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.
But, yes, Hebrews is a very Catholic epistle.
Who taught the Apostles and disciples? They passed down from Jesus what He taught them, what the Old Testament taught them and what the Holy Spirit further revealed to them to be passed on to the believers. Luke started out his gospel by saying:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order... (Luke 1:1-3)
Why is it not credible that the very same teachings that went on in that first century were written down, copied and passed out to all the assemblies that sprang up? Did every church group have a complete copy of all the writings? No, not all did, but eventually they got them and as the years went by they relied more and more upon these writings AS the word of God to ALL believers. Religious Jews nearly always had complete scrolls of the law and the prophets in their synagogues. They were memorized, taught, carefully copied and obeyed BECAUSE they recognized their authority. Why would the first Christians be any different? Hundreds of years after all the Apostles had died out, their teachings were STILL available in a form that could be verified by anyone who wanted to know the truth.
Sola scriptura is not possible, it's not scriptural and it's not historical.
On the contrary, Scripture consistently confirms the authority of its divinely-inspired writings. Elsie posted a comment a little ways back that demonstrates how frequently Jesus said, "It is written.." to verify what He spoke. The Apostles also did the same and the first Christians - the noble Bereans, for example - could confirm what was taught to them about Jesus by "searching the Scriptures (OT) to see if these things be so."
Perhaps it is the false definition of Sola Scriptura Catholics use that you are fighting against? God's word is God's word - I don't see how ANYTHING humanly devised could be more of an authority.
I don't know BD personally, but I gather he is a Christian..
How do you know s/he's not a Gnostic?
Fixed it! I do hope you weren't implying that the book of Hebrews is not meant for us Gentile Christians. Were you?
Oops...did you forget to ping the person you were talking about?
Like I said, I "gather" he is a Christian. I have read enough of Blue Dragon's comments to form the opinion that he IS a born again believer in Jesus Christ. I can't really know if YOU aren't a Gnostic, though, can I?
There's a point here, BB. Just you and Jesus is not a Church. You and your Bible, not a Church.
Church is not "just you " anything.
There's a reason Christ established His visible Church, a reason why it prevailed, a reason why we have the Holy Scriptures and the Christian faith. A reason why individuals do not have authority; a reason why Christ did not say "write the NT and sola scriptura away."
The Christian faith didn't happen via your view of 'church.' The Church and the Christian faith would *not* be today if Jesus not done just what you object to now.
Yep, forgot to ping; thank you.
You know I’m Catholic, therefore not Gnostic. (nor Arian, nor Nestorian, nor..)
You know BD is not Catholic. That’s good enough to be in your church, eh?
BTW, what church do you two attend, belong to, if any.. ?
Why in the world would you think that? Catholic means universal: One Lord, one faith, one Baptism. Hebrews is all about that.
16th Century roll-your-own this that or whatever.. not so much.
Catholics will say church
I won’t.
Besides --- why would that matter unless one was attempting to make the thread about persons here?
If you don’t want to identify your church, no problem. It would seem fair if one were attacking other’s, but.. as you wish.
It’s about you if your attacks on my Church are about me.
If not, it’s not about you.
If not, it’s not about you.
Huh? That makes no sense whatsoever. Your words are YOUR own. Those words of yours are NOT mine. But I do take exception to how you use those 'words', for they have become fighting words continually directed straight towards my person unceasingly.
Otherwise;
It is not ANY FAULT of my own whatsoever if YOU take criticism of the RCC ("your" church, correct?) personally. I should not have to need even say that.
I cannot help it if you take things personally.
Justifying personal attacks to "get back" at critics of -- in this instance -- the RCC --- that IS cultish behavior in and of itself.
Replace "Roman Catholic church" in the same formula with any other set of religious beliefs, and it becomes readily apparent that is true.
Stop digging after me personally while otherwise justifying the same ---while also invoking "rules" and pinging moderators. That last is a bridge too far, and could backfire on you.
I don't usually begin comments or reply in a "getting personal" manner, until that's the way others insist on conducting themselves.
You seem to continue to insist that is the way it should be here and now...
Is that all you've got? Have I been effective enough in past times on this forum in bringing evidence which not only refutes many "Romish" claims which that ecclesiastical body makes concerning itself, that the only way left to defend is to attempt to discredit me personally?
It wouldn't matter one whit if I had just flown in from the Moon. The only thing that matters is the truth.
I say -- "Rome" (and by that I mean the Roman Catholic church) has long misrepresented itself to not only itself and it's supplicanta, but to the rest of the world also -- as far as "they" would be allowed to get away with it.
I have proven this [misrepresentation which the church of Rome engages in] upon numerous occasion, even including touching upon some of that evidence in this very thread at #67 & #87.
All it takes is ONE single piece of evidence to refute a "theory". If the evidence does not fit the theory or shows exception to it, then the theory is refuted and needs to be scrapped or else adjusted until it be better representation of truth.
Yet for the "theory" that Christ "established His church" and the resultant personification of that ekklesia be now or at any time in history ---the Roman Catholic Church, either "alone" or even simply a more limited "foremost" but still the "earthly center" with a singular "pope" above all other bishops wherever they be found -- including this "pope" being "over" in theological considerations all those OTHER churches which also can lay legitimate claim to autocephaly from the very beginning of "the church universal" -- cannot be true even for reason of the VERY EXISTENCE of these others which were fully independent from the beginning.
Can you wrap your mind around what it is I am saying -- and why (as to logical justification). It is not complicated, although the history of "development" within Christian theology is, or can be...and that's not ALL which refutes Romish claims concerning itself, with errors of that ilk having leaked into the theology while complicating and corrupting the Gospel at the same time. Or else -- I wouldn't much care.
Please. Go to the [near] above link, and read at "Church usage".
THERE! RIght THERE is how the churches once regarded one another -- including the church in/of "Rome" in regards to all the rest (of the church).
That is the foundation of fellowship under Christ (or built upon that Rock --whichever way one chooses to speak of it) which the early church once widely practiced. Not --singular papacy-- and all the attendant theological baggage that goes with that.
Thank you.
As it is written (John 3)
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
They will say Scripture flows from Rome.
Christians will say the church flows from Scripture.
Golly; that's what I said!
THAT worked out well!
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.