Protestantism and John 5:39

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshua_b
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joshua_b

Guest
I was indulging myself by reading a thread on CARM (yes, I know-please remember that CARM is not the topic here…) and as I was reading a lengthy dissertation about what Jesus REALLY meant in whatever verse of Scripture, I was suddenly reminded of John 5:39 “You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!”.

The more I reflected on this the more applicable it became on almost every level. I just found such a profound irony in the whole situation. How similar is this scenario to the one in which Jesus first said this?

They search the Scriptures because they believe that is where they are able to find Him, yet the whole of Scripture points to the visible Body that He left us - the Church.

As I read a diatribe on how the Eucharist can’t be “real” because the Last Supper happened on Thursday and Jesus died on Friday so Jesus could not possibly have meant “this is my body” because it wouldn’t be possible because he hadn’t died yet, and He would have been eating Himself, and consuming blood was a violation of Leviticus so Jesus would have been a sinner, I kept thinking of John 6.

I guess there may not be much of a true discussion in apologetics here, but my revelation was profound enough (to me at least) that I felt compelled to share.
 
Jesus did not say that the scriptures were the resurrection and the life. But, just as with the Bereans, they had no idea that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah until Paul preached Him to them. And Paul explained the origins and the power of the Eucharist.

(Edited) Some have declared, by their own authority, and against scripture, that baptism is no longer needed. All you can do is pray for them. I see them as John 6:66 disciples.
 
po18guy said:
Jesus did not say that the scriptures were the resurrection and the life. But, just as with the Bereans, they had no idea that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah until Paul preached Him to them. And Paul explained the origina dnd the piwer of the Eucharist.
.
Click to expand...
I guess that is the ultimate irony to me, and what struck me so abruptly. By their own admission, the Scriptures are their sole authority, and will reveal to them all they need to know about Christ (“you search the Scriptures because you believe they will lead you to eternal life…”). They parse every verse exhauastively, sometimes beyond the point of reason and to the abandon of simple logic, while rejecting the visible Body of Christ, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and bullwark of all Truth.

Maybe the relevance is that Apologetics often gets so granular and “scholarly”, with pages and pages of debate on the exact definition of “sanctification” and “justification”, and what constitutes “saving faith”, and the specific type of “works” James is actually referring to. Although I appreciate the theologians and scholars, and certainly respect their role as necessary and valid, it sometimes is much more simple than all of that. (contd…)
 
They speak of “simple faith in Christ”, when the counter to that argument (for me) is that my faith is about as simple as it gets.

I believe that I am saved through my faith. I have complete faith in Jesus, and I absolutely trust Him when Scripture tells me “baptism now saves [me]”, the Church is the pillar and bullwark of all Truth, that I am to confess my sins and whoever’s sins [they] forgive are forgiven, and that His flesh is real food, and His blood is real drink, and I that I must eat the flesh of the Son of Man.
 
joshua_b said:
They speak of “simple faith in Christ”, when the counter to that argument (for me) is that my faith is about as simple as it gets.

I believe that I am saved through my faith. I have complete faith in Jesus, and I absolutely trust Him when Scripture tells me “baptism now saves [me]”, the Church is the pillar and bullwark of all Truth, that I am to confess my sins and whoever’s sins [they] forgive are forgiven, and that His flesh is real food, and His blood is real drink, and I that I must eat the flesh of the Son of Man.
Click to expand...
Yep 🙂
 
joshua_b said:
They speak of “simple faith in Christ”, when the counter to that argument (for me) is that my faith is about as simple as it gets.

I believe that I am saved through my faith. I have complete faith in Jesus, and I absolutely trust Him when Scripture tells me “baptism now saves [me]”, the Church is the pillar and bullwark of all Truth, that I am to confess my sins and whoever’s sins [they] forgive are forgiven, and that His flesh is real food, and His blood is real drink, and I that I must eat the flesh of the Son of Man.
Click to expand...
For instance, Jesus did not say “He who believes in me will be saved” in Mark 16:16, but also required baptism. He said that disciples are made, then baptized (Matthew 28:19). He said that “He who perseveres to the end will be saved”. Paul, for many the protestant pope, likened faith to running a race. We do not declare ourselves the winner at the start of the race via the sinner’s prayer, or via an altar call, but by running the life-long race while keeping His commands.

Anything else that is alleged is done so with the purpose of avoiding being Catholic. It is said out of personal preference or denominational loyalty, rather than Christian unity. The spirit of division drives such thought.
 
po18guy said:
Anything else that is alleged is done so with the purpose of avoiding being Catholic…
Click to expand...
That is undoubtedly so; how else could the Scriptures they search possibly mean something other than what they plainly state.

Another part of this post raises an interesting question though. Maybe someone will know the answer…

How many times does the statement “believe” (as it relates to salvation, or eternal life) appear without the qualifying “and” behind it? Everything I can recall from Scripture always says that we must “believe AND …”.
 
po18guy said:
Jesus did not say that the scriptures were the resurrection and the life. But, just as with the Bereans, they had no idea that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah until Paul preached Him to them. And Paul explained the origina dnd the piwer of the Eucharist.

Those at Christian** A**lliance of the Radically Mislead have declared, by their own authority, and against scripture, that baptism is no longer needed. All you can do is pray for them. I see them as John 6:66 disciples.
Click to expand...
By who’s authority do you mock other Christians?
 
joshua_b said:
That is undoubtedly so; how else could the Scriptures they search possibly mean something other than what they plainly state.

Another part of this post raises an interesting question though. Maybe someone will know the answer…

How many times does the statement “believe” (as it relates to salvation, or eternal life) appear without the qualifying “and” behind it? Everything I can recall from Scripture always says that we must “believe AND …”.
Click to expand...
There are many cases in which Jesus does not place an additional condition on belief in the same sentence. However, scripture must be viewed as a seamless garment, and one part cannot be isolated form another. The entirety of Jesus’ commands to us we must strive to obey.
 
RICKY_RASPER said:
By who’s authority do you mock other Christians?
Click to expand...
the same authority that a number of protestants use to spread heresy and scandal about the church to all those around them. Are either the correct thing to do? Absolutely not. But it happens. This is a forum with many truly pious and Godly people, others not as much. But anyone can lose their cool on here. We’re all human and all sinners, that’s life my friend. Instead of trying to respond with hostility to something you don’t agree with, why not ignore it and move on?
 
Conduct Rule # 5
Catholics must be charitable in their discussions about non-Catholic belief and practice.
 
SaintPatrick333 said:
the same authority that a number of protestants use to spread heresy and scandal about the church to all those around them. Are either the correct thing to do? Absolutely not. But it happens. This is a forum with many truly pious and Godly people, others not as much. But anyone can lose their cool on here. We’re all human and all sinners, that’s life my friend. Instead of trying to respond with hostility to something you don’t agree with, why not ignore it and move on?
Click to expand...
I would challenge you to find a single post of mine that is hostile to the Catholic faith. Yes it’s true I’m a lowly Presbyterian. Yes it’s true that I’m from Catholic bashing Northern Ireland. But it’s also true that I like you was washed from original sin at birth.I abide by the Apostles creed, I take communion and perceive the blood, body and divinity of Christ. But still you choose to call me hostile? I have no hostility for you only pity.
 
Authority is an interesting religious phenomenon. In the Old Testament the prophets prophesied. They told the people what God wanted them to hear. They claimed God was the authority behind them, by saying “Thus sayeth the Lord”. In other words they were saying I am not the authority you should heed. It is God who speaks these words.

During the time of Jesus there had been no prophets for quite some time. In the absence of prophets to tell the people what the law is or meant, there were scribes, lesser authorities than the prophets. The authority of scribe was not himself. He would give some teaching and then say, “It is writen” to confirm his teaching. In other words, scripture was the authority of the scribes. Jesus did not speak highly of them. Woe unto you scribes and pharisees.

The reason Jesus upset the religous people of His day was He claimed to be the authority behind what He said. They thought He might be a prophet, but He did not say, “Thus sayeth the Lord”. Instead, He said, “I say unto you”.

He was saying He is greater than the prophets who claimed to speak for God. He was speaking in His own authority. He was the authority behind His words.

The authority of the Protestant is the authority of the scribe. “It is written”.

In fact they claim that scripture is the sole authority behind all of what they believe in their religion. There is no other. It is no wonder that there is so much division and so many irreconcilable disputes among them.
 
grandfather said:
Authority is an interesting religious phenomenon. In the Old Testament the prophets prophesied. They told the people what God wanted them to hear. They claimed God was the authority behind them, by saying “Thus sayeth the Lord”. In other words they were saying I am not the authority you should heed. It is God who speaks these words.

During the time of Jesus there had been no prophets for quite some time. In the absence of prophets to tell the people what the law is or meant, there were scribes, lesser authorities than the prophets. The authority of scribe was not himself. He would give some teaching and then say, “It is writen” to confirm his teaching. In other words, scripture was the authority of the scribes. Jesus did not speak highly of them. Woe unto you scribes and pharisees.

The reason Jesus upset the religous people of His day was He claimed to be the authority behind what He said. They thought He might be a prophet, but He did not say, “Thus sayeth the Lord”. Instead, He said, “I say unto you”.

He was saying He is greater than the prophets who claimed to speak for God. He was speaking in His own authority. He was the authority behind His words.

The authority of the Protestant is the authority of the scribe. “It is written”.

In fact they claim that scripture is the sole authority behind all of what they believe in their religion. There is no other. It is no wonder that there is so much division and so many irreconcilable disputes among them.
Click to expand...
“The Scribe” as you call him is believed by most Protestants to be guided by the hand of God. The words “It is written” you mockingly write are the words of Christ

Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, "It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ "
The Word of God Protestants believe is divinely inspired scripture. The Lord comes to us through scripture, prayer and the communion supper. I don’t really see what you find wrong with this? Most Protestants are loath to contradict the Bible. The Creation story is a prime example of this. Protestants believe in the literal word of this. But the official line of the Vatican contradicts the book in it’s entirety by accepting Darwin’s Theory of Evolution!
Richard Dawkins had a field day with that one!
On the balance of things I think I’d opt for Mosses writing under divine guidance than Darwin’ rather ropey theory.
 
RICKY_RASPER said:
“The Scribe” as you call him is believed by most Protestants to be guided by the hand of God. The words “It is written” you mockingly write are the words of Christ

Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, "It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ "
The Word of God Protestants believe is divinely inspired scripture. The Lord comes to us through scripture, prayer and the communion supper. I don’t really see what you find wrong with this? Most Protestants are loath to contradict the Bible. The Creation story is a prime example of this. Protestants believe in the literal word of this. But the official line of the Vatican contradicts the book in it’s entirety by accepting Darwin’s Theory of Evolution!
Richard Dawkins had a field day with that one!
On the balance of things I think I’d opt for Mosses writing under divine guidance than Darwin’ rather ropey theory.
Click to expand...
I may have misread the post that you responded to, but it did not seem to me to mocking in any way.

I am not quite sure what you hope to gain from Matthew since the devil who also used the phrase ‘it is written’ in that passage. I have nothing against the phrase nor against people who search the Bible for meaning. I just think that this particular defense is missing the point.

Catholics are free not to treat the Bible as an infallible historical document or a scientific treatise. (They are also free to feel that it is infallible in those ways.) Catholics are NOT free to deny the infallibility of the theology and the historical nature of the central mysteries of the faith.

While not all freedoms lead to truth, the freedom to ignore whether or not the great flood actually occurred for example allows the faithful to rid themselves of trying to answer silly questions (such as whether 2 or 12 of each clean animal went aboard or how big the ark was to fit such an immense population).

You are of course free to disbelieve Darwin’s ‘ropey’ theory even in the Catholic Church.
 
RICKY_RASPER said:
“The Scribe” as you call him is believed by most Protestants to be guided by the hand of God. The words “It is written” you mockingly write are the words of Christ

Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, "It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ "
The Word of God Protestants believe is divinely inspired scripture. The Lord comes to us through scripture, prayer and the communion supper. I don’t really see what you find wrong with this? Most Protestants are loath to contradict the Bible. The Creation story is a prime example of this. Protestants believe in the literal word of this. But the official line of the Vatican contradicts the book in it’s entirety by accepting Darwin’s Theory of Evolution!
Richard Dawkins had a field day with that one!
On the balance of things I think I’d opt for Mosses writing under divine guidance than Darwin’ rather ropey theory.
Click to expand...
The scripture you quote is the response of Jesus to Satan’s temptation. The context of it is interesting to help us understand why Jesus would respond by quoting scripture. Jesus had fasted forty days. Satan knew that the coming of Christ was foretold. He knows scripture and prophesy and that his days are numbered. Christ would come and cast him out.

Satan also knew that this person Jesus had not fallen into sin. The questions he asked Jesus in the temptations in the desert were to try to get Jesus to reveal Himself, if He was the one to come that would destroy the power of evil, the Christ. The answers Jesus gave in quoting scripture kept His identity secret.

After the Resurrection Jesus was with the apostles and told them that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to Him. He tells them to go into all the nations of the world and teach everything He taught them. He tells them that He will be with them until the end of the world. The world is not ended and they are no longer here. The promise must be to those who came after.

He says to the scribes you search the scriptures thinking that in them you will find eternal life. The implication is that will not happen. They missed eternal life who was standing before them ready to give them eternal life, Himself.

Scripture is the word of God, but it did not do them any good, even though they studied it constantly. Why is that?

A local man is a “bishop” in a Protestant sect. I know him well. He claims the doctrines of his church are all based on scripture and all other Protestant sects who make that same claim are wrong. In his chruch women are not allowed to cut their hair, ever. They are forbidden from seeking medical treatment for any injury or illness. They are not allowed to drink, or dance. The women must only wear dresses. They are forbidden from seeing a doctor. They allow their children to die rather than take simple medicines. If a member gets in an accident and the emergency responders come to help they refuse treatment. The bishop is called and he has documents giving him legal guardianship over each member that gives him authority to refuse treatment for them if they are unconscious.

I used to go fishing with this guy on my boat. He was worried that if something happened to him I would call for help. He cut himself with a fishing knife one day and bled badly. Had he passed out I would have called for help. So I decided not to take him fishing anymore. He insisted that his faith was all scriptural. It is written. It is all there in the Bible, quite easy to see, and anyone who disagrees rejects the authority of the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top