Protestantism and John 5:39

joshua_b · #1 Apr 27, '12, 6:18 pm

I was indulging myself by reading a thread on CARM (yes, I know-please remember that CARM is not the topic here...) and as I was reading a lengthy dissertation about what Jesus REALLY meant in whatever verse of Scripture, I was suddenly reminded of John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!".

The more I reflected on this the more applicable it became on almost every level. I just found such a profound irony in the whole situation. How similar is this scenario to the one in which Jesus first said this?

They search the Scriptures because they believe that is where they are able to find Him, yet the whole of Scripture points to the visible Body that He left us - the Church.

As I read a diatribe on how the Eucharist can't be "real" because the Last Supper happened on Thursday and Jesus died on Friday so Jesus could not possibly have meant "this is my body" because it wouldn't be possible because he hadn't died yet, and He would have been eating Himself, and consuming blood was a violation of Leviticus so Jesus would have been a sinner, I kept thinking of John 6.

I guess there may not be much of a true discussion in apologetics here, but my revelation was profound enough (to me at least) that I felt compelled to share.

**po18guy** · #2 Apr 27, '12, 6:27 pm

Jesus did not say that the scriptures were the resurrection and the life. But, just as with the Bereans, they had no idea that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah until Paul preached Him to them. And Paul explained the origins and the power of the Eucharist.

(Edited) Some have declared, by their own authority, and against scripture, that baptism is no longer needed. All you can do is pray for them. I see them as John 6:66 disciples.

joshua_b · #3 Apr 27, '12, 6:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by po18guy

Jesus did not say that the scriptures were the resurrection and the life. But, just as with the Bereans, they had no idea that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah until Paul preached Him to them. And Paul explained the origina dnd the piwer of the Eucharist.
.

I guess that is the ultimate irony to me, and what struck me so abruptly. By their own admission, the Scriptures are their sole authority, and will reveal to them all they need to know about Christ ("you search the Scriptures because you believe they will lead you to eternal life..."). They parse every verse exhauastively, sometimes beyond the point of reason and to the abandon of simple logic, while rejecting the visible Body of Christ, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and bullwark of all Truth.

Maybe the relevance is that Apologetics often gets so granular and "scholarly", with pages and pages of debate on the exact definition of "sanctification" and "justification", and what constitutes "saving faith", and the specific type of "works" James is actually referring to. Although I appreciate the theologians and scholars, and certainly respect their role as necessary and valid, it sometimes is much more simple than all of that. (contd...)

joshua_b · #4 Apr 27, '12, 7:04 pm

They speak of "simple faith in Christ", when the counter to that argument (for me) is that my faith is about as simple as it gets.

I believe that I am saved through my faith. I have complete faith in Jesus, and I absolutely trust Him when Scripture tells me "baptism now saves [me]", the Church is the pillar and bullwark of all Truth, that I am to confess my sins and whoever's sins [they] forgive are forgiven, and that His flesh is real food, and His blood is real drink, and I that I must eat the flesh of the Son of Man.

JD27076 · #5 Apr 27, '12, 7:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua_b

They speak of "simple faith in Christ", when the counter to that argument (for me) is that my faith is about as simple as it gets.

I believe that I am saved through my faith. I have complete faith in Jesus, and I absolutely trust Him when Scripture tells me "baptism now saves [me]", the Church is the pillar and bullwark of all Truth, that I am to confess my sins and whoever's sins [they] forgive are forgiven, and that His flesh is real food, and His blood is real drink, and I that I must eat the flesh of the Son of Man.

Yep

**po18guy** · #6 Apr 27, '12, 7:14 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua_b

They speak of "simple faith in Christ", when the counter to that argument (for me) is that my faith is about as simple as it gets.

I believe that I am saved through my faith. I have complete faith in Jesus, and I absolutely trust Him when Scripture tells me "baptism now saves [me]", the Church is the pillar and bullwark of all Truth, that I am to confess my sins and whoever's sins [they] forgive are forgiven, and that His flesh is real food, and His blood is real drink, and I that I must eat the flesh of the Son of Man.

For instance, Jesus did not say "He who believes in me will be saved" in Mark 16:16, but also required baptism. He said that disciples are made, then baptized (Matthew 28:19). He said that "He who perseveres to the end will be saved". Paul, for many the protestant pope, likened faith to running a race. We do not declare ourselves the winner at the start of the race via the sinner's prayer, or via an altar call, but by running the life-long race while keeping His commands.

Anything else that is alleged is done so with the purpose of avoiding being Catholic. It is said out of personal preference or denominational loyalty, rather than Christian unity. The spirit of division drives such thought.

joshua_b · #7 Apr 27, '12, 7:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by po18guy

Anything else that is alleged is done so with the purpose of avoiding being Catholic..

That is undoubtedly so; how else could the Scriptures they search possibly mean something other than what they plainly state.

Another part of this post raises an interesting question though. Maybe someone will know the answer...

How many times does the statement "believe" (as it relates to salvation, or eternal life) appear without the qualifying "and" behind it? Everything I can recall from Scripture always says that we must "believe AND ...".

**po18guy** · #8 Apr 27, '12, 7:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua_b

That is undoubtedly so; how else could the Scriptures they search possibly mean something other than what they plainly state.

Another part of this post raises an interesting question though. Maybe someone will know the answer...

How many times does the statement "believe" (as it relates to salvation, or eternal life) appear without the qualifying "and" behind it? Everything I can recall from Scripture always says that we must "believe AND ...".

There are many cases in which Jesus does not place an additional condition on belief in the same sentence. However, scripture must be viewed as a seamless garment, and one part cannot be isolated form another. The entirety of Jesus' commands to us we must strive to obey.

grandfather · #9 Apr 27, '12, 8:33 pm

Authority is an interesting religious phenomenon. In the Old Testament the prophets prophesied. They told the people what God wanted them to hear. They claimed God was the authority behind them, by saying "Thus sayeth the Lord". In other words they were saying I am not the authority you should heed. It is God who speaks these words.

During the time of Jesus there had been no prophets for quite some time. In the absence of prophets to tell the people what the law is or meant, there were scribes, lesser authorities than the prophets. The authority of scribe was not himself. He would give some teaching and then say, "It is writen" to confirm his teaching. In other words, scripture was the authority of the scribes. Jesus did not speak highly of them. Woe unto you scribes and pharisees.

The reason Jesus upset the religous people of His day was He claimed to be the authority behind what He said. They thought He might be a prophet, but He did not say, "Thus sayeth the Lord". Instead, He said, "I say unto you".

He was saying He is greater than the prophets who claimed to speak for God. He was speaking in His own authority. He was the authority behind His words.

The authority of the Protestant is the authority of the scribe. "It is written".

In fact they claim that scripture is the sole authority behind all of what they believe in their religion. There is no other. It is no wonder that there is so much division and so many irreconcilable disputes among them.

RICKY RASPER · #10 Apr 27, '12, 9:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by grandfather

Authority is an interesting religious phenomenon. In the Old Testament the prophets prophesied. They told the people what God wanted them to hear. They claimed God was the authority behind them, by saying "Thus sayeth the Lord". In other words they were saying I am not the authority you should heed. It is God who speaks these words.

During the time of Jesus there had been no prophets for quite some time. In the absence of prophets to tell the people what the law is or meant, there were scribes, lesser authorities than the prophets. The authority of scribe was not himself. He would give some teaching and then say, "It is writen" to confirm his teaching. In other words, scripture was the authority of the scribes. Jesus did not speak highly of them. Woe unto you scribes and pharisees.

The reason Jesus upset the religous people of His day was He claimed to be the authority behind what He said. They thought He might be a prophet, but He did not say, "Thus sayeth the Lord". Instead, He said, "I say unto you".

He was saying He is greater than the prophets who claimed to speak for God. He was speaking in His own authority. He was the authority behind His words.

The authority of the Protestant is the authority of the scribe. "It is written".

In fact they claim that scripture is the sole authority behind all of what they believe in their religion. There is no other. It is no wonder that there is so much division and so many irreconcilable disputes among them.

"The Scribe" as you call him is believed by most Protestants to be guided by the hand of God. The words "It is written" you mockingly write are the words of Christ

Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' "
The Word of God Protestants believe is divinely inspired scripture. The Lord comes to us through scripture, prayer and the communion supper. I don't really see what you find wrong with this? Most Protestants are loath to contradict the Bible. The Creation story is a prime example of this. Protestants believe in the literal word of this. But the official line of the Vatican contradicts the book in it's entirety by accepting Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
Richard Dawkins had a field day with that one!
On the balance of things I think I'd opt for Mosses writing under divine guidance than Darwin' rather ropey theory.

Tony the mad · #11 Apr 27, '12, 10:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RICKY RASPER

"The Scribe" as you call him is believed by most Protestants to be guided by the hand of God. The words "It is written" you mockingly write are the words of Christ

Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' "
The Word of God Protestants believe is divinely inspired scripture. The Lord comes to us through scripture, prayer and the communion supper. I don't really see what you find wrong with this? Most Protestants are loath to contradict the Bible. The Creation story is a prime example of this. Protestants believe in the literal word of this. But the official line of the Vatican contradicts the book in it's entirety by accepting Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
Richard Dawkins had a field day with that one!
On the balance of things I think I'd opt for Mosses writing under divine guidance than Darwin' rather ropey theory.

I may have misread the post that you responded to, but it did not seem to me to mocking in any way.

I am not quite sure what you hope to gain from Matthew since the devil who also used the phrase 'it is written' in that passage. I have nothing against the phrase nor against people who search the Bible for meaning. I just think that this particular defense is missing the point.

Catholics are free not to treat the Bible as an infallible historical document or a scientific treatise. (They are also free to feel that it is infallible in those ways.) Catholics are NOT free to deny the infallibility of the theology and the historical nature of the central mysteries of the faith.

While not all freedoms lead to truth, the freedom to ignore whether or not the great flood actually occurred for example allows the faithful to rid themselves of trying to answer silly questions (such as whether 2 or 12 of each clean animal went aboard or how big the ark was to fit such an immense population).

You are of course free to disbelieve Darwin's 'ropey' theory even in the Catholic Church.

grandfather · #12 Apr 28, '12, 3:50 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RICKY RASPER

"The Scribe" as you call him is believed by most Protestants to be guided by the hand of God. The words "It is written" you mockingly write are the words of Christ

Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' "
The Word of God Protestants believe is divinely inspired scripture. The Lord comes to us through scripture, prayer and the communion supper. I don't really see what you find wrong with this? Most Protestants are loath to contradict the Bible. The Creation story is a prime example of this. Protestants believe in the literal word of this. But the official line of the Vatican contradicts the book in it's entirety by accepting Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
Richard Dawkins had a field day with that one!
On the balance of things I think I'd opt for Mosses writing under divine guidance than Darwin' rather ropey theory.

The scripture you quote is the response of Jesus to Satan's temptation. The context of it is interesting to help us understand why Jesus would respond by quoting scripture. Jesus had fasted forty days. Satan knew that the coming of Christ was foretold. He knows scripture and prophesy and that his days are numbered. Christ would come and cast him out.

Satan also knew that this person Jesus had not fallen into sin. The questions he asked Jesus in the temptations in the desert were to try to get Jesus to reveal Himself, if He was the one to come that would destroy the power of evil, the Christ. The answers Jesus gave in quoting scripture kept His identity secret.

After the Resurrection Jesus was with the apostles and told them that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to Him. He tells them to go into all the nations of the world and teach everything He taught them. He tells them that He will be with them until the end of the world. The world is not ended and they are no longer here. The promise must be to those who came after.

He says to the scribes you search the scriptures thinking that in them you will find eternal life. The implication is that will not happen. They missed eternal life who was standing before them ready to give them eternal life, Himself.

Scripture is the word of God, but it did not do them any good, even though they studied it constantly. Why is that?

A local man is a "bishop" in a Protestant sect. I know him well. He claims the doctrines of his church are all based on scripture and all other Protestant sects who make that same claim are wrong. In his chruch women are not allowed to cut their hair, ever. They are forbidden from seeking medical treatment for any injury or illness. They are not allowed to drink, or dance. The women must only wear dresses. They are forbidden from seeing a doctor. They allow their children to die rather than take simple medicines. If a member gets in an accident and the emergency responders come to help they refuse treatment. The bishop is called and he has documents giving him legal guardianship over each member that gives him authority to refuse treatment for them if they are unconscious.

I used to go fishing with this guy on my boat. He was worried that if something happened to him I would call for help. He cut himself with a fishing knife one day and bled badly. Had he passed out I would have called for help. So I decided not to take him fishing anymore. He insisted that his faith was all scriptural. It is written. It is all there in the Bible, quite easy to see, and anyone who disagrees rejects the authority of the Bible.

livingwordunity · #13 Apr 28, '12, 6:38 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by grandfather

He [Jesus] says to the scribes you search the scriptures thinking that in them you will find eternal life. The implication is that will not happen. They missed eternal life who was standing before them ready to give them eternal life, Himself.

This makes me think of how Protestants search the Bible but can't see the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It's even more sad that many who call themselves Catholic don't believe in the Real Presence either.

grandfather · #14 Apr 28, '12, 5:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by livingwordunity

This makes me think of how Protestants search the Bible but can't see the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It's even more sad that many who call themselves Catholic don't believe in the Real Presence either.

Precisely the point. It is Jesus who tells them who search the scriptures thinking that in them they will fnd enternal life, that they missed God in their very presence. But what do they ignore in scripture?

Jesus says He is the bread come down from heaven. He says His body is REAL food and His blood is REAL drink. Unless a man east my body and drink my blood he has no life within him.

It is very plain language, but also a "hard saying", and it caused and causes many to walk away from Him, but they keep searching scriupture seeking eternal life.

Woe unto you scribes and pharisees. You cleanse the outside of the cup, but inside you are rotten, full of corruption, dead men's bones.

joshua_b · #15 Apr 28, '12, 4:54 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RICKY RASPER

"The Scribe" as you call him is believed by most Protestants to be guided by the hand of God. The words "It is written" you mockingly write are the words of Christ

Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' "
The Word of God Protestants believe is divinely inspired scripture. The Lord comes to us through scripture, prayer and the communion supper. I don't really see what you find wrong with this? Most Protestants are loath to contradict the Bible. The Creation story is a prime example of this. Protestants believe in the literal word of this. But the official line of the Vatican contradicts the book in it's entirety by accepting Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
Richard Dawkins had a field day with that one!
On the balance of things I think I'd opt for Mosses writing under divine guidance than Darwin' rather ropey theory.

I don't think anyone was mocking at all. As a matter of fact, according to what you have stated, we are in 3/4 of the way to agreeing with one another. Catholics also believe that the Lord comes to us through Scripture, prayer, and Eucharist (we can set our differences aside on Real presence for the moment). Where we miss one another is that Catholics would also add the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. Catholics believe quite simply that Christ established and left us with a visible Church, andwe believe that Church still exists in a readily identifiable form.

To Catholics, the Word of God is not someTHING, it is someONE ("In the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God).Both Catholics and Protestants believe Scripture is divinely inspired, and the devout of both camps are loathe to contradict the Bible. I give no argument to you on either of those statements. I am not quite sure how you feel that Genesis proves the Vatican is in contradiction to anything. Are you meaning to imply that anyone who does not believe that all of creation came to be in the confines of a literal 168 hour window is contradictory to the Word of God?

I have no qualms with those who choose to believe that, but if that is your stance, it puts you in a very difficult position if you are going to then try to negate what seems to Catholics to be the very plain meaning of many passages of the Gospel. If "7 days" HAS to mean "7 days" because "it is written", then how can one decide that Jesus is speaking metaphorically when it is written that He said (quite plainly and emphatically) "My flesh is real food", or when it is written "...baptism now saves you".