Defense of Sola Scriptura

[AmericanJosiah]

Prior to the protestant reformation there were 2 churches (embracing SS and ST with each respective church leadership as the final authority for resolving doctrinal differences) - with some doctrinal differences. 500 years after the protestant reformation, we now see thousands of PC’s (embracing Sacred Scripture with each respective Christian as the final authority) - with doctrinal differences. Jon, why do you think that the east - west schism (over a 500 year period) - lead to 2 isolated, autonomous churches while the PR (over a 500 year period) - led to hundreds and hundreds of isolated, autonomous churches? The chaos hardly seems proportional.

You seem to see some significance in the reality that The Catholic Church alone agrees with The Catholic Church - meaning it has a unity of exactly one: itself with itself. We all realize that The Catholic Church officially and formally and currently agrees with The Catholic Church in all matters that The Catholic Church currently holds as necessary to agree upon. Yup. It agrees with it itself - exclusively. At least formally and officially. At least in those matters it itself currently holds as necessary to agree upon. Yup. It has a whopping unity of one: Self alone with self alone. It has unity only with the one it sees in the mirror. That’s it. That’s all. And over the years, even that has fallen apart (451, 1054, 1521, etc., etc., etc., etc.). You’ve made that point several times, but I’m at a loss - I truly am - WHY this has any significance? Why is it that self alone agreeing with self alone prove that self alone is infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and whatever that self says must just be accepted “with docility” “as God speaking?” Friend: I agree with me. Formally and officially anyway. At least in the things I alone currently hold as good to agree upon. And yet, are you posting that ERGO I’m infallible, unaccountable, whatever I say is what Jesus says? Nope. Friend: EVERY teacher agrees with self - and some of them even agree with some others. The MOST you can say about The Catholic Church is that it is AT LEAST as “bad” in this regard as every other denomination under the sun. AT MOST, self alone agrees with self alone. Exclusively. And even THAT is just formally, officially and in those matters that self alone currently views as good for itself to agree with itself about. It ain’t saying much. Self usually agrees with self. I just fail to see why this proves so much to you - infalliblity among other things.

.

 

[Pax]

That’s exactly what we “Protestants” do. We just read and apply the words of the Bible. We don’t add to what Scripture says or does not say.

You are deluding yourself.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

A weekness in the arguments for sola scriptura involves how the word of scripture is taught. Clearly, holy writ can be, and often is, taught incorrectly. The multitude of conflicting doctrines and teachings within Christian circles illustrates the problem.

You begin your argument here with a faulty premise. Sola scriptura means scripture (the bible) alone. In other words. All that is needed for salvation, is in the bible. You say “A weekness in the arguments for sola scriptura involves how the word of scripture is taught.” Because the bible is being taught with varying degrees of proficiency is no argument at all that the bible itself is not all sufficient, only that those teaching it’s contents are perhaps not up to the task.

Scripture speaks of oral tradition and if holy writ is to be taken seriously that point cannot be ignored or glossed over. Scripture makes the point about traditions in a couple of places which have been mentioned in previous posts. One scripture that is often over looked, however, is Titus 1:7-9 where Paul speaks of bishops. In that verse Paul says the following:
For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled;** he must hold firm to the sure word as taught**, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

The areas in bold and those underlined are very important. Note the reference to the bishop as God’s steward. As such, he must hold to the “sure word as taught.” The sure word is scripture and the bishop must hold to it “as taught.” The “as taught” phrase is where sola scriptura utterly falls apart. Scripture alone without the bishops protecting its lessons “as taught” is to have scripture with numerous diverging and often contradictory understandings. The bishops are needed to give instruction in sound doctrine and to confute those that contradict “the sure word as taught.”

I’m sorry pax I just don’t see how the fact that we are instructed to relay “the sure word as taught.” is an argument that that word is not sufficient to teach everything we need unto salvation. Jesus Himself instructs us in Matt.28:19-20

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Jesus instructs us here to go out into the world and teach The Greek word for teach here is matheteuo which means, to make disciples (students). How are we to make disciples? Again in v. 19 by teaching. The word for teaching here is didasko. Which simply means to instruct. So, what is Jesus saying here? He is telling us to go out into the world and make disciples. How? By “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Where do we find all things “whatsoever I have commanded you” Well, we find them in the bible.

Also, while doing a little reseach for this post I noticed something that might be of interest. The translation you use for Titus 1:9 is he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

The King James version

Titus1: 9Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

You will notice your translation says “confute those who contradict it.” which sounds confrontational and really makes no provision for matheteuo or making disciples, whereas the King James says “by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”
Which is saying that “by sound doctrine” we should try to “exhort and to convince the gainsayers” or maththeteuo (make disciples). I make mention of this because the King James translation of Titus 1:9 seems to be more in line with the spirit of what Jesus is saying in Matt. 28:19-20 and points to the fact that we need to be careful that the translation we are using fully conveys what was originally meant.

The “sure word as taught” is completely undermined by sola scriptura. The practical and obvious truth of that statement is found in the plethora of conflicting doctrines within Christian circles. Sola scriptura does not work and the entire concept is in opposition to scripture itself.

I hope this helps.

Well, again I don’t think the fact that many are teaching wrongly is any argument that the material being taught (in this case the bible) is not adequate. See, the whole thing about this argument that gets me is that you seem to be saying that the WORD OF GOD is not really sufficient to the task for which God intended it, but with the validation of certain human teachers it now becomes sufficient. This whole argument sounds rather absurd.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

A Clearly, holy writ can be, and often is, taught incorrectly.

**EXACTLY the point! **

Do you believe that truth matters, especially doctrine concerning our very souls?
Do you believe that teachers of such are accountable for such?
Do you believe that The Catholic Church teaches such?

IF you answer “yes” to those questions (and, as a Catholic, I realize you may not), THEN you have just embraced accountability and the need for norming. The first question then becomes: WHAT is the most sound norma normans for this norming? Some think that Scripture is. But The Catholic Church rejects the Rule of Scripture for the same reason the other opponents do (LDS, all the cults): NOT because it has an alternative norma normans (it doesn’t) but because it alone exempts it alone from accountability - and thus from norming and everything associated with norming (including WHATEVER might serve as the rule in such), it alone replacing all that for it itself alone and substituting the requirement of self alone that whatever self alone says simply be accepted as correct “with docility.”

The point here is accountability. Do you believe that truth matters - especially doctrine concerning our souls? Do you believe that teachers of such are accountable? Do you believe that The Catholic Church teaches doctrine? IF you answer “yes” - then we all accept that The Catholic Church and all other teachers are accountable - and we need to discuss the best rule (“straight edge”), canon (“measuring stick”), the norma normans (“norm that norms”) for this norming? But Catholics must opt out of that discussion since The Catholic Church does not permit such accountability in the singular, exclusive case of it itself alone.

Scripture speaks of oral tradition and if holy writ is to be taken seriously that point cannot be ignored or glossed over. Scripture makes the point about traditions in a couple of places which have been mentioned in previous posts.

1. It never mentions Catholic Tradition. It never says ANYTHING about what The Catholic Church teaches as “tradition.”
2. It never says that The Catholic Church - exclusively, particularly and perpetually - is infallible, unaccountable, exempt from norming, and whatever it and it itself exclusively says, is simply to be accepted “with docility” “as Jesus speaking.”
3. I find nothing in Scripture that says that ANY teacher among us is exempted by Jesus from accountability. Check out the following: 2 Peter 2:1, Titus 2:1, 1 Timothy 6:3, Revelation 2:2, James 3:1, Matthew 13:52, Luke 20:46, Ephesians 4:14 for starters. And remember: The Catholic Church insists that ALL teachers are FULLY accountable for EVERYTHING they teach - right here, right now, it alone just exempts itself alone from such. We disagree as to the wisdom of such vis-a-vis the norming of the correctness of teachers.
4. Sola Scriptura does NOT, in ANY sense, mean we are to exclude Tradition (Christian or limited to any denomination - yours or mine). It simply rejects the veiws of self being the rule for the views of self so that if self agrees with self then self is correct. Tradition is under Scripture, not above it. Don’t confuse SolA Scriptura with SolO Scriptura (a view held by no one known to me and largely a Catholic and Mormon strawman).

.

 

[JonNC]

Prior to the protestant reformation there were 2 churches (embracing SS and ST with each respective church leadership as the final authority for resolving doctrinal differences) - with some doctrinal differences. 500 years after the protestant reformation, we now see thousands of PC’s (embracing Sacred Scripture with each respective Christian as the final authority) - with doctrinal differences. Jon, why do you think that the east - west schism (over a 500 year period) - lead to 2 isolated, autonomous churches while the PR (over a 500 year period) - led to hundreds and hundreds of isolated, autonomous churches? The chaos hardly seems proportional.

 

[Pax]

Richard Kastner and AmericanJosiah in Christ,

Thank you for your thoughtful and courteous views.

Please be advised that I am not operating from a faulty premise. If scripture is the sole rule of faith and is as you claim “all sufficient” then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that claim by way of scripture itself.

Scripture is best described as “materially sufficient.” Scripture cannot stand alone because scripture did not self assemble, cannot safeguard itself from being twisted[2 Peter 3:16], and it is not “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” Scripture states unequivocally that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”[1 Tim 3:15]. Scripture nowhere makes that claim for itself.

The “sure word as taught” is something that is handed down and protected by the Church that Jesus himself established in Matthew 16:18. That Church is the Catholic Church. We know this by way of the appellation and identification of the term “catholic” first being used by Ignatius of Antioch who was a disciple of the apostle John. Furthermore, history then continues to show and prove over and over that the Church started and continuing from the day of Pentecost is the Catholic Church. Yes, other Christian denominations are later off shoots of that one Church, but they are not the original Church that Jesus established and gave his authority and promises.

It is my contention that there is only one entity up to teaching “the sure word as taught” and that entity is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, that entity is the Church established by Jesus Christ, that is the Church to whom Jesus made promises, that is the Church that Jesus gave power and authority, that is the Church that history shows to be the Catholic Church. No one else, individually or collectively, can make the claims or assume the power, authority, or teach in the same Holy Spirit guided fashion as the Church established by Jesus. He promised that he would remain with the Church until the end of the age, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I believe that Jesus is fully capable of keeping those promises and I believe that he has in fact done so.

The gates of hell will not prevail against Jesus’s Church nor will any claims against the position, power, and authority of the Church. Sola Scriptura was specifically designed to weaken the position, power, and authority of the Church. Scripture is, as the bible itself claims, “…inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”[2 Tim 3:16-17]. Scripture does not say that it “alone” is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete for every good work. If scripture meant to say “alone” then scripture would have contained the word “alone.”

Moreover, scripture would not have told us that there are “teachers”, that the bishop must be able to refute/confute/correct/convince the gainsayers/those that are wrong/disagree/those that are against the sure word as taught. Please note that I have over ten English translations of scripture and there is nothing wrong with the use of the term “confute” as you can see from a sample of the varying translations used in my prior sentence.

cont. on next post:

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post:

We simply do not find everything that Jesus said and did or instructed in the bible. Scripture itself denies such a thing. Moreover, when Jesus gave the instruction to go out and teach all nations, he gave that command to the apostles alone. The apostles knew Jesus directly and they carefully picked those that would succeed them. Evangelization is to be done by all, but it is to be done as instructed by Jesus to the apostles and then what they handed on/taught “by word of mouth or by letter” to their successors and Christ’s Church.

Jesus gave instructions that are not recorded in scripture, and there are also instructions that we have that Jesus never gave to us. Jesus never said, for example, anything about the circumcision of gentiles. The apostles decided the matter under Peter’s leadership at the first Council in Jerusalem. There was no guide whatsoever in scripture for that decision. That decision was made outside of scripture and Christ’s words. That event is recorded in scripture as a witness to the authority and actions of the Church.

The Catholic Church is not above scripture in any sense for which you charge us. You are IMHO arguing against a strawman in that regard. The Catholic Church and scripture agree for both received what they are, and their purpose and functions, by way of God himself. Those that disagree with the Church are actually disagreeing with scripture. It is, IMHO, simply off the rails to think that any individual or collective operating inside or outside of Jesus’s Church can arrive at a doctrine contrary to the teachings of Christ’s Church and still be right. This is a core contradiction to all that Jesus and the apostles say about the Church, and it is contrary to the historical data associated with the Church.

Every heretic followed the pattern described in scripture. In 1 John 2:19 we read the following:

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.

Every heretic did what John describes. They taught differently than the Church and they left the Church and it is therefore plain that they are not of the Church. Sola scriptura and sola fide are inventions of the reformation. Those that accepted these novel ideas left the Church. The first of those two novel ideas removed the fetters of Church authority, power, and the “sure word as taught.” The historical record clearly shows the results of what that has wrought.

Accountability is not something that the Catholic Church ignores and her teachings are carefully thought out and the traditions/sure word as taught are carefully protected. Individual accountability for teaching when it is against the truth and sure word as taught by the Church is only meaningful in a couple of ways. There are judgments and punishments that will be rendered by God within his mercy and perfect justice. There were corrections rendered by Christ’s Church but in the post reformation era these largely went unheeded. In modern times divergences have multiplied many times.

Teachers will be held accountable by God both within and outside of the Catholic Church. The Church itself, however, will be presented to the Father “without spot or wrinkle.” Everything will be left to God’s infinite mercy and perfect justice.

God bless.

 

[joe370]

Didn’t Jesus establish just one church, which split? I can’t give you the name of the man (or men) - who founded the EOC or the CC, like I can, regarding all PC’s. As we go back in time these 2 churches coalesce into the one church founded by God.

Of course not, and the Orthodox here say that the Reformation was inevitable because of the innovations of Rome.

They are entitled to their opinions of course. My orthodox friends don’t see it that way regarding doctrinal differences between the 2 churches. For example, thy believe that the blessed Mother Mary did not sin; they pray for the dead, which means that they believe in some sort of purification interim; they believe in the same 7 Sacraments, but choose not to define all of them in the same manner; the EOC believes that humanity inherited the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve. When it comes to doctrinal truth, other than indulgences and the unleavened bread vs leavened bread, and authority, and the filloque (which I think is a silly reason to stay divided, to which my EO friend who is a priest, agrees) - these 2 churches have a great deal in common. If I have missed something please let me know and I will ask my friend.

Finally, I do not take responsibility for what others have done. IOW, I don’t see the Lutheran reformers as responsible for Calvinism, anabaptists, or American Evangelicals.

I agree with you 100 %. I have often wondered why these reformers didn’t stick together. Any thoughts on the matter? Jon, when you get the chance could you answer the following question:

Prior to the protestant reformation there were 2 churches (embracing SS and ST with each respective church leadership as the final authority for resolving doctrinal differences) - with some doctrinal differences. 500 years after the protestant reformation, we now see hundreds and hundreds of PC’s (embracing Sacred Scripture with each respective Christian as the final authority) - with doctrinal differences. Jon, why do you think that the east - west schism (over a 500 year period) - lead to 2 isolated, autonomous churches while the PR (over a 500 year period) - led to hundreds and hundreds of isolated, autonomous churches? The chaos hardly seems proportional.

God bless and have a great day tomorrow…

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard Kastner and AmericanJosiah in Christ,

Thank you for your thoughtful and courteous views.

Please be advised that I am not operating from a faulty premise. If scripture is the sole rule of faith and is as you claim “all sufficient” then it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that claim by way of scripture itself.

Ok, let’s go through this again. You say: “A weekness in the arguments for sola scriptura involves how the word of scripture is taught.” Sola scriptura means the bible alone. So what you are saying here is that the weakness in the argument for tthe bible alone is in how the bible is taught. This is no matter how much you advise me to the contrary a faulty premise. For the simple fact that how the bible is taught has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the bible is all sufficient.

Jn3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Gal 2:16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Mark 16:15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

These are but three of many scriptures from the bible that tell us that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, not His church not any chuch, but by faith in Him. Jn. 14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. We can know this by reading the bible alone (sola scriptura) What more do we need?

Scripture is best described as “materially sufficient.” Scripture cannot stand alone because scripture did not self assemble

What does whether or not scripture self assembled have to do with whether or not it can stand alone?

cannot safeguard itself from being twisted[2 Peter 3:16], and it is not “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

What does whether or not scripture can be twisted have to do with it being able to stand alone?

Scripture states unequivocally that the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”[1 Tim 3:15]. Scripture nowhere makes that claim for itself.

What is a pillar and a bulwark? Well, they are structural components that shore up or support the main structure. The main structure in 1Tim3:15 is the truth. Ok, what is the truth?
Jn14:6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So, the truth is Jesus. Jesus’ church obviously and logically hold up Jesus. This should go without saying, but what else does it mean.

John 17:17
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
John 1:1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus is the truth the word is the truth and Jesus is the word. So Jesus’ church was put in place to uphold Jesus (THE WORD) not the other way around.

The “sure word as taught” is something that is handed down and protected by the Church that Jesus himself established in Matthew 16:18.

Matt.16: 13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Luke6:47Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

1Cor10:1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

This is the rock upon whom Jesus founded His church.

I have to take my Sabbath afternoon nap. See you later.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Joe,
I hope you are well.

=joe370;6312753
I agree with you 100 %. I have often wondered why these reformers didn’t stick together. Any thoughts on the matter?

Really, in many ways, they **never **were together. Calvin was later in coming than Luther, younger by 25 years, and Zwingli and Luther never agreed on things such as the Eucharist. There may have been some common threads, but never really any kind of unity. And the anabpatists were a separate group altogether.
As for modern Protestant groups, I can’t think of one that actually is a splinter off of Lutheranism.

Jon, when you get the chance could you answer the following question:

Prior to the protestant reformation there were 2 churches (embracing SS and ST with each respective church leadership as the final authority for resolving doctrinal differences) - with some doctrinal differences. 500 years after the protestant reformation, we now see hundreds and hundreds of PC’s (embracing Sacred Scripture with each respective Christian as the final authority) - with doctrinal differences. Jon, why do you think that the east - west schism (over a 500 year period) - lead to 2 isolated, autonomous churches while the PR (over a 500 year period) - led to hundreds and hundreds of isolated, autonomous churches? The chaos hardly seems proportional.

OK, Joe.  So you are saying that the corruption of the Church leading up to the Reformation was more damaging to Church unity than the Great Schism.  I'll agree with that.  ;)   Removing my tongue from my cheek, I'll add that in all honesty that I agree with the CCC which says there was blame enough to go around.
The issue, as Catholics often phrase it, is there is one true Church, founded by Christ on St. Peter.  And they mean one institutional church, or organization.  Of course, since the schism, one cannot know which the one true church is, if one thinks of the Church as an institution or organization.  If one thinks of the church, instead, as the congregation of believers, the communion of saints, then the question becomes not which institution has the authority, which no one can answer without debate, but how do we bring the one true church to unity.
 The chaos, as you term it, only means that sinful men have compounded the divisions in His Church, and wounds to His ministry.  So, the real question is, how do we fix the wounds, and bring His Church Militant back to the same unity that is clearly held in the Church Triumphant.

God bless and have a great day tomorrow.

And His blessings also with you.

Jon

 

[Richard_Kastner]

cont. from prior post:

We simply do not find everything that Jesus said and did or instructed in the bible. Scripture itself denies such a thing.

Ya, but everything we need unto salvation is in there.

Moreover, when Jesus gave the instruction to go out and teach all nations, he gave that command to the apostles alone.

Paul who was an apostle doesn’t seem to think so.
2Cor.5:17Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

The apostles knew Jesus directly and they carefully picked those that would succeed them. Evangelization is to be done by all, but it is to be done as instructed by Jesus to the apostles and then what they handed on/taught “by word of mouth or by letter” to their successors and Christ’s Church.

Matt.28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This is how Jesus instructs His disciples (us) to evangelise the world and “all things whatsoever I have commanded you” is contained in the bible.

Jesus gave instructions that are not recorded in scripture, and there are also instructions that we have that Jesus never gave to us. Jesus never said, for example, anything about the circumcision of gentiles. The apostles decided the matter under Peter’s leadership at the first Council in Jerusalem. There was no guide whatsoever in scripture for that decision. That decision was made outside of scripture and Christ’s words. That event is recorded in scripture as a witness to the authority and actions of the Church.

Well you need to read Acts 15 over again. It was James (Jesus’ brother) who was head of the church in Jerusalem and who presided over the council in Jerusalem. Paul also gives us insight into why circumsision in the flesh isno longer necessary.
Rom.2: 25For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

You see salvation is of the Jews Jn. 4:22 the sign of God’s people is circumsision, but through Christ this circumsision becomes one of the heart rendering the old in the flesh as useless.

The Catholic Church and scripture agree for both received what they are, and their purpose and functions, by way of God himself. Those that disagree with the Church are actually disagreeing with scripture. It is, IMHO, simply off the rails to think that any individual or collective operating inside or outside of Jesus’s Church can arrive at a doctrine contrary to the teachings of Christ’s Church and still be right. This is a core contradiction to all that Jesus and the apostles say about the Church, and it is contrary to the historical data associated with the Church.

You come to all these outrageously errant conclusions all because of your errant interpretation of two scriptures Matt.16: 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
As I have shown Jesus founds His church on Himself not on Peter. The keys to the kingdom that Jesus give to Peter and to us are His words. The same words that you don’t believe are sufficient unto salvation. And the power to bind and loose is the power of the apostles to decide whether or not they would bring those words to any given area. It gave them no authority to change anything. It is Jesus words that are the keys to the kingdom of heaven. These words are found in the bible and are all we need unto salvation.

 

[Pax]

Richard Kastner in Christ,

I will comment and respond to only a few of your claims. First of all, you wrongly limit the Church “as the pillar and bulwark of the truth” by your remarks. Please be advised that the Church is the body of Christ[1 Cor 12:27-28]. The Church doesn’t simply “hold up Jesus.” Yes…Jesus is, indeed, the truth but the inspired word of scripture is also the truth, and the Church is also the pillar and bulwark of the truth contained therein. To suggest otherwise is simply inconsistent with scripture and illogical.

You also made the mistake of essentially reiterating your false claim that scripture “is all sufficient.” That is a patently false claim and I challenged you to prove it by scripture. You have not done so, and I therefore request that you either prove it or concede the point. Moreover, if scripture were “all sufficient” then there would be no need for the Church and Jesus would never have established his church nor given it the promises, the power, and authority described in scripture. Likewise, if scripture were all sufficient then we would need the Holy Spirit for guidance either. The claim that scripture is all sufficient is simply bogus. Scripture is “materially sufficient” but it does not exist or operate “sola”.

You also made a serious mistake attempting to introduce your false doctrine of salvation by faith alone in opposition to the role of the Church. That is peculiar at best and is no more meaningful than making the same claim for salvation by faith alone in opposition to the role of scripture and the gospel. Setting these things in opposition to one another makes no sense at all.

You attempted to deflect my point about the first Council of Jerusalem’s decision by throwing in a red herring about James vs. Peter. Please be advised that my point concerning the decision on circumcision of the gentiles remains and you have not undone the wreckage it renders for sola scriptura. Furthermore, I did not state if it was Peter or James that was the bishop of Jerusalem. Instead, I pointed out that under the leadership of Peter on the issue of circumcision the council decided that the gentiles need not be circumcised. You are the one that needs to read the book of Acts and see all that Peter said and did that led to the council’s decision on circumcision. Peter’s role in the decision is the very reason that Paul “later” gets in Peter’s face for acting hypocritically in the presence of the men of the circumcision party that came from “James”[Gal 2:11-12].

Now let’s take a look at your claims concerning Matthew 16:18-19.

You claim that you proved that

Jesus founds His church on Himself not on Peter.

You gave a faulty presentation on the passage and attempted to bolster it by misapplying other passages of scripture. Please remember that scripture says many things about Jesus that have a hierarchical priority over the same statements made about the apostles and the Church. Yes, Jesus is described as the rock that the Israelites followed in the desert, but that does not mean that Peter is not the rock described in Matthew 16:18-19.

We know that my point is true by looking at many other similar examples.

Scripture tells us that Jesus is the one lawgiver and judge. We see this in:

Heb 10:30 …and the Lord will judge his people.
Acts 10:42 …he is the one ordained by God to judge the living and the dead.
Jam 4:12 There is** one** lawgiver and judge

Scripture also tells us there is one foundation. We see this in:

1Cor 3:11 one foundation Christ

Even so scripture also says the following:

Eph 2:19-20 household of God built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus as the cornerstone.

Rev 21:14 twelve foundations, the apostles

In my next post I will show why your view of Matthew 16:18-19 is not in keeping with the words of the passage.

 

[Pax]

I find James Akin’s exegesis of Matthew 16:18-19 to be the best explanation of the passage.

Grammatically and exegetically Peter is the rock.

Catholic apologist, James Akin, rightly argues:

“In Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus makes three statements. All three begin with an assertion concerning Peter. Each assertion is then followed by a two-part elaboration consisting of a contrast (human/divine revelation, Christ’s/Satan’s activity, heavenly ratification of earthly binding/loosing). This elaboration develops the meaning of the principal assertion.
The exegetical structure of Matthew 16:17-19

Statement/Assertion 1
17 "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
Elaboration # 1 For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
Elaboration # 2 but my Father who is in heaven.

Statement/Assertion 2
18 And I tell you, you are Peter,
Elaboration #1 and on this rock I will build my church,
Elaboration # 2 and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Statement/Assertion 3
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
Elaboration #1 and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
Elaboration # 2 and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The exegetical structure of the passage demands that Peter be the rock:

Statements 1 and 3 have Peter as their principal subject, therefore statement 2 does as well.

Statements 1 and 3 are blessings on Peter, therefore statement 2 is as well. The elaborations in statements 1 and 3 develop the meaning of the assertions in those statements, therefore the elaborations in statement 2 develop the meaning of statement 2.

Faced with these facts, as well as others … I was forced to conclude that Peter is, indeed the rock that Jesus was speaking of. Many Evangelical exegetes admit the same thing. However, they immediately try to block any implications being drawn from this fact. They try to shut down the chain of inference and isolate the datum so that it cannot give rise to any ecclesiological inferences."

Please give this some thought. God bless.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Pax,
O.K. so we read of Peter as blessed apostle and raised in status above that of his contemporary brethren through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I so far fail to see in your writings clear linkage between Peter and the subsequent “Popes”.
From the Protestant viewpoint we see an individual in Peter who relies not so much upon human reason as he does upon the gift of Faith. Perhaps this can be similarly ascribed to other Christians of future time and, I repeat myself, to date in your postings I see no justification for the Catholic lineage of Papacy. No justification for the Catholic lineage of Papacy, and therefore no recourse against sola scriptura in your chosen rationale of defence.

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,

I hope you are well.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Joe370you have yet to establish beyond dispute the sole legitimate right of the Catholic Church to its claim of infallible interpretation of Scripture. At present your argument faulters on assumption that the Catholic Church is the Church defined by Our Lord through Scripture (“In my Father’s house there are many mansions. If not I would have told you…” John 14:2, Douay-Rheims Bible).

 

[Pax]

Joe370you have yet to establish beyond dispute the sole legitimate right of the Catholic Church to its claim of infallible interpretation of Scripture. At present your argument faulters on assumption that the Catholic Church is the Church defined by Our Lord through Scripture (“In my Father’s house there are many mansions. If not I would have told you…” John 14:2, Douay-Rheims Bible).

Kevin in Christ,

The proof is found in the historical record which we have mentioned earlier in this thread. Your quote from John 14:2 has nothing to do with defining which is the one true church, and the way you appear to be using it would suggest that disunity is fundamentally part of what Christ intended. This suggestion is denied in John 17 and in many other parts of the NT.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Pax,
O.K. so we read of Peter as blessed apostle and raised in status above that of his contemporary brethren through inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I so far fail to see in your writings clear linkage between Peter and the subsequent “Popes”.
From the Protestant viewpoint we see an individual in Peter who relies not so much upon human reason as he does upon the gift of Faith. Perhaps this can be similarly ascribed to other Christians of future time and, I repeat myself, to date in your postings I see no justification for the Catholic lineage of Papacy. No justification for the Catholic lineage of Papacy, and therefore no recourse against sola scriptura in your chosen rationale of defence.

Kevin in Christ,

Thanks for honestly acknowledging what has been presented concerning Peter. You are certainly right to point out that I have not presented anything of substance concerning succession of subsequent “Popes.” I have not done so, thus far, because it is tangential to the arguments that I have been making against sola scriptura. Moreover, each point made needs to be articulated at length with follow up points and counter points of discussion. I have, therefore, not included “succession” in my previous posts. I believe that the points I have made along with those of others do in fact refute sola scriptura.

That having been said, your point concerning succession is, nevertheless, well taken and it something that would follow logically from the discussion. Moreover, succession would be a logical element tied to the establishment and future life of the Church.

I’ll address the issue in my next post.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Kevin in Christ,

Here is my take on succession in the papacy:

Our first clue comes from the phrasing used by Jesus concerning the “keys.” Jesus drew his words and intentions from the OT in conferring the keys to Peter. Let’s look at some scriptural examples.

2 Kings 18: 17-18
And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rab-saris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great army unto Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller’s field. And when they had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebnah the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder.

These verses show that Eliakim was the head of the household, or prime minister, for king Hezekiah. The office of prime minister was common in middle eastern kingdoms and was a routine part of the Davidic line of kings in Israel.

Isaiah 22: 20-22
And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant **Eliakim **the son of Hilkiah: and I will cloth him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a throne of glory to his father’s house.

These verses show that Eliakim will be made head of the household, or prime minister, and indicate the authority bestowed on Eliakim. Notice that the **key **of the house of David is given to Eliakim and that he will be a father to his people.

Matthew 16: 18-19
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Notice the pattern in Jesus words when Jesus states that he will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and how the words to bind and loose correspond to Isaiah’s terms to open and to shut. Jesus is drawing on the passages in Isaiah to describe the authority of Peter in the church (i.e. the kingdom of heaven on earth). Jesus leaves a prime minister to lead the church after he, Jesus, ascends into heaven. In Jewish culture and tradition the power to bind and loose especially in this context is significant. Also notice that the term Pope or Papa means **father **just as Eliakim was to be a father to his people.

The practice of appointing a prime minister is one of succession from one prime minister to another as needed. For the Church that Jesus established it is no different. Likewise, we see that the king ultimately still retains the ultimate power and control and has all of the rights of the keys. We see this in the OT Davidic line of kings and we see it in the NT church. Peter and his successors are granted the keys but we see Jesus holding the keys in Revelation 3:3 where it says:

The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Scripture clearly shows that we must understand both the Old and New Covenants in terms of the Davidic kingdom if we are to begin to appreciate all that Jesus said, did, and meant in terms of his Church. The keys and the power to bind and loose are hugely significant. Scripture does not even make claims for itself when it comes to the keys and binding and loosening. Scripture does, however, make those claims for Peter, the apostles, and thus the Church. The apostles clearly had successors. We can note this by way of Matthias and even Paul as a specially appointed apostle by Jesus separate from the twelve. Moreover, Paul speaks of bishops to Timothy and charges him not to “lay on hands hastily.” Paul also talks about others that aspire to be bishop. All of this speaks to succession and does so generationally. In the case of Matthias, Acts 1:20 refers to the position formerly held by Judas is an “office” or “bishoprick”. The Greek word used here is “episkopee” and is the origin for our word episcopate.

It is clear from history that the succession actually took place. This succession is for Peter as the primary bishop/prime minister as well as to the other bishops that have succession by way of appointment through the other apostles.

This is only a portion of what scripture tells us about authority within the church, and how we are to be led. There is a great deal more which I will elaborate on in my next post.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Succession:

In practice the prime minister will die, but the office itself continues on just as we see in any organization or government. Judas died and his office was filled by Matthias and so it goes. Moreover, Paul and the other elders layed hands on Timothy and he was made a bishop. Timothy, likewise, does the same by way of Paul’s instructions to him and so it goes.

In practice we see Church governance continue and we see declarations and decisions made by the Church that scripture could not make or otherwise provide. Scripture is the written inspired word of God, but it is not a person or a group of individuals that provide governance. Scripture was not written to perform that function. The Church was established by Jesus for that purpose.

Likewise, Jesus established the Church as the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” to protect the “sure word”[scripture] “as taught.” Scripture cannot provide that function for itself and scripture is subject to interpretation. Jesus did not leave us as orphans to depend on scripture alone. Jesus followed a distinct pattern in establishing his Church and he made promises to his Church until the “end of the age.” The functions of the Church remain with Jesus as the head, with the prime minister and bishops until the end of time. Nowhere in scripture do we see anything that indicates a change to this order that Jesus established in Matthew 16:18-19. If anything, the rest of the NT simply reinforces and exapnds upon what Jesus establishes in that passage.

The immediate history following the deaths of the apostles reinforces this further because those that were directly taught by the apostles followed the same patterns established for succession by the laying on of hands. The subsequent Popes and bishops can and have been recorded in history.

I will give further elaboration on the establishment of the Church governance and authority in my next set of posts.

God bless.