Posted on 02/11/2015 12:02:36 PM PST by RnMomof7
Today, even as in the time of the Reformation, thousands of Catholics worldwide are leaving Roman Catholicism for biblical Christianity. And once again, the rallying cry of the sixteenth century, Sola Scriptura, Scripture Alone, is being heard.
Roman Catholic defenders have responded to this challenge by going on the offensive. A typical argument sounds something like this:
Christians confronted with such arguments should keep the following points in mind:
The unforgettable experience of two early disciples shows the fallacy of thinking that the first Christians were ever without Scripture as their rule of faith. Three days after the crucifixion, two of Jesus’ disciples were walking home. A fellow traveler, whom they took for a stranger, joined them along the way. The conversation quickly turned to the events that had just taken place in Jerusalem. With deep sorrow, the disciples told the story of how the chief priests and rulers of the nation had sentenced Jesus to death and had Him crucified by the civil authorities.
To the disciples’ shock, the stranger rebuked them, “How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” (Luke 24:25, NIV). Then beginning with Moses and proceeding through the prophets, the stranger explained to them the truths concerning Jesus in the Old Testament Scriptures.
Eventually the two disciples realized that their fellow traveler was no stranger at all but the Lord Jesus Himself! Later they recalled, “Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?” (Luke 24:32).
The experience of those two early disciples was not unique. With the Holy Spirit’s coming at Pentecost, and with the aid of the apostles’ teaching, Jewish Christians rediscovered their own Scriptures. Their common conviction was that the Old Testament, properly understood, was a revelation of Christ. There they found a prophetic record of Jesus’ life, teaching, death, and resurrection.
The Old Testament Scriptures served as the standard of truth for the infant church, Jew and Gentile alike. Within a short time, the New Testament Scriptures took their place alongside those of the Old Testament. Consequently, the early church was never without the written Word of God.
Roman Catholic descriptions of the origin of the New Testament stress that the oral teachings of the apostles, Tradition, preceded the written record of those teachings, Scripture. Often the New Testament is presented as little more than a written record of Tradition, the writer’s recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ’s teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture—or, more precisely, drops Scripture to the level of Tradition.
But the New Testament Scriptures are much more than a written record of the oral teaching of the apostles; they are an inspired record. A biblical understanding of inspiration makes clear the significance of this distinction. Peter writes,
Here we see that Scripture is not “the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20, NIV). The word translated “interpretation” means to solve or to explain. Peter is saying that no writer of the New Testament simply recorded his own explanation of what he had heard Jesus teach and had seen Him do. Scripture does not have “its origin in the will of man” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). The writers of the Bible did not decide that they would write a prophetic record or what would be included in Scripture. Rather, they were “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV).
The word translated here “carried along” is found in the New Testament in Mark 2:3. There it is used with reference to the paralytic whose friends carried him to Jesus for healing. Just as the paralytic did not walk by his own power, a true prophet does not write by his own impulse. He is “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Men wrote the New Testament; “men spoke” (2 Peter 1:21, NIV). Their writings reflect their individual personalities and experiences. But these “men spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21). Men wrote but God was the author.
For these reasons, Scripture is revelation perfectly communicated in God-given words:
The phrase “inspired by God” is the translation of a compound term made up of the words God and to breathe. The verse can be translated: “All Scripture is God-breathed. . . “(2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). Scripture is therefore rightly called the Word of God.
In reducing Scripture to simply written Tradition, Catholic proponents are able to boost the importance of Tradition. But in doing so, they distort the meaning of inspiration and minimize the primary difference between Scripture and Tradition.
It is true that the New Testament does not contain a record of everything that Jesus did. John makes this clear in the conclusion of his gospel:
John’s point in concluding his gospel with this comment was to acknowledge that the life of the Lord Jesus was far too wonderful to be fully contained in any book. He was not commenting on the general purpose of Scripture or the need for Tradition. Neither was he implying that he had left out of his book essential revelation received from Christ. Indeed, earlier in his gospel, John implies the opposite:
We can infer from this statement that John included in his gospel all the essential teachings of Christ necessary for salvation. Significantly, he makes no reference to seven sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, sanctifying grace, penance, purgatory, or an institution such as the Roman Catholic Church—all necessary for salvation according to Roman Catholicism.
The Scriptures achieve their stated purpose: “that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17 NIV). They are the perfect guide to the Christian faith. Unlike Tradition, the Scriptures are accessible and open to all. Translations of the entire Bible have been made into the primary languages of the world, 276 in total. It is the most widely distributed and read book in all of history.
To define Roman Catholic Tradition as a font of extra-biblical revelation is to add to God’s Word. Scripture warns us “not to exceed what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). “Do not add to His words lest He reprove you, and you be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:6). The last book of the New Testament ends with this solemn warning:
There are hundreds of verses in the Bible establishing the truth that the Word of God is the church’s sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of God’s Word. The Lord Jesus taught:
Though Scriptures can be multiplied on this theme, it is not necessary to do so. The Roman Catholic Church agrees that the Bible teaches that the Word of God is the supreme rule of faith and that all theology must rest upon it. There is no question as to the sufficiency or authority of the Word of God.
The controversy revolves around the identity of God’s Word. Namely, is the Word of God Scripture and Tradition? Or, is the Word of God Scripture alone?
In the ongoing debate, Roman Catholic proponents enjoy taking the offensive by challenging non-Catholics to prove that God intended that the Scriptures alone were to serve as the church’s rule of faith. “Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?” they demand.
Though this tactic is effective in putting their opponents on the defensive, it is in fact misleading. Both sides agree that the Scriptures are the Word of God and that as such they speak with divine authority. The Lord Jesus Himself, in John 10:35, clearly identifies the Word of God as Scripture.
The point of controversy is Tradition. The Roman Catholic Church asserts that Tradition is also the Word of God.
The question which the Roman Catholic Church must answer, therefore, is: Where does Jesus, the prophets, or the apostles teach that Tradition is the Word of God? Or, more precisely: Where in the Bible can it be found that Scripture and Tradition together, as interpreted by the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church, are to be the church’s rule of faith? This is what Roman Catholicism is really asserting and should be the topic of debate. And since the Roman Catholic Church is the one asserting the authority of Tradition and the Magesterium, the burden of proof lies with Rome.
Adapted from The Gospel According to Rome (Harvest House Publishers: Eugene, 1995).
It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.Do you see my point? The person whom you cited most often for your idea turns out to "flesh out" the doctrine so as to include the very "exception" (more accurately, clarification of the full definition) which you hoped to knock down! Other examples abound; St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, explicitly described the principle of invincible ignorance (i.e. the teaching that those who, through no fault of their own, were not exposed to any credible portrayal of the Gospel, and who were not baptized and made Christians, may still attain salvation through sufficient adherence to what they had--i.e. the natural law; see St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, I-II, 76).
Pope Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 7; August 10, 1863
Here’s a sort of general question, bouncing off the conversation I’m having with metmom:
Does anyone on this forum subscribe to the belief that “unevangelized adults go to hell when they die” (since they never accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, etc.)?
I’m not talking about the stubborn modern who heard a credible presentation of the Gospel, and rejected it in favor of his current lifestyle (that’s a separate issue); I mean a hypothetical “true pagan” who’s never heard “word one” of the Gospel, due either to living in some aboriginal backwater or to living in a post-Christian country or area (I think of several places in Europe which would qualify). If such people die, would they be damned to hell for not being Christian, in your view?
It clarifies that the Catholic Church uses a lot of double speak and most all they say is not according to scripture.
There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church except for some addendums. Then if someone has never heard of the Catholic Church but lives a good life they are saved unless the Catholic Church sends a missionary and they don't think it's necessary because they were living a good life anyway but now they are lost because they now know about the Catholic Church.
And Catholics believe all that!!! It's nuts!
They are not saved.
If you think they are why would you send in missionaries? If they are already saved but you send in missionaries and they don't think it's necessary you have just taken a saved person and made them unsaved. Is that why Christ said to go into all the world? What would have been the point?
Baptism is NOT required to be saved.
Even Peter disqualified water baptism as being able to confer salvation.
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
Otherwise, you are saying that if a person puts their faith in Christ for salvation and dies before they can be baptized, they are going to hell.
If baptism saves you, Christ died for nothing.
Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
If you don't believe, you are condemned. Baptism or not.
Jesus didn't say that if you are not baptized you are condemned. He said if you don't BELIEVE.
There is no contradiction whatsoever. One only needs to look at the Hebrew and Greek words used and understand that context is important. The words mean "just", "impartial", or "righteous". The righteousness of Christ is obviously inclusive of all of those. When an man is called righteous one needs to take context into consideration.
When Paul says "there is no one righteous he wouldn't have meant there is no one who is just. Certainly there were just men. When we are required to be "righteous before God" it would mean much more then just being just or impartial.
For salvation we need the perfect righteousness of Christ and that is imparted to us by faith in His perfect sacrifice for our sins and our faith in Him alone.
In your examples of Matthew 13:49 and Matthew 25:37 those were believers who had been covered with the righteousness of Christ.
paladian,
Sorry to jump into a discussion, but I believe just finding a similar word and trying to make it mean the same thing as the Romans passage is a sure way to failure. I’m sure you must know this.
In the first passage in Romans, God, inspiring Paul by the Holy Spirit, details in the most complete way possible that there are none righteous. Zero. Nor is the Law a way to righteousness. The whole world is included in his description.
You contrasted this with Noah and the brief snippet that he is referred to as righteous. Finding the same word used is just the surface, but tells you no more.
In the case of Noah, Scripture clearly tells us why he was righteous:
Hebrews 11:7
“By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.”
To go through every one of your passages is ultimately interesting, but not fit for a forum discussion... Especially in light of the universal condemnation of all men apart from the righteousness of Christ.
Which is the same and only reason any human is ever righteous.
Best.
They are righteous because of their faith, Not their works.
Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks. 5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. 11 By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. 20 By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau. 21 By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, bowing in worship over the head of his staff. 22 By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his bones.
23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict. 24 By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. 26 He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward. 27 By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the anger of the king, for he endured as seeing him who is invisible. 28 By faith he kept the Passover and sprinkled the blood, so that the Destroyer of the firstborn might not touch them.
29 By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned. 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down after they had been encircled for seven days. 31 By faith Rahab the prostitute did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given a friendly welcome to the spies.
32 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, were made strong out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received back their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. 36 Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two,[a] they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated— 38 of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.
39 And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.
So... is that a contradiction? Logically, the statements "the number of righteous is 0" and "the number of righteous is not 0" are flatly contradictory; they cannot possibly be true at the same time, and there are no other options... so one must be right, and one must be wrong.
Of course not a contradiction at all. What do these same Scriptures say how such individuals accessed this righteousness? There you will find your answer.
No man is righteous.
Romans 3:21-26 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
But God declares them judicially righteous.
However, that does not change the fact that the Catholic church is changing its teaching and contradicting itself.
As for the baptism aspect, you go on listing several different kinds of baptism, and yet by including all those different forms, actually end up disqualifying water baptism as being necessary for salvation.
People are not damned to hell for not being Christian.
People are already damned to hell and it's accepting Christ that saves them from going where they belong.
They already deserve hell.
Catholics seem to have this problem with understanding human nature and divine judgment.
We are not going to heaven until we somehow lose it. We are going to hell until we accept Christ and put our trust in Him to save us from that.
So yes, people who have never heard are going to hell, but not because God damns them, but because that it the penalty for the sin they commit.
They're headed there anyway until they're kept from it.
We know that the Holy Spirit would not contradict Himself and we know that Scripture is God-breathed. ERGO, whatever we might think is a contradiction, it can't be and it's up to us to study the Scriptures to determine what is being communicated. On the other hand, what some church bigwigs get together and decide is their "truth", may or may not BE the truth and they could very well come back later and walk back what they previously stated was "infallible" truth. The Roman Catholic church - though they are hardly alone in this - has been caught doing this more than a few times. They might come along and try to explain it in "lawyer" speak so as to not admit they just contradicted themselves, but it is obvious to those objective enough to see it.
You're comparing apples to Thursday.
Well said!
BOOM!
"as it is written: 'None is righteous [Greek: "Dikaios"], no, not one'" (Romans 3:10, citing Psalm 14 and similar Scriptures)The Greek word is identical (only the case ending of the word changed a bit, as it's used in different parts of speech). That handles the "Greek words" part of your response; now, could you explain to me how "context" helps your case, here? Especially since I've seem people use the word "context" as a sort of "magical incantation" to mean "my opinion is right, and yours is wrong, and you'd know that if only you had eyes to see!" (which is a garden-variety "special pleading" fallacy).
compared to the following:
"Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous [Greek: "Dikaioi"] men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it."
(Matthew 13:17)
"The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous [Greek: "Dikaion"]..."
(Matthew 13:49)
"Then the righteous [Greek: "Dikaioi"] will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee [...]?"
(Matthew 25:37)
"Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathe'a. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous [Greek: "Dikaios"] man,"
(Luke 23:50)
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
And yet you included no differences in the actual meaning of the word. For example, the first definition is simply “just”. Context would indicate that in some cases the word simply means “just” or “impartial” where in others we can clearly understand it to mean “righteous” as in the righteousness of Christ. Demanding the same meaning in all cases is naive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.