Justification By Faith Alone

[mortify]

Peace Spriles,

[quote name='Spriles' post='1721008' date='Dec 6 2008, 07:00 PM']This statement is simply not true. The old testament canon given at Hippo and Carthage was different than the one given at Trent.[/quote]

See above.

[quote]Christendom being in disagreement over things is not problematic to my view point because I am able to appeal to scripture to settle doctrinal disagreements.[/quote]

Christendom was divided over what books composed the Bible Canon.

No book of the Bible ever defines what books are inspired.

Even if such a book existed, we could not prove it's inspiration.

So how can you defend the Bible cannon without an infallible authority?

You can't.

So the idea of you judging doctrine by a collection of books you can't support, is unreasonable.
[quote]Infact the historical argument you bring up exposes a glaring weakness to your view point. When the the majority of Bishops (including the bishop of Rome) supported Arianism, Athanasius stood against them by appealing to what? An infallible tradition or magisterium? No. The holy and inspired scriptures!
Writing against arianism, Athanasius wrote...[/quote]

Two problems.

1) When the legates of Pope Liberius voted to condemn St Athanasius under duress in the Synod of Arles in 353 AD, the Pope repudiated his legates and held another council in Milan in 355 AD. The Pope refused to condemn St Athanasius even when threatened, so Emperor Constantinus had him arrested, when he still refused he was exiled to Thrace. Under duress the Pope signed an ambiguous creed. Because this creed did not explicitly support Arianism, and because it was done under duress, it can't serve as an attack on the Papacy. A statement made under duress is never infallible let alone valid.

2) Arius appealed to scripture too. It was not bible reading that saved the Church, it was an ecumenical council.

[quote]I have been arguing that my position is the more logical one, and it raises less questions than your own.[/quote]

You *still* can't explain why you believe the books constituting the Bible are infallibly correct and inspired.

[quote]I provided 6 question for those who believe in the necessity of an infallible authority outside the scripture, in post #100. Most of which no one has even attempted to answer. If you would like me to address the questions my view point raises, please point them out clearly and I would be glad to discuss them.[/quote]

Scripture's self attesting inspiration = circular reasoning

[LouisvilleFan]

I'm surprised this thread made it to seven pages without mention of Pope Benedict's recent statement affirming [i]sola fide[/i] during a [url="http://www.zenit.org/article-24302?l=english"]general audience last month[/url]:

"That is why Luther's expression "sola fide" is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14)."

So there ya'll go... end of discussion.

Edited December 8, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[mortify]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1722176' date='Dec 8 2008, 12:57 AM']I'm surprised this thread made it to seven pages without mention of Pope Benedict's recent statement affirming [i]sola fide[/i] during a [url="http://www.zenit.org/article-24302?l=english"]general audience last month[/url]:

"That is why Luther's expression "sola fide" is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14)."

So there ya'll go... end of discussion. [/quote]

The problem is Martin Luther doesn't share the same understanding of "faith" as St Paul and Pope Benedict do.

[reyb]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1722176' date='Dec 7 2008, 11:57 PM']I'm surprised this thread made it to seven pages without mention of Pope Benedict's recent statement affirming [i]sola fide[/i] during a [url="http://www.zenit.org/article-24302?l=english"]general audience last month[/url]:

"That is why Luther's expression "sola fide" is true if faith is not opposed to charity, to love. Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ, to be united to Christ, to be conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence, [color="#0000FF"]to believe is to be conformed to Christ and to enter into his love[/color]. That is why, in the Letter to the Galatians, St. Paul develops above all his doctrine on justification; he speaks of faith that operates through charity (cf. Galatians 5:14)."

So there ya'll go... end of discussion. [/quote]
[indent]…and if your faith becomes ‘complete’ – becoming like Him. Who do you think will say ‘I am He’?[/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='mortify' post='1722207' date='Dec 8 2008, 01:07 AM']The problem is Martin Luther doesn't share the same understanding of "faith" as St Paul and Pope Benedict do.[/quote]

[indent]It is written in Phil 3:10-11
[color="#FF0000"]10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, [b]becoming like him in his death [/b], 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. [/color]NIV[/indent]

[indent]Maybe you are correct regarding Martin Luther but it seems Pope Benedict too do not share with Apostle Paul on this issue ---‘becoming like him (Jesus) in his death’. Apostle Paul are already been 'tested' by God but Pope Benedict's faith is still something to be seen.[/indent]

[Spriles]

[quote name='mortify' post='1721061' date='Dec 6 2008, 08:04 PM']Both were.

Ezra-Nehemiah is a single book in the Hebrew Masoretic text.

In many early Christian Bibles, Ezra-Nehemiah is separated into two texts.

For this reason, Origen, Eusebius, Sts Athanasius and Jerome, refer to Ezra as two books.

This is why the Council of Hippo says Ezra is two books.

In the Council of Trent, the "two books of Ezra" are “the first book of Esdras, and the second which is called Nehemias.”

Bother councils referred to the same two books.


A very detailed analysis of this objection can be found here: [url="http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/esdras.html"][u]Esdras & The Early Church: A Response to William Webster[/u][/url][/quote]


This article rests on the premise that Augustine + Hippo and Carthage were not using the Septuagint canon but were actually following the lead other church fathers who used the Hebrew canon, two of whom rejected the apocrypha as canonical.

The information in this article (written by a relatively unknown Roman Catholic apologist) has been disputed by many and ultimately goes against the research of many Roman catholic scholars and The New Catholic Encyclopedia.

Even still, to hold the belief that the non ecumenical councils of Hippo and Carthage were meant to be binding on the consciences of the the entirety of Christendom, is simply outrageous from a historical stand point.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Spriles

[Guest nvzbl]

blah blah blah.
HI EVERYBODY!!

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Spriles' post='1718857' date='Dec 4 2008, 05:07 PM']1. The phrase "scripture alone is infallible" is of course not found in the Bible. However as you know, Paul refers to the scriptures as God-Breathed. Paul also states that the scripture makes the man of God "Complete" and "fully equipped" for [b]every[/b] good work, which in the context is "teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness".

2. As God's word to mankind, the “God-breathed” Scripture is self-attesting, thus the Canon may be said to be self-establishing. God used fallible people to recognize that which was scripture just as he used fallible people to write it. An objective and infallible authority outside of scripture is not needed for God to sovereignly preserve his word as he said he would do.

Now, I have some questions for you to answer regarding the necessity of an infallible church.

1. Without circular reasoning, can you tell me what objective authority established the infallibility of Rome?

2. During the time of Christ, what extra Biblical authority did the Jews have to know what the canon of their scripture was? (Don't forget, Jesus held the Jews accountable to know their scripture)

3. By what authority was Athanasius able to possess the same canon of scripture I have today (the protestant Bible) before any church councils even discussed the canon of scripture?

4. How is it that everyone operated under the knowledge of what the canon was before Rome dogmatically proclaimed "the table of contents" at Trent in 1546. Even the Reformation was able to occur under the principle of Sola Scriptura before that time.

5. Can you reference any passage of Scripture that the Roman church has infallibly interpreted?

6. If you maintain that fallible people cannot interpret infallible scripture, on what basis can you believe that fallible people can interpret the infallible interpretation of scripture?

To suggest that the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is recent (By recent I assume you mean the 1500s) is laughable. To make such a claim is to demonstrate ignorance to many writings of the early church.[/quote]

[b]1. The phrase "scripture alone is infallible" is of course not found in the Bible. However as you know, Paul refers to the scriptures as God-Breathed. Paul also states that the scripture makes the man of God "Complete" and "fully equipped" for every good work, which in the context is "teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness".[/b]

Your non-answer does not suffice. And speaking of the word “sufficient” isn’t it funny how the passage you mentioned does not say that Scripture is “sufficient” for instruction, but rather that it is only profitable. Isn’t it also amusing that you read the passage improperly; what fully equips is the instruction, of and for which Scripture is a profitable component. Oh, and a final note: had you read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I did not demand specific words, only a specific doctrine.

The man-made tradition of sola scriptura involves three key concepts: a) Scripture b) alone is c) infallible. You could substitute the word “Scripture” with the words “written revelation” or “God’s Word in writing” etc. God’s revelation is handed down in various ways, such as by direct dictation and divine inspiration. Most accurately, God’s Word is an eternal Person. There is clear evidence in the Bible of God’s revelation being communicated in a variety of ways (visions, dreams, etc.) and there are certain Protestant sects that treat private revelation (dreams and visions) and charismatic experiences as having the same weight as public revelation. Everyone agrees that the Scriptures are infallible. But are the scriptures alone infallible? Are they the only infallible authority that is objective? This is what you must demonstrate from the Bible alone by your assertion of sola scriptura.

I’ll try again: please provide just one passage that

a) Clearly refers to SCRIPTURE (could be referred to as “God’s written revelation” or anything else that unarguably refers specifically to the Bible)
b) Clearly stipulates isolation in infallibility

Should be easy right? I mean hey, this should be the most exhaustively spelled out doctrine in the Bible since everything else kind of rides on it. But that’s okay, I’m just asking for one measly passage. I’m sure you’ll get right on that. Thanks.

[b]2. As God's word to mankind, the “God-breathed” Scripture is self-attesting, thus the Canon may be said to be self-establishing. God used fallible people to recognize that which was scripture just as he used fallible people to write it. An objective and infallible authority outside of scripture is not needed for God to sovereignly preserve his word as he said he would do.[/b]

I see. So…why is it that the Bible’s attestation differs amongst vast numbers of Christians? And how is this self-attestation any different than the Mormon’s similar claim regarding the Book of Mormon (and the Muslims with their Koran) and by what authority do you judge these claims? No circular reasoning please. Why was the canon fought over until the councils of Hippo and Carthage, hundreds of years after Christ? You are aware that, just as with the Old Testament, there are seven New Testament deuterocanonical books? These books were disputed by some and only later became regarded as canonical (hence their nickname of “second canon” or “deuterocanonical” books). You realize this was part of what compelled Luther to reject them when he was setting up his new religion? James – one of the NT deuterocanonicals, the rest being Hebrews, Revelation, 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, and Jude (as well as small portions of the Gospels) – certainly lacked Luther’s self-attestation (intentional play on words, there) and only under pressure did he relinquish his desire to commit it to the flames, nevertheless regarding it as an “epistle of straw”. Finally, it is doubtful that in every case that NT Scripture was being written the author knew divine inspiration was taking place at the time of writing. This is noticed readily enough by a casual reading of, say, 3 John 13-14:

[i]“13I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. 14I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.”[/i]

Now come on. Are you honestly going to tell me – with a straight face – that John knew that everything he wrote at that moment was divinely inspired, but he just didn’t feel like writing anymore? That it was a waste of ink? Absurd. This is one of numerous examples that could be pointed out. If the authors did not notice the attestation of Scripture even as they wrote it, surely the readers do not either. Ready to give up your notion of self-attestation yet?
But anyway, you have claimed a fallible collection of infallible books. Brilliant. And logically absurd.


[b]1. Without circular reasoning, can you tell me what objective authority established the infallibility of Rome?[/b]

Oh yes! Jesus Christ is the founder of our Church. Who is yours? When was your religious affiliation founded? This authority was demonstrated in many ways in the Gospels, however the most clear and explicit passage is in Matthew, when Peter was given the keys of Christ’s kingdom. Christ was the Messiah – that is, the everlasting Son of David – his kingdom was David’s kingdom, which God promised would last forever. The Davidic king had a cabinet of governors over which presided one prime minister (or “royal steward” or “chief advisor” if you like; such as what Joseph’s position was under Pharaoh, a virtually universal find in the various positions in any kingdom) to whom alone was entrusted the “keys of the kingdom”. This office of the keys existed to preserve order and unity in the king’s directly visible absence (say, when the king was on a mission of some sort). As Messiah, Christ chose twelve Apostles as his cabinet of governors and gave one of them the keys. In fact, Matthew clearly quotes from Isaiah 22:22 when Simon – now called Rock – is given the keys.

[b]2. During the time of Christ, what extra Biblical authority did the Jews have to know what the canon of their scripture was? (Don't forget, Jesus held the Jews accountable to know their scripture)[/b]

The Jews trusted their religious leaders in such discernments. This is exactly why Jesus was so furious over these leaders’ abuse of power. Although the Jewish canon was never formalized until the anti-Christian and anti-Holy Spirit council of Jamnia in AD90, there was a general agreement – although there were some books disputed because of their comparatively recent authorship. Yet you will recall that Christ explicitly commanded his followers to obey the Pharisees (Matthew 22:1-2). Why? Because they had the authority of Moses’ chair (a teaching found in Jewish Tradition, not the Scriptures). Thus we see the high priest Caiaphas prophesying unknowingly even as he condemns Christ to death (John 11:49-51) precisely because he is high priest. Similarly, we respect the authority that comes attached to the chair of Peter, even if the person sitting in it has not always been worthy of imitation. The Jews trusted in Tradition and authoritative discernments of it for their knowledge of what Scripture was; but lacking the Holy Spirit’s full gifts in the functions of the Church, their revelation was not closed. They had no reason not to think revelation would not continue (in fact, they whole-heartedly expected revelation to continue) and so they were merely cautious as new claims to revelation were made throughout history. With the Church came the removal of the Holy Spirit’s authority in the Jewish religious offices and thus the removal of any divine protection over doctrinal discernments. Hence we trust the decisions of the Church in regards to the OT canon and not the decisions of the anti-Christ council of Jamnia.

[b]3. By what authority was Athanasius able to possess the same canon of scripture I have today (the protestant Bible) before any church councils even discussed the canon of scripture?[/b]

By no authority other than his own. He made an error. You could say the same for any error before or after the Church has spoken on an issue. We discern things and grow in time, not ahead of it. This is why the Church can be likened unto a grain of mustard seed. Just because we realize something after the fact does not mean there was no fact in the first place. Again, it is doubtful that a few of the NT authors actually knew that what they wrote was divinely inspired.

[b]4. How is it that everyone operated under the knowledge of what the canon was before Rome dogmatically proclaimed "the table of contents" at Trent in 1546. Even the Reformation was able to occur under the principle of Sola Scriptura before that time. [/b]

They operated under faith in the divine assistance and protection of the Holy Spirit over the God-given authority in Church leadership. Dogmas are not made off the cuff. They are declared only when there is a serious doctrinal dispute so threatening as to lead many souls to ruin. This was not the case in regards to the canon until the diabolical Protestant Rebellion. At first, there was no New Testament; gradually, the New Testament was authored, discerned, compiled, declared and organized (more or less in that order). But “everyone” surely did not agree on what apostolic writings were Scripture (keeping in mind that there were other letters of St. Paul, at least, that did not survive the test of time.

[b]5. Can you reference any passage of Scripture that the Roman church has infallibly interpreted?[/b]

Canons (dogmatic declarations of ecumenical councils) often reference a scripture. Here is an example from Trent (Session Six, Chapter 11):

[i]For God forsakes not those who have been once justified by His grace, unless he be first forsaken by them. Wherefore, no one ought to flatter himself up with faith alone, fancying that by faith alone he is made an heir, and will obtain the inheritance, even though he suffer not with Christ, that so he may be also glorified with him. For even Christ Himself, as the Apostle saith, Whereas he was the son of God, learned obedience by the things which he suffered, and being consummated, he became, to all who obey him, the cause of eternal salvation. For which cause the same Apostle admonishes the justified, saying; Know you not that they that run in the race, all run indeed, but one receiveth the prize? So run that you may obtain. I therefore so run, not as at an uncertainty: I so fight, not as one beating the air, but I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection; lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a cast-away. So also the prince of the apostles, Peter; Labour the more that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing those things, you shall not sin at any time. From which it is plain, that those are opposed to the orthodox doctrine of religion, who assert that the just man sins, venially at least, in every good work; or, which is yet more insupportable, that he merits eternal punishments; as also those who state, that the just sin in all their works, if, in those works, they, together with this aim principally that God may be gloried, have in view also the eternal reward, in order to excite their sloth, and to encourage themselves to run in the course: whereas it is written, I have inclined my heart to do all thy justifications for the reward: and, concerning Moses, the Apostle saith, that he looked unto the reward. [/i]

[b]6. If you maintain that fallible people cannot interpret infallible scripture, on what basis can you believe that fallible people can interpret the infallible interpretation of scripture?[/b]

I do not maintain that fallible people cannot interpret infallible Scripture. Only that their interpretations cannot be known as infallible unless the source of the Scripture objectively verifies that interpretation. Anyone can interpret something (whether infallible or not) and be right or wrong. Spiritual issues, because they are not empirically verifiable with scientific (that is, “physical”) certainty, are matters subject to individual interpretation (and thus, largely relativistic) unless there is a representative living voice by which the knowledge may be objectively attained. If, however, there is an adequate authority who lives to speak in an objective manner, then religious matters are not subject to individual interpretation, but rather, when defined by the objective authority, are binding on a universal level. Catholicism professes such an adequate voice: Christ’s voice, which is spoken and heard through his Body the Church.

The Holy Spirit moves us on the inner (and thus subjective) level, which may (if understood and obeyed properly) lead to objective actions, but can nevertheless, by itself, reach beyond the individual. Only when the Holy Spirit speaks with a living voice for all to hear can his revelation extend universally, objectively. This is precisely why Catholicism still says “the” Church teaches this and “that is a heresy” and Protestant sects can only say “well, the Baptists teach this, while this Methodist leader teaches that, and a major Vineyard mega-pastor differs here…” etc. Charismatic experiences, necessity of tongues, nature of Baptism, nature of Communion, nature of the Trinity, extent of the atonement, and more are all interpreted in different ways by various groups. And let’s not bring up contraception, masturbation, pre-marital sex (or varying lines drawn close to it) and homosexuality. It seems Protestants would be utterly spineless when it comes to issues like cloning and genetic engineering. But I digress.
When the Apostles lived, it didn’t mean that every other bishop or priest’s opinion was worthless or that no lay believer could adequately interpret the Tradition. It meant that where interpretations did not line up deference was made to the Apostles. Since the Apostles’ passing, such deference is made to the universal decisions of the councils and the popes. Controversy and disagreement will abound until the Last Day – but that doesn’t mean we are robbed of truth, only that there is consequently an underlined necessity for exactly the kind of infallible protection Christ gave us in his One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[b]To suggest that the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is recent (By recent I assume you mean the 1500s) is laughable. To make such a claim is to demonstrate ignorance to many writings of the early church.[/b]

Ha. First of all, by recent I mean anything before the late twelfth century. Actually, if I recall, the earliest written record is in the thirteenth century, but whatever. Second of all, show me how arrogant I am by providing a quote of the doctrine of sola scriptura. If I am so laughably ignorant, you should be able to provide at least twice as many quotes in support of this doctrine as I can of say, the Eucharist. But I’ll suffice with one. Just remember, the quote must specify a doctrine of the a) Scriptures being b) ALONE are c) infallible. It is tiring how often Protestants will get this so confused in their head, that they forget what their doctrine actually is…

Sorry this reply took so long. I just got back in town last night after a weekend in Dallas. You posted right after I left for the airport last Thursday. Also, please understand that any harsh tone in my posts is not directed at you personally, but only at your heretical doctrines. My only desire – and I’m confident you feel the same way – is for the Truth to reign in the hearts of those who seek it. I worship Truth. So it is a great offence to me when I see truth abused and error promoted – and the horrific consequences that result.

[Ziggamafu]

Alright, here's the deal; I thought the following paper would be helpful, but pasting in from Word did not transfer all of the footnotes and it immediately became a pain to paste them one at a time by means of a touchpad. So! If you (or anyone else) would like all of the footnoted references and comments (including plenty of Scripture), please PM me your email address and I will send it. Oh, and if anybody knows how to tell MS Word 2007 that you want to change all of your footnotes from the bottom of the page to being embedded within the text, let me know and I'll edit this post with the new version. This paper was written as a briefly summarized outline on the authority of the Catholic Church.

***

An Outline of the Nature and Origins of Government in the Church:
Proving that Christ intended a Specific Church under the Papacy
-by Brian Roberts-

Intoduction

The protest of the Protestant may be effectively dismantled by proving the God-given authority of the papacy. To provide such a proof, however, there first needs to be proved several other ideas. Namely, did Christ institute a specific Church or did he merely point to a spiritual reality? Did he give that Church authority or assign it to individualism? Was that authority intended to be hierarchical or generalized? And was Peter at the top of that hierarchy or was this a needless presumption later forced upon a feebleminded laity? I will address each of these questions and in providing clear answers, offer proof for the whole of Catholicism; for if we believe that obedience to Christ means obedience to his vicar, we will swallow all that the Catholic Church places on our spoons, no matter how we complain of the taste.

I. Christ instituted a specific Church

A. The Church is organized
How can we know that Christ organized his Church? Firstly, he handed on an organized body of doctrine (Matt 28:19-20); reissuing the original Decalogue (Matt 5:17-20, Mark 10:19), adding to it the Beatitudes, granting a common prayer and declaring the sacraments (For example, John 20:22-23, and of course the Last Supper discourse [“Do this”, cf. Luke 22:19]), just to touch the surface. Secondly, Christ picked twelve Apostles, recalling the twelve tribes of Israel (which were certainly organized [We even see twelve men chosen for a highly organized task in representation of God’s relationship with the twelve tribes in the fourth chapter of Joshua]) and the Davidic king’s twelve governors . Further, he picked out seventy more for specific tasks . This brings us to our third point, that Christ picked specific tasks for specific people, such as the commission upon Peter to tend the flock in the Lord’s directly visible absence .

B. The Church is visible
That the Church is visible should be plain enough, but should the need arise to prove this from scripture, we need only remember that we are sent to the Church in difficulties , we are taught how to behave in it , we are sent out by it , the Church is assembled , saluted and persecuted, the Church preaches and celebrates, and the Church is foreseen by the prophets as radiant with splendor. Thinking on this, St. Francis de Sales writes:

[i]How can all this be understood of an invisible Church? Where should one seek it to lay complaints before it, to converse in it, to rule it? When it sent S. Paul, and received him, when he confirmed it, ordained priests in it, assembled it, saluted it, persecuted it- was this in figure or in faith only, and in spirit? I am sure that everybody must see that these were visible and perceptible acts on both sides. And when he wrote to it, did he address himself to some invisible chimera?[/i]

C. The Church is cultic
We have already noted that Christ gave us a specific prayer, but he also did much more. This was to be expected of the Messiah, that he would be a new Moses . But a new Moses would mean a new law and a new liturgy, or “cult”. Christ did indeed give a new law, expecting the Decalogue to be obeyed in an even more demanding way, by the guidance of self-sacrificial love , and added to the Decalogue the Beatitudes. Moreover, he gave us a new liturgy when he broke bread and told us to “do this” in his memory, as expressed in fellowship – the breaking of bread and set prayers (Acts 2:42). Without a new liturgy, Christ could not truly be a new Moses. And if the Church is cultic, it certainly must be a specific institution.

D. The Church is an objective reality
It must be said that the Church is an objective reality because too many see it as a nebulous, formless, strictly spiritual thing. Yet the Church is the Body of Christ and a body is a single, unified, objective thing. A body has invisible features, of course, but to label something meant to be subjective as a “body” would be absurd. No, Christ speaks to his flock specifically and segregates his flock from those who do not answer the call of the Good Shepherd . How else could the Church fulfill Christ’s image of a “city set on a hill” for all to see?

II. The Church has authority from Christ

A. The Church is the Kingdom of God
Most Christians accept that the Church is the Kingdom of God . But a kingdom is no kingdom at all if there is no authority or government within it. Without rulership that is perceived by the senses, there is anarchy. For we are not disembodied spirits but tangible beings! It is no wonder then, that Christ appointed twelve apostles, granting them his own authority and giving them the powers to bind and loose under the leadership of Peter, our Lord’s prime minister.

B. The Kingdom of God is the House of David
Now we touch on a point that is often overlooked in modern scholarship; that the Kingdom of God is the very same Kingdom of David. God made a covenant with David’s House (meaning his royal line’s ordered kingdom) that was permanent . Ecclesiastes 3:14 is firm in reminding us that when God says something is permanent, he does not renege. Christ is the everlasting Son of David that rules over his father’s throne forever. But if Christ is not only the new Moses, with a new law and a new liturgy, but also the new David, with a newly restored Davidic kingdom, then we should be able to discern that kingdom as a real, governing body.

C. The meaning of Messiah
“Messiah” means “savior” and is usually translated from Hebrew into Greek as “Christ”, which means “anointed”. What is the significance of this? As we have seen, God made a promise to his people, the Jews, that their kingdom would never be completely destroyed; there would always be an heir to the Davidic throne. Yet slowly but surely, the kingdom collapsed, the royal line apparently lost, and the divine promise apparently forgotten. By the time of Jesus, the people were in a confused mix of despair and hope toward a Messiah, a Christ; an anointed son of David to save them from their losses. Christ’s actions clearly expressed his role and identity as the rightful king , yet he had to remain covert enough to accomplish his other mission of sacrifice and salvation .

D. The Messiah’s commission to the Church
The Messiah, the Son of David, granted authority to certain people within his kingdom, the Church that is his very body. We noted earlier that the Apostles were granted the authority to bind and loose (thus this authority would transfer to those they ordained for similar government, their successors down to our own day), but they were also given specific commissions, which infers real, authoritative government of this specific Church. The three that seem most important to note are the Eucharistic commission , the penitential commission , and the baptismal commission . In each case, we see a specific authority granted and expected to be repeated throughout the Church’s history, thus clearly exhibiting Christ’s deliberate intent on a functionally authoritative Church for all ages.

III. The authority of the Church is hierarchal

A. The chain of command
How can everything previously said here be true of a Church without a chain of command? Indeed, we see a good example of Christ recognizing a chain of command in the ninth chapter of Mark’s Gospel. In verses 38-40, the disciples inform Christ of their attempt to prevent some Christians from driving out demons without apostolic approval. Christ responds with the commonsense that it is better for good things to be done in his name than for such good things not to be done at all. But he goes on, “Whoever is not against us is for us.” Now this is an interesting statement. Although it seems the Lord recognizes these “others” as Christian, Christ here employs “us vs. them” terminology; these other exorcists (who we may possibly call the unorganized church) are not part of Christ’s troupe, and so they do not deserve to be embraced under the ecclesial “us” that is deliberately used by the Lord. Thus we see an implicit recognition by Christ of the importance of apostolic authority, even if good is done outside such jurisdiction.

B. The three pillars
There are three apostles in particular that are emphasized in the Gospel: Peter, James and John. Together, these three appear in significant moments of Christ’s life: the Transfiguration and the Garden of Gethsemane . It is interesting to note that Peter, James, and John alone are allowed by Christ to accompany the Lord into the house of Jairus for the resurrection of his daughter . And later, after Christ’s Ascension, the three seem to have a strong role of leadership above everyone else in the infant Church. We may discern in these facts that Jesus himself gave Peter, James, and John preeminent positions within the ecclesial government he was leaving behind, thus leaving us with a pattern of hierarchy in the Church.

C. The uniqueness of Peter
Of the three “pillars” of the hierarchy, it is important that we finally draw our attention to Peter in specific. For if there were three that were called “pillars”, Simon alone actually had his name changed to “Rock” to signify his eminence. This same eminence is inferred in the Gospel authors’ clear attempt to list Peter by name amidst others unnamed or Peter first in the list of Christ’s Apostles. It was Peter alone who, for the sake of his leadership, was specifically singled out in prayer by Christ for defense against spiritual attack by Satan himself . It was Peter alone who was expected by Christ himself to love God more than the rest of the Apostles, along with the command to shepherd the flock of the Church . Most importantly by far, Simon Peter alone was given the “keys to the kingdom”, a pivotal moment that most fully conveyed the role and mission of his office in the restored House of David. In the Davidic kingdom, the man who held the keys was the man who represented the king, and when the king was away, held full authority to maintain order and unity in the kingdom. In fact, this position was an office with successors. Here we see clearly the absolute necessity of the papacy to retain logical continuity in the biblical and historical traditions.

Conclusion

I have answered every question raised in the introduction in a simple, brief, but clear way. Christ did institute a specific Church, he did give that Church authority, the authority was intended to be hierarchical, and Peter’s office was and is at the top of that hierarchy. Moreover, I have demonstrated that Christ is the eternal Son of David, and that the pope, Peter’s successor, is his Key Bearer. The Protestant is left to conceive, in place of the Catholic Church, a sect that is utterly foreign to the Gospels, history, logic, and tradition. Indeed, that is just what I believe I have proved Protestantism to be; the very spirit of interpolation and innovation that its “reformation” is thought to combat. Truly the most christocentric, ancient, and faithful Church is that Catholic Church founded by Christ. Thus should all protest cease and should all Christians embrace one another in full communion, answering Christ’s ardent prayer before it is too late and his wrath is revealed. Even so, come Lord Jesus!

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1722207' date='Dec 8 2008, 02:07 AM']The problem is Martin Luther doesn't share the same understanding of "faith" as St Paul and Pope Benedict do.[/quote]

True. Still, "sola fide" isn't the problem, but our definition of faith.

[quote name='reyb' post='1722634' date='Dec 8 2008, 06:23 PM'][indent]…and if your faith becomes ‘complete’ – becoming like Him. Who do you think will say ‘I am He’?[/indent][/quote]

I don't know... who will say it?

[Galloglasses' Alt]

I said it before and I'll say it again.

Epic Apologetics!

[reyb]

[indent]Therefore, justification is by faith with works. Is it correct?[/indent]

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='reyb' post='1725303' date='Dec 11 2008, 10:52 AM'][indent]Therefore, justification is by faith with works. Is it correct?[/indent][/quote]

Justification by faith. Works are a necessary component of faith. "Faith without works is dead."

[Ziggamafu]

1.

Saved by grace alone through living faith alone. Only works of faith justify. Not works. Not faith. Works of faith. Faithful works. However you would like to say it. But NOT faith alone any more than works alone.

2.

Faithful works are meritorious according to the level of charity involved. This is only because we are by baptism in the Body of Christ; what is his by nature - including merit - may be ours by the grace of baptism. Therefore we truly merit things in as much as we are truly sons in the Son.

[LouisvilleFan]

Well, I'm going to tell my Baptist friends that I believe in "sola fide." It's a good conversation starter, in which I can clarify what I mean by that.

"All your solas are belong to us!"

Anyone was a gaming nerd in their former life (or college roommates who were, in my case) will recognize that saying. There's a funny picture out on the Internets that -- if I remember correctly -- is the Creation painting on the Sistine Chapel that says, "All your Protestants are belong to Rome!"

Think it's on my myspace... I'll have to post it here.

Edited December 11, 2008 by LouisvilleFan