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 Spirits 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 writers recollections, and a partial explanation of Christs teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scriptureor, 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 prophets 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:
Johns 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 Churchall 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 Gods 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 churchs sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of Gods 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 Gods 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 churchs 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 churchs 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).
I do not know the veracity of the following; whether it was fact, legend, myth or just something that sounds accurate...
In the 1800's, a sign near the start of the wagon trails west:
Choose your rut carefully; as you'll be in it for a thousand miles or more.
That's too vague a comment for me to answer.
Not for me, for I have no 'job'.
The is the TRUTH of the Bible, and there is the 'truth' of Catholic teachings.
My!
That is interesting!
My!
This is interesting; too!
Jesus called the Pharisees VIPERS!
I guess they were really SNAKES!
Discuss the message not the messenger.
Your “message” to me was not appreciated and further chats are declined.
-30-
R2z
But again, that is like comparing 12 people getting into a car versus a bus! Not complaining though.
These poor pics are before the last 16''. I do not have a camera, just a web cam on an old laptop, but you can see there is no place to put more but to go higher!
Looks just like us.
The banks between the sidewalk and the street are a good 5 feet high.
The town usually comes around with a front loader and dump truck a couple times a year and clears the snowbanks away when they get bad enough but they haven’t this year.
I’m going to ask around town and see if anyone knows anything, but next step is talking to some of the board members and find out why.
Which is what they do not do here, despite likely 16,000+ ppl per sq. mile.
We’re nowhere near that densely populated, but we usually do get better services for our money.
However, what you’re looking at isn’t so unusual for us.
Fine by me, FRiend.
(Thanks, RM!)
You had said;
To mimic your own style of reasoning and discourse in your above comment to CB, turning that same around in counter-point, I could ask you, Heart-Rest;
But that wouldn't be entirely fair. Yet for yourself to so casually mix and blur the identities of God Himself, on the one hand, to also on the other hand BE the Church (and by that you do mean the Roman Catholic one, the one which has an earthly & human "pope") isn't at all fair either.
That is what set me off against yourself having played games with CB's other statements, turning them this way and that, saying as much as If this-then that. The same treatment should be applied to your own statements and positions.
The Roman Catholic ecclesiastical community has long imported into the Gospel itself a variety of distortion, in the end having made many among their own ecclesia end up with some blend of often looking to Mary for salvation itself --- which salvation they must then also work for, somehow making themselves holy enough (through works) to be acceptable to God.
One may as well be a Mormon or perhaps better, a Muslim (they talk all nicey-nicey about how special *Mary* was, even as they say God created Christ within her) if it be by works that we are saved.
But go ahead, object and say that the RCC doesn't teach salvation by works ---it will fall on partially-deaf ears --- for I otherwise can see for myself that when the RCC is not teaching "grace" (having been forced to return to official endorsement of salvation by the Grace of God, through the bodily sacrifice of Jesus) due to the significant theological challenges and pressures arising from the Protestant Reformation, then "they" (the RCC) do also teach salvation by works, with that being inexorably mixed in with the teaching of the need and calling towards increasing sanctification being represented much as justification itself --- in overall end result rendering Christ's own sacrifice insufficient propitiation for our own sins, that must be added to in some manner, by our own efforts.
When the Gospel itself is not obscured by presenting salvation be of works which must be done (whatever the works are which the RCC would in any particular era proscribe) then Christ's own sacrifice is turned into a pill, a flat lozenge which only priests in communion with Rome are said have the ability to "confect" (into being the body of Christ, of which it is true, all must partake of).
It is no wonder that many, once they were able to read the Scriptures in their own native languages and thus understand what was written, reacted to what had evolved as being Rome's own (16th century) approach to the thanksgiving memorial remembrance with the rhetorical charge --- "blasphemy!".
It is simply not true, that to oppose the RCC in some way, is to oppose (thus reject) God Himself. The RCC is not God. Please stop broadcasting the confused (and confusing) message that He is.
Sorry for the slow reply. I wanted to read what you wrote carefully first and it was a busy weekend.
Yes, I agree with everything you wrote in your reply. John testifies to Jesus, and so saying that Jesus is superior to John doesn’t mean we should ignore or reject John.
But if that’s the case, I don’t understand your suggestion that we should not “hold to” the Magesterium of the Catholic Church because Jesus is superior to the Magesterium? If the opposite of “hold to” is reject, it doesn’t make sense, because we both agree that we shouldn’t per se reject everything that is inferior to Christ.
So maybe I am missing the meaning of the phrase “hold to”?
Good grief... this thread has gone to Mars, and back!
If I forgot to address anyone’s substantial points, could you ping me to that effect, and point me to the comment(s)? I can’t promise to get to them all, but I’d like to hit the major ones...
Daniel1212, I’m especially trying to get back to yours, if I could only find the silly thing! Even my ping list isn’t much help, because it’s flooded!
With 6-7 foot banks now most would say that it is a good thing we do not have your usual! I heard that when the Ntl. Guard commander arrived here from Buffalo NY (i know not where you are) after the Blizzard of 78 then he said something like, "What's the big deal," but 3,0000 vehicles were abandoned on Rt. 128. Yet now they have to get sanction to even dump snow in the ocean!
God help us.
Deliver us from the government who is here to help.....
Being Catholic is not and will never be a choice for me. I am first, last, and always a Christian. My Lord and Savior is Jesus Christ and He never asked me to pray to some demigod, He never asked me to pray to a statue, and He never said my salvation was conditioned on obedience to some dictator in Rome or his minions.
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
That's what Jesus said. He didn't say that I could only be saved conditioned on satisfying the earthly requirements of a bureaucracy that was long ago compromised and infiltrated by homosexuals.
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.