Sola Scriptura and the Proliferation of Protestant Denominations

TeamPyro ^ | Phil Johnson

[RobbyS]

Well, I applaud your devotion to the Scriptures, but the Scriptures did not just fall from heaven: we only know about them because other believers have introduced us to them. Indeed , it was other believers who wrote them and still others who transmitted them to us down through the ages, translating them into a tongue we can understand. The community came long before us and will outlive us. That’s because the Spirit works through persons.

[WileyPink]

I believe you misunderstood the way I used the phrase. I meant “Peter rules” in same sense as “the judge today ruled on XX”. “Peter makes a ruling” would be a less ambiguous way to say it.

You are correct, I did misunderstand in its context.

But, Jesus didn't leave Peter and the apostles "in charge". He left the Holy Spirit...

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

The only thing the apostles do is "bear witness" of Jesus. (John 15:27)

In Christ...Alone!

[Seven_0]

Nope, but that’s not the point is it, the office needed to be filled, and it was. Paul’s elevation gives argument to the fact that the need for apostolic office holders would exceeded the original 12.

You will note that the addition of Mathias and Paul brings the number of Apostles to 14. This is the same number of tribes we have when we add the tribes of Joseph and Levi (Revelation 7:7-8). There is no mention of more than 14, and yet Revelation 21:12-14 claims just 12 Tribes and 12 Apostles.

Seven

[WriteOn]

Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims the Church of Rome was being schismatic when Rome asserted papal supremacy. To this day, Orthodox Christians insist that Eastern Orthodoxy, not Roman Catholicism, is the Church Christ founded—and that would make Roman Catholicism schismatic in the same sense Rome accuses Protestants of being schismatic. One typical Orthodox Web site says, "The Orthodox Church is the Christian Church. The Orthodox Church is not a sect or a denomination. We are the family of Christian communities established by the Apostles and disciples Jesus sent out to proclaim the Good News to the world, and by their successors through the ages."

At best, that is misconstrued.

[WriteOn]

“From Christ, through the Pope, all things are possible.” <— Catholic version.

Which bible is that in?

[WriteOn]

Are you a Nestorian? Do you believe that Mary isn’t the Mother of God?

That’s what you need the magisterium for...

[WriteOn]

Clearly you need to go and do some reading about infallibility and Popes. You seem to think that infallibility cloaks everything they say or do. A Pope’s infallibility as a charism of the Holy Spirit is quite limited and negative.

[WriteOn]

Um, not quite. To whom did Paul go to seek confirmation of his charism and communion? Peter.

[azhenfud]

And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."

[BibChr]

IOW, I don’t need it.

Which — thank God, given the anti-Biblical poison it’s manufactured.

[jo kus]

Concretely the issue was the teaching of Pelagius, an ascetic from Britain who lived in Rome. Pelagius took a stand against permissive and minimalist Christianity that shrank from the moral seriousness of Christian discipleship and used human incapacity and trust in grace alone to excuse personal sloth. He therefore emphasized an ethical Christianity of works and moral challenge for which grace was primarily an incentive to action; human beings remain capable of choosing between good and evil by their own power. This teaching was condemned by two North African councils in Carthage and Mileve in 416. But since Pelagius lived in Rome, and Rome was the center of the Pelagian movement, it seemed appropriate to inform Pope Innocent I of the decision. Ultimately, the struggle against Pelagianism could only be carried on with the cooperation of Rome. The Pope finally responded in 417, accepting the decisions of the two councils. Augustine then wrote: "In this matter, two councils have already sent letters to the apostolic see, and from thence rescripts have come back. the matter is settled (causa finita est); if only the heresy would cease!"

Interesting, although that is not how it is explained by the writings that we have of the time... You make it sound as if the synods acted on their own and merely INFORMED the Pope of their actions. Hardly...

The new acquittal of Pelagius did not fail to cause excitement and alarm in North Africa, whither Orosius had hastened in 416 with letters from Bishops Heros and Lazarus. To parry the blow, something decisive had to be done. In autumn, 416, 67 bishops from Proconsular Africa assembled in a synod at Carthage, which was presided over by Aurelius, while fifty-nine bishops of the ecclesiastical province of Numidia, to which the See of Hippo, St. Augustine's see belonged, held a synod in Mileve. In both places the doctrines of Pelagius and Caelestius were again rejected as contradictory to the Catholic faith. However, in order to secure for their decisions "the authority of the Apostolic See", both synods wrote to Innocent I, requesting his supreme sanction. And in order to impress upon him more strongly the seriousness of the situation, five bishops (Augustine, Aurelius, Alypius, Evodius, and Possidius) forwarded to him a joint letter, in which they detailed the doctrine of original sin, infant baptism, and Christian grace (St. Augustine, "Epp. clxxv-vii"). In three separate epistles, dated 27 Jan., 417, the pope answered the synodal letters of Carthage and Mileve as well as that of the five bishops (Jaffé, "Regest.", 2nd ed., nn. 321-323, Leipzig, 1885). Starting from the principle that the resolutions of provincial synods have no binding force until they are confirmed by the supreme authority of the Apostolic See, the pope developed the Catholic teaching on original sin and grace, and excluded Pelagius and Caelestius, who were reported to have rejected these doctrines, form communion with the Church until they should come to their senses (donec resipiscant). In Africa, where the decision was received with unfeigned joy, the whole controversy was now regarded as closed, and Augustine, on 23 September, 417, announced from the pulpit (Serm., cxxxi, 10 in P. L., XXXVIII, 734), "Jam de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem apostolicam, inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est". (Two synods having written to the Apostolic See about this matter; the replies have come back; the question is settled.)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

Apparently, the good "Roman catholic scholar" has not given us the entire story. Yes, the actual words are a "paraphrase - but they say the same thing. By examing these letters, one can conclude that the synods desired the "force of an Apostolic See" to settle the matter - as two synods before Mileve proved unsuccessful in routing out the heresy. The good people of Africa responded with JOY at the decision from the See. Augustine himself notes that the matter is settled.

The words attributed to St. Augustine are shown above, and in context. What can we learn from this? That Roman Catholic scholars are not infallible. And that people of the 400's highly regarded the position of the Pope and his decisions.

Regards

[ItsOurTimeNow]

I was referencing Galatians 2:7b - “...just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.”

Reading the first few books of Acts shows that Peter was the “spokesman” of the early Jerusalem church, and was reluctant to associate w/ Gentiles.

[Claud]

Poor Catholics: still living in an OT oligarchy when Christ bestowed a royal priesthood on all. I am a king and a priest, after the order of my Lord who is priest FOREVER. If you want to stay with the OT system of priests, whose priesthood ends, then, whatever makes you happy. But, there is something better. A greater than Moses is here.

Christ did indeed bestow a royal priesthood upon all. So tell me....if you are a priest....what is your sacrifice? What do you offer? What do you place before the Almighty in atonement for your sins?

That passage from Hebrews has the answer. Christ is a priest FOREVER...and one of the order of Melchizedek. I.e., Christ had the same kind of priesthood that Melchizedek had--which was one of offering bread and wine.

You accuse us of not understanding the priesthood of all believers--yet who understands it better than the poor Catholic who unites himself body and soul with the immolation of the Divine Victim up on the altar? As a layman he sees, participates in, and offers Christ Crucified upon the altar--he consumes the Passover Lamb, the sacred species as our Lord commanded.

What priestly act have you in your temples of Calvinism that can compare? I'm sorry, but your "priesthood of all believers" seems wispy and insubstantial compared to the reality that is the Christian liturgical act.

[conservonator]

There is no mention of more than 14, and yet Revelation 21:12-14 claims just 12 Tribes and 12 Apostles.

Interesting isn't it, you're left with pitting scripture against scripture: either Paul or Mathias was not an actual apostle, or the 12 was symbolic of the 12 Tribes of Israel demonstrating the continuity of convenient between old and new testament. The fact that the apostolic office number changes with the need of the Church has nothing to do with Revelation numerology. Or did Christ lie when he told the apostles "who hears you hears Me"? When they elevated Mathias to the office, were we hearing other than Christ in their actions?

[Claud]

But, Jesus didn't leave Peter and the apostles "in charge". He left the Holy Spirit...

Sure, but does one exclude the other? Almost every church I think has a pastor out there who is in charge--so does that mean that people are following him and not the Holy Ghost? Does the pastor's authority evacuate the authority of Spirit?

Of course not--the Spirit often works through that pastor to act in the world. That's all that we're saying here. We're not putting Peter and the Apostles *over* the Holy Spirit...but we are saying that the Holy Spirit chose to use them in a unique way which he didn't choose for everyone else:

"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.".."What you bound on earth will be bound in heaven"..."whoever hears you, hears me"...etc.

[Lord_Calvinus]

***Why emphasize the discontinuity between the priesthood of the old covenant, when God took such care in his establishment of it and the priesthood of the new. Why claim that the old order was repudiated when the Gospel says that it was fulfilled? That it never pass away? Christians see the New Covenant foreshadowed in the Old, and since the New Convenent was established fifty days after the New Passover, by the assent of the people, then we see Peter as the new Moses, revaling the new Torah to the nations gathers in Zion.***

Only in Catholic dreams.

There is NO longer an Aaronic priesthood or a Levitical priesthood. There is the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ.

Hebrews:

Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. For He testifies:

“ You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”

For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is thebringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

---

Y’all can have your dream of Peter as the new Moses.
I’ll take Christ as the “new Moses.”
Y’all can have your neo-Levitical order or whatever you think you have.
I’ll take Christ and the Melchizedek priesthood, of which I AM of that order.

For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever. Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.

Where does that Pope sit, exactly????

[Lord_Calvinus]

***Christ did indeed bestow a royal priesthood upon all. So tell me....if you are a priest....what is your sacrifice? What do you offer? What do you place before the Almighty in atonement for your sins?***

You STILL don’t understand, do you. The royal generation and priesthood of the believer is not about atonement. That is the Catholic sin. It is by ONE offering that Christ perfected forever those who are being sanctified. There is NO MORE offering for sin. (THIS IS GOSPEL TRUTH!!!)

Keep your inferior priesthood if you must. I am of the order of Christ, a part of a royal priesthood. If you think that some invented Petrine order is the OT fulfillment, then I won’t try to stop you.

[Ottofire]

>Clearly you need to go and do some reading about infallibility and Popes. You seem to think that infallibility cloaks everything they say or do. A Pope’s infallibility as a charism of the Holy Spirit is quite limited and negative.

Funny that! Lets look at the Scriptural basis for Papal infallibility, and guess what? Using the argument of the Catholic Church, WHATEVER is mentioned twice, but not a big lawyerly bunch of provisos, limitations or whatnot that was added 1800 years after Jesus made the pronouncement.

Authority is shouted from the Cathedral! And now, once one Pope is clearly contradicting another, well, we need to back up the semi and turn it around. The gates of Hades might not be able to stand against it, but another Pope will be able to loosen what one Pope has bound and bind what another has loosened.

It is funny what happens when man starts trying to write laws and claim they are from God. They tend to get all kinds of outs and lawyerly language, when God, sovereign Master of all, sets things in stone.

[Claud]

It is by ONE offering that Christ perfected forever those who are being sanctified. There is NO MORE offering for sin. (THIS IS GOSPEL TRUTH!!!)

No. It's half the truth. Christ is a priest forever. Forever. That doesn't mean one-time over and done with..it means the condition of his priesthood lasts for all time--once for all.

The bloody part of the sacrifice is what is over and done with never to be repeated. But Christ nevertheless remains a priest forever because he offers that one sacrifice in perpetuity....according to the order of Melchizedek.

And what did Melchizedek offer? Bread and wine.

[Ottofire]

>Interesting, although that is not how it is explained by the writings that we have of the time... You make it sound as if the synods acted on their own and merely INFORMED the Pope of their actions. Hardly...

But you will note that the Austinian quote is totally wrong. That was my main point. I have seen it flow from many even big name Catholic Apologists without a response. It is wrong and needs to be taken from the apologia, lest you be accused of knowingly throwing out falsehoods. And no, Rome has spoken the matter is closed is not the same as two councils have deliberated it and suggest that the Pope get on board. That is like saying that “Bill Clinton has spoken on welfare reform, the matter is closed.”

The exact quote “In this matter, two councils have already sent letters to the apostolic see, and from thence rescripts have come back. the matter is settled (causa finita est); if only the heresy would cease!” Rome is not an active part of the decision and is only the recipient of the rescripts. The Pope is just a rubber stamp, with nothing being said about his decision, just the councils.

As for the New Advent site, hey I can rewrite history to spin things any way I want to also. Does this mean anything? No it does not. Look to the original sources and stick with them. Thus erroneous traditions will not accumulate and you will stop misquoting poor Augustine.

Please, would you look up the good ‘Catholic scholar” for me and see how good he really is? All I find is praise in the Catholic spheres and I may not be able to tell if these are liberal sources or not...

>The words attributed to St. Augustine are shown above, and in context. What can we learn from this? That Roman Catholic scholars are not infallible. And that people of the 400’s highly regarded the position of the Pope and his decisions.

Scholars indeed are not infallible. Look to many of the Catholic writings on Luther, you will find people willing to fabricate things from whole cloth, and then they are echoed from the 1500’s until now, and quoted as near scripture! Not saying that any side is worse than the others, but that is why we stick to the original sources as much as we possibly can.

As for 4th century position of the Pope, that is still sitting on the basis of the old Imperial seat of power (Chalcedon canon 28). What has happened is the accumulation of more erroneous traditions piled on top of ceremony and pomp. All that is required for something to be messed up is time and people.