Posted on 06/22/2013 1:01:24 PM PDT by NYer
IOW, according to Catholic teaching that you have to eat his literal flesh and blood, anyone who takes the eucharist will never become hungry and thirsty again, right? I mean, after all,it is literal and He didn't tell us it was figurative. Right?
And in verse 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.
Funny, I haven't met any Catholics yet who haven't died. Have you taken communion and do you expect to die?
What about this verse, verse 47? Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
So which is it? Is it believing or eating His flesh?
Now, if eating His flesh is enough, then why do Catholics have to take communion often? Why isn't just eating once enough? After all, when you eat, you HAVE eternal life don't you? Did Jesus say you could lose it?
Excellent questions.
1. Hunger and thirst can mean things other than desire for food and drink - that is the primary definition but not the only definition.
2. Jesus was right when he said “not die”. Death means the death of grace in your soul. He is talking about eternal life in Heaven. Again, we have a case of a word having two meanings.
3. If you don’t believe that you are eating His flesh when you eat Communion then you likely won’t have eternal life. This is just as Jesus said.
4. Catholic salvation can be lost. Jesus redeemed us with His death on the cross, but we can turn away from His love. This is the nature of free will. I give you this verse to reflect on - “I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:27)
If Catholics want to have faith that the Eucharistic elements mysteriously change into the literal flesh and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus and that by receiving the "host" they are consuming Christ and receiving a measure of grace needed to be saved, then let them. I don't believe they have a Scriptural basis for that doctrine nor do I accept their view as the ONLY way to look at the object lesson Christ gave to us - it certainly was an oft-discussed subject in the early centuries. They are wrong to insist that ONLY their current view is correct and nobody can be saved unless they succumb to the Roman Catholic Church and accept ALL the dogmas and doctrines it puts forth. You and others have consistently shown that the Catholic version of what Jesus meant by what he said in John 6 does not and cannot be argued all the way down to the least point - at several levels, the argument breaks down. The only sensible way to look at this is that it is all a matter of faith - all the way - and without faith, it is impossible to please God. Faith is what counts the most!
Response to article by Tim Staples of Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/according-to-scripture)
Preface
Behind the Catholic animosity to Scripture being the supreme authority is the belief and insistence that man must have an infallible office of men to discern, interpret, establish and preserve Christian truth; and thus those who reject these man-made structures are rebels against God who are not to be followed; nor should anyone who lacks possession of an office with the appropriate historical descent (by their standards) be believed, for they lack legitimacy. However, this is not what we see in Scripture. Men did not follow Moses because he had formal descent from an office of lawgivers; rather, they followed him because God powerfully confirmed Moses’ faith and holiness, fully substantiating his message with supernatural attestation. And thru him was given the first written revelation of God, which became the standard for obedience and testing truth claims.
Moses was not to be challenged by carnal rebels, as God supernaturally dealt with this dissent; however, his seat was not a perpetual office of assured infallibility, nor could his successors in office turn extra Scriptural traditions into doctrines based upon their claim of authority. They were to be generally obeyed, (Mt. 23:2-3) but not in manifest contradiction to what was Scriptural (Mark 7:8).
Yet, akin to the Roman magisterium, “for the decision of their [Pharisees] Scribes, or "Soferim" (Josephus, σοπισταί; N. T., γραμματεἴς), consisting originally of Aaronites, Levites, and common Israelites, they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error (Sifre, Deut. 153-154); they endowed them with the power to abrogate the Law at times (see Abrogation of Laws), and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death (Ber. 4a). — http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees
Moreover, while making men the supreme authority is an easier means to unity, and thus cults manifest the greatest uniformity of belief, yet this does not prevent disunity as you have churches competing for the claim of being the One True Church®, as seen in Catholicism and among others who operate under this cultic model. Meanwhile it also fosters unity in error.
Thus they were rebuked by the Lord invoking Scripture, (Mk. 7:2-16); Catholics attempt to explain this away from applying to Rome by contending that He was only opposing mere traditions of men, and then assert that Rome possesses an assured level of veracity [greater] than the Pharisees, and so she cannot err [as] the Pharisees, yet Rome's assured infallibility (which she infallible declared she has) is not promised in Scripture nor is it necessary, and her doctrinal deviations from the NT church testify of her erring as the Pharisees.
Under the Roman model for determining truth, God establishes a magisterium which is perpetuated via historical descent of office, and which solves the problem of different opinions, as all who do not submit to it are rebels who are not to be followed. However, besides not solving the problem of competing magisteriums, submitting to the Roman model of authority actually renders the church invalid, for it began in dissent from the office of men which sat in the seat of Moses, as Christ and His apostles established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in text and in holiness and power. And which foundational fact will be often repeated in countering Staples apologetic. Rome may presume to be something of a modern Moses in requiring submission, but it lacks both his character and level of supernatural attestation.
The NT Scriptural model upholds the necessity of the ecclesiastical magisterium, but not as infallible, and relies upon truth being established by Scriptural substantiation. Though this results in competition, this is necessary as it requires a greater degree of Scriptural character on the part of the true believers and their arguments for victory, rather than self-proclamation that one is the OTC and making Scripture a 2nd or 3rd class authority, and presuming that presuming historical decent marks spiritual authenticity. "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:20) And “God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Matthew 3:9) "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. " (2 Corinthians 4:2) "By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, " (2 Corinthians 6:6-7)
This is how the church began, and must prevail, as it is “the church of the living God” that is “the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)
Below begins Staples arguments against Sola Scriptura, posted in red, with my responses following.
I found that there was no uniform understanding of this teaching among Protestant pastors
This statement is like saying there is no uniform understanding of how to reconcile God's efficacy of grace with human freedom (see Congregatio de Auxiliis) in election with man's freedom, which, while being true, does not mean substantial agreement does not exist, likewise with Sola Scriptura (SS).
While there is some disagreement as to what this all entails, what can find the most common affirmation is that Scripture alone is the infallible standard, or rule, for faith and practice; not that commentaries, history, [etc.,] cannot be used in understanding the Holy Writ , but that it is scripture alone that is the sure source by which all truth claims are judged. And that in this dispensation it contains, formally or materially, all that is necessary for faith and practice. As regards the former, normally a person could read Acts 10:34-43 and understand it well enough to be saved, while materially Scripture provides for teachers which can help souls understand other texts, such as Is. 53.
It should be noted that in this regard Rome has “infallibly” (per her claim) interpreted very few texts, partly because the degree of Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for Catholic assurance of veracity (that Rome is infallible is the basis for Catholic assurance of doctrine, as the only interpretation that has any authority is hers). Meanwhile, sanctioned liberal Roman Catholic scholarship which relegates historical accounts such as Jonah and the fish to being fables is what RCs receive in their own Bible.
and no book I could read to get a better understanding of it.
I find this statement by a graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary hard to believe.
What role does tradition play?
Staples needs to define tradition before he begins asking this question, for if it refers to amorphous ancient oral tradition, which, strictly speaking, is not written, but which Rome channels into doctrine, then the answer is none.
However, if what role doe historical writings play, then contrary to the extreme fringe view of SS so often used by RCs, SS allows for the use of historical writings as part of the material sufficiency of Scripture.
From Alister McGrath's [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] “The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:”
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”
But if Staples had read one of Rome's most notable defenders here, he might have seen that tradition had a place among Protestants in understanding Scripture (but as being subject to it), and the solution such an Roman Catholic resorts to when confronted with it:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “(http://www.archive.org/stream/a592004400mannuoft/a592004400mannuoft_djvu.txt">he Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation”) [New York: J.P. Kennedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date], pp. 227-228.
How explicit does something have to be in Scripture before it can be called doctrine?
A valid theological question, and the basic answer can be seen in that without a centralized magisterium, yet those who truly hold to SS after its historical Scriptural “tradition” overall manifest a common consent on core salvific truths, many of which she shares with Rome due to their Scriptural basis, and contention against those deny them, as well as mere traditions of men, the latter two usually being products of sola ecclesia, which most “cults” also operate under.
And the question can also be asked, how explicit something has to be from Rome's sources to be doctrine, the answer being that warrant is not even needed to be proved.
Does Scripture tell us what is absolutely essential for us to believe as Christians?
Yes, as the “gospel of the grace of God” “by which ye are saved” (Acts 20:24; 1Cor. 15:2) is manifest as being absolutely essential, that "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit, " (Psalms 34:18) and who believe that Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit," (1 Peter 3:18) "that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," (Acts 10:43) and so “call upon the name of the Lord” (denoting deity) to be saved, (Rm. 10:13) with the kind of faith that is normatively confessed in baptism, (Acts 10:47) as saving faith effects characteristic obedience toward its Object. (Jn. 10:27,28)
How can we determine the canon using sola scriptura?
Simply by realizing, based on Scripture, how writings came to be established as wholly God-breathed (Scripture) before there ever was a church in Rome which presumed it was necessary for the both true men of God and true writings of God to be established as such. The NT abounds with Scripture references (at least 275 direct quotes and at least 600 allusions to the Old by one count), and the majority of the 66 books of the Bible were accepted as Scripture by the time of Christ.
Like as true men of God are, writings of God are established by overall consent of the faithful due to their unique Heavenly qualities, effects and attestation, in Scriptural conformation with what had been manifest and established before as being of God. Likewise, additional writings of this unique character would become manifest as being from God, as well as their apparent cessation due to lack of any like it. [And note that some believe that Trent did not disallow that more books could be added (the EOs have more), but condemns any from dissenting from what it affirmed in providing the first infallible canon for RCs.]
While both men of God and writings of God are to be affirmed by the spiritual powers that be, yet, as Scripture attests, this is too often not the case, and indeed God has often preserved Truth by raising up men who were manifestly of God, by Scriptural substantiation, from outside the formal magisterium to rebuke those who sat in it. But which they often rejected, as Rome often has. But by this means the church began and thus the remnant that makes up the true body of Christ has been preserved.
This Scriptural reality refutes the idea that an assuredly infallible perpetual magisterium is necessary to preserve truth and the church.
All these questions and more pointed to the central question: Where is sola scriptura itself taught in the Bible? Most Protestants find it in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:...The fact is that this passage (or any other) does not even hint at Scripture being the sole rule of faith.
The fact is that it certainly does, “sole rule of faith” meaning that Scripture is the assured word of God and alone is the infallible standard or reference point against which all is tested (not that Scripture is all that can be used for understanding it, or that reason, etc. and the church do not play a part in understanding). For indeed it is the only tangible, transcendent source do truth which is manifestly wholly inspired of God — unlike all the church may proclaim — and it is indeed abundantly evidenced to be the standard for obedience and testing truth claims, the Lord Himself and the church establishing their claims by Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
It says that Scripture is inspired and necessary—a rule of faith—but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church. My attempt to defend this bedrock teaching of Protestantism led me to conclude that sola scriptura is unreasonable, unbiblical, and unworkable.
Well of course it is if your conception of SS is this restricted, for if SS meant that these writing were all one literally needs then one could not even read it. But Scripture provides for such things as eyes, and reason, and spiritual discernment, historical evidences, etc.
While Staples professes he could not find a single book that would help him understand SS better, surely he would have read Westminster: After affirming the supremacy of Scripture and its sufficiency, Westminster (cp. 1) adds,
VI. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
And
It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same:.- http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm
These are things which Scripture materially provides for, however, unlike Rome in her presumption [;] all are subject to Scripture as supreme [as] it alone is the assured word of God.
The Protestant appeal to the sole authority of Scripture to defend sola scriptura is a textbook example of circular reasoning, and it betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself: It is contrary to reason. One cannot prove the inspiration of Scripture, or any text, from the text itself.
This objection is from a Roman Catholic apologist for a church which “infallibly” declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
However, invoking 2 Tim. 3:16,17 is not in order to “prove” the inspiration of Scripture from Scripture, but as this is not a debate with atheists, and as Catholics hold Scripture to be inspired, then 2Tim. 3:16 is invoked as proving that Scripture declares all Scripture to be inspired of God, and thus it alone is the standard for faith.
Closely related to this is the question of the canon. After all, if the Bible is the sole rule of faith, we first have to know which books are included in the Bible. Many books were believed to be inspired and, therefore, canonical in the early Church. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff? The Protestant must use the principle of sola scriptura to answer the question of the canon. It simply cannot be done.
Not so, for again, as seen in Scripture, most of what we recognize as Scripture was established as such by the time of Christ, and by the same means of establishment (as described) additional complimentary writings in conformity (covenantal distinctions etc. being understood thereby) to prior ones would be recognized, and by the same principle the lack of any more like them. This does not exclude the place of the magisterium to give its judgment, but the establishment of a canon does not rest upon this (nor make writings inspired, as they are so regardless of whether man recognizes them as so), as their overall enduring establishment among the faithful is essentially due to their unique qualities, effects and attestation as God-breathed text. Likewise for true men of God, for souls were right to believe on John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus despite the fact that they were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses.
The Roman Catholic argument that an assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary to establish the canon extends to all truth claims, and it is argued that being the stewards of Scripture and inheritor of Divine promises of God's presence and preservation and having historical descent (which she claims is hers) makes or requires assured magisterial infallibility. And thus those whom [Rome] rejects are to be rejected.
However, based upon that premise the church itself would be rejected, as it began in dissent from those who were the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, (Rm. 3:2; Mt. 23:2) having historical descent and being the inheritor of Divine promises and God's presence and preservation, (Rm. 9:4; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6)
And yet they challenged and rejected the authority of the Lord and His apostles who reproved them by Scripture, (Mk. 7:3-16; Acts 7) — as Rome often does to those who correct her — as they established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation, in text and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
John 16:13 does tells us that the Spirit will lead the apostles, and by extension, the Church, into truth. But it has nothing to say about sola scriptura or the nature or number of books in the canon.
The key issue here is how the Holy Spirit will lead the church into all truth. That John 16:13 means this is to be done through an assuredly infallible magisterium (whenever speaking universally on faith and morals) is an interpretation, and for a Roman Catholic the only valid interpretation is that which Rome gives. However, that interpretation is not Scriptural as nowhere is this manner of magisterium promised or necessary to provide or preserve truth; and, in fact, as said, the Lord raised up men from without the magisterium to correct it, and still does.
Moreover, rather than leading the church into all truth via a magisterium that infallibly channels nebulous ancient oral tradition into doctrine, the Lord inspired men to reveal His word, and provided this by inspired writing, and progressively reveals things to us from that assured word of God, and through things it provides for (as creation). While the apostles preached as well as wrote the word of God, it is by Scripture that we know this, and as that body alone is established to be wholly inspired of God, so it is the assured word of God by which all truth claims are subject to.
Yet Scripture also states that (with poor reception at least) we still see things as through a dark glass, (1Cor. 13:12) and thus the “all truth” aspect will be fully perceived when their Lord returns. (1Jn. 3:2)
The Bible does not and cannot answer questions about its own inspiration or about the canon.
Regardless of the Catholic assertions, Scripture does indeed answer questions about its own inspiration and the canon, revealing how revelation is manifest as being from God, and thus that writings were realized as being from God, and thus by extension, enabling a collection of them to be, before a church in Rome supposed it alone could do so indisputably, and yet took over 1400 years after the last book was written (some questioning and dissent continued through the centuries and right into Trent) to do so.
Historically, the Church used sacred Tradition outside of Scripture as its criterion for the canon.
And thereby she perpetuated error. In reality, Rome can autocratically use from Tradition what it needs to support her claims, while differing on significant issues from the tradition-based EOs on what tradition means.
The early Christians, many of whom disagreed on the issue, needed the Church in council to give an authoritative decree to settle the question. Those are the historical facts.
The historical and Scriptural facts are that while the magisterium is a valid office, it has been wrong and can introduce or perpetuate error as well as truth, the former of which is reproved by manifest men of Scripture. And thus again, the church began in dissent from those, whom, like Rome, presumed a level of assured veracity beyond that which is written.
And while Rome effectively presumes itself to be the supreme authority over Scripture, claiming that it alone can authoritatively decree what Scripture consists of and means, we see that in validly settling disputes and making a judgment, the NT church did not claim assured infallibility, but based their decision on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Acts 15:4,7-9,12; Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14) [Nor did it look to holy Peter as its singularly exalted, uniquely (as an individual) infallible head, but while he was the first to use the keys to the kingdom, through which souls enter the kingdom, and provides his testimony and appeal, as befits his humble leadership, it is James which gives the definitive decree. (Acts 15:13-21)]
To put my friend’s argument into perspective, imagine a Catholic making a similar claim to demonstrate that Mary is the Mother of God. "We believe the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth and guided the early Christians to declare this truth." Would the Protestant respond with a hearty amen? No. He would be more likely to say, "Show me where it says in the Bible that Mary is the Mother of God!" The same question, of course, applies to Protestants concerning the canon: "Show me where the canon of Scripture is in the Bible!"
As Westminster states and which principle Staples must assent to here, doctrine need not be based on what is explicitly stated, as a conclusion may be derived based on a confluence of supporting texts which warrant a conclusion. The Trinity is a conclusion based on this, while on the other hand RCs argue that Scripture supports praying to the departed, even though there are zero examples of anyone praying to anyone in Heaven except the Lord, or that any insufficiency exists in Christ being the directly accessible and compassionate and able mediator between God and man.
..."How do you know Scripture is inspired? Your reasoning is just as circular. You say the Church is infallible because the inspired Scripture says so, then you say that Scripture is inspired and infallible because the Church says so!"
Not only is this not an answer, but it also misrepresents the Catholic position. Catholics do not claim the Church is infallible because Scripture says so. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so. The Church was established and functioning as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written.It is true that we know Scripture to be inspired and canonical only because the Church has told us so.
This simply relies upon the same circularity the Roman Catholic apologist attempts to escape, as the RCA says the Church is infallible because the Divine Lord said so, and yet they claim to know He said so because the Church is infallible and thus gave authority to Scripture by defining the canon, and according to her interpretation, or decree, only her interpretation can be correct in any conflict.
..Catholics reason to inspiration of Scripture through demonstrating first its historical reliability and the truth about Christ and the Church. Then we can reasonably rely upon the testimony of the Church to tell us the text is inspired. This is not circular reasoning. The New Testament is the most accurate and verifiable historical document in all of ancient history, but one cannot deduce from this that it is inspired.
First, Catholics do not reason to inspiration of Scripture, but rest upon Rome's decree teaching concerning it, though Vatican Two sees differing interpretations as to the scope of preservation.
Despite the attempt to escape it, the Roman Catholic basis for proving and believing the inspiration of Scripture is ultimately circular, as while the RC argument here reduces Scripture to being merely an historical document for polemical purposes, human reasoning is rejected by Rome as a sure basis for assurance of truth, and instead, as a Roman Catholic, that Scripture is inspired of God rests upon the premise of Rome's assured infallibility, which she has infallibly claimed for herself. For as said, having infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, this renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
The testimony of the New Testament is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christian and non-Christian writers.
But that this supports the unique supremacist claim of Rome to be the One True Church® is an interpretation, which according to her, cannot be valid if it contradicts her, under the premise of her assured infallibility.
The historical record also tells us that Jesus Christ established a Church—not a book—to be the foundation of the Christian faith
No, the Lord established a church which had its foundation in the Scriptures, for it established its claims upon Scriptural substantiation, and its core truth by which it has its members and continuity is the "gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures." (Romans 1:1-2) Thanks be to God.
The church of the living (not institutionalized) God is what is the pillar and ground of the truth, (1Tim. 3:15) but which statement cannot be proved to mean anything more than being based on and supporting the truth, which Scripture assuredly is.
The many books that comprise the Bible never tell us that they are inspired
That is misleading at best, as Scripture certainly does affirm that Scripture is inspired of God, for they are abundantly called the word of God, and held as the supreme authority, higher than the magisterium.
nor do they answer many other essential questions about their canonicity. Who can or cannot be the human authors of the texts? Who wrote them in the first place?
These are not essential questions about canonicity, as it matters not who wrote Hebrews for instance, for what is essential for them and true men of God is that they manifest the enduring Divine qualities, effects and attestation that established prior writings as Scripture over time. Heavenly classics are not made to be said based upon the decree of a magisterium, but by their qualities.
But Scripture does tell us—remarkably clearly—that Jesus established a kingdom on earth, the Church, with a hierarchy and the authority to speak for him (Luke 20:29-32; Matt. 10:40; 28:18-20).
But Scripture does tell us—remarkably clearly—that Jesus (and apostles) reproved by Scripture the hierarchy which had the authority to speak for Him, as like Rome, they presumed of themselves more than what Scripture allowed and hardened their heart to humbling truth. (Mk. 7:2-16; Acts 7)
And the manner of hierarchy the Lord established to speak for him was not that of more clerical classes than apostles and bishops, nor was it exalted men distinctly titled “priests, and robed in ostentatious clothing with grand titles, which is all too similar to what the Lord condemned. (Mt. 23:5-8)
If we did not have Scripture, we would still have the Church.
And if we did not have Scripture, we would not have the Church, as again, it was established upon Scriptural substantiation (see refs above), that being the standard.
But without the Church, there would be no New Testament Scripture. It was members of this kingdom, the Church, who wrote Scripture, preserved its many texts, and eventually canonized it. Scripture alone could not do any of this.
The issue here is not simply whether Scripture came through human instrumentation, but whether this makes them the infallible supreme authority over it, as Rome presumes she is, and which is what Staples is contending for. But by essentially arguing that the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation are the infallible supreme authority over it, rather than Scripture — God's eternal word — being supreme over the instruments by which it came (likewise Christ, for though in His incarnation He came through a woman, yet He is superior to the instrument, but which Catholicism also exalts beyond what Scripture does), Staples has just nuked the church as it began in dissent from those who were.
For without Israel, there would be no Old Testament Scripture, as it was members of this kingdom who wrote Scripture, preserved its many texts, and saw its establishment. Yet this did not require that the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation possess assured infallibility, or assure irreplaceable perpetuation of office through historical descent.
The bottom line is that the truth of the Catholic Church is rooted in history.
Judaism was also rooted in history,
Jesus Christ is a historical person who gave his authority to his Church to teach, govern, and sanctify in his place.
All that is affirmed under SS, but that Rome is the infallible supreme authority over Scripture is what is contrary to Scripture.
Reason rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle.
Rather, reason rejects the alternative, sola ecclesia, as a self-refuting principle, that the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation are the infallible supreme authority over it, but reason upholds SS, as Scripture, not the church, is wholly inspired, and which provides for recognition of writings as Scripture, and by extension a canon.
There are four problems with the defense of sola scriptura using 2 Timothy 3:16. First, it does not speak of the New Testament at all...Claiming this verse as authentication for a book that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims.
It does not need to, as it affirms all Scripture is inspired by God, and thus all that would added to what already existed is God-breathed, and thus 2 Timothy 3:16 affirms the entire collection of Divine writings, the recognition of which it provides for.
Second, 2 Timothy 3:16 does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians.
Again, “sole rule of faith” must refer to Scripture alone being the supreme authority, not that the Holy Spirit, the church, etc., have no place under SS, as Scripture provides for such things, as Westminster affirms. The sufficiency of Scripture pertains to both formal (limited) and material sufficiency. But that Scripture alone is the supreme and [sufficient] authority is supported by 2 Timothy 3:16,17, as again, it is the only tangible transcendent source of truth that is affirmed to [be] wholly inspired of God, and thus is used by the church [so] that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
The Bible teaches justification by faith, and we Catholics believe it, but we do not believe in justification by faith alone, as Protestants do. Among other reasons, the Bible says that we are "justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jas. 2:24).
This is another debate, suffice to say that if James is referring to exactly the same thing as Paul meant in his discourse on justification as Paul in Rm. 4, then James contradicts both Gn. 15:6 and Rm. 4:1-7, which clearly states, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (Romans 4:3) "Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works..." (Romans 4:6ff) And the works here are not simply referring to works of the law, as RCs argue — though to my knowledge that is not an official interpretation — but to any works as making one actually worthy of acceptance by God, for "How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision," (Romans 4:10) as circumcision was before the law, (Gn. 17) thus it is "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. " (Titus 3:5)
However, while it is most precisely faith in the Lord Jesus and His sinless shed blood to save them that appropriates justification, the kind of faith that does so is one that is out of a poor and contrite heart (Ps. 34:18) and effects confession of the Lord Jesus in word and deed, of which is baptism. And which works justify one as possessing salvation. "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. " (Romans 10:9-10)
Thus along with James, Paul teaches that it is an effectual faith that saves, not that of mere intellectual assent. "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. " (Romans 2:13)
And thus Reformers taught that faith and works go together, like light and heat, that “Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love. [Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm]
Rome even allows that one can be justified by a perfectly contrite faith (contritio caritate perfecta, which, works ex opere operantis: Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace), even before baptism, yet this faith, if it is salvific, must be the kind that effects characteristic obedience toward its Object. (Jn. 10:27,28)
There is no sola in 2 Timothy 3:16 either. The passage never claims Scripture to be the sole rule of faith.
This is from a school of apologetics who will try to defend Mariology from Scripture with its sinless perpetual virgin bodily assumed into Heaven to reign as its Queen with almost unlimited power, and hearing and responding to infinite numbers of prayers, etc. Yet, in contrast to the egregious extrapolation of Scripture such must engage in seeking to provide substantiation for the Mary of Catholicism, while 2 Timothy 3:16 does not explicitly claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith, yet as said, as Scripture is the only tangible transcendent source that is stated to be inspired of God in it entirety (and its alternative, the church, is not), and by the use of which man may become perfect, then it renders Scripture alone to be the transcendent standard for the obedience of faith.
James 1:4 illustrates the problem: And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to 2 Timothy 3:16, then we would have to say that all we need is patience (steadfastness) to be perfected. We don’t need faith, hope, charity, the Church, baptism, or anything else.
That is an erroneous argument, as it is ignorant of the implications of Scripture being the only tangible transcendent assured word of God, by which the steadfastness that is enjoined by God comes, while the RC argument also presupposing SS is based on one text.
Of course, any Christian knows this would be absurd. But James’s emphasis on the central importance of patience is even stronger than Paul’s emphasis on Scripture.
Not so, as patience (steadfastness) as well as charity, the Church, baptism, etc., requires faith, which comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, (Rm. 10:17), and Scripture in its entirety is the assured word of God (unlike all that the church teaches or has taught, regardless of its “infallible” claim to be infallible). And Paul greatly emphasized faith, and established his claims regarding faith on Scriptural substantiation.
Third, the Bible teaches that oral Tradition is equal to Scripture. It is silent when it comes to sola scriptura, but it is remarkably clear in teaching that oral Tradition is just as much the word of God as Scripture is. In what most scholars believe was the first book written in the New Testament, Paul said: And we also thank God . . . that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God. (1 Thess. 2:13)
First, it is Rome's oral Tradition that is the issue (which is dealt with below), and which is NOT the same as the inspired anointed preaching of the apostles, and while some apostolic preaching was inspired of God, it was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, conforming in text to what had been written and in attestation to what we see in Scripture God giving to His word, preaching the gospel which "now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: " (Romans 16:26)
As Scripture does not change, it was impossible to preach something as the word of God that is contrary or inconsistent with it even with [an] open canon. Rome circumvents this by [infallibly] claiming to be infallible, thus she can autocratically declare Scripture means or does not contradict her claims, as according to her decree only she can be right in any conflict, and thus can claim Tradition, Scripture and history only support her. This presumption of perpetual assured infallibility is not what the apostles claimed, but manifested in word and in power that both they and what they preached was of God. (2Cor. 4:2; 6:4-10)
According to Paul, the spoken words of the apostles were the word of God. In fact, when Paul wrote his second letter to the Thessalonians, he urged Christians there to receive the oral and written Traditions as equally authoritative. This would be expected because both are the word of God: So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)
These commands were the word of God, but unlike Rome's amorphous ancient tradition out of which she can make legends into dogma 1800 years after the alleged event, what Paul referred to were Scriptural truths known to the Thessalonians. Nor can Rome prove this tradition contained even a single teaching that either had not been written, though not directly to the Thessalonians, or was not subsequently written, as was the norm with any revelation called “the word of God/the Lord” as a study of that term will show.
Note also that as the preaching of the gospel message is also called preaching the word (Acts 8:4; 11:19) though the [preachers] are not inspired like writers of Holy Writ were, and thus SS minsters can exhort believers to give heed to what has been preached orally or in writing.
In addition, the men who orally preached inspired words were apostles, including Paul who did not receive the gospel he preached from men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:12) Yet Rome cannot claim to be inspired as these men were in formally preaching the word of God, nor does she meet the qualifications for apostles. Even those who sat in the seat of Moses could not claim to make new doctrines as he did based upon their position, and neither can Rome, even if her claim to apostolic succession was valid.
And yet being a true Jew is not based on physical lineage, (Rm. 2:28,29) and God can raise up children to Abraham from stones, and thus valid authority is not based on physical or historical descent, but Abrahamic faith, for God can continue to build His true church, the body of Christ, by raising up stones who like Peter, effectually confess the Lord Jesus, and thus cannot submit to the aberrational faith of Rome but reprove it, as Peter would.
Finally, 2 Timothy 3:16 is specifically addressed to members of the hierarchy. It is a pastoral epistle, written to a young bishop Paul had ordained. R. J. Foster points out that the phrase "man of God" refers to ministers, not to the average layperson (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1149). This title was used in the Old Testament to describe those consecrated to the service of God (Deut. 33:1; 1 Sam. 2:27; 1 Kgs. 12:22). Not only does the text not say Scripture sola, but Paul’s exhortation for Timothy to study the word of God is in the context of an exhortation to "preach the word" as a minister of Christ.
RCAs should know better than to attempt to resort to such specious argumentation as this when dealing with those who believe in searching the scriptures daily, whether such are so. For the title “man of God” is most often used for prophets, and which do not depend on formal descent for authenticity, unlike the priesthood of Rome. And in the NT the title “man of God” is only used twice, once for Timothy, who, before he was a minister, was raised on Scripture consistent with SS, and the use of the title at subject for him does not make him the only man of God, nor clergy to be the only men of God. And the second occurrence is in 2Tim. 3:17, which says is that by the use of Scripture the “man of God” may become perfect, and to suppose that this only applies to ministers is contrary to Scripture, as perfection in faith is Paul's goal for every believer, (2Cor. 13:9) and for which the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture and abundantly references it.
For indeed, not only were the apostles eyewitness of Christ and preached that “tradition” which is written in Scripture, but Peter, broadly addressing believers, speaks of a “more sure word of prophecy...Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:20-21)
To use this text to claim that sola scriptura is being taught to the average layperson is—to borrow a phrase from Paul—going far "beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6).
Rather, the Holy Spirit does not say it was only “men of God” type clergy who are called noble for receiving the word with all readiness of mind, and searching the scriptures daily, whether those things were so," (Acts 17:11) but Jewish hearers of the synagogue. For in preaching to Jews, Paul “as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures," (Acts 17:2) “persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening." (Acts 28:23) Likewise Apollos, "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. " (Acts 18:28)
The Gentiles who were ignorant of Scripture were at a disadvantage, (Rm. 3:1,2) but God condescended to reaching them by giving supernatural Scriptural attestation to the message to persuade them, (Rm. 15:18,19) while exhorting both Jews and Gentiles believers to "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom," (Colossians 3:16) which Paul's epistles which we read are, and it is Scripture that is the assured word of God which all is subject to being proved by, thus we see that laity were commanded to be Scripturally literate (and which can be achieved by hearing it as well).
The silence of Scripture on sola scriptura is deafening.
By now it is evident that the problem is that the [blind] devotion [that] Rome requires makes [one] deaf as well to what Scripture speaks.
But when it comes to the true authority of Scripture and Tradition and to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the text is clear: If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17) According to Scripture, the Church is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith, morals, and discipline.
Matt. 18:15-17 is not to be read in isolation so as to give a blank check to magisterial authority, but it presupposes and requires that man judge “righteous judgment,” (Jn. 17:24) and which requires manifest subjection to Scripture, contrary to an autocratic infallible entity which declares itself infallible.
On the practical juridical level in the government of the church, men are the final court of appeal, as it was under Israel, with it being a capital offense to rebel from that supreme court. (Dt. 17:8-13) However, Scriptural clearly shows that this does not mean they will always be right, and unanswerable to a superior authority themselves, contrary to what men like Ligouri contend:
“And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it. " Such is," says St. Maximus of Turin, " this judiciary power ascribed to Peter that its decision carries with it the decision of God." 2 The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it. .” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2. http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt
Exercising judgment presumes a standard to judge by, that being God's inspired word. And we see in Scripture that such an office is not superior to that standard, as if it were itself the supreme source of truth and unreprovable, else the church would be illicit. And thus obedience to man is always conditional upon obedience to God, as they are not always one and the same, eve though Rome teaches it is, that of “complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. This obedience should, however, be perfect...(and) must consequently be accepted without wavering.... Pope Leo XIII, in Sapientiae Christianae (On Christians As Citizens), Encyclical promulgated on January 10, 1890, #22-24. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sapie.htm. For what Scripture reveals is that while obedience to both spiritual and secular authority is upheld, (Heb. 13:17; Rm 13:1-7; 1Pt. 2:13,14) yet these can be wrong, and reject manifest men of God who reproved them by Scripture, as it is the material judge of them, versus the magisterium always being right. And thus once again, the church began in dissent from the very men who sat in the seat of Moses, with the church being established upon Scriptural substantiation despite magisterial opposition. And by God often raising up men from without the magisterium was truth and faith preserved (among a relative remnant per usual), and so faith and the body of Christ continues today, with the essential unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3) based upon a common Scriptural salvation/regeneration and relationship with God in Christ. Thanks be to God; may His praises ring in my life as they ought to far more than they do, with no complaining, which i too often wrongly do.
“all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, and Scripture is such that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means [in which the church is a part], may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
Sorry; but I’m having more fun with the Mormons on another thread.
At least THEY don’t bombard ya with tons of material from their archives.
It seems it ALWAYS turns out bad for them when they do!
A big read to be sure.You are certainly very thorough and I'm thankfull to God for your honesty in presenting it as comprehensively as you have.I hope it's given the consideration it merits.The pity is that such is needed in the great propensity of people to make things more complicated than necessary.
1 Corinthians 2:2 "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified"
Thank God for His Word and praise Him for what helps.
grace and peace to you
Daniel, that’s quite a bit of work especially at this time for you! And as usual quality work. Catholicism does not honor God/His Word. Catholicism train their subjects to follow man/their teachings and ‘man’ will lead them to truths which leads them straight to the pit and their subjects refuse to see it. They are spiritually blind because of training by worldly Rome. We see it in posts and articles. Catholics are unteachable to the things of God for they bow to ‘man/evil’ and no one can serve two masters.
Hope you are enjoying your new ‘temporary’ home.
Well, God isn’t the Head of ‘their man made church’ so ‘man’ has to be.
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.