Actually, as the Bible reveals what this promise was, this is not a solid reference for proving that the Word of God includes revelation today that is outside the Bible.
Does it, indeed?
So you would have us ignore the obvious conclusion sitting right before us: that is, that the Holy Spirit is teaching us through this scripture "The Word of God" CANNOT be synonymous with the canon of scripture, to reach across the table for the much more "solid" teaching that inclusion of this narrative actually "weakens" that idea?
Who are you, Janet Napolitano? Your interpretive system "works" because it totally ignores the actual text of the scripture?
Look, I understand you feel like you've been ill-served by the Catholic Church, and I'm not saying you haven't been, but is that justification for embracing absolutely ludicrous interpretations so long as they inveigh against the Catholic claim to authority?
Honestly, don't you think you should at least find out what Catholics have to say about Protestant claims before you present those claims like Moses coming down the mountain?
I mean look at what you're quoting, man:
"Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture."
Don't you see what meaningless drivel this is? It's an utter tautology! "Tall people are taller than short people, because of their height!" "Everything you need to know is either explicit or implicit!" "The only directions you need are 'right or left!'"
For Pete's sake, you SS guys can't even agree on the role and doctrine of baptism. And if you believe Hebrews 6:2, where do you get off presuming to teach?
I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to refute every point of your blitzkrieg: but I could. I'm telling you as someone who has been in your shoes. If you will actually listen to what Catholics have to say about scripture instead of what Protestants have to say about Catholics, you will find it makes MORE sense, not less.
You certainly won't get any of that dopey "petra, petras" nonsense reformation "scholars" have been selling to get away from the clear and obvious meaning of Matt 16:18. Nonsense which by-the-way is thouroughly debunked by no less than D.A.Carson!
No, he doesn't endorse the obvious meaning, but he does put to rest the "little stone" theory, which is the lingustic equivalent of claiming "butterflies" have something to do with "flies" and "butter."
>Ah, I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the morning... So you would have us ignore the obvious conclusion sitting right before us: that is, that the Holy Spirit is teaching us through this scripture “The Word of God” CANNOT be synonymous with the canon of scripture, to reach across the table for the much more “solid” teaching that inclusion of this narrative actually “weakens” that idea?
Who are you, Janet Napolitano? Your interpretive system “works” because it totally ignores the actual text of the scripture?<
PT, as foremost SS apologists state, SS does not deny an oral stage, and the fact is that the “Word of God” or “the Word of the Lord” can refer to Scripture, and thus by extension, its complete compilation, and it is you that is ignoring things if you contend otherwise, as it is clear that the Word of God/of the Lord can specifically refer to the Scriptures, and in fact, it can used be in contrast with tradition! (Mk. 7:10-13; etc.)
What the Holy Spirit does teach in Lk. 2:26 (which is similar to Jer 32:8) and around 200 other places, is that the Word of God, as regards specific revelation given to persons, especially prophets, subsequently became part of scripture as the norm. (search “the word of the Lord” if you want proof) As one whom you claim for your own stated, “We have received the disposition of our salvation by no others, but those by whom the Gospel came to us; which they then preached, and afterwards by God’s will delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and ground of our faith. — St. Irenaeus, Lib. III. c. 1
Broadly speaking, the word of God” also can be used for general preaching of the gospel, (Acts 8:4) and for apostolic instruction, (2Thes. 2:15) though it cannot be established that such truth was not revealed in Scripture, and i find no examples where inspired apostolic “oral revelation” (tradition) differed from Scripture.
If you had said that the Word of God” cannot ALWAYS be said to be refer to Scripture then that would be another case, but apparently your interpretative system of me works because you ignore what i say, or you failed to comprehended that i do not limit God’s revelation to the Scriptures, but that all other revelation claiming to be such, when it is made known, from the RC’s to the Mormons to Muhammad’s, is subject to testing by that codified body of revelation which is affirmed to contain that which is wholly “breathed” of God. In contrast to this is “sola ecclesia,” in which a particular church proclaims it the supreme and infallible authority, if they do say so themselves. History testifies when that happens both the souls are well as the bodies of good men are in danger.
But if you are going to make church tradition equal to the Scriptures, then you will have to do better than Lk. 2:26, and prove apostolic authority to add to the canon. But the apostles and writers who did add to the Scriptures as they then existed, did not add traditions which are unsupported by Scripture, or are demonstrably contrary to it, and thus Christ alone is exalted as the Heavenly intercessor, and the head pastorate was not restricted to those who have the gift of celibacy, etc.
Honestly, don’t you think you should at least find out what Catholics have to say about Protestant claims before you present those claims like Moses coming down the mountain?<
Eloquent, but honestly, my reasons for not embracing the claims of Rome are because its makes critical claims that are critically unwarranted, and its gospel is not salvific, though a few who see past the institutionalized trappings and truly become born again. But as i seek to test all that body of revelation which is assured to be infallible, i also reject some beliefs of some Protestants.
As far as what Catholics have to say about Protestant claims, such apologetical responses can vary somewhat, and i do address them when engaging with those who promote them. I also respond to official Catholic reactions to challenges to her doctrine, such as Trents, though these themselves are subject to some degree of interpretation by Roman apologists. Yet, as pointed out before, it is not simply what an entity teaches that must be considered as representing what it teaches, but what it effectually conveys.
The Inquisitors would be shocked to see what is allowed to pass for Roman Catholicism today, though theocracies, Catholic or Puritan, ruling over those without, or the use of carnal force by the church to discipline its members in spiritual matter has no real support under the New Covenant, unless you want to try to extrapolate that out of Lk. 22:38, as some apologists attempt. The apostles would not threaten men like Galileo with physical torture by the church to reveal their supposedly ulterior motives. The Pope’s optional use of two swords is patterned after the empire in which it was birthed, resulting in a type of a Caesario-Papacy, even as Boniface VIII claimed it was.
Moreover, as regards responses, due to the lack of more comprehensive infallible defined teaching, Rome’s approved (stamped) as well as more unrestrained writers can go beyond what is written in both Scripture and in official decrees, including making Mary Co-Redemptrix and ascribing thousands of devotional titles to her. Even today i heard a national Catholic teacher, John Corapi, declare that Mary even chastens wayward believers!
Such extrapolations of the extent of Mary’s virtues go beyond that which is written, as if the Holy Spirit was negligent to mention her or other departed saints when dealing with our heavenly object of prayer.
By no means, as it makes a warranted distinction between the supremacy and material (not formal) sufficiency of Scripture versus what Vatican 2 (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation , par.9, 10, 21, p. 117, 125) stated, that “it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed”, but holds that her nebulous sacred church tradition, “hands on in its full purity God’s word”, and which has resulted in such new found things as praying to other beings in Heaven but the LORD, which, among other certain beliefs, has no real Scriptural support, but doctrinally depends upon implicit trust in Rome’s self-proclaimed ecclesiastical authority.
Yet, as said before, SS does not disallow tradition or teachers, but their teaching is subject to proof by the Scriptures which provides for them. as Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie state,
The Bible has perspicuity apart from any traditions to help us understand it. As stated above, and contrary to a rather
wide misunderstanding by Catholics, perspicuity does not mean that everything in the Bible is absolutely clear but that the main message is clear. That is, all doctrines essential for salvation and living according to the will of God are sufficiently clear. http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf
While one Catholic apologist likes to say, “we are not taught by a teacher without a book or by a book without a teacher, but by one teacher, the Church, with one book, Scripture”, yet the disciple is not above his master, (Mt. 10:24) and the church itself is taught by the certain immutable, tangible and affirmed-infallible Word, which true-hearted souls are called noble for checking things by, and the church draws from and passes on teaching that is proven by Scripture, not that which contradicts it or adds unwarranted doctrines.
While “you guys” wrongly supposes that I represent or defend all you may label Protestant, the ones i would commend more at least hold that baptism is commanded, and recognize that the word here is not your singular baptism, but plural, as Scripture reveals that there is more than one baptism, one type being of the Spirit in placing one in the church, 1Cor. 12:13) and that which is done physically (Acts 8:38), with the possibility of a “second blessing” or baptism with the Spirit as well, (Acts 1:8; 8:17; Gal. 3:5), though all can take place at conversion. (Acts 2:38; 10:44,45)
However, the premise behind your question is that Protestantism is to be treated as a monolithic institution, and since there is disunity among them then no one in them has authority to teach. Yet you only ascribe authority to a single church based upon its internal agreement on this issue, regardless if its self-proclaimed infallibly declared teaching can withstand Scriptural scrutiny. But if Rome can assert the right to teach based upon her internal agreement, so can another church which professes the same unity.
The Roman church will appeal to apostolic succession and history in response, but to do so it must fulfill the criteria for apostolic succession, that of seeing the LORD and being personally discipled by Him, (Acts 1:21,22, 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:12,16,17) with characteristic supernatural signs and wonders, and not suppose that the authenticity of the ecclesiastic is like that which the Pharisees and Sadducees supposed, and that God could not raise up children to God from stones (cf. Mt. 3:9), and a church from a stone like Peter, who places his faith in the Rock of offense, (1Pet. 2:8) as it is manifestly upon Him that the church is most essentially founded and built upon. (1Cor. 3:11)
Moreover, as the New Testament does not sanction a person like Caiaphas even as a member of the church (search sexual active popes), then well over a centuries worth of ecclesiastical “papal progeny” are illegitimate, based upon morals alone, and such were not simply momentary uncharacteristic failures such as sanctified Peter was reproved for as recorded in Gal. 2.
Part two:
>I don’t have the time, nor the inclination, to refute every point of your blitzkrieg: but I could. I’m telling you as someone who has been in your shoes. If you will actually listen to what Catholics have to say about scripture instead of what Protestants have to say about Catholics, you will find it makes MORE sense, not less.<
Pt, while i admit my tendency toward rather extended responses, it is you who pressed me to respond to your proof text, but you have failed to refute my position on SS by such, blithe dismissals and sarcasm notwithstanding.
As for your personal appeal here, I do not think your shoe fits, and I have seen both realms myself, in opposite order (if i understand your story correctly). Also, despite your previous charge, I am not blindly following persons, and in the fear of God i have examined whether even cardinal doctrines such as the Deity of Christ were warranted, and having found such are, thus i can make my defense of such. It is such proof that i expect for major doctrines, while allowing a limited amount of debate within a limited amount of the Bible, insomuch as comparing Scripture with Scripture allows it.
My experience does show that there are sometimes misrepresentations of doctrine on both sides of the Roman Catholic Protestant debate, and i do seek to seek to substantiate what is taught. I can acknowledge validity, or degrees thereof, or weaknesses of arguments on both sides, though the required devotion to Rome seems to disallow some Roman Catholics from doing that as regards their own. I go further than most Evangelicals countering Catholics in upholding the primacy of Peter, though not as the demi-god the Pope historically has been. And while i find little warrant for the perpetuation of his office, much less as being substantiated by Rome’s claim to historical validity, and although I see God still building his church using stones like Peter, as pastors who effectually confess Jesus as who He is, yet I see the warrant and viability of a broader general ecclesiastical authority, with its validity based upon purity, power and Scriptural probity as regards the most essential salvific doctrines. If Rome had relied on such, rather than it often using the Sword and or politics, its line of popes papacy would have long ago been more disrupted than even her problematic line of continuity already evidences.
I also do not see everything i disagree with Rome as being equally critical (i would allow some could believe in transubstantiation, by itself, and yet be born again) but as expressed before, the main issue is a gospel which even allows, by official teaching and or by effectual conveyance, souls to rely on the merit of their works or the power of their church for salvation, which is more appealing to man and which Rome does support and fosters, rather than abasing themselves before God as sinners utterly destitute of any merit for eternal life, but fully worthy of eternal damnation, and so with a poor and contrite call upon the sinless LORD Jesus to save them, whole-heartedly believing that He will do so, by faith in Him who died and rose for them, and thus follow Him. The nature of man, as religions show, is to believe God will grant them deliverance from Hell eternal life on the basis of some merit of their works and sacrifices, and or that of religious affiliation (as well as presuming that God will forgive with a less than perfect sacrifice), rather than abasing themselves as sinners who have neither, and exalt God as only holy and just, and so cast all their faith in the one whose sacrifice He accepts, and are thus justified by faith, trusting God to do what they are incapable of doing. Unless preaching works to convict souls of this condition and need, infant baptism notwithstanding, and offers no escape other than honest divestiture of any hope of heaven on any merit of their own (including by God’s grace), and utter faith-dependance upon Christ and His blood, then souls will accept any soteriology which allows them to escape such abasement and its surrender, and instead feel that to some degree they can merit eternal life with God. Both explicit statements and examples from the thief on the cross to the penitent publican show otherwise.
As far as sense is concerned, the main argument of Roman Catholic apologists is that one must assent to Rome in order to be assured of doctrinal proof, and to have assured salvation (or even to be saved, as Unam Sanctum requires) as “private judgment” (Acts 17:11) simply will not do, and results in more divisions (greatly inflated) than titles for Mary. However, this requires relying on ones own own fallible private judgment that Rome is what she claims to be, having judged herself worthy of such, while the principle of relying on an infallible-type interpreter of Scripture for truth has resulted in a great number of destructive religious cults. While the latter means usually does result in a greater type of unity, the quality of such is inferior to that which is a result of judging claims of truth based most supremely upon that which is affirmed to be wholly inspired by the Spirit of truth, (2Tim. 3:16)
In addition, and to reiterate, i find it dangerous to place such faith in an institution whose basis for authority is that it claimed, in a certain form, that it is infallible, when it makes a claim in a certain form, which fits the formula by which it declared itself infallible, and by such denies that no other interpretation regarding texts used for its doctrine of infallibility can be right; especially when that institution is the Roman Catholic Institution, whose teachings often much depend upon this decree, and on equating unwritten truths about faith and morals with Scripture, rather than evident Scriptural warrant.
In contrast, I see the apostles appealing to private judgment (1Cor. 10:15; 2Cor. 4:2; 1Thes. 5:21) in the light of Scripture, (Acts 2:14-35; 7; 10:43; 17:2; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 3;4; Heb. 1ff; etc.), as well as natural revelation, (Acts 41:15-17; 17:25) and supernatural attestation, (Acts 2:22,33; 10:38; 2Cor. 12:12) in seeking to convince souls. In such preaching, appeal to any authority of themselves was limited to their having actually been with, seen and taught by the resurrected LORD, (Acts 10:39-41; 22:14; 1Cor. 9:1, Gal. 1:15-17; 1Jn. 1:1) with overt (usually) supernatural testimony being an accompanying characteristic (Acts 4:3; Rm. 15:18,19; 2Cor. 12:12 ) Once their authority was established by the above, obedience to their Scripturally-based judgment was enjoined, (1Cor. 11) and which authority was substantiated, again, by purity, doctrinal integrity, and supernatural power. (2Cor. 6:1-10) “For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. “ (1Cor. 4:20, cf. v. 21; 5:1-5; 2Cor. 13:3,4)
Many whom you count as fathers expressed words exalting the supremacy of Scripture in determining truth (whether they rightly did so may be contested), which is not to the exclusion of church authority and teaching, but that such must be tested by Scripture, even if that may allow some disagreement in some areas.
...would it not be a folly rashly and blindly to receive the opinions of others, when we have a rule by which we can examine everything? I mean the Divine law. It is for this reason that I conjure you all, without resting in the slightest degree on the judgment of others, to consult the Scriptures. — St. John Chrysostom c. 347-407, (Homil. xiii. in 2 Cor.)
“Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast.” — St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)
“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” — St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).
The holy and divinely inspired writings are sufficient of themselves alone to make known the) truth. — St. Athanasius 296-373, (Orat. Contr. Gent. Tom. I
If you desire a new quotation, if you pretend to affirm anything besides what is written, why do you dispute with us, who are resolved to hear nothing, and to say nothing, besides what is written? - St. Athanasius, (De Incarn. Chr.)
In the Holy Scriptures alone is the instruction of religion announced—to which let no man add, from which let no man detract—which are sufficient in themselves for the enunciation of the truth. — St. Athanasius (adv. Gentes init.)
More here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html
In short, Rome’s appeal to implicitly trust and submit to her as man’s infallible guide does make sense if that is the kind of unity the Bible promotes, and the means by which truth is assured. However, it does not make sense if the Bible reproves those who presumed to such power, (Mt. 15:3-6) and shows souls being gained as they were convinced of truth due to its Scriptural integrity, and testified to by supernatural means, rather than implicit trust in men, with history testifying to negative effects of holding men above the Bible. (1Cor. 4:6) And again, which effects have been far more destructive to both soul and body than divisions among evangelicals, who essentially preach the same gospel of regeneration.
Moreover, while divisions are an unfortunate if sometimes necessary (1Cor. 11:19) reality, evangelical Protestants are in broad agreement as concerns the truths expressed in the Apostles Creed (catholic being universal), that of God being the Creator, the trinitarian view of the Godhead, the Deity of Christ, His virgin birth, death, burial and the resurrection (which infers the forgiveness of sins thereby), Christ’s ascension and second coming, and life after death. Studies also show their flocks typically indicate a greater unity on basic doctrinal issues than Catholics. They support a vast network of evangelical ministries, from Calvary Chapels to John MacArthur, who hold to the aforementioned basics, and which preach the basic evangelical gospel of grace through faith.
As for disagreements resulting from SS, division because of commitment to the truth is superior to unity based on error, and many good things have their dangers, from free will to invoking miracles for Divine attestation. Yet the right application of sola Scriptura, which requires obedience to revealed truth, has helped to strengthen the aforementioned basic unity across various denominations, as well as result in evangelicals being among or the foremost apologists against errors and anti-Christ arguments (and which are usually the result of a church being over the Bible).
As for the acclaimed unity of Rome, this is more limited than it may appear, and is largely a paper unity, as first, little of the Bible has been infallibly defined, and no infallible list of all such is even available, and second, it is easily substantiated that there are diversity of viewpoints among both Catholic clergy and laity alike, even as concerns cardinal doctrines. The difference is Roman Catholics can hold to such and remain in Rome, with actual discipline being rarely exercised. While this is also true in evangelicals today, it is shown to be more widespread in Catholicism.
It should also be recognized that just as evangelicals have historically rejected those who deny basic tenets of faith which are generally universally held, so the dogmas of Rome’s infallible Sacred Magisterium require an assent of faith, with the opposite being heresy. And while evangelicals have also typically allowed some degree of disagreement in non-salvific areas, so also the teachings of the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium may allow for a limited amount of dissent, while those of the General Magisterium may include the possibility of significant error. http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/assent-dissent.htm
>actually listen to what Catholics have to say about Scripture...<
I do listen as engaged, and do some research, and while not being a really seasoned debater, i have been in a few extended email debates with others, including one who is now has a show a radio station. The latter focused on but could not Scripturally substantiate annulments according to Rome’s criteria, or her singular power to bind or loose marital bonds (her also prays he might be one of the two prophets in Rev., as that is not infallibly defined), while the former did not want to discuss the warrant of Scripture, but it came down to him requiring of me prior assent that Rome is infallible in order to be assured of salvific truth, (rather than the need for truth being demonstrated by the infallible Scriptures).
I was aware such exist, and i am sure it is heartening to find an evangelical who agrees with you, just as it is when Protestants see Rome asserting, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”’ (Roman Catholic Catechism, pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424). While the latter does not deny the former, it is in conformity with some church fathers, while the idea of an infallible pope was even farther from unanimous.
Without entering into the debate about the Greek, or the Greek vs the Aramaic which RC’s attempt, if the clear and obvious meaning of Matt 16:18 is as Rome supposes, then, as with other major doctrines - and the perpetuated Petrine papacy is a most major doctrine – then we must expect to see clear substantiation for this, in which there is not real alternative interpretation. But while the Scriptures abundantly testifies that Christ is the stone and rock upon which the church is built, by faith in Him which Peter confessed, and by such it overcomes, and while Peter’s brethren-type pastoral role (Jn. 21:15-19; 1Pt. 1:1) itself should not be in dispute, yet both the type of papacy which Rome depends upon, as well a its perpetuity, critically fails substantiation, especially in the light of the preeminence of Rome’s doctrine concerning it.
In no place - even in the church epistles where it would be expected - do we see even one command given to the church universal to submit to Peter as it’s supreme head, and outside 1+2 Peter, he is only mentioned in 2 of the letters to the churches (1 Cor. and Gal.), not even in the extensive lists of Paul’s friends in Rome. (cp. 16) Peter is also absent in the Spirit’s word to the churches in Revelation. Nor does Peter ever refer to himself as anything greater than “an elder“, “a” servant and “an” apostle and “an” elder (1 Pt. 1:1; 5:1; 2 Pt. 2:1).
Nor is there one example of the churches looking to Peter as an infallible pope. Acts 15, in which Scriptural and testimonial warrant for a matter of church disciple was established, is often cited in support of a supreme and infallible Peter over all, yet while Peter’s testimony was a key, as he was the first apostle to employ the means of entrance into the kingdom for Gentiles, (Acts 10) and while he affirmed what Paul in particular had communicated and was preaching, (Acts 13,14; Gal. 2:1,2) yet is was James who not only doctrinally concurred and added to Peter’s words, it, but who gave the declarative sentence on its application. This event, nor Paul’s words in Gal. 2 concerning James, Peter and John, in that order, does not convey the demigod status which Rome affords its “supreme Pontiff,” over both the spiritual and temporal realm.
Other texts regarding the Biblical Peter reveal him to be married (1 Cor. 9:5), a poor man (Acts 3:6), and one who would not allow the manner of obeisance (Act 10:25, 26) or royal opulence which has been typical the Romish papacy, but is more worldly than Christ-like. (Benny Hinn, etc., take note also.)
In critical addition, while the Holy Spirit makes clear provision for a successor to no less than Judas, and provides explicit instructions on the ordination of bishop/elders, not such provision or instructions are given for a successor to Peter.
Correction: “it makes a warranted distinction between the supremacy and material (not formal) sufficiency of Scripture” should be changed to “formal and material sufficiency” of Scripture, both of which Reformationists held to, with material sufficiency providing for gifts and teachers, who teach doctrine and make judgments that are truly Scripturally substantiated, versus what Rome has come to include in its idea of moral sufficiency, that of doctrine and practices which are dependent on the power of Rome to make unwarranted extraBiblical traditions equal to Scripture. The statement you object to makes this historic distinction, regardless of RC claims to be consistent with Scripture.
The definition of the theological terms formal and material sufficiency can vary somewhat in interpretation, nor have they been infallibly defined by Rome.
Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis asserts that “Formal sufficiency requires that doctrine be formulated only from explicit statements in Scripture,” yet the Westminster Confession states that “the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture [materially provided] or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture [formally sufficient];
I agree that that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture, but not that only the Bible is needed for full growth in grace. While a soul can now be saved by simply reading the same recorded salvation messages by which souls were saved in Acts (Semi-Formal Sufficiency or SFS) as the Spirit of Truth convicts and illuminates them, yet, as i have basically affirmed before, the church was and is commissioned and needed to both instrumentally share that truth and enable growing grace. (Rm. 10:14; 1Cor. 12)
The key contention remains to be the basis for ecclesiastical authenticity; whether historical lineage, however problematic, of an autocratic authority which validates itself by essentially printing its own money, or that which must relying on providing substantiation of Biblically demonstrable faith, relying most supremely upon the only affirmed Divinely written and tangible authority.