THE GOSPEL OF GOD



AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH (3)

(Mark 7:1-23)

SUBJECT:

F.C.F:

PROPOSITION:

INTRODUCTION:

A. To the heart of the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics is their understanding of authority in the church. As we saw last time, Protestants view authority in the church very simply: sola scriptura, Scripture alone. “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”

B. For Roman Catholics, authority is more complex. Scripture is clearly a source of authority, perhaps the primary source. But it is not the only one. And Scripture must be properly interpreted by those who have been given authority to do so. And since the church decided which books should be in the Bible in the first place, the church claims a special authority over the Scriptures.

I. TRADITION AND SCRIPTURE.

A. It may come as a bit of a shock to Protestants, but Rome teaches that the Word of God has come to us today in two necessary forms. Before the Apostles wrote the Word of God in Scripture, they taught it orally, and this oral tradition was passed along to others. But officially, the Apostles entrusted this oral tradition to their successors, the bishops. This is what Rome means by “apostolic succession.” Where do we find this tradition? It is not written down anywhere, but remains in the teaching of the church, especially the bishops. But what specifically does this tradition teach? Whatever the bishops say it teaches.

Some of this tradition has become codified in the official pronouncements of councils and of popes. Nonetheless, Rome claims this special insight has been passed down in an unwritten form from generation to generation. The bishops know this tradition.

B. How does this tradition compare to Scripture? This is less clear, in fact, there is a debate today as to the extent and kind of this tradition. All agree that the tradition does not contradict the Scriptures. How could it, since both are the revealed will of God? God would not contradict himself. The minimalists would suggest that the Scripture is complete and sufficient, that the tradition is merely the official interpretation of Scripture which materially adds nothing to it. The tradition would find seeds of truth in the Bible which it has more fully expanded and explained. The maximalists would argue that the Scripture is not material sufficient, that the oral, unwritten tradition, while not contradicting the Scriptures, adds to the Scriptures essential truths from God which are necessary for people to believe in order to be saved. In both cases, tradition is considered binding. Something other than the Bible is necessary for people to believe, and Christians are bound by it because it is the Word of God.

C. The most recent church council, the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), reaffirmed the claim for the necessity of tradition.

“Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the church.”

“…the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.”

And, in direct contradiction to the Westminster Confession: “[The Church] has always regarded, and continues to regard the Scriptures, taken together with sacred Tradition, as the supreme rule of her faith.”

So if you would picture the church built upon her foundation, Protestants would see the foundation as the Apostles and the Prophets, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. But Rome would place there a dual and equal foundation of Scripture and Tradition. And here is the main distinction.

D. Where does Rome come up with this idea? Well, I would be willing to concede that the teaching of the Apostles did indeed circulate in an unwritten, oral form, a tradition, before the New Testament was written. Paul writes in I Corinthians 11:23-24: “23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Notice that he before had delivered it to them orally. So obviously before the New Testament was written, the Apostles were teaching. But the point is that what he now writes to them in the New Testament was precisely the same thing he taught them earlier in an unwritten form. There are no secrets left out of the writings.

We see the same thing in 1 Corinthians 15: “1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Again, the point is that he is writing the same message to them which he preached to them before. In fact, it seems clear that the reason he is writing is because an oral message can easily be forgotten, misunderstood, or misquoted. So the written teaching is not only identical to the oral message, but actually superior to it for its enduring quality in black and white.

E. But the single verse that seems to give legitimacy to the idea of a side-by-side written and oral tradition is 2 Timothy 2:2: “and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” This is the supposed proof text for apostolic succession. The apostles passed an oral tradition on to their successors, the bishops, and they were to do the same for the next generation, and all succeeding generations. But this text says nothing about passing on any oral tradition or apostolic authority. It is precisely what we would expect. Paul, who expected to be put to death for the faith, instructed Timothy to train teachers and preacher who would be qualified to teach and preach the faith to others, precisely what we do in our Protestant churches today. Clearly this text does not require the notion of apostolic succession or any oral tradition on a par with the Word of God.

Remarkably, what we do find in the Roman church today is the same situation we find in New Testament Judaism, the very Judaism which our Lord Jesus criticized and even condemned. The Jews placed their own tradition on the same level with the Word of God. Sometimes they even used their own traditions to nullify the Word of God, as Jesus demonstrated in Mark 7. Former Roman Catholic James McCarthy writes: “As in Roman Catholicism today, the scribes and Pharisees also held to the joint authority of Scripture and Tradition (Matthew 15:2; Mark 7:3, 5, 9, 13). They taught that Moses had handed down the law received on Mount Sinai in two ways. The first was through his oral teaching. They called this the unwritten Torah, or oral Tradition. The second was the written Torah or Scripture. They taught that the written law and the unwritten law together made up the complete Torah, the Word of God.” (305)

But Jesus made a clear distinction between Scripture and their Tradition. The former he always upheld, while he was frequently criticized for ignoring or violating their oral Tradition.

Now you can see what’s at stake here. If Rome is right, then we Protestants are guilty of ignoring the Word of God in the unwritten tradition and are in rebellion against God. But if the Protestant view of Scripture alone is right, then the Roman church is guilty of adding to the Word of God and nullifying the Word of God with their traditions. They would fall under the curse of those who add to the Word of God according to Revelation 21:18. This is no small issue, but is, I think, what we would call a “salvation issue.”

II. THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE BISHOPS.

A. The second plank of the Roman claim to special authority is their doctrine of the teaching authority of the church. Resting also on their claim of apostolic succession from the apostles to the bishops from 2 Timothy 2:2 is their claim that the bishops have been given unique authority as teachers in the church to declare and define doctrine. Here is the claim also from the Second Vatican Council:

“…the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ.”

The bishops therefore exercise apostolic authority in the church, the same authority as of the apostles themselves, and by extension, of the writings of the Apostles, i.e., the New Testament. The bishops have 1) a teaching power, the sole right of interpreting and teaching revelation (this teaching authority is called the “magesterium,” from the Latin for “master”; 2) a sanctifying power, that is the power to set apart or ordain priests and bishops; and 3) the bishops have a ruling power, to shepherd and govern the church, supreme and full authority over the church.

B. Of course, one bishop is said to have primacy over the others, and that is the bishop of Rome. This claim is also based on a special apostolic succession. The logic is this: 1) Peter was the first of the Apostles; 2) Peter was the first bishop of Rome; 3) therefore, whoever succeeds Peter as bishop of Rome is the first of the bishops. The first Vatican Council declared:

“We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primary jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the Lord.”

Now you can see what’s at stake here. If Rome is right, then we Protestants are guilty of rebelling against the authority that God has established through the bishops. Our whole religion is invalid, since we have no officers who have the authority to teach, ordain, or rule in the church, because we have broken with the apostolic succession. But if the Protestant view is correct, then it is Rome that is without a church, for they have rejected the sole authority of the Word of God and have usurped authority for themselves. Again, this is no small matter. And both views cannot be correct, because they are mutually exclusive.

C. But does the Bible teach an apostolic succession from the apostles to the bishops? And does the Bible teach the primacy of Peter and of the Church in Rome, especially the bishop of Rome?

We will take this up next time.

(

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download