Posted on 06/13/2012 2:59:02 PM PDT by Gamecock
In my experience with those who wrestle with conversion to Roman Catholicism—at least those who have professed faith in the gospel, the driving theological issue is authority. How can I be certain that what I believe is true? The gospel of free grace through the justification of sinners in Christ alone moves to the back seat. Instead of the horse, it becomes the cart. Adjustments are made in their understanding of the gospel after accepting Rome’s arguments against sola scriptura. I address these remarks to friends struggling with that issue.
Reformation Christians can agree with Augustine when he said that he would never have known the truth of God’s Word apart from the catholic church. As the minister of salvation, the church is the context and means through which we come to faith and are kept in the faith to the end. When Philip found an Ethiopian treasury secretary returning from Jerusalem reading Isaiah 53, he inquired, “Do you understand what you are reading?” “How can I,” the official replied, “unless someone guides me?” (Ac 8:30-31). Explaining the passage in the light of its fulfillment in Christ, Philip baptized the man who then “went on his way rejoicing” (v 39).
Philip did not have to be infallible; he only had to communicate with sufficient truth and clarity the infallible Word.
For many, this kind of certainty, based on a text, is not adequate. We have to know—really know—that what we believe is an infallible interpretation of an ultimate authority. The churches of the Reformation confess that even though some passages are more difficult to understand, the basic narratives, doctrines and commands of Scripture—especially the message of Christ as that unfolds from Genesis to Revelation—is so clearly evident that even the unlearned can grasp it.
For the Reformers, sola scriptura did not mean that the church and its official summaries of Scripture (creeds, confessions, catechisms, and decisions in wider assemblies) had no authority. Rather, it meant that their ministerial authority was dependent entirely on the magisterial authority of Scripture. Scripture is the master; the church is the minister.
The following theses summarize some of the issues that people should wrestle with before embracing a Roman Catholic perspective on authority.
1. The Reformers did not separate sola scriptura (by Scripture alone) from solo Christo (Christ alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), sola fide (through faith alone). As Herman Bavinck said, “Faith in Scripture rises or falls with faith in Christ.” Revealed from heaven, the gospel message itself (Christ as the central content of Scripture) is as much the basis for the Bible’s authority as the fact that it comes from the Father through the inspiration of the Spirit. Jesus Christ, raised on the third day, certified his divine authority. Furthermore, he credited the Old Testament writings as “scripture,” equating the words of the prophets with the very word of God himself and commissioned his apostles to speak authoritatively in his name. Their words are his words; those who receive them also receive the Son and the Father. So Scripture is the authoritative Word of God because it comes from the unerring Father, concerning the Son, in the power of the Spirit. Neither the authority of the Bible nor that of the church can stand apart from the truth of Christ as he is clothed in his gospel.2. Every covenant is contained in a canon (like a constitution). The biblical canon is the norm for the history of God’s saving purposes in Christ under the old and new covenants. The Old Testament canon closed with the end of the prophetic era, so that Jesus could mark a sharp division between Scripture and the traditions of the rabbis (Mk 7:8). The New Testament canon was closed at the end of the apostolic era, so that even during that era the Apostle Paul could warn the Corinthians against the “super-apostles” by urging, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Co 4:6). While the apostles were living, the churches were to “maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (1 Co 11:2), “…either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Th 2:15). There were indeed written and unwritten traditions in the apostolic church, but only those that eventually found their way by the Spirit’s guidance into the New Testament are now for us the apostolic canon. The apostles (extraordinary ministers) laid the foundation and after them workers (ordinary ministers) build on that foundation (1 Co 3:10). The apostles could appeal to their own eye-witness, direct, and immediate vocation given to them by Christ, while they instructed ordinary pastors (like Timothy) to deliver to others what they had received from the apostles. As Calvin noted, Rome and the Anabaptists were ironically similar in that they affirmed a continuing apostolic office. In this way, both in effect made God’s Word subordinate to the supposedly inspired prophets and teachers of today.
3. Just as the extraordinary office of prophets and apostles is qualitatively distinct from that of ordinary ministers, the constitution (Scripture) is qualitatively distinct from the Spirit-illumined but non-inspired courts (tradition) that interpret it. Thus, Scripture is magisterial in its authority, while the church’s tradition of interpretation is ministerial.
4. To accept these theses is to embrace sola scriptura, as the Reformation understood it.
5. This is precisely the view that we find in the church fathers. First, it is clear enough from their descriptions (e.g., the account in Eusebius) that the fathers did not create the canon but received and acknowledged it. (Even Peter acknowledged Paul’s writings as “Scripture” in 2 Peter 3:16, even though Paul clearly says in Galatians that he did not receive his gospel from or seek first the approval of any of the apostles, since he received it directly from Christ.) The criteria they followed indicates this: To be recognized as “Scripture,” a purported book had to be well-attested as coming from the apostolic circle. Those texts that already had the widest and earliest acceptance in public worship were easily recognized by the time Athanasius drew up the first list of all 27 NT books in 367. Before this even, many of these books were being quoted as normative scripture by Clement of Rome, Origin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others. Of his list, Athanasius said that “holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (NPNF2, 4:23). Also in the 4th century Basil of Caesarea instructed, “Believe those things which are written; the things which are not written, seek not…It is a manifest defection from the faith, a proof of arrogance, either to reject anything of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not” (“On the Holy Spirit,” NPNF2, 8:41). Second, although the fathers also acknowledge tradition as a ministerially authoritative interpreter, they consistently yield ultimate obedience to Scripture. For example, Augustine explains that the Nicene Creed is binding because it summarizes the clear teaching of Scripture (On the Nicene Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 1).
6. Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early Christian community in Rome was not unified under a single head. (Paul, for example, reminded Timothy of the gift he was given when the presbytery laid its hands on him in his ordination: 1 Tim 4:14). In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” (“Authority in the Church” II, ARCIC, para 2, 6). So one has to accept papal authority exclusively on the basis of subsequent (post-apostolic) claims of the Roman bishop, without scriptural warrant. There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18). Interestingly, even the current pope acknowledges that presbyter and episcipos were used interchangeably in the New Testament and in the earliest churches (Called to Communion, 122-123).
7. Ancient Christian leaders of the East gave special honor to the bishop of Rome, but considered any claim of one bishop’s supremacy to be an act of schism. Even in the West such a privilege was rejected by Gregory the Great in the sixth century. He expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as “universal pope”: “a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).
8. Nevertheless, building on the claims of Roman bishops Leo I and Galsius in the 5th century, later bishops of Rome did claim precisely this “proud address.” Declaring themselves Christ’s replacement on earth, they claimed sovereignty (“plenitude of power”) over the world “to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms.” At the Council of Reims (1049) the Latin Church claimed for the pope the title “pontifex universalis“—precisely the title identified by Gregory as identifying one who “in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrist’s precursor….” Is Pope Gregory the Great correct, or are his successors?
9. Papal pretensions contributed to the Great Schism in 1054, when the churches of the East formally excommunicated the Church of Rome, and the pope reacted in kind.
10. The Avignon Papacy (1309-76) relocated the throne to France and was followed by the Western Schism (1378-1417), with three rival popes excommunicating each other and their sees. No less than the current Pope wrote, before his enthronement, “For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 196).
11. Medieval debates erupted over whether Scripture, popes or councils had the final say. Great theologians like Duns Scotus and Pierre D’Ailly favored sola scriptura. Papalists argued that councils had often erred and contradicted themselves, so you have to have a single voice to arbitrate the infallible truth. Conciliarists had no trouble pointing out historical examples of popes contradicting each other, leading various schisms, and not even troubling to keep their unbelief and reckless immorality private. Only at the Council of Trent was the papalist party officially affirmed in this dispute.
12. Papal claims were only strengthened in reaction to the Reformation, all the way to the promulgation of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870. At that Council, Pope Pius IX could even respond to modern challenges to his authority by declaring, “I am tradition.”
13. Though inspired by God, Scripture cannot be sufficient. It is a dark, obscure, and mysterious book (rendered more so by Rome’s allegorizing exegesis). An infallible canon needs an infallible interpreter. This has been Rome’s argument. The insufficiency of Scripture rests on its lack of clarity. True it is that the Bible is a collection of texts spread across many centuries, brimming with a variety of histories, poetry, doctrines, apocalyptic, and laws. However, wherever it has been translated in the vernacular and disseminated widely, barely literate people have been able to understand its central message. Contrast this with the libraries full of decreetals and encyclicals, councilor decisions and counter-decisions, bulls and promulgations. Any student of church history recognizes that in this case the teacher is often far more obscure than the text. It’s no wonder that Rome defines faith as fides implicita: taking the church’s word for it. For Rome, faith is not trust in Jesus Christ according to the gospel, but yielding assent and obedience unreservedly simply to everything the church teaches as necessary to salvation. There are many hazards associated with embracing an infallible text without an infallible interpreter. However, the alternative is not greater certainty and clarity about the subject matter, but a sacrifice of the intellect and an abandonment of one’s personal responsibility for one’s commitments to the decisions and acts of others.
14. Those of us who remain Reformed must examine the Scriptures and the relevant arguments before concluding that Rome’s claims are not justified and its teaching is at variance with crucial biblical doctrines. A Protestant friend in the midst of being swayed by Rome’s arguments exclaims, “That’s exactly why I can’t be a Protestant anymore. Without an infallible magisterium everyone believes whatever he chooses.” At this point, it’s important to distinguish between a radical individualism (believing whatever one chooses) and a personal commitment in view of one’s ultimate authority. My friend may be under the illusion that his or her decision is different from that, but it’s not. In the very act of making the decision to transfer ultimate authority from Scripture to the magisterium, he or she is weighing various biblical passages and theological arguments. The goal (shifting the burden of responsibility from oneself to the church) is contradicted by the method. At this point, one cannot simply surrender to a Reformed church or a Roman church; they must make a decision after careful personal study. We’re both in the same shoes.
15. Most crucially, Rome’s ambitious claims are tested by its faithfulness to the gospel. If an apostle could pronounce his anathema on anyone—including himself or an angel from heaven—who taught a gospel different from the one he brought to them (Gal 1:8-9), then surely any minister or church body after the apostles is under that threat. First, Paul was not assuming that the true church is beyond the possibility of error. Second, he placed himself under the authority of that Word. Just read the condemnations from the Council of Trent below. Do they square with the clear and obvious teaching of Scripture? If they do not, then the choice to be made is between the infallible writings of the apostles and those after the apostles and since who claim to be the church’s infallible teachers.
As I have pointed out in previous posts, the frustration with the state of contemporary Protestantism is understandable. I feel it every day. Yet those who imagine that they will escape the struggle between the “already” and the “not yet,” the certainty of a promise and the certainty of possession, the infallibility of God’s Word and the fallibility of its appointed teachers, are bound to be disappointed wherever they land. As Calvin counseled on the matter, Scripture alone is sufficient; “better to limp along this path than to dash with all speed outside it.”
To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.(Jude 1:24-25)
That was addressed to people persevering: building themselves up in faith, praying, keeping in the love of God, looking for Christ's mercy.
The "Beatitudes" are now the guide for what good works are necessary to gain salvation? Is this what you are contending? The reason I ask is because "blessed are the PURE IN HEART for they shall see God" is a beatitude. How can a man or woman possibly have a pure heart - one that is free from any stain of sin - unless it has the blood of Jesus Christ that has washed it clean? Only blood makes atonement for the soul, only blood makes propitiation for sin, only by the blood is there remission of sins. Good works cannot make payment for sin because, if they could, Christ died in vain - he would not have needed to die. But he DID die because His blood is the payment for sin - all that ever was or ever will be committed by man.
Therefore, good works do NOT get added to our faith in Christ in order for us to be saved. They are done, in the power of the Spirit, out of gratitude for the gift of eternal life God grants to us by His grace and we receive this gift by faith. That is the only way a heart can be pure enough to see God. Human righteousness does not make a heart pure, in fact, our righteousnesses are as filthy rags to God if they are offered in the place of Christ's righteousness. Scripture says:
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. (Titus 3:5,6)
“They aren’t inspired by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit didn’t guide the Bishops when they included them”
So you don’t believe in the New Testament. At least you admit it.
Thanks for your post #110. It’s clear why there was no rebuttal as the writing depicts the same Sacrifice of the Mass we attend today...2,000 years later.
This will help you to become more knowledgable about the formation of the New Testament canon and the recognition the writings of the Apostles and those who had their authority to impose upon the early church those books that were to be included as Holy Scripture. I hope you will take a few minutes and read it The Formation of the New Testament Canon by B.B. Warfield
I realize that, and it is Christ who keeps us from stumbling and who WILL present us before God the Father WITHOUT FAULT. We are kept persevering through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The earlier comment was implying that only those who persevere will be saved, but God says we WILL persevere THROUGH Christ. I can't help but think we talk past each other sometimes. If you truly believe that you are saved by faith and not by your works, then the motive for good works changes from being done out of fear of hell into out of gratitude for the great love and mercy of God that gives to us eternal life. Protestants do not say works don't matter, we say works do not ADD TO the sacrifice of Christ as payment for sin and it is through our faith that God imputes the righteousness of Christ upon our souls.
That same grace that gifts to us eternal life also enables us to live in holiness and we WILL persevere because it is Christ IN us - the hope of glory. Jesus said that he would lose none of us, he will not cast us out and he will not allow us to be plucked out of his hands. Some people come back with, "we can pluck ourselves out", but that is NOT true. Jesus said he would lose NOTHING but WILL raise us up with him in glory. He is holding onto us, we are not holding onto him. We are the child and a good, loving father would never let a child hold onto his hand, he holds onto the child's. It's the same with our Heavenly Father. he disciplines and chastises, but he will never disown us. we are sealed until the day of redemption. That is HIS promise and I trust Him.
It is not just implied:
2 Timothy 2:12 If we endure, We shall also reign with [Him.] If we deny [Him,] He also will deny us.
James 1:12 Blessed [is] the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him.
James 5:11 Indeed we count them blessed who endure. You have heard of the perseverance of Job and seen the end [intended by] the Lord -- that the Lord is very compassionate and merciful.
Revelation 3:10 Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.
I can't help but think we talk past each other sometimes. If you truly believe that you are saved by faith and not by your works
Faith with no action, e.g. prayer, love, charity, is dead and not real. Good works are the form of faith. Anyone who claims faith but does not act on it will not have everlasting life.
Nothing we do can earn our way to Heaven. We must accept the free gift and believe. However, our actions can have the effect of us declining the free gift, e.g. by not believing, not obeying, succumbing to temptation.
That same grace that gifts to us eternal life also enables us to live in holiness and we WILL persevere because it is Christ IN us - the hope of glory.
Not if you reject the gift. It isn't the hope of glory if it is assured.
Works, those spiritual and corpreal works of mercy are the evidence of the Holy Spirit, where you do not find works you do not find Him.
Peace be with you
Not to butt in, but “hope” in the English can come from a Greek root meaning “anticipation,” as opposed to uncertain outcome. I’m sitting where I can’t get to my language tools, but i’d want to see the original text of the passage in question before assigning any conditionality to it. Just sayin...
You are welcome to ignore the last sentence of my post. It does not affect the rest of the post.
In the II Timothy verse, you read "If we endure we will reign with him", the word "if" is also translated "since". So since we endure. It goes back to we WILL endure because of Christ who gives us strength and enables us to endure. A person who is genuinely saved, has received Christ as Savior, believed on Him, WILL endure and he will NOT deny Christ. How can he if Christ is living within him? The Spirit cannot deny himself. If a person truly denies Christ, did he ever really believe in Him?
The James 1:12 passage says, "God blesses those who patiently endure testing and temptation. Afterward they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.". I believe God blesses us when we endure trials and temptations, don't you? He empowers us to be able to. Does it say, "you must endure testings and temptations every time or you will go to hell"? No. It doesn't. Tempting and testings "bring perseverance, character; and character, hope". (Romans 5:4) A genuine faith WILL endure testings and will grow by and through them. We are commended to rejoice when we face trials and temptations because it purifies our faith.
So what is the "crown of life"? II Timothy 4:8 speaks about, "in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing." There WILL be rewards given by Christ at the Judgment Seat of Christ. There will be soul-winners crowns with stars representing those won to the Lord through our efforts in Christ. How can we NOT love him who first loved us? How can we NOT joyously await His coming? Again, if you are reading into these verses that our works are what merit heaven for us, you are not reading them in light of what other Scriptures say.
Rather than pull pieces of verses out to put them together like a jigsaw puzzle, why not take the whole of Scripture and read these verses in light of what God says. We know that we are saved NOT by righteous deeds we have done but by His mercy. And His mercy and grace are given to us freely which we acquire through faith. When you start with that knowledge, all these other verses fit in properly.
Faith with no action, e.g. prayer, love, charity, is dead and not real. Good works are the form of faith. Anyone who claims faith but does not act on it will not have everlasting life.
No genuine faith will lack fruit. Some more than others, but that's what I'm trying to get across here. We are saved by faith alone, but it is not a faith which is alone, has been said. And it truly is correct. A faith that takes hold, like that seed of the sower WILL produce fruit, there WILL be a change from a life of sin into a life that desires to be holy as Christ is holy. But there is a BIG difference in saying we MUST do good works to be saved. We cannot do works to be saved, we do good works because we ARE saved.
When you say anyone who does not act on his faith will not have everlasting life, that is the wrong thing to say because it implies that actions merit everlasting life and we already know that we are saved NOT by our acts but by faith. He who has no change in his life after conversion and who has no fruit or good works that demonstrate his faith, either doesn't have genuine faith to begin with or God is still working on him. Not everyone changes overnight. Sanctification is a process but justification happens when assent of faith is made. God sees the heart, we can only look at the outside. Only God knows if a person's faith in genuine. We all know people who seem to have many wonderful works for God, but they turned out to be wolves in sheep's clothing. We are told, "By their fruits you shall know them" but people get tricked all the time. God never gets tricked. He knows every secret thought and inclination of the heart.
Don't be so quick to pigeonhole a piece of a verse and assume it says something. Read the whole passage and understand who is being spoken to and what it is about. Don't jump to conclusions whenever a certain word comes up and just assume it means something that it very well may not. Have a good night.
Catholic teaching indeed - totally void of truth! Catholicsm never taught the truth about salvation and they never will - their teachings are of a worldly sense and catholics will never know what the TRUTH is because they are hell bent on ‘the church said’ ‘the church said’ and what the catholic church teaches is not biblical. Even when eternity hangs in the balance, catholics, mormons are determined they ‘got it’ so they ignore the Truth when it is presented to them. That’s ‘religion’ for you - ‘acting religious’ while totally clueless on the supernatural. God is supernatural - HIS WAYS are higher than man-made religion and all their pomp.
Catholics and Mormons are stuck in bondage ‘in man’/their church. God’s OWN are free ‘in Christ’. God’s Holy Spirit inspired Word is the FINAL AUTHORITY. The book of mormons, the catechism, the koran are from the pit/man. It does not matter if you agree, it needed to be said so you can never claim you never knew. And it will take more than this for the brainwashed to ‘get it’.
HarleyD:
No, they did not believe in Penal Substituion. THat was Calvins theory. St. Anselms Satisfaction Theory was largely a development to totally show why the Ransom THeory that was proposed by some Fathers, i.e. God had to pay Debt and thus if God had to pay a Debt, it was paid to Satan to ransom back humanity. God doesn’t owe a debt to Satan, which is where the Ransom theory went off into an area that the Christus Victor theory rooted in recapitulation of Justin Martyr and Ireneaus and Anselms Satisfaction theory did not.
Penal Substituon is a theory of Calvin where the Cross is seen to appease God’s Wrath and Justice. There is No Incarnation theology linked to it at all, ie. God is Love and No greater Love than to lay ones life down for his Friends, etc.
If you have the right to interpret Scripture according to your judgment why do I not have the same right?
7 It is right for me to feel this way about you all, because I hold you in my heart, for you are all partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel. 8 For God is my witness, how I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus. 9 And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.
Verses 9-11 explain HOW we are to work out our salvation. It's not to earn salvation, or to qualify for it, because despite the best we do we can never qualify for it or earn it. Salvation is not something to be bought for a price, any price. Money can't pay for it and works without money can't pay for it. There's not enough in the whole world to pay for a drop of the blood of Jesus.
And the filthy rags that our own righteousness are cannot be added to the sinless, spotless perfection of Jesus' works.
It'd be equivalent to a child drawing with a crayon on the Mona Lisa thinking that it improved on it and the artist would be pleased with his efforts.
Works are a natural outgrowth of salvation, the FRUIT of it. The fruit doesn't give life to the tree, the tree gives life to the fruit.
Saying one believes and adding works to it is also no different that tying fruit on a tree and acting as if the tree really produced it. Sure it may look it from a distance but it's not genuine.
Real life comes from within and works are a result of getting saved, not getting saved the result of doing works.
When we are saved, the works follow and as we renew our minds and become more Christlike, we are working out our salvation.
What a wonderful way to start my day, mom. Thank you for that enlightening post!
Or it was insignificant to the message of scripture.
Wow indeed. If it wasn’t even mentioned in scripture I would suggest it was insignificant to the message of scripture.
But they don't have the same faith that we do...It doesn't even have the same meaning to them...
Their 'faith' is their religion, the Catholic religion...They commonly ask, what 'faith' are you...As if faith is a denomination...
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.