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.
Like I said upstream, it was all pretty much decided much earlier. That explains why we have the books we have. The “books” we consider canon today were copied and passed around the early churches resulting in the vast number of manuscripts in existence today. They were recognized as authoritative. All Rome did was put their rubber stamp on what was already there and to this day Roman Catholics are spiking the football for acknowledging the obvious.
We know that it was in the second century that the word "catholic" first came to be used to mean the universal Christian faith. It consisted of ALL believers and followers of Jesus Christ, not only those who resided in Rome. Roman Catholics today like to boast "they" were the TRUE church Jesus set up, but they are mistaken. The heritage of the faith I hold to goes back to the start every bit as much as Roman Catholics assert they do and I KNOW that because it is what the Bible says.
Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible. It’s a Catholic document. The church compiled it and determined what was the “inspired” word of God. Why that is so hard for some protestants to admit I will never know. Protestants didn’t have one thing to do with first preserving the Word of God, then compiling the Word of God.
You can continue to assert that all you want but it has been repeatedly disproved. What bills itself as the "Catholic Church" today cannot trace many of its doctrines back to the first century. We know that there ARE many doctrines that ALL Christians have in common - the essentials - and they have NEVER changed nor did they have to be "developed". The writings handed down by the Apostles were copied and delivered to the local assemblies and the truths they conveyed were received and obeyed. Paul said, "for I have not shrunk from announcing to you all the counsel of God." (Acts 20:27). What he wrote was acknowledged by Peter as Scripture and what Peter wrote as well as James, John, Matthew, Mark and Luke, was received and believed as from the Holy Spirit. Why is that so hard for some Catholics to admit?
The Reformation confirmed the faith that had always, everywhere and by all believed. God always reserves a remnant to hold forth the truths He has revealed to all those who diligently seek to know it.
When in Rome, do as the Roman's do?
...but then again cva66snipe did not do that, for instead was speaking of Paul's authority given to him by God.
You seem hopelessly stuck in category error.
His church? But that ekklesia only in Rome now, huh?
What of all the rest of the church which disagrees with Rome on a few significant details --with those details most often related to Rome's claim towards it's own singular magnificence??? Otherwise...there can and is much agreement found, based upon the scripture, and history & tradition too.
And Christ — the second person of the Holy Trinity — established the Catholic Church giving authority to forgive sins and preach the Gospel to the Apostles, who were the first Bishops, BTW.
I think you're missing the rest of the globe among other things.
Well both Peter & Paul were filled with The Holy Spirit and they did have some disagreements in opinions. Such disagreements have always existed. Eventually Peter was corrected by both Paul and The Holy Spirit. Did it mean one or the other was condemned? No. Did it mean either one was out of GOD's favor? No. Peter had a hard time putting behind him the Jewish laws and traditions.
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?
My position is I'm a sinner dependent upon salvation by Grace through faith that Jesus Christ alone paid the price in full for my sins. Yet I still fail every day as I'm human. So is your Pope and Priest. So are the Preachers in churches I've attended. We all fall short that is why we need a savior. Church leaders can and do err because they are human beings.
I don't speak for The Holy Spirit. But I do try and listen to and obey The Holy Spirit especially in critical decisions so I know what GOD wants me to do.
A church? What is a church? Where two or more gather in Christ name that is a church and He is there also. Now what is a Temple in the sense of the new order Christ established?
1 Corinthians 3:16
Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in your midst?
Or care to explain this?
Romans ch 8 And the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness. For example, we don't know what God wants us to pray for. But the Holy Spirit prays for us with groanings that cannot be expressed in words.
Romans Chapter 1.
I find it hilarious you would say such a thing at this point.
Sadly hilarious. Not knowing whether to fall on the floor rolling in laughter or to cry at how dense one must be to set aside so fully all the rest the church which Christ founded -- by pointing to how the church of Rome has spread?
You really don't get it, do you?
The category error is to categorize the RCC as "the church" to the exclusion of all the rest, including the other apostolic churches having enjoyed their own autocephaly from the very onset, from the very beginning, not looking to a bishop of Rome as supreme head of "the church" but as one portion, one branch of the same.
All the word-game playing in the world, spread over the entire globe cannot undo the truth of what I'm saying to you now, regardless of how effective 'Rome' has been in convincing a great many otherwise.
If we are to look "globally" we may as well look to Islam also, if global "presence" be now the standard of measure.
So what church do you belong to?
“The heritage of the faith I hold to goes back to the start every bit as much as Roman Catholics assert they do and I KNOW that because it is what the Bible says”.
If you are a protestant your “faith heritage” with Catholicism ended when the heretic Martin Luther broke away from the Catholic Church. For those that didn’t follow the heretic, drunkard German monk, they remain in the unbroken line of apostolic seccession and can trace their “faith heritage” to the early disciples.
Protestants trace their faith to the Reformation and the break away from God’s Pilgrim Church on Earth.
That some protestants close their eyes to historical fact about the history of Christianity is sad. It’s there for all to read. All the Church fathers were Catholic, their teachings on the Eucharist and the other sacraments have been followed by the Catholic Church for thousands of years. Protestants pick and choose what they want to believe. There is no authority. It’s every man for himself.
“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one Church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles”.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-only-one-true-church/
Doesn't work.
Church leaders can and do err because they are human beings.
Here you appear to equate the Bishop of Rome with the Church. False. Likely you are mixing in a gross misunderstanding of the doctrine of infallibility.
I don't speak for The Holy Spirit.
I think that is an inconsistent position. I believe you claim to have the correct doctrine as guided by the Holy Spirit. There may be a distinction here, but little difference.
What is a church? Where two or more gather in Christ name that is a church and He is there also.
The Church; not A church. Here you confuse what the Church is - the Church established by Christ, given authority by Christ through His Apostles, etc. No one person is the Church, no two people are either.
the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness.
Amen.
It seemed to be now a standard of measure for you before: But that ekklesia only in Rome now, huh?
Are you really that desperate that you must reach for such willful misunderstanding?
That sort of 'tactic' is PATHETIC.
I made such claim where? Don't go there.
Your earthly church leaders have forgotten the early believers humble beginnings. Churches were in homes, in fields, wherever they could meet. The Church that Christ will return for aka The Bride of Christ has no name as it is the sum total of believers whom believe in Christ and accept salvation through Him. It is not Protestant nor Catholic in name.
The jealousy between Catholic and Protestants is much like the children fighting for the attention of a parent. Jesus addressed that issue with His Disciples as I posted earlier.
Mark ch 9 v 38John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.…
Surely not a claim to incorrect doctrine? What are the other options here for your position, if not this one?
Perhaps it would help if you made your arguments a bit more skillfully. If you complain ‘only in Rome’ then the logical conclusion is you are making a point about geography, location, size.
I try to abide in the path GOD sets before me which may not be the path he sets for you. I am answerable to Him and not you.
Well, yes, but that wasn’t the question.
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
HMMMmmm...
I guess that 'stood condemned' would be some kind of disagreement.
Yup; them 7 churches in Revelation were Catholic, all right.
Where are they today?
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.