Sola Scriptura

Today’s readings reminded me of one of the major problems that most non-Catholic Christians have with their idea that Scripture is to be our final authority in right-Christian living as well as finding out what is to be believed as doctrinally true.

Let’s set aside the fact that this rule can nowhere be found in our Scriptures (the Bible) and therefore defeats its own rule.  What I mean by that is if our final authority in determining what is doctrinally true is the Bible then this rule ought to be found in our Bible.  And it isn’t.  What I found in today’s readings that reminded me of this was the fact that not only is this rule of ‘Sola Scriptura’ not found in Scripture but Scripture itself teaches something that is opposite of this premise.

In the first reading from today we find Ezra the priest lift up the Scriptures of the time to the people and begins reading it to them.  As we can see, Scriptures are indeed very important since they are the written Word of God but Ezra not only “read plainly from the book of the law of God” he also interpreted it “so that all could understand what was read.” (Neh 8:8)

Even in the Old Testament times we see a need for some in authority to interpret the Scriptures so that we all may understand it properly.  Before the time of Jesus these interpreters ended up misapplying the Scriptures and erred on matters of faith and morals when interpreting the written Word of God.  Since Jesus came to ‘fix’ the problems of the times, does this mean that we shouldn’t have an authority to help us understand Scripture properly?  By no means!  Jesus came to ‘fix’ the problems, that is he came to fulfill, not to destroy the old system.

The reason that the Jews veered off course in understanding the written Word of God is because they hadn’t receive the promise of God that they would be guided into all truth as the leaders of the new Kingdom, that is His Church (John 16:13).  When Jesus instituted His Church here on earth, he fulfilled what was lacking previously.  He promised them that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven (Mat 18:18).  Since nothing untrue can be bound in heaven, we understand Jesus’ statement to mean that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into binding and loosing the faithful in an infallible manner on matters of faith and morals.

Jesus tells His followers that the last authority in guiding fellow Christians to the truth is the Church (Mat 18:15-17) and so when a major disagreement arose between Paul and some judaizers, those judaizers and Paul were sent to the Church to settle the matter which we now call the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:2).  Their decision in settling the matter was guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28) and was binding not only for the local congregation but to all the faithful (Acts 16:4).  We see examples of these councils throughout history all the way up to the Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s.  Since the Church is the final authority, Paul describes the Church, not the Scriptures, as being the upholder and standard of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).  Therefore the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) is not only nowhere found in our Bible, it is actually contrary to what the Bible teaches.

God Bless
Nathan

Scripture and Tradition

The online dictionary defines the word tradition to be “the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation.”

 

The Sacred Scriptures, the Old and New Testament, are a kind of tradition, a tradition handed down to us.  The apostles who were taught by Jesus and whose followers wrote down what they learned of the apostles stories and recollections that we now call the New Testament writings put these writings together with the Old Testament writings in one collection of books which we now call our Bible, where the word ‘Bible’ originates from the Greek ‘biblio’, which means ‘book’.

 

The authors of these NT books ‘handed down’ these letters, and the information contained in them, to others who would benefit from reading them and they, in turn, copied them and handed it to others.  This handing down is a form of tradition.  Since we believe that these writings came to us through the divine inspiration of the authors by God Himself through the guiding of the Holy Spirit, and protected from corruption in its copying, we call these writings ‘Sacred Scripture.’

 

The difference between ‘small-t’ tradition and ‘capital-T’ tradition is its origin.  If a tradition, that is, a belief, a custom or information, is known to have originated from Jesus Christ or the apostles while being inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach the truth then this tradition is properly called Sacred Tradition, or simply ‘capital-T’ Tradition and if it doesn’t originate from Jesus or the apostles in the same way, then it’s a small-t tradition.  For example, the concept of three persons in one God, the Trinity is a capital-t Tradition while the tradition of crossing ourselves with Holy Water as we enter a church as a small-t tradition.  The first is revealed by God and therefore the Truth, the other is simply a pious thing to do.

 

‘T’radition is the churches lived meaning of those texts.  If we don’t have access to the meaning of those texts is when we come up all sorts of errant or even abhorrent theologies.  Theologies which are inconsistent with what the Apostles received such as the Arian heresy where Jesus is believed to be human only and not divine.  Or even the belief in a symbolic only presence in the Eucharist as opposed to a True Presence.  In defending their belief in the human nature only of Christ and the symbolic presence only in the Eucharist, both groups defend their position using the text of the Scriptures and yet they were/are both wrong because they do not take into account the continuing understanding of those texts by those Christians through history.

 

 

WAIT A MINUTE….

 

Didn’t Jesus condemn all traditions of men?  He seems to be very clear when He pronounces in Matt 15:6 “So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.” or in Mark 7:13 “Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth.”

 

To reject all traditions because of these verses demonstrate a severe lack of understanding.  Jesus isn’t rejecting all traditions.  He’s rejecting any tradition that voids the Word of God; traditions of the kind are often called ‘traditions of men’ because they do not originate from God but from man.  With this in mind we can easily see that is what Jesus was condemning.  He was condemning any tradition that make “void the word of God”.

 

Therefore some traditions are OK but some are not.  So how can we figure out which ones to keep and which ones to reject, or more precisely, are there any traditions that we ought to reject as faithful followers of Jesus? Many will tell you that if a tradition does not line up with Scripture then it is man-made and to be avoided.  Sounds reasonable right?  Reasonable, maybe, but to do this means that we are rejecting beyond what Jesus was telling us to reject.  Jesus told us to reject the traditions of men since He was talking about those traditions that made void the word of God.  Just because a tradition is not found in Scripture doesn’t mean that it voids the Word of God.  It could simply mean that this tradition was never explicitly written down in Scripture.  Nowhere in Scripture will you find that all that’s needed for right-Christian living is to be found in Scripture.  Equally absent will you find everything that was taught by Jesus and the apostles.  The apostle John tells us that many things were taught by Jesus in His post-Resurrection appearances that were not written down (John 21:25).

 

As a matter of fact, we do find in Scripture the direct command to hold on to the traditions handed to us by the original followers of Christ in verse 15 of Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians.  Paul tells us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”  Not only does Paul direct us to “hold on to the traditions” taught by him and the other elders but he also defines what was written to be a form of tradition as well.  What was taught orally and what was taught through their writings were both defined as “traditions”.  Therefore what was taught by the apostles, either through word of mouth or through inspired writings was to be accepted and believed.

 

Now, I guess the question will have to come up.  How are we to know if what we call Sacred Tradition truly does originate with the apostles and is not a human invention inserted decades or even centuries later?  Many will tell you to go to the Scriptures.  But then we are assuming that the Scriptures are inspired in the first place.  Remember that the Scriptures are a form of tradition as well.  We are trying to determine if any specific tradition came to us from God directly or through the apostles.  We are obliged to accept and agree with those that do originate from God directly or through the apostles, but no such obligation exists for those traditions that do not.

 

For a concrete example, let’s look at the Scriptures a little more closely.  If the Scriptures are a form of capital-t Tradition then how did we as Christians come up with the collection of books in our Bible as thee collection of writings to accept as ‘God-breathed’, or inspired?  Answering this question will also help make clear why the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura cannot be true.

 

At the turn of the third century many considered early writings to be ‘God-breathed’ that today are not in our Bible while others considered certain writings that are in our Bible today were rejected at the time.  The confusion needed to be resolved and so a council was convened to determine which books were inspired and which were not.  This ‘canon’ was agreed upon by a local council at Hippo and Carthage (393 and 397 AD) and ratified by the Pope in c. 400 AD.  Once this was done there were no more disputes on the canon of the books inspired by God.  Therefore, all those who agree and accept the books of the NT of our Bible, accept the authority of the Church to infallibly determine this list of inspired writings, whether they know it or not.

 

And so we find that the inspired writings found their way in our Bible through the Church by ordained men, bishops of the Catholic Church.  To accept the authority of the Scriptures is to accept the authority of the Catholic Church.  This means that the doctrine invented by men in the early 1500’s that Scripture Alone is authoritative is self-defeating because to believe that the Scriptures are authoritative is to accept that the Church is also authoritative since they infallibly discerned which books were Scripture.  Both Scripture AND the Church are authoritative therefore Scripture is not alone, which is what Sola means in Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone.

 

God Bless

Nathan

The Biblical Way We Worship

The Biblical Way We Worship

The Mass begins where the Bible leaves off. In God's plan of salvation, the Bible and the Mass were made for each other.

That's probably news to you. In fact, if you're like a lot of people, including many Catholics, you probably haven't given much thought to the relationship between the Bible and the Mass.

In fact, if somebody asked, "What does the Bible have to do with the Mass?" many of us would probably answer, "Not much."

That seems like an obvious answer.

After all, we hear readings from the Old and New Testaments in every Mass and sing a Psalm in between. But aside from that - and maybe the homily which is based on the readings - it doesn't seem like the Bible plays a big part in the Mass.

When you're done with this course, you'll have a much different perspective - and hopefully a far greater love and appreciation for the deep mystery of faith we enter into in each Mass.

Let's jump right in and look at the Mass through a new, "biblical" lens.

Every Mass begins the same way. We make the Sign of the Cross and say, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

We'll get to why we do that later.

For now, just note that the Sign of the Cross started with the Apostles, who "sealed" the newly baptized by tracing this sign on their foreheads (see Ephesians 1:13; Revelation 7:3).

The words we pray as we make this sign come straight from the lips of Jesus. Indeed, they're among the last words He spoke to His Apostles (see Matthew 28:19).

Next in the Mass, the priest greets us. Again he speaks, and we respond, with words from the Bible. We say: "The Lord be with you" (see 2 Timothy 4:22).

In Scripture these words are a pledge of divine presence, protection and help (see Exodus 3:12; Luke 1:28). The priest might opt to use a different greeting, such as "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ . . ." but that greeting too will be drawn from Scripture (see 2 Corinthians 13:13; Ephesians 1:2).

The Mass continues this way - as a "dialogue" between the faithful and God, mediated by the priest. What's striking - and it's something we rarely recognize - is that we carry on this conversation almost entirely in the language of the Bible.

When we beg "Lord, have mercy" - our cry for help and forgiveness is one that runs throughout Scripture (see Psalm 51:1; Baruch 3:2; Luke 18:13,38,39).

When we glorify God, we use the song the angels sang that first Christmas night (see Luke 2:14).

Even the Creed and the Eucharistic prayers are composed of biblical words and phrases.

As we prepare to kneel before the altar, we sing another angelic hymn from the Bible - "Holy, holy, holy . . . " (see Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8). We join that to the triumphant Psalm sung by those who welcomed Jesus to Jerusalem: "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes . . . " (see Mark 11:9-10)

At the heart of the Mass, we hear Jesus' words from the Last Supper (see Mark 14:22-24).

Then we pray to our Father in the words our Savior gave us (see Matthew 6:9-13). We acknowledge Him with a line from John the Baptist: "Behold, the Lamb of God . . ." (see John 1:29,36).

And before receiving Him in communion, we confess our unworthiness - in words once used by a Roman soldier seeking Jesus' help (see Luke 7:7).

What we say and hear in the Mass comes to us from the Bible. And what we "do" in the Mass, we do because it was done in the Bible.

We kneel (see Psalm 95:6; Acts 21:5) and sing hymns (see 2 Maccabees 10:7,38; Acts 16:25); we offer each other a sign of peace (see 1 Samuel 25:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:26).

We gather around an altar (see Genesis 12:7; Exodus 24:4; 2 Samuel 24:25; Revelation 16:7), with incense (see Jeremiah 41:5; Revelation 8:4), served by priests (see Exodus 28:3-4; Revelation 20:6). We offer thanks with bread and wine (see Genesis 14:18; Matthew 26:26-28).

 

From the first Sign of the Cross to the last "Amen" (see Nehemiah 8:6; 2 Corinthians 1:20), the Mass is an aural and sensual tapestry woven with words and actions, even accessories drawn from the Bible.

We address God in words that He himself has given us through the inspired writers of sacred Scripture. And He in turn comes to us - instructing, exhorting and sanctifying us - again through the living Word of the inspired Scriptures.

Taken from Dr Scott Hahn’s Bible study “A Biblical Introduction to the Mass”  found at: www.salvationhistory.com

God Bless
Nathan

Real Presence, Part 3

Third reason to believe:  Scripture

For Scriptural verses supporting the Real Presence I will reference only two sections of our Bible.  John chapter 6, verse 51 and 1 Cor 11. 

 

JOHN 6 (Bread of Life Discourse)

Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. ³⁶ But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. ³⁷ All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

-- Jews grumble at this.--

[…]
 
⁴⁷ Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. ⁴⁸ I am the bread of life. ⁴⁹ Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. ⁵⁰ But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. ⁵¹ I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

⁵² Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

⁵³ Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ⁵⁴ Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. ⁵⁵ For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. ⁵⁶ Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. ⁵⁷ Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. ⁵⁸ This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” ⁵⁹ He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

⁶⁰ On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” ⁶¹ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? ⁶² Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! ⁶³ The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit^[e] and life. ⁶⁴ Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. ⁶⁵ He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”⁶⁶ From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

 

1)       The first thing to notice is “what else could Jesus have said to make it any more plain?”  Six times He tells them that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood.  6 times!

 

2)       Second, He doesn’t correct those that leave Him for misunderstanding Him since they thought He spoke literally while He supposedly spoke only symbolically.  My question is: why didn’t He say so before they left Him?

 

3)       Thirdly, the apostle John recounts Jesus using two different words when speaking of ‘eating’ His flesh.  In the beginning of His discourse He uses the word “PHAGO” which is defined as ‘eat’ and which can sometimes be taken symbolically.  But when the Jews have difficulty accepting Jesus’ second attempt at clarifying His teaching Jesus switches to the word “TROGO” in verse 54 when speaking of ‘eating’ His flesh, a word which is NEVER used symbolically in Scripture and means to ‘munch, gnaw or crunch’ His Flesh making it extremely clear that Jesus was speaking literally.

And so Jesus let the Jews leave because they understood Him correctly, they just couldn’t accept this ‘hard teaching.’

My favorite verse of the whole ‘Bread of Life’ discourse is verse 51.

Verse 51 of John 6 says this: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven.  If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”

Jesus is the living bread.  We are to eat this bread.  This bread that He gives for us to eat is the flesh that He will give for the life of the world.    If the bread is symbolically His flesh then the flesh that He gives for the life of the world must be symbolic as well.  That’s how Jesus describes it.  Was the flesh on the cross symbolic? Or real?  The flesh that we are to eat, is it symbolic or real?  If the flesh on the cross is real then the bread that we are to eat is that same flesh.

In 1 Corinthians 11, verse 27.  Paul writes to the Corinthians about eating the bread and drinking of the cup unworthily, to do that is to be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.  Paul explains it this way: “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”  How can one sin against the body and blood by eating and drinking unworthily of the bread and wine UNLESS the bread and wine are now the body and blood of the Lord.

Two verses later, verse 29, Paul explains how it can be a sin to eat and drink unworthily.  It’s a sin because: “…anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”  How can one DISCERN the body of the Lord in the bread if its NOT the body of the Lord?  To discern it as the body of the Lord means that the bread is, in fact, the body of the Lord.

And the last Scriptural verse that I want to bring to prove the Real Presence in the Eucharist are from the words of God Himself at the Last Supper.  Jesus raised the bread and said “This IS my Body.”  He didn’t say that the bread was just a symbol, a sign or a figure of His body.  He lifted up the bread and said “this IS my Body”.  He never pointed to a door and said “This is my body”.   God Himself said “Let there be light.  And there was light”.  God the Son said “This is my body” and so, no matter what our senses might tell us, we are obliged to believe Him.  That His Word has power.  For God, to say it is so…makes it so.

 

God Bless

Nathan

Inspiration of Scripture

This question poses some serious problems for those who believe in Scripture alone as ones authority in right-Christian living.  Since Scripture nowhere indentifies the Book of James as divinely inspired for example means that one must go to an authority other than Scripture to determine if it is indeed inspired Scripture.  The same applies to any book that one might consider divinely inspired (literally translated as ‘God-breathed’).

 

If one looks at historical texts of the first century after Jesus’ death and resurrection, even those that are against the Christian church, we find unanimous agreement that the followers of Jesus believed that Jesus actually rose, body and soul, into heaven.  They believed it so deeply that they were willing to die instead of denying it.  Certainly if Christ had not risen his first disciples (the original 12 chosen by Christ Himself) would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

 

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

 

We have thus taken the material and purely historical and concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

 

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book. 

 

For a more detailed look at the inspiration of Sacred Scripture please go to:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

God Bless
Nathan

Sola Scriptura

“14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,  15 and that from infancy you have known [the] sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
(2 Tim 3:14-17)

 The most damaging criticism of sola scriptura is the reality that the Bible doesn’t teach it.  This leads to an absurdity.  Those who believe in sola scriptura claim that everything that is essential for a Christian to know is clearly taught in the Bible.  However, the Bible does not teach that everything that is essential for a Christian to know is clearly taught in the Bible.

The passage that is most often cited as a proof text by those who support sola scriptura is 2 Tim 3:15-17.  Let’s examine that passage beginning with its immediate context.  Paul is clearly instructing Timothy and the church in Ephesus to be a faithful witness during difficult times.  There is no indication anywhere in this Epistle that he is contrasting Sacred Scripture with other sources of revelation, or even discussing the subject.

In addition, the “Scriptures” with which Timothy has been acquainted “from childhood” (verse 15) refers to the Old Testament.  Are we to believe that St. Paul is teaching that the Old Testament constitutes the only source needed to know what Jesus taught?

Secondly, Paul has many important things to say about the scriptures.  They “are able to instruct you for salvation in Christ Jesus” (v.15).  However, he doesn’t claim that only the scriptures can instruct one for salvation in Christ Jesus.  “All scripture is inspired by God” (v.16), but Paul does not claim that only scriptures are inspired by God.  Paul also affirms that scripture is “useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (v.17), but he never asserts that only scripture is so useful.

Thirdly, This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, in 2 Timothy alone, Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, and 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a very similar passage:

Ephesians 4:11-15 (RSV) - And His gifts were that some should be Apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are able to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ.

If 2 Timothy 3:16-17 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then by analogy, Ephesians 4:11-15 would likewise prove the sufficiency of prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4:11-15 the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, knowledge of Jesus, the fullness of Christ, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3:16-17, yet it doesn’t even mention Scripture!!

So if all Tradition and Church elements are excluded in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, then, by analogy, Scripture itself would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians 4:11-15! It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean they are nonexistent. Hence, the Church, Tradition, and Scripture together are equally necessary and important for teaching. And of course this is the Catholic view.

As you can see, advocates of the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura (the “Bible only” theory) have a problem on their hands here.

If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true then we must be able to prove all doctrines from Scripture alone. If that is true, then we must be able to prove Sola Scriptura from Scripture alone. If we cannot do that then Sola Scriptura turns out to be self-refuting, an idea that cuts its own basis out from under itself, like the proposition “No generalizations are true.”

GodBless
Nathan

Copy/pasted from:
http://www.reesnet.com/theology/solascriptura/lvl09000.htm

And

http://www.totustuus.com/Sola%20Scriptura.pdf

Hate your Mother and Father

I don’t know about you but when I first read next Sunday's reading (Luke 14:25-33) and came to the part where if we do not hate our father and mother and even our wife and kids we cannot be His disciple I was somewhat confused.  How is ‘hating’ my wife and kids following His command to love one another?  I just didn’t get it.  Then I did some research.

I found out that what Jesus was saying here is for one to be His disciple he must be prepared to leave behind anyone who prevents him from serving Jesus.  You see, to ‘hate’ you father and mother is an idiomatic expression of that time and culture.  It simply meant ‘to love less’. 

For example, let’s have a look at the Book of Malachi, Chapter 1 verses 2 and 3.  God says: “Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his hill country into a wasteland…” (NIV)  If we look at the Amplified translation we see this text as “But [in comparison with the degree of love I have for Jacob] I have hated Esau and have laid waste his mountains…” (AMP)

It’s like saying in our time that someone has ‘kicked the bucket’ doesn’t really mean that one literally kicked a bucket but that he has died.  Or the expression that it’s raining cats and dogs doesn’t mean that cats and dogs are literally falling from the sky but that there’s a downpour outside.  The same kind of thing applies here.  Jesus wasn’t telling those who wanted to follow Him that they had to literally hate their spouses and even children.  He was simply saying that even the sacredness of family loyalty shouldn’t outweigh our commitment to Christ since we must be willing to abandon even close relationships to follow Him.

This way of reading this particular passage also explains what Jesus meant by bringing a sword and not peace in Mat 10 where He says: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

To follow Jesus, that is to be His disciple, one must be willing to abandon even close relationships because many who are close to you will be unable to understand your path and reject you because of it, hence the turning away of the father and daughter and so on.

Just because they turn away from you or that your love toward Jesus Christ is greater than your love for your family doesn’t mean you leave or ignore them either.  We are to love one another and that means to be there to explain the hope that is in you with respect and gentleness (1 Pet 3:15), and of course to pray for their entrance into the faith.

God Bless
Nathan

Bible Divinely Inspired?

How does one know that the Bible is a collection of divinely inspired Books?

 

This question poses some serious problems for those who believe in Scripture alone as ones authority in right-Christian living.  Since Scripture nowhere indentifies the Book of James as divinely inspired for example means that one must go to an authority other than Scripture to determine if it is indeed inspired Scripture.  The same applies to any book that one might consider divinely inspired (literally translated as ‘God-breathed’).

If one looks at historical texts of the first century after Jesus’ death and resurrection, even those that are against the Christian church, we find unanimous agreement that the followers of Jesus believed that Jesus actually rose, body and soul, into heaven.  They believed it so deeply that they were willing to die instead of denying it.  Certainly if Christ had not risen his first disciples (the original 12 chosen by Christ Himself) would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book. 

So we know the Bible is a collection of divinely inspired books because of the established authority of the Church who discerned which books out of hundreds in contention were truly inspired and which weren’t.

Scripture Alone?

Today’s readings reminded me of one of the major problems that most non-Catholic Christians have with their idea that Scripture is to be our final authority in right-Christian living as well as finding out what is to be believed as doctrinally true.

Let’s set aside the fact that this rule can nowhere be found in our Scriptures (the Bible) and therefore defeats its own rule.  What I mean by that is if our final authority in determining what is doctrinally true is the Bible then this rule ought to be found in our Bible.  And it isn’t.  What I found in today’s readings that reminded me of this was the fact that not only is this rule of ‘Sola Scriptura’ not found in Scripture but Scripture itself teaches something that is opposite of this premise.

In the first reading from today we find Ezra the priest lift up the Scriptures of the time to the people and begins reading it to them.  As we can see, Scriptures are indeed very important since they are the written Word of God but Ezra not only “read plainly from the book of the law of God” he also interpreted it “so that all could understand what was read.” (Neh 8:8)

Even in the Old Testament times we see a need for some in authority to interpret the Scriptures so that we all may understand it properly.  Before the time of Jesus these interpreters ended up misapplying the Scriptures and erred on matters of faith and morals when interpreting the written Word of God.  Since Jesus came to ‘fix’ the problems of the times, does this mean that we shouldn’t have an authority to help us understand Scripture properly?  By no means!  Jesus came to ‘fix’ the problems, that is he came to fulfill, not to destroy the old system.

The reason that the Jews veered off course in understanding the written Word of God is because they hadn’t receive the promise of God that they would be guided into all truth as the leaders of the new Kingdom, that is His Church (John 16:13).  When Jesus instituted His Church here on earth, he fulfilled what was lacking previously.  He promised them that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven (Mat 18:18).  Since nothing untrue can be bound in heaven, we understand Jesus’ statement that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into binding and loosing the faithful in an infallible manner on matters of faith and morals.

Jesus tells His followers that the last authority in guiding fellow Christians to the truth is the Church (Mat 18:15-17) and so when a major disagreement arose between Paul and some judaizers, those judaizers and Paul were sent to the Church to settle the matter which we now call the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:2).  Their decision in settling the matter was guided by the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28) and was binding not only for the local congregation but to all the faithful (Acts 16:4).  We see examples of these councils throughout history all the way up to the Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s.  Since the Church is the final authority, Paul describes the Church, not the Scriptures, as being the upholder and standard of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).  Therefore the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) is not only nowhere found in our Bible, it is actually contrary to what the Bible teaches.

Faith vs Works

Let’s look at verses that many Protestants use to make their case of Sola Fide, the doctrine of salvation through faith alone as compared to passages that seem to suggest that salvation is found through works alone.

Galatians 3:11 “Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”

Romans 3:28 “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.”

Acts 16:30-31 “He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.””

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

1 John 5:13 “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”

And

Eph 2:8-9 “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—  not by works, so that no one can boast.”

It seems pretty obvious that we are justified, that is saved, by faith alone right?  Not so fast, let’s compare the case for salvation through faith alone with the many passages in the Bible on the need of doing good works in regards to our salvation.

Rom 2:13 “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”

James 2:24 “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.”

James 2:20 “You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?

Mat 7:21 ““Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Mat 19:16-17 “ Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

Eph 2:10 “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

Therefore, by virtue of not having a single verse directly stating that one is saved through faith alone along with the fact that our Bible does say that one is saved by what we do, we see a need to marry all these verses together without contradictions.  Paul does exactly that in his letter to the Galatians where he says that “the only thing that counts is faith working through love.”  And so we can see that it’s not exactly what we do but with what intention that we do these things because of our faith.  If we do these things out of love then that makes it pleasing to God and useful for our salvation (James 2:20-26).

 

Missed past week’s leaflets?  Questions?  Comments?  Come visit our Blog at www.parishofthepreciousblood.blogspot.com

 Prepared by a St.Denis parishioner