Posted on 01/03/2014 12:22:14 PM PST by redleghunter
As we established yesterday, the official Catholic position on Scripture is that Scripture does not and cannot speak for itself. It must be interpreted by the Church's teaching authority, and in light of "living tradition." De facto this says that Scripture has no inherent authority, but like all spiritual truth, it derives its authority from the Church. Only what the Church says is deemed the true Word of God, the "Sacred Scripture . . . written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records."
This position obviously emasculates Scripture. That is why the Catholic stance against sola Scriptura has always posed a major problem for Roman Catholic apologists. On one hand faced with the task of defending Catholic doctrine, and on the other hand desiring to affirm what Scripture says about itself, they find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary to explain the Bible's true meaning. Quite plainly, that makes tradition a superior authority. Moreover, in effect it renders Scripture superfluous, for if Catholic tr adition inerrantly encompasses and explains all the truth of Scripture, then the Bible is simply redundant. Understandably, sola Scriptura has therefore always been a highly effective argument for defenders of the Reformation.
(Excerpt) Read more at gty.org ...
Do these Jewish people believe in the shed Blood of Christ for the remission of sins?
Matthew 27:52 The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. [some translations say ‘saints’]
Those were faithful followers of God from the Old Testament who trusted in the “coming Messiah” as it had been prophesied.
>> I also include the apostles, martyrs and those who died before the Bible was canonized<<
Canonization had nor has anything to do with it. All the assemblies had the teachings of the apostles with many already having the written text. Peter said Paul’s writings were already considered scripture.
2 Peter 3:15 As also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given him, 16 as in all his letters, speaking concerning these matters, in which some things are hard to understand, which those who are untaught and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES. 17 You then, beloved ones, being forewarned, watch lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being let away with the delusion of the lawless.
To claim they “never even heard of the Bible”, denies what scripture teaches in that all that is contained in the Bible was already know by them.
>>”including Jewish people who only accept just parts”<<
If they don’t accept Jesus as their savior and trust in Him alone they will not be saved.
The question that the debate over sola scripture vs. tradition is whether church tradition ever contradicts or sets in opposition to what the Scriptures say.
If the answer is ‘yes’ than which shall I lean upon? Scripture or Tradition? Further, what can tradition provide to me that that the Scriptures do not?
If the answer is ‘no’ then it must be asked, What purpose does tradition serve? Certainly the reasons for Scriptures existence is stated in many ways, one being that ‘all these things written aforetime were written for our instruction, etc’.
In short, One cannot serve two masters, either tradition will be the final arbiter of faith or the Bible will be.
Fair enough. But then what do you make of the verse John 16:13? Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (KJV)
I have heard four different interpretations of this:
(Now I realize that you won't agree with my commentary on choice 4...and I'm not trying to slam you)
So the question, again, is: what about John 16:13?
Context is critical, wouldn't you say?
[Act 15:6-11 KJV] 6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
And that changes how we all have been given the Holy Spirit just as the apostles had and that there was no distinction made how?
Would you say that none of John 16 applies to all true believers?
“With all respect, and I’m not trying to stir something up (just have never understood this), if Scripture is truly sufficient without any authoritative interpretation), then why the diversity of beliefs with the various groups who all claim to rely upon Scripture alone? “
It only reveals your lack of knowledge on the church fathers, and their “diversity of beliefs” as compared to modern Romanism. Take a look at this, for example:
Cyril of Jerusalem on Sola Scriptura:
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
How about these?
Augustine on irresistible grace, final perseverance, limited atonement, and whatever else I missed which he touches on here:
“But of such as these [the Elect] none perishes, because of all that the Father has given Him, He will lose none. John 6:39 Whoever, therefore, is of these does not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these. For which reason it is said, They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us. John 2:19”. (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints)
“I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling.” (Augustine, On the Perseverance of the Saints)
“And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for “He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens.” And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, who “being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: “What shall we say then?” he says: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, not of works, but, of future works, and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, God forbid; that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this, and says: “For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” “ (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace.)
“But that world which God is in Christ reconciling unto Himself, which is saved by Christ, and has all its sins freely pardoned by Christ, has been chosen out of the world that is hostile, condemned, and defiled. For out of that mass, which has all perished in Adam, are formed the vessels of mercy, whereof that world of reconciliation is composed, that is hated by the world which belongeth to the vessels of wrath that are formed out of the same mass and fitted to destruction. Finally, after saying, “If ye were of the world, the world would love its own,” He immediately added, “But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” And so these men were themselves also of that world, and, that they might no longer be of it, were chosen out of it, through no merit of their own, for no good works of theirs had preceded; and not by nature, which through free-will had become totally corrupted at its source: but gratuitously, that is, of actual grace. For He who chose the world out of the world, effected for Himself, instead of finding, what He should choose: for “there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace,” he adds, “then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.”” (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 15:17-19)
John Chrysostom on Sola Fide
“By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the law of faith? It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.” (Homily 7 on Romans III)
“For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God.” (John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on Second Corinthians, 2 Cor 5:21)
Theodoret, Bishop of Syria, on the same:
“The salvation of man depends upon the divine philanthropy alone. For we do not gather it as the wages of our righteousness, but it is the gift of the divine goodness.” (On the 3rd chap, of Zephaniah.)
Clemens Romanus, on the same:
“Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Romans 9:5 From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven. All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (Letter to the Corinthians)
Ignatius on predestination and final perseverence:
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, Ch. 0)
“Seeing, then, all things have an end, these two things are simultaneously set before us— death and life; and every one shall go unto his own place. For as there are two kinds of coins, the one of God, the other of the world, and each of these has its special character stamped upon it, [so is it also here.] The unbelieving are of this world; but the believing have, in love, the character of God the Father by Jesus Christ, by whom, if we are not in readiness to die into His passion, His life is not in us.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, Ch. 5)
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans. Ch. 0)
“I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 4)
“Flee, therefore, those evil offshoots [of Satan], which produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies. For these men are not the planting of the Father. For if they were, they would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, Ch. 11)
You make the assumption that Roman Catholicism has always existed, in the same way, in the same form, with the same beliefs, with the same tradition. That simply isn’t true. So the question is, why would we assume that there is ANY infallible interpreter of scripture? Better to stick with the scripture which, by the way, never actually changes, unlike your doctrines.
Error. Hm...strange. I'm a believer searching the Scriptures and seeking the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Doesn't that guarantee I'll come to the right conclusions?
Binding and loosing was a Hebrew phrase for the power to forbid and to permit by ecclesiastical law.
But if you want specifics in a New Testament context, the power to excommunicate. See Matthew 18:15 ff.
Eventually you will yes. The “guarantee” part comes if you discard anything someone says that can’t be confirmed with scripture. Hold someone or some entity as “authoritative” and you will quell the influence of the Holy Spirit and the guarantee is voided.
“Don’t want to get into the weeds with that argument. But what I’d like to know is...why, if Scripture is self-sufficient, am I NOT ALLOWED to believe in the Real Presence when I read it in the plain sense of Scripture?”
You’re certainly free to believe in the “Real Presence,” after all, so did the Westminster divines:
From the Westminster Longer Catechism:
Q. 170. How do they that worthily communicate in the Lord’s supper feed upon the body and blood of Christ therein?
As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper,[1084] and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses;[1085] so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really,[1086] while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.[1087]
The question is, does the scripture teach transubstantiation? You would have to get us to believe that Christ was eating His own flesh and blood:
Check your chronology. It is not your friend.
1) He gives thanks, breaks the bread, declares it is His body: “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.(1Co 11:24)
2) After “he had supped,” He offers the cup, which He calls His blood: “After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1Co 11:25)
3) After calling it the blood of the covenant, with the cup still in hand, He calls it “this fruit of the vine” which He would not drink AGAIN until reunited with the Apostles in heaven, either indicating He was about to drink it, or had just drank it: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
(Mat 26:28-29)
Notice also that he continues to call it “the fruit of the vine” even after it had supposedly been transformed.
Furthermore, you do not have a sacrament of “living water,” which is necessary to drink in order to possess eternal life:
Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Joh 4:15 The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
LOL! That's actually pretty close to the Catholic position. :)
Ok if it's the case that we should listen to Calvinists and Arminians on the Gospel of Grace, why not also listen to the Catholics, the Orthodox, and the various Churches of the East?
Normally the folks I argue with on here are good about citing Augustine on Grace for instance. But that's about it...they don't temper Augustinian doctrines with, say, the Greek Fathers who had a rather different emphasis.
By “going into the weeds” I mean let’s not do what we always do and fritter off into a million doctrinal disputes. Of course we fundamentally disagree on the Eucharist, and if this were a thread about that or the Didache I’d be happy to engage on it.
But I am trying to keep this focused on the question at hand.
The claim is that I, as a Christian, should be able to go to my Bible and prayerfully read it and the truth will make itself known to me. Great. Ok. So now what happens if I do that, and I find myself disagreeing with...well...pretty much the whole spirit and doctrinal claims of the Reformation.
My opinion is not infallible. I get that. But it’s still no worse or better than any other believer’s.
Sounds like when the antiChrist reigns some of us will be put into prison and then taken to the antiChrist's courts and there the Holy Spirit will speak through the righteous prisoners and convert many. It will be a big event. There is no rapture by the way.
I don't make that assumption.
I know that is the case. No assuming required.
“I know that is the case. No assuming required.”
Merely a sad statement of faith, a presumption you take for granted, to which the facts do not agree.
“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.” [John 6: 49-71]
I always thought that Calvinists believed in "irresistible grace" -- if you are called, you will not be able to resist. And then faith was an inevitable result of that "irresistible grace" (again, I could be wrong here...), while Arminians believe that grace is conditioned by faith and that without faith, you wouldn't have the grace.
Catholic doctrine pretty much holds to the belief of Eph 2:7-9: [Eph 2:7-9 KJV] 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
As stated by the 2nd Council of Orange (Dz 178) Can. 5. If anyone says, that just as the increase [of faith] so also the beginning of faith and the very desire of credulity, by which we believe in Him who justifies the impious, and (by which) we arrive at the regeneration of holy baptism (is) not through the gift of grace, that is, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit reforming our will from infidelity to faith, from impiety to piety, but is naturally in us, he is proved (to be) antagonistic to the doctrine of the Apostles, since blessed Paul says: We trust, that he who begins a good work in us, will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus (Ph 1,6); and the following: It was given to you for Christ not only that you may believe in Him, but also, that you may suffer for Him (Ph 1,29); and: By grace you are made safe through faith, and this not of yourselves; for it is the gift of God (Ep 2,8). For those who say that faith, by which we believe in God, is natural, declare that all those who are alien to the Church of Christ are in a measure faithful [cf. St. Augustine].
As for the 2 Timothy reference, I think it is appropriate to continue and not stop at verse 17:
[2Ti 4:1-5 KJV] 1 I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
Finally, being a guy who has been on both sides of the Tiber I understand your points and frankly we (prots and RCs) will probably never resolve them corporately. Tradition and history is very important to your Church, I respect that. What I cannot see is how one bishop (Lord of the Rings here) forged a ring to rule them (other bishops) all. As I see the scriptures and even the post apostolic early church, I don't see that one ring rules them all. And, I state here, I too am not trying to stir the pot:) Thanks again Mark...
I realize that ...now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face..., and so we likely won't ever come to a full agreement on things.
And, to be candid, I am not offended by, and can get on with, the Orthodox view of things (which provides each autocephalous Church with considerably more authority than the Latin version and grants the bishop of the Church of Rome more of a "honorific" type of primacy). But there, they are even more closely guided by the Church fathers and the Holy Councils of the Church throughout time than even we Catholics are.
And, I state here, I too am not trying to stir the pot:) Thanks again Mark...
We are brothers in Christ whether we agree on things or not; so there's no sense in being ugly if there is a conversation to have.
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.