- Status
P
PJM
Guest
Great post Randy, thanks:thumbsup:Here are my responses Piper’s arguments:
Sure, the Bible is God’s word, and there is no disagreement about its authority. The problem is with his second premise that no human or church can serve with equal authority.
Notice first that Piper is forced to explain away the plain meaning of Mt. 16:18-19. Otherwise, he has no argument. Second, the Catholic understanding is that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church act together. Sola Scriptura is a one-legged stool that cannot stand.
The Church functioned authoritatively for several decades before the first book of the NT was even written. Was this authority genuine? Of course it was.
The Church functioned authoritatively for several centuries before the NT was formally compiled into the form we have today and the Church was able to do so without having a set canon of scripture.
The Church functioned authoritatively for 1500 years before the invention of the printing press made ownership of pocket NT’s even possible.
If it was God’s intention for the Church to abandon the authority of the Church in favor of the authority of the Bible alone, why didn’t the authors of the NT give instructions to their readers about this transition period? Why does scripture actually encourage us to hold fast to the traditions of the apostles and to obey the authority of our Church leaders?
And just whose interpretation of the Bible should be considered authoritative anyway? The Baptist who does not baptize infants? Or the Lutheran who does baptize infants?
Ironically, Piper states, “…it is impossible to have biblical faith in a truth one does not believe is in the Bible.” That cuts both ways, John. Where does the Bible teach that scripture alone is to function as the sole rule of faith for the believer? (It doesn’t…not one single verse.)
If the Bible does not teach sola scriptura, why do you believe it?
Okay, John, but saying that you cannot force someone to believe something they don’t believe to be biblical is not the same as saying that the doctrine is not biblical. (Here, Piper undoubtedly has the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption of Mary or Papal Infallibility in mind.) I think it is possible to make a biblical case for all of the Catholic doctrines that you thing are unscriptural; consequently, once I have explained the biblical foundation for Catholic doctrine, there is no reason to think that a person cannot accept that doctrine as biblical.
The problem, John, is that you do not actually understand what you claim to “see”. Quoting Isaiah, Jesus said, ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’ (Mark 4:12)
John Piper does not understand the Catholic doctrines that he disagrees with, and there is little wonder that he objects to the false ideas he holds about what we believe.
But we don’t actually believe what he thinks we believe!
GBY
P
PJM
Guest
My dear friend in Christ,If Scripture itself tells us that the Church is to have authority over matters, then wouldn’t the Catholic Church be more accurately obedient to Scripture’s authority than those who reject the authority of The Church?
Matthew 18
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Ephesians 3
through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.
1 Timothy 3
If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
We have relied on Scripture in every age. Tradition has helped us understand Scripture better, and how to interpret/practice it’s message. Sometimes we fail at this, through our own faults.
I respect the seriousness of you’re question, BUT am unable to answer it without you providing some SPECIFICS of what you allude to:shrug:
God Bless you and THANKS
Patrick
P
PJM
Guest
I followed this a read it, VERY Good!
R
rcwitness
Guest
It was more rhetorical. Something to make Christians consider. The Catholic Church IS more accurately obedient to Scripture, since Scripture assigns authority to God’s Church. Scripture has been relied on and observed by the Catholic Church! It is not contradicted or undermined in her official Teaching and practice. Scripture is fulfilled in the Mass through the Liturgy of the Word and Eucharist.
P
PJM
Guest
Thank you
F
fhansen
Guest
- God’s revelation cannot be limited. There’s no reason that His revealed word cannot be in written or oral form, and Scripture itself, attests to that fact. And we cannot escape the truth that men-humans-determine what constitutes Gods word and what does not, whether Scripture, Tradition, or any other source we might want to include. We must each make that determination for ourselves in fact. None of those revelations were dropped from heaven complete; human intermediaries were involved in any case in both their reception and production.
- People, whether claiming to be “Spirit-illumined” or not, disagree over the meaning of the bible. This is because people are necessarily its interpreters, meaning that we’re already listening to “a secondary authority outside the bible”, whether that authority is ourselves or others. Luther et al were men privately interpreting the bible
- This is perhaps the most important point. There are no other churches; there can be and only has been one church. And that church is quite easy to identify unless you look for it in Protestantism, where no such direct identifying marks even exist. The church must be historically, continuously linked to the beginnings of Christianity, and that universal church can easily be found in those particular churches in the east and west which possess and share that historical origin and living legacy which includes Apostolic succession…
P
PJM
Guest
E
Erich
Guest
This link asks the same questions!
Z
zz912
Guest
There is a foundational misunderstanding in the Protestant world that should be addressed in this conversation you are having with your friend.
Fundamentally, your Baptist friend doesn’t understand WHAT the Bible is, and WHY it was canonized. (I say this as a former Baptist)
It is important to discuss with them about the canonization of the books of the Bible. WHAT is the Bible? WHO and WHY did certain men decide to make a list of books in the late 4th century?
In short, with the end of Roman persecution of Christians, and the toleration of Christianity, Christians could finally become more open about their worship and religion. Also at this time, there were arising heretics and heresies, along with spurious books claiming to be apostolic in origin and authority. These heretics were reading these books in the Mass, and it was causing problems and people to leave the faith. So protect the faith and the faithful, Catholic bishops got together in councils at Carthage and Hippo to determine what books could be read in Mass, and what books could NOT be read in Mass.
These Catholic bishops determined that 46 books of the Old Covenant and 27 books of the New Covenant could be read in Mass. So these books began to be collected together in volumes so they could be read in Mass. These 73 books began to be considered a singular group, so they began to be referred to as “the books”, or bible in Greek. After enough time, they began to known as the Bible.
So the PURPOSE of the 73 books being collected together was so that they could be read IN MASS. You can’t fully understand the Bible outside of the Mass.
Ask your Baptist friend to lay out what his understanding of the canonization of the Bible was, and WHY it was canonized. He will either not know, or will give some general response that “early Christians” determined the Bible. Ask him to be specific. Ask him when, where and by WHOM his Bible was canonized. Ask him to lay out who’s authority he is resting upon to know the Bible is God’s word.
Fundamentally, your Baptist friend doesn’t understand WHAT the Bible is, and WHY it was canonized. (I say this as a former Baptist)
It is important to discuss with them about the canonization of the books of the Bible. WHAT is the Bible? WHO and WHY did certain men decide to make a list of books in the late 4th century?
In short, with the end of Roman persecution of Christians, and the toleration of Christianity, Christians could finally become more open about their worship and religion. Also at this time, there were arising heretics and heresies, along with spurious books claiming to be apostolic in origin and authority. These heretics were reading these books in the Mass, and it was causing problems and people to leave the faith. So protect the faith and the faithful, Catholic bishops got together in councils at Carthage and Hippo to determine what books could be read in Mass, and what books could NOT be read in Mass.
These Catholic bishops determined that 46 books of the Old Covenant and 27 books of the New Covenant could be read in Mass. So these books began to be collected together in volumes so they could be read in Mass. These 73 books began to be considered a singular group, so they began to be referred to as “the books”, or bible in Greek. After enough time, they began to known as the Bible.
So the PURPOSE of the 73 books being collected together was so that they could be read IN MASS. You can’t fully understand the Bible outside of the Mass.
Ask your Baptist friend to lay out what his understanding of the canonization of the Bible was, and WHY it was canonized. He will either not know, or will give some general response that “early Christians” determined the Bible. Ask him to be specific. Ask him when, where and by WHOM his Bible was canonized. Ask him to lay out who’s authority he is resting upon to know the Bible is God’s word.
J
jlhargus
Guest
mark
J
jlhargus
Guest
How about the Trinity nowhere in the bible is God called a trinity nor does the bible tell us there are three person in God. Some authority had to interpret the bible to come to that conclusion. Also the bible itself does not list the names and number of books. An authority had to discern what was and was not inspiried.
S
Shaolen
Guest
Wow that is excellent insight. Thank you so much
P
PJM
Guest
L
Logical2
Guest
. . Yes,it is difficult 2 separate the artical. 1 cor. 14;30-38 defines 1 aspect .the 2 nd. Is the sacraments. Which is viewed as “manmade” and does not impart grace(anointing),and not accepted as biblical. 3rd. Is Mary and her position in the church doctrine. These are issues that only catholics can accept. 4th. Jesus said u will receive the power of the holy spirit.which is Luke 4;18, or mark 16.signs and wonders. Find a church where healing and deliverance occur and u will find his assembly;churchSo I have a Baptist friend who I often give catholic apologetic articles to and discuss on the topics. Hes now given me this article regarding sola scriptura and church authority. Was wondering if I can get your thoughts on it. How would you respond to it’s claims. Thank you
desiringgod.org/interviews/contrary-to-roman-catholics-the-bible-is-our-sufficient-authority
R
rcwitness
Guest
What do you mean by this?
- Status