Posted on 06/09/2014 9:26:16 PM PDT by Salvation
Scripture and Tradition
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."
But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).
Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.
Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.
Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."
Newman’s argument
He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.
"Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."
Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).
Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.
Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been "preached"—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
What is Tradition?
In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
Handing on the faith
Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.
"Commandments of men"
Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.
He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).
Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).
What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
The indefectible Church
The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic. If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the "canon of Tradition" by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
God did not give authority to the apostles to determine canon, God determined the canon by inspiring the books which eventually made it into the canon. The church as a whole, not just the apostles, came to recognize the authenticity, the authority, the apostolic origin, and the usefulness of the books that were preserved by the churches.
Again, God determined the canon, the church merely recognized those which were canonical. And that recognition happened slowly over time, as the writings were circulated among the different churches. Some took longer than others, naturally, they were written at different times. Revelation was a late addition because it was written late (95 AD).
If you interchange terms (determine, recognize) it makes the debate pointless.
Yes, Peter accepted Paul's writings because Paul was an apostle Peter was the Apostle to whom the LORD Jesus Christ gave the keys to he kingdom of heaven.
That is the only thing even hinted at in the text.
Peter also pointed out they were difficult to understand.
Yes, and the very next phrase he gives the answer to that problem ... 'which the unlearned/ignorant and unstable/weak torment/twist/distort ... '
What is the solution to understanding those hard things that are in Paul's writings? Don't be unlearned/ignorant ...
What type of learning would be required? Is it not reasonable that one who seeks to understand the hard topics that Paul writes about should at least try to become fluent in the language of the writing? You would certainly go a long way to becoming 'learned' by doing that.
It reminds me of Pauls charge to Timothy that he 'accurately handling the Word of God.' The verb literally means 'interpret correctly' ... Paul told Timothy to work hard at it ...
Good Biblical interpretation of difficult passages doesn't come by assuming a particular theology, it comes by hard work in the Biblical languages, grammar, historical studies, etc. Lucky for us all that there are not very many 'difficult to understand' passages.
Who has the authority to interpret what Paul wrote ? Peter certainly does.
The learned ... that is what Peter said. Peter did not claim authority to interpret what Paul said here ... you are shoe-horning your RC theology into the text.
“It is this division caused by the Reformation that has lead to the loss of faith and secularism that we see today. “
For clarification... in your view:
Is the loss of faith and secularization in the Catholic Church caused by the Reformation, or just in non-roman denominations?
Please explain, if you have time.
“The church” spoken of in the Bible is not the Roman Catholic Church.
And no, much of what Jesus said wasn’t written down. But we can be assured that there is a completeness to what the Holy Spirit chose to be included.
On the interpretation claim, the Catholic Church can tell me that the Genesis Creation and evolution over millions and billions of years go together, but I’m not gooing to believe that.
On “the Eucharist,” it’s made me wonder why call it that? It’s very religious, formal, pretentious, even worse than regularly calling family “my spouse,” or “my offspring,” and the whole Catholic Church and service is like that.
Eucharist means thanksgiving.
So you arrogate to yourself the “authority” to interpret Scripture? Like Rev. Al Sharpton? Interesting, is it not it that the all the great theologians according to lights from St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and Benedict XVI (whom Time magazine called the “theological Einstein of our times”) are all fools? (I assume you haven’t read any of their books) .The great Anglican theological (now Cardinal Newman) converted to Catholicism, as did the Chief Rabbi of Rome, to say nothing of Richard Neuhaus who was America’s preeminent Lutheran theologian.
The curse and evil of Protestantism is best described in Hillaire Belloc’s book “Heresies” where he says that unlike other heretical beliefs, Protestantism spawned a “cluster of heresies.”
“Protestantism spawned a “cluster of heresies.”
Well, better fix that!
“Roman Catholicism spawned Protestantism and a “cluster of heresies.
The heresies spawned were like wild mushrooms that have in time mostly withered and died and divided among themselves from the David Koresh’s and Jim Jones’ to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Billy Graham, Joel Osteens, Rev. Schuller, and Al Sharptons and Rev. Moons.
“The heresies spawned were like wild mushrooms that have in time mostly withered and died and divided among themselves from the David Koresh’s and Jim Jones’ to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Billy Graham, Joel Osteens, Rev. Schuller, and Al Sharptons and Rev. Moons.”
That you do not distinguish between cultist and those that believe the historic Christian creeds speaks volumes.
In any case, my point was simply that problems within Romanism set in motion all you listed.
Somewhere along the way, the Catholic Church became a religion, with all sorts of fancy trappings, and the priests overall apparently followed themselves and adopted reason over committing to total surrender to the Lord. Religion is what reacted with moral outrage to the Satanic black mass. And on the Body and Blood of the Lord, although He was physically at the first Communion, He did not give His disciples from His body, but of bread and wine. Now if it were said about any other person, that they’ve given their body and blood to be consumed by other people, that would actually mean eating of the person’s body and drinking his blood. So since that’s not what happened, then what happened?
The Catholic Church started in 33 AD when Christ breathed on the Apostles and made them Bishops. That’s in Scripture.
How old is your church?
(If you read any of the writings of Justin Martyr, he explains the early worship services held in home churches on Sundays.) What they did is the foundation of our present day Mass — it had a simple beginning and is still very simple. The Greeting, The Liturgy of the Word, The Liturgy of the Eucharist and the Dismissal.
Wrong. He not only said so but when others took Him literally and began to walk away, He did not say they were mistaken. Indeed he doubled down on it. But the Church’s authority goes back to not only Scripture but also TRADITION. The books in the Bibles did not fall from the sky. They authorized by the Church fathers some 30 years after the death of Christ. It was the oral traditions and rituals that were understood and carried out by His disciples. This is large mustard tree, the Catholic Church, the rest are 35,000 varieties of heresies. On flock, one body, one food. The Body and Blood of Christ.
Catholicism, with its reliance on Tradition, was able to resist this subjectivism in thought but was not immune. Liberal Protestant ideas started to enter into Catholic academic thought through Modernism in the late 19th cent. But where Catholicism differs with Protestantism is the existence of an authoritative Magisterium that was able to resist this movement and Modernism was condemned by Pope Pius X. It was, however, able to make a comeback after Vatican II. It could even be said that it became dominant at the academic and popular levels. Again, however, it was never able to change the dogmatic teachings of the Magisterium. The spread of Modernism (i.e. liberal Protestant thought) was more from a neglect of discipline by the Magisterium rather than by its adoption. Today, however, even on the academic and popular levels there is a return to orthodoxy.
As a Catholic I would call this preservation of orthodox teaching at the Magisterial level a result of the protection of the Holy Spirit. A non-Catholic might take a more cynical view and note that if the Catholic Church would ever deny a dogmatic teaching that it had declared in the past that it would deny its very claim of infallibility and thus its very nature. Thus such a cynic would say that the Catholic Church cannot deny a previously defined dogmatic teaching only because of self-preservation. In either case, the Catholic Church has a bulwark against the spread of Modernism/liberalism that Protestantism does not.
Your solution has not worked; only genuine apostles/prophets or more likely The Lord's return is going to sort out the mess the nations made of the holy catholic apostolic church.
Really, we agree on many facts, but not all. We do not agree on your Rome-centered rubric of history.
In Romanism - sola ecclesia - or sola magisterium, you simply outsource belief to Rome. You can refer to that as a protective arrangement and it is one form. What Romans never consider is what they lose by this arrangement. How could they and support the dogma of sola Rome? It must remain perfect to the roman mind, or the story is broken.
Rome resisting liberalism? The evidence in her parishes contradicts this. In Belgium alone, more than 80% of Romans never darken the door of a church. Here in the USA, many studies show Romans do not believe the teachings of Rome.
Protestantism is a broad word the way you wield it. Groups of liberals are cut off like cancer from Bible believing Christian groups - yet it serves the purpose of many Romans to set them up as straw men. It could be reversed easily. We could call all the crazy offshoots of Rome “Catholics”.
Sola Scriptura - the belief that inspired Scripture is sufficient for salvation, maturity and doctrine - has led to deep faith, the evangelization of the earth, ekklesia around the world, etc.
Protestantism doesn’t “seek to place authority in God alone.” It recognizes that His authority is over us. His Word is the last Word in all matters of faith and practice.
Cancerous offshoots are cut off. This seems to please Romans as they get to raise the number of “protestant” denominations. They eventually have to merge to keep their buildings as they die off. They die off because they abandon the One Source of Life.
The Christians who continue to know God, trust His word and follow Him continue on in pursuit of all He desires. Their ekklesia continue to grow. Our one ekklesia baptizes between 120-160 new Christians each quarter. Not born into the faith infants. Individuals who were far from God, tattooed, pierced, etc. - individuals who heard and responded to the Gospel and want to announce to the world that they are now a follower of Christ. They are now lives changed by Christ.
It is always and forever about His Glory, His Gospel of Grace, His Bride and His Body.
It is never about churches, denominations, etc.
I must take exception to this characterization. First, it is not sola ecclesia. The Catholic Church fully recognizes the authority of the Bible. Where Protestants accuse us of departing from the Bible in truth is departing from Protestant interpretations of the Bible. The many debates here on FR about the meaning of various Bible passages highlights this. Secondly, while Protestants like to portray Catholicism as only Rome, in truth it is the entire Catholic Church. This ecumenical or universal nature of the Church is seen in the exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium of church teaching and in the Extraordinary Magisterium of church councils. Yes, the pope does exercise a unique role but it is only as the head of the universal church.
Rome resisting liberalism? The evidence in her parishes contradicts this. In Belgium alone, more than 80% of Romans never darken the door of a church. Here in the USA, many studies show Romans do not believe the teachings of Rome.
Yes, I acknowledge the damage done by Modernism at the academic and popular levels. But this was because of the reluctance of church authorities after Vatican II to discipline dissent. But these errors were never accept by the Magisterium. Catholics could always discover the falsehood of what was being taught locally by referring to official documents of the church. A rejection of a false "Spirit of Vatican II" is now taking place but it will take time for this to spread in the pews. The younger clergy now being ordained are particularly devoted to orthodox teaching. But this appeal to a magisterial authority is lacking within Protestantism where disagreement leads to fragmentation.
Protestantism is a broad word the way you wield it. Groups of liberals are cut off like cancer from Bible believing Christian groups - yet it serves the purpose of many Romans to set them up as straw men.
I do indeed recognize the broad split between Bible-believing (evangelical/fundamentalist) Protestants and their liberal cousins but they are both the heirs of the Reformation. Sola scriptura planted the seed of subjectivism which lead to liberal Protestantism and we find this liberalism residing in historically Protestant denominations such as Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutheran, etc. Without the Reformation this liberal Protestantism would not exist.
Sola Scriptura - the belief that inspired Scripture is sufficient for salvation, maturity and doctrine - has led to deep faith, the evangelization of the earth, ekklesia around the world, etc.
More nations were brought to Christ through the ages by the Catholic Church than by Protestantism which is why the Catholic Church now has over one billion members world-wide. Indeed, all of the Protestant nations of Europe were first evangelized by the Catholic Church.
Protestantism doesn’t “seek to place authority in God alone.” It recognizes that His authority is over us. His Word is the last Word in all matters of faith and practice.
Actually it is the individual's personal interpretation of the Bible that becomes the last word. Thus the fragmentation of Protestantism.
Cancerous offshoots are cut off.
And which denomination of Protestantism is the true ekklesia which has cut off all the others, and how large is it compared to the full number of those who call themselves Christian?
Lots of points to respond to so I will try to be brief to save you and I time!
“I must take exception to this characterization. First, it is not sola ecclesia.”
... Well, if you include anything in addition to the Bible and set up the non-Biblical magisterium to be the only source of accuracy, it is effectively solo ecclesia.
“The Catholic Church fully recognizes the authority of the Bible.”
...except where they want to add non-Biblical doctrines out of thin air. Except where they want to find support for a preexisting pagan idea by using the see and say method.
“while Protestants like to portray Catholicism as only Rome, in truth it is the entire Catholic Church.
... actually I use rome not as an insult, but to preserve the actual meaning of “universal church” as meaning everyone believer who makes up the body and bride of Christ - instead of just those in a Christian religion ruled from rome.
“This ecumenical or universal nature of the Church is seen in the exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium of church teaching and in the Extraordinary Magisterium of church councils. Yes, the pope does exercise a unique role but it is only as the head of the universal church.”
... well, we can agree the “pope” has a unique role over churches that submit to rome.
“Yes, I acknowledge the damage done by Modernism at the academic and popular levels. But this was because of the reluctance of church authorities after Vatican II to discipline dissent. But these errors were never accept by the Magisterium.”
... any teaching not enforced is a hobby.
“Catholics could always discover the falsehood of what was being taught locally by referring to official documents of the church.”
... discovering without enforcement is simply theory.
“But this appeal to a magisterial authority is lacking within Protestantism where disagreement leads to fragmentation.”
It is cleaner. Agree with Scripture or get packing. Faster too.
“I do indeed recognize the broad split between Bible-believing (evangelical/fundamentalist) Protestants and their liberal cousins but they are both the heirs of the Reformation.”
... here I will disagree gently. While many churches came from the reformation relatives, most churches started today are direct offshoots from Christ. I suppose your theory will fairly call Rome the Mother of the Reformation.
“Sola scriptura planted the seed of subjectivism”
...again, gently disagree. It spawns a conversation about what God revealed and what it means. Both good conversations to have.
“which lead to liberal Protestantism and we find this liberalism residing in historically Protestant denominations such as Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutheran, etc. Without the Reformation this liberal Protestantism would not exist.”
... then to be fair, you will have to concede that “the authority of the ministerium leads to liberal catholicism and we find this liberalism resididing in historically roman groups such as those who want to make Mary the fourth member of the godhead, those with lesbian priests, etc. Without the magisterium and its ruling on theology, rome would not exist.”
...You sowed the seeds and must reap the fruit.
“More nations were brought to Christ through the ages by the Catholic Church than by Protestantism which is why the Catholic Church now has over one billion members world-wide.”
... Christ didn’t command us to go to “nations”. The specific instructions are to every tribe, people, tongue and nation. Somewhere around 16,000 people groups remain. They are targeted and being reached. By “protestants.”
...When your past is bigger than your future, the end is near.
... Perhaps the real answer about the billion members is that half don’t participate any more. I’m not sure what membership means to you or rome, but I would personally be quite discouraged.
“Indeed, all of the Protestant nations of Europe were first evangelized by the Catholic Church.”
... Sure. You can see the shape they are in now - despite the magisterium. I will also add that evangelicals are planting churches now in Europe to lead those nations back to Christ.
“Actually it is the individual’s personal interpretation of the Bible that becomes the last word. Thus the fragmentation of Protestantism.”
... actually, no. God has gifted the ekklesia with “teachers” and the Holy Spirit in every member.
“And which denomination of Protestantism is the true ekklesia which has cut off all the others, and how large is it compared to the full number of those who call themselves Christian?”
...EVERY single ekklesia that teaches the Gospel of Grace is comprised of actual members of the body and bride of Christ. As such, it is part of the universal church of all time.
... until the final day, we will not know how many shoots of wheat vs. how many tares. God knows now and will reveal it later. We can hear words of testimony. We can see lives changed. We can see good works. All of those can be fake, as we know. Only God knows.
... what we do know is that in the end, God will reveal it. Until then, it is a church on the march, sending our budget to the unreached, sharing the Gospel here and abroad, building up believers and helping them use their gifts.
... never about a “correct” church. Always about Him, His glory, His Gospel of Grace.
“He not only said so...”
Do you recall that He told the rich young ruler to give away all his possessions? Did He and does He require all rich people to do that? According to the rest of the Bible, no. Jesus at times spoke judgment on the crowds, telling His disciples that He spoke in parables that He didn’t explain to them because of their unbelief. And one parable was about the different types of soil, and another about the wheat and chaff. He knew that the crowd He’d fed had come to Him because they wanted Him to be their earthly king and provide bread for Him. And as I imagine you know, so much of what is going on in the Gospels is about the two types of prophecy about the coming Messiah, with some saying He was the Suffering Servant and other the Victorious King. Up to Jesus’ time, some rabbis believed that meant two Messiahs, and there was a conflict between the views that Jesus stepped into, and the Jews (incl. Peter when He tried “correcting” Jesus) at the time wanted the Victorious King. And Cont’d
(cont’d) Jesus had to deal with this embrace of the Victorious King over the Suffering Servant with not only Peter, and His other apostles and disciples. He had to prepare them for His death, and they only understood it afterwards with His Resurrection, even though as He said at different times the sacrificial death He’d die was foretold in Scripture. But I can tell you from reading from Jews that have accepted Christ, the Jews have put the Suffering Servant prophecies just about out mind, and one Jew I talked to on Yahoo Answers religion section, who said no one can die for another’s sins, when I pointed out passages of Isaiah 53 to him, within minutes deleted the whole thread. I pray that knowledge took root in him. But all in all, you cannot say that Jesus gave of His physical body, which was there at the Last Supper and first Communion. He spoke, as He did all along, of the sacrifice He was to make. It was all about Him going to the Cross, and Communion would be something utterly different (Cont’d)
different without Jesus’ death on the Cross. The chief offense of the Cross is that we’re all sinners so no one is right with God, and no one can make themselves right with God, either, but they need Him even to do that, and to pay their penalty for sin. The crowds that came to Jesus, and even many who followed Him (and one of the Twelve, too, Judas), weren’t “seeking first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness,” so after not responding to Jesus’ miracles , but listening to their flesh instead, Jesus judged them.
Okay, consider this passage:
“But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” (1 Corinthians 1:23)
The offense of the Gospel to the Jews was and is the Messiah, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, dying to make atonement for the sins of mankind. And I’m grateful for the Lord revealing more of this truth through the conversation here. Reading John 6 in this light makes it that much clearer. The crowds were looking for the Victorious King, and Jesus told them what they were doing and warned them, but when they responded with unbelief, He judged them. And some disciples didn’t believe in Him, either, and then Jesus turned to the Twelve, and He knew one of them didn’t believe also.
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.