all murder in the eyes of God. And many most will go to oblivion screaming “I’m sooo sorry”
Posted on 06/15/2015 6:30:36 PM PDT by RnMomof7
If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true, then, as a system of theology, Roman Catholicism ought to be wholeheartedly rejected. This quick inference is not as simplistic as it may first appear. Sola Scriptura not only negates any form of authoritative tradition in Roman Catholicism, it also eviscerates any Roman Catholic doctrine or practice explicitly drawn from Scripture, since the truth of such doctrines is, according to the Council of Trent, only guaranteed by the "holy mother Church" who has the sole authority to "judge of their [the Scriptures'] true sense and interpretation."[1] Therefore, if Sola Scriptura precludes such ecclesiastical authority, Roman Catholic theology is unjustified and ought to be rejected.
Another reason to debate the issue of Sola Scriptura is that some converts from Evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism have claimed that a primary reason for their shift in theology was the absence of a Biblical case for Sola Scriptura. Such an astounding claim ought to lead the Protestant to query -- How can such a vast case be missed? I should rather think that the Biblical case for Sola Scriptura is similar to Warfield's claim concerning the basis for the infallibility of Scripture; the case overwhelms one like a waterfall.
Though the debate over Sola Scriptura is often discussed in terms of "sources" of revelation or authority, I think the issue will be clearer if we focus on whether Scripture is the sole or supreme norm for all questions of Christian thought and practice.[2] Hence, the thesis for which I will argue is the same as that found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, I:10: "The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined... can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the scripture."
In direct contrast to the Westminster Confession, both the Council of Trent and Vatican II declare that there are two supreme norms for matters of faith and practice. The Council of Trent states: "[The Roman Catholic church] receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books of both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession."[3] Vatican II continues the same line of thought: "...both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."[4]
Though one can quite easily demonstrate Sola Scriptura from the Bible, the following brief arguments are not in any sense an exhaustive case for this doctrine. Nevertheless, they ought to be a sufficient start.
Though some Roman Catholic apologists assume that Sola Scriptura rules out any appeal to divine oral revelation, no Protestant advocate of this doctrine has ever held that view. Advocates of Sola Scriptura take as obvious that, at some points in the history of redemption, God has revealed His will to His people by means of oral transmissions. For example, this form of revelation was authoritatively used prior to the time of Moses and the inscripturation of the Old Testament Prophets and the New Testament writings. No advocate of Sola Scriptura would claim, for example, that the immediate hearers of Isaiah's pronouncements were free to disregard his prophetic revelations simply because he had not written them down. This would be a silly understanding of Sola Scriptura. Hence, Sola Scriptura incorporates the fact that, as a general pattern, God reveals His Word orally and temporarily through prophets and apostles and then subsequently inscripturates His Word. At all points in this process, God's Word is the supreme norm for Christian thought and practice. Thus, when Protestants speak of "Scriptura" we use it synonymously with such designations as "God's Word" (whether oral or written), a practice readily found in the New Testament (e.g., Rom. 9:17; Gal. 3:8; Matt. 19:4-5; Mk. 7:9-13; Acts 2:16-17; Heb. 1:6-7).
Roman Catholic apologists often appeal to New Testament oral "traditions" (e.g. II Tim. 2:2; II Thess. 2:15) as immediate refutations of Sola Scriptura. Given the distinctions above, this is a naive move on their part. As stated for any point in redemptive history, then, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the contention that the Word of God (oral or written) is the sole and supreme norm for Biblical faith. The central issue, then, which Protestants affirm and Roman Catholics deny, is the claim that the history of redemption demonstrates that God, at some points, revealed His Word temporarily in prophetic/oral form and then inscripturated this norm permanently in written form, with no subsequent authoritative appeals to oral revelation. Protestants maintain that, following inscripturation, the oral "speaking as a child" is done away with, and our only norm is the "mature," written Word of God; the latter is our current situation and, most notably, was that of the Reformers. In contrast, Roman Catholics maintain that some oral teaching authority continues as a norm on par with Scripture (though they do not claim that this Sacred Tradition is new revelation; it is only explicative).[5]
Protestants reject such a "co-supreme" norm and contend that Scripture itself teaches that the Word of God (now written) is our sole and supreme norm. We wholeheartedly reject the supreme authority of any secondary interpretations, explications, or extra-Biblical pronouncements, whether these are alleged charismatic revelations, Mary Baker Eddy's insights, or Mormon or Roman Catholic "apostolic" authorities.
A Biblical case for Sola Scriptura can be approached in numerous ways. I will begin by arguing from Biblical practices found in the Old Testament law, wisdom literature, and prophets and then from New Testament theology and practice. I will then rebut several common Roman Catholic objections to Sola Scriptura.
Old Testament practice clearly demonstrates that the sole and supreme authority is God's Word. Roman Catholics readily agree with this claim but reject the claim that this practice demonstrates Sola Scriptura, since they deem Sacred Tradition to be the Word of God as well (I will comment on this claim momentarily). Regardless of this assertion, Old Testament practice demonstrates that the sole and supreme norm invoked is God's Word, apart from secondary interpreters, explications, or "infallible" institutions.
In very stark terms, the central issue of the Fall was loyalty to God's revelation alone, apart from even a supernatural interpreter. God had expressly forbidden Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but when they were tempted by Satan, they demonstrated their disloyalty to God's Word by considering it just another hypothesis on par with Satan's Word, which they could supposedly evaluate. In effect, Adam and Eve placed themselves as judges over God's revelation in order to reject it. God's revelation was clear; Adam and Eve needed no secondary, infallible interpreter or else their sin would have been excusable. Hence, we find Sola Scriptura at the very beginning of redemptive history.
Similarly, Noah was called upon to heed God's revelation without excuse. God's covenant was established directly with Noah as representative of creation (Gen. 9: 8,9). Subsequently, Ham's rebellion against God's revelation met with condemnation (Gen. 9: 22ff). Throughout, the sole standard was God's unmediated Word.
A most striking example of Sola Scriptura is made plain in the Abrahamic covenant. God again reveals Himself, apart from a divine expositor, and binds Himself to fulfill His covenant (Gen. 15). When Abram seeks confirmation of God's glorious promises, the Lord confirms His divine Word by His divine Word! As Hebrews 6:13 states, "since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself." No Pontiff or magisterium or Sacred Tradition is invoked to verify God's Word; the supreme authority is the Lord's own testimony to His Word. No further appeal is possible. Sola Scriptura reigns.
Later in Abraham's life, God further explicates His own covenant (Gen. 17) directly with Abraham (v. 9ff) and holds up Abraham as an example to his posterity for keeping "My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws" (Gen. 26:5).
As God's revelation is inscripturated in the Mosaic era, Sola Scriptura continues as the practice. The Lord keeps His covenant promises and further reveals Himself to His people. Moses recounts all of God's revelation to the people, and the people respond, "All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do! And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord" (Ex. 24:3,4; cf. 34:27). In these passages, we not only see the general transformation of God's Word from the temporary oral to the written, but we also see a direct "recounting" of God's Word to the people.
To the Levitical priests, the Lord revealed the sole supremacy of His Word over against non-Christian standards: "You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt...nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes. You are to perform My judgments and keep My statutes;...I am the Lord your God" (Lev. 18:4). Hence, the priests themselves were directed to heed the (now written) Word of God alone. God's law never directs the priests or the people to give equal reverence to some ecclesiastical or priestly tradition; instead, they are repeatedly pointed back to the clear revelation of God's covenant.
In fact, the law itself explicitly prohibits Levitical priests or the people from adding another standard to God's revelation: "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deut. 4:2; cf. Deut. 12:32; 13:1-4). Such an unequivocal prohibition clearly precluded minor priestly additions, let alone an entire ecclesiastical body of "living" tradition which would stand on par with God's Word. Moreover, this commandment was given to all of Israel (Deut. 4:1). They were expected to understand and apply God's Word so as not to adulterate it, even if their priests did. God alone has the authority to add to His Word, and, at this point in redemptive history, He directs them to His written Word as their supreme standard alone and not to another Biblical institution or tradition. The law, then, serves as exemplary support for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, and since the law serves as the standard in the historical revelation that follows Moses, we should expect to see the written Word as the standard of faith and practice there as well, and we do (cf. Josh. 1:7 - "do not turn from it to the right or to the left;" II Chron. 17:7ff.; 29:15ff; II Kings 22 -- Josiah: "Go, inquire of the LORD for me and the people and all Judah concerning the words of this book that has been found, for great is the wrath of the LORD that burns against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us" (v. 13).
The Book of Proverbs repeats the solemn declaration that "every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him; Do not add to His words. Lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar" (30: 5,6). This command becomes an enduring restriction on God's revelation. As God's people we are to have no other supreme authorities; no other institution or object is so circumscribed. Finally, after reflecting on the vanity of life, the Preacher of Ecclesiastes summarizes our basic duty as, "fear God and keep His commandments" (Eccl. 12:13).
More particularly, Isaiah rebukes the false diviners in accord with the earlier prohibition from Deuteronomy 13: 1-4 ("you shall not listen to the words of that prophet....You shall follow the Lord...and...keep His commandments"), when he declares "to the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Is. 8:20).
Jeremiah declares that the coming New Covenant will be one, not in which Sacred Tradition reigns, but in which the Lord will place His "law within them" (Jer. 31:31).
Ezekiel gloriously testifies to the coming Christ who will reign over a future people who walk in accord with God's written Word (Ez. 37:24) in an everlasting covenant.
In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego appeal supremely to the first commandment in their defiance of Nebuchadnezzar's wicked directive.
Repeatedly, we see that the Old Testament practice is to revere God's Word, most often in its written form, as the sole and supreme norm for thought and practice. The law, wisdom literature, and prophets direct us only to the Word of God in this manner. The Lord repeatedly speaks His Word directly to His people, who are expected to understand and apply it faithfully. The Old Testament simply has no place for secondary infallible explications or institutions, instead, it is saturated with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not only at the heart of the Old Covenant church; it also continues in the practice of the New Covenant church. At the time of Christ, we see that the Old Testament oral revelation was finally inscripturated in such a manner that Christ can refer to it as a completed whole (Lk. 16:16; 24:44; Matt. 7:12). Given the history of revelation, we should expect that the new oral revelation from Christ and the apostles would be followed by a final written collection of God's Word as well.
One very basic argument for Sola Scriptura is that New Testament teachings assume Old Testament standards and practices, unless otherwise specified. Christ Himself directs us to obey the teachings of the Old Testament (Matt. 23:2,3; 22:37-40), for "the Scripture cannot be broken" (Jn. 10:35) and its standards are everlasting (Matt. 5:18; Lk. 16:17).
Similarly, the apostles direct us to heed the Old Testament standards. Peter instructs us to heed the teachings of the prophets as "a lamp shining in a dark place" (II Pet. 2:19). Paul teaches that Old Testament practices were "written for our instruction" (I Cor. 10:11; cf. Rom. 15:4), and that all Scripture is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction" (II Tim. 3:16 -- even Roman Catholics will concede this verse at least applies to the Old Testament Scriptures).
Thus, if the New Testament assumes the continuation of Old Testament teachings, and the Old Testament teaches Sola Scriptura (as above), then the New Testament teaches Sola Scriptura as well.
For example, if the Old Testament law, wisdom literature, and prophets direct us only to the Word of God as the supreme norm and not to ecclesiastical or priestly explications, then the New Testament teaches the same. The burden is on opponents of the doctrine to demonstrate that God has rescinded His previous standards.
Similarly, if Deuteronomy 4:2 prohibits adding anything to God's Word, and the New Testament assumes that this sort of teaching continues, then the prohibition also applies to adding anything to God's Word (oral or written) in the New Testament. We see this argument confirmed in the New Testament writings themselves. Paul most emphatically condemns those who would teach contrary to apostolic doctrine (Gal. 1:8,9), and the Holy Spirit speaking through John applies the same prohibition to the words of Revelation: "If anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book..." (Rev. 22:18,19).
Given this general norm, Protestants do not beg-the-question against Roman Catholicism by arguing that Christ's condemnation of Pharisaical traditions (e.g., to Matt. 15:3) also applies to Roman Catholic traditions. The usual Roman Catholic retort to such appeals is to argue that Christ only rejects human traditions and not allegedly divine traditions as provided by the Roman church. But if the normal Biblical practice is to reject any secondary explications or traditions, then the burden is on the Roman Catholic apologist to prove that Christ now approves of secondary traditions. In short, the Roman Catholic apologist has the burden of demonstrating that God has now changed His normal practice and established an infallible and authoritative explicator of His Word. If he does not meet this burden, then Christ's condemnation of the Pharisees applies directly to Roman Catholic traditions.
Not only does New Testament theology endorse the ancient teaching of Sola Scriptura, but so does the practice of the New Testament church. As in the past, God's people may discern truth by going directly to the Scriptures: "they have Moses and prophets; let them hear them" (Lk. 16:29). Christ even rejects authoritative ecclesiastical opinion as a norm beside God's Word: "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God" (Matt. 22:29; cf. Matt. 23:24).
Though the apostles were the legal witness-bearers of Christ, thus making their words the Word of God (cf. Lk. 10:16; I Cor. 2:13; 7:12; 14:37; II Cor. 13:3; I Thess. 2:13; II Thess. 2:15; II Pet. 3:2), they still in practice regularly appealed to written revelation as supreme norm to confute, persuade, and settle differences (Acts 1:20; 2:17ff.; 7; 13:47; 15:16ff.; Rom. 9,10,11; Gal. 3; Hebrews). Like Christ, they do not direct believers to secondary explications or extra-Scriptural Hebrew traditions (though plentiful) as authoritative norms but to examine the Word of God itself (Rom. 15:4; Eph. 6:17; II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1:3). Scripture exalts those who examine the written revelation of God ("noble-minded" Acts 17:11) and assumes that God's people have the ability to rightly judge and interpret it apart from an infallible interpreter (II Tim. 2:15; Acts 17:11). Hence, even this cursory review of the teachings of Christ and the apostles suggest that, just like the Old, the New Testament is saturated with the teaching of Sola Scriptura.
As noted previously, several Roman Catholic apologists have attempted to offer a Biblical case against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura by arguing that (1) New Testament references to oral "tradition" (II Thess. 2:15; II Tim. 2:2; II Cor. 11:2) demonstrate the unbiblical nature of the doctrine and (2) Scripture nowhere teaches the doctrine.[6] The first argument rests on a naive understanding of Sola Scriptura in that it presupposes the doctrine to imply, as noted earlier, that the teachings of Isaiah or Christ were not the sole and supreme norm when spoken. The real trick would be to find some advocate of Sola Scriptura who has ever held this view. Hence, this argument attacks a straw man. In response to the second argument, I offer the non-exhaustive case presented above. Scripture teaches Sola Scriptura from beginning to end.
Though I maintain that such historical claims are false,[9] this is beyond our current question. Nevertheless, this "unhistorical" objection fails for other reasons. First, even if we grant the truth of the historical claim, the objection still assumes a very truncated view of church history. Most of those who present this argument speak of the church as beginning in the first century, and simply ignore church doctrine in the Old Testament. By narrowing the scope of history, the issue, deceptively, appears to be large. As seen above, if we mark church history from the beginning of covenant history as Scripture itself does, and readily find the doctrine of Sola Scriptura from the very beginning of time, then Roman Catholic teaching is aberrant in the history of redemption, and accordingly should be rejected.
Secondly, the "unhistorical" objection suffers from a common malady in church history; the view that the current age is the peak of church history. Again granting the historical claims of the objection for the sake of argument, Sola Scriptura only appears to be unhistorical if we are very near the end of time. If, however, we have another five thousand or so years to go and the Roman Catholic church dissolves and joyously becomes Reformed in the next one hundred years, then its current teaching is clearly unhistorical. Hence, the "unhistorical" objection fails apart from its dubious historical claims due to a very truncated view of history (on both ends).
Various objections can be grouped under this heading; they all attempt to refute Sola Scriptura by means of an internal logical flaw.[10] Some Roman Catholic opponents argue that Sola Scriptura is unreasonable because (1) it demands a closed canon, but Scripture never specifies what books are actually included in that canon, and/or (2) it requires self-authentication, but as Hahn contends, "no book can authenticate its own inspired status." [11]
Both arguments assume that God cannot or does not authenticate His own Word, apart from some human testimony. This is false as per Hebrews 6:13, but it also belies a very deficient view of God in that, though He is supposedly all sovereign, he requires human testimony to confirm His Word. On a view which better acknowledges the sovereign authority of God, the church did not determine what to include in the canon; it merely recognized the canon inherent in God's Word from the start. By analogy, John the Baptist did not make Jesus the Christ by testifying to Him; he merely recognized Christ's glorious status, and the church later recognized the Shepherd speaking to His people in the Scriptures (John 10:4,16). Moreover, those who raise this objection have yet to demonstrate how their claims for the authority of the church withstand the same objection.[12] Therefore, this general objection does not tell against Sola Scriptura at all.
A final Roman Catholic objection is the claim that Sola Scriptura is false because it leads to denominational anarchy: "private interpretation leads to denominationalism. Let five hundred people interpret the Bible without Church authority and there will soon be five hundred denominations. But [this] is an intolerable scandal by Scriptural standards (cf. Jn. 17: 20-23 and I Cor. 1:10-17)." [13]
First, this objection assumes, as many Roman Catholic arguments do, that Biblical unity is identical to institutional unity, as opposed to unity in truth. The Roman Catholic assumption about unity implies that we would be in a superior situation even if we had, for example, one corrupt church, and a hundred fruitful denominations agreeing in doctrine. Secondly, it assumes that the mere exercise of "church authority" genuinely resolves doctrinal differences instead of just judiciously obliterating them. Thirdly, and most importantly, it fails simply because it begs-the-question by assuming the falsity of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura simply precludes the type of institution assumed by the objection. If Sola Scriptura is indeed God's design for His people, then this objection attacks God's plan itself. Hence, this objection should be jettisoned.
In all, then, none of these objections succeeds. They each fall prey to simple fallacies. Though I believe I have met my burden by providing arguments which demonstrate that Sola Scriptura is the teaching and practice of the Old and New Testaments, my next step might be to close out my case by going on to refute Catholic arguments for the claim that God has provided an infallible interpreter to explicate His Word to His people. But such arguments are Mr. Matatics' burden, and so I will await his response for that opportunity.[14]
[2 ] This manner of framing the question in terms of norm instead of source is also the way Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating discusses the issue (Catholicism and Fundamentalism, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988], p. 134), though his remarks are otherwise quite inaccurate (e.g., "Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply wrong...." or "The whole of Christian truth is found within its pages" Ibid.).
[3 ] Schroeder, Council of Trent, p. 17.
[4 ] Vatican II, Dei Verbum, 9.
[5 ] For example, Roman Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft claims, "the Catholic Church does not claim to be divinely inspired to add any new doctrines, only divinely protected to preserve and interpret the old ones, the deposit of faith." (Fundamentals of the Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 275.
[6 ] e.g. Keating, Catholicism, p. 136; Kreeft, Fundamentals, p. 275; Scott Hahn in "The Authority/Justification Debate, Scott Hahn vs. Robert Knudsen" (Catholic Answers, P.O. Box 17181, San Diego, CA 92117). Interestingly, Hahn claims that even after several years of struggle he could not find an answer to the question, `Where does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?' "I even called two or three of my seminary professors...but I didn't come up with a satisfying answer."
[7 ] Kreeft, Ibid.
[8 ] Hahn, "Authority Debate."
[9 ] cf. Oberman, H., The Harvest of Medieval Theology, (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1963); Turretin, F., The Doctrine of Scripture; Locus II of Institutio of Theologiae Elencticae, Beardslee, J. (ed. & trans.), (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981); Chemnitz, M., Examination of the Council of Trent, Pt. I, Kramer, F. (trans.), (Missouri: Concordia Publ. House, 1971).
[10 ] Some of the objectors appear confused on this point. For example, Kreeft claims that Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory but in fact he only argues that the doctrine is unjustified, not internally contradictory (Kreeft, Fundamentals, p.275). Similarly, Hahn claims that the doctrine is "illogical" but doesn't produce a logical problem inherent in it; instead he raises an epistemological question regarding the formation of the canon. Moreover, some of the objections that could be placed in this category are simply too far from the mark to consider seriously. For example, Marshner ("The Development of Doctrine," Reasons for Hope, [Virginia: Christendom College Press] pp. 177-196) offers a logically detailed argument to refute the alleged Protestant claim that Scripture presents a set of dogmas which have no further implications. Since Protestants, especially in the Westminster Confession tradition, explicitly affirm the very opposite, Marshner's logical detail is all built upon a straw man.
[11 ] Hahn, "Authority Debate."
[12 ] Keating (Catholicism, p. 125ff,) interestingly attempts to offer a non-circular argument to this effect by using a Montgomery/Evidentialist line of reasoning, but he begs-the-question by assuming the truth not only of theism but of Roman Catholicism as well by taking the Scriptures as "purely historical material" and "[f]rom that we conclude an infallible church was founded."
[13 ] Kreeft, Fundamentals, Ibid.
[14 ] My thanks to David Hagopian and Doug Wilson for comments on an earlier version of this essay.
Read these in context, understand the audience of the writer. They’re both right.
What are the odds those 5000 bishops say the exact same thing every Sunday in their message with no deviation whatsoever.
The Acts 15 the Holy Spirit led them to restate Noahic Covenant in Genesis. From Scripture. Err Sola scriptura.
“By the magisterial teaching of the Church”
If teaching of the church violates scripture I doubt the Holy Spirit is involved. Acts 15 again was not new but the Holy spirit pointing to scripture in Genesis.
“...that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
This may sound weird, but I have a glimmer of hope that some day God will use my time spent in the Psalms to witness to Jews and hopefully win some. The Lord is spoken of constantly there. Hebrews really emphasizes this by quoting much from the Psalms.
I know, how arrogant of a “Gentile sinner” thinking they have something to offer the Jews! But we believers in Jesus DO!
Welcome to the Religion forum.
I'm going to conclude from the nature of your questions that you are not a Christian. Am I correct in that assumption?
Not ONCE did He say, "Remember what the prophets told us?"
all murder in the eyes of God. And many most will go to oblivion screaming “I’m sooo sorry”
I don’t do Pope. I do Jesus but “glabal warming” is a total lie. I hope the man does not bear false witness. It is a real bad sin.
Yes why do we allow baby killing. These people need to go to jail like a drive by shooter!!
Murder.
This is “inside baseball” real bad . I am a Christian.
God bless Alamo Girl.
That fat dumb bitch is an automatic channel change and has been for many tears. Her only talent is that she is loud and fat. ( Very butchy)
The ability to teach through the gift of teaching, does not in the least mean that they didn't use Scripture as their source of truth and the means by which truth claims were measured.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Then they do the Berean thing and Search the Scripture to see if the teaching in in accordance to it. Just as the Bereans did when PAUL, of all people, came preaching to them.
See the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. How does a Protestant know that he is being lead rather than a Catholic?
Because it lines up with Scripture. The Council at Jerusalem did not admonish the Gentile believers to do something that was not already established in Scripture, ie, Acts 15:27-29 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Nothing there that was not already established clearly by God.
Good catch - good post.
The difference is they used scripture in context and they didn’t go outside of scripture.....unlike the roman catholic church. See the immaculate conception and assumption of mary for examples.
Considering that the New Testament had yet to be written they indeed did go outside of what at the time was Scripture. In any case, what it clearly shows is that the apostles and presbyters of the church were invoking the authority of the Holy Spirit directly and not just appealing to Scripture.
Considering that the New Testament had yet to be written they indeed did go outside of what at the time was Scripture.
Guess you forgot about the OT.
In any case, what it clearly shows is that the apostles and presbyters of the church were invoking the authority of the Holy Spirit directly and not just appealing to Scripture.
Yes...they Holy Spirit was guiding them as the Helper as promised by Christ.
Notice no appeal to Mary or the departed saints.
Also notice that all present were in agreement with the decision of James.
This must be the question no catholic wants to answer....I think we know the reason why.
Because there was no need to answer such a silly question. Even the four evangelists did not say the exact same thing. Besides, the mentioning of the 5000 bishops was to refute the attempt to reduce the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church to that of Rome alone.
Not at all. But they could not have decided as they did without the teaching of Jesus and their reflection on its meaning, both of which are outside the Old Testament.
Yes...they Holy Spirit was guiding them as the Helper as promised by Christ.
As it has continued to do in the teaching of the church for 2000 years.
Also notice that all present were in agreement with the decision of James.
But by their own words their decision was presented as that of all the gathered apostles and presbyters and not just that of James.
I would also point out that we are here arguing the meaning of this passage in Scripture. Both of us think that we are right. An appeal to Scripture alone will not resolve this dispute. Just as the church at Antioch submitted to the authority of the apostles and presbyters gathered at Jerusalem so must we submit to the teaching authority of bishops of the church today. This is the model presented in the Bible.
The above statement, the two sentences put together, are self-defeating, even to point of irrationality.
Under principle of sola scriptura, ministers of the church are not precluded from being led by the Spirit. It is from the writings which you are quoting from which helps serve to establish that.
Try reading the article.
And THAT is your own mere opinion which yourself (and those which share the same warped view of what the solas of the Reformation are) do seem to be continually proclaiming MUST BE believed, but is a distortion of what the principle of sola scriptura is, when that be more properly understood.
If one prophesy, let another judge.
The Latin Church, almost stem to stern, top to bottom, on a daily basis, does that very thing which you have just accused Protestants being uniformly(?) guilty of.
Try looking in a mirror.
The RCC is not the solo ecclesia, to whatever extent the membership is truly among ekklesia, at all. Mileage varies, as that saying goes, with that sort of thing applying to one and all (not just among Roman Catholics).
The Latin church was not in the earliest beginnings considered to be the, or even a central-most seat of infallible 'authority' for such a concept was not contemplated in earliest centuries of the church. The RCC it is not infallible now, and it was NEVER that thing, despite the reams of Romish writings which self-reverentially proclaim that assemblage of utter falsehood (of itself being the One True Church, Alone) as being the very stuff of truth itself (and have programmed/thoroughly brainwashed it's membership into believing).
That's something of a classic case of projection --- projecting upon generally all so-called Protestants that which the Church of Rome is itself guilty of to significantly larger degree than most any portion of the larger, wider corpus of bonafide 'Protestant' exegesis of Scripture present itself as, and those who expound upon those things present themselves to be.
According to the Church of Rome, All must be [unilaterally] subject to the Roman Pontiff?
All must accept the Latin Church's invention of dogma identified as Immaculate Conception? (which is, roughly described; the claim Mary, the earthly mother of the Messiah, was miraculously preserved from all sin --- even the slightest --- from her own birth).
And those are only two of many places where Rome Alone proclaims itself able to assert it's own authority to be above and over all --- even over and above Scripture itself, inventing doctrine and dogmas which are said must be believed.
If what the Roman Catholic Church declares all must believe, is even in part not believed...then what?
Excommunication latae sentenciae.
I thank God for Himself not having truly empowered the Latin Church to the full extents which the wider code of that church's own canon law stipulates, and further suggests.
Meanwhile, there are yet more fundamental truths which are not at all dependent upon the Church of Rome (Alone) to declare;
Out of Egypt I have called My son (Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:15).
When anyone puts their own exegesis (or eisegesis, read here for explanation of the differences, along with one provided, rather neutral example) on the same plane as Scripture, or even higher, while simultaneously ignoring those portions of Scripture itself which refutes aspects of their positions (as is all too common for some aspects of Roman Catholic Church "magesterial teachings") then they are guilty of what you claim Protestants (alone?) are guilty of.
Many, if not most(?) of those whom Roman Catholics perceive as being Protestant, by instinct, and by the holy spirit turn away from cultish leaders who dare assert that their own exegesis/eisigesis is equal to Scripture.
This does not mean that that all other exegesis, among that which can be perceived to be profitable & helpful illumination of what the Scriptures openly enough hold, needs to be taken as equal to Scripture, or else discarded.
One, Scripture itself, is as the Word of God. The other is mere teaching about Scripture, as assistant to what Scripture itself can hold within itself.
Your thesis fails, as it will always fail, and for the same fundamental reason of having made something of a strawman out of the Reformation rediscovery of the principle of sola scriptura.
There is yet another dimension to this too.
That one sola is but one of five solas intended to work together in complementary, interlocking fashion. No one single sola was contemplated to be truly alone.
Without examination of how those all work together, then critical appraisal (and effort to defeat the one, to then be better able to re-assert solo ecclesia instead, either openly doing so, or by persistence in suggestion and innuendo) will also be doomed to fail, other than in the minds of brainwashed papists perhaps, along with pretty much every other group which insists upon setting their own teacher's opinions over and above Scripture, at any point which the teachings and commentaries are faced with challenges based upon solid enough biblical exegesis.
Or are you arguing from a partim-partim view of sufficency? http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/11/material-sufficiency-of-scripture-vs.html
Like White, I too notice the shifting from one perspective to another among RC apologists, with it seeming to occur without those apologists being aware of their own inconsistencies.
The written word, the Scripture -- cannot be broken. Just ask Jesus. He was the one who would say such as that...
It matters not that the Word can be misused, at times and places misunderstood, mangled, misapplied or else even totally ignored.
His word shall not return unto Himself void Isaiah 55:11.
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Check the full chapter's context for the above Isaiah 55.
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.Heaven and earth shall (may?) pass away but His word shall not pass away. More literal translation for Matthew here
There is much more also, which when understood, irrefutably establishes that ekklesia is subject to the Word, rather than the word of God be subject to ecclesia.
At any place where one may tend towards making the teachings of God to be of no effect -- then the written word is the first, and the last word. All must be yield, much as every knee shall eventually bend, and more directly kneel before the Creator....while kissing the feet of popes -- is exercise of blasphemy.
If one be a prophet of God who is sent to remind one and all of that which has come from God, to man, and bring yet further Word of God ----one measure of a prophet, if one carefully inspects the history of true prophets (compared to false prophets) is that whatever word they bring will not conflict with what has come before.
God's own words were complete and entire from His own first utterances of them, needing no further "development" from His own perspective, although it did take millennia for the fuller depths of meaning to become more apparent, thus more easily accessible to the understandings of mere humans. Even now we must have the spirit of the Lord open the written word to our understanding. No amount of explanation coming from human source can ever get it right, unless that human source is being properly led.
Regardless of whatever errors there may be found within the writing and teachings of whomever it is who opens the Scriptures and attempts to speak concerning them;
Justification for what the Latin Church has done with doctrinal teachings at some junctures of it's existence (such as the two examples I pointed to) is not found in the passage;
which is often brought out by Roman Catholics when speaking of the comfort of their own one ecclesiastical organization's self-perceived exclusion from even the possibility for doctrinal error.
That (above) passage is not speaking of future centuries time flawlessness for any one ekklesia in particular, but instead is speaking more towards hell itself not being able to hold it's captives forever prisoner.
During the era of the Protestant Reformation, it took making a big break with the burdensome additions to the Gospel of Christ which the Latin Church had embroidered upon (on top of) the teachings of the early centuries Church in order that the captives could be set free...
Those of Rome (the RCC) often have it quite backwards, although I do get a sense that in spite of all the accumulated extras (which can obscure the plain teachings of God as much, or more than help illuminate those same) at least *some living remnant* of that fellowship find freedom by and in Christ Himself, despite all the ornate additions which distract and obscure the utter simplicity of His own having taken the sins of the world (even our own) bodily upon Himself.
And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.
Phillips, Craig & Dean - Revelation Song lyrics by Jennie Lee Riddle [youtube]
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.