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).
The Catholic Church simply renamed it "annulment". Besides, Who told you that all Protestant "churches" were correct? Protestant "churches", the Catholic Church, and individuals can all be in error. The Catholic Church is no better then some Protestant "church" when it comes to error. Employing and protecting homosexual priests is no better then some Protestant "churches" allowing homosexual pastors. Allowing those with resources to get an annulment is no better then some Protestant "church" allowing divorce.
Love it!
All right... but you didn’t answer my second question: does anyone in your place of worship wear a wedding ring, and (if so) are you prepared to rebuke them?
Re: Jesus being the High Priest: of *course*, He is... but He also established deacons (1 Tim 3:8, etc.: “diakonoi”) and priests (Titus 1:5, etc.: “presbyterous”) and bishops (1 Tim 3:2, etc.: “Episkopoi”)to serve “in persona Christi”—that is, if you believe St. Paul and all of Church history. I can’t fathom why you insist on an “either/or” mindset, when God is quite happy to do “both/and”! Is it so unfathomable to you that God could have deacons, priests, and bishops WHO ARE SUBORDINATE TO, AND IN, Jesus Christ? Is it beyond God’s power to do that, do you suppose?
Wrong!
Please see Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, indulgences, for starters.
There is zero scriptural support for either of these. Catholic apologists admit that for the immaculate conception.
The rcc has used allegory to make these dogmas. A very dangerous way to interpret Scripture. Interesting that the pope has spoken ex cathedra a handful of times and the majority have been on Mary.
2 Timothy 3:
13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 4:
4 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
Scriptures are not man's authority, but God's:
2 Peter 1:
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter 3:
14 Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
Just a sample. No man, no organization, no self-proclaimed church magesterium gets to decide what is or is not God's Word. See the comments of Peter above.
Read this again.
Deuteronomy 12:30 and after they have been destroyed before you, be careful not to be ensnared by inquiring about their gods, saying, "How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same."
Would you explain to me how a wedding ring was used by the pagans to "serve their gods?
>>and priests (Titus 1:5, etc.: “presbyterous”)<<
4245 presbýteros – properly, a mature man having seasoned judgment (experience); an elder. [http://biblehub.com/greek/4245.htm]
If you think "presbyterous" means priest then you had better be consistent and install women priests.
1 Timothy 5:2 The elder (presbyteras) women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
Surely you wouldn't want to be hypocritical would you? Where do you think these women who believe they are allowed to be priests comes from? >>bishops (1 Tim 3:2, etc.: “Episkopoi”)to serve “in persona Christi”—that is, if you believe St. Paul and all of Church history.<<
"persona Christi"? Wherever did you get the definition of "persona Christi" from episkopos?
1985 epískopos (a masculine noun, derived from 1909 /epí, "on/fitting contact," which intensifies 4649 /skopós, "look intently," like at an end-marker concluding a race) – properly, an overseer; a man called by God to literally "keep an eye on" His flock (the Church, the body of Christ), i.e. to provide personalized (first hand) care and protection (note the epi, "on"). [http://biblehub.com/greek/1985.htm]
There is nothing in scripture that can be translated "in persona Christi" or "in the person of Christ". The closest anyone can get is "in the face of" or "in the presence of" Christ.
So Philip ran to [the eunuch], and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" (Acts 8:30-31)I've seen anti-Catholic-Church people (on this very thread) scoff at the idea that an interpreter of Scripture is needed; I wonder if they realize that they're scoffing at the Holy Spirit's very words...
I guess you've never read John's Gospel:
(John 20:30,31)
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name.
So it seems that scripture alone is sufficient to bring someone salvation.
2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect (artios), throughly furnished unto every (pan) good work.
Greek artios - complete, perfect (having reference apparently to 'special aptitude for given uses') [http://biblehub.com/greek/739.htm]
Greek - pan - 3956 /pás ("each, every") means "all" in the sense of "each (every) part that applies." [http://biblehub.com/greek/3956.htm]
The concept of all, every, every part that applies would include "steadfastness". Is there some part of "sufficient" that you would say is not included in "all, each or every part that applies"? If so, what is not included in "all, each or every part that applies"?
Your verbosity is lacking in complete facts leaving out those facts that prove your verbosity in error.
I believe that they actually SAY SO.
Could you define way so?
Interesting points, but did you intend to send them to me? They don’t seem related to what I wrote.
Interesting points, but did you intend to send them to me? They don’t seem related to what I wrote.
You do realize that every Sunday your priest gives his own personal interpretation of the scriptures ??
That’s all well and good... but it doesn’t give even a hint as to how specific books were accepted or rejected from the Canon of Scripture.
One can’t ask Scripture to tell you what books of Scripture to include... since the very Scripture you ask might not be Scripture! For example: you (as a non-Catholic) would likely not consult 2 Maccabees to find out if any other book is genuine... correct? But why not? If 2 Maccabees contradicts Luke (it doesn’t, BTW), then logic would not be able to decide between the two; is 2 Maccabees false because it contradicts Luke, or is Luke false because it contradicts 2 Maccabees?
Again: it’s all well and good to have a sentimental attachment to a given canon of Scripture; but logic is rather ruthless—it doesn’t CARE whether we “like” (or even love) the tradition or person who gave us the original collection of books. Logic is concerned only with clear definitions, true premises, and valid conclusions which follow from those premises. So... aside from the fact that you inherited the 66-book canon from Luther (and other 16th-century people), how do you prove that your collection is the correct one?
(N.B. Please, I beg of you: before you ask me how the Catholic Church proves its own canon—and I’ll address that later, if you like—please answer this question first. Anything less would be a mere appeal to “tu quoque”, which is a textbook fallacy; pointing out the allegedly leaky boat of your neighbor won’t stop your own boat from sinking.)
We really wish you prots would get your collective heads out of the sand and listen to this advice. The Catholic Church is your your best chance to see the other side of the pearly gates instead of being seated in the permanent smoking section.
Re: your comment at #99: if you’ll be so kind as to answer my question first (or let redleghunter answer it), I’ll be happy to do my best to answer yours.
So... how, in your view, were the contents of Scripture decided, and on what authority?
Only to those that hate the truth.
I believe the rock Jesus is talking about is Peters faith.
I tend to agree with you but I believe Peter is not to be taken lightly in view of the other things Jesus said.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
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.