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).
You tell us. It's YOUR church.
Catholics would be the only ones who care about that.
So prove that what the apostles called “tradition” is exactly what the Catholic Church today calls “tradition”. If you can’t the Catholic is no different than Mormons, Muslims, or JW. All have beliefs and writings other than scripture.
Well, have you answered his question?
Just where is it recorded that people used wedding rings in the worship of God?
Prove that I told paladinan the reason I don't wear a wedding ring.
Actually those wee your exact words in post #91 to Paladinan.
Paladinan Question >>look at your left hand. Do you have a wedding ring there?<< Your reply: NO, nor would I be using it in my service to God if I did.
Clearly you are saying that you do not wear a wedding ring. Please make up your mind.
Post #91: >>look at your left hand. Do you have a wedding ring there?<<
NO, nor would I be using it in my service to God if I did.
"So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." 1 Corinthians 10:31
What part of "all" do you not understand?
Still waiting on you for several responses. Would you mind getting on them we are wondering how you are going to dodge again.
Here's the real scripture.
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water into () repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Greek - eis - properly, into (unto) – literally, "motion into which" implying penetration ("unto," "union")
The baptism was because they repented.
>>And Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance..." Acts 19:4a<<
Once again. The baptism was because of repentance.
>>For the same reason Jesus was baptized by John, though he had no sins to repent.<<
Jesus took upon Himself the sins of us all. He suffered and died because of those sins. It was for those sins that Jesus "fulfilled the law"
>>Mary fulfilled the Law.<<
Who's sins was she "fulfilling the law" for?
So you're saying that for every verse a priest uses, the rcc has an explanation for that verse? Every verse? Each and every one?
Now according to another poster on this thread only seven verses have been defined by the "extraordinary magisterium".
What follows below is from the other poster...it is not my work.
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.
Good luck with that. Put your faith in that Church and if they go down you go down. We put our faith in Christ alone. Any chance of Him going down do you think?
Catholics put their faith in story telling over thousands of years. Ever played the story telling game? It don't turn out well.
You and I are in agreement, The addle minded are trying to twist things again. It is best to ignore them when they are off their meds.
No kidding!!! Well, aren't you the bright one!!!
DUDE, the statement by Heart-Rest was that it was BECAUSE I believed it was pagan. Do you see any BECAUSE in that statement? Surely your reading comprehension is better then that.
NOW, why don't I wear a wedding ring?
Do you wear your wedding ring as service or worship of God?
Gettin' a little hot in the kitchen for some!
When the name calling starts you know you've won the argument. :)
Getting a little desperate are you? You haven’t shown were I gave a reason for not wearing a wedding ring after making the statement you did. Let’s have it. Show where I gave a reason.
"He is the head of the body, the Church..." Colossians 1:18
Show where I gave a reason for not wearing a wedding ring and let’s see who is twisting words.
LOL The twisted definition the Catholic Church has given to ekklesia has nothing to do with what Christ is the head of.
I said the Church has certain, plainly defined teachings, and you can check whatever a priest or anyone else says (about anything, including Bible texts) against the teachings of the Church.
Have to go now, so you have a great evening.
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.