Posted on 04/20/2014 12:50:38 PM PDT by Gamecock
The perennial question in the debate over sola Scriptura is whether the church is over the Bible or the Bible is over the church. If you take the latter position, then you are (generally speaking) a Protestant who believes the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, are the only infallible rule and therefore the supreme authority over the church. But, here is the irony: Roman Catholics also claim to be “under” the authority of the Bible.
The Roman Catholic church insists that the Scripture is always superior to the Magisterium. Dei Verbum declares, “This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it” (2.10), and the Catholic Catechism declares: “Yet, this Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant” (86). However, despite these qualifications, one still wonders how Scripture can be deemed the ultimate authority if the Magisterium is able to define, determine, and interpret the Scripture in the first place. Moreover, the Magisterium seems to “discover” doctrines that are not consistent with the original meaning of Scripture itself—e.g,, the immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility and the like. Thus, despite these declarations from Rome, residual concerns remain about whether the Magisterium functionally has authority over the Scriptures.
My friend and colleague James Anderson has written a helpful blog post that brings even further clarity to this issue. He begins by observing the judicial activism that happens all too often in the American political system. Judges go well beyond the original intent of the constitution and actually create new laws from the bench. He then argues:
What has happened in the US system of government almost exactly parallels what happened in the government of the Christian church over the course of many centuries, a development that finds its fullest expression in the Roman Catholic Church.
The Bible serves as the constitution of the Christian faith. It is the covenant documentation. It defines the Christian church: what constitutes the church, what is its mission, who runs the church and how it should be run, what are the responsibilities of the church, what is the scope of its authority, what laws govern the church and its members, and so forth. Once the constitution has been written, the task of the ‘judges’ (the elders/overseers of the church) is to interpret and apply it according to its original intent. Their task is not to create new laws or to come up with “interpretations” that cannot be found in the text of the constitution itself (interpreted according to original intent) and would never have crossed the minds of the “founding fathers” (Eph. 2:20).
Yet that’s just what happened over the course of time with the development of episcopacy, the rise of the papacy, and the increasing weight given to church tradition. To borrow Grudem’s phrasing: If the Bible didn’t say something something that the bishops wanted it to say, or thought it should say, they could claim to “discover” new doctrines in the Bible — purgatory, indulgences, apostolic succession, papal infallibility, etc. — and no one would have power to overrule them.
Adapting the candid statement of Chief Justice Hughes, today’s Roman Catholic might well put it thus: “We are under the Bible, but the Bible is what the Pope says it is.” In fact, that’s exactly how things stand in practice. Functionally the Pope has become the highest governing authority in his church: higher even than the Bible. The church has been derailed by “ecclesial activism”.
Thus, even though Rome claims that the Bible is its ultimate authority, practically speaking it is the church that is the ultimate authority. Rome is committed to sola ecclesia. And this clarifies the real difference between Protestants and Catholics. Something has to be the ultimate authority. It is either Scripture or the church.
According to whom? You? Are you JW? Mormon? Who votes?
You think there weren’t other heretics claiming to be true Christians “from the start”?
Is your claiming it make it so?
No, you get to do that. You and whatever spirit you claim.
It's all you.
I detect some animosity in your comments. Why?
I used the word "we" to include ALL those who claim to follow Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord - but ONLY God sees their heart. Those who sincerely do that recognize the authority of the Word of God, given to us so that we might ALL have an objective and authoritative source to know what is or is not the truth of our faith. The OP talks about early Christian leaders and how they had the Scriptures with which to dispute heresies. Without that, we would only have opinions, ideas, theories and word-of-mouth "traditions" with no sure way to know who is right.
If we didn't have the Constitution to guide our nation, we would not have made it as far as we have and it is the veering away from these founding documents and the intent of the founders that has brought us to this point in our history. Clearly, a group of powerful people, asserting their own way, is not how those who started this American experiment wanted it to be.
God gave us His divinely-revealed word for a reason. We should be servants of it and not make it a servant to us. Doesn't your Catechism say that?
You speak the truth.
Amen and amen....
There is only one Holy Spirit. It isn't wise to mock Him or His authority. The Holy Spirit should guide us into truth and be our intercessor for when words or our own strength fail us.
Christ wrath in is time living among men was aimed far more at the Priest of the day he dealt with than the sinners he met. He knew the hearts of each person he met. He knew who would receive Him and who would reject and betray Him. The Temple Priest were worried more about keeping The Temple even at compromising principle to Rome, Maintaining their positions and places of honor before men, and their control over the people, than teaching scriptures.
Christ established the church for believers to come to GOD directly, pray to Him directly, confess to Him directly, and left us with a teacher that dwelt within us just as Christ dwelt among men and taught them.
When Rome claims to have given us the Bible and thereby claims the right to properly *interpret* it, it puts itself above Scripture.
What they say about the authority of Scripture is meaningless, when what they do in practice is different.
There is no reading comprehension issues amongst non- Catholics but there is the issue of brainwashing and cultic indoctrination amongst Catholics so that they cannot see logical fallacies when they are hit over the head with them.
What is stupid is not to see that claiming to be the author of Scripture does not mean the magisterium is over the Bible.
AMEN!!!!!
preach it, brother.
Where did it come from before there was scripture?
Hebrews 1 says that in the past, God spoke to the people through His prophets, and in these “last days” through His Son.
You could stretch that over to John 1, where Jesus is referred to as the Word, giving us that God speaks to us today through His Son and His Word.
This is a false premise. The Bible is not a constitution. There are several bibles which are a select collection of writings over the course of centuries.
Some of the writings seem to contradict others. I see it as a heroic attempt by Christian scholars to pass on the accumulated teachings of Jesus and the wisdom of the old testament.
The Church is a human endeavor to perpetuate the work of Jesus.
According to.. you?
Christ did not establish a country nor write a constitution, nor make you the supreme court.
Then it should be clear that those who claim to be led in different directions to different doctrines by the one Holy Spirit are in error.
***********************************
The books of the New Testament were defined around the year, 400 A.D., by the the local Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419). This is the canon that Luther inherited, and which was dogmatically defined by Trent.
Prior to the year 400, the New Testament canon was not clearly defined.
The Muratorian Fragment (so-called because it represents only a portion of the actual second-century document discovered in 1740 by Lodovico Antonio Muratori), is the oldest extant listing of New Testament-era books revered by early Christians. It was written sometime between 155 and 200. Patristic scholars believe the unknown author originally wrote the list in Greek (since the Latin is very poor), but the oldest copy available is an eighth-century Latin manuscript.***********************************Although the Muratorian Fragment is important in studying how the early Church developed the New Testament canon, it doesn't give exactly the same list of books that was later adopted as canonical at the councils of Hippo and Carthage. The Muratorian Fragment is just that: a fragment of a larger list of books which were considered canonical or quasi-canonical during the second century.
The Fragment itself provides us with a good, though incomplete idea of this early canon. Virtually the entire New Testament canon as we know it is represented: the Gospels of Luke and John (preceded by what seems to be an allusion to the Gospel of Mark), Acts, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Jude, two letters of John (since the fragment simply says "the two ascribed to John," we don't know which two of his three letters are meant), and Revelation.
The unknown author adds other non-canonical books to this line- up: the so-called Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians (about which the Fragment's author expresses his conviction that they were not authored by Paul), the Wisdom Written by the Friends of Solomon in His Honor, the Apocalypse of Peter, The Shepherd (written by Hermas). The Fragment's list is cut short abruptly with a final, enigmatic phrase which may indicate that the author had gone on to include still other non-inspired writings: "Those also who wrote the new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the founder of the Asian Cataphrygians."
As you can see, although the Muratorian Fragment lists most of the New Testament books, it's missing a few (e.g. Matthew, James, 3 John), and it adds several works which are not inspired.
These facts demonstrate that, although the Fragment came close, it did not represent the actual canon of inspired Scripture. Further, there is no internal evidence in the document that it sought to represent any kind of official canon that was regarded by the Church as binding.
In the first four centuries of the Church many books, such as the seven letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Clement [the fourth pope] to the Corinthians, the Didache, and The Shepherd were revered by many Christians as inspired but were later shown to be non-inspired.
Was the canon of Scripture determined before the Church councils that decided it?
Sola Scriptura, while un-Biblical, was also impractical, at least until the advent of the printing press. No one could afford a complete Bible (handwritten on scrolls). Nor could a significant number even be manufactured to make the doctrine practical in any meaningful sense.
***********************************
Since few books of any kind existed, most people were illiterate, for more than a millenium.
***********************************
TODAY, 800 MILLION ADULTS ARE ILLITERATE.
How does Sola Scriptura work for them?
***********************************
Scripture never says that Scripture is the sole infallible authority for God's Word.
Scripture opposes Sola Scriptura
***********************************
Jesus cites the Church as the authority in settling disputes among believers:
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Mat. 18:17***********************************
“but we know that those early believers accepted and received the writings as from God and they recognized its power and authority because they heard the voice of the Great Shepherd”
Let me edit that sentence for you,
But we know that those early Catholics accepted and received the writings as from God and they recognized its power and authority because they heard the voice of the Great Shepard.
Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible. It’s a Catholic document. The church compiled it and determined what was the “inspired” word of God. Why that is so hard for some protestants to admit I will never know. Protestants didn’t have one thing to do with first preserving the Word of God, then compiling the Word of God.
“When Rome claims to have given us the Bible and thereby claims the right to properly *interpret* it, it puts itself above Scripture.”
No. It is much like how the Apostles led the Church but were not above the Church. They were appointed by God, made important decisions, and yet they were servants of the Church.
“What they say about the authority of Scripture is meaningless, when what they do in practice is different.”
Since they don’t do what you accuse them to do, you’re not saying anything that makes sense.
“There is no reading comprehension issues amongst non- Catholics but there is the issue of brainwashing and cultic indoctrination amongst Catholics so that they cannot see logical fallacies when they are hit over the head with them.”
The logical fallacy is all yours - as I just demonstrated in this post.
“What is stupid is not to see that claiming to be the author of Scripture does not mean the magisterium is over the Bible.”
No, what is stupid is for anti-Catholic bigots to attack doctrines no one actually believes in.
“I thought the word came from God who chose men to record it which they did.”
So where was the word before it was inscripturated - which sometimes took centuries or even millenia? And are you saying God is restricted to giving the word only in written form?
First, let me put your mind at ease. The Church teaches that Mary was redeemed by Christ's Passion and death, just like the rest of us. In her case, since she was conceived without sin, she was redeemed in anticipation of Christ's death.
The "Co" in the title, "Co-Redemptrix" is an ambiguous term, in that it has a different historical meaning in the Catholic Church than in our culture today.
The primary meaning is "cooperator." (Paul calls himself a "co-worker with Christ" [1 Cor. 3:9]). The meaning of this term, in a nutshell, is that Mary cooperated with God's plan that she become the Mother of Christ, and in that sense, bringing the Redeemer of Mankind into the world.
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.