Christ taught Sola Scriptura using Moses' seat

[LetsObeyChrist]

Matthew 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

The Jews stood when hearing the Word of God, they sat when teaching it, to indicate its authority over them.

The Pharisees were laymen who had no right to sit in the LawGiver’s Seat.

Yet in spite of their rebellion and blatant hypocrisy Christ commands obedience to all they fetched from Word of God. The sin of these men did not diminish the authority of God’s Word, their error was no excuse to rebel against the Word of God.

The supremacy of Scripture, it ultimate authority that cannot be diminished by men, is the heart and soul of Sola Scriptura (Only the Scripture has Supreme Authority)

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Christ’s sola scriptura teaching forms the reason why the apostles disobeyed them who sat in Moses’ Seat when this council contradicted the Word of God:

Acts 5:27-29 27 And when they had brought them, they set *them *before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. 29 Then Peter and the *other *apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

 

[Totus_Tuus]

The Catholic Church obeys God. That’s not to say that there aren’t sinners among popes or even the most pious saints. We all sin and that is why the Catholic Church obeys God. Man is full of error and God is full of truth. It’s not the job of the pope and the bishops to decide “what doctrine to invent this year” as some assume.

“…the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.” (John, 14:26)

It is the Holy Ghost who guides his ONE (1), holy, catholic, and apostolic church into all truth. What I have always found difficult to imagine is not so much why someone would doubt the teachings of the Church, founded on Christ who commissioned the apostles, and who in turn named new bishops etc. for the last 1900 years or so, but how protestants can believe that until the reformation the Truth had been denied to billions of people.

Did Christ really teach Sola Scriptura? As I recall, he differs on a lot of points from the OT, which make up the written tradition of the Church now, and the reason I’m not Jewish. Christ taught the truth. You talk of the ‘supremacy of scripture’ as if you worship a book. The supremacy of the Catholic is God himself, and no, thank God, we are not limited solely to what we ourselves preserved in writing through the long centuries before the reformation revealed its supposed truths. God is not a book! Yes, Scripture sure is profitable but if it were all we needed, you’d think that God might provide a divinely inspired table of contents as well. As it is, one can pray to be able to realize true interpretation of a scripture but as history shows at least 40,000 times, it is a highly arrogant assumption that one has the truth finally. It is totally bogus. And if protestants didn’t already base their canon off of something else, there would be another 40,000 versions of who’s bible is the right one.

Your “supremacy of scripture, which cannot be diminished by men”, is in fact diminished all the time by everybody who finds his truth to be other than those taught in the Catholic Church. It is diminished every time another denomination is made, made cheap by all the arguing over why your five-year-old church is correct and mine has been teaching error since 33 AD. What a slap in God’s face! What, does he not know what he’s doing? Are there really 40,000 different truths out there?

Chirst didn’t teach sola scriptura, nor does your ‘supreme’ bible. You pile insults all over the Lord in accusing Him of not being able to send the Holy Spirit without everyone who can read starting his own ‘true’ church. Acts 8:30

 

[pnewton]

LetsObeyChrist:

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Are you suggesting that scripture is the Torah only? The rest of the Old Testament and all the New Testament were added later. I believe them to be inspired by God.

LetsObeyChrist:

29 Then Peter and the *other *apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

This is very consistant with Catholic teaching. Obedience to God is essential! It was a great motivation for me to leave the faith of my birth. It was difficult to tell my Baptist parents that I was joining the Catholic Church, but one must be true to where God leads. As I became convinced of the truth and authority that God had entrusted to His Church, it was a matter of obedience that I overcome what even my family would think.

 

[Totus_Tuus]

The Catholic Church obeys God. That’s not to say that there aren’t sinners among popes or even the most pious saints. We all sin and that is why the Catholic Church obeys God. Man is full of error and God is full of truth. It’s not the job of the pope and the bishops to decide “what doctrine to invent this year” as some assume.

“…the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.” (John, 14:26)

It is the Holy Ghost who guides his ONE (1), holy, catholic, and apostolic church into all truth. What I have always found difficult to imagine is not so much why someone would doubt the teachings of the Church, founded on Christ who commissioned the apostles, and who in turn named new bishops etc. for the last 1900 years or so, but how protestants can believe that until the reformation the Truth had been denied to billions of people.

Did Christ really teach Sola Scriptura? As I recall, he differs on a lot of points from the OT, which make up the written tradition of the Church now, and the reason I’m not Jewish. Christ taught the truth. You talk of the ‘supremacy of scripture’ as if you worship a book. The supremacy of the Catholic is God himself, and no, thank God, we are not limited solely to what we ourselves preserved in writing through the long centuries before the reformation revealed its supposed truths. God is not a book! Yes, Scripture sure is profitable but if it were all we needed, you’d think that God might provide a divinely inspired table of contents as well. As it is, one can pray to be able to realize true interpretation of a scripture but as history shows at least 40,000 times, it is a highly arrogant assumption that one has the truth finally. It is totally bogus. And if protestants didn’t already base their canon off of something else, there would be another 40,000 versions of who’s bible is the right one.

Your “supremacy of scripture, which cannot be diminished by men”, is in fact diminished all the time by everybody who finds his truth to be other than those taught in the Catholic Church. It is diminished every time another denomination is made, made cheap by all the arguing over why your five-year-old church is correct and mine has been teaching error since 33 AD. What a slap in God’s face! What, does he not know what he’s doing? Are there really 40,000 different truths out there?

Chirst didn’t teach sola scriptura, nor does your ‘supreme’ bible. You pile insults all over the Lord in accusing Him of not being able to send the Holy Spirit without everyone who can read starting his own ‘true’ church. Acts 8:30

 

[RobedWithLight]

Hi LetsObeyChrist

Since you are saying that Sola Scriptura was taught by Jesus and the apostles, Paul actually quoted an extra Biblical rabbinic **tradition **when he categorically named the two magicians who opposed Moses before the Pharaoh. Lets quote Paul himself:

**2 Timothy 3:8 **

Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth–men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected.

Question: Did Paul violate Sola Scriptura ? Jannes and Jambres doesn’t appear in any Old Testament book !

Another example of a non-biblical tradition being quoted by a disciple, Jude is the following:

Jude 8-9

In the same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

Question: Did Jude violate Sola Scriptura here ? The battle between Michael and the devil over Moses’ body was not recorded in any Old Testament book !

Gerry

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

LetsObeyChrist:

Matthew 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

The Jews stood when hearing the Word of God, they sat when teaching it, to indicate its authority over them.

The Pharisees were laymen who had no right to sit in the LawGiver’s Seat.

Yet in spite of their rebellion and blatant hypocrisy Christ commands obedience to all they fetched from Word of God. The sin of these men did not diminish the authority of God’s Word, their error was no excuse to rebel against the Word of God.

The supremacy of Scripture, it ultimate authority that cannot be diminished by men, is the heart and soul of Sola Scriptura (Only the Scripture has Supreme Authority)

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Christ’s sola scriptura teaching forms the reason why the apostles disobeyed them who sat in Moses’ Seat when this council contradicted the Word of God:

Acts 5:27-29 27 And when they had brought them, they set *them *before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. 29 Then Peter and the *other *apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

2 Thessalonians 2:15: “And hold fast to the TRADITIONS I have taught you, either by mouth or by letter”.

Does this mean anything to you?

First of all, he’s referring to TRADITIONS, not scripture TRADITIONS.
Second, he’s implying that he didn’t teach ALL of Christ’s TRADITIONS by LETTER, but also, by WORD OF MOUTH. I hope you don’t mean to tell me that you believe that word of mouth is writing something down on paper. It’s pretty obvious that sola scriptura is a bad biproduct of true Christianity. Sola scriptura is where we got tens of thousands of protestant denominatios all with HUNDREDS of thousands of interpretations of the Bible within them all, and there’s a growth rate at probably an all-time-high of ONE EVERY FIVE DAYS! That’s what Christ wanted his church to be? Don’t make me laugh.

 

[Racer_X]

Sheesh! The whole point of the “Moses’ seat” passage is that Christ is commanding the people to **respect the divinely-established authority of the Pharisees *which has been passed down from generation to generation.***Just like the authority of the bishops has been passed down. And this in spite of obviously poor example of the hypocrital Pharisees! They still held authority even though they didn’t live up to it.

Sola scriptura?!?! Talk about twisting a passage to fit your prejudices.

 

[SteveG]

**Something on this topic which I put together for fun in my spare time. Enjoy…

Solo Ecclesia**
When faced with the obvious unworkability of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, many Protestants appeal to the supposed subjectivity of the Catholic authority as a defense. The most common argument is to claim something along the lines of what James White does. He accuses the Catholic side of using what he calls ‘Sola Ecclesia’, and claims , ‘That to set forth the necessity of an Infallible Church to interpret a Revelation that can not be interpreted is simply to move our cries of subjectivity back a single step.’

While this argument ignores the fact that even if true it still doesn’t prove Sola Scriptura (at best it means that both Sola Scriptura and the Catholic position are false), it raises a valid question. Is the Catholic understanding subjective in the same way Sola Scriptura is? This question is in no way outrageous and deserves a response. We must see if an evidentiary case can indeed be made for the Catholic understanding of authority.

At the outset we have to admit that this claim (as with any claim) can not be proved absolutely. Any understanding of history is, by nature, to some extent subjective. Any religious belief by definition is held by faith. But unlike Sola Scriptura, which is self contradictory and illogical on it’s face, a case can be made for the Catholic understanding. While that case is not self-refuting, nor contradictory, each reader must still weigh the evidence and judge if it can stand or not.

Authority and Interpretation in Jewish Culture during Jesus’ life
It would seem to me that the best place to start would be to look at what model of authority and interpretation existed during the life of Jesus. We can then look to see we can find out whether Jesus Himself had any view on that model.

The Sanhedrin
We do in fact know that a model existed. It was the Sanhedrin. During Jesus’ life the Sanhedrin was the supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. The exact origins of the Sanhedrin is a subject of debate. Some experts tie it to the council of seventy found in Numbers Chapter 11. Some have sought to link its origin to the founding of the ‘Great Synagogue’ of which tradition attributed to Esdras. Other interpretations have also been offered. Regardless of it’s origin, it is widely acknowledged (including in the New Testament (NT)) that it was the seat of religious power in Judaism at the time of Jesus.

According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6; Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm (“Bell. Jud.”, II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish tradition appealed to Numbers 9:16, to justify this number and indeed the model of 70 elders in addition to Moses as ‘president’ does seem to fit fairly well.
…CONTINUED…

 

[SteveG]

According to what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up is unclear; it seems that various customs prevailed on this point at different periods. Since the Sanhedrin had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of the scribes and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes during the time of Christ were Pharisees, with other members being of the Sadducee persuasion. At any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that a semikah, or imposition of hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.

The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of Jesus, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de facto the Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instances of this, see Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all religious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4).
**
Evidence 1**
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

Jesus’ View
Seeing that this is the case, we must then ask if we can determine what Jesus thought of this model. Let us take a look at Matthew 23: 1-10…

Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Regardless of the historical debate of its origins, Jesus here is linking the Sanhedrin directly to Moses and the seventy for us. Moses’ seat in the context of Christ’s comments clearly represents Moses teaching authority. Jesus is telling us the Sanhedrin now has this authority. In this statement he is explicitly endorsing that teaching authority in the model outlined above.

As an aside, this bodes ill for Sola Scriptura in a double manner. Firstly, because Jesus here endorses the teaching authority of the Sanhedrin while making no mention of Torah authority. Secondly because he is using an oral tradition Himself to teach. The ‘Seat of Moses’ is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament (OT), but is rather an oral tradition of the Jews of that time that he assumes they will recognize.

…CONTINUED

 

[SteveG]

Also note that this passage does NOT say that the scribes and Pharisees teach false doctrines. Rather, what Jesus points out is that they teach true doctrine, but they do not practice what they preach. Because they “sit in Moses’ Seat,” i.e. they teach with the authority of Moses, they must be obeyed in their teaching, i.e. their teaching is correct, but they are not to be followed by their example, “for they say, and do not.”

** Evidence 1**
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

** Evidence 2**
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.

** The New Church and Authority**
It seems reasonable then to argue that if this model was endorsed by Christ, then as he was establishing His Church, he might use this same model, and his disciples would recognize it. But this can not be assumed. We must look to see if there is any indication of this.

** Let us start with Matthew 18:15-18**
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 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. 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.

In this teaching we have Jesus explaining how resolution for offenses is to be handled in the Church which he is establishing. The model follows the Jewish model of the time of an escalation of the issue until it reaches the Church/Synagogue. But ultimately it is assumed that the Church will have the authority to make a definitive judgment in the matter. In order to be a judge, one must have that authority. We already know how that authority was invested in the Jewish culture and that Jesus acknowledged and endorsed that system. It is the Catholic understanding that Jesus is making a statement here that in His Church, it is His disciples who will hold such power (i.e. the ‘new’ Sanhedrin). In giving the power to bind and loose to His disciples, he is investing in them the authority to teach, interpret and be judges in His new Church.

** Who is the ‘YOU’**
There are two main issues that must be clarified in order to support this understanding. Firstly, who the ‘you’ is in the ‘truly’ I say to you. Secondly, whether the power of binding and loosing does indeed indicate such authority.

Via Matt. 18:1 we know that the dialogue above was a conversation between Jesus and His disciples. During the dialogue He at times expands the context of the teaching to include a wider group (see 18:5 (whoever), 18:15(brother)), but His emphatic ‘I say unto YOU’ implies that he is addressing the next statement specifically to the conversants. In addition, in the context of the preceding versus regarding the ‘church’, it would seem non-sensical (especially in light of what we know about the Jewish authority structure), to give judgmental and teaching authority to all members. If each member has equivalent authority, then there is by definition no ‘higher’ authority to which one can appeal. It would make the investing of authority and the escalation of the issue unworkable.
…CONTINUED…

 

[SteveG]

In light of the context that Church functioning is what is actually being discussed, and in light of the Jewish model, it seems more reasonable to posit that Jesus is investing this authority in His ‘disciples’. It is also important to mention that in context of Matthew, ‘disciples’ was a much more restrictive term than crowd, or followers. I personally believe that a full reading of Matthew strongly suggests, that for whatever his purpose, Matthew did not acknowledge any other of the disciples than the twelve. Even a more expansive reading using the context of Luke, which tells us that the full circle of disciples (as opposed to followers) totaled at most seventy (hmmm, that number seventy again, another tie to the existing Jewish model?) is still fairly restrictive.

** Binding and Loosing**
The crucial issue is whether authority is what is being given by Jesus in this teachings. What did He mean by the terms “bind” and “loose?” These words were commonly used by Jewish rabbis. New Testament scholars agree that “binding and loosing,” when used in this way, retain the basic meaning that they had in the Jewish culture of the first century.

For example, the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT states under the entries for “deo” and “luo” (the Greek words for binding and loosing used in Matthew), "Jesus does not give to Peter and the other disciples any power to enchant or to free by magic. The customary meaning of the Rabbinic expressions is equally incontestable, namely, to declare forbidden or permitted, and thus to impose or remove an obligation, by a doctrinal decision."1 TDNT draws the conclusion that this is the meaning of the words as used in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.

A. T. Robertson, one of this century’s leading Greek scholars, also comments on Matthew 16:19: "To bind' in rabbinical language is to forbid, to loose’ is to permit.

Concerning Matthew 16:19, William Hendriksen states, "The very wording - note whatever,' not whoever’ - shows that the passage refers to things, in this case beliefs and actions, not directly to people. Binding and loosing are rabbinical terms, meaning forbidding and permitting."3

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, under the entry "de " (to bind), states, “…by a Chaldean and rabbinic idiom to forbid, prohibit, declare illicit: Matthew 16:19; 18:18.”

In Matthew 18, Christ is clearly giving the disciples an authoritative power to teach doctrine in His Church. But these cites also reference Matthew 16:19 as well. Let us take a look now at Matthew 16
16:Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here we have Christ giving this power specifically to Peter at the same time as giving him a new name of ‘Rock’ (Cephus, Petros) (chronologically this occurred earlier). So he specifically singles Peter out and gives him this authority. Why was this necessary if he was going to do so later in Matt 18. The ‘key’ to this is in the first part of the statement ‘I will give you the keys to of the kingdom of heaven’. He single Peter out because he is giving him something additional that he won’t give the other disciples in Matt. 18. So what do the keys represent?
…CONTINUED…

 

[SteveG]

The image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22 http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm). It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. If Jesus is not giving some additional rank or authority to Peter alone, then what can it mean that Jesus not only singled him out for this blessing, but also gave the blessing with a second ‘gift’ (the keys) as well. The Protestant view that Peter here is given nothing special defies logic and again makes a statement of Jesus meaningless.

The Best Evidence - Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 In Action
If the ‘interpretations’ of the above two passages are unconvincing, then we can look elsewhere in the NT to see how Peter and the others understood Jesus’ teaching on binding and loosing by examining their actions as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 15 records a dispute that arose about the behavior of Gentiles who were recently becoming part of the church. Their customs were far different from the Jews, who then made up most of the church. Should the new Gentile converts be required to be circumcised and to keep other requirements of the Law of Moses? So how was this issue resolved?

1:But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.

We see Paul and Barnabas heading up to the first council at Jerusalem for a resolution. They go to the ‘Apostles and Elders’ to have the issue decided. So what happens next?

6:The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8: And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9: and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10: Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11: But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12: And all the assembly kept silence;

What happens is that the apostles and elders debate the issue, Peter rises (note that his rising ends the debate), and gives his decision in very clear terms ‘We believe…, just as they will’. Not ‘We believe…so the should’, but ‘We believe…just as they will’. This is a definitive statement. And all the assembly kept silence. A few moments later, James concurs with Peter (this would have been ecclesiastically appropriate since they were in Jerusalem, and James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem). No further burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians. The apostles herein exercised the power of binding and loosing, as given by Jesus, and Peter took the lead role in doing so. The authority to bind and loose is the authority to declare what is God’s mind on a matter of doctrine or practice. This is what the early church did in Acts 15.
…CONTINUED…

 

[SteveG]

Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.

Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.

Evidence 3
Jesus invests teaching/doctrinal authority (previously held by the Sanhedrin) for His church in His disciples. His disciples recognize this commission and demonstrated such by exercising that authority.

Argument 1
Jesus intended for an authoritative body to exist in His church which would be able to teach on doctrinal issue (i.e. necessity of circumcision). That body was established and consisted of His Disciples (the Apostles and elders). That body recognized it’s authority and exercised it over the rest of the Church body. The body likewise recognized that authority and looked to it to resolve disputes (i.e. Paul and Barnabas were sent up to that body to get a judgment).

**…Continuing any further on the ecclesiastical structure Christ set up and intened next must take into account the role of Peter which really is it’s own thread. **

 

[bengal_fan]

nice try, but by teaching that the pharisees occupied moses’ seat, Christ actually taught sacred tradition. the pharisees were the ones entrusted to interpret the scriptures (and Jesus knew they had the ability to do this which is why he said to do what they say, not what they do). this seems very familiar in that even an unrighteous man who becomes pope can still (by divine appointment and throught the holy spirit) infallibly interpret scripture.

 

[Fiat]

Dear SteveG:

 Thank you for a very thorough and well-organized response!  God bless you.  I was wondering if you could clarify a point for me, though.  You stated the following:

The ‘Seat of Moses’ is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament (OT), but is rather an oral tradition of the Jews of that time that he assumes they will recognize.

I’ve heard some Protestants say that the Catholic notion that the idea of the Seat of Moses is Oral Tradition is not true since Exodus 18:13 indicates that such a chair for Moses was established. If Moses’ seat is indeed established in Exodus 18:13, does that really negate our Catholic notion that God established a magisterium? It seems to me that regardless of whether Exodus indicates the creation of such an office, the fact remains that such an office exists, and that office is designed to lead the people of God. I’m just interested in your thoughts.

Peace,
FIAT!

 

[javelin]

Hi LetsObeyHim,

For the sake of clarity and understanding, I would like to take a moment to try to explain the Catholic understanding of Revelation, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. This is for the purpose simply of understanding what the Church really says about those things, so no one takes the time to try to argue for or refute something that really isn’t taught at all. This is meant to be a description of the Church’s belief and teaching, not a complete proof. The concepts are taken (not quoted) entirely from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

There are certain things regarding God Himself that man cannot possibly know, excpet that the Lord has chosen to reveal to us because of His love for us and His desire for us to know Him. Christ Himself, as the Word of God, is the culmination and epitome of that revelation, containing within Himself the completeness of that revelation. The Catholic Church refers to this as Divine Revelation. Since Christ was the perfection of Divine Revelation, everything that He taught is a part of it. According to the Catholic Church, that Specific Divine Revelation was comlete in Christ, and so ended at the end of the Apostolic Age. At that point, everything God wished to reveal to us was done, and the product of Divine Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, was completed.

So how do we know what is in that complete Deposit of Faith? By two means: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Scripture is Divine Revelation as it was put down in writing by human authors under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Sacred Tradition is the transmission of truths of the Deposit of Faith by all other means (word of mouth, writings that are not “Inspired”, etc.), when accomplished through the teaching authority given by Christ to the Church, exercised by the Church leadership, the Magesterium.

So that’s it in a nutshell. We know that Divine Revelation includes everything taught by Christ, and we also know that Christ didn’t just write letters, so there are genuine techings of Christ Himself that are also Revelation, in addition to Sacred Scripture. But how do we know what authentically came from Christ? We know because that Truth is authentically preserved by the Church through the protection of the Holy Spirit. Paul commanded disciples hold fast to what was taught, either by word of mouth or in writing, judging the teaching by the authenticity of its source (who had uttered the teaching*)*. If you read any of the Catechism or documents from the major ecumentical councils, you will see this theme as extremely pervasive – that the Church leadership truly believes it is their solemn duty and charge to authenically maintain and truthfully profess the Truths in the Deposit of Faith, and that the Holy Spirit ensures that the Church will always be able to fulfill that duty inerrantly.

Obviously Sacred Scripture is an integral part of Revelation, in that its content and words are inspired of God. But the Bible isn’t all that God has revealed, nor is it the only way He desires us to learn about His Divine Revelation.

Peace,
javelin

P.S. Just before posting this, I see that SteveG has a lengthy response, which I haven’t yet read. It appears he may go into more depth with some of the points I’m bringing up.

 

[JGC]

The above are excellent but usually make no headway with most protestants, its simply an authority deadlock.

I always ask

‘How exactly did the early ‘sola scriptura’ Christians survive for over 40 years without any biblical texts, over another 100 until completion and 300+ until the canon was established?’

Usual response:

 

[SteveG]

Fiat:

Thank you for a very thorough and well-organized response! God bless you. I was wondering if you could clarify a point for me, though. You stated the following:

Thank you for the kind words and blessing.

Fiat:

I’ve heard some Protestants say that the Catholic notion that the idea of the Seat of Moses is Oral Tradition is not true since Exodus 18:13 indicates that such a chair for Moses was established. If Moses’ seat is indeed established in Exodus 18:13, does that really negate our Catholic notion that God established a magisterium? It seems to me that regardless of whether Exodus indicates the creation of such an office, the fact remains that such an office exists, and that office is designed to lead the people of God. I’m just interested in your thoughts.

I probably should have been clearer on this point. First, notice that the Chair of Moses as referenced by Jesus has a lot tied into it. It is not referring to a literal ‘chair’. The seat as He uses it implies that a teaching and intrepretive authority was given to Moses AND has been passed onto the Sanhedrin of His day. If we read Exodus 18:13…

*** On the morrow Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood about Moses from morning till evening.***

…all it says is that Moses sat to judge. Of course he sat on a ‘chair’ as it were, but that is a to literalistic understanding of what Jesus said. It’s reminiscent of the notion some Protestants have that the popes speak infallibly and ex cathedra (cathedra is the Greek word for seat in Matthew 23:2) only when sitting in a certain chair in the Vatican. The chair as stated by Jesus and understood by Catholics is better termed as Office. An office which has both teaching and interpative authority and a succession. What Jesus says here is that the Sanhedrin now has that office. But a clear understanding of that office, including a mechanism for succession is not found in the OT. The key words in what you reference above regarding their argument are that Exodus 18:13 INDICATE a chair/office was established. But the teaching of Jesus of Moses’ chair/office as applied by HIM to the Sanhedrin can not be supported from the OT.

Hope that helps

 

[Tom]

Where did LOC go? I wanted to thank him for bringing up this topic which got such wonderful responses. Thank you LOC.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you.

 

[Little_Mary]

Tom:

Where did LOC go? I wanted to thank him for bringing up this topic which got such wonderful responses. Thank you LOC.
May the peace and love of our Lord, Jesus the Christ, be with you.

Check out his public profile for a list of the threads he’s started. You’ll find him.