Posted on 05/01/2014 3:25:30 AM PDT by GonzoII
Nice try at a dodge but your statement was “An honest Protestant must acknowledge that Catholics do indeed derive their teaching from Scripture”. I then ask about the assumption of Mary and you admit it does NOT come from scripture. Much of what Catholics believes does NOT come from scripture or clearly contradicts scripture. Here’s an example.
Scripture says.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God
But the Catholic Church says.
“We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and the rites paid to the dead. But the Church from a very early period took them into her service, just as she adopted many other things indifferent in themselves, which seemed proper to enhance the splendor of religious ceremonial. We must not forget that most of these adjuncts to worship, like music, lights, perfumes, ablutions, floral decorations, canopies, fans, screens, bells, vestments etc. were not identified with any idolatrous cult in particular; but they were common to almost all cults” (Catholic Encyclopedia, III, 246.)
Like always, Christians MUST appeal to Scripture - and so did the early fathers of the church - as it stands alone as the OBJECTIVE and inerrant, divinely-inspired word of God. If THAT isn't authoritative, what else is better?
Catholics are constantly appealing to Scripture and no one in the Catholic Church questions its authority. But to hold to the authority of Scripture is not the same as having it as the sole authority. From Scripture itself we know that Jesus Christ established the Church with authority and sent the Holy Spirit teach and guard it. To reject this is to reject Scripture itself.
Additionally, despite the claims of sola Scriptura, Protestants in fact do not actually act this way. Instead they bring some basic theological assumptions to the interpretation of Scripture which they inherited from the Reformers. Thus they are just as wedded to their own tradition as are Catholics.
God's word is clear on the main doctrines that determine authentic Christianity.
If this is so then why do Protestants disagree among themselves and why do they teach doctrines that were unheard of in the early church and for the next 1500 years?
It [Scripture] means what it says and hiding behind a "that's your own private interpretation of Scripture" is a ruse.
What Scripture says is not the same as what you says it says, this is only your private opinion on the matter. I, and many Catholics, find the competing Protestant interpretations of Scripture wanting. As well as having the authority of God's church behind them, the Catholic interpretation of Scripture just makes more sense.
... must acknowledge that Catholics do indeed derive their teaching from Scripture and a whole lot of OTHER writings.
I do so without hesitation but none of these contradict Scripture. But the truth is that Protestants do the same thing. While they might claim that they believe in sola Scriptura they actually impose upon it a hermeneutic that they derived from the the early Reformers. Protestants are just as bound to their own tradition as Catholics.
Shouldn't this be aimed at Catholicism?
What I actually did was to show "Then all the multitude kept silence" was in reference to Paul and Barnabas giving testimony, and that it was James who gave the definitive decree, not Peter, and which Truth is what was not at all provided.
Since the mention of all the multitude keeping silence is in reference to hearing Paul and Barnabas, it may infer that disputes were still going on while Peter spoke, which is contrary to the Roman papacy in which all the church looked to Peter to settle a matter.
This does not impugn the leadership of Peter, which i affirmed, but is contrary to the Romish idea of Peter, and is like that of the Orthodox.
Peter as the leader did first provide the basic sound consul, as the first to use the keys of the kingdom of God, the gospel message by which souls enter the kingdom of Christ, (Col. 1:13) but which "proves too much," as what it testifies to is that of a gospel in which souls are forgiven and born again by faith before expressing that faith in baptism;
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should the word of the gospel, and believe . And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith . (Acts 15:7-9)
Next, it was James which gave the definitive 175 word decree, confirmatory of Peter's counsel which Paul and Barnabas observably held also to, but after they had held their peace James is the one that provides the conclusive and Scriptural decree on what should be done, which pleased the apostles and elders. (Acts 15:13-22)
You really do leave a lot of Scripture out to present about half the truth.
Amazing that you try to hang YOUR albatross around OUR neck!
I said Catholics derive their teaching from Scripture, not all their teachings. I assumed that everyone knew that Catholics also accept Sacred Tradition. But none of these other teaching contradicts what is in the Bible. That being said, the vast majority of the disputes between Catholics and Protestants is about the interpretation of Scripture.
As to the use of candles that you think is a violation of Deuteronomy. A candle is not a god and the lighting of a candle is not the worship of a false god. It might go beyond Scripture but is not a violation of it.
I cannot disagree with this!
Some quite rabidly so!
Should you not have said, "What the church TEACHES that Scripture means."?
Oh?
When it comes down to "you'd BETTER believe it or ELSE!" then I would call that an ADDITION that contradicts.
The RCC attitude of WE were First; WE put the Bible together; WE know how to 'interpret' the Bible the RIGHT way; WE are the ONLY church that GOD set up; WE have what you MUST get to attain Eternal Life - has just a wee bit to do with it.
Arrogance is unbecoming in anyone or anything.
And then five verses later...the next time Peter speaks, Jesus replies to Peter;”Get behind me Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God but merely men”
I think we can safely state that this clearly shows Jesus providing clear disqualifications of Peter for “vicar of Christ”
Unless the pope speaks for Satan and is a stumbling block of God.
...or the whole “vicar of Christ” thing is an institution of men, not of God
Whatever it is, it certainly isn’t a hearty endorsement of Peter!
To accept Jesus’ truth in both Matthew 16:18 & 23 and then conclude that Jesus would build His church on Peter is, in essence to try and believe that Jesus would build his church on Satan and also upon a stumbling block to God.
This fails all tests of reason.
Therefore the assumed conclusion about Peter is obviously in error.
Fairly easy to see
If you wish. The point is that Catholics do not deliberately teach anything contrary to the Scriptures, which is what some Protestants imply. Thus our disagreements are on the interpretation of Scripture, not on its authority.
Since the Bible itself does not teach sola Scriptura no, this is not a contradiction of the Bible. And do not Protestants do the same when they add things, like sola Scriptura, and insist that everyone must accept their interpretations of the Bible?
And how does this differ from the multitude of Protestant denominations that insist that THEY are the ones who interpret the Bible the right way and that this is the only way to get into Heaven?
Without a living Magisterium protected by the Holy Spirit a Protestant cannot have an objective faith but only a private opinion.
So it seems to me that the RC argument is that the use of fallible human reasoning cannot obtain valid assurance of Truth based upon Scriptural substantiation, and or that an infallible magisterium is necessary for this and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18) And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that Rome is the assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent your argument?
Moving to a related statement further on,
A Protestant is free to say that this interpretation is false and that he does not share it, but he can only say that this is a matter of his opinion, not that it is a rejection of Scripture itself.
Thus it remains that according to this premise assurance of Truth cannot be obtained upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but requires an infallible magisterium.
The various Protestant denominations testify to the numerous conflicting opinions among them as to the meaning of Scripture.
So conflicting opinions about what one's infallible authority means disallows reliance upon that authority? Moreover, comparing one church with many under to a loosely defined definition of "Protestant" is not a valid comparison, unless you want Santeria to be classified as Roman Catholic. A valid comparison would be between sola ecclesia churches and those who most strongly hold to the most distinctive Prot doctrine, that of Scripture only being the infallible rule of faith as is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. And as manifested by what they do and effect, not simply profess.
And you use "Catholics" too loosely, as the EOs substantially disagree with Rome on what Tradition, Scripture and history teaches.
An honest Protestant must acknowledge that Catholics do indeed derive their teaching from Scripture and sincerely believe that Catholicism offers a better interpretation of it.
Rather, Scripture can only assuredly authoritatively be and mean what the magisterium says it means, or can only support it, thus the RC can erroneously believe Rome derives their teaching from Scripture and sincerely believe that Catholicism offers a better interpretation of it.
However, RC position is not that the their teachings require actual Scriptural support, but only that they do not contradict it, nor is the veracity of RC teaching based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
Thus Keating,
Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true. ” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.[http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption]
..the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
Cardinal Newman affirms, “Christians have never gone to Scripture for proof of their doctrines until there was actual need, from the pressure of controversy ...” — Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey" contained in Newman's "Difficulties of Anglicans" Volume II, Dignity of Mary; http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newman-mary.asp
Thus an honest RC must acknowledge that RCs have assurance of Truth based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, thus Scripture must support her as her servant, and be made to as they use their great interpretive liberty to do so.
It always amazes me that Protestants will rail against Catholic claims of infallibility for the Church while expressing their own private opinions as if they were the infallible interpretation of Scripture.
So only Rome can make an infallible statement, versus possessing the gift of assured (conditional) infallibility? It is amazing that Catholics will rail against Protestants as if they were presuming the gift of personal infallibility, versus basing the veracity of their assertions on the weight of infallible Scripture, while RCs expresses their own understanding of Scripture and of their church if they were infallible interpretations.
Please consider carefully the above and respond.
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.