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.
If it's contradictory doctrine and both claim to have gotten it via the Holy Spirit, one is wrong. It cannot be otherwise.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
|
1449 The formula of absolution used in the Latin Church expresses the essential elements of this sacrament: the Father of mercies is the source of all forgiveness. He effects the reconciliation of sinners through the Passover of his Son and the gift of his Spirit, through the prayer and ministry of the Church:
God, the Father of mercies, |
No, I see what is. That’s why I’m not Protestant.
I have two places I generally pray. One is a river trail away from the distractions of this world and another is when I'm driving somewhere. There I ask of The Lord what is needed and confess my sins to Him. There is no passages as such in the NT where persons are confessing sins to the Apostles nor the Apostles holding confession or even what is called Mass. The observances was The Lords Supper.
But I suppose if The Lord puts on someone's heart to go confess their sins to their minister they should do it. Now I have a question. What if the minister is a heretic one posing as a servant of GOD who hasn't confessed his own sins to GOD and is out of fellowship with GOD how can he help you in any way?
The only way we can be sure our sins are forgiven is our prayers to GOD through whom GOD sent us named Jesus Christ. We no longer need the Temple Priest intercession which seems to be what RC has reverted back to. We were set free from that and given one on one fellowship with Christ.
But them both agreeing does not mean it's from the Holy Spirit either.
Catholicism is too obsessed with having all their theological ducks lined up and demanding on lockstep adherence to its doctrine, which may or may not be correct in the first place.
Catholicism has no tolerance for dissension from IT.
And where are those magic words found recorded in Scripture by God to tell us that those formula does indeed forgive sin?
That *proves* nothing because there is no proof that the person's sins have been forgiven. It is being taken on faith alone that the Catholic church claim that it has power to forgive sin is theirs and works.
What if the church is wrong? Where does that leave all the faithful Catholics who are depending on that formula to get into heaven?
That's why JESUS is our great high priest, and that's why the curtain in the Temple as torn in two.
The way was opened for direct access to God through Jesus.
The Jewish priesthood was no longer needed and the Catholic priesthood is not needed.
No, but that doesn't change the error of your position or my reply. Both can be wrong, but one MUST be.
Catholicism is too obsessed..
With one's position being consistent and avoiding error.
The natural man cannot understand the things of God because they are spiritually discerned.
That is the primary problem with Catholics when it comes to Scripture. They don’t understand because they don’t know, the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
They don’t recognize Him because they believe they have to go through the church and priests. That’s why they attribute to the enemy the works of the Holy Spirit and make ignorant comments like *whatever spirit you claim.*
Obviously, yours is the only formula that can be depended upon "to get into heaven."
God allows for far more flexibility than the church does.
Romans 14 shows that.
There’s a lot of room for individual liberty in a true relationship with Christ.
Nor the natural woman.
They don’t understand because they don’t know, the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
So whatever you claim you understand due to the Holy Spirit is true? And anything contrary is not?
And if another understands differently, due to the Holy Spirit, they're wrong. Because.. ?
Do you get to decide what the limits of your liberty are? That's a nice doctrine, each decides how much liberty to take with doctrine.
1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Acts 16:29-31 29 And the jailer called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas. Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Romans 10:9-13 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
So where in Scripture are the Catholic church's magic, sin absolving words found? Where did God instruct us to confess to a priest and hear those words to know our sins have been forgiven?
What if the priest says them wrong? Is the sin not forgiven?
If the words are so important than that has to be the case.
You think: "one's position being consistent and avoiding error." is too inflexible?
That and a serious mistranslation of their sacred writings.
Do you understand personal liberty?
Did you even read Romans 14?
I have a friend who swore off gambling when he became a Christian. If he did, it would be sin to him. It’s not nothing to me because temptation to gamble is not an issue for me. It’s not a weakness I struggle with.
For some people it’s alcohol. I can handle it. Others can’t. It’s sin for them.
That’s personal liberty and each of us glorifies God in how we live.
Its your formula according to your view of scripture; that is obvious.
What if the priest says them wrong? Is the sin not forgiven?
Why, after all these years, do you continue to argue against your same errors in what Catholic's believe? You've no doubt been corrected countless times. Why continue to mis-state what the Church teaches? Is is necessary to argue against a straw man?
It only reveals an extreme weakness in one's position.
The Holy Spirit will convict a person about sin in their lives.
He's faithful to keep us. He can be trusted to guide us without going into the bondage of religiosity.
Do you understand deflecting from the point:
Two people cannot have contradictory doctrines both claiming to get them via the Holy Spirit.
Do you wish to karoom off into an abstract discussion of "liberty" now?
Your posts indicated a strong desire to abandon your position - and obscure that fact.
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.