Posted on 06/13/2012 2:59:02 PM PDT by Gamecock
In my experience with those who wrestle with conversion to Roman Catholicism—at least those who have professed faith in the gospel, the driving theological issue is authority. How can I be certain that what I believe is true? The gospel of free grace through the justification of sinners in Christ alone moves to the back seat. Instead of the horse, it becomes the cart. Adjustments are made in their understanding of the gospel after accepting Rome’s arguments against sola scriptura. I address these remarks to friends struggling with that issue.
Reformation Christians can agree with Augustine when he said that he would never have known the truth of God’s Word apart from the catholic church. As the minister of salvation, the church is the context and means through which we come to faith and are kept in the faith to the end. When Philip found an Ethiopian treasury secretary returning from Jerusalem reading Isaiah 53, he inquired, “Do you understand what you are reading?” “How can I,” the official replied, “unless someone guides me?” (Ac 8:30-31). Explaining the passage in the light of its fulfillment in Christ, Philip baptized the man who then “went on his way rejoicing” (v 39).
Philip did not have to be infallible; he only had to communicate with sufficient truth and clarity the infallible Word.
For many, this kind of certainty, based on a text, is not adequate. We have to know—really know—that what we believe is an infallible interpretation of an ultimate authority. The churches of the Reformation confess that even though some passages are more difficult to understand, the basic narratives, doctrines and commands of Scripture—especially the message of Christ as that unfolds from Genesis to Revelation—is so clearly evident that even the unlearned can grasp it.
For the Reformers, sola scriptura did not mean that the church and its official summaries of Scripture (creeds, confessions, catechisms, and decisions in wider assemblies) had no authority. Rather, it meant that their ministerial authority was dependent entirely on the magisterial authority of Scripture. Scripture is the master; the church is the minister.
The following theses summarize some of the issues that people should wrestle with before embracing a Roman Catholic perspective on authority.
1. The Reformers did not separate sola scriptura (by Scripture alone) from solo Christo (Christ alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), sola fide (through faith alone). As Herman Bavinck said, “Faith in Scripture rises or falls with faith in Christ.” Revealed from heaven, the gospel message itself (Christ as the central content of Scripture) is as much the basis for the Bible’s authority as the fact that it comes from the Father through the inspiration of the Spirit. Jesus Christ, raised on the third day, certified his divine authority. Furthermore, he credited the Old Testament writings as “scripture,” equating the words of the prophets with the very word of God himself and commissioned his apostles to speak authoritatively in his name. Their words are his words; those who receive them also receive the Son and the Father. So Scripture is the authoritative Word of God because it comes from the unerring Father, concerning the Son, in the power of the Spirit. Neither the authority of the Bible nor that of the church can stand apart from the truth of Christ as he is clothed in his gospel.2. Every covenant is contained in a canon (like a constitution). The biblical canon is the norm for the history of God’s saving purposes in Christ under the old and new covenants. The Old Testament canon closed with the end of the prophetic era, so that Jesus could mark a sharp division between Scripture and the traditions of the rabbis (Mk 7:8). The New Testament canon was closed at the end of the apostolic era, so that even during that era the Apostle Paul could warn the Corinthians against the “super-apostles” by urging, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Co 4:6). While the apostles were living, the churches were to “maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (1 Co 11:2), “…either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Th 2:15). There were indeed written and unwritten traditions in the apostolic church, but only those that eventually found their way by the Spirit’s guidance into the New Testament are now for us the apostolic canon. The apostles (extraordinary ministers) laid the foundation and after them workers (ordinary ministers) build on that foundation (1 Co 3:10). The apostles could appeal to their own eye-witness, direct, and immediate vocation given to them by Christ, while they instructed ordinary pastors (like Timothy) to deliver to others what they had received from the apostles. As Calvin noted, Rome and the Anabaptists were ironically similar in that they affirmed a continuing apostolic office. In this way, both in effect made God’s Word subordinate to the supposedly inspired prophets and teachers of today.
3. Just as the extraordinary office of prophets and apostles is qualitatively distinct from that of ordinary ministers, the constitution (Scripture) is qualitatively distinct from the Spirit-illumined but non-inspired courts (tradition) that interpret it. Thus, Scripture is magisterial in its authority, while the church’s tradition of interpretation is ministerial.
4. To accept these theses is to embrace sola scriptura, as the Reformation understood it.
5. This is precisely the view that we find in the church fathers. First, it is clear enough from their descriptions (e.g., the account in Eusebius) that the fathers did not create the canon but received and acknowledged it. (Even Peter acknowledged Paul’s writings as “Scripture” in 2 Peter 3:16, even though Paul clearly says in Galatians that he did not receive his gospel from or seek first the approval of any of the apostles, since he received it directly from Christ.) The criteria they followed indicates this: To be recognized as “Scripture,” a purported book had to be well-attested as coming from the apostolic circle. Those texts that already had the widest and earliest acceptance in public worship were easily recognized by the time Athanasius drew up the first list of all 27 NT books in 367. Before this even, many of these books were being quoted as normative scripture by Clement of Rome, Origin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others. Of his list, Athanasius said that “holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (NPNF2, 4:23). Also in the 4th century Basil of Caesarea instructed, “Believe those things which are written; the things which are not written, seek not…It is a manifest defection from the faith, a proof of arrogance, either to reject anything of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not” (“On the Holy Spirit,” NPNF2, 8:41). Second, although the fathers also acknowledge tradition as a ministerially authoritative interpreter, they consistently yield ultimate obedience to Scripture. For example, Augustine explains that the Nicene Creed is binding because it summarizes the clear teaching of Scripture (On the Nicene Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 1).
6. Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early Christian community in Rome was not unified under a single head. (Paul, for example, reminded Timothy of the gift he was given when the presbytery laid its hands on him in his ordination: 1 Tim 4:14). In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” (“Authority in the Church” II, ARCIC, para 2, 6). So one has to accept papal authority exclusively on the basis of subsequent (post-apostolic) claims of the Roman bishop, without scriptural warrant. There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18). Interestingly, even the current pope acknowledges that presbyter and episcipos were used interchangeably in the New Testament and in the earliest churches (Called to Communion, 122-123).
7. Ancient Christian leaders of the East gave special honor to the bishop of Rome, but considered any claim of one bishop’s supremacy to be an act of schism. Even in the West such a privilege was rejected by Gregory the Great in the sixth century. He expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as “universal pope”: “a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).
8. Nevertheless, building on the claims of Roman bishops Leo I and Galsius in the 5th century, later bishops of Rome did claim precisely this “proud address.” Declaring themselves Christ’s replacement on earth, they claimed sovereignty (“plenitude of power”) over the world “to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms.” At the Council of Reims (1049) the Latin Church claimed for the pope the title “pontifex universalis“—precisely the title identified by Gregory as identifying one who “in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrist’s precursor….” Is Pope Gregory the Great correct, or are his successors?
9. Papal pretensions contributed to the Great Schism in 1054, when the churches of the East formally excommunicated the Church of Rome, and the pope reacted in kind.
10. The Avignon Papacy (1309-76) relocated the throne to France and was followed by the Western Schism (1378-1417), with three rival popes excommunicating each other and their sees. No less than the current Pope wrote, before his enthronement, “For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 196).
11. Medieval debates erupted over whether Scripture, popes or councils had the final say. Great theologians like Duns Scotus and Pierre D’Ailly favored sola scriptura. Papalists argued that councils had often erred and contradicted themselves, so you have to have a single voice to arbitrate the infallible truth. Conciliarists had no trouble pointing out historical examples of popes contradicting each other, leading various schisms, and not even troubling to keep their unbelief and reckless immorality private. Only at the Council of Trent was the papalist party officially affirmed in this dispute.
12. Papal claims were only strengthened in reaction to the Reformation, all the way to the promulgation of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870. At that Council, Pope Pius IX could even respond to modern challenges to his authority by declaring, “I am tradition.”
13. Though inspired by God, Scripture cannot be sufficient. It is a dark, obscure, and mysterious book (rendered more so by Rome’s allegorizing exegesis). An infallible canon needs an infallible interpreter. This has been Rome’s argument. The insufficiency of Scripture rests on its lack of clarity. True it is that the Bible is a collection of texts spread across many centuries, brimming with a variety of histories, poetry, doctrines, apocalyptic, and laws. However, wherever it has been translated in the vernacular and disseminated widely, barely literate people have been able to understand its central message. Contrast this with the libraries full of decreetals and encyclicals, councilor decisions and counter-decisions, bulls and promulgations. Any student of church history recognizes that in this case the teacher is often far more obscure than the text. It’s no wonder that Rome defines faith as fides implicita: taking the church’s word for it. For Rome, faith is not trust in Jesus Christ according to the gospel, but yielding assent and obedience unreservedly simply to everything the church teaches as necessary to salvation. There are many hazards associated with embracing an infallible text without an infallible interpreter. However, the alternative is not greater certainty and clarity about the subject matter, but a sacrifice of the intellect and an abandonment of one’s personal responsibility for one’s commitments to the decisions and acts of others.
14. Those of us who remain Reformed must examine the Scriptures and the relevant arguments before concluding that Rome’s claims are not justified and its teaching is at variance with crucial biblical doctrines. A Protestant friend in the midst of being swayed by Rome’s arguments exclaims, “That’s exactly why I can’t be a Protestant anymore. Without an infallible magisterium everyone believes whatever he chooses.” At this point, it’s important to distinguish between a radical individualism (believing whatever one chooses) and a personal commitment in view of one’s ultimate authority. My friend may be under the illusion that his or her decision is different from that, but it’s not. In the very act of making the decision to transfer ultimate authority from Scripture to the magisterium, he or she is weighing various biblical passages and theological arguments. The goal (shifting the burden of responsibility from oneself to the church) is contradicted by the method. At this point, one cannot simply surrender to a Reformed church or a Roman church; they must make a decision after careful personal study. We’re both in the same shoes.
15. Most crucially, Rome’s ambitious claims are tested by its faithfulness to the gospel. If an apostle could pronounce his anathema on anyone—including himself or an angel from heaven—who taught a gospel different from the one he brought to them (Gal 1:8-9), then surely any minister or church body after the apostles is under that threat. First, Paul was not assuming that the true church is beyond the possibility of error. Second, he placed himself under the authority of that Word. Just read the condemnations from the Council of Trent below. Do they square with the clear and obvious teaching of Scripture? If they do not, then the choice to be made is between the infallible writings of the apostles and those after the apostles and since who claim to be the church’s infallible teachers.
As I have pointed out in previous posts, the frustration with the state of contemporary Protestantism is understandable. I feel it every day. Yet those who imagine that they will escape the struggle between the “already” and the “not yet,” the certainty of a promise and the certainty of possession, the infallibility of God’s Word and the fallibility of its appointed teachers, are bound to be disappointed wherever they land. As Calvin counseled on the matter, Scripture alone is sufficient; “better to limp along this path than to dash with all speed outside it.”
****He had a body that was an image of his bioplogical body, but it was no longer a biological body.
It was a body that could travel through the stone walls of buildings. It was a body that could travel to the realm of God the father. Neither of those things were possible with a flesh and blood body.*****
Now, whom am I to believe, you or Jesus?
Luke 24:38 And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
Luke 24:41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate before them.
****We can be pretty confident that those who were born disfigured or missing limbs will have bodies that are whole in heaven. *****
We don’t know that, though I imagine that many hope that.
But, is the disfigured or broken body seen that way by God, who sees us only with love? The disabled body is certainly difficult here, but will those difficulties exist in heaven?
We are told there will be no tears, no hunger, no thirst in heaven. And do we not hope there is no pain, no fear, no jealousy, no malice?
..... I wonder how Peter knew it was Moses and Elijah standing there with Jesus? They didn’t have a Polaroid.....
LOL, we sometimes think alike. I have wondered the same.
*****Nobody will be “ugly” or “homely” there, I don’t believe.*****
Does God see us as we see ourselves or others as we see them? We do not see with the same love as He do we?
I have said before, I believe that we will see each other as God sees us/them.
By the time I got done remodeling, the only things that were saved were the basic structure (the framing, which also got major repairs), the foundation, and the roofing...
One could argue that it is the same old house.
There is no argument, it is the same house. You did not tear down and haul away the basics. You did not dig up the foundation and pour a new one. You began with what you had and improved it.
It really is a perfect metaphor for our bodies, which are new and fresh and good and through age and abuse and sinfulness becomes decrepit until it passes away. But then the Lord comes and raises it up and restores all that newness and adds glory to it. But, it is still the same body with which we began.
>> “Now, whom am I to believe, you or Jesus?” <<
.
Since he and I are in full agreement on this, what is the question?
.
You aren't alone in this! I think it is simply human nature to constantly ask "Why?".
I think you are right, at least in part. But for me it is far more complicated than that.
Aside from a natural inquisitiveness, I have always captained my own ship. I have always had a fierce sense of American liberty and independence, which probably is cultural and familial in me... My family have been business owners and entrepreneurs for generations... ALL_of_them. So the natural has been redoubled with what has been ingrained. Add to that an old-skool Dutch heritage of what is proper and orderly, and one will inevitably get a screaming A-Type personality of the highest order.
I hasten to add that not all of that is 'bad' exactly - Without that 'control-freak' thing, I would not have been able to have run my businesses, or to have employed all those good folks. I would not have learned independence, thrift, discipline, that ability to drive forward, to MAKE it happen...
But there is a distinction that must be made (as I have ultimately found out), which distinction is about as hard to divide as 'liberty v. libertine', as an example - A difference that is ethereal and hard-to-pin-down in practice, but is the difference between what is good and healthy, and what is sinful and detrimental.
In a real sense, where exactly does liberty become libertine? where is that fulcrum, that tipping point? In very much the same sense, where does discipline, self-control, perseverance, and independence become 'A-Type control-freak'? That is a very hard question for me to answer, not to mention any sort of implementation.
But more toward your point, not only do I have that 'why' thing going on (in spades), I have also always been a tinker. I love to understand how things work, identify fault, and fix it. Nothing gives me as much satisfaction as finding some broken cast-off thing, taking it home to my shop, taking it apart piece by piece in order to understand it's function, and ultimately fixing it... restoring it to it's former function and beauty.
In doing so, one will inevitably become adept at identifying the work of others, who have come before: About half the time, a thing is busted, not by it's function, but by the work of some dingbat that got a-hold of the thing before me, making a fix out of 'bubble-gum and baling wire', as it were... I am often astounded at the hubris of such folks, taking apart a thing that they obviously do not understand, and gumming it up with their additions, making the thing worse than it was, not better.
But in that, one develops an hubris of one's own: "I am a hotshot because I can see the stupid works of these other people, not only seeing it, but fixing it too... therefore I am right, I am far-sighted, I am worthy of back-patting, even if I must pat my own back..."
There is a tongue-in-cheek saying which has been poster-ized, that I have hanging above my desk:
"Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do."
It is there to remind me of my own hubris, which always meets, sooner or later, someone of better mastery and more knowledge, that will inevitably knock my own thinking for a loop. There is something to be found in that.
The whole focus is not on ONE verse which is only an example and not the main point, but that does seem to be SOP for Catholicism, to focus on the examples and completely miss the main point and clear teaching of the passage.
Neither of those verses supports your contention that it is the same body resurrected. It can still be different intrinsically, even if it looks the same and people can eat.
The body can be intrinsically different even if it LOOKS the same and has some of the same functions.
Any body that can pass through walls and doors and appear and disappear at will and can survive an ascension and live off this planet, is NOT the same body we have now.
Even if God did an atom by atom replacement and gave us perfectly formed and functioning bodies using the same materials we have now, they’d still be subject to corruption because the physical materials He’s using are part of the sin corrupted universe and still subject to eventual decay.
You sound a lot like mr. mm.
I hear what you’re saying.
I am definitely an individualist and independent myself. I was thinking, however, more in terms of controlling other people and situations and fretting and worrying about the stuff I couldn’t control.
The trick is to know when to let go.
Jesus says TOUCH ME, see I am real, I am not a SPIRIT, I have FLESH and BONE.
What was His flesh and bone made of? Flesh? and Bone? Human flesh? Human bone?
The body is the same body, though changed by God.
Just as His grace changes your soul, sanctifies it and makes it holy, but it is still your soul.
In what way do you agree with Jesus?
You say that His body only appears to be His body but is no longer His body, but He says Touch Me, see I have flesh and bone and He eats with them.
And why does He say it is I Myself? Because the body He had and the body which died and the body which rose, was Jesus’ body. And His body and His soul were eternally linked at the moment of His conception, just as ours are.
Dodge and attack, true to form.
I hardly focused on one verse, I have addressed ALL of those and even posted them in my own responses.
This is a tendency which frustrates me greatly when in debate with NCCOUOUDOB.
Did I say that Moses didn’t die? Have you found that post to link to?
No, of course, you didn’t.
No just move on and when the answer is one that can’t be glibly handled, then go on the attack.
There’s a reason for the old saying, “The best defense in a good offense.”
So, if we are going to talk SOP, then how about we talk about that of the aforementioned group? HMMMM?
****The body can be intrinsically different even if it LOOKS the same and has some of the same functions.****
LOL, I truly give up, at this point I don’t think even you can keep all the contortions and twisting about straight.
But, hey keep on keeping on, I don’t imagine there is anything that can throw off the canned response, even if they are incoherent.
I believe that God made us just the way He intended us to be - warts and all. While we live in these "earthen vessels", we ARE loved by our Creator and not one thing happens to us that He has not allowed for HIS purposes. But by that same token, we have these imperfections - diseases, disfigurements, handicaps, "difficulties" - because we live in a fallen world, one tainted by sin. For that reason I also believe that, in heaven, we will be complete and NOT subject to these faults that came about because of sin. Heaven will be perfect - no sin allowed at all - and no sign that sin ever effected any of us, other than the reminder of our Savior's sacrifice for us by His nail-scarred hands and feet.
Does God see us as we see ourselves or others as we see them? We do not see with the same love as He do we? I have said before, I believe that we will see each other as God sees us/them.
I think God sees us in reality - but HIS reality - and He sees all that we CAN be while we sojourn here. I agree, we don't have what it takes to really see each other as God sees us, yet Jesus said he had a new commandment to give his disciples. They were to "love one another as I have loved you". It had always been love your neighbor as yourself before, but we don't always love ourselves and if we cannot love ourselves, how can we love others? But this was something entirely NEW. To love each other as Christ loves us is the highest ideal of love. It is unconditional, sacrificial and all the best of what we can only imagine being loved like that is. Without the Holy Spirit within us, though, I do not think we CAN love like that, so, Jesus is setting the bar as high as it will go and then empowering us to reach it through Him.
In heaven, we WILL finally see each other as God sees us and we will all be changed, different, yet STILL able to be known to one another. We won't need name tags to know each other either, it is part of knowing as even we are known that we are promised. While we are still here on earth, though, I believe it is God's desire that we see others and love others as He does. If we all really did start thinking that way - the whole world would be changed for the better!
You continue to twist and mangle my words to create a support for your foundationless position.
I didn’t say his body isn’t his body, and I cannot imaging how you even come to that.
His new body does not consist of the kind of matter that exists in space-time. Its not made up of the illusory atomic ‘particles’ that are scheduled to cease to exist as Peter stated in his second epistle, and it is not subject to the limitations of time. We will be the same, but we are not given specifics enough to understand.
.
I have twisted and mangled nothing.
His new body does not consist of the kind of matter that exists in space-time.
Really?
Dodge and attack.
Dodge and attack.
Dodge and attack.
Fail.
Jesus’ body has flesh.
Jesus’ body has bone.
Jesus’ body can consume food.
Jesus said it, I believe it and that settles it.
*****In heaven, we WILL finally see each other as God sees us and we will all be changed, different, yet STILL able to be known to one another. We won’t need name tags to know each other either, it is part of knowing as even we are known that we are promised. While we are still here on earth, though, I believe it is God’s desire that we see others and love others as He does. If we all really did start thinking that way - the whole world would be changed for the better! ******
Agreed.
Canned response? Do tell, from where did I get it?
Our body is not who we are. It is merely a convenient housing for our soul, which is what we really are. Changing the housing does not change the person.
Catholics have too much of a focus on this material, physical, earthly existence and not enough on the spiritual reality in which we operate every moment of our lives. It’s like they don’t even know it exists and they’re operating in it every moment of their lives.
This world is temporal and temporary.It will not last, it is destined for destruction, praise God, so that the new reality, called the new heavens and new earth, which are not tainted by or corrupted by sin can be established.
What is seen is transient, what is unseen is eternal. (2 Corinthians 4)
****Our body is not who we are. It is merely a convenient housing for our soul, which is what we really are. Changing the housing does not change the person.*****
And that is heresy which I think, though I am not sure, is known as Gnosticism.
What you are saying is that the body was created by God for corruption and destruction and that is just not true.
For one, it belies the dignity and goodness of God who does not create anything merely for the purpose to destroy it.
It denies the love for which we are created.
The body does not exist without the soul.
The soul does not exist but for the body.
God so loved the human body that He created one for Himself, in order to offer that body in sacrifice as atonement for our sins, redemption for our bodies and souls and to reopen through obedience what had been closed through disobedience.
The belief that the body is refuse, mere garbage to be discarded/replaced is not Scriptural and denies the bodily resurrection Scripture promises. It is not a Christian belief.
If a soul were to acquire a new body the Scriptural term would be reincarnation not resurrection.
Peace be with you.
You once warned me that many of those we debate here are the fringe and not mainstream Protestant. I think this debate over bodily resurrection couldn’t affirm that fact any more clearly.
Reincarnation. You hit the nail on the head.
I find it so problematic when some who claim to argue authoritatively about the meaning of first century Koine Greek idioms display such a limited understanding of modern English. They are far too often more concerned with who is right instead of what is right.
It does seem that the injection of a little common sense into this discussion had a very chilling effect.
Peace be with you.
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.