Scripture, Tradition, and Rome Part 2

GTY.org ^ | September 19, 2009 | John MacArthur

[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.

[Claud]

What exactly is "X" and what is "Y"? Is there a "Z"? Are there potential multiple answers to Luke 24, Romans 10, and 1 Corinthians 15? When the apostles said "A" to be saved, was their message incomplete? Is there some confusion on the definition of the Gospel?

Is there confusion? My goodness, do I have to rehash all of Christian history? Gnosticism, Arianism, Iconoclasm, the Reformation, Modernism.

Multiple answers have always been offered for ALL the Scriptures. Not that all of those answers were right of course, but it's not always easy to see in the heat of battle which side is right.

Don't forget: it was Athanasius Against the World for a while on upholding the divinity of Christ, something that none of us would dare even question today.

[markomalley]

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.

I don't disagree with that at all...in fact I'm quite convinced of it.

But I don't see how you get that from John 16:13.

There is no rapture by the way.

I hope that I never implied that there was such a thing (a doctrine that, IIRC, was invented somewhere in the 19th Century by Darby...but I'm no expert on Protestantism, so I could well be mistaken)

[Salvation]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3108002/posts?page=49#49

Are you posting without sources again? Oh, dear.

[Iscool]

Which came first—the Church or the Bible’s New Testament?

That question doesn't even have a place in the discussion...The question used to be, which came first the church or the scriptures??? And of course the correct answer is the scriptures...Now you have moved the goalposts to the NT...The question is not even worth discussing...

Still doesn't matter...God is the author...Not the church especially as you know it...

The issue is: the bible is complete...It that isn't the truth, then the apostle John lied when he said all we need to know for salvation is in the scriptures...And if there is one lie in the scriptures, it is probably then full of lies...

In which case, your religion and its tradition is based on a book full of lies...The bible is right and complete or we all lose...

You think your religion chose the scriptures??? A little (lot) odd that your religion wrote the scriptures and yet scripture in there that says all we need to know for our salvation is within the scriptures...Don't ya think???

Fact is, the very earliest fathers confirmed that nothing is to be believed outside the written scriptures...Of course that didn't last long...

No your religion did not write the scriptures...And yes, your religion did write its own scriptures...They started out in Africa with most of your church fathers being African...

The scriptures I read started out in Antioch and Jerusalem and was written by Jews...

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“We should remember at this point in time Paul and other apostles had some epistles in circulation, but the scriptures in which Paul tells Timothy “Holy Scriptures” would be what is now the OT.”

---

This is not totally accurate, as the Apostles believed that they were scripture producers, with all the rights and powers that every Prophet of God has ever had. Observe:

2Pe_3:16 As also in all his [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter here calls the epistles of Paul to all be scripture.

1Ti_5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

In this case, Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke right alongside the Talmud. Compare:

Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.

To say that Paul was only speaking of the Old Testament is to ignore the point that Paul believed himself to be WRITING scripture TO Timothy.

“Arminians and Calvinists”

---

Neither the Arminian nor the Catholic position (which are both synergistic) can actually survive an examination of the scripture. In order for their claims to work, the saving grace of God must be universal, and it must be uniform in its application. Everyone must receive the same grace, and the same type of grace, in order to make God “fair” according to their positions. But, that is not what we see in scripture. For example:

“But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
(Joh 6:64-65)

All these men were standing before Christ, and hearing the same message. Yet, to those who do not believe, Christ specifically tells them that the reason they do not believe is because “it was not granted” by the Father. We are not told here that God foreknew, perhaps, their wickedness, or that God foreknew their faithlessness and therefore “did not give it” based on this knowledge. We are only told that God foreknew His own work, in giving it to some to believe, but not all.

[Iscool]

I also believe that the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation but not the only thing. I also believe that people can be saved who never even heard of the Bible, including Jewish people who only accept just parts.

Then you don't believe all of the New Testament, just parts of it...The parts that you like apparently...

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Oops, I said “talmud” in the last post. I meant “Torah,” or, to keep it simple, Paul was quoting Deuteronomy next to Luke as scripture.

[Claud]

No doubt there are false prot and evangelical pastors out there. But I don't think you would say all of your priests speak dogma and truth with all purity and infallibility all the time either right? I mean none of those pedophile and pederast priests were representing mother church while dispensing sacraments right?

Infallibility covers the Church as a whole, not individual priests and bishops. The minute a person's teaching strays off the path of what the Church in general teaches, they forfeit any claim to our attention.

And as to your last point, this is a very real situation to me. I took Communion from a priest who, a few months later, fled the rectory under credible allegations of molestation. Grave grave scandal that man caused. But luckily, the sacramental action of Christ does not depend (thank God!) on the moral purity of the minister. Or else we'd all be doomed.

[markomalley]

Merely a sad statement of faith, a presumption you take for granted, to which the facts do not agree.

Since you quoted Ignatius Theophorus, let me quote him for you:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Letter to the Smyrneans, 8

For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they would do fire.

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are also pleased that I do not spare myself. But shall I, when permitted to write on this point, reach such a height of self-esteem, that though being a condemned man, I should issue commands to you as if I were an apostle?

To the Trallians, 2-3

Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. Do all then, imitating the same divine conduct, pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but continually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.

To the Magnesians, 6-7

Sounds sort-of, kind-of like the structure of the particular Church (a/k/a a diocese) to me.

Now as for the relations between Particular Churches, we have the following:

The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

First Council of Constantinople, Canon 2

While these days: Can. 390 A diocesan bishop can perform pontifical functions in his entire diocese but not outside his own diocese without the express, or at least reasonably presumed, consent of the local ordinary.

to which the facts do not agree.

OK, whatever.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“Sounds sort-of, kind-of like the structure of the particular Church (a/k/a a diocese) to me.”

---

But a Roman Catholic diocese sees the Pope as the head of the church, the perpetual “head” and ruler over all other Bishops. Ignatius calls Polycarp’s Bishop “God”:

“Ignatius, who is [also called] Theophorus, to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, or rather, who has as his own bishop God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness.” (Epistle to Polycarp)

Also, a church government is not the same thing as soteriology.

What you must prove is: 1) The Primacy of Rome is a perpetual doctrine that has always existed.

2) That they held to the same beliefs as Roman Catholicism does today.

Both of which, even the very first, cannot be established.

“OK, whatever.”

---

Indeed, your post was just one big “whatever”.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“And as to your last point, this is a very real situation to me. I took Communion from a priest who, a few months later, fled the rectory under credible allegations of molestation. Grave grave scandal that man caused. But luckily, the sacramental action of Christ does not depend (thank God!) on the moral purity of the minister. Or else we’d all be doomed. “

---

At the very least, one must hope that the Priest washed his hands after fondling the little boys, before he stuffed the wafer he turned into the body of Christ into your mouth.

This may sound “clean” and pure to the Catholic, to believe that a man who is not even a Christian, has power with God to transform elements into the literal body and blood of Christ. Not to any person with common sense, however.

[Claud]

But when one sees in the same context in the same chapter that eating and drinking these things which are connected to Jesus that you will never thirst nor hunger again, it's time to look at these verses more closely.

Ah I see, the problem is that I haven't read them closely enough.

I've looked at them closely. In context. In Greek.

And come to the exact opposite conclusion.

So tell me....what should I do now? Should I hold fast to the doctrine that I by careful study derived from the Scriptures? Or should I, instead, deny what the Scriptures plainly tell me and just accept the doctrines handed down by men--i.e. you?

[Claud]

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.

Oh....eventually. Interesting. So--assuming neither of us is infallible in their Scriptural exegesis, which I'm sure you'll agree with--how come it's me that will eventually agree with your position, and not you that will eventually agree with mine?

[CynicalBear]

>>how come it's me that will eventually agree with your position, and not you that will eventually agree with mine?<<

Show me scriptural proof or support for the assumption of Mary.

[markomalley]

Also, a church government is not the same thing as soteriology.

Of course ecclesiology is a different topic than soteriology.

But a Roman Catholic diocese sees the Pope as the head of the church, the perpetual “head” and ruler over all other Bishops. Ignatius calls Polycarp’s Bishop “God”:

It seems that Clement of Rome (the Fourth Pope after Peter, Linus, and Cletus) sure thought he was:

If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, instant in prayer and supplication, shall desire that the Creator of all preserve unbroken the computed number of His elect in the whole world through His beloved Son Jesus Christ…

Letter to the Corinthians, 59

Right is it, therefore, to approach examples so good and so many, and submit the neck and fulfil the part of obedience, in order that, undisturbed by vain sedition, we may attain unto the goal set before us in truth wholly free from blame. Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter.…

Ibid, 63

(It is important that the reader understand that Corinth was a different Diocese from Rome, but yet Clement asserted authority over the Church in Corinth)

Then, of course, we have the Council of Sardica (AD 344) that says:

Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add—that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity.

And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province.

But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.

I could continue on with multiple additional quotes, but it won't convince you of anything, so why bother.

[narses]

My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.

Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.

Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.

Amen.

She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.

(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)

[narses]

[markomalley]

RH: Please I understand "stir the pot" is what happens at FR and makes it a great place to come. You were polite and reasoned and I hope I addressed what you asked. Maybe I just don't see a big difference in Arminian doctrine as a Calvinist might see, but ask them, they are not calling each other heretics.

GPH: Indeed, your post was just one big “whatever”.

Redleghunter:

This is why I don't like getting into it with belligerent Calvinists. I get the impression (whether intended or not, I don't know) that they are utterly convinced that I am not one of the predestined and am going to Hell and all Heaven can't stop it. And they want to make sure that I know it.

That's not all Calvinists. I no more agree with Alex or Gamecock than with GPH, but there's not the fundamental unpleasantness characterized in their posts...as a general rule (and I'm sure the same...saying "generally"...would apply to me as well, I hope)

(In fact, I try to ping them to satire pieces I post from time to time if I think they'd enjoy it; both of them ping me to satire they think I'd appreciate...and somehow I ended up on Gamecock's mega-church ping list...go figure)

[metmom]

I think believers in Sola Scriptura assuage themselves with the idea that their opponents are institutional automatons, instead of people who read the Scriptures just like them and simply came to the opposite conclusion.

Having been raised Catholic, I have indeed seen that first hand.

Aside from the fact that the RCC at one time, at lease, actually prohibited the laity from engaging in theological debates. dan has those sited, IIRC.

If you *really* believe in Sola Scriptura, you must, perforce, admit my right to believe in the Real Presence from the Scriptures.

Actually, that is correct.

Where the issue comes is in claiming that consuming that eucharist is necessary for salvation, that it is by that means by which we are saved.

Scripture simply does not teach that at all.

Additionally, I'll add, that if there really is a change in the substance of the bread and wine, it will happen regardless of whether you believe it will happen or not AND if it doesn't happen, it's not going to change one iota no matter how many words and hand motions the priest makes.

[narses]