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).
My eyes don't believe what I'm reading. Do you not understand English grammar? The "an" is used as it comes before a word beginning with a vowel.
So you're saying there is more than one interpretation????
I was responding to your challenge to the other poster of documenting their statement. No, I didn't add the next part as it was not needed to answer your question. Notice I also didn't post the rest of the catechism either. So what?
Seems catholics don't like what's said about their church to be posted in the light of day. I'll repost the conversation for the record.
>Rome says scripture can only be interpreted by the church..not individuals
VERGA: Document or retract. This is the biggest load of hogwash I have heard in a while.
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
How many verse of the Bible have been officially defined by the Magisterium?
You tell me. I've already had to show you where only the rcc can interpret scripture.
Not gonna do all your work for you.
ping
I simply took the words of John 1:18 directly from the Greek.
I can ask about some protestant congregations or others where the donations are not exactly used in a proper manner fitting for a believer in Christ. Those living in glass house should not cast anything that might cause it to scratch or break. If I didn’t know better, I would think you where trying to elevate yourself up to the Statue of our Lord, i.e. free from all sin. But being the “good” Christian that you are, I know you would never do that, right? But if that is the case, then why ask the question the way you did or the others for that matter? What does it say about when your behavior in your question resembles so much the behavior of so many of today’s clergy?
By the way much of that wealth was donated(time, hard work, money) by those who believed, unless of course your suggesting the Church forced them to do so or pillaged it some how? Now if the current crop of priest cannot appreciate (and many of them don’t) that fact much like you and others on this thread, what does that say about your view of those who believed so much that they dedicated a portion sometimes there life to creating such things?
Problem is that they can't prove that what they call "tradition" is exactly what the apostles called "tradition". So it leaves Catholics taking the words of fallible men. No different then Muslims, Mormons, Seventh day Adventists etc.
Not gonna do all your work for you.
That is the response I get from prots that think they know what they are talking about.
From the Catholic answers web site Peggy Frye: Only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially—but not fully—defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent (see "The Limits of Scriptural Interpretation" in the January 2001 issue of This Rock):
The reference to being "born of water and the Spirit" in John 3:5 includes the idea of baptism.
In telling the apostles, "Do this [the Eucharist] in memory of me" in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, Jesus appointed the apostles priests.
In Matthew 18:18 and John 20:22–23, Jesus conferred on the apostles the power to forgive sins; everyone does not share this power.
Romans 5:12 refers to the reality of original sin.
The presbyters referred to in James 5:14 are ordained, not merely elder members of the Christian community.
Seven out of the entire Bible.
When you depend on "sola scriptura" and individual scriptural interpretation, you eventually end up with conflicting, contradictory teachings for every single teaching there is regarding "faith and morals", as you have no genuine teaching authority to guide you.
That "wedding ring" example is just a small, convenient example of that, demonstrating clearly why those who claim the Scriptures are their teaching authority have a serious problem for all teachings. CynicalBear says he does not wear a wedding ring because they are inspired by pagan customs, and he bases his beliefs about that on certain Bible texts, which he believes tell him in his own personal interpretation that it is wrong and sinful to use anything inspired by pagan customs, while those famous Protestants I pointed to, base their incompatible, opposite beliefs that it is okay (and not at all sinful) to wear wedding rings, based on their own interpretation of those same Scriptures.
(Wearing wedding rings cannot be both right and not right at the same time. One of those two opposite protestant personal scriptural interpretations involving that issue - CynicalBear's, or those protestant preachers - is 100% wrong.)
That same principle applies to every single moral teaching and issue, such as abortion, homosexual relations or marriage, day of worship, etc. Some protestant denominations, using sola scriptura and their own private, personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, say that it is okay to have abortions, and it is okay to have homosexual relations or marriage, while other protestant denominations, using sola scriptura and their own private, personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures say that it is not okay to have abortions, and it is not okay to have homosexual relations or marriage.
Likewise, some protestant denominations, using sola scriptura and their own private, personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, say that you cannot lose your salvation, while other protestant denominations, using sola scriptura and their own private, personal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, say that you can lose your salvation
There are many other issues where using private interpretation of the scriptures causes various protestants to come up with completely different and conflicting conclusions as to what the Bible really teaches about those issues. (That's why there are so many protestant denominations with conflicting and mutually exclusive teachings and doctrines.)
1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.
I'll listen to what the Holy Spirit said through John.
Only narrow minded bigots believe something that foolish.
Let me ask you a simple question. Please give me an honest and complete answer, without dodging or beating around the bush.
Based on your own personal knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, do you believe that it is wrong and sinful to wear wedding rings?
Not gonna do all your work for you.
That is the response I get from prots that think they know what they are talking about.
This comes from someone who doesn't understand basic English grammar. Now that's rich.
Seems that based on this conversation I seem to know more than you do!
You made a statement challenging what another poster said and I gave you what your own catechism says. You were not even aware of this or else you would have understood the poster was correct in their statement. I'll repost the original conversation again as you keep trying to change the topic.
>Rome says scripture can only be interpreted by the church..not individuals
VERGA: Document or retract. This is the biggest load of hogwash I have heard in a while.
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm
Amazing how the rcc seems to dismiss the capabilities of the Holy Spirit.
Sinless Jesus? Did Jesus need a baptism of repentence from John the Baptist? Did Jesus need to repent?
"I baptize you with water for repentance..." Matthew 3:11a [John the Baptist]
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he consented. Matthew 3:13-15
And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance..." Acts 19:4a
Question: "At the Presentation, why did Mary make a sin offering (Lk 2:24, Lv 12:8) if she was without sin?"
Answer:
For the same reason Jesus was baptized by John, though he had no sins to repent. Mary fulfilled the Law.
According to Leviticus 12:2-8, a mother was purified forty days after the birth of a son, and she was required to offer a lamb as a burnt offering and a young pigeon or turtledove as a sin offering. A poor woman could substitute another pigeon or turtledove for the lamb, thus offering two of them.
The purification had to do with ritual uncleanliness and didn't imply a moral fault in childbirth. As Jesus would later, Mary fulfilled all the precepts of the Law, which, clearly, wasn't written to make allowances for a sinless man (the Messiah) or his sinless mother.
Please show where I ever said that. Hint. You can't because I never did. I told you that a wedding ring is NOT included in the worship of God. It is therefore immaterial. Please don't twist my words to mean something I never said.
>> he believes tell him in his own personal interpretation that it is wrong and sinful to use anything inspired by pagan customs<<
Once again, FALSE. What part of in the worship of God do you not understand?
Is the only way that Catholics have to defend their faith the twisting of what people say?
>>(Wearing wedding rings cannot be both right and not right at the same time. One of those two opposite protestant personal scriptural interpretations involving that issue - CynicalBear's, or those protestant preachers - is 100% wrong.)<<
Given that I have never once said that wearing wedding rings is wrong you entire premise is base on a falsehood.
Twist whatever you want to create whatever religion you want to follow but don't twist my words to mean something you want without showing documentation to prove what you say.
Now, show the post where I ever said wearing a wedding ring is wrong. If you can't we will understand that you post was based on an untruth.
I'm convinced that they are unfamiliar with who that is.
Thank you for demonstrating that prots are neither capable of reading in contest or having a rational discussion. Feel free to have the last word.
What your post is completely missing is that those personal interpretations may or may not conform 100% perfectly with the actual teachings of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church does not base it's teachings on some individual priest's personal interpretation of Bible texts, nor does the Catholic Church base it's teachings on some Catholic's private personal interpretation of the Bible texts they are reading. Those personal interpretations may or may not be correct in any given homily or in any given personal Bible reading.
The Church's teachings are based on the teaching authority of the Church which was given by Almighty God, and they are based on the Holy Scriptures and the Church's Magisterium, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
All priests should always be providing biblical interpretions which are totally compatible with the teachings of the Church, just like all the disciples of Jesus should have been teaching and living properly too, but they had this guy there named Judas...
Catholics can always check their priest's teachings against the real, official teachings of the Church, to see if he is speaking correctly about those teachings. Protestants cannot check their pastor's teachings against the official "protestant teachings", because there are none, only private interpretations of the Bible, which are all over the map (as that example clearly shows), and which are often completely contradictory, and mutually exclusive between different protestant denominations as well as between different protestant individuals.
No, and don't twist my words in order to assuage your own twisted theology. Wedding rings are not something used in the worship of God.
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.