“In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority. Indeed, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #77; referencing “Dei Verbum,” a document of the Second Vatican Council)
One of the foundational claims of the Catholic Church is that of “Apostolic Succession,” which means that they (supposedly) possess an unbroken, uninterrupted, and lawful chain of legitimate successors (popes) from the Apostle Peter all the way down to the present pope, and this will last until the return of Jesus Christ. But is this claim true? Does such a continuous, lawful chain of popes really exist?
Much could be said about the incredible amount of corruption in the lives of some of the popes while in office. But rather than deal with the lives of popes after they got in office, the focus of this article will be on some of the actual methods which were used to obtain this office. Even if the office of “pope” were a valid and biblical one (and it is not), there is still a serious problem in the way that some popes acquired this position.
According to some church scholars / historians, a number of popes have obtained their positions 1) by buying their office [a form of simony], 2) through the working of influential prostitutes, or 3) by the use of force, even murdering the previous pope! These facts are validated by some eye-opening books (written by Catholics or former Catholics), which include Peter De Rosa’s “Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy”; “Lives of the Popes” by Richard P. McBrien; Former Catholic priest Joseph McCabe and his “A History of the Popes”; J. H. Ignaz von Dollinger’s “The Pope and the Council”; and “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church,” by Malachi Martin.
Lest anyone say that these authors / scholars / historians were not good Catholics, or that they are not credible historians, we also provide the following quotes from these official Catholic sources…
1) Concerning Simony:
To uproot the evil of simony so prevalent during the Middle Ages, the Church decreed the severest penalties against its perpetrators. Pope Julius II declared simoniacal papal elections invalid, an enactment which has since been rescinded, however, by Pope Pius X. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, online, under “Simony.”)
“The worst period was from the ninth to the eleventh century when simony pervaded the monasteries, the lower clergy, the episcopacy, and even the papacy.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XIII, page 228)
Pope Benedict IX and simony:
“He was a son of Alberic III, leader of the Tusculani, and he simoniacally succeeded his uncles, Benedict VIII and John XIX.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 274)
“Then on May 1 Benedict sold his papal office to his baptismal sponsor, the reforming archpriest John Gratian, Pope Gregory VI.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. II, page 275)
Benedict IX not only purchased his office, but he later sold it to another pope-to-be when he was finished with it. Remember, for every “transaction” in simony, there are two guilty popes, a “buyer” AND a “seller.”
In one of his papal documents, Pope John Paul II states that if simony occurs in the election of a pope, then those guilty will be excommunicated. But at the same time, he still honors the outcome of that election, so that the validity of the election of that pope “may not… be challenged.” (“Universi Dominici Gregis,” paragraph 78, Feb. 22, 1996)
May not be challenged? Why should the validity of any simony-induced election NOT be challenged? Doesn’t such an election COMPLETELY DISPROVE the idea of God-ordained “Apostolic Succession”? In his statement, Pope John Paul II was (unsuccessfully) attempting damage control in light of an embarrassing past (when simony was common among popes). So he rebukes those who commit simony (as he should), but he then declares that it’s really not a problem for the papacy. To the Catholic Church, such an election is still “official” because “Apostolic Succession” needs to remain intact at all costs, right? Is it just me, or does anyone else see the inconsistency here?
2) Concerning the prostitute Marozia, who was the mistress of Pope Sergius III, during the era commonly known as the “pornocracy” (Rule of the Harlots):
“She imprisoned Pope John X in Castel Sant’ Angelo, where he died in 928 either by assassination…or from other causes. In 931 she had her son, probably by Sergius III…elected to the papacy as Pope John XI.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. IX, page 253-54)
Concerning the prostitute Theodora (the mother of Marozia):
“Besides being personally avaricious, she – together with her family – exercised undue influence on Pope Sergius III and Pope John X, thus causing grave harm to the authority of the popes.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XIV, page 15-16)
Here, influential prostitutes were able to place in office the pope of their choice, or put him in prison, if they so desired. Indeed, “grave harm” was done to the papacy, since this influence of prostitutes reveals to all of us the false nature of this claim of “Apostolic Succession.”
3) Concerning the papal office being taken by force:
In the beginning, the Bishop of Rome was elected by the local clergy and laity along with neighboring bishops. In time, this process came under the influence of secular leaders with negative results. Influencing papal elections, powerful lords and kings hoped to manipulate the office of the papacy in order to advance their temporal ambitions. (The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, Liturgical Press, page 653)
“From the fourth to the eleventh century the influence of temporal rulers in papal elections reached its zenith… This civil intervention ranged from the approval of elected candidates to the actual nomination of candidates (with tremendous pressure exerted on the electors to secure their acceptance), and even to the extreme of forcible deposition and imposition.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XI, page 572)
So, here we see heathen kings exerting their military might to forcibly depose (remove) and forcibly impose (put in office) the popes they wanted!
Should we consider any of this “lawful” or “legitimate” Apostolic Succession? Were these popes ordained by God? Anyone who obtains an ecclesiastical (church) office illegally, immorally, or violently has wrongfully acquired that position, and simply cannot be considered a legitimate holder of that office.
Would we tolerate any of this from those seeking a position in “non-religious” fields? Would you trust a medical doctor who purchased his degree? Or a schoolteacher who committed fornication to get his teaching position? Or how about a senator who took his office by force, or killed the previous senator to obtain that office? Of course, no honest institution would allow their people to obtain an office in such a way. Should we not expect far more from the “Vicar of Christ,” the (supposedly) highest ecclesiastical office of all? We rightfully demand moral accountability in the business, financial, political and medical fields, so why should a religious institution like the Catholic Church not likewise be morally accountable? There are definitely some illegitimate “links” in this “apostolic chain of successors.” But then again, all it takes is one “infected” link to make this Catholic claim (and the whole system) collapse.
Interestingly, the New Catholic Encyclopedia also states, “But it must be frankly admitted that bias or deficiencies in the sources make it impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or antipopes.” (Volume I, page 632)
[Note: An antipope is one who makes an illegal or false claim to the office of pope.]
By this statement alone, they have refuted their own position on Apostolic Succession. If the Catholic Church can’t really know who was actually pope at any given time, then Apostolic Succession is a myth.
The words of John the Baptist come to mind: “And think not to say within yourselves, ‘We have Abraham to our father’; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Matthew 3:9) John was condemning the unrepentant Pharisees and Sadducees, who looked to some physical lineage all the way back to Abraham for their “righteousness.” But John was showing them that God is more concerned with a person’s heart than his lineage or ancestry. The same principle applies today. All true believers are successors of the apostles (Acts 2:42), not just certain leaders. We should look to the teachings of the apostles, as outlined in Scripture, not to a physical line of successors. It may sound good, but the Catholic concept of “Apostolic Succession” is simply an unbiblical, arrogant and false claim. And since it is a foundational claim of the Catholic Church, what will happen to this “house built upon the sand”? (Matthew 7:26-27)
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
DIALOGUE ON BIBLE INTERPRETATION
[Catholics who deny the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible alone”) will often do so because they believe that we can’t interpret the Scriptures apart from the authority of the Catholic Church. The following is a fictional dialogue, but it is based on numerous real encounters (personal, internet, and otherwise) between Catholics and Protestants. Catholic comments will be in blue, while the Sola Scriptura believer’s comments will be in black.]
That’s just YOUR interpretation. You Protestants only have your subjective (personal) interpretation of the Bible. But we need to be CERTAIN about Scripture interpretation, because the correct meaning is vitally important. Therefore, we need someone who is INFALLIBLE to interpret for us.
And who might that be?
The Church, of course.
Meaning…the Catholic Church, right?
That’s correct.
But how does one who is searching for the truth, first determine that the Catholic Church is really the true Church, the (supposedly) infallible source of truth?
Matthew 16:18-19 tells us that Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus builds His Church, and Peter is the visible head of that Church, and it will never let the gates of hell prevail. Also, the Catholic Church has power to bind and loose, and no other church does.
So, you’re telling me that my interpretation of Scripture is “subjective” and therefore, insufficient, so I must look to the Catholic Church to interpret for me, right? Yet, in order to recognize the Catholic Church as the “true” Church, I must go to Matthew 16 to find out… but (according to you) I can’t really be sure of my interpretation in the first place. You tell me that I can’t really understand it, yet you point me to that same Bible to verify your assertion. Am I understanding you correctly?
You Protestants misread Matthew 16. But it is obvious that Jesus established His Church here.
So, the meaning of Matthew 16 should be “obvious” to an outsider (non-Catholic) who is searching for truth?
We believe an honest person would see the same truth that we see when reading Matthew 16. It is very clear to anyone seeking the truth.
Again, that seems to be a contradiction. First, you say we CAN’T trust our interpretation of the Bible, but then you say that if we read a particular passage in the Bible (Matthew 16), it is obviously telling us who CAN interpret it. In other words, we need to interpret the Bible in order to understand that our interpretation of the Bible will be wrong? Is this what you are saying?
I’m saying that we need to be absolutely SURE that our interpretation is correct.
But, would you agree that it is POSSIBLE for a seeker, apart from the Catholic Church, to correctly interpret a particular passage?
Yes, it is possible, but we need CERTAINTY, not just “possibility”.
And the Catholic has that certainty?
Yes, because he depends on the infallible Church as the authentic interpreter.
So, when a person seeking the truth chooses to join the Catholic Church, is that a fallible choice?
Yes, we, as individuals, are fallible, but we know the Church is infallible.
And you determined this (the Church’s infallibility) by your FALLIBLE reading of Matthew 16? If your original decision to join that church was a FALLIBLE one, how can you boast of having infallible certainty now? Suppose you find out later that the Catholic Church is wrong?
We can be infallibly certain because the Catholic Church IS infallible, and she tells us that we are right – that we made the right choice.
Of course she tells you that you made the right choice! Would you expect her to tell you that you were WRONG to join her? In the same way, certain cults will tell you that their leaders are also infallible, and you made the right choice in joining THEM. So how do you test them? How do you know whether THEIR church is right or wrong?
Because we Catholics not only have Scripture, but we also have Sacred Tradition to help us in deciding these things.
And exactly what IS this Tradition?
In a nutshell, it is simply the teachings of the Church.
So, let me recap… you know that the Catholic Church has infallibility based on your fallible interpretation of Matthew 16, “supported” by the Church’s Sacred Tradition, which is simply based on its OWN teachings? In other words, you are saying, “The Church is infallible because that’s what it teaches!” Sounds pretty weak and circular to me. But suppose some Catholics disagree on the interpretation of Matthew 16. What then?
We have an ultimate human leader (the pope) who can settle all disputes, unlike Protestants with their many divisions. If an interpretation is needed, he can give an official and infallible one.
Then who “infallibly interprets” HIS interpretation if there are any misunderstandings / disagreements / divisions on what HE said? At some point, the “fallible” must meet the “Infallible,” and it is still the fallible individual who must ultimately determine what the “Infallible” has said, whether it is God, the Pope, the Council of Trent, or whoever.
We believe that once the Pope has spoken, it is understandable and clear enough for the individual who exercises humble obedience and common sense.
But that is exactly how the Protestant sees the interpretation of SCRIPTURE…using humility and common sense (along with basic hermeneutical principles, of course). If interpretation by humble obedience and common sense works in understanding the Pope, then why would it not work for Scripture?
But there are things in the Bible that are hard to understand. The Bible, itself, admits this (2 Peter 3:16). When people privately interpret, they end up twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction!
This passage only says that SOME things are hard to understand. But does that mean that we give up? Stop studying? Do we neglect our responsibility to “rightly divide the Word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) and turn the whole thing over to some (supposedly) infallible leader just because a certain passage is hard to understand? Of course not. We continue to prayerfully study and learn. Now, this doesn’t mean that we can’t learn from others, because we certainly can. We all need help interpreting now and then. But we have no biblical reason to believe in a single human leader (or organization) who MUST arbitrate for us. And by the way, 2 Peter 3:16 says nothing about an infallible human interpreter, although this would be an excellent place to mention it. Also, that passage in 2 Peter is speaking of the error of the “wicked” and unbelieving (verse 17), not the humble and prayerful person who is truly trying to find the will of God.
But the Protestant puts too much emphasis on the individual. There is too much risk here of private interpretation. The Bible also warns us against that (2 Peter 1:20).
But 2 Peter 1:20-21 is not speaking of one’s READING of Scripture, but rather, the ORIGIN of Scripture. This passage is often taken out of context by Catholics, as you just did. It is saying that no prophecy was given to the prophet by HIS OWN interpretation, but was directly from God. It is NOT telling us that the common man can’t (or shouldn’t) interpret, nor is it saying that a particular organization (like the Catholic Church) must be the only authentic interpreter.
But the Bible also tells us that we must obey our leaders (Hebrews 13:17). THEY have the truth, and THEY have the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s why God put them there.
Does the person who happens to be in a church that teaches serious heresy have the responsibility to obey HIS leaders, too? It is true that we should obey our leaders WHO ARE BIBLICALLY SOUND, but how is one to know, if we cannot rightly divide the Word? God expects Church leaders to be “tested” and “evaluated” by their congregation to be sure that they are in line with Scripture, just as the Bereans tested the message of the Apostle Paul (Acts 17:11).
As I said before, the Catholic Church is infallible, as Matthew 16 and other passages clearly indicate. There is no need for the individual to strain and travail with his private interpretations, because he may let his prejudice and presuppositions cloud the true interpretation. God established the Catholic Church and its leaders to take care of all that.
That is the problem with many Catholics. They operate on a false assumption. That is: Either 1) One must have an INFALLIBLE interpretation of Scripture, or 2) he will inevitably have a WRONG interpretation. To these Catholics, there seems to be no middle ground… but “infallible” and “wrong” are not the only possibilities. It is certainly possible to be fallible (as all of us are) and yet be RIGHT in one’s Bible interpretation.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Catholics often ask, “What use is an infallible book (the Bible), without an infallible interpreter (the Catholic Church)?” But this is like asking, “What use is an infallible God without an infallible human mind to understand Him?” But that’s ridiculous. He doesn’t expect us to understand Him infallibly. Infallibility is GOD’S domain. Only HE can have infallible certainty, but we humans can have sufficient certainty. So, all these Catholics who insist on “infallible certainty” are simply engaging in futility and unnecessary hype.
And one has to wonder, if infallible interpretations are so critical, then why are there only a tiny handful of Bible verses “infallibly interpreted” by the Catholic Church?
When we encourage each person to interpret Scripture, we do not mean that one can interpret it recklessly or just any way he feels like it. As mentioned above, there are basic hermeneutical principles involved, along with common sense. And it is important that one’s heart should be right, also (Luke 8:11-15). Many times, the problem is not hard Scripture, but hard hearts.
Catholics will often ask Protestants, “By what authority do you interpret Scripture?” But why should we need some special “authority” or “permission” to do something that God has already told us to do? He has already told us to “rightly divide” (interpret) His Word. This question is like asking, “By what authority do you obey the Commandments?” It has nothing to do with authority on our part. It’s simply something that God EXPECTS us to do.
Instead of telling me, “That’s just YOUR interpretation,” let’s look at the Scriptures together and exegete the relevant passages, and perhaps you can SHOW me where I am wrong in my interpretation. Let’s see which interpretation is most reasonable.
I just can’t see how a loving God would give us inspired revelation and not give the ability to understand it to those who need it most, the ones who Jesus favored…the common folk, the poor, the uneducated, and the lost… those who cried out to God. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible alone”) does not mean that all Scripture is perfectly clear to everyone, or even equally clear to everyone, but we are ALL expected to interpret, at least to some degree. More than a dozen times in the New Testament we see the call, “WHOSOEVER has an ear, let him hear.” Anyone who “has an ear” is someone who is able to hear, interpret, and understand God’s message. The word “whosoever” is not restricted to church leaders.
Remember, Jesus, at a most critical time in His ministry, showed us how Scripture interprets Scripture. When He was tempted in the wilderness and the devil quoted Scripture to Him, Jesus didn’t say, “Oh, well, I guess I’ll have to appeal to Tradition now!” No, He went deeper into Scripture and said, “It is written AGAIN…” (Matthew 4:5-7)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The Catholic Church boasts that she is the sole authentic interpreter of the Word of God (Catechism of the Catholic Church #100), yet she has provided us with many teachings that contradict the Bible. Therefore, saying that we need the Catholic Church to interpret the Bible for us is like saying that we need the fox to guard the henhouse. Eternal souls are too precious to be put into the hands of, and be dependent upon, an organization who makes such sweeping claims, but cannot deliver the goods.
The gospel message that God has given us is not complex or hard to interpret. It is simply this: To enter Heaven, we need to believe / trust in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and not in a Church, organization, pope, good works, or anything else. Let’s not complicate something so simple, yet so important. To be sure, we don’t need the Catholic Church to interpret this for us.
That’s just YOUR interpretation. You Protestants only have your subjective (personal) interpretation of the Bible. But we need to be CERTAIN about Scripture interpretation, because the correct meaning is vitally important. Therefore, we need someone who is INFALLIBLE to interpret for us.
And who might that be?
The Church, of course.
Meaning…the Catholic Church, right?
That’s correct.
But how does one who is searching for the truth, first determine that the Catholic Church is really the true Church, the (supposedly) infallible source of truth?
Matthew 16:18-19 tells us that Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus builds His Church, and Peter is the visible head of that Church, and it will never let the gates of hell prevail. Also, the Catholic Church has power to bind and loose, and no other church does.
So, you’re telling me that my interpretation of Scripture is “subjective” and therefore, insufficient, so I must look to the Catholic Church to interpret for me, right? Yet, in order to recognize the Catholic Church as the “true” Church, I must go to Matthew 16 to find out… but (according to you) I can’t really be sure of my interpretation in the first place. You tell me that I can’t really understand it, yet you point me to that same Bible to verify your assertion. Am I understanding you correctly?
You Protestants misread Matthew 16. But it is obvious that Jesus established His Church here.
So, the meaning of Matthew 16 should be “obvious” to an outsider (non-Catholic) who is searching for truth?
We believe an honest person would see the same truth that we see when reading Matthew 16. It is very clear to anyone seeking the truth.
Again, that seems to be a contradiction. First, you say we CAN’T trust our interpretation of the Bible, but then you say that if we read a particular passage in the Bible (Matthew 16), it is obviously telling us who CAN interpret it. In other words, we need to interpret the Bible in order to understand that our interpretation of the Bible will be wrong? Is this what you are saying?
I’m saying that we need to be absolutely SURE that our interpretation is correct.
But, would you agree that it is POSSIBLE for a seeker, apart from the Catholic Church, to correctly interpret a particular passage?
Yes, it is possible, but we need CERTAINTY, not just “possibility”.
And the Catholic has that certainty?
Yes, because he depends on the infallible Church as the authentic interpreter.
So, when a person seeking the truth chooses to join the Catholic Church, is that a fallible choice?
Yes, we, as individuals, are fallible, but we know the Church is infallible.
And you determined this (the Church’s infallibility) by your FALLIBLE reading of Matthew 16? If your original decision to join that church was a FALLIBLE one, how can you boast of having infallible certainty now? Suppose you find out later that the Catholic Church is wrong?
We can be infallibly certain because the Catholic Church IS infallible, and she tells us that we are right – that we made the right choice.
Of course she tells you that you made the right choice! Would you expect her to tell you that you were WRONG to join her? In the same way, certain cults will tell you that their leaders are also infallible, and you made the right choice in joining THEM. So how do you test them? How do you know whether THEIR church is right or wrong?
Because we Catholics not only have Scripture, but we also have Sacred Tradition to help us in deciding these things.
And exactly what IS this Tradition?
In a nutshell, it is simply the teachings of the Church.
So, let me recap… you know that the Catholic Church has infallibility based on your fallible interpretation of Matthew 16, “supported” by the Church’s Sacred Tradition, which is simply based on its OWN teachings? In other words, you are saying, “The Church is infallible because that’s what it teaches!” Sounds pretty weak and circular to me. But suppose some Catholics disagree on the interpretation of Matthew 16. What then?
We have an ultimate human leader (the pope) who can settle all disputes, unlike Protestants with their many divisions. If an interpretation is needed, he can give an official and infallible one.
Then who “infallibly interprets” HIS interpretation if there are any misunderstandings / disagreements / divisions on what HE said? At some point, the “fallible” must meet the “Infallible,” and it is still the fallible individual who must ultimately determine what the “Infallible” has said, whether it is God, the Pope, the Council of Trent, or whoever.
We believe that once the Pope has spoken, it is understandable and clear enough for the individual who exercises humble obedience and common sense.
But that is exactly how the Protestant sees the interpretation of SCRIPTURE…using humility and common sense (along with basic hermeneutical principles, of course). If interpretation by humble obedience and common sense works in understanding the Pope, then why would it not work for Scripture?
But there are things in the Bible that are hard to understand. The Bible, itself, admits this (2 Peter 3:16). When people privately interpret, they end up twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction!
This passage only says that SOME things are hard to understand. But does that mean that we give up? Stop studying? Do we neglect our responsibility to “rightly divide the Word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15) and turn the whole thing over to some (supposedly) infallible leader just because a certain passage is hard to understand? Of course not. We continue to prayerfully study and learn. Now, this doesn’t mean that we can’t learn from others, because we certainly can. We all need help interpreting now and then. But we have no biblical reason to believe in a single human leader (or organization) who MUST arbitrate for us. And by the way, 2 Peter 3:16 says nothing about an infallible human interpreter, although this would be an excellent place to mention it. Also, that passage in 2 Peter is speaking of the error of the “wicked” and unbelieving (verse 17), not the humble and prayerful person who is truly trying to find the will of God.
But the Protestant puts too much emphasis on the individual. There is too much risk here of private interpretation. The Bible also warns us against that (2 Peter 1:20).
But 2 Peter 1:20-21 is not speaking of one’s READING of Scripture, but rather, the ORIGIN of Scripture. This passage is often taken out of context by Catholics, as you just did. It is saying that no prophecy was given to the prophet by HIS OWN interpretation, but was directly from God. It is NOT telling us that the common man can’t (or shouldn’t) interpret, nor is it saying that a particular organization (like the Catholic Church) must be the only authentic interpreter.
But the Bible also tells us that we must obey our leaders (Hebrews 13:17). THEY have the truth, and THEY have the correct interpretation of Scripture. That’s why God put them there.
Does the person who happens to be in a church that teaches serious heresy have the responsibility to obey HIS leaders, too? It is true that we should obey our leaders WHO ARE BIBLICALLY SOUND, but how is one to know, if we cannot rightly divide the Word? God expects Church leaders to be “tested” and “evaluated” by their congregation to be sure that they are in line with Scripture, just as the Bereans tested the message of the Apostle Paul (Acts 17:11).
As I said before, the Catholic Church is infallible, as Matthew 16 and other passages clearly indicate. There is no need for the individual to strain and travail with his private interpretations, because he may let his prejudice and presuppositions cloud the true interpretation. God established the Catholic Church and its leaders to take care of all that.
That is the problem with many Catholics. They operate on a false assumption. That is: Either 1) One must have an INFALLIBLE interpretation of Scripture, or 2) he will inevitably have a WRONG interpretation. To these Catholics, there seems to be no middle ground… but “infallible” and “wrong” are not the only possibilities. It is certainly possible to be fallible (as all of us are) and yet be RIGHT in one’s Bible interpretation.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Catholics often ask, “What use is an infallible book (the Bible), without an infallible interpreter (the Catholic Church)?” But this is like asking, “What use is an infallible God without an infallible human mind to understand Him?” But that’s ridiculous. He doesn’t expect us to understand Him infallibly. Infallibility is GOD’S domain. Only HE can have infallible certainty, but we humans can have sufficient certainty. So, all these Catholics who insist on “infallible certainty” are simply engaging in futility and unnecessary hype.
And one has to wonder, if infallible interpretations are so critical, then why are there only a tiny handful of Bible verses “infallibly interpreted” by the Catholic Church?
When we encourage each person to interpret Scripture, we do not mean that one can interpret it recklessly or just any way he feels like it. As mentioned above, there are basic hermeneutical principles involved, along with common sense. And it is important that one’s heart should be right, also (Luke 8:11-15). Many times, the problem is not hard Scripture, but hard hearts.
Catholics will often ask Protestants, “By what authority do you interpret Scripture?” But why should we need some special “authority” or “permission” to do something that God has already told us to do? He has already told us to “rightly divide” (interpret) His Word. This question is like asking, “By what authority do you obey the Commandments?” It has nothing to do with authority on our part. It’s simply something that God EXPECTS us to do.
Instead of telling me, “That’s just YOUR interpretation,” let’s look at the Scriptures together and exegete the relevant passages, and perhaps you can SHOW me where I am wrong in my interpretation. Let’s see which interpretation is most reasonable.
I just can’t see how a loving God would give us inspired revelation and not give the ability to understand it to those who need it most, the ones who Jesus favored…the common folk, the poor, the uneducated, and the lost… those who cried out to God. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Bible alone”) does not mean that all Scripture is perfectly clear to everyone, or even equally clear to everyone, but we are ALL expected to interpret, at least to some degree. More than a dozen times in the New Testament we see the call, “WHOSOEVER has an ear, let him hear.” Anyone who “has an ear” is someone who is able to hear, interpret, and understand God’s message. The word “whosoever” is not restricted to church leaders.
Remember, Jesus, at a most critical time in His ministry, showed us how Scripture interprets Scripture. When He was tempted in the wilderness and the devil quoted Scripture to Him, Jesus didn’t say, “Oh, well, I guess I’ll have to appeal to Tradition now!” No, He went deeper into Scripture and said, “It is written AGAIN…” (Matthew 4:5-7)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The Catholic Church boasts that she is the sole authentic interpreter of the Word of God (Catechism of the Catholic Church #100), yet she has provided us with many teachings that contradict the Bible. Therefore, saying that we need the Catholic Church to interpret the Bible for us is like saying that we need the fox to guard the henhouse. Eternal souls are too precious to be put into the hands of, and be dependent upon, an organization who makes such sweeping claims, but cannot deliver the goods.
The gospel message that God has given us is not complex or hard to interpret. It is simply this: To enter Heaven, we need to believe / trust in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and not in a Church, organization, pope, good works, or anything else. Let’s not complicate something so simple, yet so important. To be sure, we don’t need the Catholic Church to interpret this for us.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
THE CHURCH FATHERS
We stated in a previous post that the Catholic Church’s dependence on the church fathers to prove the truth of a particular teaching raises more questions than answers. For example, exactly which of the early Christians were considered to be church fathers? How do we know for sure? Does the Catholic Church have an infallible list of these? How do we know that we are correctly interpreting a certain father when we read his writings? If we can correctly interpret the fathers, shouldn’t we also be able to correctly interpret the Scriptures? Why is it that some of the fathers contradict each other? Why do they sometimes contradict the Catholic Church? And how do we know that the “heretics” were not the real fathers and the ones believed to be “fathers” weren’t the real heretics? Can the Catholic Church answer any of these questions without using circular reasoning (e.g., saying the fathers are right because the Church says so, and the Church is right because the fathers say so)?
Although Catholics are quick to use the fathers as authoritative sources, someone may find it difficult to find an “official” statement by the Catholic Church that clearly defines exactly who the fathers are, and precisely what type of authority they hold. But it seems, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) that the teachings of the fathers somehow tie in closely with Sacred Tradition (CCC #78; CCC #688). In fact, the fathers of the Church are said to be one of the “principal sources” in the creation of the Catholic Catechism (CCC #11). With this in mind, we must ask, “Are all the fathers’ teachings correct?” How do we know (again, without using circular reasoning)? The answer is simple…we compare their teachings with the Bible.
The Pope Has Spoken
But, according to a papal encyclical by Pope Pius XII, it is wrong to “judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.” (“Humani Generis”, paragraph 22, August 12, 1950.)
In other words, according to the Catholic Church, we are not allowed to judge the teachings of the church fathers in light of Scripture without the “mind of the Church.” But the “mind” of the Catholic Church clearly contradicts the Scriptures in many of its teachings, so its claim of being the “guardian and interpreter” of the “whole deposit” of truth is an empty and deceitful boast.
The Test
The Bible commands us to TEST ALL THINGS (I Thessalonians 5:21; I John 4:1), which would include the fathers, and we test them with the Scriptures, just as Jesus did (Matthew 15:1-9). No one’s teachings are exempt from this test, whether it’s the Catholic Church, a Protestant church, any church father, or any individual or group. We are all subject to God’s ultimate authority, the Scriptures, which will judge us in the last day (John 12:48). Even the teachings of the APOSTLES were to be tested (Acts 17:11), as well as those who claimed to be apostles (Revelation 2:2). And if we can test an angel from Heaven (Galatians 1:8-9), we can certainly test the church fathers.
What If…?
But, just for the sake of argument, what if there were a perfectly unanimous agreement between all the fathers on all their teachings and Scripture interpretations? Would even this prove that the fathers’ teachings are true? The answer is still no. It’s not the level of unity on a doctrine that proves its truthfulness, but it’s whether it lines up with God’s revelation…the Scriptures.
To demonstrate the point, what if every single father firmly believed in a particular false teaching? Would that kind of unity make the teaching true? Of course not. Someone may answer, “But God wouldn’t have let them believe in it if it were false.” But this answer is just an unprovable assumption.
Apostasy in the Early Church
Can we always trust the fathers? Is it possible that even a church father could fall into error or apostasy? Yes, indeed. Note that apostasy, in one form or another, has entered the church from earliest times. Although not a complete apostasy, it was nevertheless present in different degrees and in different places early on, even in the days of the apostles. Note what the Apostle Paul said to the Ephesian elders:
28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in AMONG YOU, not sparing the flock.
30) Also OF YOUR OWN SELVES shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-30)
Paul also dealt with the errors of the Judaizers in the early church era, in his epistle to the Galatians, and he dealt with Gnosticism in his epistle to the Colossians.
The Apostle John also had to deal with the false teachings of the Gnostics in the epistle of I John. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus pointed out, through John, the false teachings within two of the seven churches of Asia that needed to be dealt with. (Revelation 2:14-15, 20)
Now, this does NOT mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed over the church (Matthew 16:18), but only that some had fallen prey to false doctrine. So, there was no guarantee that a father would automatically be right. One’s position or ecclesiastical (church) office does not make his message true. His faithfulness to God’s Truth does. (John 17:17)
“Closer-in-Time” Proves Truth?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT SURELY THE FATHERS WERE IN A BETTER POSITION TO KNOW WHAT THE APOSTLES REALLY MEANT, THAN WE ARE TODAY. THEY WERE MUCH CLOSER IN TIME TO THE APOSTLES, AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS LESS CHANCE THAT THE MESSAGE WAS CORRUPTED.
Being “closer” to the time of the apostles does not necessarily mean the fathers’ teachings had to be true. Just as the apostles sometimes had problems understanding Jesus, Himself, the students of the apostles no doubt also sometimes had trouble understanding the apostles. And so on, down the line. Error can, and did, creep into the church and led to more and more false teaching. But, if “closer-in-time” proves a teaching is true, then why did heretics exist during the time of the apostles? And if “farther-in-time” weakens the truth, then wouldn’t it be pretty hopeless for us today, since we are so far removed from the time of Jesus and the apostles? How could we know any truth today? Perhaps the likelihood of being correct in those days was greater, but proximity in time does not guarantee truth. The fact is, there was both truth AND error in their day, just as it is now. We don’t have living, infallible apostles today to keep us on track, but we do have infallible Scripture.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT THE FATHERS BELIEVED IN CATHOLIC DOCTRINES, LIKE THE EUCHARIST, INFANT BAPTISM, PENANCE, THE PRIESTHOOD, PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, ETC., AND SOME OF THESE MEN WERE TAUGHT BY ACTUAL APOSTLES! SO THESE TEACHINGS HAD TO BE TRUE.
This does not necessarily follow. The New Testament speaks of men who were probably directly taught by apostles, yet were teaching false doctrine, like Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17-18). Worse yet, no doubt some had even stood in the very presence of Jesus Christ and claimed to be His disciples, and yet, misunderstood or misconstrued what He taught, and then went out and taught heresy. So, being in a line of students directly up to the apostles does not prove one’s doctrine. The Pharisees claimed a pedigree (lineage) from Abraham, but they didn’t do Abraham’s works or teach what Abraham taught (Matthew 3:7-9; Mark 7:6-8; John 8:39). Remember, these Pharisees were Jewish leaders to whom the oracles of God had been entrusted (Romans 3:2), just as the apostles had also been entrusted with the oracles of God. But this did not eliminate the possibility of error, abuse, or misunderstanding (even shortly) down the line. Once again, the teachings of the students of the apostles were true and accurate only in relation to their faithfulness to God’s Word.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – YOUR PROTESTANT ARGUMENTS ARE MERELY A “JOHNNY-COME-LATELY” THEOLOGY. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS BEEN AROUND FOR TWO THOUSAND YEARS AND HAS ALWAYS TRUSTED THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS. SO, WHO ARE YOU GUYS TO GO AGAINST THIS VENERABLE INSTITUTION WITH YOUR NOVEL IDEAS?
First of all, we’re not saying that the teachings of the fathers are never to be trusted…they just all need to be tested before they’re accepted.
Secondly, longevity does not prove truth. Just because the Catholic Church has been around a long time doesn’t mean they’re right. The Hindus have been around for about five thousand years (more than twice as long as Christianity), but I don’t think that any reputable Catholic would say that the Hindus have more truth than Christianity does.
Thirdly, there is an extraordinary assumption in the above claim: that the modern day Catholic Church is the same church that existed in the first century, i.e., the church we find in the Bible. But how can the Catholic Church be that same one when many of its teachings are not found in the Bible, and oftentimes even contradict the Bible?
It’s easy to say, “Yeah, that was US back then, and we’re still here, doing and teaching the same things as then!” But the proof of the true church is in its faithfulness to Scripture. Catholics like to say, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” But if someone wants to see the historical church, the church of the Bible, and what THEY taught, why look so much to the fathers in the fourth, third, or second century, as many Catholics do? Why not go all the way back in history to the Author of Christianity, Jesus Christ Himself, i.e., to Him Whose words were infallible? What someone else SAID He taught does not override our responsibility to go directly to His Words in Scripture to see what He actually did teach.
Conclusion
The Pharisees and scribes were sharply rebuked by the Lord Jesus when they put their man-made traditions above God’s Word. And just as the Pharisees put too much trust in their “tradition of the elders” (Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:3), so do Catholics today when they look to the church fathers. Let us never embrace the words of the church fathers at the neglect of the words of the Heavenly Father. (Matthew 6:26)
Please understand, we are in no way attempting to belittle the church fathers. They had good and valuable insight, their teachings were useful and informative, and they were important to the church. But we are trying to avoid the over-emphasis of their importance. Some of them were more important than others, and they had different levels of authority and recognition. But the fathers were human, just like you and me. They sometimes disagreed with each other, contradicted each other, changed their minds on certain things, and sometimes even fell into heresy.
Were the church fathers great men of God? We believe that most of them probably were. Were they good role models? Again, we believe that probably the majority of them were good Christian examples. But the real question is, “Were their teachings INFALLIBLE?” And the answer is no. Therefore, let us hold on to that which IS God-breathed and infallible, God’s Word, the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and let us use that as our Standard to test every teaching that comes our way.
Although Catholics are quick to use the fathers as authoritative sources, someone may find it difficult to find an “official” statement by the Catholic Church that clearly defines exactly who the fathers are, and precisely what type of authority they hold. But it seems, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) that the teachings of the fathers somehow tie in closely with Sacred Tradition (CCC #78; CCC #688). In fact, the fathers of the Church are said to be one of the “principal sources” in the creation of the Catholic Catechism (CCC #11). With this in mind, we must ask, “Are all the fathers’ teachings correct?” How do we know (again, without using circular reasoning)? The answer is simple…we compare their teachings with the Bible.
The Pope Has Spoken
But, according to a papal encyclical by Pope Pius XII, it is wrong to “judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.” (“Humani Generis”, paragraph 22, August 12, 1950.)
In other words, according to the Catholic Church, we are not allowed to judge the teachings of the church fathers in light of Scripture without the “mind of the Church.” But the “mind” of the Catholic Church clearly contradicts the Scriptures in many of its teachings, so its claim of being the “guardian and interpreter” of the “whole deposit” of truth is an empty and deceitful boast.
The Test
The Bible commands us to TEST ALL THINGS (I Thessalonians 5:21; I John 4:1), which would include the fathers, and we test them with the Scriptures, just as Jesus did (Matthew 15:1-9). No one’s teachings are exempt from this test, whether it’s the Catholic Church, a Protestant church, any church father, or any individual or group. We are all subject to God’s ultimate authority, the Scriptures, which will judge us in the last day (John 12:48). Even the teachings of the APOSTLES were to be tested (Acts 17:11), as well as those who claimed to be apostles (Revelation 2:2). And if we can test an angel from Heaven (Galatians 1:8-9), we can certainly test the church fathers.
What If…?
But, just for the sake of argument, what if there were a perfectly unanimous agreement between all the fathers on all their teachings and Scripture interpretations? Would even this prove that the fathers’ teachings are true? The answer is still no. It’s not the level of unity on a doctrine that proves its truthfulness, but it’s whether it lines up with God’s revelation…the Scriptures.
To demonstrate the point, what if every single father firmly believed in a particular false teaching? Would that kind of unity make the teaching true? Of course not. Someone may answer, “But God wouldn’t have let them believe in it if it were false.” But this answer is just an unprovable assumption.
Apostasy in the Early Church
Can we always trust the fathers? Is it possible that even a church father could fall into error or apostasy? Yes, indeed. Note that apostasy, in one form or another, has entered the church from earliest times. Although not a complete apostasy, it was nevertheless present in different degrees and in different places early on, even in the days of the apostles. Note what the Apostle Paul said to the Ephesian elders:
28) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in AMONG YOU, not sparing the flock.
30) Also OF YOUR OWN SELVES shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:28-30)
Paul also dealt with the errors of the Judaizers in the early church era, in his epistle to the Galatians, and he dealt with Gnosticism in his epistle to the Colossians.
The Apostle John also had to deal with the false teachings of the Gnostics in the epistle of I John. Furthermore, the Lord Jesus pointed out, through John, the false teachings within two of the seven churches of Asia that needed to be dealt with. (Revelation 2:14-15, 20)
Now, this does NOT mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed over the church (Matthew 16:18), but only that some had fallen prey to false doctrine. So, there was no guarantee that a father would automatically be right. One’s position or ecclesiastical (church) office does not make his message true. His faithfulness to God’s Truth does. (John 17:17)
“Closer-in-Time” Proves Truth?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT SURELY THE FATHERS WERE IN A BETTER POSITION TO KNOW WHAT THE APOSTLES REALLY MEANT, THAN WE ARE TODAY. THEY WERE MUCH CLOSER IN TIME TO THE APOSTLES, AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS LESS CHANCE THAT THE MESSAGE WAS CORRUPTED.
Being “closer” to the time of the apostles does not necessarily mean the fathers’ teachings had to be true. Just as the apostles sometimes had problems understanding Jesus, Himself, the students of the apostles no doubt also sometimes had trouble understanding the apostles. And so on, down the line. Error can, and did, creep into the church and led to more and more false teaching. But, if “closer-in-time” proves a teaching is true, then why did heretics exist during the time of the apostles? And if “farther-in-time” weakens the truth, then wouldn’t it be pretty hopeless for us today, since we are so far removed from the time of Jesus and the apostles? How could we know any truth today? Perhaps the likelihood of being correct in those days was greater, but proximity in time does not guarantee truth. The fact is, there was both truth AND error in their day, just as it is now. We don’t have living, infallible apostles today to keep us on track, but we do have infallible Scripture.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT THE FATHERS BELIEVED IN CATHOLIC DOCTRINES, LIKE THE EUCHARIST, INFANT BAPTISM, PENANCE, THE PRIESTHOOD, PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, ETC., AND SOME OF THESE MEN WERE TAUGHT BY ACTUAL APOSTLES! SO THESE TEACHINGS HAD TO BE TRUE.
This does not necessarily follow. The New Testament speaks of men who were probably directly taught by apostles, yet were teaching false doctrine, like Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17-18). Worse yet, no doubt some had even stood in the very presence of Jesus Christ and claimed to be His disciples, and yet, misunderstood or misconstrued what He taught, and then went out and taught heresy. So, being in a line of students directly up to the apostles does not prove one’s doctrine. The Pharisees claimed a pedigree (lineage) from Abraham, but they didn’t do Abraham’s works or teach what Abraham taught (Matthew 3:7-9; Mark 7:6-8; John 8:39). Remember, these Pharisees were Jewish leaders to whom the oracles of God had been entrusted (Romans 3:2), just as the apostles had also been entrusted with the oracles of God. But this did not eliminate the possibility of error, abuse, or misunderstanding (even shortly) down the line. Once again, the teachings of the students of the apostles were true and accurate only in relation to their faithfulness to God’s Word.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – YOUR PROTESTANT ARGUMENTS ARE MERELY A “JOHNNY-COME-LATELY” THEOLOGY. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS BEEN AROUND FOR TWO THOUSAND YEARS AND HAS ALWAYS TRUSTED THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS. SO, WHO ARE YOU GUYS TO GO AGAINST THIS VENERABLE INSTITUTION WITH YOUR NOVEL IDEAS?
First of all, we’re not saying that the teachings of the fathers are never to be trusted…they just all need to be tested before they’re accepted.
Secondly, longevity does not prove truth. Just because the Catholic Church has been around a long time doesn’t mean they’re right. The Hindus have been around for about five thousand years (more than twice as long as Christianity), but I don’t think that any reputable Catholic would say that the Hindus have more truth than Christianity does.
Thirdly, there is an extraordinary assumption in the above claim: that the modern day Catholic Church is the same church that existed in the first century, i.e., the church we find in the Bible. But how can the Catholic Church be that same one when many of its teachings are not found in the Bible, and oftentimes even contradict the Bible?
It’s easy to say, “Yeah, that was US back then, and we’re still here, doing and teaching the same things as then!” But the proof of the true church is in its faithfulness to Scripture. Catholics like to say, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” But if someone wants to see the historical church, the church of the Bible, and what THEY taught, why look so much to the fathers in the fourth, third, or second century, as many Catholics do? Why not go all the way back in history to the Author of Christianity, Jesus Christ Himself, i.e., to Him Whose words were infallible? What someone else SAID He taught does not override our responsibility to go directly to His Words in Scripture to see what He actually did teach.
Conclusion
The Pharisees and scribes were sharply rebuked by the Lord Jesus when they put their man-made traditions above God’s Word. And just as the Pharisees put too much trust in their “tradition of the elders” (Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:3), so do Catholics today when they look to the church fathers. Let us never embrace the words of the church fathers at the neglect of the words of the Heavenly Father. (Matthew 6:26)
Please understand, we are in no way attempting to belittle the church fathers. They had good and valuable insight, their teachings were useful and informative, and they were important to the church. But we are trying to avoid the over-emphasis of their importance. Some of them were more important than others, and they had different levels of authority and recognition. But the fathers were human, just like you and me. They sometimes disagreed with each other, contradicted each other, changed their minds on certain things, and sometimes even fell into heresy.
Were the church fathers great men of God? We believe that most of them probably were. Were they good role models? Again, we believe that probably the majority of them were good Christian examples. But the real question is, “Were their teachings INFALLIBLE?” And the answer is no. Therefore, let us hold on to that which IS God-breathed and infallible, God’s Word, the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and let us use that as our Standard to test every teaching that comes our way.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
THE EUCHARIST (Part 2)
In Part 1, we demonstrated that the bread and the wine in the Lord’s Supper / Communion service are symbols, or signs, of the work that Jesus Christ did on the cross, but the Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine miraculously change into the actual, literal body, blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus. We dealt with several Catholic arguments for this and found them lacking. This is a very extraordinary claim, and if one is going to make such a claim, he should likewise have extraordinary proof for it. But the Catholic Church doesn’t. They will attempt to use Scripture to prove the Eucharist, but it’s just not there. So, let us now look at more Catholic claims and see whether these will line up with Scripture.
John 6 (Once More)
CATHOLIC CLAIM - THE LANGUAGE THAT JESUS USED IN THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF JOHN CONCERNING “EATING HIS FLESH” AND “DRINKING HIS BLOOD” IS FORCEFUL AND VIVID, AND THEREFORE, VERY LITERAL.
Perhaps, by “forceful,” the Catholic means it was repeated again and again. But the “repetition argument” was already covered in Part 1. As for as “vivid” language, if one takes a look at the book of Revelation (which is, interestingly enough, also written by John) he would see some very “vivid” language used there also, and very much of it is undeniably symbolic. So this Catholic argument that “vivid means literal” is another one that fails.
There are some in both Protestant and Catholic circles who will often go to great lengths in dissecting the meaning of certain words in John 6. Now, we are not against word studies to improve our understanding of the Scriptures, but rather than trying to nit-pick to death individual words, we should allow the CONTEXT to be the main focus in determining the meaning of this (or any) passage. And, as demonstrated in Part 1, the context of John 6 strongly suggests the symbolism of the bread and wine.
The Last Supper
Here is another reason that Jesus’ words, “This is My body…This is My blood” cannot be taken literally. The Bible gives us four accounts of the Lord’s Supper: Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and I Corinthians 11:23-25. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus does indeed say, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” However, in the other two accounts, we see Jesus saying of the bread, “This is My body…”, but of the wine, He says, “This cup [wine] is the new testament in My blood…”. Now, right away the Catholic has a problem. If Jesus meant, “This bread is LITERALLY My body,” then He also had to mean, “This wine is LITERALLY a testament (covenant).”
But the wine is obviously not a literal covenant. A covenant is an intangible thing. It is not something you can hold in your hand. It is an agreement, a contract, a promise or vow. The wine itself is NOT a covenant… it is a SYMBOL of the New Covenant. The only way that these passages would make sense when compared to Matthew and Mark is if both the bread and the wine are symbolic in all four accounts.
Remember, just as God called Abraham’s circumcision (which was a SYMBOL) a “covenant” (Genesis 17:10-11), so does Jesus call the SYMBOL of the bread and wine, a “covenant” (Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:23-25).
Indeed a Sign
It seems that some Catholics avoid any mention of symbolism toward the elements as they would avoid the plague. But there are some Catholics who will admit that the bread and wine have at least SOME “symbolic value.” Please note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Eucharist IS a sign (CCC # 1333-1336).
Furthermore, the Eucharist is one of the seven sacraments of the Church, and the very definition of “sacrament” tells us it is a symbol: “Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace…” (Online “New Advent Encyclopedia”). [See also CCC #1145-1152] So, no true Catholic can deny that the bread and the wine are signs, or symbols.
Now, what the Catholic will do at this point is to insist that the Eucharist is not JUST a symbol, but is much more. They’ll say that it can be both a symbol and its reality at the same time, because Jesus is present “sacramentally.” Of course, this is all a great “mystery” (CCC #1336), and it is at this point that the Catholic arguments must necessarily degenerate into the “mystical” realm. According to one encyclical (official papal statement) of Pope Paul VI, this mystery of the Eucharist "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith, which rests upon divine authority” (Mysterium Fidei, paragraph 18). How interesting. But this type of argument could be used to support almost any “mysterious” concept (whether true or false) as long as they claim it rests upon “divine authority.” This is a cop-out and does nothing to help the credibility of the Catholic Church, but rather weakens it.
Miracle?
CATHOLIC CLAIM - THE CHANGE (TRANSUBSTANTIATION) THAT OCCURS IN THE BREAD AND WINE DURING THE MASS IS A SPECIAL MIRACLE. THE BREAD AND WINE MIRACULOUSLY CHANGE INTO THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS, BUT ARE UNDER THE APPEARANCE OF REMAINING BREAD AND WINE.
Although Catholics claim a “special” miracle in the Eucharist, the miracles we see in Scripture were very different from this. They were VERIFIABLE and OBSERVABLE. What if Jesus' miracles were like the "miracle" of the Eucharist? What if Jesus said, "I am raising Lazarus from the dead, but ‘under the appearance’ of him remaining in the grave"? Or, "I am walking on water, but ‘under the appearance’ of swimming"? Or, how about, "I am healing the sick, but ‘under the appearance’ of them remaining diseased"? That would be nothing less than a cruel hoax, wouldn't it? But how is the consecration of the Eucharist any different than these scenarios? If the Catholic Church wants credibility in its claims, then its “Eucharistic miracle” needs to parallel the miracles in the Bible.
Catholics will no doubt point to certain occurrences of “bleeding hosts” which have been reported at different times and places in Italy. They insist that this proves that it is a miracle. But if the Eucharist is a true miracle, then it will be verifiable EACH AND EVERY TIME the bread and wine are consecrated. But this is certainly not the case.
The Eucharist equals Calvary?
CATHOLIC CLAIM - THE EUCHARIST IN THE CATHOLIC MASS AND THE SACRIFICE OF CALVARY (i.e., THE EVENT OF JESUS SUFFERING ON THE CROSS) ARE “ONE AND THE SAME” (CCC #1367). WHEN THE PRIEST CONSECRATES THE HOST, CALVARY IS “RE-PRESENTED” OR “MADE PRESENT” (CCC #1366).
Calvary is a historical event, which is no more physically “made present” at the Mass than the death of every Egyptian first-born son was physically “made present” every time the Old Testament Jews celebrated the Passover. It is absurd to think that a past historical event would be physically “made present.” To claim that this event is made present in a “sacramental” sense (as some say) is simply begging the question. There is no such thing in Scripture. But you could rightly say that it is “made present” MENTALLY, i.e., in remembering His work on the cross. After all, the Communion service IS a memorial, and Jesus did say, “This do in remembrance of Me.” (Luke 22:19)
Is it Really a Sacrifice?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – THE EUCHARIST IS A HOLY SACRIFICE (CCC #1330), RE-PRESENTED FOR THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND (CCC #1846). THIS SACRIFICE IS TRULY PROPITIATORY [i.e., ATONES FOR SIN]. (CCC #1367)
They call it a sacrifice, but Who is it that is able to offer this sacrifice (which is supposedly the same as Calvary)? The work that Jesus did on the cross is the perfect sacrifice offered ONLY by the perfect Person, the Son of God. The Catholic Catechism claims that both the priest and the Church “offer” Jesus as a sacrifice (CCC #1350; #1354; #1369). But the truth is, no other person, no priest, no church is even ABLE to “offer Him to God” as a sacrifice. Christ alone has offered it. Nor does Jesus offer it “through priests” (as the Catechism also claims - CCC #1367). Jesus is not mankind’s offering to God, but rather, JESUS OFFERED HIMSELF to God as a sacrifice on behalf of mankind (Hebrews 7:27; 9:14). There’s a big difference.
And to whom must this sacrifice be “re-presented?” To God? No, because Jesus presented Himself as a sacrifice to God ONCE FOR ALL (Hebrews 10:10). Please read it again… “ONCE…FOR…ALL.” He does not NEED to be “re-presented” to God, nor CAN He be. Why the need to “re-present” the payment for a debt that has been paid? While souls are hanging in the balance, the Catholic Church is playing word games and inventing special terminology, in an attempt to justify its twisting of the gospel. This “RE-presenting” concept is a dangerous and unbiblical idea which only blurs and complicates the simple message of the gospel, and it attempts to give a power to the priest that few have ever dared to dream of.
According to at least two encyclicals by two different popes, Jesus Christ supposedly “daily offers Himself” to the Father (Pope Pius XII, “Mediator Dei”, Section 73, November 20, 1947 and Pope Leo XIII, “Caritatis Studium”, Section 9, July 25, 1898). But as we just mentioned, the Bible tells us that Jesus offered Himself only ONCE, not “daily” (Hebrews 9:28). There is an obvious contradiction here, so which is it? Are we going to believe the popes on this matter… or the Bible? And just for the record, the Bible never views the bread and wine of the Communion service as a “sacrifice” at all, but rather, as elements that POINT TO His one, perfect sacrifice at Calvary.
Furthermore, if the Eucharist is the sacrifice that the Catholic Church claims it is, then why don't we see it in the book of Hebrews, since that book speaks more of sacrifices than any other New Testament book? But what we DO see in that same book is that there is NO MORE offering (sacrifice) for sin (Hebrews 10:18). This is the gaping hole in Catholic theology. Jesus paid the full penalty for our sins, once for all. There is absolutely no biblical need to “re-present” that sacrifice. According to Scripture, we get the benefits of Calvary through BELIEVING in it, not by “RE-presenting” it. (John 3:16)
Consequently, there is no more need for a ministerial priesthood, either, as there was in the Old Testament. The veil separating us from God is torn (Matthew 27:51) and now ALL believers have access to the throne room without the aid of a priest or a daily sacrifice (Hebrews 10:18-19).
God is Able
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT DON’T YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS ABLE TO TURN COMMON BREAD AND WINE INTO HIS BODY AND BLOOD? ISN’T HE CAPABLE OF SUCH A THING, SINCE HE CREATED THIS WHOLE WORLD AND EVERYTHING IN IT?
Of course He is able. But that’s not the point. This whole thing is not about God’s ability (which we have never questioned). The issue is not, “CAN God do it,” but it is, “DID He do it?” And we find this out by looking to His own Word, the Bible. But a miracle with no proof is foreign to the Scriptures.
Where’s Your Faith?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – IT MAY BE HARD TO BELIEVE, BUT YOU JUST HAVE TO ACCEPT IT BY FAITH, AND NOT BE GUILTY OF UNBELIEF. YOU NEED TO TRUST THE CHURCH AND KNOW THAT THE EUCHARIST REQUIRES A SPECIAL FAITH.
No, an unbiblical faith is what we are being asked to embrace. We don’t reject the Eucharist because it is “hard to believe,” we reject it because there is no support for this doctrine in the Scriptures.
Conclusion
We have examined some extraordinary Catholic claims concerning the Eucharist, and all of these Catholic arguments have fallen short. My heart goes out to you, my Catholic friends, and I pray that you would realize that you have been deceived. Please don’t trust in a “personal experience” that you may have had with the Eucharist, like many Catholics do. Experiences are very subjective, even “supernatural” ones. Look to the testimony of Scripture and ask God, prayerfully and humbly, to show you the truth.
Please notice that there are absolutely no examples in the Old Testament of any man-made objects (like bread or wine) that “changed into God” or were worshipped by God’s people (with God’s approval). We don’t have a precedent for that, but we can sure find verses where God sternly warns His people (repeatedly) to avoid idolatry. That is abundantly clear. The New Testament also commands us to FLEE from this sin (I Corinthians 10:14), but so many Catholics take much too lightly the many biblical warnings. As we said before, if this Eucharist is not really Jesus, then Catholics are guilty of the sin of idolatry. In view of the evidence presented against it, are you still willing to risk your soul and bow down to the Eucharist?
Of course, the Lord’s Supper / Communion service is important, but it IS a ritual, just as the Passover was. The Passover pointed FORWARD to the cross and the Communion service points BACKWARD to that same event. But a religious ritual like Communion is not an end in itself, nor is it the fulfillment of what it points to. The fulfillment of the Lord’s Supper is the work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. Remember, the bread and wine don’t save us… they are simply symbols that commemorate and point to that Person and event that DOES save us.
John 6 (Once More)
CATHOLIC CLAIM - THE LANGUAGE THAT JESUS USED IN THE SIXTH CHAPTER OF JOHN CONCERNING “EATING HIS FLESH” AND “DRINKING HIS BLOOD” IS FORCEFUL AND VIVID, AND THEREFORE, VERY LITERAL.
Perhaps, by “forceful,” the Catholic means it was repeated again and again. But the “repetition argument” was already covered in Part 1. As for as “vivid” language, if one takes a look at the book of Revelation (which is, interestingly enough, also written by John) he would see some very “vivid” language used there also, and very much of it is undeniably symbolic. So this Catholic argument that “vivid means literal” is another one that fails.
There are some in both Protestant and Catholic circles who will often go to great lengths in dissecting the meaning of certain words in John 6. Now, we are not against word studies to improve our understanding of the Scriptures, but rather than trying to nit-pick to death individual words, we should allow the CONTEXT to be the main focus in determining the meaning of this (or any) passage. And, as demonstrated in Part 1, the context of John 6 strongly suggests the symbolism of the bread and wine.
The Last Supper
Here is another reason that Jesus’ words, “This is My body…This is My blood” cannot be taken literally. The Bible gives us four accounts of the Lord’s Supper: Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and I Corinthians 11:23-25. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus does indeed say, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” However, in the other two accounts, we see Jesus saying of the bread, “This is My body…”, but of the wine, He says, “This cup [wine] is the new testament in My blood…”. Now, right away the Catholic has a problem. If Jesus meant, “This bread is LITERALLY My body,” then He also had to mean, “This wine is LITERALLY a testament (covenant).”
But the wine is obviously not a literal covenant. A covenant is an intangible thing. It is not something you can hold in your hand. It is an agreement, a contract, a promise or vow. The wine itself is NOT a covenant… it is a SYMBOL of the New Covenant. The only way that these passages would make sense when compared to Matthew and Mark is if both the bread and the wine are symbolic in all four accounts.
Remember, just as God called Abraham’s circumcision (which was a SYMBOL) a “covenant” (Genesis 17:10-11), so does Jesus call the SYMBOL of the bread and wine, a “covenant” (Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:23-25).
Indeed a Sign
It seems that some Catholics avoid any mention of symbolism toward the elements as they would avoid the plague. But there are some Catholics who will admit that the bread and wine have at least SOME “symbolic value.” Please note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Eucharist IS a sign (CCC # 1333-1336).
Furthermore, the Eucharist is one of the seven sacraments of the Church, and the very definition of “sacrament” tells us it is a symbol: “Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace…” (Online “New Advent Encyclopedia”). [See also CCC #1145-1152] So, no true Catholic can deny that the bread and the wine are signs, or symbols.
Now, what the Catholic will do at this point is to insist that the Eucharist is not JUST a symbol, but is much more. They’ll say that it can be both a symbol and its reality at the same time, because Jesus is present “sacramentally.” Of course, this is all a great “mystery” (CCC #1336), and it is at this point that the Catholic arguments must necessarily degenerate into the “mystical” realm. According to one encyclical (official papal statement) of Pope Paul VI, this mystery of the Eucharist "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith, which rests upon divine authority” (Mysterium Fidei, paragraph 18). How interesting. But this type of argument could be used to support almost any “mysterious” concept (whether true or false) as long as they claim it rests upon “divine authority.” This is a cop-out and does nothing to help the credibility of the Catholic Church, but rather weakens it.
Miracle?
CATHOLIC CLAIM - THE CHANGE (TRANSUBSTANTIATION) THAT OCCURS IN THE BREAD AND WINE DURING THE MASS IS A SPECIAL MIRACLE. THE BREAD AND WINE MIRACULOUSLY CHANGE INTO THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS, BUT ARE UNDER THE APPEARANCE OF REMAINING BREAD AND WINE.
Although Catholics claim a “special” miracle in the Eucharist, the miracles we see in Scripture were very different from this. They were VERIFIABLE and OBSERVABLE. What if Jesus' miracles were like the "miracle" of the Eucharist? What if Jesus said, "I am raising Lazarus from the dead, but ‘under the appearance’ of him remaining in the grave"? Or, "I am walking on water, but ‘under the appearance’ of swimming"? Or, how about, "I am healing the sick, but ‘under the appearance’ of them remaining diseased"? That would be nothing less than a cruel hoax, wouldn't it? But how is the consecration of the Eucharist any different than these scenarios? If the Catholic Church wants credibility in its claims, then its “Eucharistic miracle” needs to parallel the miracles in the Bible.
Catholics will no doubt point to certain occurrences of “bleeding hosts” which have been reported at different times and places in Italy. They insist that this proves that it is a miracle. But if the Eucharist is a true miracle, then it will be verifiable EACH AND EVERY TIME the bread and wine are consecrated. But this is certainly not the case.
The Eucharist equals Calvary?
CATHOLIC CLAIM - THE EUCHARIST IN THE CATHOLIC MASS AND THE SACRIFICE OF CALVARY (i.e., THE EVENT OF JESUS SUFFERING ON THE CROSS) ARE “ONE AND THE SAME” (CCC #1367). WHEN THE PRIEST CONSECRATES THE HOST, CALVARY IS “RE-PRESENTED” OR “MADE PRESENT” (CCC #1366).
Calvary is a historical event, which is no more physically “made present” at the Mass than the death of every Egyptian first-born son was physically “made present” every time the Old Testament Jews celebrated the Passover. It is absurd to think that a past historical event would be physically “made present.” To claim that this event is made present in a “sacramental” sense (as some say) is simply begging the question. There is no such thing in Scripture. But you could rightly say that it is “made present” MENTALLY, i.e., in remembering His work on the cross. After all, the Communion service IS a memorial, and Jesus did say, “This do in remembrance of Me.” (Luke 22:19)
Is it Really a Sacrifice?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – THE EUCHARIST IS A HOLY SACRIFICE (CCC #1330), RE-PRESENTED FOR THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND (CCC #1846). THIS SACRIFICE IS TRULY PROPITIATORY [i.e., ATONES FOR SIN]. (CCC #1367)
They call it a sacrifice, but Who is it that is able to offer this sacrifice (which is supposedly the same as Calvary)? The work that Jesus did on the cross is the perfect sacrifice offered ONLY by the perfect Person, the Son of God. The Catholic Catechism claims that both the priest and the Church “offer” Jesus as a sacrifice (CCC #1350; #1354; #1369). But the truth is, no other person, no priest, no church is even ABLE to “offer Him to God” as a sacrifice. Christ alone has offered it. Nor does Jesus offer it “through priests” (as the Catechism also claims - CCC #1367). Jesus is not mankind’s offering to God, but rather, JESUS OFFERED HIMSELF to God as a sacrifice on behalf of mankind (Hebrews 7:27; 9:14). There’s a big difference.
And to whom must this sacrifice be “re-presented?” To God? No, because Jesus presented Himself as a sacrifice to God ONCE FOR ALL (Hebrews 10:10). Please read it again… “ONCE…FOR…ALL.” He does not NEED to be “re-presented” to God, nor CAN He be. Why the need to “re-present” the payment for a debt that has been paid? While souls are hanging in the balance, the Catholic Church is playing word games and inventing special terminology, in an attempt to justify its twisting of the gospel. This “RE-presenting” concept is a dangerous and unbiblical idea which only blurs and complicates the simple message of the gospel, and it attempts to give a power to the priest that few have ever dared to dream of.
According to at least two encyclicals by two different popes, Jesus Christ supposedly “daily offers Himself” to the Father (Pope Pius XII, “Mediator Dei”, Section 73, November 20, 1947 and Pope Leo XIII, “Caritatis Studium”, Section 9, July 25, 1898). But as we just mentioned, the Bible tells us that Jesus offered Himself only ONCE, not “daily” (Hebrews 9:28). There is an obvious contradiction here, so which is it? Are we going to believe the popes on this matter… or the Bible? And just for the record, the Bible never views the bread and wine of the Communion service as a “sacrifice” at all, but rather, as elements that POINT TO His one, perfect sacrifice at Calvary.
Furthermore, if the Eucharist is the sacrifice that the Catholic Church claims it is, then why don't we see it in the book of Hebrews, since that book speaks more of sacrifices than any other New Testament book? But what we DO see in that same book is that there is NO MORE offering (sacrifice) for sin (Hebrews 10:18). This is the gaping hole in Catholic theology. Jesus paid the full penalty for our sins, once for all. There is absolutely no biblical need to “re-present” that sacrifice. According to Scripture, we get the benefits of Calvary through BELIEVING in it, not by “RE-presenting” it. (John 3:16)
Consequently, there is no more need for a ministerial priesthood, either, as there was in the Old Testament. The veil separating us from God is torn (Matthew 27:51) and now ALL believers have access to the throne room without the aid of a priest or a daily sacrifice (Hebrews 10:18-19).
God is Able
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT DON’T YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS ABLE TO TURN COMMON BREAD AND WINE INTO HIS BODY AND BLOOD? ISN’T HE CAPABLE OF SUCH A THING, SINCE HE CREATED THIS WHOLE WORLD AND EVERYTHING IN IT?
Of course He is able. But that’s not the point. This whole thing is not about God’s ability (which we have never questioned). The issue is not, “CAN God do it,” but it is, “DID He do it?” And we find this out by looking to His own Word, the Bible. But a miracle with no proof is foreign to the Scriptures.
Where’s Your Faith?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – IT MAY BE HARD TO BELIEVE, BUT YOU JUST HAVE TO ACCEPT IT BY FAITH, AND NOT BE GUILTY OF UNBELIEF. YOU NEED TO TRUST THE CHURCH AND KNOW THAT THE EUCHARIST REQUIRES A SPECIAL FAITH.
No, an unbiblical faith is what we are being asked to embrace. We don’t reject the Eucharist because it is “hard to believe,” we reject it because there is no support for this doctrine in the Scriptures.
Conclusion
We have examined some extraordinary Catholic claims concerning the Eucharist, and all of these Catholic arguments have fallen short. My heart goes out to you, my Catholic friends, and I pray that you would realize that you have been deceived. Please don’t trust in a “personal experience” that you may have had with the Eucharist, like many Catholics do. Experiences are very subjective, even “supernatural” ones. Look to the testimony of Scripture and ask God, prayerfully and humbly, to show you the truth.
Please notice that there are absolutely no examples in the Old Testament of any man-made objects (like bread or wine) that “changed into God” or were worshipped by God’s people (with God’s approval). We don’t have a precedent for that, but we can sure find verses where God sternly warns His people (repeatedly) to avoid idolatry. That is abundantly clear. The New Testament also commands us to FLEE from this sin (I Corinthians 10:14), but so many Catholics take much too lightly the many biblical warnings. As we said before, if this Eucharist is not really Jesus, then Catholics are guilty of the sin of idolatry. In view of the evidence presented against it, are you still willing to risk your soul and bow down to the Eucharist?
Of course, the Lord’s Supper / Communion service is important, but it IS a ritual, just as the Passover was. The Passover pointed FORWARD to the cross and the Communion service points BACKWARD to that same event. But a religious ritual like Communion is not an end in itself, nor is it the fulfillment of what it points to. The fulfillment of the Lord’s Supper is the work of Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. Remember, the bread and wine don’t save us… they are simply symbols that commemorate and point to that Person and event that DOES save us.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
The Eucharist (Part 1)
Introduction
Today we will do something different and take on a new topic, namely the Lord’s Supper, from a Catholic point of view. Most Protestants that I know view the Lord’s Supper (or Communion) as a solemn ritual, a symbolic yet profound commemoration, or reminder, of the saving work that Jesus Christ did on the cross.
But to the Catholic, it is much more. The Catholic version of the biblical communion service is the celebration of the Eucharist, and the Catholic Church celebrates it daily in its Mass (church service). To the Catholic, the Eucharist (bread and wine) is considered a sacrifice, and is the ACTUAL BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY of Jesus Christ (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], paragraph #1374). They believe that when the priest consecrates these two elements, that the bread miraculously changes into Jesus’ literal, physical body, and the wine into His literal, physical blood. They call this “transubstantiation,” which means the appearance of the elements remains the same, but the actual substance or essence is (supposedly) changed. And because they believe that the bread and wine are now actually JESUS, HIMSELF, then these two elements are worthy to be worshipped (CCC #1378).
Having said that, I don’t see how anyone, Catholic or otherwise, can be indifferent, apathetic, or “neutral” on this issue. Can anyone say, “Well, I like it, but that’s just me,” or, “Yeah, it’s OK, but I can do without it,” or, “It’s no big deal,” or “It may be OK for you, but I don’t have to do it”…? If it is indeed the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ, if it is really HIM, then we should ALL be eagerly lining up to worship this bread and wine (Eucharist). But if these are NOT actually Jesus… then it is, by definition, idolatry.
Folks, we need to understand the seriousness of this contrast. I repeat, it is either Jesus Christ, Himself…or it is not Jesus at all. There is no middle ground here. The Eucharist is either a very good thing… or a very bad thing. It cannot be “kind of good,” or “kind of bad.” Either it is acceptable and wonderful worship of the Savior… or it is an abominable and disgusting act of idolatry. That’s why I say that we cannot be indifferent on this topic.
Remember, the Eucharist is one of THE central teachings in the Catholic Church, and is considered “the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC #1324). Since it is a very extraordinary claim, Catholics need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Eucharist is what they say it is. The stakes are high, so let us examine the Catholic arguments and see if they hold water.
Literal or Symbolic?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – JESUS SAID IN JOHN CHAPTER 6, “WHOEVER EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD HAS ETERNAL LIFE.” HE COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OF THE EUCHARIST, AND WAS THEREFORE SPEAKING LITERALLY.
There are several reasons to believe that Jesus was NOT speaking literally in John chapter 6. First, we need to ask, to whom was Jesus speaking? He was speaking to the multitudes (the people), v. 22 and 24. But whenever He spoke to the multitudes, He spoke to them in parables (figurative language). This was the NORM:
Matthew 13:10-11 - And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Matthew 13:34 - "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them"
Mark 4:11 - And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mark 4:34 - But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
If this is true, then we have strong evidence that He was NOT speaking to this multitude literally, but metaphorically, or symbolically.
Secondly, right in the middle of this very same sermon, we see symbolic language used (John 6:35):
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Are we to believe that whoever came to Jesus and believed on Him would never physically hunger or thirst again? Of course not. Jesus was simply using an analogy and comparing one's coming to Him with "hunger", and one's believing on Him with "thirst." Obviously figurative language. Starting with verse 26, Jesus is contrasting the physical with the spiritual, and He uses symbolic language to do it.
Thirdly, notice that the author of this gospel (John) records many of the symbolic remarks of Jesus. For example, of the four gospels, only in John are these terms used by Jesus: “born again,” “living water,” “meat that ye know not of,” “destroy this temple,” and the “I am” sayings (see below). Therefore, we have good reason to believe that Jesus was speaking symbolically in John chapter 6.
No Pampering for the Non-Committed
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT SINCE HIS DISCIPLES WALKED AWAY FROM HIM (John 6:66) WHEN HE SAID, “EAT MY FLESH” AND “DRINK MY BLOOD,” HE HAD TO BE SPEAKING LITERALLY. JESUS WAS A GOOD TEACHER AND ANY GOOD TEACHER, IF SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY, WOULD NOT HAVE LET THEM WALK AWAY. HE WOULD HAVE SAID, “HEY, WAIT A MINUTE, COME BACK… I WAS ONLY USING SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE!”
No, Jesus was not obligated to chase after these false "followers" and beg them to come back. They didn't have the commitment or trust to stick with Him, thus proving that they were not true believers. His job is not to "baby" or pacify those who reject His teachings. Like we said earlier, the norm is that He would only explain things privately to His own disciples, not to the crowds publicly. If the Catholic wants to say that John 6 is NOT the norm, then the burden is on him to prove that.
Repetition
CATHOLIC CLAIM – IN CHAPTER 6 OF JOHN, WE FIND, NOT JUST ONCE, BUT SEVERAL TIMES, JESUS SAYING THAT WE MUST “EAT HIS FLESH” AND “DRINK HIS BLOOD”. THIS REPETITION INTENSIFIES HIS STATEMENT AND LETS US KNOW THAT HE MEANT IT LITERALLY.
No, not at all. THIRTY times in the New Testament, Jesus is presented as the “Lamb of God,” or “the Lamb.” If repetition proves that something is literal, then He must be a literal, physical lamb. But everyone knows that this is symbolic language. So, this Catholic argument doesn’t work, either.
Dangerous Symbols?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – IF YOU DESTROY A STATUE OR PHOTOGRAPH OF SOMEONE, YOU WOULD NOT BE GUILTY OF HARMING THAT PERSON, SINCE STATUES AND PHOTOGRAPHS ARE ONLY SYMBOLS. I CORINTHIANS 11:27-29 SAYS THAT WE CAN BE GUILTY OF PROFANING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD DURING COMMUNION AND THUS, SUFFER CONDEMNATION. SO, HOW COULD PROFANING A MERE SYMBOL CAUSE SOMEONE TO BE CONDEMNED?
One can indeed, suffer condemnation because of a “mere symbol.” Consider this:
Genesis 17:10 - This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
17:14 - And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
What if the Old Testament Jews despised, or somehow profaned, their God-given sign of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-11)? Would they have escaped judgment for this? Circumcision was their very identity (physically) as God's people. Would God have said, "Oh, well, that's OK, since it's just a symbol"? No, God would have cut them off from the very covenant they despised. To despise the sign / symbol of the covenant (circumcision) is to despise the One with Whom the covenant is made. In the same way, to despise or profane the symbols of the bread and wine of the New Covenant is to despise the One to Whom the elements point, i.e., Jesus and His work on the cross.
Context, Context, Context
SYMBOLICALLY SPEAKING, EATING FLESH AND DRINKING BLOOD WAS ALWAYS USED IN A NEGATIVE WAY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT (PSALM 27:2; ISAIAH 9:20; 49:26; MICAH 3:3; 2 SAMUEL 23:17), AS IN DESTROYING, REVILING OR ASSAULTING AN ENEMY. SINCE THAT IS THE SYMBOLIC MEANING, WOULDN’T JESUS’ WORDS IN JOHN 6 MEAN, “HE WHO REVILES OR ASSAULTS ME HAS ETERNAL LIFE”? THIS, OF COURSE, IS ABSURD. IT MAKES FAR MORE SENSE IF LITERAL.
These terms were indeed used in that way in some Old Testament passages. But this argument is assuming that there can only be one symbolic interpretation possible for phrases that are similar. Jesus sets the context for us in John 6 and it is certainly not the same context as those Old Testament verses mentioned. Those contexts were about war, mistreatment, judgment and punishment, NONE of which have to do with Jesus’ meaning here. To limit the meaning of Jesus’ words to “destroying, reviling, or assaulting” as the only possible symbolism, is to utterly ignore the overall context, as well as to ignore the very symbolism used within it.
So, what DID Jesus really mean when He said to “eat My flesh” and “drink My blood” if He wasn’t referring to the Eucharist? He was referring to His work on the cross, where His body would be “broken” (like bread) and His blood would be “poured out” (like wine). In this context, to “eat” and “drink” (spiritually and symbolically) means to PARTAKE OF, to ACCEPT, to BELIEVE, to TRUST IN His work at Calvary.
He Didn’t Say…
CATHOLIC CLAIM – DURING THE LORD’S SUPPER, JESUS NEVER SAID, “PRETEND THAT THIS IS MY BODY AND BLOOD,” AND HE DIDN’T SAY, “THIS IS LIKE MY BODY AND BLOOD.” HE SAID, “THIS IS MY BODY AND BLOOD.” THIS PROVES HE WAS BEING LITERAL.
He also said, "I AM the vine..." (John 15:5), "I AM the light of the world..." (John 8:12), "I AM the good Shepherd..." (John 10:11), and "I AM the door..." (John 10:7). Does anyone think that any of these statements were meant physically and literally? Hardly. He didn't say, "PRETEND that I am the vine," etc., in these contexts either. But how are any of these statements any different from, "I AM the Bread of Life..." (John 6:35)? The point is, they’re not any different…they’re all symbolic.
By the way, if Catholics want to be specific about which words were NOT used at the Last Supper, it can be pointed out that neither did He use the words “miracle,” “changed,” “soul and divinity,” “real presence,” “to make present,” “RE-presented,” or “merits grace.” He doesn’t call the bread or wine a “propitiation” or a “sacrament,” much less a “sacrament of redemption.” And He mentions nothing of a “priesthood.” The Catholic Church connects ALL of these with the Eucharistic Mass, but the biblical accounts of the Last Supper mention NONE of these. Many extraordinary claims, but no proof.
Unanimous Consent?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE WHAT PROTESTANTS SAY WHEN ALL THE CHURCH FATHERS WERE UNANIMOUS IN THEIR BELIEF ABOUT THE EUCHARIST? EVERY SINGLE CHURCH FATHER BELIEVED AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BELIEVES IT TODAY. NONE OF THEM, BEFORE THE REFORMATION, EVER BELIEVED THAT THE EUCHARIST WAS ONLY SYMBOLIC.
This is certainly debatable, and a number of Protestant apologists have dealt with this topic already (quite successfully, I believe). I will leave the specific views of each church father to those more qualified to debate that. However, my point here is simply this: Depending on the church fathers to prove the truth of a particular doctrine is risky and it raises more questions than it answers.
The fact is that the church fathers, however wise and respected, were not infallible. Their writings are useful and informative, but they had faults just like you and me. They too, needed to “study to show themselves approved.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
But even if they WOULD HAVE unanimously agreed on the Eucharist (and I certainly do not believe this is the case), this still would not prove the argument. Majority vote does not prove truth. As the Scripture says, “…let God be true, but every man a liar…” (Romans 3:4)
The question is, can this Catholic doctrine be found within the pages of the ultimate Standard, God’s Word? If no, then why WOULD it not be found in the Bible, since the Eucharist is such an IMPORTANT teaching of the Catholic Church? If yes, then please show it to us. So far, this extraordinary claim has not been proven at all.
Today we will do something different and take on a new topic, namely the Lord’s Supper, from a Catholic point of view. Most Protestants that I know view the Lord’s Supper (or Communion) as a solemn ritual, a symbolic yet profound commemoration, or reminder, of the saving work that Jesus Christ did on the cross.
But to the Catholic, it is much more. The Catholic version of the biblical communion service is the celebration of the Eucharist, and the Catholic Church celebrates it daily in its Mass (church service). To the Catholic, the Eucharist (bread and wine) is considered a sacrifice, and is the ACTUAL BODY, BLOOD, SOUL and DIVINITY of Jesus Christ (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], paragraph #1374). They believe that when the priest consecrates these two elements, that the bread miraculously changes into Jesus’ literal, physical body, and the wine into His literal, physical blood. They call this “transubstantiation,” which means the appearance of the elements remains the same, but the actual substance or essence is (supposedly) changed. And because they believe that the bread and wine are now actually JESUS, HIMSELF, then these two elements are worthy to be worshipped (CCC #1378).
Having said that, I don’t see how anyone, Catholic or otherwise, can be indifferent, apathetic, or “neutral” on this issue. Can anyone say, “Well, I like it, but that’s just me,” or, “Yeah, it’s OK, but I can do without it,” or, “It’s no big deal,” or “It may be OK for you, but I don’t have to do it”…? If it is indeed the actual body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ, if it is really HIM, then we should ALL be eagerly lining up to worship this bread and wine (Eucharist). But if these are NOT actually Jesus… then it is, by definition, idolatry.
Folks, we need to understand the seriousness of this contrast. I repeat, it is either Jesus Christ, Himself…or it is not Jesus at all. There is no middle ground here. The Eucharist is either a very good thing… or a very bad thing. It cannot be “kind of good,” or “kind of bad.” Either it is acceptable and wonderful worship of the Savior… or it is an abominable and disgusting act of idolatry. That’s why I say that we cannot be indifferent on this topic.
Remember, the Eucharist is one of THE central teachings in the Catholic Church, and is considered “the source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC #1324). Since it is a very extraordinary claim, Catholics need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Eucharist is what they say it is. The stakes are high, so let us examine the Catholic arguments and see if they hold water.
Literal or Symbolic?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – JESUS SAID IN JOHN CHAPTER 6, “WHOEVER EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD HAS ETERNAL LIFE.” HE COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN SPEAKING OF THE EUCHARIST, AND WAS THEREFORE SPEAKING LITERALLY.
There are several reasons to believe that Jesus was NOT speaking literally in John chapter 6. First, we need to ask, to whom was Jesus speaking? He was speaking to the multitudes (the people), v. 22 and 24. But whenever He spoke to the multitudes, He spoke to them in parables (figurative language). This was the NORM:
Matthew 13:10-11 - And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Matthew 13:34 - "All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them"
Mark 4:11 - And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mark 4:34 - But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
If this is true, then we have strong evidence that He was NOT speaking to this multitude literally, but metaphorically, or symbolically.
Secondly, right in the middle of this very same sermon, we see symbolic language used (John 6:35):
And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Are we to believe that whoever came to Jesus and believed on Him would never physically hunger or thirst again? Of course not. Jesus was simply using an analogy and comparing one's coming to Him with "hunger", and one's believing on Him with "thirst." Obviously figurative language. Starting with verse 26, Jesus is contrasting the physical with the spiritual, and He uses symbolic language to do it.
Thirdly, notice that the author of this gospel (John) records many of the symbolic remarks of Jesus. For example, of the four gospels, only in John are these terms used by Jesus: “born again,” “living water,” “meat that ye know not of,” “destroy this temple,” and the “I am” sayings (see below). Therefore, we have good reason to believe that Jesus was speaking symbolically in John chapter 6.
No Pampering for the Non-Committed
CATHOLIC CLAIM – BUT SINCE HIS DISCIPLES WALKED AWAY FROM HIM (John 6:66) WHEN HE SAID, “EAT MY FLESH” AND “DRINK MY BLOOD,” HE HAD TO BE SPEAKING LITERALLY. JESUS WAS A GOOD TEACHER AND ANY GOOD TEACHER, IF SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY, WOULD NOT HAVE LET THEM WALK AWAY. HE WOULD HAVE SAID, “HEY, WAIT A MINUTE, COME BACK… I WAS ONLY USING SYMBOLIC LANGUAGE!”
No, Jesus was not obligated to chase after these false "followers" and beg them to come back. They didn't have the commitment or trust to stick with Him, thus proving that they were not true believers. His job is not to "baby" or pacify those who reject His teachings. Like we said earlier, the norm is that He would only explain things privately to His own disciples, not to the crowds publicly. If the Catholic wants to say that John 6 is NOT the norm, then the burden is on him to prove that.
Repetition
CATHOLIC CLAIM – IN CHAPTER 6 OF JOHN, WE FIND, NOT JUST ONCE, BUT SEVERAL TIMES, JESUS SAYING THAT WE MUST “EAT HIS FLESH” AND “DRINK HIS BLOOD”. THIS REPETITION INTENSIFIES HIS STATEMENT AND LETS US KNOW THAT HE MEANT IT LITERALLY.
No, not at all. THIRTY times in the New Testament, Jesus is presented as the “Lamb of God,” or “the Lamb.” If repetition proves that something is literal, then He must be a literal, physical lamb. But everyone knows that this is symbolic language. So, this Catholic argument doesn’t work, either.
Dangerous Symbols?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – IF YOU DESTROY A STATUE OR PHOTOGRAPH OF SOMEONE, YOU WOULD NOT BE GUILTY OF HARMING THAT PERSON, SINCE STATUES AND PHOTOGRAPHS ARE ONLY SYMBOLS. I CORINTHIANS 11:27-29 SAYS THAT WE CAN BE GUILTY OF PROFANING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD DURING COMMUNION AND THUS, SUFFER CONDEMNATION. SO, HOW COULD PROFANING A MERE SYMBOL CAUSE SOMEONE TO BE CONDEMNED?
One can indeed, suffer condemnation because of a “mere symbol.” Consider this:
Genesis 17:10 - This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
17:14 - And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
What if the Old Testament Jews despised, or somehow profaned, their God-given sign of circumcision (Genesis 17:10-11)? Would they have escaped judgment for this? Circumcision was their very identity (physically) as God's people. Would God have said, "Oh, well, that's OK, since it's just a symbol"? No, God would have cut them off from the very covenant they despised. To despise the sign / symbol of the covenant (circumcision) is to despise the One with Whom the covenant is made. In the same way, to despise or profane the symbols of the bread and wine of the New Covenant is to despise the One to Whom the elements point, i.e., Jesus and His work on the cross.
Context, Context, Context
SYMBOLICALLY SPEAKING, EATING FLESH AND DRINKING BLOOD WAS ALWAYS USED IN A NEGATIVE WAY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT (PSALM 27:2; ISAIAH 9:20; 49:26; MICAH 3:3; 2 SAMUEL 23:17), AS IN DESTROYING, REVILING OR ASSAULTING AN ENEMY. SINCE THAT IS THE SYMBOLIC MEANING, WOULDN’T JESUS’ WORDS IN JOHN 6 MEAN, “HE WHO REVILES OR ASSAULTS ME HAS ETERNAL LIFE”? THIS, OF COURSE, IS ABSURD. IT MAKES FAR MORE SENSE IF LITERAL.
These terms were indeed used in that way in some Old Testament passages. But this argument is assuming that there can only be one symbolic interpretation possible for phrases that are similar. Jesus sets the context for us in John 6 and it is certainly not the same context as those Old Testament verses mentioned. Those contexts were about war, mistreatment, judgment and punishment, NONE of which have to do with Jesus’ meaning here. To limit the meaning of Jesus’ words to “destroying, reviling, or assaulting” as the only possible symbolism, is to utterly ignore the overall context, as well as to ignore the very symbolism used within it.
So, what DID Jesus really mean when He said to “eat My flesh” and “drink My blood” if He wasn’t referring to the Eucharist? He was referring to His work on the cross, where His body would be “broken” (like bread) and His blood would be “poured out” (like wine). In this context, to “eat” and “drink” (spiritually and symbolically) means to PARTAKE OF, to ACCEPT, to BELIEVE, to TRUST IN His work at Calvary.
He Didn’t Say…
CATHOLIC CLAIM – DURING THE LORD’S SUPPER, JESUS NEVER SAID, “PRETEND THAT THIS IS MY BODY AND BLOOD,” AND HE DIDN’T SAY, “THIS IS LIKE MY BODY AND BLOOD.” HE SAID, “THIS IS MY BODY AND BLOOD.” THIS PROVES HE WAS BEING LITERAL.
He also said, "I AM the vine..." (John 15:5), "I AM the light of the world..." (John 8:12), "I AM the good Shepherd..." (John 10:11), and "I AM the door..." (John 10:7). Does anyone think that any of these statements were meant physically and literally? Hardly. He didn't say, "PRETEND that I am the vine," etc., in these contexts either. But how are any of these statements any different from, "I AM the Bread of Life..." (John 6:35)? The point is, they’re not any different…they’re all symbolic.
By the way, if Catholics want to be specific about which words were NOT used at the Last Supper, it can be pointed out that neither did He use the words “miracle,” “changed,” “soul and divinity,” “real presence,” “to make present,” “RE-presented,” or “merits grace.” He doesn’t call the bread or wine a “propitiation” or a “sacrament,” much less a “sacrament of redemption.” And He mentions nothing of a “priesthood.” The Catholic Church connects ALL of these with the Eucharistic Mass, but the biblical accounts of the Last Supper mention NONE of these. Many extraordinary claims, but no proof.
Unanimous Consent?
CATHOLIC CLAIM – WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE WHAT PROTESTANTS SAY WHEN ALL THE CHURCH FATHERS WERE UNANIMOUS IN THEIR BELIEF ABOUT THE EUCHARIST? EVERY SINGLE CHURCH FATHER BELIEVED AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BELIEVES IT TODAY. NONE OF THEM, BEFORE THE REFORMATION, EVER BELIEVED THAT THE EUCHARIST WAS ONLY SYMBOLIC.
This is certainly debatable, and a number of Protestant apologists have dealt with this topic already (quite successfully, I believe). I will leave the specific views of each church father to those more qualified to debate that. However, my point here is simply this: Depending on the church fathers to prove the truth of a particular doctrine is risky and it raises more questions than it answers.
The fact is that the church fathers, however wise and respected, were not infallible. Their writings are useful and informative, but they had faults just like you and me. They too, needed to “study to show themselves approved.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
But even if they WOULD HAVE unanimously agreed on the Eucharist (and I certainly do not believe this is the case), this still would not prove the argument. Majority vote does not prove truth. As the Scripture says, “…let God be true, but every man a liar…” (Romans 3:4)
The question is, can this Catholic doctrine be found within the pages of the ultimate Standard, God’s Word? If no, then why WOULD it not be found in the Bible, since the Eucharist is such an IMPORTANT teaching of the Catholic Church? If yes, then please show it to us. So far, this extraordinary claim has not been proven at all.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Pillar and Ground of the Truth
Catholic Claim – We can’t go by “the Bible Alone,” because the Bible itself, in I Timothy 3:15, calls the Church (and not the Bible) the “Pillar and Ground of the Truth.” So, we need the Church also.
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (I Tim. 3:15)
Catholics seem to believe that this verse somehow suggests infallibility for the church, making the church equal with Scripture, and thus disproving the concept of Sola Scriptura. But this is simply wishful thinking on their part. Now, I am not saying that we don’t need the church. The church is established by God and it certainly has its place. But if you look at the context of I Timothy 3, Paul is describing the RESPONSIBILITIES and OBLIGATIONS of church leaders. He is speaking of the EXPECTATIONS of the church (…that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself). He is not speaking of privileges and special powers. He is not saying, “Hey Timothy, just kick back and relax, and bask in your infallibility, since we never have to worry about teaching false doctrine.” No, there is absolutely nothing in this context to suggest infallibility, nor is there any guarantee of being exempt from error. But again, he IS speaking of the duty and responsibility of those in the church (especially leaders) to preach, proclaim, and share the Truth.
Yes, the church is a “pillar,” but remember, a pillar is a support which holds something ELSE up. If a person sees the pillars / supports on your porch or balcony, and he says, “Hey, these are a nice roof.” You would think he is pretty naive and would tell him that these are not the roof, itself, but rather, they are SUPPORTS which hold up the roof. In the same way, the responsibility / obligation of the church is to “hold up,” “proclaim,” and “support” the truth. The church itself is not the Truth, but is called to be the support (pillar) of it. Scripture is that standard, that Truth, which the church is obligated to hold up (John 17:17).
Another problem with this Catholic argument is that if this verse is indeed saying that the “church” is infallible, it is proving too much. A “house” / “household” is not just composed of leaders, but of subordinates, as well. If the church is the household of God, and the church is infallible, then the whole household is infallible. But I don’t think that Catholics would want to say that. And neither would I. So, for more than one reason, this is another Catholic argument that doesn’t wash, and it certainly does not disprove Sola Scriptura.
In His Name,
Russell
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (I Tim. 3:15)
Catholics seem to believe that this verse somehow suggests infallibility for the church, making the church equal with Scripture, and thus disproving the concept of Sola Scriptura. But this is simply wishful thinking on their part. Now, I am not saying that we don’t need the church. The church is established by God and it certainly has its place. But if you look at the context of I Timothy 3, Paul is describing the RESPONSIBILITIES and OBLIGATIONS of church leaders. He is speaking of the EXPECTATIONS of the church (…that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself). He is not speaking of privileges and special powers. He is not saying, “Hey Timothy, just kick back and relax, and bask in your infallibility, since we never have to worry about teaching false doctrine.” No, there is absolutely nothing in this context to suggest infallibility, nor is there any guarantee of being exempt from error. But again, he IS speaking of the duty and responsibility of those in the church (especially leaders) to preach, proclaim, and share the Truth.
Yes, the church is a “pillar,” but remember, a pillar is a support which holds something ELSE up. If a person sees the pillars / supports on your porch or balcony, and he says, “Hey, these are a nice roof.” You would think he is pretty naive and would tell him that these are not the roof, itself, but rather, they are SUPPORTS which hold up the roof. In the same way, the responsibility / obligation of the church is to “hold up,” “proclaim,” and “support” the truth. The church itself is not the Truth, but is called to be the support (pillar) of it. Scripture is that standard, that Truth, which the church is obligated to hold up (John 17:17).
Another problem with this Catholic argument is that if this verse is indeed saying that the “church” is infallible, it is proving too much. A “house” / “household” is not just composed of leaders, but of subordinates, as well. If the church is the household of God, and the church is infallible, then the whole household is infallible. But I don’t think that Catholics would want to say that. And neither would I. So, for more than one reason, this is another Catholic argument that doesn’t wash, and it certainly does not disprove Sola Scriptura.
In His Name,
Russell
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Welcome
Welcome to Answering Catholic Claims. This blog exists to share Truth with both Catholics and non-Catholics, alike. It is not intended to make fun of, harass, or humiliate Catholics. I just want to give Catholics some food for thought. I want them to consider the claims of the Catholic Church and to compare those claims with the words of Scripture. The purpose of this blog is mainly to confront certain arguments put forth by Catholics on a variety of issues, and to demonstrate that these arguments are weak, invalid, unbiblical, or they contradict Scripture. For the record, I will point out that the Catholic Church does have some truth in some of its teachings, but it falls far short of having the “fullness of truth” that it so often claims to have. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. With that in mind, let us begin to evaluate some of these claims.
FINAL AUTHORITY
The first topic (and one of the most foundational ones) that we will discuss is the issue of authority. Catholics look to a combination of Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium as their final authority, while most Protestants believe in “Sola Scriptura” (the Bible Alone). But what do Catholics think of Sola Scriptura? This concept is very often misunderstood and misrepresented by most Catholics (and some Protestants, as well). When we say “Bible Alone,” we do not mean that we cannot use other sources of information to help us along in our Christian walk. Neither does it mean that the Bible contains every bit of spiritual information that exists. It is not an exhaustive encyclopedia containing every word that God, the Father, or Jesus Christ, the Son, has ever spoken, nor does it tell us of every single event in Church history. Sola Scriptura does not mean that there are no other authorities, or that the writings of the church fathers are useless. It does not mean that all tradition is bad, or that the Holy Spirit cannot deal with our hearts by other means, as well. It also does not mean that something has to be specifically mentioned in the Bible to be true, or that a person can wrecklessly interpret the Bible any way he wants to.
Ok, so what does Sola Scriptura mean then? Here is a simple definition:
That’s it. It is a simple concept. The Scriptures are therefore the ultimate authority for the Christian, since there is nothing above, or equal to, their authority. All other sources, teachings, tradition, “revelation,” etc., are subject to this ultimate authority. We must test all of these and determine if they line up with God’s Word (I Thessalonians 5:21; I John 4:1; Matthew 15:1-9; Acts 17:11). If any teaching does not line up with the Scriptures, it cannot be binding on the Christian.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – SOLA SCRIPTURA IS A SELF-REFUTING CONCEPT, SINCE IT IS NOT BIBLICAL, THAT IS, IT CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE
Let us now turn to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. There we find the apostle Paul telling Timothy:
“All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” [NASB]
This passage, to me, seems to be pretty simple and straightforward, but there are a number of Catholic objections to this verse, as to whether it proves Sola Scriptura, and I will address some of them now.
Objection #1- “Paul says all Scripture, not ONLY Scripture, is inspired. And anyway, he says that it is merely ‘profitable / useful’. ‘Profitable’ does not mean sufficient.”
Answer – It is true that the word “only” is not used in this verse, but the impact of the phrase “for every good work” in the next verse seems to be ignored by those using this type of logic. If Scripture equips us for every good work, then by definition, it is sufficient as a Rule of Faith.
Let me use an analogy. If you were an auto mechanic and your boss gave you a toolbox that equipped you for every mechanic’s job that you could possibly run into, would that toolbox be sufficient? Yes, it would. Do you need another toolbox for foreign cars or pick-up trucks? No, not if the one he gave you equips you for every mechanic’s job.
In the same way, Scripture is our “toolbox” which equips us for every good work. Since this is true, there is no other source needed today TO FUNCTION AS AN INFALIBLE RULE OF FAITH. By definition, Scripture is all that is needed.
Objection #2 – “It is the ‘man of God’ which is described as adequate, not the Scriptures.”
Answer – The “teacher” is always greater than the student. Is that which is infallible and which teaches and equips us, LESS THAN the one that it is teaching? Absolutely not. If the “man of God” becomes adequate through the teaching of Scripture, how much more adequate is the Word of God?
Objection #3 – “Paul is not only speaking of Scripture in this context, but he is also speaking of Sacred Tradition which was handed down to Timothy when he says, ‘You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them’ (verse 14). So, we need Tradition also.”
Answer – First, no external “tradition” is named or identified in the context here. Secondly, can anyone say exactly what it was that Timothy had learned from Paul? To say that Paul was speaking of some “Catholic Tradition” is just begging the question. And even if he WAS speaking of some kind of external traditions, Paul definitely shifts gears in the very next verse (15), and he starts focusing on and speaking specifically of Scripture through to the end of the chapter.
Objection #4 – “Paul could not have meant Sola Scriptura here, since he was speaking of the only Scripture that was available at that time: the Old Testament. If Sola Scriptura applied here, wouldn’t we have to say that the Old Testament is all we need?
Answer – It is probably true that very little of the New Testament was written when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, but verse 16 says “All Scripture”, not all Scripture given to us “up until this point.”
As an example, if a Catholic stated that all official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are true, would anyone think that he was trying to say that only those official pronouncements which were given up to the present were true, but future ones may be false? Of course not. “All official pronouncements” means all official pronouncements, and “All Scripture” means just that… ALL Scripture… not just the Scriptures which happened to be available at the time.
Objection #5 – “There are other things besides Scripture that can make us ‘perfect and entire’, ‘lacking in nothing’, like patience (James 1:4). Or, we can exercise purity to make us ‘ready for any good work’ (2 Timothy 2:21), and good deeds are also said to be ‘profitable’ for us (Titus 3:8). So, Scripture is not the only thing that we need.”
Answer – The context in these verses is NOT the establishing of a Rule of Faith, as 2 Timothy chapter 3 is. But the context in the above verses is about sanctification, or the APPLICATION of that Rule, i.e., actually LIVING by its principles. For example, you can have a Bible sitting on your coffee table gathering dust, but if you don’t APPLY yourself to it, it won’t do you any good. Just as failing to apply the principles of Catholicism will make you a less-than-ideal Catholic. A Rule of Faith is a critically important guide, but it is not expected to do the work for you.
In 2 Timothy chapter 3, Paul is giving instructions on what to do when difficult times will come (verse 1), when men (even those in the church) will be boastful, arrogant, unholy, etc. (verses 2-5), opposing the truth (verse 8), and deceiving and being deceived (verse 13). Paul is showing us where to turn in these times of deception and uncertainty… to our Rule of Faith, which will be an anchor to keep us from being tossed about by every wind of doctrine… to the Word of God, that which is inspired (which means “God-breathed”– verse 16). If this Rule of Faith (Scripture) is the only thing that is ever called “God-breathed” in the New Testament, and it gives us doctrine / teaching, corrects us, trains us in the way of righteousness, and equips us for EVERY GOOD WORK, then what else do we need as a Rule of Faith?
Thus, we see that these Catholic arguments do not hold water, and that Sola Scriptura is, indeed, a biblical concept. We will tackle another Catholic claim next time. Comments, questions, and objections are welcome.
In His Name,
Russell
FINAL AUTHORITY
The first topic (and one of the most foundational ones) that we will discuss is the issue of authority. Catholics look to a combination of Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium as their final authority, while most Protestants believe in “Sola Scriptura” (the Bible Alone). But what do Catholics think of Sola Scriptura? This concept is very often misunderstood and misrepresented by most Catholics (and some Protestants, as well). When we say “Bible Alone,” we do not mean that we cannot use other sources of information to help us along in our Christian walk. Neither does it mean that the Bible contains every bit of spiritual information that exists. It is not an exhaustive encyclopedia containing every word that God, the Father, or Jesus Christ, the Son, has ever spoken, nor does it tell us of every single event in Church history. Sola Scriptura does not mean that there are no other authorities, or that the writings of the church fathers are useless. It does not mean that all tradition is bad, or that the Holy Spirit cannot deal with our hearts by other means, as well. It also does not mean that something has to be specifically mentioned in the Bible to be true, or that a person can wrecklessly interpret the Bible any way he wants to.
Ok, so what does Sola Scriptura mean then? Here is a simple definition:
It means that the Bible is the only infallible Rule of Faith for the
church today.
That’s it. It is a simple concept. The Scriptures are therefore the ultimate authority for the Christian, since there is nothing above, or equal to, their authority. All other sources, teachings, tradition, “revelation,” etc., are subject to this ultimate authority. We must test all of these and determine if they line up with God’s Word (I Thessalonians 5:21; I John 4:1; Matthew 15:1-9; Acts 17:11). If any teaching does not line up with the Scriptures, it cannot be binding on the Christian.
CATHOLIC CLAIM – SOLA SCRIPTURA IS A SELF-REFUTING CONCEPT, SINCE IT IS NOT BIBLICAL, THAT IS, IT CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE
Let us now turn to 2 Timothy 3:16-17. There we find the apostle Paul telling Timothy:
“All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” [NASB]
This passage, to me, seems to be pretty simple and straightforward, but there are a number of Catholic objections to this verse, as to whether it proves Sola Scriptura, and I will address some of them now.
Objection #1- “Paul says all Scripture, not ONLY Scripture, is inspired. And anyway, he says that it is merely ‘profitable / useful’. ‘Profitable’ does not mean sufficient.”
Answer – It is true that the word “only” is not used in this verse, but the impact of the phrase “for every good work” in the next verse seems to be ignored by those using this type of logic. If Scripture equips us for every good work, then by definition, it is sufficient as a Rule of Faith.
Let me use an analogy. If you were an auto mechanic and your boss gave you a toolbox that equipped you for every mechanic’s job that you could possibly run into, would that toolbox be sufficient? Yes, it would. Do you need another toolbox for foreign cars or pick-up trucks? No, not if the one he gave you equips you for every mechanic’s job.
In the same way, Scripture is our “toolbox” which equips us for every good work. Since this is true, there is no other source needed today TO FUNCTION AS AN INFALIBLE RULE OF FAITH. By definition, Scripture is all that is needed.
Objection #2 – “It is the ‘man of God’ which is described as adequate, not the Scriptures.”
Answer – The “teacher” is always greater than the student. Is that which is infallible and which teaches and equips us, LESS THAN the one that it is teaching? Absolutely not. If the “man of God” becomes adequate through the teaching of Scripture, how much more adequate is the Word of God?
Objection #3 – “Paul is not only speaking of Scripture in this context, but he is also speaking of Sacred Tradition which was handed down to Timothy when he says, ‘You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them’ (verse 14). So, we need Tradition also.”
Answer – First, no external “tradition” is named or identified in the context here. Secondly, can anyone say exactly what it was that Timothy had learned from Paul? To say that Paul was speaking of some “Catholic Tradition” is just begging the question. And even if he WAS speaking of some kind of external traditions, Paul definitely shifts gears in the very next verse (15), and he starts focusing on and speaking specifically of Scripture through to the end of the chapter.
Objection #4 – “Paul could not have meant Sola Scriptura here, since he was speaking of the only Scripture that was available at that time: the Old Testament. If Sola Scriptura applied here, wouldn’t we have to say that the Old Testament is all we need?
Answer – It is probably true that very little of the New Testament was written when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, but verse 16 says “All Scripture”, not all Scripture given to us “up until this point.”
As an example, if a Catholic stated that all official pronouncements of the Catholic Church are true, would anyone think that he was trying to say that only those official pronouncements which were given up to the present were true, but future ones may be false? Of course not. “All official pronouncements” means all official pronouncements, and “All Scripture” means just that… ALL Scripture… not just the Scriptures which happened to be available at the time.
Objection #5 – “There are other things besides Scripture that can make us ‘perfect and entire’, ‘lacking in nothing’, like patience (James 1:4). Or, we can exercise purity to make us ‘ready for any good work’ (2 Timothy 2:21), and good deeds are also said to be ‘profitable’ for us (Titus 3:8). So, Scripture is not the only thing that we need.”
Answer – The context in these verses is NOT the establishing of a Rule of Faith, as 2 Timothy chapter 3 is. But the context in the above verses is about sanctification, or the APPLICATION of that Rule, i.e., actually LIVING by its principles. For example, you can have a Bible sitting on your coffee table gathering dust, but if you don’t APPLY yourself to it, it won’t do you any good. Just as failing to apply the principles of Catholicism will make you a less-than-ideal Catholic. A Rule of Faith is a critically important guide, but it is not expected to do the work for you.
In 2 Timothy chapter 3, Paul is giving instructions on what to do when difficult times will come (verse 1), when men (even those in the church) will be boastful, arrogant, unholy, etc. (verses 2-5), opposing the truth (verse 8), and deceiving and being deceived (verse 13). Paul is showing us where to turn in these times of deception and uncertainty… to our Rule of Faith, which will be an anchor to keep us from being tossed about by every wind of doctrine… to the Word of God, that which is inspired (which means “God-breathed”– verse 16). If this Rule of Faith (Scripture) is the only thing that is ever called “God-breathed” in the New Testament, and it gives us doctrine / teaching, corrects us, trains us in the way of righteousness, and equips us for EVERY GOOD WORK, then what else do we need as a Rule of Faith?
Thus, we see that these Catholic arguments do not hold water, and that Sola Scriptura is, indeed, a biblical concept. We will tackle another Catholic claim next time. Comments, questions, and objections are welcome.
In His Name,
Russell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)