Posted on 12/10/2009 2:08:47 PM PST by CondoleezzaProtege
When a teacher or preacher speaks of the Supremacy of Scripture he is almost always referring to a doctrine that understands Scripture as the supreme source for truth, and in fact the exclusive source for spiritual truth. In the language of the Reformation it is known as Sola Scriptura, which means that the basis for our beliefs is not tradition or experience or ecclesiastical dictate, it is the written Scriptures alone. And it is true that this doctrine has been eroding and that many religious organizations either completely deny it or dilute its essence.
Luther desired nothing but proof from Scripture when it came to doctrinal truth, and forms of that battle have continued into today. There are many books and messages that deal with the Supremacy of Scripture and the reasons for such a foundational doctrine. And this doctrine has provided a forum for what some call the "truth war" which indicates a battle between those who espouse the supremacy of Scripture and those who in one way or another do not. Some project their opinion with academic reasoning within Scripture while retaining some civility, while others speak and write with acrimony and self righteousness.
I am one who espouses the Supremacy of Scripture, for in the end the opinions of men are just that. But I continue to have a problem with some of those who are the leading and most outspoken proponents of that doctrine. Luther himself espoused the supremacy of Scripture at the possible expense of his own life, however after establishing the doctrinal foundation of Sola Scriptura he seemed to dismiss the core of that doctrine when it came to personal obedience. His reckless language, combined with his indulgence of alcohol, and his overt hatred for the Jews was in stark contrast to his doctrinal espousing of the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy. Without dismissing Luther’s importance in core doctrinal realignment, I suggest he did not strive to live up to the personal mandates of Scripture which are every bit an indispensible part of Scriptural supremacy.
What Luther’s example has shown us is that it is entirely possible to be an outspoken proponent of the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy while denying it wholesale in practice and tone. And such is the case in many quarters of today’s evangelical community. To what benefit is it to aggressively contend for the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy while overtly denying it in the methodology you use to defend it? That scenario becomes a paradox in orthodoxy which dismantles the very doctrine you are supposedly defending. The supremacy doctrine is never limited to the overarching eternal truths concerning the Godhead, it must include the admonitions and commands that are consistent with the personal manifestations of the Incarnate narrative, as well as the dictates of the epistles.
It is indeed counterproductive to argue doctrine in the abstract without the personal revelations, or at least the obvious and genuine pursuit, of the uncomfortable aspects of Scripture which are designed to restrict the carnal “end justifies the means” template of defending the truth. In the end, defending the doctrine of Scriptural supremacy by abrogating the preponderance of Scripture as it applies to love, grace, and personal humility is neither Christian nor Scriptural. It is an overt revelation of disobedience and rejection of the very doctrine you portend to defend. Christ Himself was the antithesis of masculine domination and powerful usurpation, which at its core is why so many were drawn to Him while others rejected Him.
So many today stand on the mountaintop of hubristic judgment of almost everyone who are at varying degrees of doctrinal variance, but are blind to their own Scriptural disobedience. The world knows nothing of our doctrinal squabbles, serious or secondary, but they can see clearly the tone and attitudes that are in direct conflict with the Christ we preach. The cross is the core of our redemption, but it also carries with it the essence of how we are to interact with the world and each other. These “Attila the Hun” expressions of doctrinal dialogues do despite to the Spirit of Christ, and may in fact win the debate but lose the Spirit.
What is our calling? Are we to win the “truth war” or are we to live and project Jesus Christ? And those who claim they are in fact one in the same are seriously misguided. Winning the “truth war” is indeed more about living Christ than it ever was about a round table discussion about doctrinal issues on YouTube that draw “amen’s” from the doctrinal Bourgeoisie and elevate the wisdom of men resulting in the applause of other men. The sounds of “did you see so and so on Larry King, didn’t he really give it to them” are only meant to create a greater self righteousness within those who have chosen sides at the expense of deep compassion for those who are blind and deep gratitude for those of us who have been enlightened by His grace.
We have been sold a doctrinal bill of goods that has camouflaged the truth inside a methodology that is in direct violation of the same Scriptural mandates. Would it be Scriptural to defend the doctrine of the Trinity by murder? Of course not, you say. Then how can it be Scriptural to defend Scripture by self righteousness, demeaning personal attacks, and hubristic dismissiveness? We cannot exalt the supremacy of Scripture if we ignore those Scriptures that apply directly to us.
And here lies the challenge. Are we humble enough to defend cardinal doctrines of the faith in such a way that leaves the outcome to God Himself, or are we to speak in such a way that leverages the battle upon the fulcrum of our own words and the core viciousness of our attacks? God looks after His own Word and His instructions to us are never in contrast to that same Word. Speak the truth in love, says the Spirit, not speak the truth in visceral hatred and that is in itself love. The constant stream of unchristian language directed at the same people over and over again reveals an unwillingness to trust God concerning His own Word and its defense. Is there a God, and has He spoken, and is He able to bring about His purposes in spite of those who have strayed doctrinally, or is He in dire need of our constant attacks and redundant reminders of the same Scriptural shortcomings of others? And is our Biblical teaching so fleeting, so shallow, and so temporary that without the continuing stream of identifying the same false teachers people will stray immediately?
The supremacy of Scripture is not some “pin the tail on the donkey” doctrine that we stick on others, no, it is also high time that we examine our own adherence to the personal aspects of that same doctrine. Doctrinal truth must be lived as well as preached.
Doctrine without works is dead.
For sure the rise of the Reformation made the need for an indisputable (per Rome) canon, but it certainly was not Luther who made Scripture the focus of theological argument, and if that was more the case with Rome, i think it would have resulted in a much earlier final infallible definition of the canon.
As it was, there was a good degree of historical “consensus” on each side of the canon dispute, and Luther’s opposition to Purgatory and position of the supremacy of Scripture (not to the exclusion of tradition) necessitated 2 Mac. to at least be part of the Scriptures,
As for Revelation vs The Shepard of Hermas, the character of writings which were Scripture, like human character, became more manifest in time, and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation as canonical.
>Scripture tells us God’s church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.>
This is your defense? All you are doing is requiring unsubstantiated faith in Rome’s supremacy.
>Do you hold Boniface Ramsey as infallible?<
No, but you rely upon your fallible understanding of 1Tim. 3:15 to counter my requiring proof from that body of literature which, unlike the church, and the church of Rome, is explicitly declared to be wholly infallible. (2Tim. 3:16)
As for 1Tim. 3:15, this proof texts requires other texts for interpretation, (see response in post 96 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2404901/posts?page=96#96). “Pillar and ground of the truth” does not make it the truth, much less qualify only Rome as the church referred to, or place the church beyond reproof at any time, even if she declares herself so.
>Is it logical to you that God’s church, being the bulwark of truth, would sanction an activity or teaching that is contrary to the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord, which are true?<
Yes, as history shows and as Israel, to whom (unlike Rome) Scripture expressly states were given stewardship of the Scriptures existing then, did teach for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mt. 15:1-9) But God always preserves a remnant - including using real prophets types who are usually rejected by the established Majisterium - and which stand in contrast to the vast multitudes of religious professors.
That the church is to defend the truth is sure (Jude 1:3), and God does preserve the the true believers, which constitute the church, in essential faith, but the issue is whether one formal church in particular can declare that it is infallible when it speaks under certain conditions, which fits the condition in which it declared itself infallible, and under which condition it renders that its interpretation of why it is infallible, to be itself infallible. And thus by such it disallows itself from being wrong. Not only does this apply to its interpretation of Scripture, but to terms such a “unanimous assent of the fathers.” In addition, its history of an already problematic “unbroken succession” of popes, includes those who Scripturally would not even qualify as church members. As said before.
>It is arrogance to think God’s word is wrong in teaching that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.<
No, it is arrogance to suppose this refers to Rome, and its self-proclaimed supreme powers which you rely on, and that it cannot teach falsely, despite the evidence. You are going in circles.
>That’s assuming that the members of His Church are bound to the man-made tradition of Sola Scripture as applied to a truncated version of Scripture.<
No, even holding simply to prima Scriptura, and requiring Scriptural proof for doctrines, as so many of the early fathers, is enough to refute the idea that a practice (praying to angels, Mary, etc.) is unwarranted and unScriptural. But as all proofs contrary to Rome MUST be dismissed due to her requirement of sola ecclesia then no proofs are sufficient.
>It’s [priestly celibacy] not a doctrine of the Church, it is a voluntary discipline.<
I stated that it was church law, and while it is voluntary to be a priest, what i stated was that it is required that all the priests have the gift of celibacy, exceptions for converts understood, but which is not supported by Scripture.
>That’s your interpretation.<
As is Rome’s interpretation to the contrary. Now lets act more like noble Bereans and search the Scriptures to see if this is so, and require Rome to act like Jesus and the apostles and substantiate this by Scripture, and appeal to human reasoning. (Mt. 12:3-6; Acts 18:28:23; 2Cor. 4:2) But that would make Rome subservient to the Scriptures. As it is, you cannot show me anywhere that bishops and elders were not the same, as Titus 1:5-7 shows, Elder denoting the dignity, and bishop the duties of his office.
>The Church was and is inspired by God. Scripture is a tradition from that Church.<
As with Israel, the church exists by faith in the truth, all of which is tested by the Scriptures, as seen therein. And while, like Israel, the word of God was expanded thru it, and is expounded by it now, yet like Israel, it is subject to that which it written, and cannot add unScriptural doctrine, and is not infallible. And unlike the natural branches, the church is not bound to one particular formal organic union, nor is its authenticity based upon “correct” lineage, but demonstrable Scriptural faith.
If your solution to these problems is to require a prior assent to Rome’s supremacy, as your responses show, as private interpretation is disallowed, then you have nothing. to add.
Yes it is. The actually dispute is not what the Tridentine Fathers were thinking - these being the 25 that voted for it - but whether there was an official infallible definition. As it was yet needed, so it was given.
Once Luther had repudiated Rome and the Councils as overriding authorities, what was left to him as the basis of his theories but Scripture? To be sure, the radicals dispensed even with Scripture, thinking that they Holy Ghost spoke directly to them. but Luther was too much of a traditionalist to do that. Plus he knew so little Greek that he did not know how defective Erasmus’s work was, because his sources were inferior.
By “unscriptural,” I assume you mean that which contradicts Scripture. How does praying to Mary or angels contradict Scripture? Praying to either is a form of asking them to pray for us as we would ask a friend to pray for us.
The attempt to sanction praying to saints in glory is based upon the lack of a specific condemnation of it, and an appeal to communication in the earthly realm, as well to motive and pathos. However, this is the type of exegesis which homosexuals attempt, namely, that even if the Bible only establishes one type of sanctified union, then it does not mean God excludes another, even if He condemns broadly condemns it in type. They also invoke equality in spiritual relations (Col. 3:28) to negate physical distinctions, and suppose that motive sanctifies a basic practice which is never established as approved.
In examining the issue of praying to departed believers (saints), we see that,
1. the Bible broadly condemns forms of seeking contact with the dead, (Lev. 19:31; 20:6-7,27; Dt. 18:10,11; Isaiah 8:19) (which is why Saul had to go to a witch to do so. (1Sam, 28:6,7)
Those who do demand an explicit specific injunction against a practice which is only sanctioned with one particular type of object could also sanction things such as consensual cannibalism as a practice. (Gn. 9:2,3) While certain distinctions may be made versus regards necromancy and the like, such as that the ultimate object of praying to saints in Heaven is God, versus demons, we also see that,
2. the only object of prayer in the Bible - and there are a lot of prayers in the Bible - (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/BIBLE-PRAYERS.html) is God, the Father and the Son, and in no place is praying to anyone else sanctioned or exampled. The Lord’s own instruction on prayer set forth the Father as its object,
“And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name..., (Lk. 11:2) “when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father” (Mt. 6:6) He further clearly establishes that only through Him can men come to the Father, (Jn. 14:6) and in so doing men are to salvifically call upon Christ, (Rm. 10:12,13; Joel 2:32) and pray and give thanks. (Acts 7:59; Rm. 1:8; 1Cor. 1:2; Eph. 2:18)
3. The sufficiency of God as the Object of prayer is due to Divine incommunicable attributes, that of His omniscience, and also in the case of Christ, His being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Jesus Christ is singularly exalted as man’s ceaseless and always available intercessor, (Heb. 4:14-16; 7:25) who declares He stands at the door of one’s heart, to come in and commune with man. (Rev. 3:20) This is written to a church which should be looking for compassion, yet neither here nor in any other place is it even intimated that men should not or cannot come directly to Christ in prayer who is set forth as man’s only heavenly intercessor. (1Tim. 2:5)
4. Praying to humans in Heaven, who are expected to be able to hear billions of prayers at once, ascribes attributes of Divinity to them, and also infers that either God needs help in this business, and or that they are more able intercessors. The latter is especially what is conveyed in exhortations to come to Mary, but who was not “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin”, nor is omniscience ascribed to such.
As for equating such petitioning with earthly relations, this analogy is problematic, as this presumes a degree of correspondence btwn humans relations in the physical earthly realm and that of the spiritual realm, but in which there are critical distinctions, as what is ordained for for relations btwn humans in the physical realm does not necessarily apply to the spiritual realm, as in marriage. (Mt. 22:29,30).
Also, communication btwn humans on earth, such as in asking for help, is not to be done directly between them by means which are purely spiritual or telepathic (ESP), which is God’s realm - and that of the devil - but articulate communication is to be restricted to the use of human means (words, body language, senses) which God has ordained.
In contrast, spiritual prayer communication to the spiritual realm of Heaven is sanctioned, but again, only to God in Heaven. There is simply no need at all to pray to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord, nor sanction or even one example for praying to anything but Him - an conspicuous omission by the Holy Spirit and an inconceivable one if such a basic practice for which sanction is presumed - thus no warrant to sanctify what was a pagan practice. This evidences an accommodation of paganism, and an exaltation of men above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6) and which impugns th full honor due to Christ.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Hebrews 4:14-16 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. (15) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (16) Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Hebrews 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Psa 62:8 Trust in him at all times; ye people, pour out your heart before him: God is a refuge for us. Selah.
Isa 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:
Homosexuality is explicitly condemned by Paul, so that is hardly a good comparison. As far as silences are concerned, the New Testament is little concerned with many differences between certain Catholic and Protestant practices. Almost impossible to settle them by references to the text alone. Paul’s letters tell us that there were differences between Christians that were not spelled out. 2nd Corinthians is an example of how hard it is to interpret Scripture in part because the authors were writing for an audience that knew exactly what they were talking about and we don’t. Easier to interpret “Romans” than the letters to the Church in Corinth, because the former is addressed to people Paul has not met and takes the form of some something like a theological treatise. The latter, however, have to do with conflicts between Paul and others. We can get into the issues but only so far, because we don’t know the parties to the controversies.
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.