Posted on 04/20/2014 12:50:38 PM PDT by Gamecock
The perennial question in the debate over sola Scriptura is whether the church is over the Bible or the Bible is over the church. If you take the latter position, then you are (generally speaking) a Protestant who believes the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, are the only infallible rule and therefore the supreme authority over the church. But, here is the irony: Roman Catholics also claim to be “under” the authority of the Bible.
The Roman Catholic church insists that the Scripture is always superior to the Magisterium. Dei Verbum declares, “This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it” (2.10), and the Catholic Catechism declares: “Yet, this Magisterium is not superior to the word of God, but its servant” (86). However, despite these qualifications, one still wonders how Scripture can be deemed the ultimate authority if the Magisterium is able to define, determine, and interpret the Scripture in the first place. Moreover, the Magisterium seems to “discover” doctrines that are not consistent with the original meaning of Scripture itself—e.g,, the immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility and the like. Thus, despite these declarations from Rome, residual concerns remain about whether the Magisterium functionally has authority over the Scriptures.
My friend and colleague James Anderson has written a helpful blog post that brings even further clarity to this issue. He begins by observing the judicial activism that happens all too often in the American political system. Judges go well beyond the original intent of the constitution and actually create new laws from the bench. He then argues:
What has happened in the US system of government almost exactly parallels what happened in the government of the Christian church over the course of many centuries, a development that finds its fullest expression in the Roman Catholic Church.
The Bible serves as the constitution of the Christian faith. It is the covenant documentation. It defines the Christian church: what constitutes the church, what is its mission, who runs the church and how it should be run, what are the responsibilities of the church, what is the scope of its authority, what laws govern the church and its members, and so forth. Once the constitution has been written, the task of the ‘judges’ (the elders/overseers of the church) is to interpret and apply it according to its original intent. Their task is not to create new laws or to come up with “interpretations” that cannot be found in the text of the constitution itself (interpreted according to original intent) and would never have crossed the minds of the “founding fathers” (Eph. 2:20).
Yet that’s just what happened over the course of time with the development of episcopacy, the rise of the papacy, and the increasing weight given to church tradition. To borrow Grudem’s phrasing: If the Bible didn’t say something something that the bishops wanted it to say, or thought it should say, they could claim to “discover” new doctrines in the Bible — purgatory, indulgences, apostolic succession, papal infallibility, etc. — and no one would have power to overrule them.
Adapting the candid statement of Chief Justice Hughes, today’s Roman Catholic might well put it thus: “We are under the Bible, but the Bible is what the Pope says it is.” In fact, that’s exactly how things stand in practice. Functionally the Pope has become the highest governing authority in his church: higher even than the Bible. The church has been derailed by “ecclesial activism”.
Thus, even though Rome claims that the Bible is its ultimate authority, practically speaking it is the church that is the ultimate authority. Rome is committed to sola ecclesia. And this clarifies the real difference between Protestants and Catholics. Something has to be the ultimate authority. It is either Scripture or the church.
Not one of the Disciples or Apostles claimed perfection for they too knew they were human. They were wise enough however to listen to The Lord and The Holy Spirit for guidance. We should do no less. My last answer to you on this. If it isn't enough for you that's not my problem. :>}
Mary is dead.
Those “7 churches” in Revelation were 7 communities of Catholics/Orthodox, not 7 different Christian faiths. That was too easy.
The seven Churches listed were all part of the same apostolic Church. Part of John’s job as bishop, was to ensure that the seven Churches listed in Revelation were united in teaching a uniform body of doctrine.
Perhaps it would help if you read a bit more skillfully, even just as far as the wider context that is evident on this thread alone (for starters) -- rather than reach for deliberate "misunderstanding" to which you could then form reply towards.
Since you have brought no challenge to any of the rest of that "context",I'll assume it is because you cannot do so successfully, so instead rely upon cheap-stunt distraction as primary "defense".
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Where do you suppose the early church fathers GOT the truths they used to develop the replies and arguments that established doctrines Christians should believe in the first place? I sounds to me like you are advocating for an authoritarian church that can determine for itself what is or is not the rule of faith based upon their own ideas, musings and interpretations and impose them upon ALL Christians whether or not they have Scriptural substantiation. Even a quick read through the writings of these early leaders will be enough to demonstrate that they relied upon both the Holy Scripture (God-breathed truth) and the Holy Spirit to defend truth from error.
Where are you getting this polemical idea of us deciding whatever we choose to call the basis of our faith? The obvious foundational fault some Roman Catholics rely upon is the mistaken idea that their church can dictate TO God what should be believed - even to the point of ignoring what He says in His word. This thread was started to discuss the relevant point of the role sacred Scripture plays within the church. To advocate that the church is master over God's word rather than its servant is to assert human authority above God's authority - QUITE a weak and shaky foundation! Why not do some reflecting of your own?
Not from scripture alone. You really don't think that do you? The apostles taught no one who taught no one who taught no one?
Sola scriptura is not possible, it's not scriptural and it's not historical.
No church doctrine or dogma is perfect. None are nor can they be for they are the works of man.
How about "Jesus Christ is God"?
I think your position self-refutes. If no doctrine or dogma is perfect then this doctrine too is flawed. I think your argument defeats your argument. Nothing more is required.
Hi Elsie.
Always nice to see your non sequitur posts. Coherency is so dull after a while.
That would be mind-reading, attributing motives.. Adhering to the forum guidelines is always a good idea.
You can repeat that claim until your fingers bleed but it won't make it true. My faith "heritage" is based upon the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles as they recorded them in sacred Scripture. I can show you every single doctrine I believe from Scripture. Can you? That is really all the "apostolic succession" one needs - a succession of the truth and not of who ordained whom and so on.
I think it is quite sad how so many RCs think Martin Luther was the be all and end all of the Reformation and that by picking on him they wound all non-RC Christians with one swipe. Get a history book and find out for yourself what is the truth about that time rather than the cleaned-up, we are the good guys, RCC modified version.
I fully agree that Christ established here on earth only one church - just that it's NOT the Roman Catholic Church in exclusion of all other believers in Christ, who are each living stones being built up into His spiritual house of which Christ is the chief cornerstone. Quit trying to hog the glory that belongs to Christ alone and which He shares with NONE others.
When you get to heaven (if?) you will have to get used to the idea that Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd and His sheep hear HIS voice and He knows them and they know Him. You'll have eternity to adapt.
LOL I think you’re Trolling the thread myself. Many have answered you with good well reasoned answers. Your replies are word games twisting the posters words into some meaning they did not say. I’ll pass.
Just to clarify...are you asserting that Christ established the Roman Catholic Church - excluding all other Christian assemblies - from the start?
What meaning did I twist your words into that you did not say?
We have more copies of the Bible manuscripts than ANY other writings that existed in the world even a thousand years ago. That is why we can be assured that we hold in our hands and read the words God intended us to. The RCC claims of "inventing" the Bible and "giving" it to everyone is laughably arrogant. Gathering all the books that make up what is called the New Testament and putting them into a single volume is FAR from writing it and giving it to the world. You are correct that these writings were copied, collected, studied, preached, taught, read and passed on throughout the world and it was and IS God that ensured it would be. All the glory belongs to HIM.
I don't know BD personally, but I gather he is a Christian, a member of the Bride of Christ, His body, and is one of the living stones that God is building into his spiritual house. He, as do I, belong to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect. Wanna join? ☺
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.