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).
And again, we get back to the issue that Catholics have no basis on which to condemn and criticize non-Catholics interpreting Scripture on their own.
If Catholics are allowed to do it, anyone else is.
But no, the RCC wants to micromanage everyone's life whether they like it or not.
Rules for thee but not for me, is the Catholic byword.
They are such hypocrites allowing for themselves what they prohibit for others.
Catholics not only don’t know Scripture, they don’t even know their own catechism......
**micromanage everyone’s life**
Busybodies that they are.
Demonstrated? No, it was not. All you did was accuse others of low reading comprehension.
Meanwhile, from claims of being the only ones whom can (properly) interpret Scripture (which HAS BEEN established the RCC claims for it's own ecclesiastical community, alone), moving on from there to defining dogma in no way could logically invalidate that they (RCC "Magesterium") claim that they also are the only ones whom can proclaim "dogma".
Defining dogma ---
That comes later, as an end result of having declared themselves in no uncertain words as being the only ones which (they claim) are able to interpret Scripture.
Here again your own words condemn what you yourself have been saying and doing, on this forum, except that your own rants are not really all that "good", even if but for entertainment value...
If it were just an occasional thing, and there was something else to counter-balance and overcoming those slip-ups, like through displays of honesty and integrity, then I would not bother all that much with pointing these things out.
As it is, I only touch on some of the repeated times when such conditions arise, by your own hand.
[metmom][Elsie]
Cause we all know, because we've all seen, that the initial question never gets answered.
[paladinan]
Irony, thy name is metmom.
[metmom]
Show me where I've ever used that tactic.
Yeah paladinan. We know.
CCC 100 100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.
Thus he [the Catholic] never dreams of reading Holy Scripture with the view of gathering from it the articles of his belief; indeed, to do so would be to cease at once from being a Catholic in heart; and any one reading Scripture in this spirit, or in danger of doing so, would certainly be forbidden to read it at all, if he desired to continue in the communion of the faithful; for he would be virtually denying that the Church is the sole infallible interpreter of Scripture, whereas the acknowledgment of her as such is the very fundamental principle of Catholicism. Catholics, then, do not study the Scripture to learn their faith, but to grow in holiness; and for this purpose selections from Scripture, or meditations, and devotional works on Scriptural subjects (in which Catholicism is rich beyond what Protestants can imagine), are found to be more useful, and also to give more insight into the real spirit and meaning of Scripture itself, than the unaided study of the entire Bible. It is surely, then, nothing very wonderful that the Bible, as a whole, should be found less frequently in the hands of Catholics than in those of Protestants, whose principle in this matter is altogether opposite. While Catholics acknowledge but one authoritative interpreter, [Source: Library of Controversy - The Clifton Tracts, by the Brotherhood of St. Vincent of Paul, Volume 1, How Do We Know What The Bible Means?, published about 1854 in New York by P. J. Kenedy, Excelsior Catholic Publishing House, 5 Barclay Street, pages 6-7.]
Awwww give them a break ..they have only had 1900 years to do an infallible commentary
"a double minded mind church is unstable in all its ways
No.
Now. Do YOU object to that?
What you are calling *vague* is Scripture. I gave that answer.
It's in 2 Timothy, right here.
2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
You mean those books that the RCC didn’t officially recognize as canon until the Council of Trent.
I’m wondering what’s in them that Catholics think is so necessary for salvation that the Bible can’t do without them.
Chivalry, and friendly fire?
Facetiousness can be difficult to convey in a forum setting such as here, but metmom and Elsie are no strangers to one another, and neither of them is what anyone could honestly call "stupid".
Meaning -- metmom, as likely as not generally understands Elsie well enough, and that he was not in some way challenging her, or something which she had said, but instead was supportive of of her, albeit in indirect way.
Are you now trying to flip things the other way around? phfft. You ain't Mork. give it up, it ain't gonna' fly (and it's not funny).
I generally understand Elsie (he can be rather perceptive of what's really going on) for although he can be somewhat cryptic, or else obscure in his expressions (and mocking ridicule) he usually speaks to the wider contexts of the discussions, as for the various positions and statements which people here make.
Your own initial question was answered, even coming as it was from aspect of fallacious assumption, yet to one of those (at least) posed to yourself, there was no reply, which renders your own initial charge against metmom of -- her name being irony, far from chivalrous, and even (at this point) possibly needing some retraction, or apology, since she was proved well enough correct.
The one we know of around here as "metmom" has replied to, quite literally --- thousands of questions over the years, which again renders any accusation or charge laid against herself for bearing some form of "irony" (in not doing that which she would ask of others) to be, for the far greater part --- unfounded, for she has long been one whom would take the time to address questions as those surface, dealing with those one-by-one, even though those same coming to her from [Roman] Catholics are often repetitious, the makings of them having been dealt with, time and again.
In other words, please stop playing games with us here. We've (most of us) have seen it all before. The only usefulness that 'game playing' and pettiness has in light of what is talked about on the 'religion forum' of FR, is to derail or otherwise preclude what difficult-to-obtain clarity that there is, or else smother that (when it does present itself) with superfluous distraction, and noise.
Because prot novelties such as Homosexual marriage, Euthanasia, Abortion, artificial birth control, Wymyn priests, etc.... have been such great ideas and have not contributed to the downward slide of civilization at all. /SARC
Feel free to have the last word.
Well, there goes half your scripture or more out the window.
>>(I'm happy to tell you that the Catechism is, in fact, written... so I should be safe, even by your standards! :) )<<
Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!
So then show where everything in your catechism was taught by the apostles. Please verify with documentation.
Sure. I understand.
Been to many places where people look upon Holy Communion as “ritual cannibalism.” Those who actually follow the ritual will, of course, deny that what they practice can be, in any way, accurately described as “ritual cannibalism,” but those who accuse Christians of the practice know what Holy Communion actually is.
Can’t fool them.
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.