarded as literal corporeal "flesh" of Christ taking place of the bread, but rather, the invitation, the earliest, oldest Epiclesis invited the Spirit to be within the Eucharist bread of remembrance.
Before digging out what's said to be the oldest Christian liturgy -- a note of warning: There is Liturgy of St. James which has undergone degree of later "development" ---and then there are oldest extant copies which do differ, and differ in pretty much exactly what "difference" I'm working toward pointing out.
Some other meaning other than dining upon His "actual" corporeal, physical flesh and blood literally (or as Council of Trent chose to write; actual) must have been more foremost in their minds, although when consulting writings of so-called Early Church Fathers (ECF's) there are more than a few who did not stipulate that what they were talking about was of spirit and that they themselves (a few of them) may have held to notions of there being actual, physical "bodily" presence. Yet others made various mentions that what they were talking in context of Eucharist was not inclusive of there being precisely "physical" presence of the Lord --at all, by having specifically denied that/ruled that out.
If this is some way in error, first; for better, clearer chance of there being
explain what the chosen word "actual" means to you in context of understanding "transubstantiation".
Does that -- in your own understanding -- include that there must be "corporeal" presence? Or is the Eucharist (which means "thanksgiving") potentially inclusive of presence of the Spirit of the Lord -- minus sense of there being corporeal presence?
The very oldest anamnesis had few "words of dedication" in the Epiclesis. It was not until centuries after Christ that words of dedication first began to be taken out from among Epiclesis invitation directed as prayer to the Lord for the Spirit (His Spirit) to inhabit the bread, to later become presented in liturgy as words of dedication uttered by priests alone.
Yet later, among the minds of the faithful, superstitions arose that tended towards there being an actual "corporeal" aspect, and that effected upon command of the priests, as it were, this being beyond presence of the Spirit (alone) being sought by invitation as in earliest liturgy.
Before telling me out-of-hand that I'm wrong -- first let me ask -- can you SEE what I'm saying? Can you see the difference? If so, respond by repeating the concepts back to myself in your own words (and to the rest of the forum) as we undergo this "logical test of readers of this thread".
What's "official" among them? To say that is was done "partially in reaction to Christianity" is a bit of a stretch.
One could possibly read Josephus's accounting of the disagreements as being in reaction to those who said they had other writings ion their canon, yet Josephus was of the understanding (circa 70 AD) that books were already counted/numbered. His count coincides with Hebrew canon of today.
To your own limited understandings perhaps, but not in the real (and wider) world of more actual "facts".
Obviously enough you must have missed the part where I'd said of the Scriptures, those being "higher" authority (rather than only "sole") with the Scriptures also (within NT texts more specifically) themselves authoritatively defining what role "authority" and administration within the Church was chartered and limited to.
If there be something needing to be added -- if there is prophesy, let another judge. When there is prophesy ---it cannot contradict what is written. That's very much how various form and expression of Gnosticism were put down within the early Church.
Christ Himself, among many things attributed to him saying "...the scriptures cannot be broken.
When (at the end of a forty-day fast in the wilderness) was tempted by Satan to "turn stones into bread" Jesus replied;
4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”[a]
[a] Matthew 4:4 Deuteronomy 8:3
This demonstrates that what is written (Holy Writ) is indeed authoritative. Jesus did not rely upon His own "authority" which He could have invoked upon the spot, or rely on His own singular power & authority to rebuke the devil, but instead whenever possible did relate his every word and act to what had been delivered unto the Hebrews as written Word of God.
NONE of Christ’s teaching during his incarnation on earth was written. ALL of it was done by the spoken word.
The Pharasiees (tradition/Religious leaders)were quoting “scripture” but it was their traditions, not the Scripture. It was Moses that gave bread in the wilderness. Jesus had to correct them.
John 6:31 After all, our ancestors ate manna while they journeyed through the wilderness! The Scriptures say, ‘Moses gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
Joh 6:32 Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, Moses didn’t give you bread from heaven. My Father did. And now He offers you the true bread from heaven.
And Moses (tradition/Religious leaders) allowed divorce.
Mar 10:3 Jesus answered them with a question: “What did Moses say in the law about divorce?”
Mar 10:4 “Well, he permitted it,” they replied. “He said a man can give his wife a written notice of divorce and send her away.”
Mar 10:5 But Jesus responded, “He wrote this commandment only as a concession to your hard hearts.
Jesus quoted the original written scripture and the people were amazed, not having heard it before.
If the church isn’t the foundation of truth,
That is the crux of the matter here, testing the truth.
Are you going to test it with Gods Word, or tradition?
And you test your hermeneutics with what?
ultimately, it’s a bunch of evangelicals sitting around misapplying verses till they’ve sufficiently convinced themselves they’ve proven “born again” is literal, and “this is My Body” is symbolic.
you’d think they never read 2Cor10:12
No, it demonstrates precisely the opposite.
"Holy Writ" (Old Testament) was still being formulated the entire time of the Jewish nation, during the Babylonian captivity, after the return, and up until Jesus time.
The "Hebrew Canon" was set by a group of Rabbis who gathered for that specific purpose, IIRC, around 70AD or later. They left some books out of their abridged canon that had been accepted as part of the Septuagint during Jesus day specifically because they pointed strongly to the imminent arrival of the Messiah. Jesus himself had quoted from those books as sources.
It is properly tested with the full deposit of faith as given by the Apostles, which included both written and spoken teaching. Paul himself says this exactly. And anyone who claims otherwise is directly contradicting the WRITTEN New Testament scripture.
The problem is not that of oral transmission being used of God (as well as for mere words of men), but the premise that this means that whatever Catholicism says is the word of God is just that, since she declares that she cannot err in so doing. And if being the magisterial stewards of Scripture means such are the infallible authorities on it then you (and we) have a real problem.
Meanwhile, though even SS preachers can enjoin obedience to oral preaching under the premise that is it Scripture, yet unlike men as the apostles, neither SS preachers or Rome claim that her leaders and prelates are wholly inspired of God in their preaching, nor that she is providing new public revelation.
Meanwhile, even the veracity of apostolic preaching was subject to testing by Scripture, nor vice versa, and which is the standard. See below.
They received these things from Christ. They acted upon them. They wrote them into scripture later.
And thus we know what the NT church believed, because writing is God's chosen means of preservation.
• And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book.. (Exodus 17:14)
• And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest. (Exodus 34:1)
• And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. (Exodus 34:27)
• And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing.. (Deuteronomy 10:4)
• And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law,..(Deuteronomy 27:3)
"Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23) "
• And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: (Deuteronomy 17:18)
• And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as the Lord God of thy fathers hath promised thee. (Deuteronomy 27:3)
• " And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (Deuteronomy 31:24) "
• This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. (Joshua 1:8)
• "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31) "
• Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; (Revelation 1:19)
• "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Revelation 20:12) "
• "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15) "
As is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And it was not the veracity of Scripture that subject to testing by oral preaching/tradition, but oral preaching was subject to testing by Scripture:
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
And it was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, but because of the wholly inspired-of-God written word:
And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:15)
Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Chronicles 34:18-19) Nor was it passed-down oral tradition that was ever lauded like the written word of God, (Ps. 19:7-11; 119) and was the authority the Lord reproved the devil and religious leadership by, and substantiated His clams by, and opened the minds of the disciples to. (Mt. 4; 22; Lk. 24:44,45)
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (Matthew 4:5-7)
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
Scripture is the only wholly inspired substantive transcendent standard, to which all men are to submit.
And looking through the God-inspired record of what know the NT church believed (Acts onward), we see that the Catholic distinctives are not there , but are contrary to it.
The church simply was not Catholic, esp. Roman, as regards her distinctives. Briefly,
The church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 4:4; 19:4-5; 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) in dissent from the historical magisterial stewards of Divine revelation of the body “unto whom were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertained "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) but who wrongly supposed lineage made them correct, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:33) and thus the authenticity of Truth claims and oral preaching of the word must be subject to the only wholly God-inspired substantive body of Truth, the Scriptures. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28)
In the light of which, what the NT church in Scripture (as seen in Acts onward, which shows how the NT church understood the gospels) did NOT profess/teach practice were such things as:
• Praying to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly unseen in Scripture despite prayer being so basic a practice that the Holy Spirit inspired the recording of approx. 200 prayers by believers, with none being addressed to anyone else but God, who alone is shown able to hear all such from Heaven. Only pagans prayed to invisible heavenly beings than God, as the Spirit is faithful to record.
• Kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods. Only pagans burned incense unto the queen of heaven: Jeremiah 44:16-17), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them
Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
• That the act of baptism itself renders souls formally justified by their own holiness so that they would directly enter Heaven if they died at the time of the baptism, but which thus means that the same (due to the outworking of their remaining sinful nature) usually have to later endure postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough (and atone for venial sins) to enter Heaven.
• Nor were novenas made to obtain indulgences to escape RC purgatory, as instead by effectual faith true believers are already accepted in the Beloved, and positionally seated together with Him in Heaven, and have boldness to enter into the holy of holies, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6; Heb. 10:19; cf. Phil. 3:21) and will go to be with the Lord at death or at His return. . (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul, who expressed he would go to be with the Lord at death, yet was not already perfect. (Phil. 3:10f)
And with the only suffering for believers that is manifestly taught as after this life being that of the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
• That believers were separated into two classes, one formally called "saints," the latter being the only believers who directly go to Heaven at death, contrary to Scripture.
• That the Catholic Eucharist was the paramount, supreme central practice in the life of the church, the "source and summit of the Christian life," in which "our redemption is accomplished," around which all else basically revolved. For instead it is only manifestly described in one epistle (besides "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12) and in which the Catholic Eucharist is not evident, but the church is the focus as the "one bread" and the body of Christ, purchased with the sinless shed blood of Christ, whose death, and the love behind it, the church is supposed to declare by sharing food in that communal meal. (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) More , by God's grace.
• Ordaining a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests" whose primary active function was conducting the Lord's supper and offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin. Neither presbuteros or episkopos are even called “hiereus," the distinctive word translated "priest," which conflation is the result of ecclesiastical evolution, and NT pastors are nowhere even described as officiating at the Lord's supper and dispensing the elements, much less offering them as a sacrifice for sins.
• Nor is this Catholic function taught as being a primary or unique function of the clergy, who instead are exhorted to preach the word, (2 Timothy 4:2) feeding the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2) with the word of God, which is what is called spiritual "milk" and "meat" (1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:13; 1 Peter 2:2) by which souls obtain spiritual life within themselves, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Ephesians 1:13) and then by which they are "nourished" (1Timothy 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)
• That presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denoted two separate classes.
• That celibacy was a requirement for clergy. Instead both apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5) and NT clergy were normatively married with children, which evidenced his qualifications for the pastorate, (1 Timothy 3;1-7) and with celibacy being a gift that not all have, ((1 Corinthians 7:7) and it is only wrongly presumed that all or almost all clergy do.
• Directing the church to look to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes reigning over the churches from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), whom they were especially enjoined to honor and obey.
• Choosing more apostolic successors (or preparations for it) as was done for Judas (in order to maintain the original number of 12: Rv. 21:14) by casting lots, thus no politics. (Acts 1:15ff; cf. Prov. 16:33; Leviticus 16:5,8,9-10,15-16,29-30) despite the vacancy left by the martyrdom of the apostle James. (Acts 12:1,2)
• That the magisterial office possessed ensured magisterial infallibility (thereby infallibly declaring that she is infallible), enabling them to even claim to essentially "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.
More to see by God's grace.
You cannot certainly get that the church is the supreme authority on Truth out of (in Greek) "church living God pillar and ground the truth," and excluding the subject being God, or the church supporting (pillar) and settled on the Truth. (cf. 1Co_15:58; Col_1:23 )
And rather than the church being the the supreme authority on Truth than Scripture, even the magisterial stewards of Scripture are subject to it. Thus the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And which is certainly not opposed to magisterial authority, but the authority of the NT church was under men of supreme Scriptural integrity "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Co. 4:2) "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God..." (2 Co. 6:4)
Thus you have an ambiguous text as far as what the words at issue precisely mean, and which is not supported by the rest of Scripture. Of course, if you make the church the supreme authority on Truth rather than Scripture is rendered a second class status at best, and often a servant to be abused in service to Rome.
So "sola scriptura" is itself completely non-Biblical.
Rather, it it is your alternative, sola ecclesia, that is completely non-Biblical, in which the church alone is the supreme infallible authority, as Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
In contrast, the church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and as is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
Thus it alone is the supreme infallible substantive standard, and formally and materially (combined) provides for what is needed for faith and Godliness.
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.