Truth and Authority for Steve Finnell

Well, I suspect this was another "drive-by" posting from Mr. Finnell, but since he posted - I'll respond.  In fact, in just doing a quick Google search I see that Finnell posted this exact same article to about 20 other sites.  In short, he's trolling in an attempt to draw attention to his own blog and really has no intention of engaging discussion on all 20 or so blogs.  Since he's really not responding to the article on my blog, I'm responding to him in a separate article (and deleted the "comment" he posted elsewhere on this blog).

  

TRUTH AND AUTHORITY?  By Steve Finnell Where should Christians look for God's authoritative truth? Should it be the Bible? Should it be the church of your choice or the church you belong to by chance?

Truth is found in God's Word, this is true! The Church is also found in God's Word! You should belong to THAT Church, which Jesus Christ Himself declared He would build - and not the "church" of some so-called "reformer" who started a "new church" (or someone else did) in his name and/or after his teachings.

The Bible was completed in 95 A.D. when the apostle John wrote Revelation. Who wrote the Bible? Was it God or was it the church?

The Scriptures were written by men as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost.  Interestingly, Finnell clearly states "when the (A)postle John wrote Revelation" - so he answered his own question, at least in part!  Men wrote the Scriptures as they were inspired by God to do so.  Who was the inspiration of Scripture?  God was, but those who "wrote" Scripture were men.  A better question would be who assembled all the separate books of Scripture into one book we call "The Bible?"  Keep in mind, nowhere in Scripture is there an "inspired table of contents," no, again it was men guided by the Holy Ghost who determined which books would be considered part of the canon and which books would be excluded from that canon.  For the first 300 years the canon was a bit in flux.  Yes, there were some books considered canonical in all lists, but this is not true for all books, even some of those which eventually were included were not part of some of the earlier canon lists.

John 14:24-26 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent me. (THE WORDS JESUS SPOKE WERE FROM GOD THE FATHER) 25 "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all the I said to you.

Right!  The Holy Ghost would come to them - the Apostles, our first bishops, and guide them and teach them all things!  Just as important, Scripture tells us in Matthew 16:18-19 that one of these Apostles/Bishops was singled out with infallible authority.  In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus is addressing St. Peter, and him alone, when He said to him, "whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  No, unless you believe error can be bound or loosed in heaven, then this authority to bind or loose "whatsoever" St. Peter chooses is infallible authority!  Later, in Matthew 18:18 Jesus is addressing the whole council of bishops and grants to them, as a group, the same authority which He gave to St. Peter alone two chapters earlier.  Back to Matthew 16, it is also here where Jesus Christ, God Himself, declares and promises to build His Church (singular).  

Some of our Protestant challengers will even give us that St. Peter and the Apostles were given infallible authority - but that this authority died with them.  If that is true, then they did not fulfill Jesus' prophecy that even has He was sent, He too sent them.  At least part of what Jesus was sent to do was to choose the Apostles/Bishops so that when He left them, there would be someone left to govern His People, the Church.  So, when Jesus empowers our first bishops - they too are expected to likewise empower successive bishops.  It is in that succession of bishops, united to the Chair of Peter, that we find the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  ANYTHING ELSE is merely a schism from that One, True Church.

The words of Jesus were from God the Father and He said that The Father would send the apostles the Holy Spirit so they could remember all that He said. The words of the apostles were God's word, their words were Scripture, their words were the Bible.

There are at least a couple problems with this thought/statement.  First off, not even everything Jesus said is contained in Scripture!  St. John even attests to the fact that if everything Jesus said/taught was written down that the world itself could not contain all the volumes! (John 21:25)   Secondly, not everything the Apostles said was "God's Word!"  I'm sure that Peter may have said, many times even, "Let's camp here for the night," yet this is not and would not be considered "Scripture."  It's just plain silly to think that every word they spoke was "God's Word."  Likewise, even in infallible councils and infallible teachings in papal documents, not EVERYTHING in the council or EVERYTHING in the papal teaching is considered infallible, only specific declarations or definitions on faith or morals are considered so.  For example, in Munificentissimus Deus, where the Dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is defined, just one sentence in that document is considered infallible!  Here is that sentence from paragraph 44:

...that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

That's it!  While we do not discard the rest of the document, it is important to be aware and consider only that sentence to be what was defined infallibly.

In, John 14:24-26, Jesus was not talking to the Pope, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Billy Graham, Joesph Smith Jr, Mary Baker Eddy, cardinals, bishops, elders, so-called modern day apostles, preachers, pastors, nor any one claiming to speak for God. If the church or theses men as individuals, were speaking for God by new revelation, then, we would have added books to the Bible. There would the books of the Popes, the book of John Calvin, the book of Billy Graham, the books of elders, the books of churches, the book of Joesph Smith Jr. etc.

The fact of the matter is, all those books DO exist!  They are just not considered "Scripture!"  Why not?  Who determines "Scripture?"  The Protestant would likely speak out and say, "God determines Scripture!"  I would challenge them then, "Where does God Himself decree what is part of the Canon of Sacred Scripture and what is not?"  The ONLY place this actually DID happen is in councils of the Catholic Church!  Again, there is no "inspired table of contents" within the writings of Scripture!  

THE BIBLE IS THE AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH. THE CHURCH HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE OR OVERRULE THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE. THE CHURCH CANNOT ADD TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM SCRIPTURE! YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. Google search>>> steve finnell a christian view

And again, I honestly ask Mr. Finnell, or any non-Catholic reading along, to tell us how the Bible came to be the books we have as a Bible today?  Why are the Epistles of Pope St. Clement included in nearly all the early canons, yet not part of the final canon?  Why are the epistles of Sts. Peter and James not included in some of the early canons, but are part of the final canon?  Upon what basis do non-Catholics even consider that which is Scripture to be Scripture?  Unless they concede that it was God through the Catholic Church, they truly have no answer to this.  

AMDG,

Scott Windsor<<<

A Truly Christian View

Eucharist Literal or Symbolic?

Steve Finnell writes on the topic of the “Lord’s Supper” (Eucharist) being literal or figurative (which Finnell equates to symbolic).  I’ve discussed this many times in the past, but let’s look at it again:

THE LORD'S SUPPER---LITERAL OR FIGURATIVE?

When Christians partake of the Lord's Supper are they literally drinking the blood of Jesus and literally eating His body? No they are not.

Finnell makes this bold statement, but if he is correct, then Jesus is a liar - as well as St. Paul and a host of the Early Church Fathers.  Let us examine his arguments further...

1 Corinthians 11:23 -25 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which 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." 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

Jesus was using figurative language to describe His body and blood.

No, figurative language would be to say, “This is LIKE my body... etc.”  Jesus said, “...this IS My body...” there’s no “figurative language” here!  Mr. Finnell is simply wrong.

Jesus was not suggesting that He and the twelve disciples were literally eating and drinking His body and blood.(Matthew 26-28) Jesus was speaking metaphorically.

With all due respect to Mr. Finnell, simply repeating a statement does not make it more true the second time around.  When Jesus spoke in metaphors, the whole passage would be figuratively stated, such as when He declares, “I am the Gate...” in John 10, the whole passage uses metaphors like we are the sheep and He is the Good Shepherd, etc.  In the Eucharistic narratives He takes bread and declares, literally, to BE His body and literally declares the wine to BE His blood.  The words “This IS...” are NOT “figurative language!”

Jesus makes it very clear He was not talking about drinking His literal blood. ( Matthew 26:29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom.")

A statement saying that He will not drink of the fruit of the vine is NOT a negation of what He earlier declares to BE the TRUTH.  I understand that for Mr. Finnell this is a rather inconvenient truth - but it IS the TRUTH whether he accepts it or not.

FIGURES  OF SPEECH ARE USED IN SCRIPTURE

John 10:1-6 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door......6 This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them.

I know of not one person who believes Jesus was a literal door. Why would those same people surmise that Jesus was teaching we would drink His literal blood and eat His literal body?

I have already addressed John 10 - and that whole passage speaks in metaphors - but even still, those metaphors are for a spiritual TRUTH!  Jesus LITERALLY is THE DOOR (or THE GATE) by which to enter into Heaven - we cannot enter by any other means.  Is Jesus a piece of wood with hinges and a latch?  No, but He IS the door/gate into Heaven.

John 1:19-29.....29The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said "Behold , the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

When John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God he did not mean Jesus was a  literal four- footed sheep, John was using a figure of speech.

The reader must ask him/herself what the meaning of “Lamb of God” is.  Lambs were used to sacrifice to appease the Lord - and thus Jesus, being THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE truly IS the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!  Hallelujah!

Figurative and literal speech are not the same, it is one or the other.

Mr. Finnell must realize that “figurative” does not mean “not real” or “not true!”  He would like to dismiss the REALITY that the Eucharist IS the body and blood of Jesus Christ by declaring Jesus’ declarative words to be figurative - but these words are TRUTH!  What once was mere bread is NOW His body!  What once was mere wine is NOW His blood!  THIS is the spiritual truth - and that which is spiritual IS REAL TOO!

When Christians, during communion eat the body and drink the blood of Christ, it is symbolic, figurative, metaphoric, emblematic.

If this were true, then those who partake of the Eucharist unworthily could not possibly be guilty of not discerning the body and blood of Christ - if the bread and wine are mere symbols, then there is no crime against His body or blood!  Yet, 1 Corinthians 11:27 says: “So then, 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.”  Mr. Finnell does not have an argument for this passage, even though he quotes the verses just prior to this statement!  Context has utterly destroyed what he said earlier.

The fruit of the vine and the bread of communion represent the blood and body of Jesus Christ. THEY ARE NOT THE LITERAL BODY AND BLOOD OF JESUS.

Again, if we were to accept Mr. Finnell’s word here - then Jesus is a liar.  Personally, I trust Jesus over Mr. Finnell.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<