Well, let me start things off by commenting on two phrases from Ricky's response to my first response. I really appreciate the phrase "where this road leads," because all too often, it becomes easy to only consider the next few feet, yards or mile of a position taken, when, if followed for significantly further (to the "end of that road," maybe?), the possible or probably outcome can be rather dismal. And that is where other's experience becomes valuable. As one example, during my early college years, I "toyed" with existentialism, reading Camus, Sartre, Heidegger, etc. (but not too much Nietzsche-- his despair was too much for me), even some Kierkegaard, considered a "Christian existentialist." Ultimately, it was the end of that road-- that life has no ultimate meaning-- and its impact on many of its thinkers (suicide after lives of debauchery)-- that led me to realize that it was a path I could not follow. So, it seems important, as Ricky indicates, to see where philosophical "roads" lead before embracing that path with any semblance of confidence.
On the "positive" side, its hard to go wrong with Augustine and Aquinas! Godly men who pursued truth throughout their lives, walking out their faith and sharing it with others. . .
The other comment for this post relates to semantics-- which can be a difficult hurdle in any discussion of this nature-- regarding my use of the word "facts." As a scientist, I tend to utilize the purely empirical definition of that word; i.e., a fact as something which can be experienced in essentially the same fashion by two or more people through the sense realm (sight, hearing, etc.). In that sense, the phrase "faith facts" is rather confusing, since empirical methodologies can only seek to support, rather than confirm, facts as they relate to faith. As an example, it is a "fact" that Jesus lived (at least most honest people are willing to admit that), but as to his ultimate identity beyond his humanity, the "faith fact" that he was/is the Son of God is not subject to empirical verification. I will be more careful in the future about the use of the "faith fact" phrase!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have a question for you all...is the Bible the ONLY authority? Or can we obtain truth from other/outside sources? I read recently the verses Ephesians 3:10 & 11, "to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be MADE KNOWN BY THE CHURCH to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord..." I realize this is taken out of context, and I encourage everyone to read it in context before coming to any conclusions regarding the meaning of this passage. This verse is one that Scott Hahn, a Catholic convert that was previously a Presbyterian minister, uses to defend the argument that the Church (but which "Church"?...yet another topic of discussion) has authority (along with scripture) in discerning what truth is (I may have this wrong...if I do (Ricky) please correct me!). The point is this: I have been taught that if it's not in the Bible, then don't do it, listen to it, consider it, nada. But, as Ricky explained to me, that's like trying to interpret the Constitution of the U.S. outside of its context, without understanding the history behind it. So, is it wise to consider the counsel of those that have gone before us...these saints and counsels? It seems to me that it is. If so, why doesn't the nondenominational church ever reference them? This raises so many questions of authority for me. For example, though there is no reference in scripture (that I know of) of people praying to Mother Mary, the Catholic Church is very adamant about making this a regular practice of their faith. So, are they wrong for praying to Mary, the angels, and the saints? So many protestants would say "yes," but my question is "why?" Simply because it's not done in the Bible? Well, is that a good enough reason to disregard it?
ReplyDeleteA few words of encouragement that crossed my path this morning...
ReplyDelete"I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will guide you with My eye. Do not be like the horse or like the mule, which have no understanding, which must be harnessed with bit and bridle, else they will not come near you...he who trusts in the Lord, mercy shall surround him." Psalm 32:8-10
"Watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong. Let all that you do be done with love."
1 Cor. 16:13,14
Mary,
ReplyDeleteGreetings in the Name of our Lord! My nephew Rick sent me the link to this blog, and I would like to participate in the conversation, if you'll have me! I admit I'm coming into a conversation already in progress, so I may need to catch up.
Your question, "Is the Bible the ONLY authority?" does get at the heart of the matter, doesn't it? While the Bible is authoritative (2 Tim 3:16-17), nowhere does it claim to be the SOLE authority within the Church. Moreover, as we see in Acts 15, the Church confronted its first significant crises not so much with an appeal to Scripture but with an exercise in Apostolic authority. (Those who were arguing for circumcision were appealing to Scripture alone - the Law of Moses - for justification of their position).
I hope this helps. I had a longer reply, but I wasn't able to post it.
In Christ,
Dave
One more comment...I promise I'm not trying to dominate our blog :), I just have a lot going on in my head this morning...regarding Eudaimon's post, a few times I have sat and wondered, "what could we possibly conclude when all of us have different beliefs and come from different denominations and backgrounds and have different thought patterns and experiences? Is our purpose to reach a common ground, to find an "ultimate truth?" For example, are we all going to convert to Catholicism within the next 5 years (as Ricky so virtuously and vehemently desires :), or is all of this more to just get the gears rolling, to broaden our horizons, open our eyes to ideas that may not have come naturally to us individually if our thoughts were left to their own devices? I don't know the answer to this...these are just my thoughts; only God knows where this will lead us (individually and corporately), but I am willing, honored, and excited to take this journey with such wonderful people (I really do love you all!)
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt the possibility of other authoritative documents. I am firm believer in the need for catechisms and order in worship for many reasons, one of which is to provide guidance and accountability for any group of believers to remain in the truth and prevent heretical teachings and practices. And it is extremely important to know and truth the foundation of the doctrine of your faith. My hesitation in trusting another authority in addition to the Scriptures is the question of fallibility. I read this from "Catholic Christianity" by Peter Kreeft:
ReplyDelete"The Church is infallible because she is faithful. Our faith in the Church is grounded in the Church's faithfulness to Christ. Infallibility is Christocentric."
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but there has been a large amount of corruption in the history of the Church and accounts of a church that is not at all Christocentric. I just cannot conceive of calling the Catholic Church infallible after all that we know about its history.
So my question is, why would we need any other authority besides the Scriptures that have been canonized?
Just like Mary, I don't want to dominate the comments on this post, but felt I should provide some kind of reference for my thoughts above.
ReplyDeleteWestminster Confession of Faith
Chapter I. Of The Holy Scripture
"Section IX.–The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
Section X.–The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture." (emphasis mine)
As far as I know, the Scripture does not mention an infallible judge on earth. It seems as if the Church does serve as a guardian of the Scriptures but the authority is in the Holy Spirit speaking in the scriptures. Tell me if I'm missing something here.
Rebecca, I can understand your difficulty with the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church, especially given some of her history. However, the Church does not claim impeccability - only infallibility. Weak, frail sinners have always occupied positions of authority - even the highest - within the Church. But only by the sheer grace of God, none of the worst sinners - including the most corrupt Renaissance popes - have ever formally led the Church into theological error.
ReplyDeleteNow, with regard to concept of infallibility, we would both agree that the Bible is the infallible written Word of God. The Church teaches that since God is the ultimate author of the Bible, "we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures" (c.f. Catechism, #107).
However, if we insist that only Scripture is infallible, we are presented with a few problems. For example, we know that the apostolic preaching and teaching preceded the written record of the New Testament. Was the apostles' teaching (Acts 2:42) infallible even prior to its being committed to writing? Or is only that which was written down considered infallible?
Secondly, the inspired authors of Scripture themselves testify that they did not write down everything they taught (2 Thess 2:17; 3 John 13; John 20:30 and 21:25). Again, were these teachings any less infallible simply because they were not written down?
Finally, we believe that the Holy Spirit infallibly inspired the authors of the Bible. However, as a Catholic I also believe that the same Spirit infallibly inspired the Fathers of the Church in the recognition and development of the canon. Likewise, I believe the same Spirit infallibly inspired the Fathers as they hammered out the Nicene Creed and other Trinitarian and Christological definitions in the early Church. The same Spirit of Truth who leads us into all Truth is still with us to this day, as He was in the beginning.
I'm not sure if this answers your question, but I hope it helps to explain why we believe in the continued infalliblity of the Church.
In Christ,
Dave
Rebecca, with regard to your last post, it would indeed be great if the only infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture were Scripture itself. Sadly, though, that is simply not the case. Throughout the history of the Church, divisions have occurred despite the fact that both parties appealed to Scripture for justification of their beliefs. Both parties would agree with the basic principle that Scripture interprets Scripture - yet both would have maintained that the Scriptures supported their position and not that of their opponents.
ReplyDeleteThe assertion that the ultimate arbiter of all controveries can be none other than the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture is, itself, unscriptural. I do not see where the Scriptures themselves make such a claim. I do not say this to denigrate Scripture in any way - but merely to assert, with St Paul, that it is the Church which is the bulwark and pillar of the Truth (1 Tim 3:15).
Finally, while I agree that the Spirit's voice is clearly heard in Scripture, I also believe that the Spirit's voice continues to be heard in the living Magisterium of the Church. I find no basis for believing that the Spirit's voice went silent at the close of the apostolic age.
In Christ,
Dave
To Mary's question:
ReplyDelete"What could we possibly conclude when all of us have different beliefs and come from different denominations and backgrounds and have different thought patterns and experiences? Is our purpose to reach a common ground, to find an "ultimate truth?"
When it comes to the church, the Bible says that Jesus Christ is the head of the church (Col 2:19), the foundation of the Christian's life (1 Cor 3:11, Matthew 7:24-27), author of our faith (Hebrews 12:1-2), and perfecter of salvation through suffering (Hebrews 2:10). So while the Bible teaches that there is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved than that of Christ (Acts 4:12), it is also true that those who are saved belong to Jesus, they are His sheep, and will hear his voice (John 10).
So why all of these denominations? Much of what is written I gleaned from Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (Zondervan, 1995) because there's something to be said in consulting a theology book by someone who's studied the original languages and the Scriptures for decades.
The Bible does not instruct believers to separate themselves from other believers. There are many exhortations to unity (John 10:16, 17:21, 17:23, 1 Cor 1:2, Ephesians 4:11-13) as well as strong words of warning to those who cause dissension (Rom. 16:17-18, Gal 2:11-14, Jude 17-23).
It appears divisions can be put in two categories.
1. God-honoring splits where the gospel was being compromised where honoring man became more important than honoring God. The Reformation is an example of this. I will not pretend to be a student of church history, but it makes sense that if God is not honored and doctrines of men become more important that worshiping the true and living God, then it wise to come out from that church and establish one that holds fast to the faith handed down once and for all to the saints (Jude 3).
2. Man-honoring divisions where someone just wants to start a church because other people aren't doing it their way, or want a certain worship style, etc. That is not the New Testament church.
You may see both repentandbelieve and Alexander...I'll try and keep it to my name for simplicity's sake.
ReplyDeleteSo then, what should a local church believe to be considered "Bible-believing"? The issues that are non-negotiable are such because they deal with God the Father's means of redemption for mankind through Jesus Christ and how man can be reconciled through His Son. Scripture can be found for the non-negotiable items, but it's 11pm and bedtime is here.
Non-negotiable (or Closed-handed)
1. Jesus Christ is the only Begotten Son of God, last Prophet, High Priest, King and sole mediator between God and men
2. The Trinity
3. Salvation by Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone
4. Bodily resurrection of Jesus
5. The atonement (redemption of God's people through Christ's death on the Cross to take the Father's wrath to sin on himself, and His resurrection to grant eternal life to all who would believe, defeating the power of sin, death and Satan in the process)
6. The inerrancy of Scripture, in that it is without error in its divine revelation to us.
7. Regeneration, that is, the work of the Holy Spirit changing the heart of sinner who hears the gospel from a heart dead to sin to one alive in Christ. Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:5)
8. Eternal Security of the believer whom God saves. When God moves to save, he saves to the uttermost (Hebrews 7:24-25). There are no saved people who then decide to be unsaved. That simply means God decided to love someone for a while and then quit. Romans 8 and John 10, among many other scriptures, supports this.
9. Only two ordinances to be observed by the church - the Lord's Supper and baptism of the believer as a sign of faith in Christ. The saved person should have no objection to obeying these ordinances.
10. The visible second coming of Jesus Christ to judge the living and the dead, for all will have to give an account to God.
11. A real heaven, where those who have by faith received Christ's atoning work as their only hope of obtaining union with the Father and eternal life will see Jesus face to face and worship Him forever. (Awesome, right?)
12. A real hell where those who reject God's offer of salvation will suffer in eternal, conscious torment in the lake of fire.
Negotiable (Open-handed)
1. Frequency of the Lord' Supper
2. Method of baptism (sprinkling vs. immersion)
3. Use of the Charismatic gifts (speaking in tongues, prophecy)
4. Church government and structure
5. Method of worship when gathered as a church body
6. Style of worship when gathered together as a church body
7. Literal 6 days creation vs. a slower creation
8. When exactly Jesus will return (before/middle/end of millennium)
Phew :)
Dave,
ReplyDeleteIt's great to be able to converse with you again on these topics. I'm still having some trouble with the issue of infallibility and what that actually means. How can something be infallible but not impeccable?
As for Scripture, it is true that the teachings of the apostles are not all written down, but unfortunately, all we have with certainty from those apostles is that which is written. And what I have been taught is that Christ builds His church on the foundation of the apostles and that apostolic revelation did not extend beyond the apostolic generation. And by virtue of there being no higher authority than God's through His Own Word (Heb. 6:13), it can be the only judge of Scripture itself.
I also appreciate the concise lists Alexander posted about negotiable and non-negotiable beliefs. It seems to get at the core issues that affect salvation. However, there are several items on the negotiable list that I believe are extremely important because they dictate how we live our lives on this earth and our purpose for this life which I don't think is a small issue.
The purpose behind the two lists is two fold (I am no scholar, and these simply basic lists that most Protestants would agree with).
ReplyDelete1. To name doctrines where a Christian should separate from a church if these doctrines were openly denied and/or false teachers took over the church and denied these doctrines (non-negotiable) versus doctrines where, if disagreement were to arise, there is no Biblical basis for separation (negotiable).
Example: Joe and Jane Christian are 55 year old members of a church that preaches the Word of God, holds the essential doctrines about God, observes the Lord's Supper weekly and baptizes believers as a sign of obedience. The gospel is regularly proclaimed, members are actively engaged in sharing the gospel and performing acts of service, and people who come in are saved by His mighty power. We could say Joe has no reason to leave this church.
Now let's say church leadership decides to switch from classical, more hymn driven worship to contemporary worship style with newer songs because most of the church is under 35. Joe and Jane have spent their lives singing the old hymns and are not happy about the change! Do they have, according to Scripture such as Colossians 3:16-17 and Ephesians 4:1-6, a Biblical reason to leave that church? No. He would just be leaving on their own personal preferences.
2. The more important reason for having these two lists them up is for encouragement in evangelism. When sharing the gospel with someone, none of negotiable issues should be addressed. Baptism cannot save nor can the Lord's supper, so these things should not be introduced by the evangelist.
I am also curious to know (this is for Rebecca) which secondary issues dictate how we live our lives and our purpose on earth. Definitely I can see frequency of Lord's supper and baptism method (immersion has a far more powerful impact than sprinkling), but I don't know about the others. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Goodnight from the Classic City!
-Alex
Rebecca, I am delighted to be able to continue our discussion as well! Like others, I hope that I am not dominating the comments.
ReplyDeleteIn your last post, you questioned how something could be infallible and yet not impeccable also. Consider the Scriptures. We agree that they are the infallible written Word of God. Yet we also know that God used imperfect men in the writing of them. Yet despite their imperfections, they committed to writing only the Spirit-breathed, infallible truth that God wished to convey for our salvation. They were, by the sheer grace of God, preserved from error. This is true only because the Spirit of Truth was guiding them.
The same Spirit of Truth guides the Church today. The Holy Spirit continues to lead the Church into all Truth - not with new revelation, but with a deepening understanding of the Revelation already committed to the Church. Despite the weakness and sinfulness (at times gross) of the Church's leaders, the Spirit has preserved the Church from formally espousing and teaching errors in doctrines of faith and morals.
In the Church's long history, there have been many saintly Popes who faithfully taught the truth. Sadly, there have also been some unworthy of their teaching authority. Yet, by the grace of God, none of those unworthy shepherds formally led the Church into error in binding doctrines of faith and morals. This doesn't mean they were immune from all errors or mistakes: even the best Popes have made errors in judgment (as when St Paul had to rebuke St Peter over the issue of avoiding fellowship with Gentile converts). But it means that when it comes to the essential items of faith and morality, the judgment and teaching of the Church is firm, certain, and infallible.
I believe what you say is true, Totustuus, especially considering there is scripture to back it up (of which I had never read in such a light of understanding). This leads me to ask: which Church's judgement and teachings are "firm, certain, and infallible?" You have the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church, and then the various denominations within the Protestant Church. I know you're going to say it is the Catholic Church. But why? Because it was the first Church? Because it was the original Apostolic Church? How do we know this to be true? Concerning the little bit that I know regarding the Reformation, it occurred primarily because of the corruption of the Catholic Church (selling indulgences, etc.). So, in accordance with what Alexander is saying regarding the appropriate motivations of church splitting, it seems to me that it was probably a good thing that the Protestant Church emerged. So then I come back to my original question..which Church? As a "hippy Christian" :P I'd like to say that we're all right, that there are multiple ways to experience/serve God and His Church, but then I come back to the "ultimate truth" question...does it in fact exhist?
ReplyDeleteoops, sorry, i spelled "exist" wrong. let there be grace for the unrefined ;)
ReplyDeleteMary,
ReplyDeletePlease, call me Dave. I haven't quite figured out this "blog" thingy yet. To post, I had to sign in under my Wordpress ID. So we can be on a first name basis. By the way, did you know that there's something very special about your first name? ;)
Now then, to answer your question: "Which Church?" I think we would all agree that, ultimately speaking, there is only one Church - in the sense of one Body of Christ, one Bride for the Bridegroom. For years, as a Protestant, I believed that all Christians are members of the "holy catholic Church", in the words of the Apostles Creed - I simply could not restrict that term to the Roman Catholic Church. So you can imagine my surprise when, after becoming a Catholic, I learned that this is in fact what the Catholic Church teaches!
When someone who has been baptized in a non-Catholic Church decides to become a Catholic, they are not "joining" the Church - they are already members of the Church, by reason of their Baptism. Technically speaking, when a baptized Christian becomes a Catholic, he or she is "entering into full communion" with the Catholic Church. In other words, they are entering into full membership in the Body of Christ, able to receive all of the gifts and graces that are available in the Church - the greatest of which is in fact Holy Communion.
As for other denominations, we do recognize them as true brothers and sisters in Christ. We also recognize that the grace of Christ is present in these churches - "'the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope,and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements'. Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as a means of salvation" (Catechism, #819). But while these non-Catholics are, in a broad sense, members of the one Church by virtue of their faith and baptism, they are "separated brethren." While grace and salvation can be found in them, these churches lack the fullness of God's gifts.
This is our teaching. To many, especially Protestants, this sounds too exclusionary - how can the Catholic Church make such a claim for itself? I'll tackle that in my next post.
Mary, to continue my response to your question: "Why the Catholic Church?" - I have to get into a little bit of history here. There's just no way around it.
ReplyDeleteWe know, from Acts, that there was really only one Church - the apostolic Church which spread from Jerusalem throughout Judea into the entire world, carrying out the Great Commission. In various cities, small communities of Christians were established - but they were all in fellowship with each other, under the leadership of the apostles and later the bishops (overseers) and elders appointed by the apostles. As the Church grew, great care was taken to maintain the unity of the Church throughout the world. When doctrinal disputes arose in the early Church (prior to the emperor Constantine's conversion), the bishops of a region would usually gather to discuss the matter and issue a binding judgment (following the apostolic example in Acts 15). But among all the bishops, there was one who was universally recognized by all the others as the preeminent bishop – the bishop of Rome. The Pope did not exercise his authority then as he does today - but his leadership was recognized by all the churches, and his support was sought in all disputes. Over time, the Popes began to exercise more direct influence, particularly over the churches in western Europe. Why did the Popes exert so much influence? Some argue because he was the bishop of the largest city in the empire, and its capital. But the historical records show that other bishops acknowledged his authority because he was the successor to St Peter, whom the Lord chose to lead the Twelve, and who was martyred and buried in Rome. In all the disputes over various heresies and schisms in the early Church, the Bishop of Rome and the bishops in communion with him defended and maintained the faith as it had been handed down from the Apostles. These controversies not only helped to maintain the unity of the Church but also enhanced the leadership role of the Papacy.
Now, with regard to the Reformation, I wish I could say that every Pope was a worthy successor to St Peter. But tragically there were Popes who were lazy, or corrupt, or downright dishonorable. These Popes allowed abuses (such as the selling of indulgences) to creep into the Church. There is no doubt that major reform was needed. (There had been many other periods of reform in the Church’s history). Luther was correct in some of his spiritual insights, and the many in the Church were wrong in their response to him. But in his radical rejection of the Church’s authority, he unleashed a force which shattered the unity of the Church and which perpetuates schism to this day, as hundreds of Protestant churches and denominations continue to multiply through division. And yet… the Catholic Church remains, maintaining the faith and disciplines received from the Apostles, maintaining unity across peoples and cultures and traditions.
I’m not sure if this completely answers your question, but I hope I have shed some light on it.
Mary & Ricky -- FYI, I did not quit the blog...
ReplyDeleteTwo questions:
1. What happens when the authority of the Church disagrees with the authority of the Scripture? One must be higher than that other. Which one is the ultimate authority? For example, when the Church was selling indulgences, how do we know that it was wrong? Based on Scriptures, right?
2. Dave said of the early Church "They were, by the sheer grace of God, preserved from error. This is true only because the Spirit of Truth was guiding them." Well, couldn't we also argue that during the time of the Reformation, it could be that Spirit of Truth was guiding Luther and by God's sovereignty, He allowed the Church to split and is able to reveal His glory through both Protestant and Catholic congregations?
Rebecca, I'll give it a shot:
ReplyDelete1) In Acts 15, the Church confronted the issue of the admission of Gentile converts. One one side were those, like St Paul, who argued for admission without requiring observance of the Law of Moses. On the other side were those who, appealing to Scripture and taking a conservative view, argued for circumcision and strict observance of the Mosaic law. The apostles and elders, in council, followed the guidance of St Peter in allowing Gentiles into the Church. In doing so, they did not rely on Scripture alone (although they found Scriptural support for their position - v.15); rather, they were open to the Spirit's guidance for their decision (vv.28-29).
The Catholic Church maintains that the Word of God comes to us in Scripture (God's written Word) and in the apostolic Tradition which has been faithfully handed down. The Church's task is to give an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in Scripture or Tradition (Catechism, #85). In doing so, the Church is not "superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it" (Catechism, #86).
Without an authoritative interpretation, it's literally every man for himself. Should we worship on Sundays, or on the Sabbath? (Adventists believe the Bible supports their view). Should we have musical instruments in worship, or just sing a cappella? (Church of Christ believe Scripture supports their view). Should we meet in church buildings, or in houses- like whats found in Scripture. The list could go on and on.
2) Luther was right in his criticism of Church practices (selling indulgences, etc.). And he was largely right in much of his theological insights on grace, as the recent Catholic-Lutheran Joint Statement on Justification acknowledged. But the tragedy of the Reformation consists in this: the Church was resistant to reform (at first), and Luther - with political backing from land-hungry German princes - succeeded in establishing separate churches. I will grant that in the sovereign will of God, the Reformation occurred for a purpose. In His permissive will, He allowed the churches to split. But His perfect will is for unity of all the churches (John 17).
One can certainly be a devout Christian either as a Protestant or as a Catholic. There is much we can learn from one another - even the Church acknowledges that at times, Protestants have expressed certain aspects of the Faith in better ways than Catholics have done. But that doesn't alter the fact that Christ still prays for our unity.
In Christ,
Dave
Today I had what I consider to be an epiphany (regarding the question I posed yesterday...my "hippy Christian" theology)...Rebecca, Alexander, and Eudaimon, consider this:
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church makes radical claims:
1)The Catholic Church is the very body of Christ
2)A Catholic priest can forgive your sins
3)A Catholic priest can change bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ
4)The Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth
5)When this Church speaks it speaks with the authority of Christ Himself
Just as Christ is either God incarnate, or He is a lunatic, a wicked, blasphemous liar, so is the Catholic Church. They are either a wicked, blasphemous, and idolatrous false prophet that should be killed (according to the Old Testament), the whor of Babylon itself, or they are the Bride of Christ! There is no such thing as a cafeteria Catholic, just as there is no such thing as a cafeteria Christian: Jesus was either God incarnate or a lunatic. Same with the Catholic Church.
Well, what would you tell someone who was born again and didn't believe any of those five points? Like me?
ReplyDeleteAlexander,
ReplyDeleteThose five points are clearly difficult for any born-again believer whose entire belief system hinges on the battle cry of the Reformation, "Sola Scriptura". In fact, it is far too much to try to answer in one blog comment. So, I would point a born-again believer, and anyone reading this blog back to the root of the issue at hand: the question of authority. Might I suggest to the group that we stay on this one particular topic in order to thoroughly discuss, analyze, critique, and ponder it's implications? This blog will become a difficult animal to tame if we aren't careful to exhaust one topic at a time. I am not sure when each topic should be closed for discussion, if at all, but we should at the least come to a consensus, and perhaps even consider nominating a facilitator to get us from one topic to the next? Eudaimon, you up for it?
Jake - I think you should start blogging again.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jake. Not only authority, but how a soul is saved need to be discussed.
ReplyDeleteI've posted a few random thoughts over at my blog site on WordPress, if you want to check them out.
ReplyDeleteI have posted some thoughts as well on Sola Scriptura: http://tinyurl.com/ya4vjo7
ReplyDeleteThanks!
I believe the answer to this is found in Ephesians 2:19-20 "and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone."
ReplyDeleteJohn Calvin argued that "if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed--as the foundation goes before the house." - from Institutes of the Christian Religion
This makes the most sense to me and gets at my question of which is the higher authority (a few comments ago)
I just realized that I need to post the rest of what Calvin said on this subject for this to make sense when we are talking about authority to interpret Scripture.
ReplyDelete"Nothing therefore can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bounds shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? it is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste." (Book 1, Ch.7 p.71)
Rebecca, if authority rests solely in the Scriptures, how do we know which books of Scripture are canonical and which are not? The books of the Bible are not self-authenticating. They generally do not proclaim themselves to be the written Word of God (except for passages in the prophetical books that begin, "Thus says the Lord...", and the Mosaic Law). Many of the writers of Scripture do not seem aware of the fact that they are writing what God has inspired - St. Paul, for example, in 1 Cor 7, distinguishes between what he is providing as counsel, and what the Lord is saying. And since the Scriptures do not have a divinely-inspired Table of Contents, how do we know which ancient writings are authentic and which are not? Without the "judgment of the Church" we would not have the Scriptures.
ReplyDeleteciao all!!, i came from italy therefore apologize any mistakes!..i read everything you wrote and there are very good input...but i'd like to come back to Mary's second question that i believe is pretty crucial...
ReplyDeleteshe asked "what could we possibly conclude when all of us have different beliefs and come from different denominations and backgrounds and have different thought patterns and experiences? Is our purpose to reach a common ground, to find an ultimate truth?"...it's not an easy question...but it's good to ask and point out a couple of considerations:
1) Revelation 2 speaks about the seven churches...God well knows that christians men would have taken different doctrines and denominations from His word...
Christ addresses each of the churches in a particular way which reveals something about Himself. He told about their negative aspects (whether it be idolatry, false teaching, apathy, immorality, etc) he corrected them, he warned them, he encouraged them.
Then the churches are faced with the choice of a blessing or a curse. For the "overcomers" there are promises and blessings beyond the wildest imagination of the reader. Consequently, for the unrepentant, there is the promise of sure judgement- both temporal and eternal.
One theme that you begin to see is the great love that Christ has for His churches. Even despite their failures and shortcomings, you see the outstretched arms of a loving Saviour. Rather than leaving each church to their own devices, Jesus intervenes to warn them of impending danger.
By the way, the main points all the time are referred to "keep the word, walk in love and do the love-works"
In respect of above, i think it's impossible have one right and firm denomination that speak and act the whole truth...it'd would be great...but we are men...so there are denominations more or less close to the Bible both by interpreting Word and specially by doing the word...each believer should just tend to a personal reading of the Scripture by praying and checking if what his church teach and live is right or not
anyway i think we have to reach a common ground among our differences, we are called to it as follows:
2) Ephesians 4:1:16 told us the goal of the church...that is, by working through 5 ministries, edify a body made of people who arrive to faith's and Jesus's knowledge unity as men/women of God firm in their convictions.
now, what does exactly mean "faith's and Jesus's knowledge unity"? i don't think it's about doctrines or denominations but just about love through the right knowledge of God.
We are one, part of the same family, when everybody of us loves in truth our Father and brothers. Jesus's inheritance from the Father is a bride. I believe that this bride that he is preparing since 2000 years must be a bride that loves Jesus in the way he loved us...(he gave his life to us and there is no greater love than giving life for their own friends said the Bible) therefore...i think God couldn't give to his only son a bride at 50%...
so the call of the church as bride is to be made of people who have realized the love of God and Jesus and have the deep desire to love Jesus back with all their souls, mind and heart...
i'd like to read your consideration, specially how do you mean "unity of faith and knowledge of Jesus" towards we are called to
love and blessings, Paolo
Paolo, thanks for joining our discussions! I miss you, brother :)
ReplyDelete