Debate: Does the Magisterium have authority over the Bible, or does the Bible have authority over the Magisterium?

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RobSmith (Talk | contribs) at 18:06, August 3, 2020. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
This is a non-denominational exchange of ideas intended to bring about a greater understanding of the Bible.
All views are welcome.

Matthew 16:18-19 reads:

  • And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

The Roman Catholic Magisterium has used these scriptures to proclaim for itself spiritual authority over interpretation of the Bible. The debate question is: Does the Magisterium have authority over the Bible, or does the Bible have authority over the Magisterium?

No personal attacks, such as impugning another editor as a Nazi or anti-Christ are allowed, and the offending posting can be removed in its entirety by any user.

The Roman church has authority over scripture

Contentions over Bible authority vs Church authority: What the Bible says about it

I'll address the primary issue I addressed on the purgatory debate page—

  • "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [Greek rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
  • "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 God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
  • "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."
    [...]
  • "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king."
  • "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophesy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. [...]
    [...][...]

(Texts from the King James Version: Matthew 16:18-19; 1 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 13:17; James 2:24; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 2 Peter 1:19–2:2; 1 John 2:18-19; Jude 17-19)
[Ed. note: James 2:4, 2 Peter 2:1-2, 1 John 2:18-19, & Jude 17-19 were removed as off topic to the subject of authority of the Magisterium.]

On a rock Jesus built his church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Therefore, according to the Bible itself, it is impossible that the church could ever teach what is not the truth. This is simply the doctrine of the Bible about the church, and it is simply the same as the Catholic doctrine about the church. Therefore according to the Bible the doctrine of the church is the truth taught by the Holy Ghost.
Nowhere does the Bible teach that the leaders and members of the church will all live impeccable lives free of all sin. Bad example, like that of Judas, does not invalidate the truth of the doctrine of the church.

I stand with the Bible just as every professing Bible-believer should. It's the Word of God. Amen. Period. The end. [1]

Question from RobSmith

You cite 1 Peter 2:13 "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man"; are ordinances of the Magisterium from man or God?

Answer from IndependentSkeptic ( 01:01, 3 August 2020 (EDT) )

Your question is a Loaded question. I consulted Dataclarifier. I believe we have an answer (two actually, if you wish to be exact):
(1) If a person believes the institution/ordinance of the church's magisterium has divine authority from God because Jesus built his church on rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, because the church of the living God is the pillar and ground of the truth, as the Bible says—then the Bible-believer is obligated to submit to its every doctrine and dogma as the truth.
(2) If a person believes the institution/ordinance of the church's magisterium has only the earthly authority of men, being by now an established governing authority on earth, and there is "no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God", and if the magisterium of the church is the institution/ordinance of men—then the Bible-believer is obligated to submit to the institution/ordinance of the magisterium of the church in its every doctrine and dogma.

Therefore:
  • if the ordinances of the Magisterium are from God the Bible commands that you submit;
  • if the ordinances of the Magisterium are from man the Bible commands that you submit;
  • if the Bible as the infallible Word of God says there is no power/authority but of God: the powers/authorities that be are ordained of God: whosoever therefore resisteth the power/authority, resisteth the ordinance of God: therefore they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation (and the Bible does say it)—then Bible-believers who resist the ordinances of the established power/authority of the magisterium of the church shall receive to themselves damnation.
The Bible also commands: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you."[2]

So—we propose a counter-question: Is the Bible the Word of God? Will you obey the Word of God?
We'll leave it at that for you to answer. We're just asking the simple question. We don't intend to stay and debate it since this is our final post on leaving Conservapedia. For us the answer seems obvious, so we won't be checking back for your response. We hope you have an answer, for the benefit of people who read this page. Peace be with you. --IndependentSkeptic (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2020 (EDT)

Yes, we can see how 1 Peter 2:13-17 can be understood to refer to a theocratic form of government, combining both civil and spiritual authority (i.e., no separation of church and state), as Israel once was under Saul, David, Solomon, and their successors. But we also have this bitter pill to swallow - the testimony of Nebuchadnezzar recorded in the Book of Daniel:
  • This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.[3]
Given this scripture, papal primacy is nothing to boast of. When Jesus said Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, there actually was a separation of civil authority from religious authority, between the Roman occupying force and the Pharisees. At Jesus' ascension, let's look at Acts 1:2-6:
after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: 3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: 4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
There is much here, but lets glean a few specifics: the Apostles who witnessed his Resurrection, etc., were still of a "carnal mind", looking for restoration of the Kingdom as is was under David, forgetting that Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world. They had not received the Holy Spirit yet.
So yes, I do believe the Bible in its entirety - that the "basest of men" can refer to the Apostolic succession. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 03:10, 3 August 2020 (EDT)
And a brief comment: the question, "are ordinances of the Magisterium from man or God?" is no more of a loaded question than when Jesus asked, was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?, of which we'll have more to say (Luke 4:2-8) as we move into a discussion of the Holy Spirit. RobSTrump 2Q2Q 14:06, 3 August 2020 (EDT)


was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?”

Scripture has authority over the Roman church

User:RobSmith

Conservapedia's Magisterium article says of the Magisterium,

According to the Catholic Church the only correct and valid understanding of the revealed Christian doctrine of salvation and the Bible can only be obtained by taking account of both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition as interpreted by the authentic catholic Christian Living Magisterium under the promised guidance of God the Holy Spirit.

The Magisterium is a living being or institution that purports to talk for God.

Matthew 15:8-9

Jesus summed up the problems with the Roman Catholic Magisterium with these words:

  • ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’[4]

Upon this rock I will build my church

  • Exodus 33:13 - Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way
  • John 14:6 - I am the way
  • Exodus 33:21 - And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock.
  • Romans 5:2 - Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand
  • 1 Corinthians 10:4 - And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Even Peter says that rock was Christ.

  • 1 Peter 2:6-8 - For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” 7 So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” 8 and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” They stumble because they disobey the word (ESV)

The church is built upon Christ, the Rock, not Peter.

  • Psalm 89:26 - He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’

The question of papal primacy and Apostolic tradition

Borrowed from Authority Forever debate:

1. Meaning of: "And I tell you, you are Peter (Petros = rock/stone), and on this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the powers of death / the gates of hades 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

Please see:

2. The historical evidence for papal primacy is insufficient. The historical evidence is against papal primacy.

See:

"The word “Pope” means “Papa,” “Father.” At first it was applied to all Western Bishops. About AD. 500 it began to be restricted to the Bishop of Rome, and soon, in common use, came to mean Universal Bishop. The Roman Catholic list of Popes includes the Bishops of Rome from the 1st century onward. But for 500 years Bishops of Rome were NOT Popes.

The idea that the Bishop of Rome should have Authority over the Whole Church was a slow growth process, bitterly contested at every step, and has never at any time been Universally Recognized, not even prior to the Protestant Reformation.

WBSG Note: Jesus tells us in the Bible to “call no man your father on earth.” We know that He wasn’t speaking about your flesh parent because the fifth commandment says: “Honor thy father and thy mother…” [Ex 20:12]. So what other father could He mean except Pope (The word “Pope” means “Papa,” “Father.”). Also notice the capitalization below in the word Father (this indicates the presence of the definite article in the Greek language):

Matt 23:9 (Jesus speaking) 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (KJV)

The Roman Catholic tradition that Peter was the First Pope is Fiction pure and simple. There is no New Testament hint, and no historical evidence whatever, that Peter was at any time Bishop of Rome. Nor did he ever claim for himself such Authority as the Popes have claimed for themselves. It seems that Peter had a divine foreboding that his “Successors” would be mainly concerned with “Lording it over Gods flock, rather than showing themselves Examples to the flock” (I Peter 5:3)....

Beginning of Rome’s Domineering Policy:

  • Anicetus, Bishop of Rome (154-168), tried to influence Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, to change the date of Easter observance; but Polycarp refused to yield... (Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John)...
  • Victor 1 (190-202), threatened to excommunicate the Eastern Churches for celebrating Easter on the 14th of Nisan. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, replied that he was not afraid of Victors threats, and asserted his independent authority. Iranaeus, of Lyons, though a Western Bishop, and in sympathy with the Western viewpoint on Easter Observance, that is, the week-day rather than the month-day, rebuked Victor for trying to Dictate to Eastern Churches."[1]

See also

References