Questions for “Bible Christians” that they can’t answer

There are 38 questions + a few bonus questions. I have split them into two separate posts of 20 and 18 + bonus questions. Are you ready?

1. Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

2. Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?

3. Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?

4. Some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:813). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they “sit on Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2)?

5. Some Protestants claim that St. Paul condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2)?

(And why does the Protestant NIV change the word “tradition” to “teaching”?)

6. If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God’s Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?

8. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?

9. On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?

10. Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)

11. How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?

12. How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first- century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us as Scripture 2000 years later?

13. Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?

14. Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?

15. If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

16. If the meaning of the Bible is so clear—so easily interpreted—and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it for themselves, then why are there over 33,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?

17. Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?

18. Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?

19. Protestants usually claim that they all agree “on the important things.” Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?

20. How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?

Countering Roman Catholic sophistry, Part 1: Questions for “Bible Christians” that they can’t answer – but do!

I came across this a couple days ago and was moved to respond (please pardon the length). The polemical questions asked indicate the Roman Catholic author is either inexperienced in what he attempts to argue about, or careless or too often resorts to misleading representations in order argue against “Bible Christians,” while not dealing with the problems of the alternative.

1. Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

Misleading: First: RCs should know that specific instructions or statements by Christ Himself, are not necessarily the basis for doctrine, but as they themselves argue, they may be derived upon statement elsewhere or even upon principals based on consistent teaching. Thus cannibalism is usually considered a sin.

Secondly, that “Bible Christians” hold that Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book, if meaning nothing else can be used, ignores that the sufficiency of Scripture refers to not simply formal sufficiency (so that one could read such a text as Acts 10:36-43 and be saved) but material sufficiency, which provides for such things as reason, teachers, the church, etc. But that Scripture contains all that is necessary for faith and Godliness, by formal and material providence combined, is true. And materially it provided for the oral preaching of the Word of God, and recognition of writings as Scripture, with all truth claims being be tested by the supreme authority of Scripture. See below.

The question is better phrased as, Where did Jesus teach that the Christian faith should be based on Scripture solely being supreme, vs the church?

The answer to which is that the Lord and NT church established their truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) and thus it was by Scriptures that they were supremely tested, as Acts 17:11 testifies.

And thus to it being the assured word of God and the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, which is abundantly evidenced.

: Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10,11; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; 33:4; Josh. 1:7,8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:5,9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:13-16,18,19,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;

Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24; 3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33; 10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (

In contrast, that the church of Rome is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula (which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares), is not taught in Scripture, by precept or in principal.

The question Roman Catholics must truly answer is,

“Where does Scripture teach that being the steward of Divine revelation and inheritor of Divine promises of God's presence and preservation, and having historical descent (which RCs argue Rome is and thus) requires or renders such to be the perpetually infallible interpreter (or declarer) of Truth?

2. Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?

Once again, Roman Catholic sophistry engages in a specific red letter hermeneutic, while they have no problem arguing from silence when Scripture says nothing about some of traditions, yet what we do see is that the norm was to write down the word of God/the Lord, as search of those phrases will reveal, and that as written, it was held as being the assured word of God and the transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.

Thus Moses wrote most of the Torah, and Luke endeavored “to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,” (Luke 1:1) and John wrote with no less a goal than that souls may have eternal life.

Jesus obviously supported writing down the word of God and compiling it into an authoritative book, as He abundantly invoked Scripture to support His claims, and in combat with the devil, referred to it as in living “by every word of God.” (Mt. 4:4) And it was to the Scripture that He opened the eyes of the disciples to. (Lk., 24:44,45) In the light of this, to the Roman Catholic argument that infers the Lord did not make His writing His word a priority, or that this was peripheral, is absurd.

The question Roman Catholics must truly answer is,

Where does open the eyes of His disciples to understand “Traditoin” Or where does Jesus or Scripture elsewhere tell His apostles to make the church of Rome the supreme authority above Scripture? Where does it teach that only the church magisterium can establish writings and men as being of God, thus dissenters from which are invalidated?

3. Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?

Reason, natural revelation, etc. all played and can play a part in bringing souls to faith and obedience. But what is taught is that of the Christian faith was based on Scripture solely being the supreme transcendent authority. “As it is written..”

The above question Roman Catholics must truly answer applies here as well.

4. Some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:813). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they “sit on Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2)?

Using “some Protestants” is not much a argument for unanswerable questions for “Bible Christians,” and Jesus did not broadly condemn all oral tradition, for much of Scripture first existed as this. And Prots can have “traditions,” such as a altar call, but not as dogma.

Secondly, the Lord clearly did not bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees, but instead He showed that such obedience is conditional upon conflation with Scripture, as it was by Scripture that the Lord condemned what the Pharisees did and what Rome does, that of making traditions of men as Scripture, and themselves as the supreme authority.

“Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men....For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...For Moses said...”(Mk. 7:2-16)

For the decision of their Scribes...claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error (Sifre, Deut. 153-154); they endowed them with the power to abrogate the Law at times (see Abrogation of Laws), and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death (Ber. 4a). By dint of this authority, claimed to be divine (R. H. 25a), they put the entire calendric system upon a new basis, independent of the priesthood. They took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows (Ḥag. i. 8; Tosef., i.). — http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees

Similarly, while Scripture only instructs believers to address the Lord in Heaven (“our father,” not “our mother”) to whom the Spirit cries (Gal. 4:6: “Abba, Father,” not “Mama, mama”) and the Spirit only examples believers doing so, and only pagans making supplication to someone else in Heaven; (Jer. 44)

and only shows God as having the power to be able to hear and answer multitudes of prayer addressed to them, yet Catholics pray to others at least as much as to God.

The question Roman Catholics must answer is,

If those whom the Lord actually affirmed sat in the seat of Moses, as the stewards of Scripture and recipients of the promises, and having historical descent, were not superior to Scripture, the how can a church of Rome claim to be so (which she effectively does, by claiming only her decision on what Scripture consists of and means is authoritative)? .

5. Some Protestants claim that St. Paul condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2)?

The false premise here is that both “tradition” and the apostles are the same as what Rome foists upon us.

In answer as to why they were told to hold to the oral traditions,

A. Unlike Rome, the apostles were manifestly men of God, who along with the prophets were the foundation of the church, and to through the mysteries of God were revealed. (Eph. 2:20; 3:4,5) Which we know because it was written.

B. All of Scripture not fully given, and there is no evidence that what was referred to as oral was not subsequently penned, as was the norm.

C What Paul referred to was not some ancient amorphous oral tradition, but something the hearers had been told, and which would have been established with Scriptural substantiation.

D. Protestant preachers also enjoin obedience to what they orally teach, provided it is warranted by Scripture.

The question RCs need to answer is,

If the supposed Roman Catholic successors to the apostles cannot claim the inspiration of the writers who added to Scripture,

and fail of the manifest supernatural attestation of the apostles, (2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) and who treated Scripture as the supreme transcendent standard for testing truth claims, and whose tradition was not some amorphous ancient oral stories,

how can the supreme Roman magisterium claim assured infallibility and essentially add to Scripture by making nebulous ancient oral tradition of equal authority, with themselves effectively being the supreme and autocratic authority.

And why does the Protestant NIV change the word “tradition” to “teaching”?)

Because the NIV is not to be preferred over the KJV or other word for word type translations, while it is the official Roman Catholic American Bible that engages more in liberal revisionism.

Thus the question RCs need to answer is,

if a major official liturgical Bible of Rome teaches liberal revisionism, and most of what RCs believe and practice is not infallible teaching, and she treats her liberal members as such in life and in death;

then why should conservative evangelicals leave their churches, and join a elitist church which many RCs left for evangelicalism due the spiritual deficiencies of Rome, in which most members (at least in the West) are liberal? Assertions of Rome's being the One True Church® simply will not do.

6. If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God’s Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?

Sola Scriptura refers to both the supremacy of Scripture and its formal and material sufficiency, but the formal aspect awaited its completion via NT additions. And which additions the material sufficiency of Scripture provides for, by manifesting that writings were established as being of God due to their Divine qualities, as were men of God, even if the magisterium rejected them. (And thus the church began in dissent from those, who like Rome, presumed for themselves more than what Scripture teaches.) Thus as it is clearly manifest that writings were established as Scripture (before their was a church in Rome), with about 275 direct quotes and at least 600 allusions to the Old within the NT, thus it provides for a canon upon the same basis by which prior writings were recognized as Scripture, and others rejected.

Moreover, since much of Scripture itself was first oral, there can be no issue with the NT writers affirming some of what was passed on orally as Truth, but as not all that is orally passed on is the Word of God, any more than all that is written is, then it is Scripture which separates the wheat from the chaff.

However, none of those references are shown to be proved to be oral tradition (and RC Tradition is said to be oral, strictly speaking), yet even if they were, being Divinely inspired writers they could even include Scriptural truth from pagans and which becomes part of the additions to Scripture. (Acts 17:28)

As it is, there is no known tradition even saying what Mt. 2:23 explicitly states, that of prophets plural saying He shall be “called a Nazarene,” but as Nazareth denotes obscurity and not honor (“Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?”), it may refer to the prophecies respecting him which revealed that he was to be of humble life, to be despised and rejected. (Is. 42:1-4; 53:2-3, 7-9, 12)

Also, the name of Nazarite, is evidently taken from Netzar the branch and this is well known to be the name of the Lord Jesus CHRIST. In Jdg. 13:5 the separated consecrated child shall be a Nazarite and in Isa 11:1 “There shall come forth a rod from the stem of Jesse,and a Branch (נצר netser) shall grow out of his roots, and this refers to Christ.

Next, Mt. 23:2 does not refer to oral tradition, but simply affirms the Scribes and the Pharisees were the heirs to magisterial seat of Moses, as was Ezra.

In addition, there is no drawing on oral Tradition in 1 Cor. 10:4, any more than texts as Jn. 1:29 (“Behold the Lamb of God...”) but it simply reveals that the Angel of the Lord which led the Israelites was Christ.

Likewise 1 Pet 3:19 is a Divinely revealed truth, as was that of the future events, such as the burning up of this world in 2Pt. 3.

As for Jude 1:9, this can refer to a true written story, as part of an uninspired work, which Jude 1:14 15 does.

The question Roman Catholic need to answer then is,

Since Rome is not as an inspired writer, nor an apostle, nor does being the steward of Holy Writ and having historical descent (presuming Romes claims) make one infallible, and the Lord reproved the Pharisees for even presuming less, what is the basis for RC assurance that her extraScriptural traditions are the Word of God?

7. Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?

False premise. It is not, and the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture does not mean that it contains all that can be known, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) but that Scripture is the assured word of God, and provides what is needed for faith and Godliness.

The question Roman Catholic need to answer then is,

Where in Scripture is the basis for assurance of truth the same as in Rome?

8. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?

False premise and statement: We do not need to know for sure who wrote all the books, but that they are established as being Scripture. Yet we know who wrote books, if we know them, the same way we know who wrote the books of the Torah or other OT books As for the list you provide, you don't know for sure who wrote Hebrews either — unless you think Trent's attribution is infallible, while (if you read them) Luke, John, and Acts identify the authors.

The question Roman Catholic need to answer then is,

If most of what we accept as Scripture was established as being so before there was a church in Rome, and without an infallible magisterium, then why do we need Rome (whose canon is not even exactly the same as those among the Orthodox) to define it for us?

9. On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?

On the same basis that Old Testament books were accepted and quoted as Scripture before Rome came up with the idea that she alone could determine such. And which is the same basis that men of God were established as being so, that of Divine qualities and attestation, in conformity to what was prior established as Truth, even if the magisterium rejected them.

The question Roman Catholic need to answer then is,

Since the church began contrary to the Roman Catholic model, in which the stewards of Scripture are infallible via its magisterium and thus dissent from her invalidates one from being authentic, and instead the church began in dissent from such, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power;

then why does Rome act contrary to its own claimed ancestor?

10. Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)

The same place RCs find an inspired and infallible list of all infallible teachings for their authority. See above on the basis of establishment of authenticity and the question that follows.

11. How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?

Again, “the Bible alone” does not mean exclusion of reason and external evidence, and the answer is by judging them according to what was prior established as Truth. God abundantly attested to Moses as a man of God in virtue and power, which confirmed Abraham's faith, and the former wrote of the latter and provided the Law as the standard by which further revelation was tested by, with conformity in revealed Heavenly qualities and manifest effects, and often by the manner of supernatural attestation by the power of God given to it and to the instruments thereof.

The question Roman Catholic need to answer then is,

Under the Roman Catholic model why and how could souls follow a man in the desert who ate insects, and an Itinerant Preacher from Galilee, when both of them were rejected by the magisterium that sat in the seat of Moses? Under the Roman Catholic model these were to be rejected, and her presumption is more egregious than theirs.

12. How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first- century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us as Scripture 2000 years later?

See above on establishment of authenticity of writings of God as well as men of God and the question that follows. Meanwhile, Rome much hindered reading of them. ,

13. Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?

Misleading: The claim cannot be that the Bible is the sole authority, as it affirms ecclesiastical authority, but that Scripture alone is the infallible and supreme authority.

Since the Bible is Scripture, and Scripture is uniquely affirmed as a body of revelation to completely be inspired of God, and thus be the word of God, and is abundantly evidenced to be the supreme transcendent standard for obedience and testing truth claims;

thus it is the infallible and supreme authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals.

The question Roman Catholic need to answer then is,

Where does the Bible claim that the church of Rome is superior to Scripture as the perpetually assuredly infallible authority in faith and morals?

14. Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?

Protestants do not necessarily think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings (and Rome and EOs differ as to what Tradition teaches), nor that everything the Lord Jesus said is contained therein, (Jn. 21:25) but that Scripture contains the whole of apostolic truth that we need of salvation and sanctification. But which does not exclude, but provides for, preaching which expounds these truths and increasing illumination as the depth of their meaning.

And Pentecostals include supplementary personal revelations, but which are subject to conformity to Scripture as supreme, and in which the magisterium engages in judgment.

The question Roman Catholic need to answer then is,

Why do Roman Catholic apologists fail to see the issue is with Rome presuming infallibility and superior authority over Scripture, and channeling doctrines out of nebulous oral tradition and making it equal with Scripture?

15. If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

For the same reason only 120 were in the upper room, and who followed Christ despite rejection by the official magisterium.

The question Roman Catholic need to answer then is,

If the church of Rome today is the NT church, despite its clear contrasts, and the authority on what was Scripture, and which prevents disagreement on higher levels as to what truth is, then why did it take over 1400 years after e last books of the New Testament was written to provide an indisputable canon.

16. If the meaning of the Bible is so clear—so easily interpreted—and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it for themselves, then why are there over 33,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?

This is a broad statement pertaining to an issue which needs to be objectively examined.

A. Besides the fact that Christians interpreting Scripture for themselves does not negate the importance of the magisterium;

and despite the 33,000 Protestant denominations canard, which testifies to uncritical parroting and ignorance of debates (even Dave Armstrong said, “ I renounced that number years ago (about eight), having been convinced of the faulty criteria used...I usually say, now, hundreds of Protestant denominations”);

the statement, “all interpreting the Bible differently” can apply to Catholics as well, as there is a lot in the Bible, and Catholics themselves can hardly be said to be unified in Bible interpretation, or even in what Rome teaches.

And if Rome is the answer to that, then why has she not provided an complete commentary on Scripture so that RCs do not variously interpret Scripture? Yet as Catholic Answers states, “As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent…” (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp) Thus, as Akin said, “The liberty of the Scripture interpreter remains extensive. Taking due consideration of the factors that influence proper exegesis, the Catholic Bible interpreter has the liberty to adopt any interpretation of a passage that is not excluded with certainty by other passages of Scripture, by the judgment of the magisterium, by the Church Fathers, or by the analogy of faith. That is a great deal of liberty, as only a few interpretations will be excluded with certainty by any of the four factors circumscribing the interpreter’s liberty” ,(http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101bt.asp)

And indeed we see how RCs use this liberty in creatively attempting to support Rome's traditions of men.

However, the abuse of Scripture by Catholics as well as the relative absence of debates about its meaning compared with evangelicals is much due to Scripture not being the supreme source of authority for RCs, as well as their general deadness (relative little debate is manifest among liberal Prots as well).

The supreme authority for RCs is the Roman magisterium, yet while RCAs criticize evangelicals for relying on human reasoning in interpretation of their supreme authority, yet RCs must engage in the same in order to discern what level each Roman Catholic teaching belongs to (because Rome has not provided a infallible list of such) — and often to varying degrees, their meaning — and if any dissent is allowed.

But due to the low level of commitment among RCs this is not as manifest as it is among the more committed.

B. Comparing one church with many is not a valid comparison, and unity among RCs is not necessarily greater than any single Prot. denomination.

C. Roman Catholic unity is largely on paper among the clergy, while in reality both clergy and laity testify to substantial disagreement, and which Catholicism allows, thus few feel the need to separate, or have such a commitment to doctrine that can drive such. Yet she has her sects and formal divisions. Thus under sola ecclesia, there are divisions as there are under Sola Scriptura, the difference being in degrees.

D. Division because of truth is sometimes necessary, (1Cor. 11:19) and is superior to unity in error, which Catholics display in addition to their divisions.

E. While not excusing the degree of divisions seen in Christianity, comprehensive doctrinal unity has ever been a goal not realized, yet evangelicalism, which is what does indeed esteem Scripture as the wholly inspired word of God and supreme authority, was actually a reaction against liberal revisionism (which is seen in Roman Catholicism). And which movement was due to a overall common assent and commitment to core truths. And outside of which there are varying amounts of interpretive liberty. Yet Evangelicals today are still more conservative and more unified in basic moral views and many core truths than Catholics.

Likewise Catholics must hold to their core truths, and have some varying allowance for dissent in teaching from other levels — though this another area which is subject to debate among RCs. And indeed, what Catholics can disagree on is extensive, in addition to what they do disagree on without real discipline (see under F). And as Sungenis (for what its worth) said, “most of what Catholics believe and practice today has never been stated infallibly. Most of our faith and morals comes from the Ordinary Magisterium, and the Ordinary Magisterium is rarely singled out as infallible dogma.” (http://www.catholicintl.com/articles/Dave_Armstrong_Teaching_Falsehoods_About_Galileo.pdf)

F. Unity in the NT church was not based upon the premise of a perpetual infallible church, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and power, which thus requires the church to continually manifest that it is the church of the living God, not its institutionalized counterpart that sees historical descent as proof of authenticity, and autocratically defines Tradition, Scripture, and history as supporting her claims.

G. Finally, of supreme importance is what Rome most effectually teaches, for as James states, “I will shew thee my faith by my works.” What you do manifests what you reallly believe, and what Rome has and does do is count and treat even liberal souls — which make up the majority in the West — as members in life and in death, even very public abortion and prohomosexual ones such as Ted Kennedy (the pope even asked for his prayers with not a word of rebuke in his letter to him).

In contrast, as said, even without a central magisterium, or one that claims assured infallibility, evangelicals overall, despite their divisions, have shown such a degree of unity that both liberals and Rome has treated them as their greatest threat.

In addition, this unity among conservative evangelicals is due to an essential “unity of the Spirit” (Eph. 4:3) based upon s shared personal conversion to Christ and resultant Scripture-based relationship with Him, that being their focus and delight - church affiliation being peripheral - which fellowship they realize in meeting Catholics, which mainly preach their church.

The questions Roman Catholic need to answer then is,

If what the Bible means requires an infallible magisterium as an alternative to reliance upon the Holy Spirit leads to understand Scripture, then why has Rome never provided even one complete extensive commentary on all Scripture after almost 2,000 years?

And why do the “Bible Christians” overall testify to greater conservative unity and commitment in moral values and most basic truths than Roman Catholics?

And if the meaning of the Roman Catholic teaching is so clear —as it must be to be an alternative to Protestantism — and if the Holy Spirit leads them into all truth, and reliance on human reasoning is to be avoided, then why is there so much Catholics can, as well as do, disagree on? If it is poor catechises then Rome as a church is a poor teacher and is to be avoided, but disagreement extends into the highly committed, and even leads to sects and Catholic schism.

17. Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?

The key word here is “authoritatively,” meaning absolute in the case of Rome, so that even the EOs are rebels, or as seen in Scripture, that of conditional submission, and in which authenticity is established and manifest to lovers of truth by conformity to Scripture in word, virtue and power, (Acts 17:11; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor,. 6:1-10) overcoming evil with good, while allowing those with lesser motives to be deceived.

As to “Who may authoritatively arbitrate,?” under the Roman Catholic model we have the first two choices below. Under the Scriptural model we have the 3^rd.

A. The scribes and Pharisees, since they sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who whom “were committed the oracles of God,” and to “whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.”

B. The church of Rome whose claim to being the infallible authority is basically based upon the same premise.

C. The church magisterium in the body of Christ, local, regional or higher, but not infallible, as affirmed by Scripture and under Sola Scriptura:

“...in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matthew 18:16-17)

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. (Westminster ,CHAPTERs 1, 31)

The objection is that absence of an infallible authority leads to disunity due to souls heeding a dissenter, yet this is how the church began, yet not as excluding the need for the magisterium, but excluding one that presumes assured infallibility and as superior in authority than Scripture. Those that do typically show greater unity (as seen among cults), as do dictatorships vs. constituted democracies, yet implicit submission to leadership is an equal or greater danger than allowing objective examination to ascertain the veracity of the truth claims of authority, and which Rome discourages but Scripture commends.

That said, the lack of a valid centralized magisterium overall established and upheld by Scriptural means should be an goal, but Rome's distortion of that, plus her abuse, and arrogance resulted in a divided kingdom, and made it much a thing to be feared by the Godly to who esteem Scripture over men.

The questions Roman Catholic need to answer then is,

How can the Roman Catholic model for determining truth - in which the magisterium is indisputably right in universal declarations on faith– be correct when the church began, based on Scriptural substantiation, in dissent from those who presumed similar authority?

18. Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?

Upon the same basis that true men of God were manifest as such and others were rejected before there was a church of Rome that exalted herself as the infallible arbiter of Truth. Instead of Romish submission to the magisterium, the church gained her members and established its authority upon manifest conformity to Scripture in word, virtue and power.

The questions Roman Catholic need to answer then is,

Since no assuredly infallible magisterium existed prior to her, how could anyone have assurance that Jesus was who He claimed to be?

19. Protestants usually claim that they all agree “on the important things.” Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?

Along with magisterial function, it is manifest that it is those who esteem Scripture the most as the wholly inspired word of God, and which reveals a distinction between levels of teaching, and its basically literal sense (in contrast to much of Roman Catholic scholarship, which renders historical accounts to be fables and folk tales), as they overall testify to more unity than Catholics.

20. How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?

This also testifies to be unlearned, as It did not completely know “for sure” according to the Roman basis for assurance, as (contrary to Roman Catholic propaganda) despite some local council lists, scholarly dissent over books continued through the centuries and right into Trent. And it was over 1400 years after the last book was penned that Rome provided its first infallible, indisputable canon. Which is not even universally held to in Catholicism.

In conclusion, rather than promoting and defending Rome as the elite One True Church® after the manner that is seemingly habitually done, objective examination of Scripture is required in order to ascertain the veracity of her claims, but her rejection of this for her members itself negates her as th OTC, and instead renders her more like the Scribes and Pharisees which the church began in dissent from.

Meanwhile, we as the church need to be better evidence that we are of the church of the living God, the body of Christ, in conformity to Scripture in word, in virtue, and in power. Of which i come too short.

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.