As long as it was done in LOVE...
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).
I would like to point out that when Jesus was baptized...the Holy Spirit alighted on him like a dove with the voice of God thundering...”This is my Beloved son in whom I am well pleased!” From then on the baptisms were to be of Jesus Christ which would symbolize the burial of the old man and the rising of the new man by the energizing work of the Holy Spirit! From then on the influence of John the Baptist would decrease while the influence of Jesus Christ would increase as John himself had declared it. Christ would indeed begin to baptize men with “fire and with the Holy Spirit”!
As for Mary, she was in obedience to the Law but she did not fulfill the law...the law was only fulfilled thru the person of Jesus Christ.
Post #101, Post #104, Post #105, Post #108, Post #109,
Mary and Joseph fulfilled the Jewish law requirements for all new mothers by her offering those sacrifices, just like you fulfill the requirements of the law when you pay your taxes to the IRS. That is what that quote was saying.
He did not say that, at all.
Why do you insinuate that he did, by forming the question as you did?
No need to answer that though, for I *think* that I already know why -- and it's not a pretty picture, once one get's past the superficial portions, and the closer details come into view.
Look at what you did, Heart-Rest.
The formal definition which you accessed --- was not the form delineated by Roman Catholics that CB was talking about...
James Strong was a Methodist.
Nestle was not a Roman Catholic either...
What CB was speaking of is what other definitions, by word and practice both, that the RCC has given to the word, even as "they" claim that their own membership alone is what composes the ekklesia, and that all must submit to the Roman church Pontiff, etc., and much more...is what I believe CB was talking about, with CB himself holding to Strong's definition, already.
Bringing that out --- representing that as if it was what CB was disagreeing with is a form of pseudo-intellectualism, which accomplished nothing but a further muddying of the waters...
All this subtle twisting of things, of what people here have said, throwing that back at them with one of your own diversionary questions, accompanied by shallow mini-lectures --- what good is it?
You've gone on record (more than once) equating disagreement with the RCC to being equal to disagreeing with Christ, Himself.
Does it make you "feel good" to get your bashing licks in, against those whom dare criticize the RCC?
That may be so, but still does not change the fact that within the RCC, what constitutes the church, as that can be seen described in the New Testament, has been in many ways subtly (and not as subtly) altered from what the ekklesias was in the first place.
The verse you choice to highlight is itself an example.
Rome puts the "pope" as the head of the Church ---even though it does pay lip-service to Christ in claiming that He (Jesus Christ) is the head of that ekklesia.
Yet there was no singular earthly "head" of the Church in the earliest centuries. Period, dot.
Papacy? Papa?
It's real simple.
Call no man 'father', for we are to have one Father, who is in heaven.
If one does not know Him, as in has never encountered Him but in their own imaginations, then they are not sons, cannot be [adopted] sons of His...though they may well be 'sons of' a long line of Romish, illegitimate, papist &*%#@!#s.
I honestly don’t believe that 63 post quoting scripture and documenting the truth will enlighten the cowboy, but thank you for trying.
What's he going to DO about it?
What does Rome provide for my salvation that the Bible dos not?
What do I need from her to ASSURE my salvation?
Not addressing the questions, actually just ignoring and/or avoiding.
As long as it was done in LOVE...
I've learned from the best!!!
Now that it has; will you answer Yes or No?
You tell me...
Bonaventure: …the gates of heaven will open to all who confide in the protection of Mary. Blessed are they who know thee, O Mother of God, for the knowledge of THEE is the high road to everlasting life, and the publication of thy virtues is the way of ETERNAL SALVATION . Give ear, O ye nations; and all you who desire heaven , serve, honor Mary, and certainly you will find ETERNAL LIFE.
Ephem: …devotion to the divine Mother…is the unlocking of the heavenly Jerusalem.
Blosius: To the, O Lady, are committed the KEYS and the treasures of the kingdom of Heaven.
Ambrose: …constantly pray ‘Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its KEYS.
Fulgetius: …by Mary God descended from Heaven into the world, that by HER man might ascend from earth to Heaven.
Athanasius: …And, thou, O Lady, wast filled with grace, that thou mightiest be the way of our SALVATION and the means of ascent to the heavenly Kingdom.
Richard of Laurence: Mary, in fine, is the mistress of heaven; for there she commands as she wills, and ADMITS whom she wills.
Guerric: …he who serves Mary and for whom she intercedes, is as CERTAIN of heaven as if he were already there…and those who DO NOT serve Mary will NOT BE SAVED.
Anselm: It suffices, O Lady, that thou willest it, and our SALVATION is certain.
Antoninus: …souls protected by Mary, and on which she casts her eyes, are NECESSARILY JUSTIFIED AND SAVED.
Why thanks!
Please do!
"Joseph!
"I can't go to the temple and make a SIN offering; what will people THINK!!!!????
"They ALL know I am SINLESS!"
Nice segue into yet another rabbit trail.
Too tired to actually form the straw into men?
Jesus referred to the Law and the Prophets as Scripture and quoted from some of them as such.
Peter called Paul's writings *Scripture* and since he didn't specify which ones, then there's no reason to not accept what we have of his as Scripture.
That settles most of what we accept as Scripture.
As for the NT, the RCC accepts the same books as non-Catholics as Scripture so they have no cause for criticism there.
Here's a link to answering that question.
Addressing the object that The Bible isn't the Word of God. It contains the Word of God.
By appealing to Scripture, what else?
Kind of ironic, isn't it that they impugn the veracity of the very thing they appeal to to give them their authority to call into question the very thing they appeal to.
And so it goes.
That's pretty ironic considering that RC;s always brag on numbers (1.2 billion strong) as if numbers mean anything.
It's not pride. it's hubris.
Physician, heal thyself.
Not meaning to neglect the specifics of your comment (#507), but: when you quote Westminster and previous posts, I see a great deal of good and noble sentiment (cf. “Wow, how awesome and useful is Scripture! How exalted! How sublime!” And no faithful Catholic would disagree with you. I don’t.), but no raw data to prove that it is (or claims to be able) to be used ALONE, much less that it’s sufficient for SALVATION when used alone.
This is what really baffles me about the approach of some non-Catholics (especilly anti-Catholic-Church non-Catholics): they string together literally dozens (if not hundreds) of Scripture citations which show how often Scripture was used by Jesus, by the evangelists, by St. Paul, and so on. They then string together dozens or hundreds of instances where Scripture says to have faith, and that we are saved through faith, and so on.
The faithful, well-informed Catholic is left (if he isn’t exasperated, yet) scratching his head and wondering, “Are we having the same conversation?” What’s the point of emphasizing the IMPORTANCE of Scripture and Faith (and they certainly are), over and over, when the topic is whether these two things are to be used (as per Luther’s view) ALONE?
It goes a bit like this:
Catholic: “Why do you believe in sola Scriptura?”
Non-Catholic: “Because Scripture is the Word of God!”
C: “I agree. But why do you believe in SOLA Scriptura?”
NC: “Because Scripture says that Scripture is vitally important, useful, God-breathed, inerrant, etc.”
C: “You still haven’t said why you need to use it ALONE, to the extent that you condemn anyone else’s practice of using other things such as Sacred Tradition (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, etc.) and the teaching of the Church (Matthew 18:17, 1 Timothy 3:15, etc.), even though Scripture attests to them and endorses them (and even requires them)!”
NC: “Because all such tradition is the same as the content found in the Bible! And because the Church is the entire body of believers, not some hierarchy in Rome!”
C: “Care to prove those two assertions? I see those assertions nowhere in Scripture, and they’re awfully convenient ones for your argument.”
How I wish I could rent a billboard, and put in blazing letters upon it for all anti-Catholic-Church people to see:
WE UNDERSTAND THAT SCRIPTURE IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH. COULD YOU PLEASE STOP POSTING SCRIPTURES WHICH SAY THOSE? WE JUST WANT TO KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THE IDEA THAT EITHER OF THEM ARE SUFFICIENT TO BE USED *ALONE*, AND WHY YOU THINK THOSE WHO DO *NOT* USE THEM ALONE ARE *WRONG*!!!
No amount of Scriptures telling of the importance of Scripture (or long lists of Scriptures telling how important people used Scriptures a lot, for important things) will address that question AT ALL. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand, about that! EVERY time I’ve ever had a forum discussion about “sola” ANYTHING (in the Luther-esque sense), SOMEONE trots out long lists or dissertations about how IMPORTANT Scripture and Faith are (honestly, I know!), and how we are saved by faith (honestly, I *know*!)... but no one gives any clear, undeniable Scripture which says unequivocally that Scripture ALONE (much less the truncated 66-book fragment of the Scriptures) is the sole guide to faith (or whatever variant on that definition you’d like to use on sola Scriptura)... and no one gives any clear, undeniable Scripture which says unequivocally that we are saved by faith ALONE.
Note the word “ALONE”? THAT is the issue for Catholics. Not “Scripture” (yes, it’s vital). Not faith (yes, we know that we’re saved by/through faith in Jesus Christ). Address the concept embodied by the little five-letter word “ALONE”, please.
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.