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 Spirit’s 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 writer’s recollections, and a partial explanation of Christ’s teaching. This, of course, elevates Tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture—or, 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 prophet’s 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:
John’s 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 Church—all 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 God’s 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 church’s sufficient and supreme rule of faith. Psalm 119 alone dedicates 176 verses to the unparalleled value of God’s 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 God’s 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 church’s 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 church’s 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).
LOL, when you said that, I thought you were talking about "the Rock" wrestler/actor Dewayne Johnson😄😇😃. Now I see you mean Jesus is the Rock. I agree, let's hear it for Jesus, the rock of our salvation. 🆒
I’ll stand on bedrock over a pebble any day.
I can’t figure why someone would demand not only that their church be built on a pebble, but that everyone else join them as well.
Whatever anyone may think the words might have been had they been in another language is irrelevant.
No argument about the name of Peter can be made on manuscripts that do not exist (Aramaic) because if they did they would have said it this way........>>>>>>>>>
Oh they don`t say it that way huh? Jesus calls Peter Cephas in John 1:42
Paul also refers to him as Cephas, point being they did say it that way.
"thou shalt not eat the blood" - God
Seem very clear to me.
He won't and he is getting more desperate. He knows his time is short.
Where did Christ establish a Bible?
By substantiating His Truth claims upon the NT canon, as in
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, (Luke 24:44-45)
And many other places, as did the NT church, thus evidencing that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced
And by inspiring via His Spirit the additional writings of the NT, by which you know of His oral preaching and church.
Where did Christ say his Church would be based on a Bible?
By having the church begin establish its oral 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.)
The true church only consists of believers in the word of God, which Scripture assuredly is, and to which all truth claims as being the word of God are subject to testing by, as seen in Scripture. (Acts 17:11)
Now as to the alternative, where did Christ establish a church that did not established its Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation, but instead, as with Rome, based its claims to veracity upon the premise of perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility?
And since the latter is the basis for RC assurance of Truth, contrary to how the NT church began, how can Rome be the one true church?
For the RC argument basically is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.
Don't you agree with that?
Where did the table of contents of the Bible come from?
Recognition of these books as being Divine came from the same source that recognition of OT men and writings being of God came from. That being their unique Heavenly qualities and attestation. And as these writings testify to writings of God being recognized and established as being so, and thus in principal these writings provided for a canon of Scripture.
Now as concerns your alternative, Where was an infallible magisterium ever essential for men to correctly discern writings of God as being so, as RCs argue, and their meanings?
Why is Philemon on the Bible?
The same reason Isaiah is.
Thus the question is, since not men discerned both men and writings as being of God without an infallible magisterium, and upon which foundational writings the church began, why do RCs imagine an perpetual infallible magisterium is essential for this?
Why did Luther remove Maccabees 1,500 years after Christ established His Church?
He simply did not remove them from a infallible universal or otherwise indisputable canon, which Rome only provided after the death of Luther, while scholarly doubt and disagreement over whether apocryphal books, including Maccabees, and some others continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent . Nor did Luther not include them in his Bible, though in a separate section, as per an established tradition.
And again, here is my response to Staples on SS, which by the grace of God, deals with the usually polemics RCs parrot.
Thus the question, why do certain RCs continue to post refuted polemics from thread to thread?
Try to answer me this time.
If history is any indicator I wouldn't hold your breath or even expect dialogue.
“thou shalt not eat the blood” - God
I'm not surprised.
I don't know, misery loves company maybe?
I’m not surprised.
Roger that. Best to you.
This is very true — and, indeed, John names the Word:
(John 1:1-5, 14)And this Word-made-flesh says that He is also the Truth:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.
(John 14:6)
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
And so, given the utter centrality of Jesus —who is the Word, the Truth, and the Life— and who Himself intercedes on our behalf as high priest, why should we hold to the inferiority of a magisterium when given the utter excellence of Christ?
It's beyond my comprehension.....
Perhaps some Catholic could explain the rationale.......
**Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Mat 28:18-20**
Why does your church not obey the Lord? He says to baptize “in the name”, and Peter (your ‘rock’) AND the other apostles understood that the Son inheritted his name from the Father, and that the Holy Ghost is sent in the name of the Son. That NAME is JESUS.
In Acts, every case of water baptism, where a NAME is mentioned, the NAME of JESUS,....NOT the titles ‘the Father’, ‘the Son’, and ‘the Holy Ghost’, was the NAME used.
Neither Jesus Christ, nor his apostles EVER used the phrase “God the Son”. It was always the “Son of God”. I believe them. Are you ‘Free Republic the FatherofFive’, or ‘FatherofFive of Free Republic’?
Peter, your ‘rock’, is shown teaching souls how to be born again in Acts 2. He showed up in Samaria to see to it that those that believed and were baptized in the name of JESUS, would receive the Holy Ghost. He preached to Cornelius’ household, and they were born again. He was part of the council that gave instruction, by letter, to the church assemblies that were primarily gentile.
In none of those cases do we read of him teaching to ‘eat the flesh and blood’ of Christ. That’s because he KNEW it was symbolic, and totally spiritual (the flesh profiteth nothing).
**Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church.**
You can’t go wrong with a statement like that, since you are affirming that Jesus Christ is not a liar.
**They will arise, endure sometimes for centuries**
Just like yours arose, and behaving like the mainstream media, took credit for everything Christian. Never mind that just the few things that I mentioned above are overlooked by your ‘Tradition’.
The true church has remained true, and is just as the Lord and his apostles established it. The fact that the Lord said, “few there be that find it”, should give you pause.
Remember,...He is not a liar.
This is very true — and, indeed, John names the Word:
The saying you can't get blood from a rock
springs to mind.
But, more seriously, I think that he's referring this:
(John 6:53)
Jesus said to them, "Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
To assert that the phrase God the Son
is false is to call John's testimony a lie:
(John 1:1)Note John 1:18 is pretty close to being
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(John 1:14)
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.(John 1:18)
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.
God the Sonitself.
Which we only know about because it is written in the letters of the bible ...that who assembled again?
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.