Sola Ecclesia Defined

Sola Scriptura Versus Sola Ecclesia in Roman Catholic Apologetics

In my previous video I discussed on the dividing line the quotations that have been provided by Roman Catholic apologists recently in the context of whether the scriptures are sufficient to define really the very heart of the Christian faith and their assertions that in fact the scriptures are not sufficient to do so, that you need to have Rome's authority to have any belief, let alone the other doctrines that make Rome different than anyone else, the very central doctrines cannot be proven from the text of scripture.

And I don't want to revisit all of that. I do want to point something out that I did not point out on the dividing line. Let me just repeat what was said by a former Protestant and apostate, that's what an apostate is, it's not an insult, it's a description, apostate by the name of Brian Cross.

This is what he said, quote, the term refute means shown an argument to be unsound. The bishops did not refute Arianism, they condemned it by defining the faith by way of an extra biblical term, homoousius.

They were unable by scripture alone to refute Arianism. There's the assertion. The Arians could affirm every single verse of scripture. That's precisely why the bishops had to require affirmation of the term homoousius.

So if the bishops had no authority by way of apostolic succession, then the requirement of affirming homoousius would have had no more authority than its denial by the Arians. Scripture alone was insufficient to resolve the dispute, precisely because both sides could affirm every verse in scripture.

And since sola scriptura denies the transfer of authority by way of apostolic succession, therefore the council of Nicaea and the creed given sola scriptura only have authority if you agree with its interpretation of scripture.

Now, again, I'm not gonna go back over each one of these things. There's equivocation here. There is confusion here. But the most important thing is the assertion that is being said that they were unable by scripture alone to refute Arianism.

Now, there is a blog article on our website that demonstrates this is simply untrue. Historically, we provide numerous citations from early church writers to demonstrate that Mr. Cross is playing with history.

But it was this assertion that then brought Frank Beckwith into the picture. And he said, what Brian is saying is really uncontroversial. The Arian reading of scripture is not obviously irrational. It is, of course, heretical.

But that does not mean, and this is the key affirmation right here, but that does not mean that a fully informed person of goodwill with knowledge of the languages could not have come up with the Arian reading of scripture.

So, in other words, these individuals are Trinitarians because Rome tells them to be. They believe in the deity of Christ because Rome tells them. They even believe that it's a divine revelation in scripture because Rome tells them, not because it's there in scripture.

If Rome had told them to be Arians, then that would be what is in scripture. There is such a clear demonstration of sola ecclesia in these words. The plain, obvious fact that the Roman Catholic system has to deny sola scriptura because it has an alternative, and its alternative is sola ecclesia.

And I've had many Roman Catholics say, oh, that white, he's so naive, he's so stupid, he just doesn't understand. But every time they actually try to just prove what I'm saying, they prove what I'm saying.

When you as an organization claim to define the extent of scripture, the canon, infallibly, and the meaning of scripture, interpretation, the extent of what is and what is not tradition, and the meaning of tradition, you cannot logically be under the authority of those things that you define and interpret infallibly in and of yourself.

It's not possible. And here is a glowing example. It is not, in fact, possible to consistently read and exegete the text of scripture and be an Arian. It's not possible. But they say it is. And so they transfer the authority from the actual revelation to the church that then safeguards and gives authority to this revelation.

The Resurrection and the Bodily Assumption of Mary

What I wanted to add in this video is something that struck me earlier today. I was thinking of one of my early debates with Jerry Matitox. Now, it's interesting that many of these Catholic apologists won't touch Jerry Matitox, the 10-foot pole.

I think it's quite cowardly of them. I think that if they really believed what they're saying, that they would be taking him on, but they won't. They obviously as a group have chosen to hide from Jerry Matitox.

It would be fascinating. I've said many times I'd pay money to watch that one. But Jerry Matitox is no longer an Orthodox Roman Catholic. He would say that he is, and he has a very good point that the Roman Catholic Church of today is not the Roman Catholic Church of 150 years ago on fundamental issues of authority and teaching.

There's no question about that. He is right about that. Be that as it may, Jerry on Long Island in our debate on Mary made an assertion that I will never forget and that you all should not forget either.

He said we have the very same warrant, basis, ground, foundation for believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ than we have for believing in the bodily assumption of Mary. What he was saying was it's the church that vouchsafes to us the resurrection, and it's the church that teaches us the bodily assumption of Mary.

Now, clearly, both scripture and quote-unquote tradition, history, fully disagree with that assertion. The resurrection is a plain, clear teaching of scripture. Primitive belief of the Christian people through every element of history that you can look at.

The bodily assumption is unknown in the early Christian centuries. It is not biblical. It is not a part of the historical record. But Jerry is consistent. Jerry got to this point of recognizing that he believes in the resurrection.

I would imagine he has to accept what Beckwith and Cross and others have been saying that they believe in the deity of Christ because the church says so. He came to that position before they did. He recognizes that as a Roman Catholic, the reason you believe anything is sola ecclesia.

It's not because of a fair or contextual or non-anachronistic reading of patristic sources. It's not because the exegesis of the text of scripture. It's not because of the divine revelation therein. It's because the church says so.

And so, if you follow Brian Cross and Frank Beckwith, you don't end up with unanimity. Look at Jerry but the point is that you should recognize that fundamentally what you're saying is you believe in the deity of Christ because Rome says so.

You're not a Pelagian because Rome says so. You believe in the bodily assumption of Mary because Rome says so. And if Rome decided tomorrow to define that Mary is co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, and advocate of the people of God, which millions of Catholics have petitioned the Pope to do, including bishops and priests and nuns and religious and so on and so forth, then, well, you'd have to believe that too.

And not just believe it as, well, one option. It's dogma. It is a part of the faith. It's just as true as the resurrection of Jesus. And why do you believe it? Because God's word says it? No. Because Rome says it.

That's where this goes. That's what sola ecclesia is all about. This is not just a bunch of apologists sitting around looking for something to argue about. This is absolutely fundamental and foundational.

And Roman Catholics have understood this all along. The Roman Catholic apologist who tries to make Rome sound as attractive as possible for the Protestant or the Evangelical well knows that in reality, the position that he's presenting is one of totalitarianism, sola ecclesia.

They believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, and that's it. That's the final authority. Well, they might pretend, oh, well, you know, the three-legged stool or whatever. You've got scripture and tradition and the magisterium.

No. Once you really start getting down to important subjects like this, that mask falls off, and the ultimate authority claims of Rome become very clear. I hope all of those people who have been pushing the Manhattan Declaration and the mere Christianity form of apologetics think about what this really means.

When you think about the fact that Southern Evangelical Seminary had Dinesh D'Souza defending Christianity versus Christopher Hitchens, had Peter Creefton preaching on purgatory, and people say, ah, see, it doesn't really matter.

You know, it doesn't matter. There's all sorts of people that will have Frank Beckwith in to talk about ethics and talk about abortion, and he says fine things about those things. But fundamentally, he's also saying, I believe in the central doctrines of the Christian faith because Rome tells me to.

And is that what you want being presented over the dinner table, the conversations after the presentation? Mere Christianity isn't Christianity. It's sub-Christianity. Christianity without the gospel simply isn't the Christian faith.

I'm glad this discussion came up. This is one of the most useful discussions that developed in the comm box on a blog that I've ever seen. It has once again shown a bright and clear light upon the overarching claims of the Roman Catholic system, and I hope people have heard, and I believe, that the heart enlightened by the Holy Spirit of God, caused by the Spirit of God to be in love with the Word of God and to be in obedience to the Word of God, recoils at this kind of blatant rejection of biblical authority and attack upon the clarity and perspicuity of Scripture.

And as such, I hope the people of God have been edified and warned once again through this discussion. Thanks for watching.