The sufficiency of Christ

[2nd_Adam]

The problem is that the authority cannot be separated from the interpreter. The interpreter is, of necessity, the authority, as witnessed to by the fact that many different interpreters come up with significantly different interpretations. This thread demonstrates this fact. Antinomians vs Arminians vs 5 point Calvinists vs 4 point Calvinists vs Lutheranism vs Pelagianists vs Arianism vs Molinists vs Thomists vs synergists vs monergists-the list goes on and while not all of these are necessarily irreconcilable nor particularly significant in terms of salvation, many are. We all need to believe we can depend on the HS to be leading us but He can’t be leading us in widely different directions.

It’s the same for Catholic theologians and the Bishops who makeup the Magestrium. Look at the confusion that Pope Benedict appeared to have caused with agreeing with Martin Luther on justification by faith alone. The Evangelical community interperts this as a change toward an Evangelical understanding of justification which is a good thing. Therefore, what is true for the Protestant churches is true for the Catholic Church. Just because a Church claims to be protected by error in doctrine does not make it true. Heck, the Orthodox Church claims to be the One True Church and so does the Mormon Church too. Just look at the Magestrium alone thread along with others similar to it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=399709

 

[Rocket_Man]

And how is good ol’ John MacArthur doing?

Best policy, if you are going to rip off someone else’s work and pass it off as your own; try at least to change a few words so it isn’t so easy to catch:

gtysg.org/Resources/Articles/A246

Or better yet; give credit where credit is due. Intellectual dishonesty is never good in a discussion where you are hoping people will put weight on your words.

You simply cut and pasted from the 6th bolded paragraph. All of it. So do you have anything to add of your own or are you only able to resort to your tradition (John MacArthur)?

God bless you

Sorry, I never claimed it to be my own work. As it says below, why rewrite everything over?

 

[fhansen]

It’s the same for Catholic theologians and the Bishops who makeup the Magestrium. Look at the confusion that Pope Bendict appeared to have caused with agreeing with Martin Luther on justification by faith alone. The Evangelical community interperts this as a change toward Evangelical understanding of justification. Therefore, what is true for the Protestant churches is true for the Catholic Church. Just because a Church claims to be protected by errror in doctrine does not make it true. Heck, the Orthodox Church claims to be the One True Church and so does the Mormon Church too. Just look at the Magestrium alone thread along with other similar to it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=399709

Well, most Catholics perceive Pope Benedict’s statement as first of all a desire for unity together with a nod towards agreement with that which we already have in common, properly understood. In any case, disagreement between Catholic theologians does not affect the authority of the Church since the charism to be able to teach the faith free from error is where her authority lies. Her pronouncements regarding these matters is what counts for us.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Sorry, I never claimed it to be my own work. As it says below, why rewrite everything over?

Sure you did. You never stated it was anyone else’s work and there are no quotations anywhere to be found. It’s dishonest.

Yes why rewrite everything over when it is soooo much easier to simply cut and paste it?

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, I never claimed it to be my own work. As it says below, why rewrite everything over?

Certainly there’s no reason to rewrite everything. But, the honorable thing to do is to give credit to the person who actually did the research, writing, whose scholarship and hard work actually produced the article. It would seem to be the right thing to do, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

From the Protestant perspective we add the number 2 to the 40,000 = 40,002. The two additional denominations from the Protestant perspective would be the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. If you look up secular sources, the Catholic Church would fall under another Christian denomination in which it is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

And we know wikipedia is true.

Um, Adam? The CC *is *included in that count. 238 times, to be exact. (You really ought to look at the website if you’re going to comment on it.). And the Orthodox church, too.

Now, the exact number of Christian denominations would actually be: over 40,000 minus 237, but still…[SIGN]it’s an obscenely large number [/SIGN]of denominations which provides testament to the absurdity of that statement made by the Westminister people: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself”–not quite!

 

[2nd_Adam]

Um, Adam? The CC *is *included in that count. 238 times, to be exact. (You really ought to look at the website if you’re going to comment on it.). And the Orthodox church, too.

Now, the exact number of Christian denominations would actually be: over 40,000 minus 237, but still…[SIGN]it’s an obscenely large number [/SIGN]of denominations which provides testament to the absurdity of that statement made by the Westminister people: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself”–not quite!

Yep… I think I saw that link, there are 237 different Catholic Churches or something like that? Please explain what that means?

 

[Rocket_Man]

Certainly there’s no reason to rewrite everything. But, the honorable thing to do is to give credit to the person who actually did the research, writing, whose scholarship and hard work actually produced the article. It would seem to be the right thing to do, yes?

It was a tough choice. It wasn’t an issue with giving credit where credit is deserved but rather which one of you would actually read it with an open mind with his name on it.

 

[PRmerger]

It was a tough choice. It wasn’t an issue with giving credit where credit is deserved but rather which one of you would actually read it with an open mind with his name on it.

Maybe those of us who’d never heard of him? And I’m guessing there are many here.

Regardless, it’s against forum rules to post something and not cite authorship.

Not to mention it’s against the rules of decency. And the rules of good scholarship.

 

[PRmerger]

Yep… I think I saw that link, there are 237 different Catholic Churches or something like that? Please explain what that means?

The methodology considered each CC in 238 different countries as an individual entity. Certainly, that is a flawed method as we all understand that the CC has its authority under one Magisterium.

To repair that all one must do is take the final count (listed at the bottom) and subtract 237. Still an obscenely large number and testament to the absurdity of the “Scripture interprets itself” paradigm.

Of course, all other denominations listed there in multiple countries do not have one distinct teaching and one distinct voice, so all others are to be counted as listed.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

It was a tough choice. It wasn’t an issue with giving credit where credit is deserved but rather which one of you would actually read it with an open mind with his name on it.

I highly doubt that even you have read MacArthur with an open mind. Doesn’t he have the nickname of the Evangelical Pope?

Next time, why don’t you give us the benefit of the doubt. That way you don’t run your name into the dirt again.

God bless you

 

[izoid]

First Corinthians 11:2:

“Now I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.”

First of all, the apostle is speaking not of traditions passed down to the Corinthians by someone else through word of mouth. This “tradition” is nothing other than doctrine the Corinthians had heard directly from Paul’s own lips during his ministry in their church. It refers only to Paul’s own preaching–not to someone else’s report of what Paul taught.

The Corinthians had had the privilege of sitting under the apostle Paul’s ministry for a year and a half (Acts 18:11), so it is ironic that of all the churches described in the New Testament, Corinth was one of the most problematic. Paul’s first epistle to this church deals with a series of profound problems related to church discipline and practice, including serious sin in their midst, disunity among the brethren, disorder in church meetings, Christians who were taking one another to court, abuse of spiritual gifts, and so on. Second Corinthians is an extended defense of Paul’s ministry in the face of opposition and hostility. Someone in the church–possibly even someone whom Paul had entrusted with a position of leadership–had evidently fomented a rebellion against Paul during his long absence.

The Corinthians knew Paul. He had been their pastor. Yet they were obviously slipping away from the moorings he had so carefully established during his pastorate there. Far from being instruments through which Paul’s tradition was infallibly preserved and handed down, the Corinthians were rebelling against his apostleship! That is why Paul encouraged them to remember what they had heard from him and follow it to the letter.

What did he teach during that year and a half in their midst? We have no way of knowing precisely, but we have every reason to believe that the substance of his teaching was the same truth that is recorded throughout his epistles and elsewhere in the New Testament. Once again, we do know for certain that everything essential for thoroughly equipping Christians for life and godliness was preserved in Scripture (2 Tim. 3:15-17). The rest is not recorded for us, and nothing anywhere in Scripture indicates that it was handed down through oral tradition–especially not through any means that guaranteed it would be inspired and infallible.

Fantastic post, thank you for taking the time to provide such a quality answer.

I do challenge to consider that we likely do know what he taught during his time with them, through apostolic succession. I know the terms are hard for you to accept, they were for me also but I think it makes sense.

I would challenge you to consider 2 Tim. 2:2 as the means by which this passing down the tradition may have occurred.

2Tim 2:2
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

You see, Paul was writing to a young pastor of the church of Ephesus. He was giving him explicit instructions on how to carry out the ministry. I think if Paul affirms tradition and then tells his young pastor to entrust that tradition to others he must have intended for it to be passed down orally. I can not think of any other logical explanation for this.

2 Tim 3:15-17 does not say what you claim. It says that scripture is PROFITABLE, no more and no less. It does not say sufficient or essential. I do not think that any Catholic will argue that scripture is profitable for teaching a man to be made complete in Christ.

To sum up my position. We have seen several verses where Paul exhorts Christians to adhere to his oral traditions that he was teaching. We then see Paul training a young pastor to entrust those traditions with others. The intentions of this passing on the tradition is so they can teach others. I think the only way these verses can not be understood properly is if you approach them in light of your sola scritura doctrine. An unbiased review can only lead to the conclusion that tradition is authoritative teaching that is to be passed on to the faithful via trustworthy men.

 

[izoid]

Second Thessalonians 2:15:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” This is perhaps the favorite verse of Catholic apologists when they want to support the Catholic appeal to tradition, because the verse plainly delineates between the written word and oral “traditions.”

The Greek word is paradosis. Clearly, the apostle is speaking of doctrine, and it is not to be disputed that the doctrine he has in mind is authoritative, inspired truth.

So what is this inspired tradition that they received “by word of mouth”? Doesn’t this verse rather clearly support the Catholic position?

No, it does not. Again, the context is essential to a clear understanding of what Paul was saying. The Thessalonians had evidently been misled by a forged letter, supposedly from the apostle Paul, telling them that the day of the Lord had already come (2 Thess. 2:2). The entire church had apparently been upset by this, and the apostle Paul was eager to encourage them.

For one thing, he wanted to warn them not to be taken in by phony "inspired truth."And so he told them clearly how to recognize a genuine epistle from him: it would be signed in his own handwriting: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand, and this is a distinguishing mark in every letter; this is the way I write” (3:17). He wanted to ensure that they would not be fooled again by forged epistles.

But even more important, he wanted them to stand fast in the teaching they had already received from him. He had already told them, for example, that the day of the Lord would be preceded by a falling away, and the unveiling of the man of lawlessness.“Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?” (2:5). There was no excuse for them to be troubled by a phony letter, for they had heard the actual truth from his own mouth already.

Nothing in Scripture suggests that the tradition Paul and the other apostles delivered is infallibly preserved for us anywhere except in Scripture itself. Now, no one–even the most impassioned champion of sola Scriptura–would deny that Paul had taught the Thessalonians many things by word of mouth. No one would deny that the teaching of an apostle carried absolute authority. The point of debate between Catholics and Protestants is whether that teaching was infallibly preserved by word of mouth. So the mere reference to truth received firsthand from Paul himself is again, irrelevant as support for the Catholic position. Certainly nothing here suggests that the tradition Paul delivered to the Thessalonians is infallibly preserved for us anywhere except in Scripture itself.

In fact, the real thrust of what Paul is writing here is antithetical to the spirit of Roman Catholic tradition. Paul is not encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been delivered to them via second- or third-hand reports. On the contrary, he was ordering them to receive as infallible truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips.

Paul was very concerned to correct the Thessalonians’ tendency to be led astray by false epistles and spurious tradition. From the very beginning the Thessalonians had not responded to the gospel message as nobly as the Bereans, who “received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so” (Acts 17:11).

Again, great post.

I will once again point you to 2 Tim. 2:2 for proof of second hand teaching.

 

[izoid]

Second Thessalonians 3:6:
“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” This is the only other verse in all the New Testament where Paul uses the words tradition or traditions to speak of apostolic truth that is to be obeyed.

By now, Paul’s use of this term should be well established. This cannot be a reference to truth passed down from generation to generation. Again, Paul is speaking of a “tradition” received firsthand from him.

This is the closing section of the epistle. Paul is summing up. And he once again underscores the importance of the teaching the Thessalonians had received directly from his mouth. The “tradition” he speaks of here is doctrine so crucial that anyone who refuses to heed it and live by it should be rejected from the fellowship.

What is this “tradition”? It is simple, practical apostolic doctrine, taught and lived out by example while Paul was among the Thessalonians. Paul goes on to define specifically what “tradition” he has in mind:

“We did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, that you might follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good (3:7-13).”

In other words, Paul was speaking of simple, practical doctrine about stewardship of one’s time, a man’s responsibility to work and provide for his family, and personal discipline in daily life. These truths are now part of holy Scripture, by virtue of Paul’s including them in this epistle. Put that together with everything else the New Testament records, and you have every part of the apostolic message that was infallibly preserved for us.

THere are several instances where tradition is passed down from generation. It is even written as scripture in the NT. It seems that tradition is on par with scripture as tradition is included in scripture.

Matthew 2:23
and came and lived in a city called Nazareth This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.” Nowhere in the prophets is the statement that He shall be called a Nazarene. THis was passed on by tradition.

Matthew 23:1-3
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. Chair of moses or Moses seat was another tradition that was passed down.

You see, tradition was passed down from generation to generation and considered authoritative, to the point of become scripture in the NT.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Again, great post.

I will once again point you to 2 Tim. 2:2 for proof of second hand teaching.

John MacArthur also teaches on this verse:

Second Timothy 2:2:
"The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.

"Here the apostle Paul instructs Timothy, a young pastor, to train other faithful men for the task of leadership in the church. There is no hint of apostolic succession in this verse, nor is there any suggestion that in training these men Timothy would be passing on to them an infallible tradition with authority equal to the Word of God.

On the contrary, what this verse describes is simply the process of discipleship. Far from imparting to these men some apostolic authority that would guarantee their infallibility, Timothy was to choose men who had proved themselves faithful, teach them the gospel, and equip them in the principles of church leadership he had learned from Paul. What Timothy was to entrust to them was the essential truth Paul himself had preached "in the presence of many witnesses. "What was this truth?

It was not some undisclosed tradition, such as the Assumption of Mary, which would be either unheard of or disputed for centuries until a pope declared ex cathedra that it was truth. What Timothy was to hand on to other men was the same doctrine Paul had preached before “many witnesses.” Paul was speaking of the gospel itself. It was the same message Paul commanded Timothy to preach: and it is the same message that is preserved in Scripture and sufficient to equip every man of God (2 Tim. 3:16–4:2).

In short, this verse is wholly irrelevant to the Catholic claim that tradition received from the apostles is preserved infallibly by her bishops. Nothing in this verse suggests that the truth Timothy would teach other faithful men would be preserved without error from generation to generation. That is indeed what Scripture says of itself: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching” (2 Tim. 3:16)–but no such assertion is ever made for tradition handed down orally.

 

[izoid]

It was a tough choice. It wasn’t an issue with giving credit where credit is deserved but rather which one of you would actually read it with an open mind with his name on it.

You obviously didn’t read it with an open mind, why would we?

 

[izoid]

John MacArthur also teaches on this verse:

Second Timothy 2:2:
"The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.

"Here the apostle Paul instructs Timothy, a young pastor, to train other faithful men for the task of leadership in the church. There is no hint of apostolic succession in this verse, nor is there any suggestion that in training these men Timothy would be passing on to them an infallible tradition with authority equal to the Word of God.

On the contrary, what this verse describes is simply the process of discipleship. Far from imparting to these men some apostolic authority that would guarantee their infallibility, Timothy was to choose men who had proved themselves faithful, teach them the gospel, and equip them in the principles of church leadership he had learned from Paul. What Timothy was to entrust to them was the essential truth Paul himself had preached "in the presence of many witnesses. "What was this truth?

It was not some undisclosed tradition, such as the Assumption of Mary, which would be either unheard of or disputed for centuries until a pope declared ex cathedra that it was truth. What Timothy was to hand on to other men was the same doctrine Paul had preached before “many witnesses.” Paul was speaking of the gospel itself. It was the same message Paul commanded Timothy to preach: and it is the same message that is preserved in Scripture and sufficient to equip every man of God (2 Tim. 3:16–4:2).

In short, this verse is wholly irrelevant to the Catholic claim that tradition received from the apostles is preserved infallibly by her bishops. Nothing in this verse suggests that the truth Timothy would teach other faithful men would be preserved without error from generation to generation. That is indeed what Scripture says of itself: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching” (2 Tim. 3:16)–but no such assertion is ever made for tradition handed down orally.

THis is an absurd position given the clear teaching of Paul regarding authority. In order to come to the conclusion that MacArthur did he would have had to of already made up hi mind prior to reading it. The verse is a clear example of tradition being passed on, a point you claimed (or should I say MacArthur)never occurred in scripture.

 

[izoid]

Hey Adam—You might want to consider abandoning the changing of your name to Rocketman.

Really guys, the 2 of you have now filled us with garbage from MacArthur. One of you loves him and thinks he is a Godly preacher while the other one plagiarizes him.

You criticize us for having an authority in the church and not in scripture alone yet the 2 of you continuously post interpretations from sources other than scripture. Sources like MacArthur and the Westminster Confession. It is clear that you too have an authority that lies outside of scripture, it is just not the Catholic Church.

 

[izoid]

I really have say how disappointed I am with what has happened here. We are finally having, what I thought was, honest conversation regarding important theological ideas. Both sides have encouraged open minds and respect and I really thought we were getting there. I even credited Rocketman for his efforts only to find out they are not his ideas at all. Worse yet, they are the claims, plagiarized claims, of one of the most Anti Catholic, hostile, voices in evangelicalism.

If there is to be any ecumenism here, we need to leave MacArthur out.

 

[Rocket_Man]

As I said before, I was baptized a Catholic, now you tend to think I’m a not. I have mentioned elsewhere that I have reconsidered the Catholic Church. The jury is always still out on that. Convince me otherwise. But for now, I still find the evidence of my own life experiences quite convincing.