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.
I think you should have to show me that you don’t believe it, right?
They knew the law and kept it but were void of compassion, love, and showing mercy. They worshipped the temple and were obsessed about keeping their positions of authority and power. They technically followed the law up till when they unlawfully placed Jesus on trial before the Sanhedrin. By the time the last of the twelve disciples had died the power held by the pharisees and the temple itself was gone.
Christ came down much harder on them than then sinners they brought before Him. Christ by nature brings love, peace, forgiveness, and salvation to those who believe in Him and follow Him. Man on the other hand by nature when given positions of power or authority has ended up becoming corrupt and abusive to the ones they should have been serving.
Where? Show me the post.
Here's a partial selection for you to pick from:
You think: "one's position being consistent and avoiding error." is too inflexible?So whatever you claim you understand due to the Holy Spirit is true? And anything contrary is not?
Is your idea of freedom that two people can have contradictory doctrine each claiming the doctrine is from the Holy Spirit?
I don’t care if you say what I believe as I stated on this forum.
Just find the posts and provide the link to back up your assertions.
If you want to make stuff up about me that you claim I believe, then be prepared to be exposed and challenged to provide the documentation.
No. You can't prove a negative.
You made the assertion. Provide the evidence to back it up.
It's not my job to disprove every spurious accusation someone throws at me.
Some context or post numbers to follow the conversations back would be nice.
Just a slight scroll back will work..
You mean that's not fair under the rules of our discussion?
Thanks for admitting that you did it.
Likewise.
How do you like debating under your rules?
Then we get to argue about the debating - instead of anything substantive.
Really productive stuff, eh?
So, did you find them? The original topic of our discusssion, perhaps?
Thank you for calling Heaven's Hotline!
Every call is important to us.
If you wish to access the Heaven's Hotline FAQ sheet, Press 1 to be connected to Catholic Answers
If you wish to access the Heaven's Hotline FAQ sheet en Espanol, Pulse 2 para ser conectado a Catholic Answers
If you wish to talk to GOD Himself, please realize His time is limited. Many other representitives and even His mother is available to handle your request, praise, plea, prayer and/or worship/adoration/veneration.
Stay on the line and one will be with you shortly.
Thank you for calling Heaven's Hotline! All lines are presently in use...
After receiving an answer from Heaven's Hotline, Press 3 to hear instructions for the correct amount of alms to be given to the poor. (Or Hail Marys...)
(Cue background music: Ave Maria )
Let's try some easy math:
There are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics world wide;
If merely 1% of them 'ask' Mary for help just once each day;
that means that 12 million separate prayers are headed Mary's direction every day.
Given that there are 86,400 seconds per day... (24 hours times 60 minutes times 60 seconds)
...that means that Mary has to handle approximately 139 'requests' per second!
Purty good fer someone NOT 'devine'!
Thou sayeth it. The other did not.
If some man were to say "all men are liars" -would that make it impossible for the saying itself to be true?
Perhaps, but there is scripture addressing this issue, verifying that all men are liars, with Paul saying in part;
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?I would suggest reading that entire chapter for further contextual understanding.4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
Once that understanding is well enough grasped, it becomes plain also that Paul was acknowledging his own limitations, and the limitations of his own words and himself as a man speaking them, which in itself, just this single chapter alone, very much redeems what cva66snipe said, but which you had dismissed as impossibility.
D --- Your own conclusions are just those, applying the old "if this --then that" but not necessarily arriving anywhere near truth for reason of that logic process (if we can call it logic) having been mis-applied to cva's statement, for it had left God's own "words" to us -- the Holy writ, too entirely out of the picture.
He (cva66snipe) had also said in the same comment Not one of the Disciples or Apostles claimed perfection for they too knew they were human.
providing some additional supporting context for his initial statement which you casually dismissed.
Sorry D, but the scripture refutes all-or-nothing type of positions, as to the workings of man, even His own prophets.
Jonah -- that guy was the real deal, but made his own mistakes, then wrote about those just to show us how lousy he was at his job, with his honesty concerning it all helping us to understand better man's own role and/or position in regards to the Almighty, who Himself is capital "H" Holy,and with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Which being and/or condition is very much unlike mankind, with this looking at man in comparison to God, still includes His own ekklesia, or "the church".
The Word has long since before there was anything like claims of papal infallibility, refuted that precise claim, along with refuting the claims made by men concerning concepts of infallibility for "church" teaching, particularly when those claims arise from within but one branch of the ekklesia which makes these claims for itself, denying that it alone can possibly EVER be in error, but all others of the wider ekklesia are by default said (by Romanists) to be in significant error if daring to begin the slightest objection to --- even the claims of "infallibility". So go figure.
It is written that the Spirit will lead us to all truth and righteousness, but it is not written that we, or any of us, or one particular portion of the church will infallibly follow. You can lead a horse to water but cannot make him drink...
To be so utterly infallible as the Church of Rome, (the Roman Catholic Church) claims that it is, even if just restricted to less-than-firmly-delineated "body of teachings") one would need be God or Godlike.
Meanwhile, the spotless Bride which will be His is not some collection of infallible product of teaching 'Magesterium' and church of Rome's own bishop's so-called infallible 'ex-cathedra' proclamations. Christ did not give his own body a ransom for a bunch of teachings about Himself.
I put it that way due to it having been commonly seen here on these pages, for those seeking to protect or promote the idea of infallibility for the [Roman] Catholic or Latin branch of the universal church, the citing of scriptural mention of Christ having for himself "spotless bride". Yet when we look to the members of ANY church body ecclesiastical community, including the [Roman] Catholic one, who can see "spotless"?
Obviously(?) since Christ did not give His own life on the Cross for a bunch of paperwork or writings, but instead gave his life for the redemption of human beings, the retreat into the perceived to be or said to be "spotless" or infallible teachings just does not work. There must be some other way in which the bride will be made spotless. At risk of interrupting the flow of of my pointing towards man's own and "the church's" own limitations, I will digress here turning instead to our only cure. See Isaiah 1:18 Zechariah 13:1, John 13:8-14, John 16:33,
and such as Hebrews 9:12-14(ESV)
he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.Turning now back to one of the problem of "religion", please feel free to list for us all which is regarded from within [Roman] Catholic teachings (teaching of the so-called 'Magesterium') all religious precepts which would need be considered "infallible" and those which are not. THAT would save everyone a lot of time.
Or must each search and sift using their own discernment as to what the teachings (of so-called 'Magesterium') say, what they mean, how far those go -- which ones are to be considered infallible, which are not, which have shadings of meaning that can be helpful but need be understood only in light of qualifying restriction as to time & place of application, etc., etc., somewhat reminiscent of Targum and Mishneh Torah?
Is the church -- God? By some wordings it is said to be "His body" on this earth, with that usage particularly common by those within [Roman] Catholicism, with that "Rome" very much declaring itself to be that body exclusive of every other single human being in the world, with even the "pope", himself the bishop of Rome, also claimed by Romanists to be the "head" of that body.
Yes, at least the church of Rome (the RCC) does say so for itself that it is the body of Christ on earth, but saying that perhaps too loosely also, for at the same time the wider thus truly universal (or catholic as adjective rather than pronoun) church is also understood to be the bride of Christ.
What then? If the church be both God on earth, in effect being Him as in His own presence here in this realm (as some would have it) and then is also the bride of Christ at the very same time --- that would make it out to be that Christ (being God) will be marrying Himself.
See how much trouble can be caused by too careless application of "if this-then that" sort of human logic? But that is what you much did to what cva66snipe said, and to which I now [just previously above] return the same ill-favor to your own criticism of his words, using the very same logic demonstratively (textually shown) which you employed to have reached the rudely dismissive point of telling the man that his statement self-refutes.
His statement would or could indeed self-refute, if we were to be restricting ourselves to only ourselves (persons, human beings speaking here to one another) to be included in consideration as towards needful logical inclusion of who speaks -- and who it is that we could consider infallible.
We do agree that we can consider God the Father to be infallible? And would we not also find some agreement that the scriptures as those be known inclusive of canonized Holy Writ is "true"? Very well then, if we can agree that far, while possibly putting aside "dueterocanon" considerations for some otherdiscussion thread, as those considerations have been gone over in close detail here on these pages more times than I can count.
From Exodus 20, the chapter where is found the Ten Commandments, there is too some additional admonition aimed at the doings and works of man's own hands in their own efforts to properly offer up sacrifice for when they did disobey the laws given to them thru Moses;
22 And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. 23 Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold. 24 An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. 25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. 26 Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.
What are the doctrines and dogma's created by men but to give place or platform for understanding the bodily sacrifice which was Christ himself as Lamb of the first year without spot or blemish. He offered Himself in our place.
Let us never mistake our now well polished altars (and dogma's?) for being Him.
As useful as teachings can be to lead us to greater understanding of just who He is, and what He (Christ) did, and what that all can mean to both ourselves and to God the Father also, let us not view these additional tools which have been created --- not by God's own hand directly --- but by man in his own responses to Him (including creeds and confessions) and mistake any of those for being the equivalent to the Word of God, whether one regards that Word to be scripture, or scripture and Christ both.
Oh that a plain Yes/No was forthcoming when WE ask them as well!
Luther was; look what happened to HIM!!!
(I think that Galileo fellow had some ideas of his own; too...)
Is it a problem when we post what the Catholic Church has written?
Matthew 10:34
"Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword.
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.