Posted on 07/11/2010 10:58:32 AM PDT by NYer
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
According to most Evangelicals, a Christian needs only to believe those teachings found in Scripture (a.k.a. the Bible). For these Christians, there is no need for Apostolic Tradition or an authoritative teaching Church. For them the Bible is sufficient for learning about the faith and living a Christian life. In order to be consistent, they claim that this "By Scripture Alone" (sola Scriptura) teaching is found in Scripture, especially St. Paul's Letters.
The passage most frequently used to support the Scripture-Alone belief is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. St. Paul writes:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect (complete, adequate, competent), equipped for every good work. [2 Tim. 3:16-17, RSV]
According to those that hold this belief, Scripture is sufficient since it is "profitable for teaching" and makes a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." On closer examination though, it becomes apparent that these verses still do not prove this teaching.
Verse 16 states a fundamental Christian doctrine. Scripture is "inspired by God" and "profitable for teaching" the faith. The Catholic Church teaches this doctrine (CCC 101-108). But this verse does not demonstrate the sufficiency of Scripture in teaching the faith. As an example, vitamins are profitable, even necessary, for good health but not sufficient. If someone ate only vitamins, he would starve to death. Likewise, Sacred Scripture is very important in learning about the Christian faith, but it does not exclude Sacred Tradition or a teaching Church as other sources concerning the faith.
St. Paul in verse 17 states that Scripture can make a Christian "perfect, equipped for every good work." In this verse he is once again stressing the importance of Sacred Scripture. In similar fashion, the proverb, "practice makes perfect," stresses the importance of practice but does not imply that practice alone is sufficient in mastering a skill. Practice is very important, but it presumes a basic know-how. In sports, practice presupposes basic knowledge of the game rules, aptitude and good health. Elsewhere in Scripture, "steadfastness" is said to make a Christian "perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." [James 1:4] Even though the language (both English and Greek) in this verse is stronger, no one claims that steadfastness alone is enough for Christian growth. Faith, prayer and God's grace are also needed. Likewise in verse 17, St. Paul presumes God's grace, Timothy's faith and Sacred Tradition (2 Tim. 3:14-15).
Verses 16-17 must be read in context. Only two verses earlier, St. Paul also writes:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it... [2 Tim. 3:14]
Here St. Paul suggests Tradition. Notice that Paul did not write, "knowing from which Scripture passage you learned it" but instead he writes, "knowing from whom you learned it." He is implying with the "whom" himself and the other Apostles. Earlier in the same letter, St. Paul actually defines and commands Apostolic Tradition - "what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." [2 Tim. 2:2] Also if St. Paul were truly teaching the sufficiency of Scripture, verse 15 would have been a golden opportunity to list the Books of Scripture, or at least give the "official" Table of Content for the Old Testament. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition:
...and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings (a.k.a. Scripture) which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [2 Tim. 3:15, RSV]
Even though profitable in instructing for salvation (but not sufficient), St. Paul still does not list which Books. He also does not suggest personal taste or opinion as Timothy's guide. Instead Paul relies on Timothy's childhood tradition to define the contents of Scripture. Verses 14-15 show that verses 16-17 presuppose Tradition.
Verse 15 brings up the problem of canonicity, i.e. which Books belong in Scripture? Through the centuries the Books of Scripture were written independently along with other religious books. There were smaller collections of Books, e.g. The Books of Moses (Torah), that were used in Synagogues. The largest collection was the Greek Septuagint which the New Testament writers most often cited. St. Paul in verse 15 probably referred to the Septuagint as Scripture. Only after the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the 4th century A.D. were all of the Books of Scripture (both Old and New Testaments) compiled together under one cover to form "the Bible." Already in Jesus' time, the question of which Books are Scripture, was hotly debated. As an example, Esther and the Song of Solomon were not accepted by all as Scripture during Jesus' day. The source of the problem is that no where in the Sacred Writings are the Books completely and clearly listed. Sacred Scripture does not define its contents. St. Paul could have eliminated the problem of canonicity by listing the Books of Scripture (at least the Old Testament) in his Letters, but did not. Instead the Church had to discern with the aid of Sacred Tradition (CCC 120). Canonicity is a major problem for the Scripture-Alone teaching.
As a final point, verse 15 suggests only the Old Testament as Scripture since the New Testament was written after Timothy's childhood. Taken in context, verses 16-17 apply only to the Old Testament. "All Scripture" simply means all of the Old Testament. If verses 16-17 were to prove that Scripture is enough for Christians, then verse 15 would prove that the Old Testament is enough!
Some Christians may cite 1 Corthinians 4:6 as more proof for the Scripture-Alone belief:
I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favour of one against another. [1 Cor. 4:6, RSV]
This verse does not condemn Sacred Tradition but warns against reading-between-the-lines in Scripture. The Corinthians had a problem of reading more into the Scripture text than what was actually there. The main question with this verse is which Sacred Writings are being referred to here? Martin Luther and John Calvin thought it may refer only to earlier cited Old Testament passages (1 Cor. 1:19, 31; 2:9 & 3:19-20) and not the entire Old Testament. Calvin thought that Paul may also be referring to the Epistle Itself. The present tense of the clause, "beyond what is written" excludes parts of the New Testament, since the New Testament was not completely written then. This causes a serious problem for the Scripture-Alone belief and Christians.
Bible verses can be found that show the importance of Sacred Scripture but not Its sufficiency or contents. There are Bible verses that also promote Sacred Tradition. In Mark 7:5-13 (Matt. 15:1-9), Jesus does not condemn all traditions but only those corrupted by the Pharisees. Although 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does not directly call Sacred Tradition the word of God, it does show some form of teachings "by word of mouth" beside Scripture and puts them on the same par as Paul's Letters. Elsewhere the preaching of the Apostles is called the "word of God" (Acts 4:31; 17:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 13:7). The Scripture-Alone theory must assume that the Apostles eventually wrote all of these oral teachings in the New Testament. At least for St. John, this does not seem to be the case (John 21:25; 2 John 12 & 3 John 13-14). Also no Apostle listed in the New Testament which Books belong in Scripture. Now these oral teachings were eventually written down elsewhere to preserve their accuracy, e.g. St. Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, written 96 A.D. (Phil. 4:3) or St. Ignatius' seven letters written 107 A.D. Clement's letter is found in the Codex Alexandrinus (an ancient Bible manuscript) and was even considered by some early Christians to be part of Scripture.
Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are the word of God, while the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." [1 Tim. 3:15] The Holy Spirit through the Church protects Both from corruption. Some Christians may claim that doctrines on Mary are not found in the Bible, but the Scripture-Alone teaching is not found in the Bible. Promoters of Scripture-Alone have a consistency problem, since this is one teaching not found in Scripture.
I don't see the relevance.
JA - don’t make this about me NOR tell me what to do? Got it? .
Please show the post in which I used a straw man argument. I'll wait for your answer. I did accuse another poster of using one in my 356. I stand by that.
ROFL! Being thin-skinned is disruptive. LOL!
So far, the argument remains unanswered...........
Your response is a continuation of insolence. You have been shown, not only by my referencing you to post #80, but arguments expanding upon that, against which have not made one argument against, except to assert that what later became RC doctrine was believed by the N.T., church, which cannot be established, and which i showed is not Scriptural.
You must show how the Scriptures can be the only objective authority which is affirmed to be 100% inspired and God - as 2Tim. 3:16 states, and thus church teaching is shown to conform to it - and not be the supreme doctrinal authority over ecclesiastical executives who whose claim to be infallible, based upon their claim to be infallible, and teach things which depend upon said claim, over demonstrable Scriptural warrant, which the Bible examples. When you do, we can become Pharisees, who presumed like presumption.
Find a passage that teaches, “All teachings of the Roman Catholic church pertaining to faith and morals, when spoken in accordance with a formula they shall infallibly define, will always be infallible.”
Until then, post no more of her absurd unScriptural Pharisaical claims.
If you follow the posts, you will see that is the one I am talking about! It’s an easy task.
I’m off - have PRIORITIES to attend to. Chit-chat about nothing is non productive.
If you ever get time to get back on the thread, please indulge me the easy thing and just show the post where I created a straw man.
To God be the glory who uses unworthy servants and “weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.” (1Cor. 1:27) But how much have we (me) robbed Him of glory by disobedience or lack of faith? There will be tears at the judgment seat of Christ, but which God shall finally wipe away.
Scripture is filled with direct commands from our Lord. All I am asking is for you to show me the one where He tells His disciples to write down His words, compile them into a book and tell people to follow only this book. If, as you claim, that was His intent, then those words, or command, must be in scripture. For example, at the Last Supper:
"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’" (Luke 22:19).
After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21–23).
If anything, in Mark 16:15, Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write. If Jesus intended for His words to be preserved, He would probably have written the text Himself. In Matt. 28:20, Jesus says: "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe, right?
Standing by for the straw man argument that you claim I made. Please simply reference the post number which contains a straw man argument that I made.
I can't seem to find it on my own. Please help me.
It was your responses which i see displaying such.
You have written lengthy treatises to support something that is not in the Bible. I don't have the time or the inclination to sift through these.
The latter is related to the former. Your responses have evidenced ignoring critical parts of what i wrote, which other have testified is quite readable, while failing to respond, or dialogue with, my arguments, while continuing to present new polemics which i refute. Now you require of me what you fail to see, and yet cannot provide the same for your own doctrinal authority.
Scripture is filled with direct commands from our Lord. All I am asking is for you to show me the one where He tells His disciples to write down His words, compile them into a book and tell people to follow only this book. If, as you claim, that was His intent, then those words, or command, must be in scripture.
I see. So it is not enough that the Holy Spirit uniquely establishes Scripture as wholly inspired, and the LORD and His servants invoke it as the supreme objective authority, and that is was the practice of Biblical faith to write what God had spoken, and which was often commanded, (Exo. 17:14; 34,27; Num. 5:23; Deu. 6:9; 10:2; 11:20; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:19; Josh. 24:26; Isa. 8:1; Isa. 30:8; Jer. 36:2; Jer. 36:17; 36:28; Eze. 37:16; 43:11; Joh. 1:45; 1Co. 4:14; 14:37; 2Co. 1:13; 2:9; 9:1; 13:2,10; Gal. 1:20; Php. 3:1; 1Th. 4:9; 1Th. 5:1; 2Th. 3:17; 1Ti. 3:14; 2Pe. 3:1; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13; Jud. 1:3; Rev. 1:11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5) and writings were progressively commanded to obey. (Dt. 27:19; 2Chrn 33:8; 2Thes. 3:14) And again, where does it give the same assurance and supremacy to whatever the Roman church commands according to its formulaic infallibility?
In addition, it is generally assumed that anyone who engages in Biblical interpretation or apologetics understands that there are both explicit commands, as well as precept and principals out of which doctrine is derived. And that texts are not understood in isolation. And if your hermeneutic requires a specific command from Jesus Himself, then you become like pro-homosexual polemicists who assert that Jesus never condemned homosexuality, which is wrong (and which link overall deals much with this interpretive issue) as we see that this is implicitly condemned based upon certain statements on sexual matters.
And if you include the rest of the New Testament, then you likewise have a problem, as in order to preach the gospel and teach all things whatsoever Jesus commanded, then this requires the context of doctrines which are derived from Scripture by demonstrable warrant, such as which enables us to define what constituents a “different Jesus” and gospel. (2Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6-9)
If anything, in Mark 16:15, Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write. If Jesus intended for His words to be preserved, He would probably have written the text Himself. In Matt. 28:20, Jesus says: "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe, right?
“If anything?? Consider the absurdity of this. You basically relegate the practice of recording not only Jesus words and life, but, by extension, those of the rest of the New Testament, to being an after thought, though the writers of it were move by the Holy Spirit of Christ.
In addition, you seem to wrongly believe that SS must reject that there could be revelation that was not recorded, while assuming that “there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe,“ thus validating church tradition, and Rome its supreme magisterium. However, if this were case then the viability of a complete canon is rather superfluous, as it makes an external revelation equal to it (which is a key issue) and there is potentially no end to what could be added from this bottomless trunk of oral tradition. Instead, it is eminently reasonable that leaving such unrecorded is due to it not being needed, as the Bible warns against fables and old wives tales, while in the Scriptures, the sure word of prophecy, believers “are given exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature.” (2Pet. 1:4,16-21)
Moreover, the Scripture materially provides for the church, whose teaching office decompresses the compresses truth of the Scripture, breaking the hay down for the sheep. The key issue being that its authority does not upon its own self-proclaimed infallibility, but upon its ability to provide Scriptural warrant and attestation.
To obey God's written law was to obey His voice, (Ex. 24:7; Dt. 30:10) and was put into the side of the ark (Dt. 31:26) and as it was the same which brought Israel to repentance when it was back slidden, (2Ki. 22,23) and by which law doctrine was tested for by conformity, (Is. 8:40) and and it was by which Jesus used to rebuke both the devil (Mt. 4:4-10) and the Pharisees and the like, (Mt. 15:3-9; 22) and by the Scriptures the apostle's doctrine itself was tested by, (Acts 17:11) and church teaching substantiated, (Acts 15) and it is the Scriptures which the unlearned and unstable wrest unto their own destruction,” and as Paul said, “the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord” (1Cor., 14:37, then it is and remains the standard by
This and more testifies to the supremacy of Scripture, it being easily established to be the objective authority which is singularly affirmed to be plenary inspired of God, and and its authority being uniquely invoked over that of the Jewish magisterium itself, with no like affirmation for all that proceeds out of Rome in accordance and based upon its structural and contextual formula.
I don't have the time or the inclination to sift through these.
You posted a very lengthy article attacking SS, yet are not willing to defend it by properly reading and responding to articulate responses which reprove it, while what you have been provided is shown to rely upon manifestly fallacious premises.
May God grant you repentance unto the acknowledging of the truth. Good night.
Aww, what a shame.You have been shown, not only by my referencing you to post #80, but arguments expanding upon that, against which have not made one argument against, except to assert that what later became RC doctrine was believed by the N.T., church, which cannot be established, and which i showed is not Scriptural.
Which came first, the Church or the Scripture?
You must show how the Scriptures can be the only objective authority which is affirmed to be 100% inspired and God - as 2Tim. 3:16 states, and thus church teaching is shown to conform to it - and not be the supreme doctrinal authority over ecclesiastical executives who whose claim to be infallible, based upon their claim to be infallible, and teach things which depend upon said claim, over demonstrable Scriptural warrant, which the Bible examples.
After wandering through this spaghetti maze, I must arrive at the conclusion that since the Church wrote and chose Scripture under the authority of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the Church is the only authority to interpret it. Not any individual men.
Find a passage that teaches, “All teachings of the Roman Catholic church pertaining to faith and morals, when spoken in accordance with a formula they shall infallibly define, will always be infallible.”
Sacred Scripture itself makes it very clear that when even the most sincere believers are left to themselves without a guiding authority, they will wander off into error.
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--not that there is a different gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that whch we preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-8)
``So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.'' (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths. (2 Tim 4:3-4)
The Church is Christ's body and, as with any other body, each member has his own role in the growth and well-being of the whole: Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. (1 Corinthians 12:27-31; cf. Ephesians 4:1-6, 15-16)
In the earliest history of the Church, there was not a clear distinction between bishops and priests as there is in the modern Church; this developed a little later.
Timothy and Titus were two of the ``overseers'' St. Paul appointed to help him govern the Churches and to them he wrote his `pastoral epistles' on how best to care for their respective charges.
``O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.'' (1 Tim 6:20)
Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17)
Jesus established Peter as the head of the college of Apostles.
Matthew 16 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare'a Philip'pi, he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli'jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
Some object that the rock on which Jesus will build his Church is not Peter (Latin for rock) based on the use of two different Greek words for rock. The problem with this objection is that the Greek is itself a translation: the original words of our Lord were most likely in Aramaic, in which there is only one word for rock. St. Paul has preserved the original word he used: cephas (cf. 1 Cor 15:5).
This is Scriptural evidence. What evidence exists for such as Luther (wealth and luxury), Calvin (power and control) or Zwingli (juvenile and crazy)>
Strange that you would choose this as your proof. Read a few scriptures down. "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me IS NOT AFTER MAN. FOR I NEITHER RECEIVED IT OF MAN, NEITHER WAS I TAUGHT IT, BUT BY THE REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST." (Gal. 1:11,12).
Seems Paul preached a gospel that he wasn't taught by Peter and the 11. The gospel Paul taught was by REVELATION of Jesus Christ.
I'm fairly certain by now you know the gospel Paul preached. Go to Gal. 1:7. It was the gospel of the circumcision. And what did it say?
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast." (Eph.2:8,9).
Paul was warning those who were CALLED INTO THE GRACE OF CHRIST not to be turned unto another gospel. Perhaps a gospel of works for salvation. which would be a perversion of the GOSPEL OF GRACE.
Hey, wait a minute! Maybe YOUR works based gospel of the Catholic Church was the GOSPEL PAUL WAS WARNING AGAINST! Wow, let him be accursed, Paul says, who would pervert the Grace of God into the Works of Men. Hmmmmm....
Very good. Paul received it from Jesus and passed it on with instructions not to deviate from it. The big question is why the children of the Reformation feel free to deviate from the message of Jesus and His Church (of which Paul was a big part) with impunity?
Seems Paul preached a gospel that he wasn't taught by Peter and the 11. The gospel Paul taught was by REVELATION of Jesus Christ.
Really? Are you now saying that you are a Paulician and not a Christian? Paulicians (in various incarnations) were declared heretics by the Church numerous times during the First Millennium. Are you calling yourself a heretic?
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God; NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast." (Eph.2:8,9).
And you wacky Paulicians always leave off Ephesians 2:10
10 For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.
We should live in good works? Horrors!!! That would mean that Gandhi is saved ahead of 99% of all self described Christians.
But what of Philippians 2: 12 10 11 So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. 12 13 For God is the one who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work. 14 Do everything without grumbling or questioning, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, 13 among whom you shine like lights in the world, 16 as you hold on to the word of life, so that my boast for the day of Christ may be that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.
If you have no Christ, you are not saved. If you have Christ but no works, your salvation is lost. If Paul is worried about his labour, shouldn't every Christian be?
Hey, wait a minute! Maybe YOUR works based gospel of the Catholic Church was the GOSPEL PAUL WAS WARNING AGAINST! Wow, let him be accursed, Paul says, who would pervert the Grace of God into the Works of Men. Hmmmmm....
No Catholic teaching perverts the Grace of God into anything. If the Protestants boast about their fruits, then consider that Mother Teresa and Mohandas Gandhi are light years ahead of them in the fruits that they shall show in front of the Ultimate Judge. Where does that leave you guys?
declared heretics by the Church in the first millenium for believing that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again the third day, and that we are saved by grace through faith WITHOUT WORKS? I'm sure that is considered heresy, in a religion that teaches works as integral to salvation. If a religion teaches that works are required for salvation, then it is a perversion of the finished work of Christ.
BTW, what is a Paulician? lol! Paul died for no one's sins. Are you a Popeician/ you follow the Catholic Church and it's edits, doctrines, and traditions, depending on them for your salvation.
Though your underlying premise is faulty, yet most precisely, Scripture came first, but not in its complete form. . The bulk of written Divine revelation preceded the birth of the church, and without it the church would not exist. Now the next question is, “Which came first, Israel or Scripture?” As the answer to that is the former, so (consistent with Rome's logic) they too must have been infallible in faith and morals, and thus Christianity is disallowed.
As helpful as conciliar decrees can be, even being instruments of revelation and or being given stewardship over it, as the Jews were specifically stated to have, does not confer assured infallibility. The kingdom of God consists of power, which Scripture exudes, and not simply words, and truth is established due to its qualities and conformity with what had been established as such before hand. Man's discernment in choosing revelation will be manifest accordingly.
I must arrive at the conclusion that since the Church wrote and chose Scripture under the authority of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the Church is the only authority to interpret it. Not any individual men.
Indeed you must arrive at said conclusion, in order to uphold sola ecclesia, but your logic has already been responded to and refuted in post # 329 (and partly expanded upon here), without being countered, but simply reiterated it again by a substitute for NYer (see thread).
Your premise is that Rome wrote and choose the New Testament Scripture, and that thus it is the infallible interpreter of them. However,
1. This assertion presumes that she is the New Testament church, but which is ultimately based upon her foundational circular reasoning, that according to her infallible interpretation that she is infallible, then her interpretation that she is that church is infallible, rather than being established by demonstrable Scriptural warrant and its attestation. For to rest upon the Scriptures would place that as the supreme authority, and for the Catholic, such a need is superfluous, as he/she is to implicitly trust in Rome, giving “assent of faith.”
2. It was also individual men who penned Scripture, versus it being a ecclesiastical project by the church of Rome, which would thus have known all that was Scripture and could alone assuredly infallibly interpret it, and it took over 1400 years after the last book of the Bible was written for her to finally provide an “infallible” definition of the extent of Scripture which she in particular purports to have written. This delay of almost a millennium and a half evidences either her lack of discernment or the lower priority given to having an official complete canon of the wholly inspired writings, while so deficient is the Bible in supporting her traditions that we reject as not being found therein that her mysterious oral tradition must be invoked, and forgeries were found useful.
3. As also stated in 329, making a selection which constitutes Scripture does not make it inspired, nor can that act, which largely was a ratification of what had become evident, establish that canon as wholly inspired. Rather, its acceptance among those who bear the fruits of regeneration is due to the unique inherent qualities of Holy Writ, and it is the Protestant Bible which has enjoyed the greatest popularity.
Sacred Scripture itself makes it very clear that when even the most sincere believers are left to themselves without a guiding authority, they will wander off into error. (Gal. 1:6-9)
The Galatians were not necessarily without a guiding authority more than faithful churches (and Paul seems to have spent the most effort on the carnal Corinthians), but again, SS is not contrary to this need, only the formulaic infallibility Rome presumes, while Sacred Scripture itself also makes it very clear that when guiding authorities presume too much authority, then they will wander off into error. (Mt. 15:3-9)
In the earliest history of the Church, there was not a clear distinction between bishops and priests as there is in the modern Church; this developed a little later.
Indeed there was, as nowhere will you find a separate class of sacerdotal priests, but all believers are priests, and bishops/elders were overseers, versus priests, as the latter's main function was that of offering up expiational sacrifices.
Timothy and Titus were two of the ``overseers''
Not a problem. There still is no titular distinction as regards what bishop and elder refer to, (Tts. 1:5-7) though some could have a larger jurisdiction. But as for the need for guiding authority, SS affirms this, though you seem suppose otherwise, but that their authority requires demonstrable Scriptural substantiation, and as i add, attestation.
Jesus established Peter as the head of the college of Apostles.
Agree. The Peter of the Bible. But unlike even Judas, the Holy Spirit evidences no successor being named for James when he died, nor an expected one or formal means of providing one for Peter whose demise was near, as is provided for pastors.
Matthew 16
Some object that the rock on which Jesus will build his Church is not Peter (Latin for rock) based on the use of two different Greek words for rock. The problem with this objection is that the Greek is itself a translation: the original words of our Lord were most likely in Aramaic, in which there is only one word for rock. St. Paul has preserved the original word he used: cephas (cf. 1 Cor 15:5).
And which presumes that that the LORD did not speak Greek, or that Matthew was written in Hebrew, or or that the Holy Spirit, who it can be shown, often expands and varies Jesus words to provide a fuller revelation, did not use Greek to provide the most precise meaning.
Souls can argue this, but the verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18, that is what the “this rock” best refers to, a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock.
This is the only interpretation that is clearly confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. The term “this stone” is only used of Christ. (Mt. 21:44) For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (petra) or "stone" (lithos) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 8:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; 1Pet. 2:4-8; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself.
Rome's current catechism even (ecumenically) affirms this interpretation: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church”' (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424).
And so it is that by the essential faith which Peter expressed that the church overcomes. "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:5; cf (1Jn. 2:13,14,25)
However, even this is not the real issue as regards SS, but the issue is what Rome has derived from this, this being that the teaching magisterium being the supreme doctrinal authority, being incontestably infallible when speaking in accordance with its infallibly defined criteria. Holding Scripture as supreme does not even exclude that Rome can teach some infallible truth, and again, those who hold to SS assent to many foundational truths we both agree one, as these can pass Scriptural muster, but which her claim to assured infallibility does not, nor teachings which rely upon it.
This is Scriptural evidence. What evidence exists for such as Luther (wealth and luxury), Calvin (power and control) or Zwingli (juvenile and crazy)>
The Scriptural warrant for pastoral care is established, but for a perpetuated Petrine papacy and assuredly infallible magisterium it is not, while the supremacy of Scripture is. As for men like Luther, they also are not infallible teachers, and SS holds that we are “not to think of men above that which is written,” (1Cor. 4:6) Some of what they belief has been tried and found wanting, as proved according to the premise of the supremacy of Scripture.
In addition, as said before, the authenticity of the church is not based upon institutional lineage, but faith, and God is able to raise up leaders from stones like Peter, who effectually confess Jesus s the Divine Son of God, and is so doing, across evangelical denominations who preach repentance and salvation by grace through faith, and by such the kingdom of God is enlarged, by their grace and to the glory of God, though they are attacked by the institutionalized church.
Moreover, the growth of Roman Catholicism is largely attributable to the Rome's unBiblical use of the sword and carnal means of the state, versus the spiritual means of the poor but powerful New Testament church. Protestants were also wrong in the lesser degree to which they sometimes used such in its early years, versus later evangelical awakenings.
|
Soteriology: Faith versus works brief While sometimes the place of works is overacted to by those defending faith, evangelicals are often accused of preaching that a faith without works justifies (though they characteristically evidence far more than their Catholic counterparts), the Westminster Confession of Faith (11:2) states: Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love. The conflict is, “And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” (Genesis 15:6) “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,” (Romans 4:3-6) When James states that Abraham was justified by works in offering up Issac, he refers to this as fulfilling Gn. 15:6, but which text indicates his justification was a present condition prior to Gn. 17, with his offering up Issac manifesting that faith, and Gn. 15:6 is used by Paul who invokes it in defining what actually in the instrument of justification. (Rom 4:2-8) "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. {3} For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. {4} Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. {5} But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. {6} Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, {7} Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. {8} Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." However, no real contradiction need to be seen between Rm. 4 and Ja. 2. Gn. 15:6 is like a legal declaration, Gn. 17 is its practical manifestation, testifying to what kind of faith is necessary for salvation. Paul is dealing more precisely with the issue of the basis for justification, that of the merit of works versus imputed righteousness, appropriated by God-given faith. James is dealing with the antinomian misconstruance which Paul protests against in Rm. 6, and in which and elsewhere he makes clear that while one is saved by grace thru faith, the manner of faith which justifies is of a confessional quality. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:10; cf. Mt. 10:32) Reading the preceding, we may ask, “But what if someone is mute?” The idea is that faith in the heart will be expressed if it is salvific, and baptism is the initial ordained means of confession. This does not militate against the doctrine of salvation by grace, which some suppose negates any volitional human cooperation in salvation, and thus make grammatical arguments about Acts 2:38, yet, even in a silent "sinners prayer" the heart/mind makes an active response, and there is no real difference between moving your tongue in confessing Christ versus moving your legs in confessing Christ by the body language of baptism. However, this is not saying that one must be baptised to be born again - Cornelius and household were born again by faith, which confessed Christ, before baptism (Acts 10:43-47; 11:8; 15:7-9) — but that the faith which that body language confesses and demands, (and can be a catalyst to bring forth) must be present, and which faith, and repentance, is a gift of God, (Eph. 2:8; Acts 11:8) and is to result in being baptized, if possible. Thus while salvation is by faith, and which God sees in the heart, it must be of a quality that will result in "the obedience of faith", (Rm. 16:26; cf. Hebrews 5:9; 6:9) or in the case of deathbed conversions, be one that would. This correlation between faith and works is the reason why there are verses which seem to contradict the clear and unambiguous verses which affirm that it is "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost", (Titus 3:5) and which takes place upon faith conversion, (Acts 15:7-9; 1Cor. 6:11; Eph. 1:13) and instead state such things as that women "shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety", (1 Timothy 2:15) this denoting the normal manner in which women lived out saving faith, but by no means restricting it to that maternal mode. (1Cor. 7:32-38) But while Scripture establishes that faith that is without works is dead, and the works here are not simply good deeds, but those which are a result of faith in Christ, (1Thes. 1:8,9) neither Paul nor James render the works themselves as meriting salvation, even if done by God's grace, but the faith which is expressed in faith-works appropriates imputed righteousness, this faith being utter reliance upon the mercy of God in Christ crucified, and risen again. In contrast, as the Jews, JW's, etc. testify, the normal disposition of man is that of justifying oneself, "For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." (Romans 10:3) Versus, "Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:" (Philippians 3:8-9) Unless this normal proclivity of man is confronted, and preaching convicts souls of their utter inability to escape their just punishment in eternal Hell-fire, no to merit eternal life with God, then souls will find some way of so doing. |
|
> |
USING 'straw man argument'is a personal thing - don't think I'll find in a search when/why YOU decide to use it. and that's what I was asking.
In this post, you accused me of using a straw man argument. Since that post, you have been asked several times to show the strawman that I created. Yes, I asked for your "help". That was a deliberate choice of words.
Now, I challenge you to show the post with my strawman. I am hammering on this because unfounded accusations have no place in serious discussion; no matter how popular and widespread a tactic it is.
I did accuse you of using a strawman argument and I stand by that.
I thought I was done with this, but I need to respond to questions of my honesty - a thinly veiled personal attack, imo.
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.