Scripture, Tradition, and Rome (Part 3)
May 16th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
How Do We Know the Doctrine of the Apostles?
Now let’s examine the key Scriptures Rome cites to try to justify the existence of extrabiblical tradition. Since many of these passages are similar, it will suffice to reply to the main ones. First we’ll examine the key verses that speak of how Apostolic doctrine was transmitted, and then we’ll explore what the apostle Paul meant when he spoke of “tradition.”
Second Timothy 2:2: ”The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.” Here the apostle Paul instructs Timothy, a young pastor, to train other faithful men for the task of leadership in the church. There is no hint of apostolic succession in this verse, nor is there any suggestion that in training these men Timothy would be passing on to them an infallible tradition with authority equal to the Word of God.
On the contrary, what this verse describes is simply the process of discipleship. Far from imparting to these men some apostolic authority that would guarantee their infallibility, Timothy was to choose men who had proved themselves faithful, teach them the gospel, and equip them in the principles of church leadership he had learned from Paul. What Timothy was to entrust to them was the essential truth Paul himself had preached “in the presence of many witnesses.” What was this truth?
It was not some undisclosed tradition, such as the Assumption of Mary, which would be either unheard of or disputed for centuries until a pope declared ex cathedra that it was truth. What Timothy was to hand on to other men was the same doctrine Paul had preached before “many witnesses.” Paul was speaking of the gospel itself. It was the same message Paul commanded Timothy to preach: and it is the same message that is preserved in Scripture and sufficient to equip every man of God (2 Tim. 3:16—4:2).
In short, this verse is wholly irrelevant to the Catholic claim that tradition received from the apostles is preserved infallibly by her bishops. Nothing in this verse suggests that the truth Timothy would teach other faithful men would be preserved without error from generation to generation. That is indeed what Scripture says of itself: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching” (2 Tim. 3:16)—but no such assertion is ever made for tradition handed down orally.
Like Timothy, we are to guard the truth that has been entrusted to us. But the only reliable canon, the only infallible doctrine, the only binding principles, and the only saving message, is the God-breathed truth of Scripture.
Acts 2:42: ”They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” This verse simply states that the early church followed the apostles’ teaching as their rule of faith. Once again this passage says nothing about apostolic succession and contains no hint of a guarantee that “the apostles’ teaching” would be infallibly preserved through any means other than Scripture.
Note also that this verse describes the attitude of the earliest converts to Christianity. The “they” at the beginning of the verse refers back to verse 41 and the three thousand souls who were converted at Pentecost. These were for the most part rank-and-file lay people. And their one source of Christian doctrine (this was before any of the New Testament had been penned) was the oral teaching of the apostles.
This verse is even more irrelevant to the question of infallible tradition than 2 Timothy 2:2. The only point it asserts that is remotely germane to the issue is that the source of authority for the early church was apostolic teaching.
No one who holds to the doctrine of sola Scriptura would dispute that point. Let it be stated as clearly as possible: Protestants do not deny that the oral teaching of the apostles was authoritative, inerrant truth, binding as a rule of faith on those who heard it.
Moreover, if there were any promise in Scripture that the exact words or full sense of the apostolic message would be infallibly preserved through word of mouth by an unbroken succession of bishops, we would be bound to obey that tradition as a rule of faith.
Scripture, however, which is God-breathed, never speaks of any other God-breathed authority; it never authorizes us to view tradition on an equal or superior plane of authority; and while it makes the claim of inerrancy for itself, it never acknowledges any other infallible source of authority. Word-of-mouth tradition is never said to be theopneustos, God-breathed, or infallible.
What Tradition Did Paul Command Adherence to?
We’ve already noted, however, that Catholic apologists claim they do see verses in Scripture that accord authority to tradition. Even non-Catholic versions of Scripture speak of a certain “tradition” that is to be received and obeyed with unquestioning reverence.
What of these verses? Protestants often find them difficult to explain, but in reality they make better arguments against the Catholic position than they do against sola Scriptura. Let’s examine the main ones:
First Corinthians 11:2: “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.” Those words of Paul to the Corinthians speak of tradition, do they not?
Yet as is often true, the meaning is plain when we look at the context. And examining the context, we discover this verse offers no support whatsoever for the Roman Catholic notion of infallible tradition.
First of all, the apostle is speaking not of traditions passed down to the Corinthians by someone else though word of mouth. This “tradition” is nothing other than doctrine the Corinthians had heard directly from Paul’s own lips during his ministry in their church. The Greek word translated “traditions” is paradosis, translated “ordinances” in the King James Version. The Greek root contains the idea of transmission, and the idea is no doubt doctrine that was transmitted by oral means. In this case, however, it refers only to Paul’s own preaching—not to someone else’s report of what Paul taught.
The Corinthians had had the privilege of sitting under the apostle Paul’s ministry for a year and a half (Acts 18:11), so it is ironic that of all the churches described in the New Testament, Corinth was one of the most problematic. Paul’s first epistle to this church deals with a series of profound problems related to church discipline and practice, including serious sin in their midst, disunity among the brethren, disorder in church meetings, Christians who were taking one another to court, abuse of spiritual gifts, and so on. Second Corinthians is an extended defense of Paul’s ministry in the face of opposition and hostility. Someone in the church—possibly even someone whom Paul had entrusted with a position of leadership—had evidently fomented a rebellion against Paul during his long absence.
The Corinthians knew Paul. He had been their pastor. Yet they were obviously slipping away from the moorings he had so carefully established during his pastorate there. Far from being instruments through which Paul’s tradition was infallibly preserved and handed down, the Corinthians were rebelling against his apostleship! That is why Paul encouraged them to remember what they had heard from him and follow it to the letter.
What did he teach during that year and a half in their midst? We have no way of knowing precisely, but we have every reason to believe that the substance of his teaching was the same truth that is recorded throughout his epistles and elsewhere in the New Testament. Once again, we do know for certain that everything essential for thoroughly equipping Christians for life and godliness was preserved in Scripture (2 Tim. 3:15-17). The rest is not recorded for us, and nothing anywhere in Scripture indicates that it was handed down through oral tradition—especially not through any means that guaranteed it would be inspired and infallible.
First Corinthians 11:2 in particular teaches no such thing. It is nothing but Paul’s exhortation to the Corinthians that they remember and obey his apostolic teaching. It reflects Paul’s own personal struggle to protect and preserve the doctrinal tradition he had carefully established in Corinth. But again, there is no implication whatsoever that Paul expected this tradition to be infallibly preserved through any inspired means other than Scripture. On the contrary, Paul was concerned lest his ministry among the Corinthians prove to have been in vain (cf. 2 Cor. 6:1).
Second Thessalonians 2:15: ”So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” This is perhaps the favorite verse of Catholic apologists when they want to support the Catholic appeal to tradition, because the verse plainly delineates between the written word and oral “traditions.”
Again the Greek word is paradosis. Clearly, the apostle is speaking of doctrine, and it is not to be disputed that the doctrine he has in mind is authoritative, inspired truth.
So what is this inspired tradition that they received “by word of mouth”? Doesn’t this verse rather clearly support the Catholic position?
No, it does not. Again, the context is essential to a clear understanding of what Paul was saying. The Thessalonians had evidently been misled by a forged letter, supposedly from the apostle Paul, telling them that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess. 2:2). The entire church had apparently been upset by this, and the apostle Paul was eager to encourage them.
For one thing, he wanted to warn them not to be taken in by phony “inspired truth.” And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him: it would be signed in his own handwriting: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write” (3:17). He wanted to ensure that they would not be fooled again by forged epistles.
But even more important, he wanted them to stand fast in the teaching they had already received from him. He had already told them, for example, that the day of the Lord would be preceded by a falling away, and the unveiling of the man of lawlessness. ”Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?” (2:5). There was no excuse for them to be troubled by a phony letter, for they had heard the actual truth from his own mouth already.
Now, no one—even the most impassioned champion of sola Scriptura—would deny that Paul had taught the Thessalonians many things by word of mouth. No one would deny that the teaching of an apostle carried absolute authority. The point of debate between Catholics and Protestants is whether that teaching was infallibly preserved by word of mouth. So the mere reference to truth received firsthand from Paul himself is again, irrelevant as support for the Catholic position. Certainly nothing here suggests that the tradition Paul delivered to the Thessalonians is infallibly preserved for us anywhere except in Scripture itself.
In fact, the real thrust of what Paul is writing here is antithetical to the spirit of Roman Catholic tradition. Paul is not encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been delivered to them via second- or third-hand reports. On the contrary, he was ordering them to receive as infallible truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips.
Paul was very concerned to correct the Thessalonians’ tendency to be led astray by false epistles and spurious tradition. From the very beginning the Thessalonians had not responded to the gospel message as nobly as the Bereans, who “received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).
It is highly significant that the Bereans are explicitly commended for examining the apostolic message in light of Scripture. They had the priority right: Scripture is the supreme rule of faith, by which everything else is to be tested. Unsure of whether they could trust the apostolic message—which, by the way, was as inspired and infallible and true as Scripture itself—the Bereans erased all their doubt by double-checking the message against Scripture. Yet Roman Catholics are forbidden by their Church to take such an approach! They are told that the Church through her bishops dispenses the only true and infallible understanding of Scripture. Therefore it is pointless to test the Catholic Church’s message by Scripture; for if there appears to be a conflict—and make no mistake, there are many—Rome says her traditions carry more weight that her critics’ interpretation of Scripture.
What the apostle was telling the Thessalonians was nothing like what Rome tells faithful Catholics. Paul was urging the Thessalonians to test all truth-claims by Scripture, and by the words they had heard personally from his own lips. And since the only words of the apostles that are infallibly preserved for us are found in Scripture, that means that we, like the Bereans, must compare everything with Scripture to see whether it is so.
Roman Catholic apologists protest that only a fraction of Paul’s messages to the Thessalonians are preserved in the two brief epistles Paul wrote to that church. True, but may not we assume that what he taught the Thessalonians were the very truths that are found in generous measure throughout all his epistles—justification by faith, the true gospel of grace, the sovereignty of God, the Lordship of Christ, and a host of other truths? The New Testament gives us a full-orbed Christian theology. Who can prove that anything essential is omitted? On the contrary, we are assured that Scripture is sufficient for salvation and spiritual life (2 Tim 3:15-17). Where does Scripture ever suggest that there are unwritten truths that are necessary for our spiritual well-being? One thing is certain: these words in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 imply no such thing.
Second Thessalonians 3:6: ”Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” This is the only other verse in all the New Testament where Paul uses the words tradition or traditions to speak of apostolic truth that is to be obeyed.
By now, Paul’s use of this term should be well established. This cannot be a reference to truth passed down from generation to generation. Again, Paul is speaking of a “tradition” received firsthand from him.
This is the closing section of the epistle. Paul is summing up. And he once again underscores the importance of the teaching the Thessalonians had received directly from his mouth. The “tradition” he speaks of here is doctrine so crucial that anyone who refuses to heed it and live by it should be rejected from the fellowship.
What is this “tradition”? Is it Marian theology, or dogma about the efficacy of relics, or other teachings unique to Roman Catholicism? Not at all—it is simple, practical apostolic doctrine, taught and lived out by example while Paul was among the Thessalonians. Paul goes on to define specifically what “tradition” he has in mind:
We did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good (3:7-13).
In other words, Paul was speaking of simple, practical doctrine about stewardship of one’s time, a man’s responsibility to work and provide for his family, and personal discipline in daily life. These truths are now part of holy Scripture, by virtue of Paul’s including them in this epistle. Put that together with everything else the New Testament records, and you have every part of the apostolic message that was infallibly preserved for us.
Is the sum of Scriptural truth a sufficient rule of faith for the Christian? We have the Bible’s own assurance that it is. Scripture alone is sufficient to lead us to salvation and fully equip us for life and eternity (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Therefore we may know with certainty that every essential aspect of the apostolic message is included in Scripture.
Note that Paul clearly regarded his epistles as inspired, authoritative Scripture. He charged the Thessalonians with these instructions: “And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame.”
So the written words of Scripture are binding. Apostolic preaching was equally binding for those who heard it from the apostles’ own mouths. Beyond that, Scripture lays no burden on anyone’s shoulders. But, thank God, His own Word assures us that Scripture is fully sufficient to bring us to salvation and to equip us spiritually for all that God demands of us.
No man, no church, no religious authority has any warrant from God to augment the inspired Word of Scripture with additional traditions, or to alter the plain sense of it by subjecting it to the rigors of a “traditional” meaning not found in the Word itself. To do so is clearly to invalidate the Word of God—and we know what our Lord thinks of that (Matt. 15:6-9).
(To be continued tomorrow)
John,
For simplification in reading I will add ** when responding to your text.
You wrote: On the contrary, what this verse describes is simply the process of discipleship.
**Really? Let’s look at it again:
Second Timothy 2:2: ”The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.”
**Do you know what he is referring to when he mentions “the things” or “these”? I think your being a little presumptuous. It clearly talks of oral teaching to be passed on who in turn pass it on. If sola scriptura were believed and active this verse makes no sense.
It was not some undisclosed tradition, such as the Assumption of Mary, which would be either unheard of or disputed for centuries until a pope declared ex cathedra that it was truth.
What Timothy was to hand on to other men was the same doctrine Paul had preached before “many witnesses.” Paul was speaking of the gospel itself. It was the same message Paul commanded Timothy to preach: and it is the same message that is preserved in Scripture and sufficient to equip every man of God (2 Tim. 3:16—4:2).
**Again, how do you know what he was referring to?
You seem to be pronouncing your own “infallible” interpretation.
The belief in the sinlessness of Mary was widely believed in the early Church, even the “reformers” speak of it.
So, if your “infallible” interpretation doesn’t jive with The Church’s who is right? It is interesting to note that the early fathers actually quote the verses that you reject above as “proofs” of the authority of Apostolic Tradition.
The early Church Fathers, who were links in the chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show.
Papias:(Bishop of Hierapolis and Apostolic Father, called by St. Irenæus “a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, a man of old time”.)
“Papias [A.D. 120], who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 [A.D. 312]).
Eusebius of Caesarea (Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, the “Father of Church History”; b. about 260; d. before 341)
“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (Church History 4:21).
Irenaeus(Bishop of Lyons, and Father of the Church).
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).
“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:1–2).
Cyprian of Carthage (Bishop and martyr)
“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 75:3 [A.D. 253]).
Athanasius:(Bishop of Alexandria; Confessor and Doctor of the Church; born c. 296; died 2 May, 373)
“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven” (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).
“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29).
Basil the Great (Bishop of Caesarea, and one of the most distinguished Doctors of the Church)
“Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term” (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“It is needful also to make use of tradition, for not everything can be gotten from sacred Scripture. The holy apostles handed down some things in the scriptures, other things in tradition” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 61:6 [A.D. 375]).
Augustine (Bishop of Hippo)
“[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
“But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, ‘that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to apostolic tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,’ is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation” (ibid., 5:26[37]).
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church” (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).
John Chrysostom (Doctor of the Church, born at Antioch)
“[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further” (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).
Vincent of Lerins
“With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity.
“I received almost always the same answer from all of them—that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and in sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of divine law [Scripture] and then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
“Here, perhaps, someone may ask: ‘If the canon of the scriptures be perfect and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?’ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning. . . .
“Thus, because of so many distortions of such various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning” (The Notebooks [A.D. 434]).
Pope Agatho
“[T]he holy Church of God . . . has been established upon the firm rock of this Church of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, which by his grace and guardianship remains free from all error, [and possesses that faith that] the whole number of rulers and priests, of the clergy and of the people, unanimously should confess and preach with us as the true declaration of the apostolic tradition, in order to please God and to save their own souls” (Letter read at fourth session of III Constantinople [A.D. 680]).
On the contrary,
Col 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.
The Colossians were distracted by various forms of aesthetic spirituality and legalism that kept them from the pure gospel and truth of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, just as the Church has been distracted for centuries itself.
The Scripture alone must be authority, not community, not tradition, not men. Dr. MacArthur’s post is well articulated and well taken.
Zach Doppelt
http://zdoppelt.blogspot.com/
BTW, the idea that Mary is “our mother” based on Jesus’ placing her in John’s care (“here is your mother”) is beyond absurd and classic “begging-the-question”. He gave her to John, not the “whole church”! I recently heard a pope say that the disciples “gathered around her (Mary) to wait for the Holy Spirit”. The scripture merely says she was there! These people are dreamers, schemers and blasphemers.
Gerry, let me ask you. I utterly refuse to accept Mary’s “intercession” on my behalf. Am I lost?
Gerry, I think “much learning doth make thee mad”. The scriptures contain “all things that pertain to life and godliness”. Nothing that requires advanced study and deep linguistic and theological gymnastics could POSSIBLY be essential for salvation because the truth of the gospel is given even to the simple and babes…in fact, especially to such. How could such abstractions and extrapolations be needful for salvation or true knowledge of God. MOst people will never have the keen mental faculties and (apprently a great deal of) free time you have to learn to your level. I read the scriptures first WITHOUT going to church. The conclusion I came to was
**Jesus is God
**God is Triune
**Baptism was by immersion and an act of obedience not required for salvation
**There is no head of the church but Christ.
**True believers never fall away and lose their salvation.
**Works FOLLOW faith and faith is what saves.
I am no scholar, just an average man. If this was my conclusion on a plain reading of the scriptures, without someone whispering in my ear what “this really means’, how could God expect a common man to understand His truths otherwise? God knows the corruption of men’s hearts well enough to know that if He allowed them to add to and/or super-extrapolate His word he (man) would come up with a Sanhedrin-type system, which happened or its modern counterpart, the Catholic church. The Dark Ages will always be with us so long as the RCC is. Good news for Antichrist, though..the Emerging Church loves you guys and the combination of emergents, RCC and Islam should make a potent one-world religion.
Gerry said:
“The early Church Fathers, who were links in the chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, as the following quotations show.”
I say:
Where do you derive this “chain of succession” from? And where do you derive the characteristic of infallibility in this chain?
Kit
Gerry,
First I am sure Nate will have a much more lengthy reply point by point. My question is: Do you notice that all of the catholic apologetics require quotations by man? If you read MacArthur’s 3 posts thus far he only uses scripture. He uses the scripture itself, what context it’s in, the original language, the culture and audience it was being spoken to, why it was being said, etc. He doesn’t base it on what this guy or this guy said. You yourself said that what they say or do didn’t matter except for what they teach. So really you must use only their approved-infallible teachings as replies. If not you are using the same people who in other writings have disagreed. If you want to respond to a scripture argument show where the exergesis was wrong or questionable. Saying how do you know or do you know what the things were, are not replies. Tell me what you know based on scripture or what your biblical interpretation is of what “the things” meant.
If you want to argue against his interpretation, show where in scripture it is wrong, show where the greek doesn’t mean that, or the like. Constantly questioning someones interpretation while never giving your own doesn’t show anything. Breakdown the scripture, show us the RCC exergesis of the text and the surrounding scripture, apply the language, tell us why he was saying that… etc. Saying a pope in 464 said one time he thought that it was a good idea to sell relics to raise money because that is a traditon and since this verse mentions traditions it must have meant this was ok, and since the popes are infallible only in teachings, not other works or lifestyle or thoughts, that must be the case based on their conclusions. Your end result is justified by your own justification of the first. I don’t mean this to be rude, it is just long to read 13 statements by popes or the like who do not breakdown the scripture just mention it in passing along with their traditions. I am not discounting their statements, I am simply saying the statements posted are hopefully products of their own biblical interpretation based on something. If you have some of this it would be more helpful. I can read a statement by whoever saying their conclusions, but show me how they got there.
You said: “So, if your “infallible” interpretation doesn’t jive with The Church’s who is right? It is interesting to note that the early fathers actually quote the verses that you reject above as “proofs” of the authority of Apostolic Tradition.”
You said yesterday that only their teachings were infallible. Are these teachings or writings? When Nate shows your writings that contradict and Jesse shows you popes that conflict, your response is only their teachings are infallible. How do you differentiate these? Can you give me an accurate way to tell the difference between their writings and their teachings, I am still confused as why they would believe/teach one thing then write/live another, but that is beyond the point for now.
And much like Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons or anyone, how do we argue with interpretations? The answer must lie in the scriptures. What does the scripture mean? This goes back to the point above, let’s compare your exergesis of the text with MacArthur’s. Isn’t that the only way…?
Random question isn’t it weird that the sacredness of “tradition” comes from scripture that is equal to “traditions.” What is the justification for these “traditions”? If it is scripture, how can they be equal?
To reiterate from the article:
“In short, this verse is wholly irrelevant to the Catholic claim that tradition received from the apostles is preserved infallibly by her bishops. Nothing in this verse suggests that the truth Timothy would teach other faithful men would be preserved without error from generation to generation. That is indeed what Scripture says of itself: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching” (2 Tim. 3:16)—but no such assertion is ever made for tradition handed down orally.
Like Timothy, we are to guard the truth that has been entrusted to us. But the only reliable canon, the only infallible doctrine, the only binding principles, and the only saving message, is the God-breathed truth of Scripture.”
Gerry, you miss the point when you start quoting from other people (whom are mere people, apart from the apostles and Christ Himself). Until you can show from Scripture that the truth was passed on infallibly from generation to generation (orally), you have nothing but doctrines of men that you are standing on.
I’d like to repost a few of my many questions that were left unanswered from the first day.
1. Who was in charge in Acts ch 15 at the Council of Jerusalem? the Bible alone or the apostles and elders? (it’s a simple question, isn’t it?)
2. How did the apostles arrive at the decision that Gentiles weren’t required to be circumcised? through Bible alone? (Acts 15) and related to that question is this: What Old Testament Scripture leads one to believe that circumcision was not necessary?
3. Did Paul deliver decrees decided upon in Jerusalem for the whole church to obey? (a simple yes or no answer, hint Acts 16:4)
I would have like to have seen a few other Scriptures addressed that I think are more compelling to the issue of apostolic authority. The first would be Acts ch1, where Peter recalls the Psalm that says, “Let another take his office.” Doesn’t this show that the apostles held offices of authority? Did Jesus establish these “offices” only for a certain time to die out with those apostles?
We know that the apostles appointed others to be bishops and elders. This brings me back to my first question at the top. In Acts 15, the apostles clearly state that some did not have the authority to be teaching. The apostles and elders seem to have authority over the whole church, not just there local congregation. This is further solidified for me in Acts 16:4.
And then we have Jesus telling the people that they must obey those who sit in the seat of Moses even if they are hypocrites. Does this not show Jesus commanding respect for the office of authority that those men held? Sure, he blasted the individuals who held those offices for being hypocrites but never did he tell people to just look to the Scriptures for guidance and to ignore those who held these offices. he said very emphatically that you must obey them and do EVERYTHING they tell you. (Matthew 23) It is also noteworthy that the “seat of Moses” is not mentioned in the OT yet it is clearly understood as an office of authority. In the same way, the “seat of Peter” is not mentioned in that exact phrase in the NT, but it is clear that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter.
Another Scripture that I would like to have seen addressed is Matthew 16:18-19 along with Isaiah 22. Jesus was clearly referencing Isaiah 22 where a steward is being disposed and his authority is entrusted to another. Even the NASB translation (a Protestant translation) links these 2 passages. The keys (of authority as referenced in Is 22) are given to Peter. It is an office of authority as clearly stated in Is 22.
I lost a post last night in response to yesterday’s post but it was in response to MacArthur’s point that Scripture is God breathed and is therefore the absolute authority. Well, Jesus BREATHED on the apostles and gave them binding and loosing power, even the authority to forgive sins. (John 20:21-23) Following MacArthur’s logic, the Apostles were also “God breathed” and therefore authoritative.
MacArthur seems to agree that the words of the Apostles were authoritative even though they were fallible men. I suppose he believes that authority died with them. However, back to Acts 15…we see that the apostles AND elders held authority. So, we already see other men besides the 12 holding an authoritative teaching office.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MacArthur said: What is this “tradition”? Is it Marian theology, or dogma about the efficacy of relics, or other teachings unique to Roman Catholicism?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Marian doctrine has much more to do with Christ than it does with Mary and much of it CAN be seen in Scripture. Remember that the dragon (Satan) hates the Woman (Mary) as indicated in Revelation 12. I know you don’t believe that the Woman in that chapter is Mary but c’mon, who else gave birth to Jesus. The hatred and disgust that people have for the Mother of Jesus comes straight from the pit of hell. You see a picture of Mary and cringe? well, so does satan because it is a reminder to him that she is the ark of the New Covenant and the New Eve. If you hold the testimony of Jesus and keep His commandments then Mary is your Mother according to Revelation 12:17. And when Jesus was on the Cross, He gave us His Mother when He said to “Behold your Mother.” He told His Mother to behold her son. I’m sure most reading this are too blinded by their own pride in being right to see the significance here. I just think it is unfair to say that Catholic doctrine is NOT based in Scripture and is all purely superstition.
and as for relics, maybe you should read 2 Kings 13:20-21 and Acts 19:11-12 before you dismiss them.
and my last Scripture that I would like to see addressed is Malachi 2:7:
For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction—because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty.
How does fit with sola Scriptura?
I believe 2 Timothy 3:15-16, that Scripture is God breathed and profitable for teaching, etc. so that the man up God may be equipped. I also believe according to John 20:21-23 that the Apostles were “God breathed.” I also believe that “He gave some as apostles,…and teachers to equip the holy ones…” (Ephesians 4:11-12)
SO according to the Bible both Scripture and the Apostles are God breathed, both are entrusted with authority, both are profitable for teaching, etc. so that the holy ones can be equipped for good works (oops, there’s that “works” word that Protestants don’t like very well!) Scripture alone can’t possibly be sufficient. Scripture never says that Scripture alone is sufficient. His grace is sufficient. Scripture is “profitable” along with the offices of authority that Jesus ordained.
Dave B said: Do you notice that all of the catholic apologetics require quotations by man?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wrong Dave. I have used scripture alone. I have also used only Protestant translations. I’ve been doing this long enough to know that while you will read the writings of the Reformers, you will usually dismiss the ECFs. I have asked questions related to scripture that have yet to be answered.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave B said: If you read MacArthur’s 3 posts thus far he only uses scripture.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wrong again Dave. Yesterday, MacArthur called sola Scriptura a “Reformation principle” and rightly so since it cannot be proven from Scripture. No place in scripture does it say that the Bible alone is sufficient. The Bible says God’s grace is sufficient but never says Scripture ALONE is sufficient. The very principle goes against how the church was operating in Acts. Please see my previously posted questions.
MacArthur tried to twist 2 Timothy 3:15-17 into saying that Scripture alone is sufficient but the only people buying that are the people who have already been indoctrinated with Reformation Tradition. and MacArthur quoted from the Westminster Catechism and some Anglican Articles (I’m too lazy to verify which). So please be fair and admit that MacArthur DID in fact use other sources than Scripture to prove this Reformation priniciple of sola Scriptura.
Tammy wrote:
“The Bible says God’s grace is sufficient but never says Scripture ALONE is sufficient”
On the contrary:
But he answered, “It is written,‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
-Matthew 4:4
Tammy said:
“I lost a post last night in response to yesterday’s post but it was in response to MacArthur’s point that Scripture is God breathed and is therefore the absolute authority. Well, Jesus BREATHED on the apostles and gave them binding and loosing power, even the authority to forgive sins. (John 20:21-23) Following MacArthur’s logic, the Apostles were also “God breathed” and therefore authoritative.”
In response:
“Is this teaching that we have an arbitrary right to forgive sin?” It obviously can’t be teaching that. Mark 2:7 says, “…Who can forgive sins but God only?” The answer is no one, so it can’t be teaching that. You say, “Well, what is Jesus saying?” He is obviously saying that you have the right to say someone’s sins are forgiven and someone else’s are not forgiven. You say, “Can I go up to somebody and say, `Your sins are forgiven’?” Absolutely, as a believer. You say, “Can I go up to somebody and say, `Sorry, your sins are not forgiven’?” Yes, you can. You say, “How can I ever do that?” To any man who is conscious of his sin, and who repents toward God and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, you can say to that man, “Your sins are forgiven.” To any man who willfully rejects and does not believe, and refuses Christ, you can say, “Your sins are retained.” You and I have the right to tell a man whether or not God has forgiven his sins based on what he has done with Jesus Christ.
Can you imagine what would happen if we didn’t have this power? Suppose you went out and preached the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and then someone prays and says, “Christ, come into my life. I believe.” Then he says, “Oh, did it happen?” And you say, “Well, I don’t know. One of these days you’ll find out.” No! You have to be able to say, “Brother, on the basis of the fact that you have confessed Christ, I say to you that your sins, by the mouth of God, are forgiven.” We have the right to say that. That is power and authority. Can you imagine going out to witness to the world with no authority to say that sins are either forgiven or not forgiven? That would be insipid. Nobody would ever believe anything we said. People would become frustrated to the point of terror.
Praise God that Jesus not only told us what to do and gave us the power to do it, but allows us to tell the people what has been done.”
from http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1577.htm
Tammy,
Quite a long post, so I may miss some stuff. But I’ll at least answer your numbered questions (they are the easiest to find).
1. Who was in charge of the Jerusalem Council? The elder’s and the apostles (15:6, 16:4), among whom James apparently was final voice (15:13).
2. How did they arrive at their decision? Through the testimony of Peter (7), as well as Paul and Barnabas (4). They relied on Scripture (15).
2b. What OT Scripture lets us know that circumcision is not necessary? Duet 10:16, combined with the New Covenant passages in Jeremiah 31and Ezekiel. Also, the idea that people coming to God from far off would be saved (1 Kings 8:41-43) implies this.
3. Did Paul pass along the decrees of the elders and apostles for the church to obey? Yes (Acts 16:4, and Galatians 2:11-15 where a gentle reminder to Peter takes place ).
Thanks,
Jesse
Tammy,
Well said. It is also interesting to note that when the “scriptures” are mentioned in the New Testament, it is referring to the Old Testament..and by the way “the apocrapha” that the “reformers” threw out is quoted in the New Testament on many occasions.
Let’s look at one, Heb 11:35
35 Women received back their dead through resurrection. Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection..This is referring to 2 Maccabees 7, which has always been part of the Catholic Church’s Canon and “restated” at the Council of Trent.
The Apostles took to themselves and exercised the power of ruling: (visible Church)
I wll be quoting the writings of Dr. Robert J. Schihl and Paul D. Flanagan below.
making laws
Act 15:1– 16:5
The Council of Jerusalem
Act 5:1–11
Ananias, Sapphira and their deception regarding the sale price of their property
The Apostles understood that their powers were hierarchically conferred:
Act 1:16–26
in designating a successor to Judas
Gal 1:1, 12, 18 and 2:2, 7–9
in establishing, understanding and confirming the apostolate of Paul
Act 14:23
in designating priests for the churches
Act 6:1–6
in ordaining deacons
The Apostles also understood that their powers were to be exercised hierarchically:
Act 2:37–43
in uniting and governing the primitive church community
Act 8:2–25
in building and confirming all the churches of Samaria
Act 11:20–26
in building and confirming the church in Antioch
Act 9:31; 15:36
in the vigilance over the newly constituted churches
Act 10:1–48
in admitting gentiles into the church
Act 15: 1–31
in deciding the grave question of judaizing
This society which Christ instituted He called the Church.
The Greek, ejkklhsiva, and the Latin, ecclesia, translates the Hebrew, qahal, meaning principally, assembly.
In the New Testament, the word occurs 114 times, 3 times in Matthew’s Gospel, 23 times in the Acts of the Apostles, 63 times in Paul’s epistles, 20 times in Revelation, and 5 times within the other epistles of the Apostles. The term ejkklhsiva, ecclesia, church was used exclusively by the authors of the New testament for the gathering of Christians while the word, sunagwgh, synagoge, was reserved to signify the gathering of Jews.
Mt 16:18–19
“And so I say to you, you are ‘Rock’, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Mt 18:17
“If he refuses to listen to them (two or three witnesses), tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”
This same church Christ willed to endure until the end of the world.
The promise of indefectibility:
Mt 16:18
“… and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it (the church).”
Christ instituted only one church, and that society was both formally and specifically a visible one.
Mt 16:18
“… upon this rock I will build my church” (Both “this rock” and “my church” are clearly singular in the Greek text.)
Jn 10:16
I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.
Jn 17:20–21
“I pray not only for them (the Apostles), but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are inme and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”
David Moore, You said: Gerry, I think “much learning doth make thee mad”. The scriptures contain “all things that pertain to life and godliness”. Nothing that requires advanced study and deep linguistic and theological gymnastics could POSSIBLY be essential for salvation because the truth of the gospel is given even to the simple and babes…in fact, especially to such. How could such abstractions and extrapolations be needful for salvation or true knowledge of God. MOst people will never have the keen mental faculties and (apprently a great deal of) free time you have to learn to your level.
** thanks for the laugh David..not joking..I’m still laughing. You make a great point though..
Given the level of bickering back and forth about what Scripture means, do you believe that God expects each of us to be a scholar of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Chaldean to understand His word and the message of salvation? No! This is why He, in His wisdom, started a Church with teaching authority through Peter, the earthly father of the New Covenant and whose successors sit on the Chair of Peter, just as Abraham was the earthly father of the Old Covenant and his successors sat on the Chair of Moses.
Though we are not to “Judaize” because as Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, warned in the 1st century, ” Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity,” Christianity can only be fully grasped by understanding it for what it is: the Old Covenant growing into the New Covenant, the fulfillment of the Old Testament religion, the organic result of the coming of the expected Messiah Who was Himself from the Tribe of Judah. Tradition and earthly authority have always been an extremely important part of this:
Following the example of the Apostolic Church in the persons of the Apostles in the book of Acts, especially chapter 15, the Catholic Church is motivated by a number of scriptures.
The Catholic Church takes seriously the need to know the truth and to refute error.
Jn 15:26
When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.
Jn 16:12–13
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.
Acts 1:8
But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.
2 Pet 2:1
There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
Tit 1:7,9–11
For a bishop (episcopon) as God’s steward … holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents. For there are also many rebels, idle talkers and deceivers … It is imperative to silence them.
Gal 1:6–9
I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you by (the) grace (of Christ) for a different gospel (not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!
The Catholic Church also understands the need to interpret correctly the truth of all of the Bible. The Bible warns us that there will be incorrect interpretation without authority.
All interpretations of a scripture cannot be equally true (it is contrary to the nature of truth); some interpretations of the same scripture are mutually incompatible (e.g. Mt 16:16; Jn 6). Hence there must be an authority to whom truth and error can be appealed.
2 Pet 3:16
In them (Paul’s letters) there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.
The Catholic Church accepts the authority both of Divine Revelation and of the Holy Spirit. Deviation from the truth must be cursed and condemned.
Rom 13:1–2
Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
2 Thess 2:8–12
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord (Jesus) will kill with the breath of his mouth and render powerless by the manifestation of his coming, the one whose coming springs from the power of Satan in every mighty deed and in signs and wonders that lie, and in every wicked deceit for those who are perishing because they have not accepted the love of truth so that they may be saved. Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned.
The Catholic Church has, in all ages, understood both (1) the need for renewal and reformation of Christian faith and living, and general revival in the Church as a whole, and (2) the need to teach the truth when confronted with error.
The Church exercised her teaching authority (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) and called the faithful people entrusted with teaching others together in universal (ecumenical) council for renewal and reformation, and when truths were abandoned and error (heresy) was being taught (Titus 1:9). The truth was expressed and defined; error and false teachers condemned (anathema sit, “let them [him, it] be anathema, condemned, damned”).
The history of the ecumenical councils attests to the fidelity of the Catholic Church to the teaching and direction of both the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Holy Spirit.
Tammy’s questions about Acts 15 brought up a good point about the nature of faith and works. Look carefully at what exactly they were debating in Acts 15 (“must works of the law be committed to be save?”) It is also interesting to read how careful their answer to that question is to—in my protestant opinion—support both sola fide and sola gratia, as well as avoid the establishment of traditions/rituals (“we should not trouble the Gentiles who turn to God”). Just for thought, not necessarily comment.
By the way, questions like “where in the OT does it say circumcision is not necessary for salvation?” make me glad I believe in sola fide, but also exceedingly giddy that I’m a dispensationalist. If any other dispies made it down this far in the comments, I’m sure you’ll agree.
Kit,
You said in response to Tammy:
“Is this teaching that we have an arbitrary right to forgive sin?” It obviously can’t be teaching that. Mark 2:7 says, “…Who can forgive sins but God only?” The answer is no one, so it can’t be teaching that. You say, “Well, what is Jesus saying?” He is obviously saying that you have the right to say someone’s sins are forgiven and someone else’s are not forgiven. You say, “Can I go up to somebody and say, `Your sins are forgiven’?” Absolutely, as a believer. You say, “Can I go up to somebody and say, `Sorry, your sins are not forgiven’?” Yes, you can. You say, “How can I ever do that?” To any man who is conscious of his sin, and who repents toward God and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ, you can say to that man, “Your sins are forgiven.” To any man who willfully rejects and does not believe, and refuses Christ, you can say, “Your sins are retained.” You and I have the right to tell a man whether or not God has forgiven his sins based on what he has done with Jesus Christ.
I say: Scripture is VERY clear on Jesus passing His authority to forgive sins to His visible Church: Also, who gave you “authority” to forgive sins?
All pardon for sins ultimately comes from Christ’s finished work on Calvary, but how is this pardon received by individuals? Did Christ leave us any means within the Church to take away sin? The Bible says he gave us two means.
Baptism was given to take away the sin inherited from Adam (original sin) and any sins we personally committed before baptism—sins we personally commit are called actual sins, because they come from our own acts. Thus on the day of Pentecost, Peter told the crowds, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38), and when Paul was baptized he was told, “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). And so Peter later wrote, “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21).
For sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word emphasizing one of its aspects. During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, “the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God “had given such authority to men” (Matt. 9:8).
Since he would not always be with the Church visibly, Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents, since the apostles wouldn’t always be on earth either, but people would still be sinning.
God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, “‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21–23). (This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)
Christ told the apostles to follow his example: “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you” (John 20:21). Just as the apostles were to carry Christ’s message to the whole world, so they were to carry his forgiveness: “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
This power was understood as coming from God: “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, “So we are ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor. 5:20).
Was this believed and practiced in the early Church?
The Didache
“Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure” (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A.D. 70]).
Irenaeus
“[The Gnostic disciples of Marcus] have deluded many women. . . . Their consciences have been branded as with a hot iron. Some of these women make a public confession, but others are ashamed to do this, and in silence, as if withdrawing from themselves the hope of the life of God, they either apostatize entirely or hesitate between the two courses” (Against Heresies 1:22 [A.D. 189]).
Hippolytus
“[The bishop conducting the ordination of the new bishop shall pray:] God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . Pour forth now that power which comes from you, from your royal Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and which he bestowed upon his holy apostles . . . and grant this your servant, whom you have chosen for the episcopate, [the power] to feed your holy flock and to serve without blame as your high priest, ministering night and day to propitiate unceasingly before your face and to offer to you the gifts of your holy Church, and by the Spirit of the high priesthood to have the authority to forgive sins, in accord with your command” (Apostolic Tradition 3 [A.D. 215]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The apostle [Paul] likewise bears witness and says: ‘ . . . Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. But [the impenitent] spurn and despise all these warnings; before their sins are expiated, before they have made a confession of their crime, before their conscience has been purged in the ceremony and at the hand of the priest . . . they do violence to [the Lord’s] body and blood, and with their hands and mouth they sin against the Lord more than when they denied him” (The Lapsed 15:1–3 (A.D. 251]).
“Of how much greater faith and salutary fear are they who . . . confess their sins to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience. . . . I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while the satisfaction and remission made through the priests are still pleasing before the Lord” (ibid., 28).
“[S]inners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of Communion. [But now some] with their time [of penance] still unfulfilled . . . they are admitted to Communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the Eucharist is given to them; although it is written, ‘Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]” (Letters 9:2 [A.D. 253]).
Basil the Great
“It is necessary to confess our sins to those to whom the dispensation of God’s mysteries is entrusted. Those doing penance of old are found to have done it before the saints. It is written in the Gospel that they confessed their sins to John the Baptist [Matt. 3:6], but in Acts [19:18] they confessed to the apostles” (Rules Briefly Treated 288 [A.D. 374]).
John Chrysostom
“Priests have received a power which God has given neither to angels nor to archangels. It was said to them: ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose, shall be loosed.’ Temporal rulers have indeed the power of binding; but they can only bind the body. Priests, in contrast, can bind with a bond which pertains to the soul itself and transcends the very heavens. Did [God] not give them all the powers of heaven? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive,’ he says, ‘they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’ What greater power is there than this? The Father has given all judgment to the Son. And now I see the Son placing all this power in the hands of men [Matt. 10:40; John 20:21–23]. They are raised to this dignity as if they were already gathered up to heaven” (The Priesthood 3:5 [A.D. 387]).
Ambrose of Milan
“For those to whom [the right of binding and loosing] has been given, it is plain that either both are allowed, or it is clear that neither is allowed. Both are allowed to the Church, neither is allowed to heresy. For this right has been granted to priests only” (Penance 1:1 [A.D. 388]).
Augustine
“When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance” (Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16 [A.D. 395]).
John, I hope we can also visit some of the other “Catholic inventions” like The Mass, Eucharist, the seven sacraments, Purgatory, etc..
Talk to you later on..God bless..
Tammy wrote:
“The Bible says God’s grace is sufficient but never says Scripture ALONE is sufficient”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim’s response: On the contrary.
But he answered, “It is written,‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
-Matthew 4:4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim, this still isn’t saying that Scripture alone is authoritative to the exclusion of the offices of authority that Jesus established through His Word and Breath. It isn’t saying that Scripture alone is “sufficient” no other authority needed.
Also, it sounds as if you are limiting every Word that comes from the mouth of God to the written pages of Scripture. It is already established in Scripture, and MacArthur agrees, that not EVERY Word of God is written in Scripture…and yet this verse is saying that man shall live by EVERY Word that comes “from the mouth of God.”
How does this 1 John passage fit, if at all?
25 This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life. 26 These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. 27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
Kit, it was the unbelieving scribes you are quoting form Mark 2:7. But yes, only God can forgive sins. Just as only God can heal people and cast out demons. Surely you believe that Jesus gave His authority to the apostles to heal people and cast out demons? yet, you don’t believe God wold entrust authority to forgive sins to those He entrusted with shepherding the Church and feeding His sheep? You don’t believe that Jesus could authorize someone to do this?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kit wrote: You and I have the right to tell a man whether or not God has forgiven his sins based on what he has done with Jesus Christ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, I am not saying that God gave this “right” to everyone and I do not claim to have it. Those whom He breathed upon were given that authority. They entrusted that authority to others through the laying on of hands (apostolic succession).
If anything gets my knickers in a knot it is when someone who has no authority tells me that I am going to hell because I am Catholic. I prayed the sinner’s prayer as a child and I meant every word of it. I haven’t turned my back on Jesus but I am seeking to follow Him by digging deep into His Gospels. I have come to believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded. I do not tell others that they are not forgiven because they are not in the RCC or because of the way they live. I was not given this authority. I only share what I have found in Scripture and defend the Church when people attack her. And yet that same grace is often not bestowed upon me by my Protestant brothers and sisters (and, yes, I consider you a Christian and a sister in Christ whether or not you consider me one).
While MacArthur and company don’t believe the Bishops in the Catholic Church have binding and loosing power or the authority to forgive sins, they believe they have the power to proclaim who is and isn’t forgiven and who is or isn’t going to hell. My friend wrote a post on this very subject on our blog, Answering the Berean Call.
http://answeringthebereancall.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/grace-to-you-unless-you-are-catholic/
And I say, “by what authority?” In Acts 15 when some were saying that you needed circumcision to be saved the apostles said, “they had no authority to teach that.” There has always been a clear teaching authority in the Church as well as with the Israelites. The seat of Moses in the Old Covenant and the seat of Peter in the New Covenant.
Kit, you have been very gracious in your replies and I hope that I am just as gracious. Please let me show you where your next paragraph makes NO sense to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kit wrote: Can you imagine what would happen if we didn’t have this power? Suppose you went out and preached the gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit, and then someone prays and says, “Christ, come into my life. I believe.” Then he says, “Oh, did it happen?” And you say, “Well, I don’t know. One of these days you’ll find out.” No! You have to be able to say, “Brother, on the basis of the fact that you have confessed Christ, I say to you that your sins, by the mouth of God, are forgiven.” We have the right to say that. That is power and authority. Can you imagine going out to witness to the world with no authority to say that sins are either forgiven or not forgiven? That would be insipid. Nobody would ever believe anything we said. People would become frustrated to the point of terror.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, let me share this with you. I have watched many, many people, including myself, who have confessed Christ only to be told later that they were never really saved. For a really loud example of this, take Dr. Beckwith’s conversion. I have read over and over….”He must have never really been saved.”
So which is it? All one must do is confess Christ to be saved? I have always confessed Christ and never stopped confessing Him when I became Catholic, yet people who don’t even know me consign me to hell. I am sure Beckwith would say the same.
Have you ever READ the words of the mass to hear Who we confess, Who we praise and worship? If what you say is true, please look at the catholic worship service (the mass) and tell me where we are NOT confessing Christ or confessing someone other than Christ and then please tell me whether or not we are saved.
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/Mass.htm
There are those in the RCC who will be saved but most are relying on works and the intercession of dead saints who don’t know they even exist. Is that a saving belief? How did the RCC arrive at the conclusion that “sainthood” must be considered at length after death instead of acknowledging living believers as saints (as the NT epsitles clearly do)?
Kit, sure if we read the passage from 1 John by itself, we could conclude that teachers are not needed. If we couple it with Jesus’ quote to “call no man teacher” then it would seem to really solidify the argument that “we need no teachers.”
However, we have to read these passages within the context of all Scriptures. In Acts, people devoted themselves to the apostles teaching. We know that the apostles “taught” even when they were threatened to stop teaching. In Paul’s letter to the Romans (ch 12) he lists teaching as a gift and says, “let him teach.” In 1 Corinthians ch 12 he says that God appointed some to teach and he says it again in Ephesians 4:11. He later commands Timothy to teach people. I could go on and on but the point is that we have to look at all of this together.
I cannot conclude from the whole of Scripture that teachers are not necessary and that God has not ordained certain men to be teachers for His flock. I believe Malachi 2:7 still applies to today and I believe Paul was one of those “teaching priests.” I believe there is still a teaching authority found in the church today. When Malachi was written, the people had the written Law and yet God still ordained messengers and teachers. And even as the NT was being written, people still looked to the apostles and elders who held teaching authority for clarification.
David Moore,
You may be right that some in the RCC are relying on works instead of trusting in Jesus. Are all Protestants that you know CLEARLY trusting in Jesus? and really how would YOU know? Only God can see the heart of a man.
The Catholic Church clearly does NOT teach that the intercession of saints is what saves people. Can you find that teaching in the CCC for me? But I have to disagree with your comment that the saints are dead. They are alive in Christ, don’t you believe that?
What different Catholics believe really doesn’t matter. What matters is who God gave authority to teach and following that teaching. Aaron helped make the golden calf. Obviously, he was wrong. But guess what, he still held an office of authority among the Israelites. This proves that even though they are fallible and sinful as we are, it is the office of authority that God established that must be respected.
As to your question about sainthood: The Church teaches that ALL people should live holy lives and be saints. The canonization process that you are referring to is commonly misunderstood. When a person is proclaimed “a saint” that doesn’t mean that the church “sent them to heaven” but rather a proclamation that they lived a holy life and were good examples. it also does not proclaim that they were sinless. St. Augustine was surely a sinner as well as St. Mary Magdalene. In addition, just because someone isn’t proclaimed “a saint” doesn’t mean that they are not in heaven. Those who are canonized as saints are only a tiny fraction of the people in heaven that the church has just decided to uphold as holy examples.
WOW! Lot of action here. All interesting “discussion” (I’m getting tired of the buzz word “conversation” used today).
I feel like I want to bottom line things here. On the first day, Tammy and Mrs. Burrows left us with two positions that were important. One said salvation is by grace alone, the other said we must work out of salvation with fear and trembling, implying there was an element of works involved. I think these two positions summarize the reformed Vs. the Catholic positions.
Imo, the “bottom line” goes back to the Fall’s effects on the mind. Almost nobody discusses the noetic effects of the Fall on man’s ability to reason spiritually. In the science classroom, both redeemed and unredeemed can reason that 2 + 2 = 4. HOWEVER, in the spiritual classroom, 2 + 2 = 12 to one person and 17 to another and 123 to another…
Position number 1.
Why is this? The answer is clear in the Bible, man was separated from God spiritually. This is not just a Sunday school lesson for kids, this is hard core anthropological reality for ALL people!
In my understanding (I was Catholic for my first 19 years and my family is Catholic today and all my relatives) the RCC has a very naïve view of the Fall’s consequences on man’s ability to reason spiritually. I believe the correct position is total depravity (a phrase grossly misunderstood because it’s emotionally charged), but it means that man can do nothing on his own to be justified before a holy God, that man has the ability to do great acts of evil in action or thought.
Position number 2.
Because the RCC has a naïve view of the Fall, they also have a naïve view of God’s holiness. These two always work together—naïve view of sin, naïve view of holiness.
Why do I say this?
If any part of man still had a morsel of justification in him, then it would reason he could develop this. If I was 1/8 justified, through works, I could hope to improve, like a musician who practices his instrument. Maybe after a few years I could develop to 3/8 justified, and then 5/8 justified. (I chose eights as an example, it has no deeper meaning but to illustrate my point)
Even if this was true, could man ever be 8/8 justified before God? Even if this was true, that man could become 8/8 justified, how many would ever reach this pinnacle?
Now, let me go further.
The Old Testament law said that if a man is guilty of ANY of the law, he is guilty of it all. The New Testament says we are to love the Lord your God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind and our neighbor as ourselves. Who can say they have kept God’s moral law perfectly? WHO?
Position number 3.
Now we come to our Lord Jesus. He did NOT enter this world through the seed of man, but was born of a virgin. It was a supernatural birth from God. Therefore, He alone was sinless and He alone did not need to be redeemed.
Position number 4.
If Jesus was the only sinless man, how can any other man be in a position to be infallible? To say that any Pope is infallible is idolatry at its core. No Pope born through the seed of man is infallible. None.
Every Pope or man of authority in ANY church has a sin nature. They still wrestle with lust, slander, envy, jealousy, strife, anger….my gosh, look at what has happened in the RCC the past few years with sexual immorality.
What did Jesus say to the religious leaders of his day who thought they were infallible? He said you may look good on the outside (but don’t be naïve) I, Jesus, God in human flesh look at the inside—I see your thoughts! You might not have committed murder, but if you have anger in your heart towards your neighbor, you are a murderer!
Talk about a high standard of moral law! It is insane to even ponder the idea that ANY man can have a degree of righteousness to satisfy God demand. Why is this? Because God is HOLY! Again, I come full circle to the naïve view of God’s holiness here.
Position number 5.
The attack on Scripture is the core argument imo.
If Jesus was sinless and man is born of the seed of man and is sinful, how can we rely on Scripture that was written by man? This is the bottom line!
The answer comes back to one’s view of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit HAS to be God (there’s the Trinity in a nutshell). Men moved by the Holy Spirit penned the Holy Scriptures. If this isn’t true, man has NO hope! Using my earlier analogy of man’s inability to reason spiritually, the same is true if Scripture isn’t from the mind of God. Man will create what he wants. The Indian is a pantheist and claims this is the way to enlightenment. The Mormon believes their way is correct. The Jehovah’s Witness believer their way is correct…this goes on and on.
There is a HUGE difference between those who argue it is Scripture PLUS, over those who have disagreements with Scriptural interpretations. Some of those who claim to be Christians with Scriptural interpretations are NOT Christians at all. Let’s not lump everyone who claims to be a Christian together here. Some have very sloppy theology and have been influence by cultural thinking or the “philosophies of our day.”
Position 6 (my last if you’ve read this far)
The RCC, imo, sadly dishonors the work of Christ on the Cross. To say any man ( I mean men and women of course) can add to the work of Christ is abominable and anathema. Jesus suffered the most horrible of deaths. He absorbed the full evil of man and the wrath of God. This is the most emotive teaching in Scripture. Why did Jesus have to suffer and die to such an extent? Seriously, ask yourself this question! Would Jesus have had to be crucified unjustly to such an ineffable degree if man, in ANY way could be justified before a holy God on his own merit?
To answer the “elect” argument from day one, my answer is this: The elect understand it is by grace (the gift of God) alone and have a proper understanding of the Cross. As it was stated from the first article’s comments, this drives us to our knees and we can only say, “Woe is me…but by the grace of God. It truly is amazing grace!”
—————————————————–
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me”
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”
Tammy wrote:
“Also, it sounds as if you are… ”
I’ll point out here that I did nothing other than quote scripture.
You made the claim that the Bible does not teach that the Word of God alone is sufficient. I presented scripture that suggests that it is God’s Word, and not any other thing, that is sufficient for life.
Here’s a direct question: Is the Word of God alone sufficient for anything? If so, what?
To conclude…
In Christ alone my hope is found;
He is my light, my strength, my song;
This cornerstone, this solid ground,
Firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love, what depths of peace,
When fears are stilled, when strivings cease!
My comforter, my all in all—
Here in the love of Christ I stand.
In Christ alone, Who took on flesh,
Fullness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness,
Scorned by the ones He came to save.
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied;
For ev’ry sin on Him was laid—
Here in the death of Christ I live.
There in the ground His body lay,
Light of the world by darkness slain;
Then bursting forth in glorious day,
Up from the grave He rose again!
And as He stands in victory,
Sin’s curse has lost its grip on me;
For I am His and He is mine—
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.
No guilt in life, no fear in death—
This is the pow’r of Christ in me;
From life’s first cry to final breath,
Jesus commands my destiny.
No pow’r of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand;
Till He returns or calls me home—
Here in the pow’r of Christ I’ll stand.
Veneration of relics has always been a “snare” to men..Remember Gideon’s ephod? It seems one could invalidate the RCC with three words:
THEY WORSHIP CRACKERS!
compared to a “Eucharist Parade”, the golden calf party at Sinai seems downright reasonable>>>
Tammy,
I appreciate the responses. They are well thought and with the best intentions. The way in which you conduct yourself is more of a blessing to these discussions. I do think the scripture you are using as well as Gerry is being used in a presumptious manner. It would be as if you had on red shaded glasses and argued with me that something was red or not. That is how it is with a catholic conversation because the catholic church was the only christian church at one point in time, but in the words or the popes and church fathers themselves as shown between Nate and Gerry, they had varied beliefs on multiple topics.
***Acts: In any organized church in different places you would have to have elders and deacons, or pastors to teach, that doesn’t prove that the pastors are infallible or deserve popacy status
***You brought up Matthew 23. There are some very important texts about the RCC in 23. They are some huge similarities to the RCC in the “seat of Peter” and the Pharisees in the seat of Moses.
3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
*** This would definitely cover the popes that have fallen to immorality. Would it have been acceptable for an apostle to do the same?
5″But they do all their deeds (D)to be noticed by men; for they (E)broaden their [a]phylacteries and lengthen (F)the tassels of their garments.
*** As anyone that has seen an election of pope to the basic garments of a pope and bishop, it surely isn’t clothing that would model the apostles or Jesus.
8″But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
*** One teacher, not One pope. This One being the Holy Spirit. Why would he not say one man or one appointed person?
9″Do not call anyone on earth your father; for (K)One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
*** What is it a pastor is called in the Catholic church?
***10″Do not be called leaders; for ONE is your Leader, that is, Christ.
ONE is a leader, that is Christ…
Eight Woes
13″(N)But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, (O)because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
***How could you cut off someone from Heaven? Not teaching scripture, telling people falsities such as purgatory, selling remnants or relics as a way to help your eternal life…
24″You (Z)blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25″Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For (AA)you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
26″You blind Pharisee, first (AB)clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
27″(AC)Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.
28″So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29″(AD)Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’
31″So you testify against yourselves, that you (AE)are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32″Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.
33″You serpents, (AF)you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of (AG)hell?
34″(AH)Therefore, behold, (AI)I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will (AJ)scourge in your synagogues, and (AK)persecute from city to city,
35so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous (AL)Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the (AM)son of Berechiah, whom (AN)you murdered between the temple and the altar.
I’ll just leave those for you to soak in.
**Matthew 16:18 as a proof for apostolic authority as pope:
Jesus’ teaching is the ultimate foundation for our lives (7:24-27; compare 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock like the apostles and prophets in Ephesians 2:20-21. Jesus does not simply assign this role to Peter arbitrarily, however; Peter is the “rock” because in this context he is the one who confesses Jesus as the Christ (Mt 16:15-16; Cullmann 1953:162; Ladd 1974b:110; C. Brown 1978:386). Others who share his proclamation also share his authority in building the church (18:18 with 16:19). [IVP NT Commentaries]
This is for the argument that the Rock is Peter, not Christ.
**Revelation 12: the woman there is based on Genesis 3:15, the enmity between the woman and the serpent/dragon/satan.
And when Jesus was on the Cross, He gave us His Mother when He said to “Behold your Mother.” He told His Mother to behold her son. I’m sure most reading this are too blinded by their own pride in being right to see the significance here. I just think it is unfair to say that Catholic doctrine is NOT based in Scripture and is all purely superstition.
**The significance here is the same as any son asking his brother or friend to take care of his mother. John wasn’t the “first pope” or the “rock” that is the supposed foundation of the church, if it was Peter, at least there would be some sort of case…
**Relics: So is a handkerchief from the pope able to cure people? If he has the same apostolic authority where is it? He allows people to be sick when he could just cover himself in handkerchiefs and send them out healing fellow catholics?
Malachi 2:7:
For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, and from his mouth men should seek instruction—because he is the messenger of the LORD Almighty.
How does fit with sola Scriptura?
** That means the Pastor is responsible to know the Word of God and should help instruct people, doesn’t say ONLY from the mouth of a Pastor comes knowledge…
I also believe that “He gave some as apostles,…and teachers to equip the holy ones…” (Ephesians 4:11-12)
*** I believe he did that as well. He gave us those, he didn’t give us those then command them to make themselves as the Holy glass ceiling, between us and the heavens. He said he did it to equip the saints. So if a saint in the rcc is a great deal, why is it listed here on the bottom rung. Why are pastors and teachers equipping them? That passage works against the heirarchy of the rcc and it’s purpose.
apropo to this discussion is an article posted on the 10th of this month, I think, promoting the CoRedemption status of Mary…based on tradition.
http://www.airmaria.com/?p=195
Amen Joe!
Tammy,
Excellent point about Aaron. In fact, I’m going to use it from now on against the papacy.
Aaron was the appointed priest and he retained the position BUUUT, if he were deemed infallible and the people were supposed to obey him no matter what then he alone would have been blamed for the calf incident and the people held blameless. But what did God say…
“They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them. (Ex 32:8)
“Now therefore, let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. (Ex 32:10)
He was only to be honored when teaching God’s Law, not his own devices. A perfect example of the fallacy of appointing a papal-type leader.
Gerry,
You and Tammy have written a lot today, but I would like to begin by responding to part of your first comment. You provided numerous quotes in which the church fathers use the word “tradition.”
No one is denying that the early church was aware of an oral tradition that existed outside of Scripture. So your establishment of that fact simply does not prove your case.
The question is what was the content of that oral tradition?, and (also) what level of authority could that tradition have after the apostles died? As today’s article pointed out, there is nothing in Scripture that gives oral tradition a higher level of authority than that which is written. Rather, oral tradition is subject to the canon of that which is written (Acts 17:11) and should be examined carefully (1 Thess. 5:21).
Furthermore, there is also nothing that guarantees that oral tradition will be infallibly preserved throughout history.
Along these lines, it is interesting to note the content of what Irenaeus included under the term “tradition.” In the section you cited (from A.H. 3.4.1.) Irenaeus goes on to detail what is included in apostolic “tradition.” Here’s what he says in the following paragraphs (3.4.2):
***
***
Irenaeus’ point is that these “barbarians” (Germanic tribesmen) must rely on oral teaching because they do not know Greek, and thus cannot read the Scriptures for themselves. But the content of the “tradition” they receive is the same as that which is found in the written Word.
As an evangelical Protestant, I would gladly affirm the “tradition” Irenaeus speaks of here. It is pure gospel. It includes the following:
- belief in one God
- belief in His Son, Jesus Christ
- belief in the Virgin Birth
- belief in the deity and humanity of Christ
- belief in His death and resurrection
- belief in His glorious return
Irenaeus says that those “who believe this faith” are “very wise indeed.”
This “tradition” of Irenaeus is far different from the unbiblical traditions claimed by the Roman Church.
- NB
Gerry and Tammy like to quote. so I want to quote as well.
” When the leaders of the Reformation appealed to Scripture and thundered agaisnst the errors of the Roman Chruch, that church had to defend herself. And since she could not do do from the Bible alone, she resorted to these other writings. The result is that the most prominent doctrine and practices of the Roman Chruch, such as purgatory, the priesthood, the mass, transsubstantiation, prayer for the dead, indulgences, penance, worship of the virgin Mary, the uses of the image in worship,holy water, rosary beads,celibacy of priests and nuns, the papcy itself. and numerous others, are founded soley on TRADITION.”
There is another quote on Peter, the Apostle’s whereabout. “It cannot denied that St. Jerome’s translation it is expressly said that he(Peter) continued twenty -five years as bishop in that city: but then it is as eveident that this was his own addition, who probably det things down as the report went in his time, no such thing being found in the Greek copy of Eusebius.” (Willam Cave).
@ Gerry,
Good quotes about Augustine and Rome (the last post) – I have to admit that much
With my understanding and putting together of what the early church father’s and what the early church was going through during that time the head quarters of “all the churches” was in Rome. I don’t know if the East and Constantinople were particularily strong at this time (I believe it was very significant), but I’m sure Augustine had a strong bias toward the West.
Augustine was an excellent theologian (understatement), but he was wrong on this point and on the sacraments and its easy to see from this point on in church history, esp. w/ the increasing polarization of the East and West, how Roman Catholicism’s ecclesiolgy (and sacramentology) came to be.
However, with that said, nix Augustine and his followers, the early Church father’s did not see Rome in that way – as an infallible construct w/ its singular bishop as Christ’s Vicar, nor do I believe would Augustine even come close to agreeing w/ Rome has become. (Did he ever give homage to a so called “Pope”?)
Good dialogue and even though I cannot agree with you at this time, I do need to look into Augustine a little more.
Agustine is a saint. I am a saint as well in Christ, not because I believe on whatever AUGUSTINE claims ,byt because the scripture says so.
Gerry,
I have been unable to interact as much today, due to some other responsibilities that demanded my attention. However I would like to make a few quick points regarding what you and Tammy have asserted above. Since the point of today’s article had to do with the authority of Scripture and the authority of Tradition, I will stick to that topic.
There are two things I would like to point out.
1) The early church regarded the Scriptures as a higher authority than tradition. Tradition was subject to the Scriptures and not vice versa.
Allow me to reiterate some of the quotes I included from yesterday…
2) The apostolic tradition of the early church accorded perfectly with the Scriptures.
This is seen clearly in the section I quoted from Irenaeus in my earlier comment. His “tradition” is pure gospel, and as such fits the description of apostolic tradition as John MacArthur laid it out in today’s post.
The doctrine of sola Scriptura is about the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. Is Scripture the final authority, even over tradition? Protestants say “Yes.” Is Scripture sufficient for life and godliness? Protestants say “Yes.”
Does Scripture guarantee that extrabiblical tradition will be preserved throughout history such that it is an infallible guide? No it does not. Does Scripture grant equal or greater authority to extrabiblical tradition? No it does not.
The Roman Catholic Church puts tradition over Scripture (in practice) because they interpret the Scripture through the lens of tradition. But this is backwards. Tradition must be scrutinized through the lens of Scripture, not the other way around.
As a Protestant, I can appreciate tradition. But where Scripture and tradition part, my conscience is bound to the Scriptures.
Thanks,
NB
Paul,
This is how The Catholic Church “officialy” declares Saints:
Canonization Process
VATICAN CITY, SEP 12, 1997 (VIS) – Today the Holy See Press Office made public the following note on canonical procedure for causes of beatification and canonization:
“1. Canon norms regarding the procedure to be followed for causes of saints are contained in the Apostolic Constitution ‘Divinus Perfectionis Magister,’ promulgated by John Paul II on January 25, 1983.
“2. To begin a cause it is necessary for at least 5 years to have passed since the death of the candidate. This is to allow greater balance and objectivity in evaluating the case and to let the emotions of the moment dissipate.
“3. The bishop of the diocese in which the person whose beatification is being requested died is responsible for beginning the investigation. The promoter group (‘Actor Causae’): diocese, parish, religious congregation, association, asks the bishop through the postulator for the opening of the investigation. The bishop, once the ‘nulla osta’ of the Holy See is obtained, forms a diocesan tribunal for this purpose. Witnesses are called before the tribunal to recount concrete facts on the exercise of Christian virtues considered heroic, that is, the theological virtues: faith, hope and charity, and the cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, and others specific to his state in life. In addition, all documents regarding the candidate must be gathered. At this point he is entitled to the title of Servant of God.
“4. Once the diocesan investigation is finished, the acts and documentation are passed on to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. The public copy used for further work is put together here. The postulator, resident in Rome, follows the preparation of the ‘Positio’, or summary of the documentation that proves the heroic exercise of virtue, under the direction of a relator of the Congregation. The ‘Positio’ undergoes an examination (theological) by nine theologians who give their vote. If the majority of the theologians are in favour, the cause is passed on for examination by cardinals and bishops who are members of the congregation. They hold meetings twice a month. If their judgment is favourable, the prefect of the congregation presents the results of the entire course of the cause to the Holy Father, who gives his approval and authorizes the congregation to draft the relative decree. The public reading and promulgation of the decree follows.
“5. For the beatification of a confessor a miracle attributed to the intercession of The Servant of God, verified after his death, is necessary. The required miracle must be proven through the appropriate canonical investigation, following a procedure analogous to that for heroic virtues. This one too is concluded with the relative decree. Once the two decrees are promulgated (regarding the heroic virtues and the miracle) the Holy Father decides on beatification, which is the concession of public veneration, limited to a particular sphere. With beatification the candidate receives the title of Blessed.
“6. For canonization another miracle is needed, attributed to the intercession of the Blessed and having occurred after his beatification. The methods for ascertainment of the affirmed miracle are the same as those followed for beatification. Canonization is understood as the concession of public veneration in the Universal Church. Pontifical infallibility is involved. With canonization, the Blessed acquires the title of Saint.”
Also, James chapter 5, verse 11: This relates to 5 and 6 above.
11 Indeed we call blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of the perseverance of Job, and you have seen the purpose of the Lord, because “the Lord is compassionate and merciful.”
Gerry,
Sounds like a lot of work goes into declaring someone a saint. What’s the purpose of it? Simply to “fulfill” James 5:11? Surely no one would read James and conjure up such a complicated and extensive process to call someone blessed. Does the Catholic Church believe that this is what James was calling for when he penned those words?
At what point was this process officially set in place? My totally uneducated guess is at least sometime after 500AD.
It’s one thing to call someone blessed, it’s another thing altogether to exalt someone far beyond I’m sure they would even want to be exalted, let alone what is appropriate.
Nate,
Again, your list and quotes of the early fathers is precisely the reason that I mention looking and reading at the “totality” (look at everything they wrote on ALL things) of the early fathers writings. Why do I say that? Because 6 of the fathers that you quote for your “proof” against Tradition and for “sola scriptura” I quote “FOR” Tradition (look at my 1st post of the day at the top). Could it be that they say both:
(Scripture AND Sacred Tradition)
From the Catechism of The Catholic Church:
II.
The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture
One common source . . .
80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.”40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age.”41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”42 “And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by their preaching.”43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44
****The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition
****Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium
III. The Interpretation of the Heritage of Faith
The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church
84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing, and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.”46
The Magisterium of the Church
85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”48
87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me,”49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
95 “It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”62
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living.”73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”74
III.
The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture
109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75
110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”77
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
112
1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.” Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113
2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church.” According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”81).
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction.”85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 “It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”88
Augustine: But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
V. Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church
131 “And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life.”109 Hence “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.”110
132 “Therefore, the ‘study of the sacred page’ should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too—pastoral preaching, catechetics, and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place—is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture.”111
133 The Church “forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn ‘the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,’ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. ‘Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.’”112
Gerry,
According to the CCC section that you cited, the Church has authority over both Tradition and Scripture. Thus, according to Roman theology, the Church decides what Tradition is authentic and what interpretation of Scripture is correct.
Since the teachings of the Church are, in essence, the sum of Tradition, it is Tradition that is given authority over Scripture.
But, as I said earlier, this is backwards … and it does not fit the writings of the early church fathers. Scripture is subject to neither the Church nor to the Tradition of the Church. Rather, the Church and her Tradition should be examined by looking at the Scriptures.
In places where the Church and her Tradition do not match with the Scriptures, than the Scriptures have authoritative priority. This not only accords with what Scripture says about itself, it is also consistent with the teachings of the early church.
Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures are a sufficient guide for life and godliness; it also means that they are the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice. I believe the quotations I provided from the church fathers affirm both of these principles.
The fact that some of these same fathers mention or appeal to apostolic tradition does not infringe upon the doctrine of sola Scriptura. As was stated earlier, evangelical Protestants can and do appreciate tradition. But we do not regard it as either essential or ultimately authoritative. Nor do we believe it has been infallibly preserved outside of the pages of the New Testament.
Thanks,
NB
I really enjoy this site and the wonderful interaction among other Christians. I also appreciate Gerry who has written much using some useful quotes from Church History.
As important as Church History is and the early Apostolic Fathers — we will discover that they did not always agree with each other. If one reads the Early Christian Writings (Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, etc.) one will discover that the early Church was neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant for that matter. We see Bishops over different cities (Episcopal Govt) and Bishops in local churches (Presbyterian). The deity of Christ and the Trinity can be found in these early writings. I think we can all learn something from first century Church History — especially those of us who are so dogmatic about scenarios in Eschatology — read the early writings and see the simplicity of their understanding on these matters before Darby and Others came up with millennial madness! (Another debate LOL)
With this said, what only sure word of God do we have but the Scripture? It is the only infallible word we have that is the true word of God that the Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles (the New Testament) and the Prophets (the Old Testament). The Church is the pillar and support of the Truth which is God’s Word.
Tradition is good if it agrees with Scripture — Why do we need anything more? When the traditions agree — great. If they don’t — why follow it when one isn’t sure? Do we really need to venerate a Saint or pray to the Virgin Mary? We have everything God has revealed to us — the more sure Word of prophecy that Peter tells us is greater than tradition (or visions for those who think God is speaking to them still)!
Based on waht Gerry explained, Job can’t be a saint. because in the book of Job he doesn’t perform any miracles. what he just did was a long endurance. And then, Gerry’s information on the CCC’s view on the sainthood and many catholic practices really has more convinced me to believe that how far the CCC is from the Word of God. It is too obvious to the fact that the CCC is a confused and scripture coated religion. In my evangelism experience, i have met some catholics, because of our church’s surrounding,yet they didn’t have any personal assurnce on their salvation and conviction to the Scripture. They oftentimes seemed confused and convinced with the authority of the CCC.
Paul,
You misunderstood the context that is was written in and the Doctorine of the Communion of Saints.
The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are called saints by reason of their destination and of their partaking of the fruits of the Redemption (1 Corinthians 1:2 &151; Greek Text). The damned are thus excluded from the communion of saints. The living, even if they do not belong to the body of the true Church, share in it according to the measure of their union with Christ and with the soul of the Church. St. Thomas teaches (III:8:4) that the angels, though not redeemed, enter the communion of saints because they come under Christ’s power and receive of His gratia capitis. The solidarity itself implies a variety of inter-relations: within the Church Militant, not only the participation in the same faith, sacraments, and government, but also a mutual exchange of examples, prayers, merits, and satisfactions; between the Church on earth on the one hand, and purgatory and heaven on the other, suffrages, invocation, intercession, veneration. These connotations belong here only in so far as they integrate the transcendent idea of spiritual solidarity between all the children of God. Thus understood, the communion of saints, though formally defined only in its particular bearings (Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, decrees on purgatory; on the invocation, veneration, and relics of saints and of sacred images; on indulgences), is, nevertheless, dogma commonly taught and accepted in the Church. It is true that the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Pt. I, ch. x) seems at first sight to limit to the living the bearing of the phrase contained in the Creed, but by making the communion of saints an exponent and function, as it were, of the preceding clause, “the Holy Catholic Church”, it really extends to what it calls the Church’s “constituent parts, one gone before, the other following every day”; the broad principle it enunciates thus: “every pious and holy action done by one belongs and is profitable to all, through charity which seeketh not her own”.
Jesse,
Thanks for answering my questions as most people avoid the questions and change the subject by asking questions instead.
1. OK, so you admit that the apostles and elders WERE in charge at the Jerusalem Council and that they did have authority to make decrees for the church?
I was not asking which apostle was “in charge” or had the final say. I see it more as them working together in unison for the whole church. The greater point to me is the individual churches did each separately decide on the issue of circumcision. There was ONE authority for ONE church that was located in many different towns/congregations. I know those who rally against the idea of Peter as pope love pointing out that James had the final word. I don’t see that this means he was in charge. It would be very much like a church council today where Cardinal Arinze got up to speak at the end and everyone saying, “amen, we agree.” That doesn’t mean Cardinal Arinze is the pope.
I think you see the papacy as a dictatorship when it is not. The pope, the Bishop of Rome, is a Bishop like the ther bishops. He has been chosen by the bishops to be their leader–they elected him, he didn’t make a hostile takeover. I think it is unlikely that the cardinals would elect someone that they thought was going to rule them with an iron fist, don’t you?
If there were other verses that showed James as having primacy, I would give you the point. In Acts 1:15, it was Peter who initiated the choosing of Judas’s successor. But note that Peter did not dictate who that person would be. TOGETHER, they proposed 2 men and they prayed about it. At the Jerusalem Council it was Peter who first got up and addressed the council. Peter was always listed first among the apostles so i think your point of James having the last word really doesn’t hold much weight in my opinion.
2. You said the Council arrived at their decision through the testimony of Peter, as well as Paul and Barnabas. Doesn’t that say that Scripture alone was not used to make the decision? I do not deny that Scripture played a part as it DOES play a part in Catholic doctrine as well. Ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is heavily footnoted with Scripture and much of the words of the Mass are from Scripture. You also use Acts 15:15 to say they relied on Scripture…and just where does this PLAINLY tell the apostles that circumcision is not necessar for the Gentiles? If it were so plain, there would have been no need for this debate in the first place.
You also use Dueteronomy 10:16, Jeremiah 31, and Ezekiel?, and 1 Kings 8 saying that these verses imply that circumcision is not necessary. Where? Again, it is not plain. If it were, the apostles would have quoted these passages at the council. In Deteronomy 10:16, it says “circumcise your hearts” but I don’t think anyone would say that meant that circumcision wasn’t necessary for the Israelites that God spoke those words to.
I’ll just directly quote you here because your response is amazing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jesse wrote: 3. Did Paul pass along the decrees of the elders and apostles for the church to obey? Yes (Acts 16:4, and Galatians 2:11-15 where a gentle reminder to Peter takes place
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, so you agree that, YES, Paul delivered the decrees of the apostles to the believers in the different towns. You agree that, YES, all believers were subject to obey these decrees. However, you throw in Galatians 2:11 to muddy up your “Yes” answer a bit. What on earth does this “gentle” reminder have to do with the apostles and elders making decrees for the peple to obey? That “gentle reminder” that you and every other anti-catholic relish with glee is Paul’s reprimand of Peter’s behavior and has nothing to do with any authoritative apostolic decree that was made. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Catholic clergy are infallible, including the popes. The popes go to confession like every other Catholic. It was said that Pope JPII went once a week. We are fully aware that there have been and always will be priest and popes who sin. This, however, does not take away from the authoritative office that God ordained. David committed adultery and murder. God made him a king and called him a man after his own heart. Peter doubted Jesus and fell into the water, he denied His Lord 3x and he acted like a hypocrite at times. so what? Jesus had the answer for that: “You must obey them and do everything they tell you, but do not do what they do….Matthew 23
Jim A wrote:
I’ll point out here that I did nothing other than quote scripture.
You made the claim that the Bible does not teach that the Word of God alone is sufficient. I presented scripture that suggests that it is God’s Word, and not any other thing, that is sufficient for life.
Here’s a direct question: Is the Word of God alone sufficient for anything? If so, what?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t disagree that God’s Word is sufficient for life. God spoke, and things were created…not God wrote, or God inspired others to write, and things were created. I said it sounded as if you were trying to limit God’s Word to the written pages of Scripture. well, are you? Do you believe that God’s Word is limited to the written pages of Scripture?
To answer your question above, I would prefer to stick with what Scripture says about Scripture. Scripture does not say that it is sufficient (by itself) for anything. It says it is “PROFITABLE (useful) for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.”
Mr. Moore,
We worship the Bread of Life. Have you ever given thought to the possibility that the Bread of Presence, just may be related to the the Eucharist that Catholics eat? and the Manna (which means “what is it?”)…have you ever given thought to why it rotted like flesh? Bread molds, meat gets maggots like the Manna did. and then there is the prophecy in Malachi 1:11…does your church fulfill this prophecy by having a continual pure grain offering before the Lord?
Maybe you are right and I am wrong. If I am wrong, hopefully God will know my heart and know that I truly believed that the Bread and Wine on that altar was actually His body and blood. If it IS His body and blood then it IS Jesus and I must worship Jesus. If I thought it was a mere cracker, I wouldn’t worship it.
I would be careful of passing judgment on others. I’ll assume that you know what Scripture has to say about judging others.
If you are wrong, then hopefully God knows your heart and will not count it against you. But remember that the Pharisees just couldn’t comprehend that Jesus was God because they couldn’t believe that God would lower Himself to take on human flesh. They refused to worship Him because they saw it as blasphemy to worship a man. If God took the form of human flesh, do you think it possible that he could take the form of bread and wine to feed us?
Dave B,
>>>It would be as if you had on red shaded glasses and argued with me that something was red or not.
sigh, I don’t know what happened to my last post but I can only imagine that a few of you are cheering that it got lost.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave B wrote: Jesus’ teaching is the ultimate foundation for our lives (7:24-27; compare 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock like the apostles and prophets in Ephesians 2:20-21. Jesus does not simply assign this role to Peter arbitrarily, however; Peter is the “rock” because in this context he is the one who confesses Jesus as the Christ (Mt 16:15-16; Cullmann 1953:162; Ladd 1974b:110; C. Brown 1978:386). Others who share his proclamation also share his authority in building the church (18:18 with 16:19). [IVP NT Commentaries]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
that is Protestant commentary. so which is the correct interpretation of that verse? this interpretation downplays the significance of Jesus renaming Simon “Peter.” I don’t think He gave him a name meaning rock and gave him the keys so that everyone could have the keys of authority. Why did He single out Peter? There were other apostles there and He could have adressed them all. Have you read Matthew 16 along with Isaiah 22? I’m not assuming that you haven’t but you made no mention of Isaiah 22 here and I think that is very important since Jesus quotes almost verbatim from that passage. just seems significant to me…
Dave B wrote**Revelation 12: the woman there is based on Genesis 3:15, the enmity between the woman and the serpent/dragon/satan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So the woman in Revelation 12, the woman clothed with the sun, the woman who gave birth to the male child destined to rule the world is Eve? you seriously think this?
Do you deny that the woman in Revelation is the woman who gave birth to the Savior? Did Mary not give birth to our Savior?
I don’t deny the connection to Genesis 3:15 but I think there is a huge difference between the woman through whom sin entered the world and the woman through whom salvation entered the world. The correlation there is that in order to make us all a “new creation” God created a New Eve. This does NOT make her a diety anymore than the first Eve. Eve was created sinless, was she not? could God not do that again in order to start a new creation? Hallelujah! We don’t have to claim the first sinful Eve as our mother anymore. If we are born-again, new creations in Christ—God is out Father, Jesus is our brother, and Mary is our Mother. Isn’t it illogical for a family not to have a mother?
Revelation 12 says the woman who gave birth to the Christ child is also the mother of those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus. I say again, satan HATES this woman, and will do anything to deceive you into denying her and avoiding her like the plague. I don’t think satan hates the Eve in Gen 3:15 as much as he hates the one who gave birth to Jesus. The Eve in Genesis 3:15 played right into his hands and bought his pack of lies. The New Eve, Mary, was humble and obedient, believing and trusting what God said.
Dave B wrote: ** That [Malachi2:7] means the Pastor is responsible to know the Word of God and should help instruct people, doesn’t say ONLY from the mouth of a Pastor comes knowledge…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoaa, Dave. I NEVER said that knowledge comes ONLY from the mouth of a priest/pastor (I prefer priest because that is the word God used in Malachi 2:7).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave wrote: *** I believe he did that as well. He gave us those, he didn’t give us those then command them to make themselves as the Holy glass ceiling, between us and the heavens. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I also didn’t say that God gave us priests to be a “Holy glass ceiling, between us and the heavens.” You are beginning to sound a bit sarcastic…The RCC does not teach this about priests. They are shepherds, not a wall that separates us. and most of all they are servants. the pope is called “the servant of servants.” These guys were ordained by Jesus to shepherd, teach, and feed the flock, as well as to preserve His teaching.
Malachi 2:7 makes 3 points (taken verbatim from the NASB):
1. The priest is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts
2. The priest should preserve knowledge
3. Men should seek knowledge from the mouth of the priest
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Bwrote: He said he did it to equip the saints. So if a saint in the rcc is a great deal, why is it listed here on the bottom rung. Why are pastors and teachers equipping them? That passage works against the heirarchy of the rcc and it’s purpose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have to say that I really don’t understand your question here…
Every believer is called to be a saint. All sainthood really means is that you are in heaven. You don’t have to be a “canonized saint” to be a saint in heaven.
So, yes, the job of the pastors and teachers is to equip people for:
1. the work of service and
2. to the build up the body of Christ
until
3. we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. [um, wouldn't that be sainthood? you might not think so but it sounds like it to me]
I don’t see at all how this “works against the heirarchy of the rcc and it’s purpose.”
Kit, I was really hoping that you would answer my quetion.
If Catholics like myself and Dr. Beckwith, confess Christ as Protestants and then become Catholic (still confessing Christ), do people ahve the right to proclaim our sins “unforgiven” and to proclaim us as unsaved and headed for hell?
and did you read the words of the mass and find that we confessed faith in anyone other than the Trinity?
David Moore wrote: Excellent point about Aaron. In fact, I’m going to use it from now on against the papacy.
Aaron was the appointed priest and he retained the position BUUUT, if he were deemed infallible and the people were supposed to obey him no matter what then he alone would have been blamed for the calf incident and the people held blameless.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
well, hold on Mr. Moore. The papacy (seat of Peter) is compared to the seat of Moses. and Moses did not lead the people astray and God used Moses to chastise Aaron and get the people back in line.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He was only to be honored when teaching God’s Law, not his own devices. A perfect example of the fallacy of appointing a papal-type leader.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I will give you that one, however, the RCC believes the same about the clergy. It is not the clergy who are to be “honored” as individuals but the office that they hold that is to be respected.
There are catholic priests today who teach things they shouldn’t. They teach things that are not in line with the official teachings of the Catholic Church, that are not in line with the “seat of Peter.” I do not have to obey a priest that tells me to do something that goes against either Scripture or the official dogmatic teachings of the RCC. Yet, some catholics flock to catholic priests who tell them the things they want to hear.
Shall I not punish these people?’ declares the LORD,
‘On a nation such as this
Shall I not avenge Myself?’
An appalling and horrible thing
Has happened in the land:
The prophets prophesy falsely,
And the priests rule on their own authority;
And My people love it so! Jeremiah 5:29-31
and such was the case with Aaron and the people. They rejected Moses and in doing so rejected God’s authority that was placed over them. Yet God used the seat of Moses to get them back in line just as He uses the seat of Peter today.
I believe God’s anger burns against Catholics (priests included) who are not loyal to the seat of Peter and to the official teachings that God has given through the Church in union with the seat of Peter.
It should be amazing how Gerry and Tammy consistently commit an isogesis with all the quotes from the Scripture. Unfortunately, it is not. This fallacy is rather very sad. It shows again how human mind and human spirit can be confounded to the bondage of earthly bound philosophy and men made religion.
Gerry’s necessary reliance on UNINSPIRED quotes of fallible men and Tammy’s DESPERATE reading in her Mariology presumptions where Mary is simply mentioned only exemplifies how religious conditioning can blind one to the simple yet profound truth of the Word of God.
Your freedom is not in men made tradition. It is not in Mary. It is not in popes. It is not in the denomination. It is not in theology for the sake of theology. None of the mentioned died for you freely on the cross. The Lord did and new life is in Him and in His word alone. Nobody and nowhere else.
“Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.”
Colossians 2:18-19
May I please remind you dear Tammy and Gerry that the head of the Church of Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ himself and no one else… May I please further submit to you that knowing the prize described above and receiving it is not depended on teachings of men but the teaching of God in His infallible Word trough enlightenment of His unconquerable Holy Spirit:
“If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)–in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?”
Colossians 2:20-22
Tammy and Gerry have you died?
Dr MacArthur noted that Roman Catholics use 2 Thes 2:15 to support their claim that the apostles passed down infallible oral tradition that was not committed to writing.
Can a Roman Catholic show us a single oral tradition Paul taught the Thessalonians that was not committed to writing? Of course it is not enough to merely give the tradition itself, but also proof that can be traced back to Paul.
Let’s take a passage from Thessalonians that Gerry cites in one of his comments:
2 Thess 2:8.12
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord (Jesus) will kill with the breath of his mouth and render powerless by the manifestation of his coming, the one whose coming springs from the power of Satan in every mighty deed and in signs and wonders that lie, and in every wicked deceit for those who are perishing because they have not accepted the love of truth so that they may be saved. Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned.
Gerry, can you please show us where the RC chruch has infallibly interpreted this passage? In particular, please show us who the “lawless one” is, according to RC teaching. If you cannot provide us with the infallible interpretation, why cite this passage? You may reply that this is not a matter of “faith and morals”. If so, that leaves much of the bible uninterpreted, does it not? So much for the Magisterium of the RC church. Also, what did Christians do before the exact meaning of “faith and morals” was enunciated by the RC church? How did they know what qualified as “faith and morals”?
Simon
Milhamah,
You said: Gerry’s necessary reliance on UNINSPIRED quotes of fallible men and Tammy’s DESPERATE reading in her Mariology presumptions where Mary is simply mentioned only exemplifies how religious conditioning can blind one to the simple yet profound truth of the Word of God.
I say: As I have said before, I use the early fathers to show that The Catholic Church and it’s teachings were practiced from the beginning. I have also provided an abundance of scriptural proof for what I have said…
You also said: May I please remind you dear Tammy and Gerry that the head of the Church of Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ himself and no one else… May I please further submit to you that knowing the prize described above and receiving it is not depended on teachings of men but the teaching of God in His infallible Word trough enlightenment of His unconquerable Holy Spirit:
I say: I have always said that the head of The Church is Jesus Christ, but I have also provided ample biblical and historical evidence to prove that Christ founded a visible and authoritative Church and installed a main sheperd to lead it on His return to heaven. Go back and read through my replies.
Simon, first take a chill pill..and then read through my past replies and I will be happy to answer any questions that you feel I have not addressed.
Gerry,
I have read most of this thread, but I did not where you answered my questions:
Can a Roman Catholic show us a single oral tradition Paul taught the Thessalonians that was not committed to writing?
and
Can you please show us where the RC church has infallibly interpreted 2 Thess 2:8.12? In particular, please show us who the “lawless one” is, according to RC teaching.
In fact I don’t think anyone has even asked these questions in this thread.
Simon
Simon,
Where or in what context did I use 2 Thess 2:8.12?
You cited this passage in your comment dated 16 May 2007 at 10:23am, supposedly with regards to the need to teach the truth when confronted with error.
Would you mind trying to answers the questions I posed?
If you cannot answer them or you prefer not to answer them now, that is fine. Just let me know. I say this because it seems that I am having to repeat my questions to you before getting any meaningful answers.
Simon
Simon,
Here is what I included from my source, which I included in my original post and below, as well.
“I wll be quoting the writings of Dr. Robert J. Schihl and Paul D. Flanagan below”
(Here is their explanation for including it)
The Catholic Church accepts the authority both of Divine Revelation and of the Holy Spirit. Deviation from the truth must be cursed and condemned.
Rom 13:1–2
Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
2 Thess 2:8–12
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord (Jesus) will kill with the breath of his mouth and render powerless by the manifestation of his coming, the one whose coming springs from the power of Satan in every mighty deed and in signs and wonders that lie, and in every wicked deceit for those who are perishing because they have not accepted the love of truth so that they may be saved. Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned.
There is your explanation from those that wrote it (which I did, in fact include).
You also said: (your words included below)
Gerry, can you please show us where the RC chruch has infallibly interpreted this passage? In particular, please show us who the “lawless one” is, according to RC teaching. If you cannot provide us with the infallible interpretation, why cite this passage? You may reply that this is not a matter of “faith and morals”. If so, that leaves much of the bible uninterpreted, does it not? So much for the Magisterium of the RC church. Also, what did Christians do before the exact meaning of “faith and morals” was enunciated by the RC church? How did they know what qualified as “faith and morals”?
I say: You are correct in stating that The Catholic Church has not “infallibly” interpreted all of Scripture. The Magisterium has not made “infallible” declarations on every chapter and verse, but only on those which are biding on “Faith and Morals”. You can, I hope, agree that there are moral issues that exist today that did not exist 2000 yrs ago that still need to be addressed and were not addressed in the scriptures? For instance, stem cell research, cloning, in vitro fertlization, etc…Does that mean he has left that up to us (since scripture is silent) OR did he set up a Church, with the protection of The Holy Spirit to teach His TRUTH of Doctorine and Morals “infallibly” through the ages as he promised in Matthew?
Do you believe in the Apostles Creed? That was an “infallible” decision made at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., since it’s contents are “infallibly” defined against the heresy of Arianism. The Arians were using scripture to back up their claim that Jesus was a mere man and not God (like jehova wit. still do). Do you disagree with it?
I included a selection from New Advent to explain what the magisterium is and is not..The link to the entire article is included below.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
IV. The organization and exercise of the living magisterium; its precise rôle in the defence and transmission of revealed truth–its limits and modes of action.
Closer study of the living magisterium will enable us to better understand the splendid organism created by God and gradually developed that it might preserve, transmit, and bring within the reach of all revealed truth, ever the same, but adapted to every variety of time, circumstances, and environment. Properly speaking, this magisterium is a teaching authority; it not only presents the truth, but it has the right to impose it, since its power is the very power given by God to Christ and by Christ to His Church. This authority is called the teaching Church. The teaching Church is essentially composed of the episcopal body, which continues here below the work and mission of the Apostolic College. It was indeed in the form of a college or social body that Christ grouped His Apostles and it is likewise as a social body that the episcopate exercises its mission to teach. Doctrinal infallibility has been guaranteed to the episcopal body and to the head of that body as it was guaranteed to the Apostles, with this difference, however, between the Apostles and the bishops that each Apostle was personally infallible (in virtue of his extraordinary mission as founder and the plenitude of the Holy Ghost received on Pentecost by the Twelve and later communicated to St. Paul as to the Twelve), whereas only the body of bishops is infallible and each bishop is not so, save in proportion as he teaches in communion and concert with the entire episcopal body.
At the head of this episcopal body is the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff, the successor of St. Peter in his primacy as he is his successor in his see. As supreme authority in the teaching body, which is infallible, he himself is infallible. The episcopal body is infallible also, but only in union with its head, from whom moreover it may not separate, since to do so would be to separate from the foundation on which the Church is built. The authority of the pope may be exercised without the co-operation of the bishops, and this even in infallible decisions which both bishops and faithful are bound to receive with the same submission. The authority of the bishops may be exercised in two ways; now each bishop teaches the flock confided to him, again the bishops assemble in council to draw up together and pass doctrinal or disciplinary decrees. When all the bishops of the Catholic world (this totality is to be understood as morally speaking; it suffices for the whole Church to be represented) are thus assembled in council the council is called oecumenical. The doctrinal decrees of an oecumenical council, once they are approved by the pope, are infallible as are the ex cathedra definitions of the sovereign pontiff. Although the bishops, taken individually, are not infallible their teaching participates in the infallibility of the Church according as they teach in concert and in union with the episcopal body, that is according as they express not their personal ideas, but the very thought of the Church.
Gerry,
I think I can assume then that the RC church has never given an infallible interpretation of 2 Thes 2:8-12. So any interpretation of this passage by you or other RCs is merely a private interpretation, and therefore has no binding authority. A meaningful interpretation of the passage is difficult to produce if we do not even know who the “lawless one” is, and the RC church cannot tell us who it is.
Since you have still not answered my first question, I will also assume that the RC church has never listed a single oral tradition Paul passed on to the Thessalonians that was not committed to writing. So us Protestants are told that we must submit to some abstract notion of Sacred Tradition, supposedly deduced from 2 Thes 2:15, but when the RC is asked to produce an example of such oral tradition taught by Paul, he cannot. So much for Sacred Tradition.
Simon
Simon,
I already answered your question concerning 2 Thess and what scriptures were “infallibly” defined in my last post.
If I was you, I would find it more interesting and troubling at the amount of different doctorines and interpretation in Protestantism (some baptise, some don’t, some believe in the Trinity, some don’t, some believe in once saved always saved, some don’t, some believe in faith alone and some don’t…The list goes on and on and on..So scripture is clear to only some people like yourself..right? The fruits of sola scriptura is mass confusion and schism..
As Martin Luther said:
Commentary on St. John, “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of GOD, that we received it from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of it at all.”
“This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet” De Wette III, 61. quoted in O’Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.
“Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers.” Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O’Hare, Ibid, 209.
“We concede — as we must — that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 – 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER’S WORKS, St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1961, 304.
Just as Judaism had an Oral Tradition alongside the written scriptures, so too does the Church of the New Covenant. If you look in Matthew 2:12 it reads:
23 He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazorean.”
The verse “He shall be called a Nazorean” was an Oral Tradition that is found no where in the Old Testament, but you can agree that it was true, I hope?
So too, were things passed down from the apostles such as how to celebrate the “breaking of the bread”, how to and when to administer the sacraments, etc..Because we see them in the early Christian writings like the didache (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm) and many others and speak of the teachings coming from the Apostles..
Read below..
http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm
And I understand why you wouldn’t give your translation on St. Augusine’s statement about The Catholic Church..
Tammy, just a brief response to your arguments posted on or around May 16, (I’m joining this discussion a little late). You demonstrate a deceptive and obviously subjective understanding of Scripture. (Perhaps you, like most post-modernists, reject authoritative and objective truth). You’re bringing to the table a predetermined agenda to defend the RCC rather than a willingness to examine your position in light of the facts, especially the Scripture, and then to stand in correction. Sharpen your knowledge of God’s Word before you twist scripture to fit your predetermined interpretation of it. There is a much broader picture that has to be considered, that is consistent and does not contradict what your logic permits.
RCC doctrine is flawed and deceptive. I will not need to bring Scripture to bear here, but if time and space permitted, it would be overwhelming. Your interpretation and arguments are fatally flawed, but I believe that this demonstrates a more serious problem underlying your beliefs.