“”If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!” That belief, commonly known as sola scriptura, was a central component of all I believed as a Protestant”
Well, no wonder he’s not a Protestant then. Since this is nothing more than a straw man and is not what Christians believe. He fell for his own straw man and then became a Catholic, I suppose. The Trinity is not “explicitly” mentioned in the Bible. There is no phrase in there that says “God is a Trinity.” It is a truth logically deduced from the entirety of the scripture, and we would justly refer to anyone who opposes the Trinity as being a heretic.
On the other hand, Roman Catholic doctrine most of the time cannot be logically deduced from the scripture at all. It stands simply upon the figment of an alleged Roman Catholic authority backed up through assertion instead of any actual evidence. Or it is backed up by myths and legends. They simply say, when they cannot defend their religion, that they have the right to make what they say the truth despite a lack of evidence. Outside of Catholics and deluded Protestants like this guy formerly was, who is going to find that line of argument persuasive?
“It says that Scripture is inspired and necessary—a rule of faith—but in no way does it teach that Scripture alone is all one needs to determine the truth about faith and morals in the Church.”
This is no better than the last straw man. Read the entire sentence, “that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” If the scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness “that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work,” is there some level beyond “completeness” that only Romish dogma can contain?
But what IS so special about Roman Catholic dogma anyway? If I were to become a Catholic, I would have to give up any sense of security for heaven. I would have to worry about how long I’ll burn in purgatory, even if I don’t go to hell, and I’ll have to add Roman works and penance in order to make up for my sins (because Christ’s work on the cross for me ISN’T complete), and remind my family to pray for me so that the rest of my sins are burned away in purgatory quickly.
So what’s so hot about Romish doctrine that you guys want me to convert so badly?
‘Well, only we have the right to interpret scripture and blah blah blah.”
Ohhh, right.
“It is true that we know Scripture to be inspired and canonical only because the Church has told us so.”
So how come your church believes the apocrypha are inspired scripture even though, historically, it did not?
Pope Gregory, quoting Maccabees:
“Concerning which thing we do nothing irregularly, if we adduce a testimony from the books, which although not canonical are published for the edification of the people. For Eleazar wounding an elephant in battle, slew him, but fell under him whom he had destroyed.” — Morals, book 19, on 39th chap, of Job.
Notice how he mentions that they are put forward not for the “confirmation of the faith,” but for “edification of the faithful.” This same idea is repeated by many authors:
Athanasius on the apocrypha:
“But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former [standard new and old testament canon], my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read.” (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)
Rufinus on the Apocrypha:
“They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine.” (Rufinus of Aquileia, Exposition of the Creed)
Cardinal Cajetan calls them not “canonical for the confirmation of the faith,” but “canonical” only in a certain sense for the “edification of the faithful.”
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)
Official prefaces to Latin translations of the scripture making the same distinction:
“At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.” ( B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471.)
I’ll also add one final point, that is, that the apocrypha usually expose themselves as not being inspired scripture. Judith, for example, says that Nebuchadnezzer is King of the Assyrians, which is wrong, amongst many other historical and geographical errors. Tobit features an “Angel of the Lord” teaching witchcraft. Maccabees apologizes for possibly containing errors, since he wrote it to the best of his ability. So does Sirach.
So why does your church DENY these things, and even what the apocrypha themselves say?
“This passage does not refer to the New Testament. In fact, none of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Claiming this verse as authentication for a book that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims.”
The Apostles believed themselves to be writing scripture. Therefore, Timothy would have read that epistle AS scripture. As we can see here from Peter’s assertion:
2Pe 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (16) As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
The ONLY reason why FRoman Catholic Freepers continually post threads like this one (and this specific one has showed up here a number of times) is to assert that their church is superior to any other Christian churches and to place their leaders OVER God's inspired word. We can easily prove some of their dogmas are anti-scriptural and they know it, so the only recourse is to somehow try to prove the Scriptures are not the only source of truth for the Christian faith. That way, they can let go of reason and place their faith in their church - no matter how many ways it contradicts the Bible. Christians trust in Christ, not human leaders, and know that the rule of our faith can be found in the Holy Scriptures.