Posted on 03/24/2015 12:27:30 PM PDT by Gamecock
The show that calls itself “Catholic Answers,” recently featured a Missouri Synod Lutheran caller as highlighted on a recent Dividing Line. In response to the caller, the hosts began asking him some questions. I wouldn’t be surprised if you get these same questions from some of your Roman Catholic friends and acquaintances, particularly those who listen to “Catholic Answers.”
Question 1: Where is Sola Scriptura in the Bible?
Short Answer: John 20:31 says, “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.” And many other verses.
Brief Explanation: John’s statement implies that a person could pick up John’s gospel, read it, believe it, and receive eternal life in that way. Moreover, John’s statement at least hints at the fact that the other gospels have a similar purpose – they are written for us to read, believe, and have eternal life.
Possible Objection: But where is the only in that text?
Response: The sola or only of “Sola Scriptura” is simply a negative claim – in other words, it’s saying that Scripture is unique – there’s nothing else like Scripture. If you want some verses that emphasize the unique character of Scripture, those also exist.
For example, Romans 3:4 says “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, “That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.’ (Psalm 51:4)” This emphasizes the crucial distinction between God’s word and mens’ words.
Another example is this:
“ Deuteronomy 13:1-5 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, “Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;” thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
The point to take away from that passage is that even if someone has authority that appears to be attested by working wonders, the person’s message should be judged by the Scriptures (in this case, by the Pentateuch).
Paul similarly warns the Galatians: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8) Someone may object that “preached” could refer to the gospel Paul delivered orally. Nevertheless, we have that gospel in written form today.
Likewise, the Bereans are commended for subjecting the apostles’ own preaching to a comparison with the Scriptures: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)
Question 2: Where is “Scripture interprets Scripture” in the Bible?
Short answer: 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” If that is true, then it follows that all Scripture has one divine author even if it has many human authors.
Longer answer: Indeed, we have examples of Scripture interpreting itself explicitly, such as the quotation from John 20:31, above, which provides a purpose for the book of John, and more broadly for Scripture. Other examples include the citation of Old Testament passages in the New Testament, together with explanations of what they meant or how they were fulfilled in Christ. Indeed, sometimes the New Testament includes Jesus’ own explanation of his parables. Numerous other examples could be provided.
Rejoinder: But even if we had no answer, can the matter seriously be doubted? Does the person asking the question really think that the Bible is either incomprehensible or should not be understood by taking one part in relation to another?
Even the Roman Catholic “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” puts it this somewhat poetic (and consequently imprecise) way (CCC 102):
“ Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely: You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.
We understand that Rome wishes to deny Christians the ability to judge her doctrines by Scripture, but surely it cannot be denied that Scripture does interpret Scripture. How else would one read it? As just isolated statements each possibly meaning anything at all? The very notion seems bizarre.-TurretinFan
ping for later
Well thanks! That is an excellent compendium of Cahtolic anti-semitism through two millennium.
I’m sorry but I am missing how this is connected with the topic. What is the larger point you are supporting with this? That not just Luther, but the entire Catholic Church since the beginning were anti-semitic? If so, I would say you have done an excellent job of proving that point.
Told by who? Obviously even recent Popes don't agree with each other. There is constant argument among Catholics about many things: divorce, the power of Bishops, the church's handling of homosexual child molesters, the use of birth-control. That last teaching is ignored by the majority of American Catholics.
I don't see much evidence of "one with Rome".
That strikes me as sort of an old school calumny. One held by people who call Catholics "papists".
I think a fair reading of what is going on in the church shows that is not close to being the case.
I will grant you that there is still more unity in the Catholic Church than in the Protestant denominations, who offically hold beliefs that contradict each other. That doesn't make the Catholic views correct, though.
Hitler was an adherent of Schönerer and the Los Von Rom movement.
Los Von Rom Bewegung ('Away from Rome') was an explicitly anti-Catholic, pro-Lutheran organisation.
When Luther turned his attention to the Jews, after he completed his translation of the Bible, he left behind "on the Jews and their Lies" for posterity. -cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
Many people confess their amazement that Hitler preaches ideas which they have always held.... From the Middle Ages we can look to the same example in Martin Luther. What stirred in the soul and spirit of the German people of that time, finally found expression in his person, in his words and deeds. -"Geist und Kampf" (speech), Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf
Bernhard Rust served as Minister of Education in Nazi Germany. He wrote:
Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance.... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp [Schrot und Korn]. -Volkischer Beobachter, 25 Aug. 1933
Erich Koch, the Reich Commissioner for Ukraine and President of the East Prussian Protestant Church Synod wrote:
Only we can enter into Luther's spirit.... Human cults do not set us free from all sin, but faith alone. With us the church shall become a serving member of the state.... There is a deep sense that our celebration is not attended by superficiality, but rather by thanks to a man who saved German cultural values. -Konigsberg-Hartungsche Zeitung, 20 Nov. 1933
Hans Hinkel, a Nazi who worked in Goebbels' Reich Chamber of Culture said:
Through his acts and his spiritual attitude he began the fight which we still wage today; with Luther the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun.(cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich)
Hans Schemm: Bavarian Minister of Education and Culture:
His engagement against the decomposing Jewish spirit is clearly evident not only from his writing against the Jews; his life too was idealistically, philosophically antisemitic. Now we Germans of today have the duty to recognize and acknowledge this. -"Luther und das Deutschtum," Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf (19 Nov. 1933: Berlin)
Julius Streicher (one of Hitler's top henchmen and publisher of the anti-Semitic Der Sturmer) was asked during the Nuremberg trials if there were any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way., Streicher said:
"Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book 'The Jews and Their Lies,' Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them.
No man was a greater inspiration to the Nazis in their vicious Jew-hatred than Luther.
So ... are you going to take down your little chocolate-box picture, or are you in fact a member of an antisemitic cult?
Told by who? Obviously even recent Popes don't agree with each other. There is constant argument among Catholics about many things: divorce, the power of Bishops, the church's handling of homosexual child molesters, the use of birth-control. That last teaching is ignored by the majority of American Catholics.
I don't see much evidence of "one with Rome".
Non-catholics are constantly told on this board that our understanding of the Scripture is wrong; that you are not allowed to "make your own personal interpretation of Scripture"; etc.
I agree with your comment about not much evidence of being "one with Rome" though. Catholics are all over the board on topics in these threads; most don't know the catechism and less seem to be familiar with Scripture as a whole other than a handful of verses they've pulled off an apologetic website.
For some reason every thread a Catholic (early on) posts something about Luther and anti-semitism. You can set your watch to it. Even in threads where Luther is not even the subject.
So my response was to the below thread by a Catholic poster:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3271558/posts?page=46#46
There are others more involved which hijack entire threads. It is not my intent to ‘re-fight’ the 16th Century, but some just can’t help themselves. It was a long bloody affair and our forebears decided well to leave the hell hole of Europe to put down roots here in the New World.
That's like asking me if I've stopped beating my family? Truly such invective one would see over at DU and not FR.
Quoting Nazis. Seems a few others are doing that here on FR. I thought Nazi propaganda was banned here a long time ago.
What is my take on Mary being a sinless, perpetual virgin?
First: I don’t have a take on it. But I can tell what the Bible says about Mary. In Luke it states the Mary was only a virgin at the time of her conception of Jesus. That’s it. There is NOTHING in the Bible remotely claiming she was a perpetual virgin. Someone invented that idea. Since Mary was married to Joseph and since Jesus had brothers and sisters, it is a safe bet that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage and did what God commands us all to do: Be fruitful and multiply. And Mary and Joseph did just that. Since Mary and Joseph were a married couple, I would not regard physical intimacy between them as an act of defilement or a sin in any way. The fact that Mary and Joseph had children following Jesus’s birth in no way compromises the divinity and resurrection of our risen Lord.
I would tell the GOP faithful: Please keep all of your policies, legislation, positions, Party platform etc. in conformity to the US Constitution.
Just as I would tell the Catholic faithful, while you are free to develop your own rules, regulations, dogmas, doctrines, liturgy etc., NO ONE has the right to re-write the Bible or re-write history. There are many different Christian denominations. But there is only one Bible and it applies to all of us IMHO.
God Bless your stand for His Word.
Here is the relevant Wiki on Hitler's religion:
\"Hitler was born to a practising Catholic mother and an anticlerical father, but after leaving home Hitler never again attended Mass or received the sacraments.[361][362][363] Speer states that Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church to his political associates and though he never officially left it, he had no attachment to it.[364] He adds that Hitler felt that in the absence of the church the faithful would turn to mysticism, which he considered a step backwards.[364] According to Speer, Hitler believed that either Japanese religious beliefs or Islam would have been a more suitable religion for the Germans than Christianity, with its "meekness and flabbiness".[365]
Historian John S. Conway states that Hitler was fundamentally opposed to the Christian churches.[366] According to Bullock, Hitler did not believe in God, was anticlerical, and held Christian ethics in contempt because they contravened his preferred view of "survival of the fittest".[367] He favoured aspects of Protestantism that suited his own views, and adopted some elements of the Catholic Church's hierarchical organisation, liturgy, and phraseology in his politics.[368]
Hitler viewed the church as an important politically conservative influence on society,[369] and he adopted a strategic relationship with it that "suited his immediate political purposes".[366] In public, Hitler often praised Christian heritage and German Christian culture, though professing a belief in an "Aryan Jesus", one who fought against the Jews.[370] Any pro-Christian public rhetoric was at variance with his personal beliefs, which described Christianity as "absurdity"[371] and nonsense founded on lies.[372]"
While Los Von Rom may have been pro-Lutheran, there is little evidence to suggest that Hitler was. He did however attend the Catholic church in his youth,and received the sacraments. Haven't we heard 'Once Catholic, always Catholic' around here by some. He was anti-christian in any case so the tar brush fails.
Well,I see you trotted out the Nazis after all. Strong witnesses. Considering the Timeline posted above it had to be a Luther tract from 400 years earlier rather than the homily at the Catholic church Sunday morning. Keep quoting Nazis, they are more truthful than 0bama and the democrats, but that is about all.
Adolf Hitler's religious views are a difficult case. On the one hand he had been in contact with Lanz von Liebenfels; on the other hand he made definite remarks against the völkisch occultism in Mein Kampf and in public speeches.
Since 1957, when the Austrian psychologist Wilfried Daim published the important study on Lanz von Liebenfels,[29] enough evidence exists to say that Hitler had been exposed to the Ariosophic Weltanschauung in Vienna. However, it is not clear to what extent he was influenced by it. In the research into this question, Mein Kampf has even been compared to Liebenfels' Theozoologie in detail.[30] According to an online article from the Simon Wiesenthal Center,[31] the influence of the anti-Judaic, Gnostic and root race teachings of H.P. Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy, and the adaptations of her ideas by her followers, constituted a popularly unacknowledged but decisive influence over Hitler's developing mind.
Hitler harshly rejected the völkisch esotericism. In Heinrich Heims' Adolf Hitler, Monologe im FHQ 1941-1944 (several editions, here Orbis Verlag, 2000), Hitler is quoted as having said on 14 October 1941: "It seems to be inexpressibly stupid to allow a revival of the cult of Odin/Wotan. Our old mythology of the gods was defunct, and incapable of revival, when Christianity came...the whole world of antiquity either followed philosophical systems on the one hand, or worshipped the gods. But in modern times it is undesirable that all humanity should make such a fool of itself."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism
Seems to me the Nazis, especially Hitler, were secular humanists of the first order. As were the pagan kings and emperors before them.
Yep, same side of the political spectrum as commies and the democrat leadership.
Or you could look at the evidence in Hitler's own speeches
“I do insist on the certainty that sooner or later—once we hold power—Christianity will be overcome and the German church, without a Pope and without the Bible, and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing
Adolf Hitler, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, edit. by Norman H. Baynes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1942), 369
All these Nazis lovingly quoted and adulated Luther.
Your response is - apparently - to stick your fingers in your ears. You also want to forbid any revelation that these Nazis were inspired by Luther, the author of "The Jews and Their Lies"
But you don't belong to a cult. Got it.
Congrats, Hitler as a witness! Because everyone knows he never lied about anything. Everyone also knows how much Luther hated the Bible, he rarely spoke of it or the power of God's Word. Oh wait, that was his argument against the Catholics. Nice try.
No cult here.
Just pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of the claims of anti-semitism with such a long history of its practice in Rome.
If you are going to throw stones in a glass house expect some windows to be shattered.
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.