Posted on 01/07/2010 2:41:23 AM PST by Gamecock
In this era of redemptive history, God has chosen to preserve his truth within the universal Church that he established with his blood; and hence he calls the Church “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15), and exhorts believers to obey the Church's elders who labor in the word and doctrine (1 Timothy 5:17; Hebrews 13:17); however, the bible also indicates that it is necessary and honorable for individual believers to be studying the scriptures daily, to see if the things taught by the Church leaders, no matter how prominent they might be, are according to the bible (Acts 17:11).
Furthermore, although we acknowledge that the truth is preserved in the holy and universal Church, we must realize that it takes biblical discernment even to recognize what the true Church is; for the bible speaks of many false prophets and false doctrines arising up in the midst of the Church, and even indicates that entire churches may become apostate (1 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Tim. 3:13-17; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; Rev. 2:5; 13:11); so that, to recognize what constitutes the Church in which the truth of the bible has been preserved, one must understand what the bible teaches, and realize that no “church” which denies the gospel proclaimed in the bible is a true church at all. Thus, the apostle Paul exalts the gospel which he had proclaimed of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, far above any other authority, whether earthly or heavenly, saying that if any apostle or teacher or angel from heaven, or even himself should proclaim a different gospel, he would be eternally accursed (Gal. 1:6-10); and to this list, we may add any falsely-named “church”. APOSTATE? SOUNDS LIKE ROME!
Thus, recognizing that God has superintended the preservation and formulation of the doctrinal truths of the bible through the history of the Church, no individual believer ought to be so presumptuous as to go lightly against the clear doctrinal statements of the early ecumenical councils on such doctrines as the Trinitarian conception of God and the acceptance of the several books of the canon; but neither will any believer find it a legitimate excuse that they are submitting to the authority of the “church” when they accept any of the blasphemous and unbiblical teaching that has sprung up in many corrupt false churches, according to prophecy. For any so-called “church” that has corrupted the gospel is a false church, and ought not be obeyed even for a moment.
GRPL Ping
Surprise, surprise, I actually agree with a not insignificant part of this. Where the author really slips is here:
for the bible speaks of many false prophets and false doctrines arising up in the midst of the Church, and even indicates that entire churches may become apostate (1 Tim. 4:1-4; 2 Tim. 3:13-17; 2 Pet. 2:1-3; Rev. 2:5; 13:11)
Whoa there.....hold on. It speaks of entire churches...churchES becoming apostate, where does it ever speak of the Church *as a whole* becoming apostate? There's the logical sleight-of-hand that the authors are making.
We have plenty of examples of when this see or that see succumbed to heresy. Almost always temporarily. But the Reformation theology requires us to believe something much much more than that--it requires us to believe that the *entire* Church--and, indeed, all the churches of all the sees from Antioch to Rome--spun off into heresy. Not just the Pope. Not just the Cardinals. Everyone. There isn't ONE of the ancient Churches, not the Catholics, not the Orthodox, not the Orientals, whom Reformed Christians can look to and say....yes...those guys kept the faith entire., is there?
I find the authors' argument singularly unconvincing. No book can be greater than its author--and the Bible cannot be greater than the Church that wrote it. To accept the authority of the former is logically to accept the authority of the latter. It's like saying we should obey the laws of Congress but not admit that Congress has the right to make laws.
By the way, this is the part I agree with wholeheartedly.
That's what "Reformed" means. There would be no need for a return to the original pattern laid out in Scripture if it had been kept in the first place. Thankfully, people in many places can now read about and try to keep that pattern without being tortured or burned at the stake.
The Bibles author is God as attested to by Christ himself
You confuse the scribe and the librarian with the author.
The author is God himself.
The Teacher is the Holy Spirit.
The Church is the body of believers in Christ.
No man nor visible church can "keep the faith entire." All men sin, even priests and popes and every member of every congregation. Nobody gets it all right.
So we search for the church which most closely adheres to the written word of God handed down for centuries and preserved by God for His glory.
And that's where Rome fails because Rome teaches and practices so much that is antithetical to the truth found in Scripture. It's just that simple.
Rome errs in believing priests are "another Christ." Rome errs when it encourages men to pray to dead people who may or may not be now in heaven. Rome errs when it confers near-divinity to Mary by calling her a "mediatrix" and "co-redeemer." Rome errs when it says good works are required to earn salvation. Rome errs when it says its bishop of Rome is head of the church and speaks infallibly on matters of faith. Rome errs when it says its magisterium is likewise infallible and is the only arbiter of the Scriptures which are subject to that group of men. Rome errs when it believes baptism regenerates. Rome errs when it says the Lord's Supper is a re-sacrifice of Christ. And Rome errs when it confuses justification with sanctification, thereby telling men their own piety is their ticket to paradise when the ONLY thing that saves anyone is Christ's work on the cross freely and mercifully imputed to the believer who was named by God from before the foundation of the world.
Thus the necessity of the Reformation -- to right the listing church of Jesus Christ on earth.
I'm Presbyterian. I believe church structure and accountability and governance are beneficial to the earthly institution of God's people. But every speck of that structure and governing is subject to the word of God. Or else it is false.
No doubt there are true Christians in the Roman Catholic church who love Christ beyond measure, but that will not be because of Rome's teaching, but in spite of it.
No man nor visible church can "keep the faith entire." All men sin, even priests and popes and every member of every congregation. Nobody gets it all right.
So we search for the church which most closely adheres to the written word of God handed down for centuries and preserved by God for His glory.
And that's where Rome fails because Rome teaches and practices so much that is antithetical to the truth found in Scripture. It's just that simple.
Rome errs in believing priests are "another Christ." Rome errs when it encourages men to pray to dead people who may or may not be now in heaven. Rome errs when it confers near-divinity to Mary by calling her a "mediatrix" and "co-redeemer." Rome errs when it says good works are required to earn salvation. Rome errs when it says its bishop of Rome is head of the church and speaks infallibly on matters of faith. Rome errs when it says its magisterium is likewise infallible and is the only arbiter of the Scriptures which are subject to that group of men. Rome errs when it believes baptism regenerates. Rome errs when it says the Lord's Supper is a re-sacrifice of Christ. And Rome errs when it confuses justification with sanctification, thereby telling men their own piety is their ticket to paradise when the ONLY thing that saves anyone is Christ's work on the cross freely and mercifully imputed to the believer who was named by God from before the foundation of the world.
Thus the necessity of the Reformation -- to right the listing church of Jesus Christ on earth.
I'm Presbyterian. I believe church structure and accountability and governance are beneficial to the earthly institution of God's people. But every speck of that structure and governing is subject to the word of God. Or else it is false.
No doubt there are true Christians in the Roman Catholic church who love Christ beyond measure, but that will not be because of Rome's teaching, but in spite of it.
Oops.
Worth repeating...
Clear, concise, and true.
Bless you.
Well, Dr. E., I can't help but see the contradiction in this stance though: "No one can keep the faith entire. Nobody gets it all right."
So what does "most closely adhere" mean in that context? If I'm checking a church out doctrinally, obviously I have to have a doctrinal standard I am applying to it. You say that's the Bible. Fine. But it all breaks down as soon as a human being does the applying. For a standard to mean anything, it has to be applied and correctly *adjudicated* by a competent authority. You have to have someone look at one thing, then compare it to the other, and say, aha! This is ok, but this this is not. It's all well and good that I have a precision ruler...but if I can't see straight, how do I get an accurate measurement?
And anyway, I reject the notion that no visible Church can keep the faith entire. No such sentiment is expressed in Scripture or the Fathers. To the contrary, we are assured that the Church *as a whole* will not be prevailed against.
Are you denying that the Church--however you define it--*wrote* the Bible, then? I dearly hope you do not subscribe to the idea that the thing dropped from heaven entire.
And by the way, there is such a thing as direct authorship and indirect authorship. God is the ultimate author, yes of course, but it is self-evident that He worked through human authors. These human authors were protected from error by God himself.
Now. Were these human authors granted this protection as individuals? I do not believe so—because if that protection died with them then the Church could not have assembled their writings, discerned which were authentic, and correctly interpreted them down the centuries. Rather, the evangelists were protected from error as part of the corporate protection that the whole Church enjoys—which flowed from the Apostles and still exists in the Church today.
What I see as something fairly typical of Catholic Apologists is that they tend to diminish the role of God and exalt the role of the Roman authorities.
Let's take your logic back beyond the New Testament and bring it to the Old Testament, shall we? If if fact "The Church" "wrote" the Bible then that would mean that the "Church" was the Jews, and the Jews had their own "Magisterium" which consisted of the Pharisees, who had taken upon themselves the job of declaring the meaning of the scriptures, much like the claim of the Roman Catholic Magisterium.
Since you claim that the Magisterium somehow magically works as infallibly as the God who directed the writing of the scriptures, then it would follow that the Jews are, in fact, the true Religion, and you should be following the Talmud rather than the Roman Catholic Catechism.
Personally I see the Roman Catholic Magisterium much as I see the Jewish Pharisees. Both had taken it upon themselves to declare the meaning of scripture to fit whatever their world view or their personal proclivities were at the time and then to declare their pronouncements equal to the scripture itself and to declare that any who disagree with them as heretics.
The Bible was written by individuals who were directly inspired by God. The Scriptures themselves are the final authority and any doctrine or teaching that flies in the face of the plain language of scripture must be viewed as being in error and it is plain that despite all the song and dance that the Roman Catholic Church has done over the centuries to try to harmonize their strange doctrines and teaching with the plain language of the scriptures, the Catholic Church is riddled with errors that even a child could see by simply reading the scriptures without the guidance of some self appointed Magisterium of often corrupt and self indulgent men.
Where we differ my FRiend is that my belief is that the Scriptures are the final authority and I will not place my trust in the arm of flesh. The Holy Spirit is perfectly capable of teaching all of us and His ministry is not limited to a handful of self appointed Magistrates of some corrupted organization which has obviously drifted far from the original teachings of the scriptures that God gave to us all that we might learn of Him.
The Roman Catholic Church may have been the "Librarian" for the Scriptures in the past, but that organization was NEVER the author of the Scriptures. NEVER.
The Holy Spirit is the Author of the Scriptures and Jesus Christ alone is the Author and Finisher of our faith.
Yes!!! Exactly.
Only it wasn't so much the Pharisees, it was the Sanhedrin. Remember, P-Marlowe, what God did to the rebellion of Kore who claimed the Jews needed no religious authority lorded over them: the earth swallowed them up. Remember also, the words of Christ in Matt 23: "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example."
The Christ Himself commanded Israel to obey them but not to follow their example--because as hypocritical as they were, they still had their God-given authority over Israel.
Since you claim that the Magisterium somehow magically works as infallibly as the God who directed the writing of the scriptures, then it would follow that the Jews are, in fact, the true Religion, and you should be following the Talmud rather than the Roman Catholic Catechism.
Am I ever *delighted* you brought this up. Yes, your logic is spot on. Except that the supreme Jewish religious authority of the Sanhedrin never made a pronouncement one way or the other on the Christ, did they?
Remember your Acts of the Apostles? Peter stands before them proclaiming the Christ and they are baffled, not knowing what to do. And then the most honored and respected among them, Gamaliel, counsels the Sanhedrin to take a wait and see attitude. Leave the Christians alone. Let God do His work--if they are not of God, they will fizzle out of their own accord. If they ARE of God, there is nothing you can do to stop them. The whole Sanhedrin were persuaded by his words. That was, as far as we know, the last official ruling on the matter.
Shortly after that, Jerusalem was destroyed and the Sanhedrin with it. All that was left was a collocation of rabbinic scholars at Jamnia. They were the ones who finally put the hammer down on Christianity. Not the true Sanhedrin.
You are right, therefore, to note the similarity between the Catholic magisterium and the Jewish one. You are wrong, however, in characterizing either as "self-appointed." They were most certainly not self-appointed. Both were divinely appointed, and both demand the same obedience.
Correction: I made it sound like I believe something I really don’t above.
I don’t see how there could be two operating magisteria at the same time. So that of the Sanhedrin must have been subsumed into that of the New Israel, the Church—and I am not a follower of the Talmud or rabbinic tradition, even though I have some respect for it. I have yet to really piece together how that transition happened, but I believe it did. Judaism and Christianity are not equivalent in their authority today, obviously. I should have been more careful not to imply that they are.
I have pinged our resident Protestant/Jewish Scholar to respond as this historical stuff is outside my field of scholarship (as evidenced by my mistaking the Sanhedrin for the Pharisees). :-)
Buggman is usually pretty busy (and don't expect a reply between sundown on Friday and sundown on Saturday), but I always look forward to his informative posts, so if you don't get a response right away, don't be surprised.
Blessings,
Marlowe
As evidenced by the Scriptures themselves the writers of the Bible recognized the role of the holy spirit in ensuring inerrantcy when setting forth God's word even as 2 Peter 1:20,21 states.
However, that apostolic authority, the ability to speak God's word inerrantly, acting as a bulwark against error and apostasy, was to end with the apostles personally chosen by Christ.
As Paul said, they were a ‘restraint’ (2 Thess. 2:7) and John said the antichrists would arise from the church (1 John 2:18,19).
Paul said to the Ephesus congregation that wolves would enter into the church and arise from within the church after his going away. (Acts 20:28,29)
Hence Jesus illustration about the wheat and tares growing together until the harvest.(Matt. 13)
Since you write “Church” I assume you mean the Catholic Church but the Bible canon pretty much as we know it today was accepted and circulated by the second century and much of the Catholic Church’ “interpretation” has been reliance on extra-Biblical writings that in fact, contradict the inspired Scriptures and thus claims to apostolic authority and inerrantcy are simply and clearly not so.
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.