Luke 10:16 to a Protestant

[aball1035]

“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

I showed this to a Protestant friend as a verse that tells people to follow the Catholic Church. My friend said that this verse is vague and could mean a lot of things. Is there any Church Father or someone that expains how they viewed this verse early on in the Church?

 

[Cachonga]

Doesn’t seem to be a lot of response from your Catholic brothers. Since I left the Roman Catholic Church because of my belief in Sola Scriptura, I would like to make a few comments on the question.

First, I would like to say that your protestant friend is wrong. The meaning is not ambiguous. Jesus was VERY clear in what He said and what He meant. I would say that your friend either doesn’t have an answer, or has not been properly educated in the Scriptures.

Second, I would say that this does NOT apply to the Catholic Church. Jesus was speaking to the Apostles. This was passed on to believers who also preached the Gospel (like Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, etc…) This applies to anyone that preaches the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. The modern Roman Catholic Church has added to the gospel by including other things, and therefore is NOT teaching what Jesus taught.

I’m sure this may generate some comments, and hopefully you’ll find the correct answer from God.

 

[sheila_d46]

Hi aball, Hi Cachonga. kop

Cachonga, I’m wondering how you left the Catholic Church because you came to a belief in Sola Scriptura? There was no New Testament canon for almost 300 years after Jesus ascended to heaven, no Apostle ever saw a New Testament, they didn’t have those handy little pocket-size New Testaments with the words of Jesus in red letters under their arm as they traveled and witnessed, so how was anyone “saved”? The Holy Scriptures never saved anyone!! I’m very interested to hear how you’ve come to worship scripture, please respond.

aball, I’m with you. I think the verse sustains the Church’s claim of laying on of hands in a line of succession from Christ Himself down to you and me. My NAB has a great reference guide, when I have time I’ll study the verse and check the references and see what if any of the early or late church fathers teach about that verse. I’ll also check my CCC, see if anything’s in there and reply back to you.

Until then, peace be with both of you!
~Sheila

 

[mark_a]

I would say that your friend either doesn’t have an answer, or has not been properly educated in the Scriptures.

Please enlighten us, oh teacher.:bowdown:

 

[aball1035]

Doesn’t seem to be a lot of response from your Catholic brothers. Since I left the Roman Catholic Church because of my belief in Sola Scriptura, I would like to make a few comments on the question.

First, I would like to say that your protestant friend is wrong. The meaning is not ambiguous. Jesus was VERY clear in what He said and what He meant. I would say that your friend either doesn’t have an answer, or has not been properly educated in the Scriptures.

Second, I would say that this does NOT apply to the Catholic Church. Jesus was speaking to the Apostles. This was passed on to believers who also preached the Gospel (like Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, etc…) This applies to anyone that preaches the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. The modern Roman Catholic Church has added to the gospel by including other things, and therefore is NOT teaching what Jesus taught.

I’m sure this may generate some comments, and hopefully you’ll find the correct answer from God.

Cachonga, thanks for your response. I have 2 questions.

1. Do you have any references or anything when you said that Jesus was clear in what He said and what he meant?
2. What about when the earliest apostles in the Church made doctrine and rules that Jesus didn’t teach? For example Jesus spoke of Baptism, and they baptized. He did not speak of apostolic succession but they still did practice it.

 

[domini_canus]

Posted for discussion:

youtube.com/watch?feature=channel_page&hl=en&v=9NEdWnjvqHw&gl=US

 

[Nita]

Jesus was speaking to the Apostles. This was passed on to believers who also preached the Gospel (like Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, etc…) This applies to anyone that preaches the pure gospel of Jesus Christ.

Actually, the words were spoken to the seventy.
Luke 10:1 gives the context:
After this **the Lord appointed **seventy others, **and sent them **on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come.

The bolded words are very important in understanding correctly to whom the words in verse 16 apply. They were spoken to a limited (70) number of people, chosen by Jesus from the general crowds of believers. They were appointed and sent by Him. There is nothing in the context of Chapter 10 that indicates the words can be understood to apply also to any and all the believers when they speak to others about Our Lord’s words in the gospel. (Those you mention – Paul, Barnabas, Silas and Timothy were chosen, appointed and sent by the apostles.)

Which, of course, brings up the question of authority. Who was given the authority to speak authoritatively in Our Lord’s name (exercise His authority) here on earth once He had ascended to heaven? A separate thread.

 

[drawman]

Aball,

I showed this to a Protestant friend as a verse that tells people to follow the Catholic Church.

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” Luke 10:16 RSVCE

[Commentary]

1. On the evening of the day of his resurrection, our Lord entrusts his Apostles with the mission he received from the Father, endowing them with powers similar to his own (Jn 20:21). Some days later he will confer on Peter the primacy he had already promised him (Jn 21:15-17). The Pope is the sucessor of Peter, and the Bishops the sucessors of the Apostles (cf. Lumen gentium, 20). Therefore, "Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth …]. This loyal submission of the will and intelect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, 25).

The Navarre Bible St Luke

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”

John 20:21 RSVCE

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep…

John 21:15-17

To access the referenced Paragraphs of Lumen gentium:

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

 

[Cachonga]

sheila_d46:

Cachonga, I’m wondering how you left the Catholic Church because you came to a belief in Sola Scriptura? There was no New Testament canon for almost 300 years after Jesus ascended to heaven, no Apostle ever saw a New Testament, they didn’t have those handy little pocket-size New Testaments with the words of Jesus in red letters under their arm as they traveled and witnessed, so how was anyone “saved”? The Holy Scriptures never saved anyone!! I’m very interested to hear how you’ve come to worship scripture, please respond.

Gosh, you’re right. Too bad there were absolutely no scriptures around for the Apostles or the early Church to use. Oh, wait a minute… what about the Old Testament? Isn’t that Scripture? Isn’t that what Paul used to prove that Jesus is Messiah? Weren’t people getting saved and added to the Church daily without a New Testament to look over? Sola Scriptura is not the topic of this thread, so I’ll say no more about it.

aball1035:

1. Do you have any references or anything when you said that Jesus was clear in what He said and what he meant?
2. What about when the earliest apostles in the Church made doctrine and rules that Jesus didn’t teach? For example Jesus spoke of Baptism, and they baptized. He did not speak of apostolic succession but they still did practice it.

1. There is the plain language Jesus used when He said it. I don’t know what more you could want. The people He sent out with these words were preaching in His name. What more authority can you have? As long as they preached what He told them to preach, they were speaking for Him, as well as the Father.
2. In Matt 15:1-9 and Mark7:1-13 we see how Jesus uses scripture to test whether a tradition is of God or men. I do not want to stray any further from the original topic, but it could be informative (and very eye-opening) to examine some of your “traditions” (like “apostolic succession”) against the Scriptures and see if there is any contradiction.

Nita - thanks for the clarification.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Cachonga

I know you don’t want to deal with this, but I’m wondering why.

Where in the Scriptures does it say sola scriptura?

 

[Cachonga]

Charlemagne II:

Where in the Scriptures does it say sola scriptura?

Where does the word Trinity appear in scripture? It doesn’t. However, the principle is clearly demonstrated (for the Trinity as well as Sola Scriptura).

 

[Nita]

Where does the word Trinity appear in scripture? It doesn’t. However, the principle is clearly demonstrated (for the Trinity as well as Sola Scriptura).

I don’t understand your challenge to a Catholic regarding the use of the word “Trinity” in Scripture since Catholics do not hold that their doctrines must be explicitly mentioned in Scripture.
However, most non-Catholic Christians do hold the position that something must be pretty explicitly mentioned in Scripture before it can be believed. The main Protestant challenge to Catholic doctrines is that they don’t explicitly appear in Scripture. So that is why, when a Protestant belief contrary to Catholic belief is put forward, we seek the Scriptural passages that form the literal basis for their belief (since written Scripture is the only basis they recognize as a source for doctrine).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Cachonga

*Where does the word Trinity appear in scripture? It doesn’t. However, the principle is clearly demonstrated (for the Trinity as well as Sola Scriptura). *

I see where the principle of the Trinity is mentioned in the Scriptures (Matt 28:19), but I don’t see where *sola scriptura *is mentioned.

Can you help us?

 

[Cachonga]

Charlemagne II:

I see where the principle of the Trinity is mentioned in the Scriptures (Matt 28:19), but I don’t see where sola scriptura is mentioned.

Can you help us?

This is not a thread on Sola Scriptura. However, I have already mentioned Matt 15:1-9 and Mark7:1-13 in reference to Jesus using scripture to test traditions. Jesus answered the temptations in the wilderness (after His baptism) with scripture. Psalms 138:2 says, “… for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (DR) Matt 22:31 says, “… have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you:” There are many more examples I could use, but, again, this is not a thread on Sola Scriptura. Still, I would say the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is just as clear as the doctrine of the Trinity!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Cachonga

I didn’t see anything in those passages you cited that says sola scriptura. The nearest I could come to what you mean is the passage in Mark:

He went on to say, "How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!

But Catholics believe this with respect to heresy. The Church has been fighting heresy (the doctrines or traditions invented by men) from the start.

Did I miss something? Could you show us the exact sentence that says sola scriptura?

Did you really leave the Church because you came across that passage in Scripture that I referenced above?

Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

How do Protestants interpret this? Catholics interpret it to mean that Jesus gave the apostles (and their successors) the right to teach according to the guidance of the Trinity. The passage says nothing about teaching according to the Scriptures, because the Gospels had not yet been written. All authority then is vested in the Church, not in the Bible. The New Testament was written by the Church and not assembled for reading until several centuries after Christ. Many Protestants don’t even know that, and don’t know that it was the Catholic Church that approved the final version of the Bible, the one that Protestants still use minus several books they threw out.

You’re right, this is not a thread on sola scriptura. Would you be interested in starting one?

 

[Nikolaj]

Actually, the words were spoken to the seventy.
Luke 10:1 gives the context:
After this **the Lord appointed **seventy others, **and sent them **on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come.

The bolded words are very important in understanding correctly to whom the words in verse 16 apply. They were spoken to a limited (70) number of people, chosen by Jesus from the general crowds of believers. They were appointed and sent by Him. There is nothing in the context of Chapter 10 that indicates the words can be understood to apply also to any and all the believers when they speak to others about Our Lord’s words in the gospel. (Those you mention – Paul, Barnabas, Silas and Timothy were chosen, appointed and sent by the apostles.)

Which, of course, brings up the question of authority. Who was given the authority to speak authoritatively in Our Lord’s name (exercise His authority) here on earth once He had ascended to heaven? A separate thread.

Sadly, there are some Protestants who misinterpret the (otherwise quite sound) doctrine of the priesthood of all believers to mean that there is no special or apostolic priesthood. Of course there is. Jesus did not appoint all his disciples to be apostles. Likewise, not all Christians can be priests and bishops. Some are given a special authority by the Church (and, on a deeper level, by Christ himself) to teach, shepherd and administer the sacraments. This is something that Roman Catholics and Protestants should not disagree about.

 

[TMC]

Doesn’t seem to be a lot of response from your Catholic brothers. Since I left the Roman Catholic Church because of my belief in Sola Scriptura, I would like to make a few comments on the question.

First, I would like to say that your protestant friend is wrong. The meaning is not ambiguous. Jesus was VERY clear in what He said and what He meant. I would say that your friend either doesn’t have an answer, or has not been properly educated in the Scriptures.

Second, I would say that this does NOT apply to the Catholic Church. Jesus was speaking to the Apostles. This was passed on to believers who also preached the Gospel (like Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, etc…) This applies to anyone that preaches the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. The modern Roman Catholic Church has added to the gospel by including other things, and therefore is NOT teaching what Jesus taught.

I’m sure this may generate some comments, and hopefully you’ll find the correct answer from God.

I am Catholic, but I still agree with Cachonga on this. The passage is not ambiguous, it is the instruction to the seventy. Most Christians believe it applies equally today to those that have been commissioned by Christ to preach and spread the Gospel. So for those that believe that the Church has been commissioned to do that mission today, these words apply. But if one doesn’t believe that the Church has that commission (or has it exclusively) then nothing in this passage suggests it. At best, the passage is support for the proposition that there is some group that has been commissioned to spread the Word; the passage gives no information on who that group is today (or much on who it was back then), and little support for the idea that the group is small or exclusive.

 

[domini_canus]

Protestants go by the written word of God alone (Sacred Scripture).

Catholics go by the *entire *word of God, as it is found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

All of the word of God was passed down by *oral *tradition. Eventually, some of it was written down, and this became Sacred Scripture.

But Scripture itself tells us that *not *all the things that Jesus did were written down; that is where Sacred Tradition comes in.

2 Thess. 2:15 – “Stand firm to the traditions you were taught by us either by word of mouth or by letter.” = Traditions taught by letter (Sacred Scripture) and traditions taught by word of mouth (Sacred Tradition).

1 Cor. 11:2 – Commendation for maintaining the traditions as he has delivered them: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

2 Tim. 2:2 – “What you have heard from me before many witnesses, entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” Paul commands the passing on of oral tradition.

1 Thess 2:13 – "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is: the word of God.

The Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church’s teaching that the word of God is contained both in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

According to the Acts of the Apostles, at the council of Jerusalem the apostles gathered to discuss whether circumcision, the law of the OT, should be required for the conversion of the gentiles. Here is an explicit instance in which the Church established its authority over the Scriptures by the apostles agreeing to change the rule. The new rule decided upon showed the authority of the Church to interpret the law, consistent with the authority Christ gave to the Church’s first leaders, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you loosen on earth, shall be loosened in heaven.”

Sola Scriptura is not the way to belief or to rule. The Church created the New Testament. The New Testament did not create the Church.

 

[domini_canus]

The Church created the New Testament. The New Testament did not create the Church.

Quoted for truth.

And whenever a Protestant says to us Catholics, “The Catholic Church doesn’t do what the Bible says etc etc [insert objection],” just reply with this:

It is our book! We’re the ones who made it, not you. Don’t tell us our business like we don’t know what we’re talking about!