The Catholic-Protestant Debate on Biblical Authority

Christian Research Institute ^ | Unknown | Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie

[phatus maximus]

Respectfully, what exists in Tradition that does not exist in Scripture in terms of what is necessary for salvation?

[WriteOn]

Out of context quotes...

[phatus maximus]

Another question, my brother in Christ.

Do you truly contend that the words of Scripture do not clearly tell us the absolute essentials for salvation? I can think of several crystal clear passages that lay it out so simply that children in Sunday School understand after one reading of the text. I respect your opinion but am not completely convinced of that assessment. I would agree there are several issues in Scripture that are very complex and in fact there are many things I will never understand until this world's logic falls behind and the Lord provides me the priviledge and honor to be in His presence to worship Him for eternity.

My goal for 2006 is to read the Old and New testament from beginning to end and even read the "other books" ;-) as well...I'm trying to read Church History as well from first a Lutheran perspective and then try to read from a Catholic perspective...Contrary to what many post on here, not all Protestants ignore our common church history...I completely understand that my church is a close cousin to the Catholic Church...we clearly don't agree on everything, but as you know we have come to a definitional agreement of faith essentially in our discussions...

On that I end...God Bless.

[phatus maximus]

Does not Christ tell us that heaven is filled with those who have a child like faith?

I say this because as we I would think could agree, Children do not understand deep theological arguments. They understand the clear and simple basics...what you might say a moron could understand. I certainly don't think paradise is only filled with those who's earthly IQ is above average...there are some who were "morons" on earth but had the faith and understanding of a child and have been saved.

Does it take a priest/minister/bishop/Pope to understand the clear simple straightforward words of John 3:16-18? It doesn't hurt to have the mind of one of those listed, but it can be understood by virtually anyone who the Holy Spirit has entered into their heart.


Just as the Protestants get lambasted for confusing Catholic concepts I sometimes feel that the reverse is true. We crazy Lutherans want to know as much as we can about God as you do! We look to His revelation for this information...do I understand every single concept of the Holy Scriptures? Nope...I probably never will. But I do know the means of salvation and I pray that the Lord will bless me enough to be in His presence where I will receive the breath of the Holy Spirit akin to what the Apostles experienced at the Epiphany.

All these words are sent with respect and brotherly love to you. Stay strong in Christ, he never will fail us!

[RobbyS]

. James may have been the "bishop" of the Church in Jerusalem, but there is no doubt that Peter is the Peter is the "star" of the first fifteen chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. Rather abruptly, the attention passes to Paul, which means.....? Cerrtainly not that Peter was somehow superceded by Paul, whgo is, as Both James and First Peter imply, somewhat suspect in the Church, and as Paul admits, required to justify himself by reference not only to his encounter with Jesus but his meetings with the elders of the Church, including Cephas and James. Thematically, Acts creditrs Peter with the "opening" the Church to Gentiles by a special revelation. Paul and his companins take up their mission to the Gentiles from that point. Peter only passes "offstage" not into oblivion. Do we doubt that Paul had a career after Acts ends?

[Lord_Calvinus]

***Well, as you folks like to say on another topic, "It's all by grace."***

Too bad that you don't define grace the same way we Protestants do. If you did, we might have a means of discussion. As is, you will most likely miss this again.

What you have noted is irrevelant to my point, which you have missed. All you have done is compound the Catholic problem by claiming that your own grace has led to an uncertain witness. You see, I have already conceded that it is by faith that you believe that there is an infallible witness in your church. Unfortunately, it must be a kind of blind faith because you can NEVER know for certain that what you believe is true. You are denied the mean of declaring that you know without error that what you are told by your church is true.

And there is no reason anywhere why I should admire a "grace" and "faith" which can do nothing more than elevate me to uncertaintity and can not allow me to declare infallibly that "I know this."

When I give my witness, I give no such uncertaintity. I know and am perfectly willing to committ my very eternal future that what I trust is not false.

[wmfights]

BTTT

[blue-duncan]

Actually, Peter goes off the scene in chapter 12 and Paul is the center of the expansion of the church from then. After his last letter to Timothy Paul is martyred, but we know what Paul did from his letters. We don't know from the scriptures, even Peter's letters, the extent of his ministry, but one would think, if he held such a high place in the church as "ultimate earthly authority" this "highest authority here on earth in the flesh", there would be some mention of it in the scriptures. Instead, what we get is just another Apostle with all his successes and failures and submissive to James and the church at Jerusalem.

[Daffy]

Thanks for posting the link to Belloc's The Great Heresies. A long read, very interesting, with this remark upon a certain date, famous in history:

"Vienna, as we saw, was almost taken and only saved by the Christian army under the command of the King of Poland on a date that ought to be among the most famous in history - September 11, 1683."

[RobbyS]

The papacy did not just leap into existence any more than the New Testament, and that institution is not identically the same as Peter. "Just another Apostle" is certainly not the description of Peter in the New Testament.
I mean, how much ink does Apollo get? How much the other eleven, or James? There are only a few vivid personalities in the Christian canon apart from Jesus: Peter and Paul are certainly the two most vivid, and if we take Luke and Acts, as two parts of the same book, Peter is on stage longer. Furthermore if we consider Matthew 16, we see him clothed with a special status, a status echoed in the other three Gospels, even John, who (reluctantly) gave into to the Patrine camp in the Church. By the time that john was written, both Peter and Paul were long dead, but not even a hint of Paul is given. Given the fragmentary nature of the picture of the early Church that we have, we have no right to dismiss the tradition of the Church since it supplies some of missing parts about those about which it is silent. Is it necessary to retrograde the monarchical episcopacy of the bishop of Rome and picture him with miter and crosier to prove the legitimacy of the papacy? I say, no, not given what Matthew and John say about Peter's commission. From that mustard seed, a tree has grown.

[Gamecock]

It's the RC catechism. It doesn't say anything about Islam=heresy.

[Gamecock]

Hey, ya'll are the ones who looked to Islam as an example of needing "authority" for interpreting the Koran, as if that provided ammo against Proddies.

I just showed, based on that statement that ya'll are all kissy face with Islam. Want photographic evidence?

[jo kus]

This is the straw man to which I referred. The "formal" distinction may be a Greek philosophical term, but I cannot find it used in any Protestant definition of Sola Scriptura. It is a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura to assign to it a meaning that Protestant theologians do not; namely, that "it has to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it", or that there can be no doctrinal disputes or causes for division.

Straw man? A rose is a rose by any other name... Perhaps you don't use the word "formal", but you use its meaning in practice. This is from the article of the thread:

"Fourth, the Bible is perspicuous (clear). The perspicuity of Scripture does not mean that everything in the Bible is perfectly clear, but rather the essential teachings are. Popularly put, in the Bible the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things..."

The essential teachings are clear? Such as Baptism is/is not necessary for salvation; we are saved by faith alone without love/faith and works; man has free will/man does not have free will; the Eucharist is Christ's real presence/it is symbolic; I could go on and on...

Or we could look at WHY there were SEVEN Councils in the first millenium - all called because the Bible is so clear on essential items - like is Jesus the same essence as God, is the Holy Spirit God, WHO is Jesus, and so forth.

Brother, the simple fact of the matter is that even on essentials, the Scripture is not clear. And while one could argue that Protestantism, at least in part, has moved away from Sola Scriptura (the fact that there are Confessions that are to be followed merely replaces the Authority of the Church with another group of men - rather than the individual), the whole concept should just be abandoned. It is not found in Scripture and makes absolutely no sense, considering that Christianity is a REVEALED religion, not one subject to the whims of man's opinions.

Regards

[jo kus]

Very well, then perchance you can provide some Apostolic evidence of "unanimous affirmations" from those early contemporary Christians, such as from the disciples of the Apostles for the Roman Catholic dogma of purgatory.

I don't intend on posting from dozens of Fathers that show Purgatory. I believe it is up to you to prove that the Catholic position is incorrect by the Fathers, if you disagree with the claim.

Regards

[Quester]

The essential teachings are clear? Such as Baptism is/is not necessary for salvation; we are saved by faith alone without love/faith and works; man has free will/man does not have free will; the Eucharist is Christ's real presence/it is symbolic; I could go on and on...

Or we could look at WHY there were SEVEN Councils in the first millenium - all called because the Bible is so clear on essential items - like is Jesus the same essence as God, is the Holy Spirit God, WHO is Jesus, and so forth.

Brother, the simple fact of the matter is that even on essentials, the Scripture is not clear.

Perhaps it is 'our view' of the essentials which is lacking.

You and I have agreed before that ... Christianity is, at its essentials, a call to live a life of love ... a life immersed by and being open to the love of God ... and a life which reflects that love back to God and others (I paraphrase).

If one finds and inhabits this life ... does it really matter whether one came to it by book or by tradition ?

In such a life, ... both faith and works will be present, ... what free-will we have will be submitted to God's will, ...

It is clear that such a life ... is the goal ... the essential, ... while we all haggle about ... 'how we get there.'

The funny thing is that most of us ... know what it is God is calling us to ... in whatever way we may have come about that understanding ... but we spend more time concentrating on the methodology ... than actually 'living the life'.

If the difference in methodology makes a difference in the results, ... then an axamination of methodologies is warranted, ... but, if various methodologies yield similar results, ... then, maybe we could focus our attention on other issues (i.e. the real essentials).

BTW ... Randall's fight (for life) goes on.

Thank-you for your continued parayer in his behalf.

Brother-in-Christ ... Chuck

[jo kus]

PM, Thanks for your well-wishes - I hope all is well with you.

Quite frankly, the word "tradition" can be confusing. If WE as Catholics sometimes have a hard time with the whole concept, I imagine Protestants are even more befuddled...

I think the way the Church looks at Apostolic Tradition (compared to Scripture), they consider it to be very similar. They give it the same reverance and consider it coming from the same source as the Scriptures - from God through the Apostles. The reason why I wrote the above (that Tradition is not the same) is that it is more difficult to ascertain if something IS Apostolic Tradition.

For example. Infant baptism. It takes a bit of research into the Fathers. It takes the Church time to analyze the "sense of the faithful". "Is the Spirit leading the Church to believe this in its liturgy and daily practices?" When I look at this gradual development into being finally defined by a Council, it naturally takes more time then reading Scriptures and seeing that Christ died for the sins of all men - which is clearly noted in Divine Writ. This is why I wrote that Scripture naturally is so important.

Everything that the Church teaches as dogmatic and as Apostolic Tradition can be found in the Scriptures, either explicitly or implicitly. The Assumption of Mary, her Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc... BUT - the same is not true vice versus. The Council of Trent was careful not to say that God's Revelation comes equally from Scripture and Tradition. It merely says "from written and unwritten means". Once something (Infant Baptism) has been solemnly defined as Apsotolic Tradition, THEN, and ONLY THEN, can we say that it is at the same "level" as Scripture in that it comes from God and cannot be in error. Thus, the process is different regarding the consideration of whether something IS from God and is found only implicitly in Scriptures. There are a lot of things one can say are "implicitly found" in Scriptures - but are not part of the Faith!

Naturally, because of its human medium (individual Fathers are not writing inspired by God), Apostolic Tradition is not "inspired by God" in the same sense as Scripture. But again, it is considered teaching from God. The teaching comes to us differently, but in the end, if it has God as its source, we obey it equally.

Regards

[HarleyD]

We, Catholic and Orthodox together claim nothing else, that we are foundationally orthodox historically

Yes you were foundationally orthodox. What the author states is true and most Protestants who have studied history would agree. You remained foundationally orthodox until around 600AD. After that it was down hill.

So we agree, do we not, that things can be logically deduced from the Bible rather than read in the Bible.

Some things. Can you deduce abortion is wrong from scripture? Yes, there are scripture references that murder is wrong. Can you deduce that we should pray to Mary? No, there are no scriptures that hints of praying to Mary.

Let me do some Catholic mischief here. We know Timothy had been consecrated by St. Paul as bishop. The verse refers to "man of god" and is addressed to Timothy. Well, this scripture, ladies and gentlemen, clearly and explicitly shows that the scripture is to be read by the clergy.

Let me do some Protestant mischief here:

Your word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against You. Psalms 119:11

Stand on the ground of the Church, and you can use and understand the scripture as written, till your teacher comes back. Stand outside the Church, and the bets are off.

See Psalms 119:11.

The scriptures cited here refer to tradition as authoritative.

It would be superfluous to spend any time in proving that Tradition has faithfully kept the Apostolic belief in the inspiration of Scripture. – New Advent (see post 172)

Christ did a lot of obscuring and negating of the Old Testament Himself,

You won’t find much support within the Church on this statement.

First, that criterion should include the oral tradition revealed in the first century, passed on through generations and gradually put on paper by the Fathers of the Church in the ensuing Patristic period.

"These books are held by the Church as sacred and canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labour and afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been transmitted to the Church as such." (Concil. Vatic., Sess. III, const. dogm, de Fide, cap. ii, in Denz., 1787).

Well, this is exactly what the living Magisterium of the Church is, ladies and gentlemen, the engine of biblical reform. If the Bible falsifies it, we don't teach it.

WOW!!! What a statement. This is similar to Ignatius statement, “If I see white and the Church says it is black, then it is black.” With all due respect, why should I bother with the rest of your post. If the Church states a position it doesn’t matter what the Bible says according to your statement. According to New Advent this was NOT the historical “orthodoxy” position (see post 172) nor would you get many Catholics to admit your position. However I will say at least you’re an honest postmodern Catholic. As Yoda would say, “Orthodox, you are not.”

[SoothingDave]

Honestly, sometimes I wonder if you Catholics know what your talking about. For a moment there I thought you guys had gone off into La-La land. It's just that you don't understand the official teaching of the Church. You're probably reading too much stuff from postmodern priests.

Respectfully, Harley, you don't know what you are talking about.

It is astonishing to me to listen to these Catholics argue AGAINST the divine inspiration of the holy scriptures

Is there even one Catholic stating anywhere on this thread that Scripture is not inspired? Can you cite that argument being made?

"Sufficiency" doesn't mean "inspiration" any more than "profitable" means "sufficient."

Giving false witness is still a sin.

SD

[SoothingDave]

And yet, there you are, attacking the Word of God as insufficient to make the man of God complete. In order for you to be faithful to Roman Catholicism, you must be unfaithful to the ability of Scripture to be sufficient to the task.

Yes, that is my thesis, that the erroneous idea that Scripture is sufficient is not found in Scripture.

This is not attacking the Word of God, it is defending it from your incorrect understanding of same.

BTW, to the "modicum of lobical thinking," have you figured out that this "cocktail" the Catholics have cooked up begins with the presumption that multiple ingredients must be used to make the man of God complete which you then read into the verse in question and present to us as proof that the verse does not establish that it is Scripture Alone? Perhaps Catholic apologists have not instructed you to avoid circular reasoning.

Turning my arguments around is not really that clever.

It is self-evident that Scripture is not sufficient. Don't you need faith? Don't you need wisdom and understanding?

I believe that Diamond has already pointed this out. The verse says that Scripture IS able, not Scripture + something is able, nor this and that are able.

The verse says Scripture is profitable. Not sufficient.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Respectfully, what exists in Tradition that does not exist in Scripture in terms of what is necessary for salvation?

Primarily the proper understanding of the Scriptures. Scripture itself says men can err by twisting the words found within. It tells us the devil himself can quote Scripture for his own purpose. The Church, bound by Tradition, preserves for us the proper understanding of Scripture, and Divine Revelation in general.

SD