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.
You didn’t answer the question.
As usual, when asked a question that a Catholic can’t or doesn’t want to answer, I get the * you’re poorly catechized* canard.
I’ll try asking again......
It’s easy, a yes or no question.
“What if the priest says them wrong? Is the sin not forgiven?”
Try to answer the question and not make it about me this time.
Don't bind yourself in "religiousity" then. Problem solved.
Do you really not know? After all this time?
You think if the priest stutters.. ?
Really?
I find it impossible to believe that you do not know your argument is a straw man.
You are being very generous here to even denote this as being taken on "faith alone". Faith in the Scriptures is associated with a clinging to God as the only One who can impart His righteousness to a man, righteousness sufficient to save that man. By trusting in the words of a man, they are by definition NOT taking it on "faith alone". Tragically, the word has been morphed into the sense of just "believing something that you cannot see with physical eyes". This is really not the sense of "faith" as Paul uses it, but is common in the world today.
Not to diminish your point (which is in itself absolutely dead on), I would just slightly alter it to say, the RCs are taking this hocus-pocus absolution chant based on nothing more than the thinnest assurance of the Romanist organization that it has to work because, doggone it, they said so. And, the organization is indeed wrong for the reasons you noted (not found in Scripture). No question about it. Good post.
I see your point. I did mean it in terms of the definition you gave, trusting in something that cannot be substantiated.
There is the error that that is what true faith is. That if there is something to base it on, it’s no longer faith. However, that would disqualify even Abraham who believed what God told him and it was credited to him as righteousness.
God spoke first to Abraham and Abraham responded with faith. Abraham didn’t just drum it up without something to base it on.
You just made it about me again and failed to answer the question.
Come on. It’s easy.
Yes or no.
“What if the priest says them (the words) wrong? Is the sin not forgiven?”
True. The Disciples and Apostles shied away from any resemblance to the old order. They were sent out not as Temple Priest but as missionaries to spread The Gospel. Our direct access to GOD through Jesus is the church of which the gates of hell would not prevail. Jesus sent us each and every believer our own intercessor which is within us called The Holy Spirit. We can ask others among us to pray for us To GOD through Jesus in time of need and should.
Forgiveness is not dependent on your silly strawman - no.
If this is the level of discourse you insist on, then..
You believe:
If you recite some words on a tract handed to you back in high school, you can sin willingly and wantonly and love doing it without regret for the rest of your life and get to heaven.
You believe that as long as you said some magic words once, drunk or sober, you get a free ticket. You said the magic words, that’s all it takes. You’re forgiven; heaven-bound. If you don’t, off to hell with you.
WOW! I can’t believe you believe that!
I don't think this can be emphasized enough - I can't even tell you how many people YHWH has put in my path who required my specific and perfectly designed testimony (designed for their particular need). It is in this aspect that my rankest sins have been turned to victory. Not only have I been spared through no work of my own, but I get to help others too, because my witness is exactly what they need to hear.
It is during these encounters that I am tearfully and gratefully reminded of what YHWH has given to me freely, remembering also those who opened their hearts to witness to me with the very same exactitude: Dear messengers sent from the Father, perfectly and specifically designed to deliver the message of grace to *me*.
IMO, therein is where binding and loosing occurs - Therein forgiveness is imparted by the mouth of man, but not by the power of man. Therein lies the secret of the priesthood of Yeshua - the nation of priests which He defined... Tailor made, specific to the very individual in a fashion that puts any other assumed method to shame.
Nor did you. Is your idea of freedom that two people can have contradictory doctrine each claiming the doctrine is from the Holy Spirit? That was your explanation.
It is so easy to understand that even a child can be saved. Why do people make it so hard? We do not need priests. We go directly to the source when we pray.
It is God’s way. John 3:16 says it all. It does not say confessing to a priest saves you.
So you believe:
If you recite some words on a tract handed to you back in high school, you can sin willingly and wantonly and love doing it without regret for the rest of your life and get to heaven.
You believe that as long as you said some magic words once, drunk or sober, you get a free ticket. You said the magic words, that’s all it takes. You’re forgiven; heaven-bound. If you don’t, off to hell with you.
If that’s what you believe..
I’m assuming, based on your post, that you and Metmom share the same beliefs.
Yes, the common view in the world today seems to lean toward faith being nothing more than believing something, as you say, “...that cannot be substantiated.” But, of course, this is not really the case. Your example of Abraham, who heard an audible promise, ended up “believing” or “clinging” to God, based upon that very real, substantial, objective event.
Often the first verses of Heb. 11 are considered a “definition” of faith, and may have contributed to this view. But faith is likely not being defined here. Vs. 1 is often read as, “Faith is defined as the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” NASB. But, on closer review, notice the phrase is much like a description of the effects of faith. It is the same as if we would say, “Concrete is the foundation material of a home and acts as its support.” Notice, “concrete” is not defined here, at all. It is simply describing something it does.
That is why the term “substance” and “evidence” seem so peculiar as “definition” terms...they really are not. The two words describe what faith is doing. In other words, we ought to read this as, “Faith (clinging to God) is the supporting material for the things we hope for and gives us the evidence for those things we cannot see.” Or words like this.
It might be a subtle difference, but it takes faith out of the nebulous world and makes it more, well, concrete as the “clinging to God” that Abraham experienced. Paul says, (Eph. 2) this is a part of the gift of grace, and when a man is given this faith (through no act of his own), he is granted righteousness from God, a righteousness not of his own making but provided by God. But, your points are all still very valid.
It seems that we believe the Bible. Do you? Do you really understand what it says by reading it? When I was growing up, we went to many churches but they all had one thing in common. The ministers taught from the Bible. I have no idea what you mean by a piece of paper. Plus, I was saved many years before high school. God has helped me through the death of a child, brother, husband, mom, cousins I grew up with, etc. He never gives us more than we can handle. He is my Rock and my Salvation. I hope I am making sense because I am sick. I do not understand Catholic’s hostility to Protestants. Frankly, I do not understand anyone’s belief that if one belongs to a certain church, they will go to Heaven.
The best we can do in this world is to try to lead others to Christ. How rigid should a church be? How judgmental? The man Noah whom GOD asked to build an ark to save him and the animals from his wrath afterward was drunk and naked and his sons not looking upon him covered him. Abraham when given a promise from GOD of a son from his wife instead slept with her servant. Afterward the promised son was born. The man GOD later named Israel took his brothers place as first born for a bowl of soup and a deception added to by his mother. King David the major writer of the Psalms sent his best friend into battle purposely to be killed so he could take his wife and cover up his affair with her. Solomon the wisest men to live had hundreds of wives and by his writings had tried just about all things good and evil. Yet GOD saw their hearts and for His purpose made them righteous and used them for His kingdoms sake.
In some churches of today some of the above mentioned would be booted out as unforgiveable sinners or denied communion AFTER they had asked GOD's forgiveness. If a person ask GOD's forgiveness and repents meaning not habitually sinning in same manner believers and the churches should forgive them as well.
We all sin we all fall short none of us are worthy except by the Grace of GOD through Christ.
We all will answer before GOD. GOD will not judge us by the name of our church or it's dogmas, but rather by our hearts and our belief in His Son and acceptance of salvation through Him.
Why do you put words in peoples mouth? I have never heard that metmom believes that. The only time I have ever heard such nonsense is when Catholics accuse others of believing that. It seems to be a fall back tactic for Catholics that really makes them appear ill equipped to discus scripture.
I’m happy for you, but this forum is not to be personal.
If it were, I could say: we believe in the Bible. Do you?
>>”I do not understand Catholic’s hostility to Protestants.”
Perhaps you could read the article here and the discussion and see why I do not understand Protestant’s hostility to Catholics.
Ah, you actually get my point. Kudos to you.
such nonsense is … a fall back tactic…
Yes, it is! Over and over. A straw man is how I put it more accurately I think.
So, you can encourage MM to be a bit more elevated in debate. Thank you.
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.