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.
D-fndr wrote:
“You can use whatever version you wish. Theres nothin in the Bible that says you can’t pick whatever you want for yourself.”
My point, exactly. Yet, that DID happen to ME, which is why I mentioned it.
My first adult bible, was Today’s English Version, with the little drawings in it. Ergo, the Ezekiel reference.
The pastor of a satellite-of-a-megachurch was the one who corrected me.
Well; there WAS; it was just scattered all over the place.
As you have made abundantly clear in the past, you see only what you want to see.
“scattered all over the place”
is the definition of NO CANON!!!
In regards to the NT, what was finally settled upon (after sorting out later arising writings) but that which the Apostles as direct witnesses wrote, along with the writer of Luke and Acts who was amid and living among those first witnesses, if not one himself also?
In that way the NT was more imposed upon the early church as soon as we look beyond those original disciples in defining who or what is the church.
The NT texts were well known among all, from the earliest beginnings-- even soon after the various epistles of Paul were written, for those did circulate among the many.
As to that which there was ever much doubt (looking at the contents of NT as we know it today) is John's Revelation (not fully accepted by all, from it's first circulating among the various congregation) and the epistle to the Hebrews, with this last having not been as well circulated among the further-from Israel locales, in comparison to the Gospels, Paul's other letters, those few of Peter, James & Jude, etc. Which reminds me...some were hesitant towards the small book of Jude, yet that fairly early became to be included also.
Here we have the core -- from earliest times.
It was not those of Rome who "defined" the canon much at all, for if one is to investigate the formation of canon, other than the very early Tertullian--- writers of the "Latin" church, in regards to issues of canon were rather on the sidelines until centuries later.
And again--- what became inclusive of NT canon but that which was indeed imposed upon the church?
It does no good to now to point to Rome as some source for that, for they (those of the Latin branch of the church) were themselves recipients as were all others --- other than the original Apostles, and perhaps Luke if that man was not one who had witnessed Christ personally & directly himself.
True.
There is NO Scriptural justification for the loonie things that the RCC says about Mary these days.
Two devout followers of Jesus Christ had different doctrines on some important issues. One was a Jew by law and by birth. The other was a Jew by birth and Roman by law. Who did the correction? Yet neither man considered the other to be the leader {Pope} of the church nor submitted to the other ones authority.
So by who's authority and guidance was Paul under in Galatians chapter 2? Peters? Or The Holy Spirit? Read on the Chapter 3. Who receives The Holy Spirit? Just Priest? No. Just Deacons? No. Rather we are given The Holy Spirit by Faith. We have free will to listen and obey the guidance given us. Will man error? Yes. From The Holy Spirit comes correction. The instrument used may be Paul or it may be Martin Luther. It might be Billy Graham or a Pope that brings reform of Christ teachings over church dogma.
Most Christian Churches are not that far off the mark. They have legalist errors made by man but do not deny Christ as Lord and Savior and that is the key to this. This jealousy Christ dealt with when the Disciples came to Him telling Him other men were using His name healing and casting out demons
Mark ch 9 Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
The churches even at that point has already gone out and The Word Of GOD The Gospel preached even by layman. The men Christ Disciples saw were of the many sheep and many flocks Christ spoke of.
For all the length of reply, you end up with the same problem: according to whom?
It should be clear that those who claim to be led in different directions to different doctrines by the one Holy Spirit are in error.
You read the epistles and acts and completely miss that there is authority in the apostolic Church. Not you.
So then you would saying what you did deny that both Paul and Peter were lead by The Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit can not be in error. Churches can be in error be it Baptist, Catholic, whatever as well as even their highest leaders can be in error and in fact acting away from GOD's Will and guidance of The Holy Spirit. That is why The Holy Spirit which dwells in believers was given.
I've read them over and over. Paul's authority came not from Peter, The Disciples, Other Apostles, nor any named church. His authority came from GOD by Divine Revelation same as Peter confessed Christ as The Son Of GOD. Paul was not under Peter's control nor did he need Peter's approval.
Did Paul establish some churches outside of Judea and Jerusalem and oversee them? Yes. So did the others so did ones who were not Disciples nor likely Apostles. When the early believers came under persecution following the death of Stephen it sent believers out in many places spreading The Gospel.
Praise be to GOD our salvation doesn't hinge on the doings nor authority of men here on earth. Praise be to GOD man was set free of the old Temple Priest Oligarchy which held it's powers over men often leading to abuses and even placing Christ on the cross. We no longer need a Priest to intercede. We have one we can go to one on one directly whom He alone will intercede for us before The Father. His name is Jesus Christ.
well stated.
Now where do you get that?
Churches can be in error . ..That is why The Holy Spirit which dwells in believers was given.
So you don't err and still claim to speak for the Holy Spirit? Are you your own 'church'? Or is it just that you can't be in error because you're not a 'church'? Churches err and you don't? What's your position here?
Yeppers. When Christ established His Church and gave it authority. You seem to ignore that part. You are your own authority now, because you say so?
According to God. Where did I say I determined that? Why the adversarial 'tude? What exactly are you contending that I said incorrectly? What don't you agree with what I said?
Christ did not establish a country nor write a constitution, nor make you the supreme court.
Did I say that Jesus "established a country"? He WILL, however, establish a kingdom one day here and He will rule it in righteousness and with rod a of iron. Do you not believe that? He also ensured that the word of God - the FULL counsel of God - was preserved and the continued revelation by the Holy Spirit, who carried along "holy men of God", was written and preserved. He promised His disciples that the Holy Spirit would "bring to your remembrance everything that I have said to you" (John 14:26). They already had the example of the Old Testament prophets writing down the revelation they received from God, why wouldn't they also do the same?
The Holy Scriptures are our authority for determining what is the truth of our faith. God did a pretty good job of speaking plainly and succinctly so that nobody has any excuse for not knowing His will or His plan of salvation. Anyone who claims to be speaking the truth must and should be examined by God's word to see if they are right. I almost understand the resistance to accepting this fact - being as some hold to a religion that views Scripture as a servant to it rather than the other way - but they would be wrong to view Divinely-inspired Scripture that way. They are truly fighting against God Himself.
When the Holy Scriptures type the replies and arguments and beliefs here, I'll believe it is not you that is the authority.
Until then, I hope you will take a second to reflect on that and realize how incredibly and obviously false the foundation of your position is.
Actually, they were received and accepted as Divinely-inspired scripture long before. From The Formation of the New Testament Canon:
The Muratorian Canon: This document gives a list of the canonical books with some comments. It was discovered in 1740 by the antiquarian L.A. Muratori. It is believed to have been written in Rome towards the end of the second century. It is the earliest extant document in which the canon is treated in a formal fashion. It states what documents are to be regarded as canonical and which are to be rejected. 22 It is unfortunately a fragment. The meaning is also obscure at points. It lists all the books of our New Testament except Hebrews, James and 2 Peter. There is also a question as to whether 1 Peter is mentioned. It includes one book, the Apocalypse of Peter (2 Peter?), which was subsequently rejected. The author of the Muratorian Canon himself has his hesitations about the book, for he notes that some do not accept it. The main value of the Muratorian Canon is that it indicates the books which were recognized as canonical in the Roman church towards the end of the second century. In this document we are already very close to our New Testament.
Irenaeus (ca.130-200), whose writings are contemporary with the Muratorian list, presents the same picture. His evidence is significant in that he was a rather ecumenical figure in his day. He spent his earlier life in Asia Minor and his later life in Gaul. He was also in close touch with Rome. He does not seem to have had Hebrews in his canon, and there is some uncertainty as to whether he accepted the general epistles (except 1 Peter, 1 and 2 John). He refers to the Shepherd of Hermas as "scripture" but does not include it in the list of apostolic writings.
Tertullian (ca.160-220) is our authority for Africa. He appears to have had 22 books in his canon — the four Gospels, Acts, the thirteen epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Jude and Revelation. He did not treat Hebrews as canonical.
Origen (ca.185-254) in the East has a good deal to say about the canon. According to F.F. Bruce, "He acknowledged the four canonical Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline epistles and Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation as 'undisputed' books." 24 Origen does acknowledge, however, that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude were rejected by some.
The formal creation of a "canon" or rule of faith came about as a result of various heretical movements that challenged the already accepted body of sacred writings passed on through the Apostles.
Sola Scriptura, while un-Biblical, was also impractical, at least until the advent of the printing press. No one could afford a complete Bible (handwritten on scrolls). Nor could a significant number even be manufactured to make the doctrine practical in any meaningful sense.
Since few books of any kind existed, most people were illiterate, for more than a millenium.
TODAY, 800 MILLION ADULTS ARE ILLITERATE.
How does Sola Scriptura work for them?
The same way as always, those who COULD read taught and handed down the teachings from God to those who couldn't. Did having a segment of the populace unable to read negate the holy Scriptures believed, obeyed and preserved prior to Jesus' coming to earth? That was the example the early Christians continued under the leading of the Holy Spirit. Being unable to read in NO way diminishes the FACT that the Holy Spirit inspired prophets to speak God's word and record it for posterity and the people of God commanded to obey it.
Far from Scripture opposing Sola Scriptura, we have multiple passages that confirm the authority of God's word. The "church" is and has always been the servant of God's revealed truth and is tasked with being the buttress and supporter of the truth. The early creeds, developed to dispute heretics, affirm the truths AS revealed in the Bible. Where else would they have come from? Jesus used Scripture to confirm His role, the truths He spoke and the truths He intended to be passed down through the church age. There really is no human authority that has preeminence over God's word and those who presume they do will answer to God for their error.
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.