I disagree with you concerning biblical canonicity. The RCC had their own way of determining which writings would be included but then early church father's such as Irenaeus, Origen, and others already had specific rules to judge which writings should be included and which should not. The canon was already in existence before 312 A.D. which is official beginning of the RCC under Constantine.

And by the way, there is a sticking point where we'll always disagree and is at the heart of what many people from many denominations consider heresy. Church history is very important to study and remember for just the reasons we just cited, e.g., for determining the Canon of Scriptures , but our definition of "handed-down Apostolic teaching" is the rub. The Bible already gives us all the Apostolic teaching we need. Nowhere in scripture is there any handing down of any kind of this type of authority. You base your beliefs on an incorrect rendering of Christ's words which say upon Peter He would build His church. But it was upon Peter's confession of Him as Lord that was the "foundation."

Many "protestant" denominations such as the ECUSA, and Anglicanism, for example, yield greatly to church history and tradition, and rightly so. However, they do not place these important tenants above Holy Scripture. The ONLY person who can enlighten us about the interpretation and right use of the Word of God is the Holy Spirit Himself, and no other, not Pope, Bishop, Priest, or anyone.

-Josie

Josie,

1. Your claim that "the canon was already in existence before 312 A.D." doesn't reflect reality. If the canon of Scripture was clearly settled by 312 A.D. there would have been no need for subsequent definitions of the canon. Yet in different areas different canons were used as late as the fourth century, and different canons persist even today. Because of the ongoing controversy the Council of Hippo under Pope Damasus I defined the canon in 382 A.D., and the same canon has been reiterated by subsequent popes and councils: even after the Protestant Reformers adopted a different canon.

2. Your claim that "the Bible already gives us all the Apostolic teaching we need" ironically is unsupported by Scripture. No passage -no, not even 2 Timothy 3- makes any claim that Scipture alone contains "all the apostolic teaching we need". That's a Protestant invention.

3. Many Protestants claim that Matthew 16:18 does not say what it clearly says: that Jesus was giving Simon the name "rock", and that upon this "rock" He would build His Church. But it does plainly say that. Elsewhere in Scripture we are told that the apostles are the "foundation" of the Church (Revelation 21:14). And we are told that believers are "living stones", and that we form a "spiritual edifice" (1 Peter 2). And Jesus is the "cornerstone". Elsewhere Jesus is called the "capstone" (Ephesians 2:20). It's unfortunate that Protestants fight so hard against the plain meaning of the passage. So, no, Peter's not God; he's not perfect; he's not all-knowing; he's not sinless. But he is the "rock" that Jesus picked to serve in some sense as the foundation of His Church.

4. You said, "Nowhere in scripture is there any handing down of any kind of this type of authority." You need to go back and do some more reading. There is abundant evidence that Jesus gave the apostles authority that was then given to other men by means of "handing down": from the Greek "paradosis", and the Latin "traditio". English: "tradition". Paul spoke of it a great deal with Timothy, and elsewhere. And in Acts we see the apostles (under Peter's guidance) clearly aware that Judas' "office" was vacant and his "place" needed to be filled: so they elected Matthias to this ministry. Homework for you: find the passage in Paul's writings where he refers to five (five!) successive generations of apostolic authority.

5. The RCC specifically denies that it places tradition "above Holy Scripture", and I also deny it. You can't legitimately separate Scripture and apostolic tradition.

Finally, You say "The ONLY person who can enlighten us about the interpretation and right use of the Word of God is the Holy Spirit Himself, and no other..." If that is so, why are we having this discussion? If we Christians are not to listen to each other about the Word of Life, then why should I listen to you? And if I listen to you, how much more should I listen to those who have been appointed teachers in the Church, and who are in union with those who have received apostolic authority?

God bless you, Josie.

Would Jesus defend the Catholic Church?

Another challenging email!

John,

I have written to many writers about some of these questions. Some of them blow them off as if age helps to mitigate the substantialness of them. So I 'll ask you, as you genuinely seem interested and convinced.

At some point don't we have to ask ourselves hard questions such as "Could it be possible that our Church is not Good?" When so much of it's history has been clouded with scandal, and has been responsible for so much hurt and pain, don't we at some point have to ask ourselves if Jesus himself would defend it? I find it hard to believe that any thinking Catholic could honestly say that Jesus would defend the Catholic Church and all her sins. Jesus after all was a Jew, and criticized His own religion for her wrongs. Why would the label "Catholic" make him think any differently? It wouldn't.

Wouldn't Jesus just want us to move forward, leaving our imperfect ideas of what a Church should be behind and working together to create a new reality which He intended? You and so many others like you get so stuck on defending "Catholicism" that you forget what Jesus was all about. Put your "catholicism" aside and talk to Jesus. He is a great and wonderful spirit who came here to show us that right is more important than allegiance. Follow His lead.

Let me ask you one important question. If Jesus came to you and said "The Catholic Church is wrong. Do not follow it's teachings. Simply follow Me and My Word." and then the Catholic Church told you "Do not believe Jesus, He is wrong. God has established us as the vehicle of truth. Do as we say." Who would you believe? Would you act against the dictates of your Catholic Church to follow Jesus? What would you do? Well now you need to change the question. What WILL you do.

My reply...

Dear L,
Thanks a lot for writing. Your question is very similar to one I received just yesterday, so I refer You to my answer to 'C' in the previous blog entry. But I'd like to also add a few thoughts here...

You seem to focus on the sins in the history of the Catholic Church. What about the sins in the history of the numerous Protestant churches? I don't know of any Christian churches that have members without sin. Does Jesus condemn every church that has sinful members? Doesn't the Bible teach that the Church will be a home for redeemed sinners struggling to live by faith, sometimes falling into sin, and then repenting and beginning again? God is a Father seeking to heal sinners, and He works through sinners to do so.

You asked what would I do if Jesus came to me and said that "the Catholic Church is wrong". Well, honestly, He hasn't said that to me, and You can't expect that I will accept Your letter as the voice of God. You didn't even do me the courtesy of introducing Your name or the name of Your church. If You are serious about the truth, and about this discussion, I would like to know Your name and Your church, and then I would be very interested in discussing our beliefs in the light of Scripture.

I'd rather we be friends in Christ, not adversaries!

God bless You,

John Robin.

Is the Bible the pillar of truth?

Yesterday I received a letter from a fellow who’s got some pointed questions (and misgivings) about the Catholic Church. Below I take up one of Ian K's issues, and hope we'll have an opportunity to discuss them all… (I'm reprinting Ian's name and most of his letter with his kind permission.)
______________________

hi- the pope claims that the only true church is catholic. How can a statement like this be made? I belong to a non-denominational church who's only doctrine is what is written in the bible. The catholic church clearly worship idols, all the statues of different saints or the virgin Mary, who was only a woman not a deity. The catholics are responsible for more negative PR than the devil. How come you could only eat fish on Fridays and then suddenly it becomes ok to eat meat. I have yet to come across either in the scriptures. This however, is only a small point but it shows the catholic doctrines are from man and not from the word of God. You say yourselves "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" -Mark 2:7 RSV yet confess to priests and they forgive you. That alone should be the end of the discussion. But there's so much more. What's with all the priests getting away with pedophilia and the many examples of the churches being a huge, magnificent structure in the middle of a slum. This is missing the whole point (wasn't it share the wealth?) and, at the same time, driving people away from God...

-Ian K., letter of June 5, 2010

______________________


Hi, Ian, nice to hear from You. You’ve got lots of good questions, but too many to try answer all at once. I’d like to try to focus on one point at a time, and then see where it takes us, okay?

What does the Bible say about it?

Perhaps the most basic issue You raise is about where Christian doctrine comes from. You wrote,

“I belong to a non-denominational church who's only doctrine is what is written in the bible.”

Well, You’ve got lots of fellow Protestants who likewise believe that Scripture and Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals. You probably know that this doctrine is called sola scriptura, and of course it’s one of the pillars of Protestantism.

However sola scriptura is not taught by Scripture. It’s not even compatible with Scripture. In fact, Scripture teaches against it clearly, repeatedly, and emphatically. Yet many people believe the doctrine because, well, they love Scripture as the inspired Word of God (which of course it is), they’ve been taught by their family or their church to accept this doctrine, and they assume it's true.

But if we love Scripture, we must love the truth and desire to know more clearly whether Scripture really teaches what we've been told it does. So what does the Bible say about it?

Scripture does not teach that Jesus delivered His saving message by simply dropping a book from the clouds and leaving us to figure it out on our own. Instead, He picked disciples and personally taught them His message through words, deeds, miracles... His whole life, death and resurrection. He appointed some of them to be apostles with the mission to carry His message to the ends of the earth. He gave them the protection of the Holy Spirit to guard the purity of the message. And He gave Peter, and the others in union with him, the authority to interpret it definitively and preach it without error.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

-Matthew 16:18-19 RSV

"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

-Luke 10:16 RSV

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

-Matthew 28:18-20 RSV

This apostolic ministry is at the very foundation of the Church Jesus founded, and it’s something the Church can’t do without in the twenty-first century any more than it could in the first century. That’s why from the very beginning the apostles used their authority to appoint other men to share in their apostolic ministry. In the book of Acts we see Matthias appointed the first successor to the apostolic ministry. (cf. Acts 1:15-26)

No other foundation

"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

-Revelation 21:14 RSV

"You form a building which rises on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone."

-Ephesians 2:20 RSV

"...and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house..."

-1 Peter 2 RSV

This is the way Jesus built His Church: He’s the cornerstone; His apostles are the foundation; we are the living stones which are built upon that foundation. We're not free to change the way Jesus built His Church. In any case, can the bricks of a building remain secure if they leave their foundation?

So Scripture describes the Church as a "spiritual house", a building with a permanent cornerstone, a permanent foundation, and living stones connected to each other and united to Christ through that foundation.

Where's the Gospel?

Now, it wasn't until years after Jesus ascended to Heaven –even decades later, in some cases- that some of these men wrote the books of the New Testament under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Where was the Gospel to be found during these years before the New Testament ever existed? How was it preserved, interpreted, and taught before any of it was written down? The same way that Jesus delivered it: through the oral preaching and living example of the apostles and their successors. And did the apostles stop their preaching once the books of the New Testament were completed? Of course not. They wrote these books to supplement and reinforce their ongoing teaching, not to replace it.

“But on some points I have written to you very boldly by way of reminder...”

-Romans 15:15

The apostolic preaching continued, carried on through the centuries by those appointed by the apostles and their successors.

The apostle’s writings are authoritative not because they are written, but because they are of apostolic authority. It is through apostolic authority that we know which books belong in the Bible, and it is through this same authority that we are helped to discover their authentic meaning.

From the hands of the apostles

My point is not to deny the importance of Scripture, but rather to insist that it’s of utmost importance to interpret and understand Scripture correctly, according to the mind of Jesus and His apostles. For this we must use the means that Jesus has provided His Church. And Jesus gave His Church apostles with the authority to interpret and teach. Should we study Scripture privately and prayerfully? Certainly. But always we must listen to the apostles and their successors and embrace their teaching. Scripture repeatedly warns us against accepting doctrines that contradict the apostolic tradition.

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

-2 Thessalonians 2:15 RSV

"Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain."

-1 Corinthians 15:1-2 RSV

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. --As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."

-Galatians 1: 8-9 RSV

"And we [the apostles] have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,"

-2 Peter 1:19-20 RSV

If we cut ourselves off from the apostolic preaching, claiming that “we don’t need apostles because we have the Holy Spirit”, we delude ourselves.  The apostolic tradition is a most precious safeguard of the Gospel truth.  Separate ourselves from this, and we separate ourselves from God's appointed safeguards of the Gospel.

"There are some things in them [Paul's letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

-2 Peter 3:16 RSV

Rejecting apostolic succession and the Church's teaching authority, Christian denominations have arisen, split over doctrinal disputes, multiplied, and split, again without ceasing. One need only browse the internet or the phone book to see the resulting disunity: tens of thousands of Christian churches with thousands of different creeds: a pathetic tower of Babel where the world needs to see one, shining city on a hill.

Standing on the pillar of truth

"And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."

-Acts 2:42 RSV

The protection of the Holy Spirit which Christians enjoy has several forms, but primarily we receive it through remaining faithful to what we’ve received from the teachers God has sent us. But this does not permit us to pick teachers according to our own liking. Rather, the pattern of Scripture urges us to seek out those who truly have apostolic authority, those who, like Mathias, were picked and appointed by those who themselves received this authority.

Paul wrote that the Church is:

"...the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."

-1 Timothy 3:15 RSV

It is this Church which Jesus gave the power to interpret and explain His message, and many gifts to help us live that message in a way pleasing to Him and helpful to our salvation and sanctification. If we wish to be united with Him, should we not seek direction from those whom He sent to guide us?

Again, according to Scripture, what is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth”? The Church. The Church is our guarantee of receiving the truth of the Bible intact. Doctrines which contradict what the Church teaches therefore contradict the apostolic preaching and should be rejected, no matter how pleasing they may sound.

Ian, most Christian churches deny that they have the apostolic authority I have described above. The Roman Catholic Church claims to have this authority, and this claim is supported by 2000 years of history showing an unbroken chain of apostolic succession.

Some Christians deny this history exists, deny that the apostolic ministry is a permanent part of the Church, deny even that it even existed past the first century. But to deny these things one must deny Scripture. And this we can’t and mustn’t do.

Ian, I propose to You that sola scriptura -the belief that all Christian doctrine should or could be based purely on Scripture- is actually a doctrine of men, not of God. It’s not a doctrine taught by Jesus in the 1st century, and it didn’t gain traction until it was promoted by certain European men in the 16th century. It’s a pillar of Protestantism, but it’s not a pillar of Scripture, and certainly not a pillar of truth.

So, Ian, I ask You: what do You think of the biblical fact of apostolic authority which I've tried to outline above? Do You agree that we should take it seriously?

Thank You for writing to me, Ian, and for Your great questions. Perhaps once we finish up with sola scriptura and apostolic authority we could talk about Your other questions.

Please do send Your thoughts!

Cheers,
John Robin.