DeoOmnisGloria.com

I still don't see how you proved Paul saying in Romans 3:23 is not meant to mean that all have sinned. Righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ. You can find that in Rm3:22. Paul simply pointed out that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin. But righteousness come from those who follow the Laws of God. Yes, Paul referred to Psalms 14, yes Psalms 14 distinguishes between evildoers and righteous people. But righteousness does not equal sinless. Paul was pointing out the evil of men. He then asked are we any better....he said no. Righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ. Now the reason I referred to Romans was to show that God says all have sinned. Check out Romans3:23.
I agree with you when it says that you must have the Law of God written on your heart. No doubt about it. If you say you are a Christian but do not follow Christ and his ways, you are really not serving God. But understand when Protestants say that one is saved by grace through faith and not by works...we mean it as...there is nothing WE can do ourselves to wipe away sin. But through our faith in Christ and the mercy of God we are saved. That doesn't mean not to do your Christian duties in no way at all. We believe no matter what we are all undeserving of God's mercy and grace. But because he loves us so, he gave his only Son, so that we could be reconciled. We are nothing, but because of Christ and our faith in Him all can be reconciled to God. No matter how much good you do, it still is not good enough for God because he is that much Holy, that much worthy, and that much mighty. I'll be the first to say, I am unworthy of His mercy and grace. But because God possesses a love so great, he provided us with Jesus. I accepted the Lord as my Savior and through Him I have been changed. AM I perfect...absolutely not. Have I sinned, yes. Do I participate in community service? Yes...even if I fed the world...it still wouldn't be good enough for God. I am saved because I accepted the Lord as my savior, period. I can do all the good deeds that can be done...but without faith in Christ...I am still not saved. Thats what it means when we say that we are all saved by faith alone and not by works. PLease don't misinterpret it as a belief in not living a righteous life. That's far from the truth.
As for the Didache the origin in nature is still questionable. But 2 things...1...Didache is the teachings of the Lord to the Gentiles by the 12 apostles.# 2 no one is certain who it was written by. It was believed to be written by the apostles...not specifically Peter...but the apostles. As far as protestants and communion here is what we believe. Jn 6:53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life. However if you keep reading on..in 6:58 you will find it says This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna(manna is bread) and died, but he feeds on this bread will live forever. Go onto Jn 6:63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 6:64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.
The Bible says man shall not live off of bread alone but by the Word of God. The Word became flesh. Jesus said he was talking in spirit. Jesus is the Word and that is what keeps us alive. We don't believe that we are actually eating a piece of his ear or leg and drinking his blood. As far as we are concerned Jesus ascended into Heaven in one piece and is still in one piece at the right hand of the Father.
Obviously you will stay with your beliefs and I with mine. I believe the Bible to be the ultimate word of God. I believe everything in it. What I have realized about these discussions is that it is not about who is right. Division among God's children is what the devil wants. I tell you that as long as you focus on Christ and follow his ways...when you pass, you will be in Heaven. We can go back and forth all day and night, what for? Does it glorify the Lord? I don't think so. If I offended any of you my Christian brethren, I humbly apologize. But can we all agree on this...God is good, Christ is our Lord and Savior and threw Him we have our sins forgiven. Amen...well then...Amen:)

God Bless

Marc

Posted by: marc at November 30, 2003 10:52 PM

Marc,

I agree with you brother, division is of the devil, but look at the roots of division within the Christian context. First when the Greek Orthodox separated themselves and then when the first Protestants broke away from the Catholic Church in the 1500s. All I am saying is this:

1) Catholicism is the ONLY Christian religion that dates back to Christ. I challenge you to prove me wrong on this.

2)All of the beliefs of the Catholic Faith can be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, be it the belief in the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist or the Assumption of Mary.

3) None of these beliefs in any way, shape, or form are a direct contradiction to Sacred Scripture. Though some of them may not be found stated clearly, they do not contradict Sacred Scripture.

4) Protestantism is most certainly in a crisis of division. Over the past 40 years, Protestantism has splintered into more and more denominations, each with its own interpretation of the Bible on certain issues, thus the continual breaking apart. Consequently, division of this sort is a clear sign of relativism, each believing that they understand what Scripture is saying. Therefore, Protestantism itself is in direct contradiction to the vision Christ has for His followers in John 17.

5) In reference to the Eucharist, you completely miss the entire context of Sacred Scripture and the meaning of John 6. First, in Exodus what sealed the Passover for the Jews was the sacrificing of the lamb, Jesus, in fulfilling the covenant God made with Israel, is often throughout the Gospels, the epistles, and in Revelation referred to as the Lamb of God. He is sacrificed on the Cross for the remission of our sins. In Exodus, the lamb is sacrificed so that the angel of death might pass over (thus the name Passover) each house. In fulfilling the covenant Jesus is sacrificed that death passes over us. The final act of the Passover, the validifying act, was for the Israelites to eat the Lamb, not lamb cookies or something that just represented the lamb, but the lamb itself. Christ does the same. Why would He allow followers to leave simply over a misunderstanding of what He said in John 6, if all He had said was meant symbolically? Why didn't He turn to His disciples and say "Come on guys you know I was simply speaking symbolically", instead He looks at them and asks, "Will you also go away?" (John 6:67). Why would Jesus in the upper room say when breaking the bread, "Take, eat; this is my body" (Mt 26:26) and then, "he took the cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Mt 26:27-28) Here Christ states clearly that what He is offering them to drink is the same "Blood" that will be poured out on the Cross. Why in the world would Jesus have even used this language if it was merely a symbol? Rhetorically it would make no sense. Also notice that none of the Apostles objected to Him saying this. Why? Because they had been there when He had said "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood you have no life in you" (Jn 6:53). Here I will quote David Currie again, "Jesus taught that in order for us to have eternal life we must "eat his flesh". He repeats this phrase, or its variations, six times. Four of the times, the Greek word used is very graphic; it can be translated "to chew". This word is never used symbolically anywhere in the New Testament, the Old Testament, the Septuagint, or even in ancient secular literature. There is no hint in the text itself of the faith-versus-action dichotomy that the Evangelical tries to introduce. Belief accompanies obedience in actually eating. Jesus makes it clear that the flesh is literal, as the body on the Cross was literal. This is the only place in the Gospels where disciples of Jesus left him over a doctrinal issue. This is also the first time we hear of Judas doubting the wisdom of his master. There is a Church that accepts Jesus' teaching here as truth, but I knew it was not any of the Evangelical churches" (Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic; pgs. 38-39). If your claim is true then St. Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 23-32 would not make any sense: "Whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats the bread and drinks the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself." This would be a harsh, and unjust statement if the "bread and cup" where but a mere symbol. All of the Early Fathers supported the belief in the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus in the Eucharist. So, here I have provided you with the Biblical foundation for the Catholic teaching of the Eucharist. It is supported by the history of Christianity as well. So attempt to interpret it in anyway that fits your "personal beliefs", but take care for the Word is clear on this.

6) This "you stay with your beliefs and I'll stay with mine" comment I believe is a weak excuse for not being willing to face certain issues, namely the unbiblical nature of Sola Scriptura and the consequence of admitting the fallacy of this Protestant belief. The very fact that you accept the Bible, consciously or unconciously, show that you accept the authority of the Church, since it was the Catholic Church that determined which books would be included and which would be left out. Did you not know that there exists a Gospel of Peter, a Gospel of Thomas, and multiple epistles that the Catholic Church decided in the year 393 A.D. should not be included in the Bible? Yet all Protestants claim to place the foundation of their faith in the Bible...I find it sad and disappointing that you would be willing just to turn your back on this.

7) I will pray for you Marc. As a true brother in Christ. You have made many random and ill-founded comments on this site. We have responded accordingly but you have been unable to provide substantial biblical proofs to support your position. You continously grasped at straws in an attempt to avoid the main issue...is Sola Scriptura biblical? The answer is no. As clearly shown in various other posts on this site. My prayer for you is this: That you might find the truth of Christ, in its fullness, and that our Lord Jesus Christ will give you wisdom to know the truth. Keep searching brother and you will eventually find it. Jesus is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, but He came to this earth and established a Church to use as the channel through which He would pour forth His grace. Come home to Rome, come into the fullness of truth.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at December 1, 2003 12:54 AM

The root of this argument is the following Joe.
I believe the Bible to be the measuring stick for scriptual truth. You believe the Bible to be the truth, but you also believe that Christ gave Peter leadership of the church. The Bible does say that the Church is the pillar of truth. So, your belief is that Christ called Peter the rock that the church is built on and that Peter is the first Pope, that Peter or the pope represent the church. So if whatever the papacy declares...it must be true because. And in your mind it is scriptual because if the rock aka church foundation is Peter, the foundation of the church is a pope, and the Church is a pillar of truth...the pope or papacy can only be truthful. Therefore when you ask me where does it say that the Bible is the only source of scriptual truth, you are asking in essence that if Jesus made the pope(Peter)the foundation of the church which is the pillar of truth...how can what the Catholic church says, be wrong? So the root is in understanding if Peter is truly the rock of the church. You once asked me if Jesus wanted us to believe that the Bible is the only source, why would he just say that the Bible is the only source. I pointed out scripture that said do not add to God's word or takeaway from his words...let us understand The Word is Jesus..and so the word is Jesus and his teachings. Now lets discuss the error in Peter being named the rock of the church and how Peter does not equate to the first pope. Lets forget the whole Greek and Hebrew translations for Peter. Namely Kephas and Petros. Because I am sure if I say that in Greek that the scripture translates to Peter=Petros and rock=petras you might say that Jesus didn't speak Greek. Fine...but just how you asked me to show you where it says the Bible is the only source of scriptual truth...I ask you this...forgetting translations...Why did Jesus say Mt16:18 ANd I tell you that you are Peter...and on THIS rock...I will build my church and the Gates of Hades will not overcome it. The use of the word this indicates a subject change. He could have said "on you Peter" instead of this rock. But then again that is open to interpretation. So then I ask if Peter is the first Pope...he is the example of how Pope's should act.
Peter had a wife(Mt8:14)When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother in law lying in bed with a fever. So why can't pope's marry?
Peter told a man not to bow down to him for he is a man. The pope does not admonish people for bowing down to him. Refer to Acts 10:25...Peter did not want anyone to bow to him because he is just a man with flaws...meaning that he is fallible. According to the vatican...no one questions the pope. He is the believed head of the church and he is infallible. Yet in Galatians 2:11 Peter was rebuked by Paul. Paul told him to his face that Peter was wrong. No one, not even Peter rebuked Paul. No one said "Paul, how dare you...that's Peter, the rock of the church."
The Pope is called Sovereign Pontine which also means Pontine Maximus...the same title given to pagan Caesers of Rome. The Caesers made martyrs out of Christ's apostle.
1 Cor 10:3-5 you will find Christ, not Peter being referred to as the rock. Peter himself calls Christ the Stone and conerstone.
So, Peter was not infallible, he was guilty of doing wrong as Paul justly pointed out...this is after Christ spoke to him. One can conclude 2 things. If Peter is indeed the 1st pope...the popes of the past up to the present do not follow Peter's example. You can say what you will about Japanese culture and bowing down to honor someone...but God said do not bow down before anything but him. Lastly with the facts in the Bible...what Peter said about Christ being the Stone, Pauls rebuke of Peter, and Peter's weakness as a man...Peter is not the rock that the church is built on. THe Rock is the revelation Peter had...that you are the Christ the Son of the living God. Of course there is no stronger foundation the Christ. Christ is the ROCK. The scriptures points this out. So the error is in believing that a man is infallible...that the church is built on a man. So...scripture was written and then 1400 years later a catechism. Which was justified by many because it is believed that the church was built on a man who represented the first pope. But it is not...it is built on Christ. So if Christ didn't teach it, it is not so. Catechisms written by man...so was scriptures written by man. The difference...Paul, Peter, James, Matthew,John, Luke and Mark...they stuck to the teachings of Christ and did not invent new dogma. Catechisms does not stick to Christ's teachings. If God says do not bow down or make any image in the likeness of heaven and bow to them, He means what he says. You can bring up the Ark of the Covenant..but you know what...that was instructed by God to build and it was for his GLory. Later Solomon built a temple for GOd...also for his GLory. Instructed by God. God said do not place an image on his face, yet there are statues of Christ with a face. Yet it is done. A statue of lincoln was made...but no one bows to it. If people did there would be a problem. And yes people may look at athletes as idols...and that may be wrong. So society doesn't have it right all the time. And yes I have pictures of deceased family memebers, but I don't bow down or talk to them...I just remember good times with them. Catholic means universal in greek...and you know what...I want to see a true Catholic church. The sooner we get closer to God. So yes...I am saying it again, God has said to follow His Word...not to add or take away from it. That instruction went to Paul, Mark, John, James, Luke and also...Peter. The scriptuures reveal the truth. The Bible is the measuring stick...if anything says otherwise...it is not of God. There you have it...the Bible is the only scriptual truth you will need.
To God, be the GLory in the loving name of his Son Jesus.
Amen

Marc

Posted by: Marc at December 1, 2003 11:13 PM

Marc,

Again, your arguments are full of misconceptions and errrors.

1) Entrusting guardianship and leadership of the Church to Peter in no way contradicts the fact that Jesus is the cornerstone. If Jesus did not mean for Peter to be the rock that is referenced in Mt 16:18 why make the name change at all? And to answer all of your theories about the use of the Greek word Petros and petras, any Greek scholars out there can testify to the fact that within the context of that sentence the use of the word, once in the masculine sense and then once in the feminine sense, is grammatically correct, thus explaining why both were used. But you are correct...Jesus would have just used the word Kephas : )

2)You state above that the Pope = the Church. This is false. We all make up the Body of Christ, the teaching authority of the Church is the Magisterium, the Pope and the bishops in union with the Pope. Oddly enough...again...it was the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible in 393 A.D. A fact I have yet to see disputed anywhere on this blog. So you are willing to trust the guidance of the Catholic Church in what Gospels are divinely-inspired but that is where your trust stops. You do know that there exists a Gospel of Peter and a Gospel of Thomas both were left out of the Bible due to the Church's inability to prove authorship and, to a certain extent, theological inconsistencies.

3) You attempt to show that Matthew 16 is not a good verse for Catholics to use in proving the authority that Christ gave to Peter, due to the confusion over the use of the word "rock" and "this", yet you fail to follow Jesus' train of thought in "THIS" passage.
"I (Jesus) will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what ever you (Peter) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19).
Later Jesus would confer a similar power on all of the Apostles, yet it would retain to the forgiving of sin (John 20:23).
So how does this verse contradict anything that Catholics believe in reference to Peter and his successors?

4) Celibacy for the kingdom is biblically based, therefore I find your questioning of it a bit surprising. You are correct that Peter was married but the Church, in listening to the words of Christ and St. Paul, in Sacred Scripture, decided that it would be better for a man not to marry who wished to commit his entire life to spreading the Gospel:

"The disciples said to him, 'If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is expedient to marry.' But he said to them, 'Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it" (Matthew 19:10-12).

Then St. Paul wrote:
"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (1 Corinthians 7:32-34).

Based on these two passages from the Bible, I don't think you have any ground for your attack against priestly celibacy. On a side note, there is no reference to Peter's wife being alive at the time of Peter's accepting Christ's call to discipleship, many scholars believe that she more than likely had dead before hand. Please note that in Matthew 8, after being healed, the mother-in-law rises and prepares food for Jesus and the apostles. This would have been the normal duty of the wife during that time period, if she were living.

5) Acts 10:25 - This verse does not support your argument.
"When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshipped him" (Act 10:25)
I think you missed the word "worhipped". Clearly no pope would allow a "man" to fall down before him and begin "worshipping" him. Again, it is a contextual thing, bowing out of respect and bowing to worship are two entirely different things. And furthermore, as I have stated earlier, nowhere do it state that Catholics are to "bow" to the Pope. I have been to Rome multiple times and have never seen anyone drop to their knees before the Pope, some kiss his hand but out of love and respect...not worship, which was the main reason for Peter's correcting of Cornelius.

6) I find it comical how now "it's okay for some images to be carved because God ordered it". By insisting on your meaning of His commandment in Exodus and then stating that it is okay if God commands it you make God contradict His own law, which He would never do. Just face it...Protestants misinterpret this passage from Exodus.

We do all of this out of love for you, our separated brethren. It is all done in the love of Christ and for the sake of truth.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at December 2, 2003 7:31 AM

"I find it comical how now "it's okay for some images to be carved because God ordered it". By insisting on your meaning of His commandment in Exodus and then stating that it is okay if God commands it you make God contradict His own law, which He would never do. Just face it...Protestants misinterpret this passage from Exodus." The Ark was God's throne, which God himself instructed to be made. God gave these instructions...that you can't deny. But he also said do not make any thing in the likeness of heaven or any idols and do not place an image on his face. The Ark was his throne on earth. And once a year only the high priest could go to the Ark when God's glory was present. No one worshipped the Ark, they couldn't even go near it. They would just know that God was present when the cloud came. What I don't understand is your questioning of God. God gave instrustions in detail to Moses. Yes the ark had cherubims on it...but God specifically asked for it...and you know why? Because it was for HIS glory. It was his throne. If that is what he felt was worthy of him, who are we to question. But if he says do not make anything in the likeness of heaven, idols, or not to place an image on his face...guess what? You better respect the Lord and obey. Unless he said otherwise...unless he said make a picture of my face...don't do it. You are confusing 2 different issues...so here it is in laymen's terms. Ark construction= instruction by God, Kneeling before pictures, statues and pictures of Jesus=Disobeying God. A non Christian reading the passages could understand that.
"I think you missed the word "worhipped". Clearly no pope would allow a "man" to fall down before him and begin "worshipping" him. Again, it is a contextual thing, bowing out of respect and bowing to worship are two entirely different things. And furthermore, as I have stated earlier, nowhere do it state that Catholics are to "bow" to the Pope. I have been to Rome multiple times and have never seen anyone drop to their knees before the Pope, some kiss his hand but out of love and respect...not worship, which was the main reason for Peter's correcting of Cornelius."
I love my mother and I love my father on earth...I do not bow, kneel or kiss their hand. ANYONE who does that to someone who they don't know is doing excessive idolizing. I can tell you that I have seen some pastors at my church being treated excessively nice...and the pastors are quick to rebuke and have them focus back on Jesus instead of them. Just like Peter himself did.
"2)You state above that the Pope = the Church. This is false. We all make up the Body of Christ, the teaching authority of the Church is the Magisterium, the Pope and the bishops in union with the Pope. Oddly enough...again...it was the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that compiled the Bible in 393 A.D. A fact I have yet to see disputed anywhere on this blog. So you are willing to trust the guidance of the Catholic Church in what Gospels are divinely-inspired but that is where your trust stops. You do know that there exists a Gospel of Peter and a Gospel of Thomas both were left out of the Bible due to the Church's inability to prove authorship and, to a certain extent, theological inconsistencies."
The word catholic means universal. The original catholic church followed the letter of God's law. Then individuals corrupted it. Adding onto the very book that was already put together. You bring the Didache and try to make it an equvialent of catechisms but this is far from true. The Didache was found with other scriptures,just like the apocrypha and torah and other scriptures were found. It was not made after the Bible itself had been put together. Adding instructions and practices, beliefs and new ways to worship that are not found in the very book that they put together. God says now images...images that represent what is in heaven are made anyway. God says do not bow down before anything but him...yet somehow it is ok to bow down before things other than God...then have the audacity in God's face to say that "it is not worshipping its paying respect and honor." Don't you know what worship means? He it is in Merriam Websters book...4 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem. God and only God deserves all the honor and glory, not some, not shared..all. Unfortunately I hear a lot of my catholic brethren focus too much on Mary and saints. I have spoken to many a catholics who when they find out I am protestant that tell me I need to ask the "blessed virgin Mary for forgiveness" The focus is off of God and Jesus...and that is not how God wants it.

You still have yet to explain Peter's fallacy, and why was he rebuked by Paul? Peter still made mistakes after Christ renamed Him Peter. Would God want to make a foundation based on a weak man? Obviously not. This can go back and forth all day...but the bottom line...God is in control.
You can see how He is moving among the nations.

Check this site out for yourself
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031208/misc/8evangelicals.htm

Be blessed in the name of Jesus
Marc

Posted by: Marc at December 2, 2003 2:50 PM

Grammatical errors and sorry for the double post...I don't know how that happened-

-The original catholic church followed the letter of God's law. Then individuals corrupted it. Adding onto the very book that was already put together. You bring the Didache and try to make it an equvialent of catechisms but this is far from true. The Didache was found with other scriptures,just like the apocrypha and torah and other scriptures that were found. It was not made after the Bible itself had been put together. The church added instructions,practices, beliefs and new ways to worship that are not found in the very book that THEY put together. God says no images yet images that represent what is in heaven are made anyway. God says do not bow down before anything but him...yet somehow it is ok to bow down before things other than God...then have the audacity in God's face to say that "it is not worshipping its paying respect and honor." Don't you know what worship means? He it is in Merriam Websters book...4 : EXTRAVAGANT RESPECT or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem.-

Posted by: Marc at December 2, 2003 4:13 PM

Marc,

So God commands the Israelites not to carve any graven images representing anything in heaven or on the earth, then He commands them to do just that because it pretains to the ark or the temple? How is this not a direct contradiction? I'm certain all "non-Christians" and Christians alike would agree that this is inconsistent and confusing. But that is why the Protestant interpretation is inaccurate. What God is condemning is the worship of graven images...period. It is all tied to worship.

2) Kissing someone's hand is extremely different from falling at someone's feet and worshipping them. Haven't you ever kissed a girlfriend or your wife's hand? Do you worship her by doing this? No, of course not. It is a sign of affection, devotion, and appreciation, but all of these things are far from worship. I don't see how you can attempt to say that Acts 10:25 is saying anything than what it actually says. The reason Peter rebukes Cornelius is because he fell to Peter's feet and began to worship him. It is the worshipping that Peter rebukes, and rightfully so.

3) You have not provided one proof that the early Church was not Catholic (Catholic meaning universal, but in this context also meaning holding to the truths that are taught by the Catholic Church today). Throughout this blog we have quoted multiple Early Church Fathers who are obviously Catholic (in mind and spirit), even some asking how you can know that your faith is secure if you fail to be united to the seat of Peter. So where is the proof...still waiting.

4) In reference to Paul's rebuke of Peter, please note that Paul does not rebuke any teaching of Peter but rather an action. The Catholic Church believes that infallability applies to all that the Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. The pope could chose not to shake the hand of the President of the United States, that does not mean that the Church now teaches that no Catholic has to shake the President's hand. A bishop (which Paul was) could even tell the pope that he should have shaken the President's hand. This does not change the fact that Christ said to Peter "I give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt 16:19). The Early Fathers support the papacy, as does Sacred Scripture. Read the article again. The primacy of Peter is clearly evident in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at December 2, 2003 8:22 PM

I have a question. What is church tradition based on?

Also...When Jesus called Peter, Rock...you take it that the Church was built on Peter. According to you, Jesus called Him Rock. And on this foundation he would build his church. But a few passages later...what does Jesus call Peter?
Satan...am I wrong? Mt16:23 Jesus turned and said TO Peter, "Get thee behind me, SATAN"
Does that mean Peter is also the ROCk and Satan at the same time? If Peter is the Rock on which the church is built on...is the church built on Satan.
Answer me these two questions...and I will get back to you.
Be blessed

Marc

Posted by: Marc at December 3, 2003 2:19 PM

My goodness Marc, you are desperate. The pope can make mistakes and he actually sins (he is just a man). It's not "according to you, Jesus called him 'Rock'," it's according to the Bible.

Peter was attempting to save Jesus' life, because he didn't fully understand the nature of the crucifixion at that time. Does that mean Peter is satan?? I'm pretty sure you understand the passage a little better than that.

Church tradition is based on the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Holy Spirit. The Church was founded by Christ with St. Peter to lead it. The pope is just a man, Christ's representative on earth, but Christ is the real head of the Church. This is why we (and the Bible) can trust the Church implicity, God leads the Church and "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The pope is only infallible in certain situations, but not in ordinary conversation.

Now, why don't you answer some of Joseph's questions - you seem to keep overlooking them.

Jay

Posted by: Jay at December 3, 2003 4:22 PM

Just how you are saying that Peter wasn't Satan, is the same way I tell you that Jesus didn't build the church on Peter. Nor did the conversation imply anything for a papacy. It's funny how you say of course Jesus called Peter the foundation of the church because it fits your views..then you say that later on in the the same scripture...Jesus didn't really call Peter Satan again...to fit your views...but thats not the point I want to discuss.
Jay and Joe....do you know what the word tradition means. I know you guys do. But here is the Merriam Webster's dictionary definition
1 : an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom)
2 : the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3 : cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
4 : characteristic manner, method, or style

Remember that definition. Now back to what you said JAy...the pope is fallible. Human thought is fallible. It is because of this fault that you cannot put all your trust in it. The doctrine of Jesus should not be based on human wisdom. Instead, base it on what God Himself has to say about it. Forget man's tradition...focus on God's tradition. The two are not equivalent. 1Cor 2:5 "And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power..." Verse 5: "...that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
1Th2:13 And we also thank God contiually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word men, but as it actually is...the Word of God.
The point of these 2 passgaes is to show that you can find a repetition of separating words of God, from words of men.
Jeremiah 23:16, the prophet says, "Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they teach you vanity; they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Jehovah."
The point here is simple...men may get somethings right...but to place your faith and everything you believe that is not from the mouth of God is not a sure bet.
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human TRADITION, and basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
The message from God is "focus on my tradition and not any other"
God, as we both know, said do not add to his Words. Do not add to his thoughts. If it is not in God's tradition...don't do it.
Now you believe in the tradition of the RCC. THe New Testament talks about tradition. The RCC tradition and the tradition in the Bible are not the same.
Lets look at some tradition in the NT, shall we...
Hebrews 1:1 In the PAST God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom HE APPOINTED HEIR OF ALL THINGS, and through whom he made the universe.
We all know that Jesus is the greatest expression of God for mankind. How does Jesus communicate with us today? You believe that Jesus left over the keys to Peter "the first pope" and that whatever comes out of the current pope's mouth is accepted as being inspired by God and it starts all the way back to Peter? Yes...Peter was an apostle...yes the apostles knew CHrist...yes the Apostles were CHrists spokesman and most of all they spread what JESUS taught them. THey were spreading the gospel. Jesus wanted the apostles to spread HIS WORD....not theirs...not Peter's...but HIS WORD.
Jesus is talking to his apostles and says in Jn14:24 He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not MY OWN(they were handed down from God); they belong to the Father who sent me. All this I have spoken while still with you. But the counselor(comforter), the Holy SPirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things...and will REMIND you of EVERYTHING I HAVE SAID TO YOU"
Jesus wanted HIS word spread...not anything else...and the SPirit...was a reminder to the apostles.
Galatians 1:11-12, "For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ."
Another theme showing that it is not man...but God and God alone.
So now we go back to the revelation that Peter had...that Christ was the son of the living God. Peter was confessing that Christ was the living God and as the living God, CHrist's words were life. This confession of Peter is the Rock that the church is built on. The apostles also confessed this and so on this Rock the church was built and so the Apostles went to spread this word. Thus the foundation of the church...spreading who God is.Yes it the church is built on Prophets and Apostles...but not because of who they are, but because of what they recognized and what was revealed to them. It was God himself. God is the truth. What God says is true. So it went from God...to Jesus...and Jesus gave the truth to his apostles...who then would spread it to the world. The Apostles then gave the truth to the church. The truth being the teachings of the Master...Jesus himself. You know what all this passing down means? It is tradition. To pass down that which is most entrusted.
2 Tim1:11...Paul...one of the apostles, one of the spokesman for Christ...says What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.
Keep a SOUND PATTERN. Hold true to tradition that was taught by Christ.
II Th 3:6"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us.
If it wasn't what taught by Christ...walk away from it.
2Th 2:15 So then brethren, stand firm and to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
TEACHINGS are passed on...the teachings of Christ. The Word of God....and it can be passed orally or in paper. It is the same teachings no matter what. It is the truth from God, given to Christ, given to the Apostles....given to the church. It is the same message. Just if I said to you...God said Honor your mom and dad. That's oral tradition...but it is all written. What I said was true, it was from God and you can see it in the written form. All the same message. Notice the message didn't change going from God to Jesus to the Apostles to the church. Still the same message was taught and passed down.
Jesus appointed the apostles his spokesmen....God appointed his prophets. Never did another prophet choose another prophet to take his place. That is not in God's pattern. My point is that there is no part in the Bible, no teaching of God and no teaching of Christ that supports a pope figure. The authority of the apostles was given to them by Christ. They had the truth...and they wrote down the truth. The APostles are dead...so right now we have their writings. Which are the words of God taught to them by the Lord Jesus Christ.
You probably are asking...."who determines who has apostolic authority?"
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an APOSTLE-sent NOT FROM MEN NOR BY MAN, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead, and all the brothers with me.
Jesus HIMSELF gives apostolic authority.
1 Cor4:6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying,"DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN"

You will say...Marc..the Bible wasn't even made at that time. But Scripture was written. Jesus often said...it is written...the apostles would do the same. The way the Bible was put together was simple. When the Bible was being assembled...a PATTERN was picked up. a PATTERN OF SOUND WORDS was recognized. A pattern of themes. Tradition of God was consistent throughout the scripture. Christ would refer back to the Old Testament...Christ taught his apostles...and they would in turn repeat what Christ was teaching. The commonality of the tradition of God was recognizable to the early church when assembling the Bible.
DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN- Sola Scriptura
You have told me that the RCC believes in tradition. Taught by who? The church...or the apostles. If you accept tradition that stems back to the apostles...why do you accept catechisms....catechisms WERE NOT TAUGHT by GOD, CHRIST, or by the APOSTLES. Throughout Christ's teachings...never did he teach to ask Mary to pray for your sins. Never did the APOSTLES talk about Mary. So how does the RCC extrapolate the assumption of Mary from the Apostolic teachings.
Purgatory was not taught by the Apostles, neither was the rosary, papacy or holy water. Did God mention any of those things? Did Christ? Did the Apostles? Does the Bible mention it? The pattern here is a resounding no. It was not part of God's word it was not his truth...the same truth that was passed down from God to Christ to the Apostles to the church. None of those items even fit the SOUND PATTERN of GOD's WORD.
Even the Apostles themselves were measured up against the WRITTEN WORD of God. I said it once and I said it before. The instructions you need in life and more so the instructions on how the church is to be is in the WRITTEN WORD of God. The source of the sola scriptura is from God. Do not add or takeaway from his teachings and do not go beyond the WRITTEN WORD. The Apostles never added new items to the word of God. Anything they ever taught came out of the mouth of Christ himself. It doesn't mean do not go to church. Do not submit to your pastors. But just like the Apostles were tested by the written word, so are the churches today. That includes Catholics and Protestants. The ultimate authority in scriptual, spiritual and Godly truth is the Bible. After all they are His Words to begin with.

Be blessed,

Marc

Posted by: Marc at December 4, 2003 12:33 AM

Marc,

You keep dodging of issues, so try bulletpointing biblical explanations to the following or stop attempting to be so divisive with your lenghty, confusing comments. None of which ever really focus on the real issue at hand...Sola Scriptura.

1) Where in the Bible does it clearly state that the Bible is the sole source of authority? Now I will give you two verses, as I gave to Simon clearly stating the opposite of what you keep insisting. The entire basis of your argument pends on this, for if the Bible does not say that it is the sole source of authority but that tradition, handed down generation to generation, must be held to as well, then my brother you have no foundation, and your argument is false.

- 1 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." This is clear....word of mouth and letter...not JUST WHAT IS WRITTEN! Many biblical scholars believe that the phrase in 1 Corinthians 4:6 "not to go beyond what is written" refers to a proverb with which the Corinthians were familar, meaning that one should stay on safe ground. Regardless, it would make sense in the context of Scripture as a whole, for many books of the Bible hadn't even been written when St. Paul wrote this (approximately 57 A.D.), with absolute certainty we know that at least the second letter of Paul's to the Corinthians wasn't written. So here we find St. Paul adding to the "WRITTEN" word. Interestingly enough we find nothing in that epistle stating "You need to include this letter as well".

You also mentioned several times above that Jesus and the Apostles constantly say "for it is written" and you are correct, but like I have stated before...they only refer to the Old Testament, that to this day the Jewish people haven't combined into one book. No my friend you are truly mistaken and continually taking Scripture out of context. So explain St. Paul's clear and concise command to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (1 Thes 2:15).

- 1 Timothy 2:15 "...if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth." You claim that the Bible is the only source of truth...St. Paul says the Church is the "pillar and bulwark of truth." Please note the contradiction. You have yet to address or even remotely explain this verse.

2) You continually want to go after Peter, as being insignificant and not the rock that Christ chose to estabish His Church on. Please note that it is Christ's Church and that He is the "cornerstone", but that He chose to built His Church on Peter. Why in the world would Jesus Christ, the Son of God have given such "authority" to a "man" as to be able to "bind and loose" things in both heaven and on earth (Matt 16:19)? You have yet to explain this, and frankly until you do, nothing you post in reference Peter's primacy counts for much. The Catholic teaching is clear on this and supported by Sacred Scripture.

3) In reference to Jesus calling Peter Satan, what Jesus was rebuking was the spirit of Satan speaking through Peter at that particular moment. Please note that Jesus directs His comment directly to Satan. If He meant this to apply to Peter, why on earth would Jesus later say, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32)? Your argument makes no sense. Note that not only does Jesus single Peter out as the one Satan demands, but he also commands him to strengthen his brethren after he fails. Jesus knows that Peter will fail but he still chooses Peter to "strengthen his brethren"...and Jesus isn't speaking about Peter's brothers and sisters specifically, though some Protestants might assume that He is : ). Again, you are twisting Scripture to fit your own beliefs. The Acts of the Apostles testify to the primacy of St. Peter, the Early Church Fathers do likewise. Read the post above again, I have adequately supported the Catholic side of this argument.

In regards to your posting, I want you to bulletpoint answers to each of these comments, I have listed three here so try to keep it to three. Stop jumping all over the place and answer the questions.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at December 4, 2003 7:05 PM

Once again Joe....we are talking about tradition. You must have overlooked the definition of tradition so I will repeat again. Tradition is based on a pattern. i.e. Turkey is eaten on Thanksgivng day. If all of a sudden, someone ate hamburgers on Thanksgiving...that wouldn't be tradition.
Ok, follow along....2Th2:15 Does say the following...but let me break it down for you.
"So then, brethren, stand firm and to the traditions we passed on to you...EITHER by word of mouth..OR by letter" The tradition, known as the teachings of God, is being given in two ways. Either by mouth or in writing. The word EITHER in this sentence indicates that it is one thing being given in 2 forms. Example...You can pay EITHER cash or credit. It is still money...but in 2 forms. The sentence did not say "hold to tradition given to you by letter AND word of mouth." It said EITHER and OR. This way or that way, but still it is the same thing. It is God's tradition that is being handed down.
What is God's tradition Joe and Jay? For example God wrote down the commandments. Jesus taught about obeying the commandments. Tradition of God...in 2 forms. There is nothing confusing about this.
I have a question...was Jesus teaching the truth? Of course he was. Was this the same truth handed down to Him from GOd? Of course it was. Is GOd's truth also GOd's tradition...of course it is. Jesus gave this truth to his spokesman, his attorney's of will...his Apostles. They then spread the same thing to the people. They deposited what they were taught into the church. With the very instructions to hold on to that truth, that tradition. So yes the truth was entrusted, handed down, to the church. So yes the church is a pillar of truth, but it is still God's teachings. But the Word of God is there as the measuring stick. The church is to hold tradition. Not add or change. How do we know...THE BIBLE says so. Tradition! Oral or written...it is still the same teachings of God. It is still the same word of God...it is still Jesus. So if God didn't teach it to Jesus...and Jesus didn't teach it to the Apostles...and the Apostles didn't teach it to the church...but then the church teaches it...guess what...that is not tradition. That is heresy. Show me where the apostles taught about Mary, purgatory and asking saints to pray. Show me where they taught it. You won't be able to, because it is non existent. God's traditions are his teachings. His truth, his Word...that became flesh in the form of Christ(the LIVING WORD). A tradition that was held by all the Apostles..including Peter. Why does the Catholic church have traditions that God didn't not teach?
Whose tradition do you follow? God's...or man?

God bless
Marc

Posted by: Marc at December 4, 2003 8:17 PM

First, I'd like to point out two things:

1) The primacy of Peter in the New Testament was not addressed in this reply. I asked for an explanation of Matthew 16:19 - "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The whole point of this article was to discuss the primacy of place that Peter held within the Apostles. We have amply provided biblical and historical proofs for the Catholic position.

2) I think we may have a breakthrough:

Jesus gave this truth to his spokesman, his attorney's of will...his Apostles. They then spread the same thing to the people. They deposited what they were taught into the church. With the very instructions to hold on to that truth, that tradition. So yes the truth was entrusted, handed down, to the church. So yes the church is a pillar of truth, but it is still God's teachings. But the Word of God is there as the measuring stick. The church is to hold tradition. - Marc

Thank you Marc for finally admitting that Jesus and the Apostles established the Church to use as a means for handing down "the truth" through the ages. In your defense you still hold to the fact that all "truth" is what Jesus has taught us and I say Amen brother. Catholics believe that too. But, we believe that Christ's guidance in truth didn't stop 2000 years ago. Jesus did not teach us all things...He even said so:

"These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." - John 14:25

This same Holy Spirit was also promised by Christ to remain with us always but the Church remains the measuring stick. Even Jesus indicates as much when He said:

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" - Matthew 18:17

Understand the biblical context of this verse...Jesus is speaking to the disciples only, instructing them. Immediately after this statement Jesus makes another powerful statement, one that He had made to St. Peter two chapters (Matt 16:19) earlier:

"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" - Matt 18:18

Keep in mind the Church uses Sacred Scripture and Tradition to determine and define what God has taught us...please note, as I have stated before, the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, though nowhere clearly defined in the Bible, is eventually defined by the Church, remaining faithful to the "Truth" passed down from one generation to the next. There are many such beliefs that have been articulated by the Church down through the ages.

Again, I wish to point out that just because the Bible does ntoot clearly point something out, doesn't mean that it is not biblical. It is only not biblical if it is directly contradicted by the Bible, a good example is Sola Scriptura, but we are all in agreement on that now. All praise to the Holy Spirit for helping us on that topic. Asking saints or Mary to pray for us is not contradictory to the Bible. I have yet to see one verse that says we can't ask others to pray for us, even if they have gone before us.

I will be posting today two articles today. One of the meaning of Apostolic Tradition as defined by the Catholic Church and the Bible. A second of the rational problems with Sola Scriptura, not that this is needed since we are all in agreement that this Protestant doctrine is not biblically based.

We are getting there, slowly but surely. There is a famous saying, "All Roads Lead To Rome", this is true within the context of faith as well. All sincere efforts to know the "Truth" inevitably lead to the Roman Catholic Church. You are close my brother. I thank God for you and continue to pray for you, that the Holy Spirit will lead you into the fullness of truth.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at December 5, 2003 7:37 AM

Did not Christ give the same keys to the rest of the Apostles? It was not solely to Peter.
Was Peter not challenged by Paul? Yes he was.
I am glad you quoted Jn14:25...I quoted it also... and it says that spirit will bring to your REMEMBRANCE ALL THAT I HAVE TAUGHT YOU.
Once again...not adding new things...not taking away...but the things that Christ taught them. This scripture goes hand in hand with God's theme of "do not add or take away" from His word.
Apostolic tradition is what was taught by Christ. The Apostles taught everything that was taught by Christ. The trinity was clearly taught by Christ...although the word trinity was not used. You still heard Christ mention Him, our Father and the holy spirit. So while the word trinity was not used...the concept was taught. But the concept of Mary...not taught by Jesus or his Apostles....the concept of purgatory, not taught by Jesus or his Apostles.
Stand FIRM to the teachings we have PASSED on to you, EITHER by word of mouth or by letter. Thats what Paul said. in 2Th2:15.
While Peter was a great man...he was not designated as the only one with the keys to heaven. Second, he is not the only Apostle the church is built on. Eph2:19-20 says that God's household is built on the FOUNDATION of apostles and prophets, Christ as the cornerstone. Foundation is the teachings that what given to them by God. They both knew God.
So, Peter was not the only one with the keys to heaven, he wasn't the only one who the Bible says the church is built on, he was challenged by Paul...and Paul was not rebuked. This shows that he had no authority over anyone. Despite all the scriptures you still believe in the primacy of Peter. So even through your beliefs in Peter as the pope. Peter, never, ever taught about Mary, purgatory, asking saints to pray...none of that. Peter stayed true to tradition. He stayed true to Apostolic tradition. Show me where Peter taught anything that was not taught to him by Christ? You can't, because Peter also followed the instructions, not to add or takeaway. The holy spirit teaches and guided the Apostle...but it was there to REMIND them of what Christ taught them. In addition the SPirit is of GOd, the spirit is of Christ. God gave the truth to Christ...Christ gave it to the apostles....this is the tradition. Why would the spirit breakaway from the tradition? It wouldn't...the spirit was there to remind them of everything Christ taught them. Not to add or subtract.
So given the discussion...show me where Peter or any apostle taught about the Assumption of Mary, purgatory and praying to the dead? You won't find it because it is not in the Bible. Show me where Peter or any apostle teaches about Mary, purgatory or anything else other than what Christ taught them. They were guided by the spirit the whole time while spreading the gospel...and the teachings never changed. TRADITION was held by the apostles. Show me where they broke away from tradition and taught something else that Christ didn't teach them.

God bless
Marc

Marc

Posted by: Marc at December 5, 2003 8:48 AM

Marc,

Again you appear to miss the obvious...

1) Matthew 16:19 - "I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" Jesus said this to Peter exclusively. Yes, he gave the other Apostles a share in the ability to bind and loose in heaven and on earth, but the keys are given exclusively to Peter.

2) I already addressed St. Paul's challenge to St. Peter. It was for an action not a teaching that St. Paul challenges. St. Paul never, througout the entire New Testament challenges St. Peter on matters of the faith or morals.

3) Let me show you some examples of things the Apostles taught that we never find Jesus teaching:

- Acts 4:34-37 "There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need. Thus Joseph who was surnamed by the apostles Barnabas (which means, Son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field which belonged to him, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet."
Here we find two things that Jesus never commanded his Apostles to do: 1) Collecting all the proceeds from the selling of the early Christains property and then distributing it, and 2) Renaming Christians, a common practice of the early Church, but never commanded by Jesus. Please note that the giving to the Apostles all the proceeds from the selling of property was taken very serious, for Peter (interestingly enough) condemns Ananias and Sapphira for selling their property and holding some of the money back, both die instantly. Wow! That an unbelievable occurance considering that they didn't break a direct command of Jesus' rather a teaching of the Apostles. Why would Peter condemn two early Christians to death if they didn't break a direct teaching of Jesus Christ? It was due to the fact that they had disobeyed the teaching of Church, as is affirmed in verse 11 - "And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things" Acts 5:11.

By the way...does your Church insist on its members selling all that they have and letting the pastor distribute it according to each person's needs? It's in the Bible and apparently a very important and serious thing that all Christians were expected to do...so I was just curious since your church does everything according to the Bible : )

- Acts 6:1-6 These verses cover the choosing of the seven deacons, to handle the temporal needs of the Church. "And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples and said, 'It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables'" (Acts 6:2).
Jesus never taught this... In fact He told the Apostles that the following would be the criteria for entering into heaven:
"..for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink..." (Mt 25:35). Yes, I know that Jesus commanded them to preach the word of God, but we cannot ignore the fact that He also commanded them to feed the hungry. So why did the Apostles decide to do otherwise? Because they had been given the authority to do so, its called "apostolic authority".

- Acts 15 This chapter depicts the events and discussions at the Council of Jerusalem. Here the Apostles decide that circumcision is no longer necessary for Christians. Jesus never said this...in fact he said He had come to fulfill the law and the prophets not abolish them (Matthew 5:17). Circumcision was the covenantal sign of the covenant God made with Abraham, so why did the Apostles do this? Because they had been given the authority to bind and loose. Please note that "after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them..."(Acts 15:7) He uses his authority to state what will be believed and done, then "all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles" (Acts 15:12). So after Peter speaks the discussion is over. Peter had the final say in deciding what the Church would believe on this matter.

Marc, you wanted proof of the Apostles doing things Jesus didn't command...there you go.
But note that all of these points support what I had said earlier...what is most important is that a teaching of the Church not contradict Sacred Scripture. It does not have to be perfectly spelt out, just not contradicted.

In reference to the Holy Trinity, please show me where in the Bible it says "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Divine Persons that share the same Divine Nature, yet the Son differs in that He has both a Divine Nature and a Human Nature." Good luck, I agree the there are various verses that support the individual divinity of each member of the Trinity, but a conclusive teaching on the unity of the Three doesn't occur. In fact, in John 17 one could conclude that the exclusive unity of the God only includes the Father and the Son. Read that chapter again, Jesus strictly emphasizes the unity of the Father and the Son, He never mentions the Holy Spirit. Yet all Christians believe in the Triune God.

My points here clearly refute your statement:

Once again...not adding new things...not taking away...but the things that Christ taught them. This scripture goes hand in hand with God's theme of "do not add or take away" from His word.
Apostolic tradition is what was taught by Christ. The Apostles taught everything that was taught by Christ.

Next...

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at December 5, 2003 9:57 AM

Your first point: What are keys and what are they used for? Keys unlock doors, there by giving one access into an area. Keys give access to a place. So what are the keys to heaven? The key to have access to heaven is by the saving message of Jesus Christ. Peter as did the other apostles, recognized who Christ was. Christ is the Son of the Living GOd. Our Savior. If we believe his message, we access to the kingdom. This was not excluded from the other Apostles. The key to heaven is faith in Jesus. Ask it in his name....it will be done in heaven and it will be done on earth. Not only does Mk 18 reaffirms these keys to be given to other apostles...let us look to Isaiah 22:20-23.
Know that this is a prophecy concerning Christ.
"And the "key" of the house of David I will lay upon his shoulder; He shall open and no one shall shut, He shall shut and no one shall open." Isaiah 22:22.
Lk 11:52 "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the KEY to knowledge(knowing God)you yourself has not entered and you yourself have hindered those who were entering"
The Pharisee were trying to prevent the word Of Jesus from being spread. They were taking away the key...and they were not entering. Entering to where? The key is in Jesus...the key is faith in Him. I have these keys, you have them and all who accept and recognize who Christ is...has the keys as well.

Lets look at Acts 4:27-37 and 5:1-11
Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people[5] of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. 29Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus."
31After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was SHAKEN. And they were all FILLED with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

The Believers Share Their Possessions

32All the believers were ONE in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
36Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.

This offering was not instruction verbally given by the APOSTLES. The place was shaken with the Holy SPirit. The spirit moved the believers to drop their possesions. It was then redistributed to those with need.
1. The Spirit moved and the believers were obedient
2. This redistribution is called sharing. Definitely a teaching of Christ.
3. Mt 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

ACTS 5
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

The couple you here were dishonest with the Lord. Peter, yes Peter discerned this and rebuked them for holding out on God. They were lukewarm. So yes, they gave up the ghost. It is consistent with God's pattern. Do not tempt the Lord your God. They tested the Lord, and they got burned badly. You can find plenty of scripture which backs this up.
Look at Gn 4:4...Abel gave his best to God. Cain didn't. So who had the favor? Abel of course. Same pattern, same tradition. God wants you to give Him your very best. Peter didn't kill them or commanded that they be killed. The fear of the Lord overwhelmed them. But case and point...it is a scriptual teaching. Same God same pattern. GOd as always hated hypocrisy. He did then...and still does today.
As far as Acts 6:1-6, the Apostles made sure that the people were fed. Did they not? Of course they did.
For the trinity...just look at Mt28:18-20.
Gen1:2...the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Is God holy? Yes he is...and so is his spirit.
Col1:15 He is the image of God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created.
The point...The spirit of God spoke and the world was made. Through Christ all things are made. The conclusion...they are the same.
We also know that GOd is a jealous GOd...and wants all the attention to himself. HE would never support the idea of there being more than one GOd. Yet this is supported by Paul..an Apostle of Christ. 2Cor13:14 May the grace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and love God and the fellowship of the Spirit be with you all.
The concept of a trinity is there. I could point out more scripture that shows this concept, email if you really would like me too.

As for circumcision...Peter never changed the law. He simply was saying it is not circumcision that saves you,it is faith. So instead of talking about circumcision...we should be talking about following his commandments. This teaching is also in scripture. Circumcision has value if you observe the law. God is after circumcised hearts. This is another theme consistent throughout scripture.
All the scripture you have pointed out...IS supported by other scripture. It remained consistent throughout. God didn't change, Jesus didn't...and his Apostles taught no differently.
At my church, we do take offerings. We took offerings and we were able to feed 1000 families a full Thanksgiving meal throughout LI. So yes..we practice the belief of sharing to the needy and giving to the stranger. If you can give it to GOd...that is what you do. We have tithes at our Church...where we are to give God the first portions...before tax!:)
Now with this said...we probably could go back and forth forever. I'll say this...what we are doing only brings division between the body. But my heart still rejoices...one day we will both meet in Heaven. I praise God because throughout our differences...I believe you guys truly do love Christ...I never felt otherwise. I just love discussing scripture and talking about the Lord. Maybe next time we can just talk about how good the Lord has been to us. So on this note...I die from my flesh...and just let God.
May you be blessed so abundantly that you won't have room to receive. In Jesus name I pray.
Amen

Marc

Posted by: Marc at December 5, 2003 7:12 PM

Marc,
Your points:

1) Jesus tells us what the keys do they bind and loosen not only on earth, but also in heaven. They are only given to Peter, so you're saying that only Peter (you don't believe in successors) can "have faith in Jesus." This is a silly argument. You can spend paragraphs and paragraphs trying to get around the meaning of Jesus, or you can just believe what He said. It's as simple as "accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior."

2) So you are agreeing that the Holy Spirit can lead the bishops (the apostles) to define teachings and "move" people to do certain things? That means you've completely abandoned sola scriptura and are more than halfway to the Catholic Church, which is the vehicle the Holy Spirit uses to enact these changes.

3) Don't you find it interesting that in the Old Testament God showed up to "kill" people, but in the New, Peter can simply command it? Maybe this has something to do with the "Keys to the Kingdom" we keep discussing?

4) The point is that Peter, that's right Peter, is defining doctrine. He's deciding on what should be done and people are doing what he says. In the morning I'm going to post a list of Bible verses that clearly show Peter as the head of the Church in the New Testament. I'll be waiting for your response.

Finally, an observation: if you don't tithe this week in church, can your pastor call down the Holy Spirit to take your life? No, because this was a different situation. Peter was exercising his power. We're praying for you as well - and we're asking Mary and all the Saints to help!

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at December 5, 2003 8:05 PM

1. The keys are faith. We all have them. If you bind it on Earth it will be bound in Heaven. Loose it on Earth it will be loosed in HEaven. This is done via the faith in who Christ is.
2. The Apostles prayed that they speak the Word with boldness...they became filled with the Holy Ghost. The beleivers heard what was coming out the mouth of the Apostles. God was operating through the Apostles.
Mt 20 For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
The 12 Apostles and 100+ believers where gathered at the meeting in the name of Jesus. Jesus was there with all of them...via his Spirit. That is why they were able to get in one mind and one accord. All there were moved by the spirit and thus under the instructions of the spirit. The Apostles just kept on preaching the Word of Christ. They did not tell anyone to bring an offering. It was the Spirit, God himself that gave those instructions. Look at offerings and obedience throughout scripture. It was not anything that God had not done before. Look at Cain and look at Abel.
3. Peter did not command anyone to be killed. He rebuked Ananias and Sapphira. Conviction by the Spirit caused the couple to give up the ghost. So when I am in church, I have in the past held on to an extra dollar...and have felt badly about it....knowing I could have given more. But no, my pastor never would command that I die. Conviction of the Spirit. Peter did tell them to die....or asked the holy spirit to kill them.
4. The last point of my last post...Paul says the following
Rom22 You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."[2]
25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[3] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

The Apostles believed that one should follow the laws of God. Circumcision was first done with Abraham as a covenant of the flesh between man and God. It served as a marker for those who followed GOd. So to be circumcised was to be a follower of Jehovah. But Peter and Paul as taught by CHrist both are saying...what good is it to be circumcised if you don't follow God?
So instead of making a big deal about circumcision, we should focus on men following the laws of God. If one man is circumcised and breaks the law...and another is uncircumcised yet follows God's ways...who is doing right? The uncircumcised. Circumcision has value if you follow the law.

So this discussion although interesting is not building up the body of Christ. The church is the believers in Christ. Protestants and Catholics make up the body. I sense that it has become personal for you. So I will just let it be for this argument...but any other topic that glorifies God...I will gladly talk about with you.
Be blessed
Marc

Posted by: Marc at December 5, 2003 9:36 PM

Marc,

Please don't turn away now. We have made such progress even if you believe that "what we are doing only brings division between the body." You have admitted much in acknowledging that the Bible doesn't teach or support Sola Scriptura. Your Protestant brother, Simon arrived at the same conclusion:

I will answer your long awaited question on Sola Scriptura. There is no place in the bible that specifically states that Sola Scriptura is to be accepted as a doctrine. Are you satisfied now? However, I will also point out that nowhere does the bible speak of the church or any man (apart from Jesus Christ) as being the custodian of truth either. - 12/04/2003 Simon commenting under the “A Letter From a Convert” article

We responded, again, by quoting Sacred Scripture:

“…if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” – 1 Timothy 3:15

In reference to your comment:

As for circumcision...Peter never changed the law. He simply was saying it is not circumcision that saves you,it is faith. So instead of talking about circumcision...we should be talking about following his commandments. This teaching is also in scripture. Circumcision has value if you observe the law. God is after circumcised hearts. This is another theme consistent throughout scripture.

I want to make sure I’m understanding you correctly here, so if I don’t please tell me. But it appears that you are saying two things:
1) Peter isn’t changing the law here – if that were true why is circumcision not a necessity for Christians today? For Scripture is clear that circumcision is the sign of God’s covenant in the Old Testament.
…or…
2) That the “physical” act of circumcision was not what God considered to be important.

“And God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you….So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (Genesis 17:9-14).

This was reiterated in Leviticus by God when dictating to Moses the Law:

“And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.” (Leviticus 12:3)

Keep in mind Jesus had clearly stated:

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18).

In perfectly clear language God in the Old Testament states that the “physical act of circumcision” is necessary…first to Abraham and then to Moses. I hardly see how you can say that God was ONLY worried about circumcision of the heart, though I do agree that this was necessary as well. God the Father clearly point to the circumcision of the “flesh of the foreskin”. Your argument is weak here.

On another note, where in the Bible does it say that the “keys” are prayer? I’ve yet to find this… Maybe you can tell me. I do find the keys in Isaiah 22:15-23 where it states:

“Thus says the Lord God of hosts, ‘Come go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household…In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” – Isaiah 22:15-23

Please note that God refers to both Shebna and Eliakim as “stewards”. This is important. Protestants try to say that this verse is a foreshadowing of Christ, but it really isn’t for Eliakim the son of Hilkiah is not found in the genealogy of Jesus Christ at the beginning of Matthew’s Gospel. So Hilkiah wasn’t a king of the Israelites, rather a steward. The comparison fits Matthew 16:18-19. Peter is the steward of the house of David (or we could say Jesus, David's heir), a father to the inhabitants of the spiritual Jerusalem, the Church. In Isaiah 22, the action is directed to a singular individual, Eliakim. In Matthew’s Gospel the “keys” are given to Peter. We, Catholics, await the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but until He comes again we will stand with His “steward”, the one whom Jesus gave “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”.

I agree with Jay…you are halfway there…persevere.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at December 5, 2003 10:07 PM

I would just like to add something about celibacy, which you mentioned earlier and somehow tried to explain how "good" it is for the Catholic Church. If I may, I would like to prove you wrong about this. If I want to spread the Gospel and want to join the Catholic church I am not allowed to marry a woman. But, where in the Bible can you find it is BAD for me to marry? Look closely in the Bible and you will find a verse that says it is false to force someone not to marry! Do you know when the Church decided about celibacy? I think it was in the 10th century and the reason was clear: so that the church has more money and the property does not split between the family! Many marriages were split because of this "devil's" decision. Look at your church today: pedofile priests, how great your celibacy works! I am not judging anybody, I know even protestants may sin like this. Anyway, my point is that the church should not forbid anybody to marry if he wants to get married.

Ray

Posted by: Ray at December 8, 2003 4:21 PM

Hi Ray,

Welcome to our blog!

I really don't know what part of my comment you missed in reference to priestly celibacy but let me recap:

Celibacy for the kingdom is biblically based, therefore I find your questioning of it a bit surprising. You are correct that Peter was married but the Church, in listening to the words of Christ and St. Paul, in Sacred Scripture, decided that it would be better for a man not to marry who wished to commit his entire life to spreading the Gospel:

"The disciples said to him, 'If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is expedient to marry.' But he said to them, 'Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it" (Matthew 19:10-12).

Then St. Paul wrote:
"I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (1 Corinthians 7:32-34).

Based on these two passages from the Bible, I don't think you have any ground for your attack against priestly celibacy. On a side note, there is no reference to Peter's wife being alive at the time of Peter's accepting Christ's call to discipleship, many scholars believe that she more than likely had dead before hand. Please note that in Matthew 8, after being healed, the mother-in-law rises and prepares food for Jesus and the apostles. This would have been the normal duty of the wife during that time period, if she were living.

I nowhere in this comment say that marriage is bad, simply that celibacy is supported biblically. Celibacy does work, as it has for centuries. Many of the Early Church Fathers practiced celibacy including St. Augustine (354-395 A.D.), St. Jerome(347-419 A.D.), and St. Gregory the Great (540-590 A.D.) just to name a few. They not only practiced it, they preached about it as if it was a common understanding. I'd be happy to provide multiple references within the writings of the Early Church Fathers to support this. So your comment about this being imposed in the tenth century is likewise inaccurate.

The Church has never said that marriage is bad...in fact it has clearly stated just the opposite. Matrimony is one of the seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church. That means that it was instituted by Christ as a channel for receiving His Grace. Yet Holy Orders (ordained priesthood) is also a Sacrament. And to imply that the celibacy of the priesthood is impossible is to say that God's sacramental grace is limited in what it can accomplish in man. Jesus clearly taught otherwise, for "with God all things are possible".

I'd be careful labeling a call to celibacy by Christ (Matthew 19:10-12) a "devil's decision". Celibacy has been around a lot longer than Protestantism, which make one question why Protestants don't find this passage of the Gospel a bit more disturbing, since Christ is the One suggesting it. Why aren't more Protestant pastors celibate?

Also, what is the basis of this statement:

"If I want to spread the Gospel and want to join the Catholic church I am not allowed to marry a woman."

We are all called to spread the Gospel. It doesn't require being a priest.

Priestly celibacy is supported historically, theologically, and, most importantly biblically.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at December 8, 2003 6:23 PM

I will try to respond to your comments later. The only thing I want to ask you now is: If it is not BAD to be married, could I, if I were a Catholic priest be married? The answer is probably no. So the answer to your question: Why aren't more protestant pastors celibate, is by this question. Why isn't there one Catholic priest married? Are they ALL so perfect that they don't need a woman? The answer can be find in many cases lately published in the news about pedofile priests. Another thing about protestant pastors is that they are free to choose. I know a lot of them here is Slovakia, (67% Catholic country 8% Lutheran), that chose not to marry. But, a Catholic priest is not allowed to marry. If you say that Christ established celibacy than you most certainly know that he did not forbid anyone to marry.

For some further thoughts: 1 Tim, chapter 4 verses 1-3. You may have heard this before.
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils. Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron. FORBIDDING TO MARRY and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

Don't try to get me wrong by saying that Christ allows anyone to marry, just that if I choose to become a priest I have to decide for celibacy. I say that as a priest I could, according to the Bible, have a choice to get married. If not, then somebody (The Church in this case) is forbidding its priests to get married. The verses above apply to this situation.

One more thing: Thank you for your thoughts, you help me reach a better understanding of the confrontation that stems from studying Bible and listening to all possible explanations. I hope you don't feel bad about what I write. I pray so that I understand God's word and I already see his help.

In Christ,
Ray

Posted by: Ray at December 9, 2003 8:49 AM

Ray,
We're glad you are posting.

Pay close attention to Joe's earlier scriptures - they are directed at the bishops/priests that Jesus chose. They clearly teach that only some "have made themselves enuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." This is what Catholic priests are called to do. If a man cannot accept celibacy for God, then he should not be a priest, but rather a lay person who does marry.

You keep using the word "pedophile," but the statistics are clear: there are far less pedophile priests than pedophile married men. Do you assume that allowing priests to marry would cure pedophilia? This is a mistake, since pedophilia is a completely different type of psycological problem (this type of person would not be attracted to adult women, if you follow).

Your verse in 1 Timothy isn't referring to priests, but rather to members of the Church. You should also read 1 Tim 3:15 where Paul calls the Catholic Church (the only Church at that time) the "pillar and bulwark of Truth."

I go back to Joe's question: The Bible clearly instructs priests/pastors to not marry and choose a life of celibacy. You say "Are they ALL so perfect they don't need a woman?" The answer is clear: they have God and they subvert the lusts of the body in order to better serve Him. To turn this around, are ALL protestant pastors so bad that none can follow Jesus' instructions?

Just as an FYI, some Catholic priests are married. Typically this occurs when they convert from another religion (such as Anglicanism) and already have a wife.

You're taking one verse and attempting to use it to say that the Church is incorrect. But you're having to ignore all of the other verses (two are above) that say just the opposite. Who is interpreting this correctly? I would say the Catholic Church (the pillar of Truth) is.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at December 9, 2003 10:54 AM

Ray,

Allow me to quote exactly what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about priestly celibacy in both the Latin Rite and the Eastern Rite.

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 19:12). Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord" (1 Cor 7:32), they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.

1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.

Two things I'd like to point out here.
1) In some cases the Church does allow married men to become priests, as in the case of the Eastern Churches (there is also the case with Anglican priests that Jay discussed), .

2) The real issue in discerning this matter is the subject of the article we are commenting under...The primacy of Peter and papal authority. If we accept the fact that Jesus Christ gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Mt 16:19) to Peter and to his successors, then celibacy really isn't an issue for they have the ability to bind or loose things on earth and in heaven. So if the Magestrium of the Catholic Church, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, decided that celibacy should be a requirement for the life of a priest, then so be it. We know that it is the will of God, because Christ is the one who gave the Church the authority to decide such matters.

By the way, have you spoken to many priests about celibacy. Most of the priests that I have spoken to (and there have been a lot for I was a religious brother for a short time, then worked at another monastery, and then also studied as a seminarian for a time) don't have a problem with celibacy, most are thankful for it and consider it as an important aspect of their ministry, believing that they are doing it for the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 19:12).

Above you quoted St. Paul (1 Timothy 4:3). I'd like to counter what you are implying with another of St. Paul's letters.

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9

Then in that same chapter he points out the following:

Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him and in which God has called him. 1 Corinthians 7:17

So St. Paul, again, is encouraging celibacy for those who are called to such a life...as he is, I might add. So we find St. Paul, a bishop, living a celibate life and encouraging others to do so as well.

Ray I think you should prayerfully consider all of these things. Celibacy isn't a bad thing and Jay's comments above are clear of the statistics in reference to pedophilia.

Thanks again for participating. I'm glad we are having an opportunity to discuss celibacy.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at December 9, 2003 9:46 PM

From a woman's point of view, I would not want a husband who is a priest. I feel a husband's duty is to his wife and children first and how could he adequately guide and minister to an entire parish with his interests so divided? Either his immediate family or his pastoral family would suffer.

Posted by: Maria at December 11, 2003 11:18 PM

Jay and Joe,

God certainly must be at work in both your lives; this is evidenced by the saintly patience you both display. Pray for me that I might have that same patience some day.

Pax et Bonum

Posted by: Franklin Jennings at December 12, 2003 1:01 PM

Dear Joe, Jay and Maria

I have to say that for me it looks like a controversy that the "keys" given to Peter can actually ordain celibacy. Jesus also says in the Bible that no one can take out or add a single letter to his Word. By Peter's keys, however, Pope can possibly change anything the Bible says!

But, I want to say that celibacy is a great thing and I admire all Catholic priests who live TRUE celibacy. Let me explain what I mean. A man who chooses to stay unmarried and understands what it means (just as it is mentioned in the Bible) to stay single is God's child and a true priest! Such priest can be also found as you say among the Eastern churches and also in protestant churches. There are men who understand what Paul says in the Bible.

I just cannot agree that a married priest is worse than the one keeping celibacy, or that he is not able to take care of the Church and his family at the same time. In 1Timothy 3, 2-4 you can read: " A church leader must be without fault; he must have only one wife, be sober, self-controlled..." and in verse 4 "he must be ale to manage his own family well and make his children obey him with all respect." (Peter was also probalby married) If you look at these verses you know that this is God's word. I believe that if a man wants to become a priest he should be able to choose if he wants to keep celibacy or if he is so strong in faith that he will be able to manage family and Church together. (Again, if he is not strong in faith, he can get lost as it is written in the following text in 1st Timothy 3.) But a normal Catholic priest does not have this choice. As you have mentioned, there are exceptions, but they are only exceptions. It is not the free will of any priest to decide if he can manage his family along with the Church. Don't understand me wrong, I believe in celibacy and I know it is better to stay that way.
I just think there is some error in the system if you look at things happening in the society. Here in Slovakia, there is even a club of women who were abused by Catholic priests. Almost every week in the news I read about such cases. These priests probably did not understand God's Word and did not take seriously what they have promissed before God.

In my last letter I wrote about 1 Tim 4, and I don't think that it refers to "members of the Church" as you say. "some people" is not specified and a priest is also a member of the Church. We are all body of Christ. I believe the verses say just what they say: 1Tim 4,3 "Such people teach that it is wrong to marry and to eat certain foods." At least I think it is worth to think about it, for the priest who cannot keep their promises and for those who don't allow them to marry.

In Christ,
Ray

Posted by: Ray at December 12, 2003 5:32 PM

I have been bought up a Catholic my whole life. I do have Protestant friends, whom I care about dearly. They have been nothing but good friends to me. When we discuss the Bible and our differences we do so in a peaceful manner. 2 of my Catholic brethren have converted. They were welcomed with open arms. Never did my friends bash Catholicism. Rather I asked what was the difference between us. Then we went to the Bible. I love the Catholic church but lately, my spirit just feels that my friends and others like those who post here, may have it right. I have been reading the Bible and the more I do, posts like those of brother Marc and others make more sense. All I want to do is serve God the way he wants me to. Can anyone give me advice?

Jason

Posted by: Jason is confused at January 16, 2004 3:13 PM

Jason,

Welcome to our blog! First allow me to say that by being Catholic you will never experience a greater capacity to know Jesus Christ. He is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Most Blessed Sacrament, the Eucharist (John 6:47-58). If you are experiencing doubts I would only ask you to go make one holy hour a week before the Blessed Sacrament at your local parish. Ask Jesus to show you His will for your life. He will, trust me.

Second, as we have posted multiple times on this blog, keep in mind your history as a Catholic. The Bible itself was given to us by the Catholic Church in 392 A.D. So how is it that Protestants attempt to use this against the very Church that compiled Sacred Scripture?

Third, what challenges are your Protestant friends presenting to you that you find difficult? Keep in mind that Jay, another blogger on this site, was born and raise Southern Baptist and has experienced what your friends have experienced in reverse. He came to the Catholic Church because he sincerely believed that Jesus Christ had founded it (Matthew 16:15-20). There are several good articles about this under the Protestantism category.

We are glad that you found us and would love to help you in any way we can. More importantly, we will be praying for you and your friends that Jesus Christ might show you His Will for your life. If you have any questions let us know.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at January 16, 2004 8:33 PM

Well one challenge is the papacy of Peter. The points they make are the same as in the posts made here on this site. I read the discussion between you and Marc. You quote Isaiah 22. You said that the keys was analogous to the keys given to Peter. But when I was instructed to read the rest of that chapter, I found that the "steward" had offsprings. He also fell from where God planted him. So two things are pointed out, if this is a prophecy of Peter, did Peter fall? Did Peter have kids after being given the keys? Lastly the keys were given to someone other than Peter. I was taught that the keys were only given to Peter. THese points that were shown to me have made me think. I will pray more about it.
Thanks.

Jason

Posted by: Jason at January 18, 2004 7:22 PM

Jason,

Allow me to first address the "falling" comment. Jesus gave explicit authority to Peter in Matthew 16 that He never at any point later attempts to retract. In fact, Jesus reiterates the mandate of Peter's leadership, even though Jesus knew Peter would fall, in Luke 22:31-32, and then, in a certain sense, recommissions Peter in John 21:15-19. And as the original article I wrote above clearly shows, the Acts of the Apostles clearly focuses on Peter. Notice that in all major events Peter is the one leading.

Historically, as above in the article, Peter is clearly pointed to by the Early Church Fathers as the leader of the Church on Earth. Keep in mind most of these men were writing even before the Bible had been compiled into one book.

Now for the keys. It is important to understand that with the coming of Jesus Christ the fulfilling of the Old Testament takes on a reality that the Jews themselves didn't fully understand. Jesus did not come to become the temporal king of the Jews, but in reality He is the King of the Jews and all creation for that matter. His kingdom is not of this world though it exists in this world. The importance of the keys is that in the old covenant the keys held authority given by the king to the steward. Yes the steward handed down that authority generation to generation, just as the kingship of Israel was handed down generation to generation. The Kingship is now held eternally by Jesus Christ, and in reality, the keys of His kingdom are held by the heir of Peter, the Pope. Just as Jesus' Kingship is not of this world in a temporal sense, so the heirs of Peter are not of this world in a temporal sense, meaning a genetic sonship. Any interesting point that supports this spiritual sonship, so to speak, within the sacrament of the priesthood and the sonship of a priest to his bishop is illustrated by St. Paul. Read the two epistles to Timothy. In both he refers to St. Timothy as his child saying:

To Timothy, my true child in the faith - 1 Tim 1:2

There is a very real presence within the Catholic Church of this relationship. So the handing on of the keys takes on a spiritual, though real, nature. The Bible is full of verses supporting priestly celibacy for the kingdom of God, so I don't think this should be a factor. In reference to your comment about someone else receiving the keys...I'd be very interested who that was. Please let me know.

A friend of mine, who converted to Catholicism once told me that to be Protestant is to ignore history. If I were you, I would put a few difficult questions to your Protestant friends (always with charity and sincerity). Here are a few good questions to ask them:

1) Where in the Bible does it say that it is by Scripture alone that we know truth?

2) How did the Christians for the first 3 centuries of Christianty know how to follow Christ since the Bible as we know it today wasn't even compiled yet?

3) What guarantee do you have that the Bible is trully the Word of God rather then just some book that someone wrote long ago?

Start with those. Just listen to their answers, better yet write them down and read them back to them to verify that you understood them correctly. Then let me know what responses you get. I would be more than willing to help you counter whatever answers they give you. We have that assurance, that safeguard that what we have been given through the Catholic Church comes from God because we belong to the Church Christ founded and guides to this day.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at January 18, 2004 10:49 PM

I did ask them these questions and they bring up some valid points. First I must I agree that one must take the whole scriptural text into into account. My friends point out that I must use logic when reading. I understand that the Jesus was speaking to Peter in Mt.16, but in 16:20 he Christ warns his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ. It's like Christ was addressing the group. A point that seems legit.
Then of course comes the discussion of Mary. We believe that she is sinless and has prominence over others, but I was pointed to Lk:11:27-28.
Someone says blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you. Jesus quickly replies "blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and Obey it." It's like Mary is not as prominent in Jesus' eye as we make her out to be. I was shocked when I read Mt 12:50.
I was instructed to read Mt.13:54-13:55. I was taught that brothers could mean cousins...but why is the context of brothers used in relation to a husband and wife?
Mt13:55 Isn't this the carpenters son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us?
I have to say that it makes sense that the use of the word brothers meant brothers. THere is no mention of uncles and aunts. Unless I missed it and was not shown it.
I also read Lk 22:24-27...the Apostles argued who was the greatest among them. Jesus seemed to settle the issue. But he didn't say Peter was the greatest. If everything was built around Peter, why didn't Jesus say anything about Peter's primacy right then and there. Later on he actually rebukes Peter. My Protestant friends point this out...and I have to say, it kind of makes sense. I don't know if you all saw the Matrix Reloaded...but at the end Morpheus was distraught because all that he believed was not the way HE believed it to be. I feel that way now...but I strangely am not saddened. I just want to please God and GOd alone.
Jason

Posted by: Jason at January 19, 2004 8:58 PM

Jason,
I'll let Joe respond in more detail, but I would like to point out a few articles to you (click for the article):

• To say that Protestants are correct in minimizing Mary is a terrible mistake (It also ignores much of the Bible). Those verses you point out only say that if we remove them from their proper context. Read the Biblical Mary Part I and the Biblical Mary Part II for a fuller understanding of Mary's place.
  
• We've also written an article detailing the errors of suggesting Christ had brothers. You say "brothers could mean cousins" this is incorrect - the same word is used for "brothers" and "cousins" in Greek. Also it would have been insane for Jesus to give his mother to the Apostle John at the Crucifixion if He had brothers.
  
• Also, Peter's primacy is overwhelming supported by the Bible.
  

By the way, I can't believe your friends had any valid points to Joseph's questions. Protestants have two fundamental errors: sola fides (by faith alone) and sola scriptura (by scripture alone). As Catholics, we believe in Scripture and Tradition (as the Bible teaches) and Faith + works (again, what the Bible teaches). I recommend you read this article on sola scriptura also.

Becoming protestant means leaving the Church Jesus himself founded (Matt 16), the Church that is the Truth (1 Tim 3:15) for a denomination founded by a man. Remember, outside the Church you lose the Eucharist as well, and we know what Jesus said about that in John 6:48-58.

Your friends obviously believe they are helping you, but they are sadly mistaken. Without the sacraments, pleasing God is very, very difficult.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at January 19, 2004 9:57 PM

Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. Luke 1:58 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

Here I see the word cousins. Not brothers, so I asked myself are their different greek translations for brothers and cousins. Sure enough, they each have different translations, each specific for their respective meanings. So how can one part of the New Testament use the word cousin in a proper context yet use the word brother in a proper context and yet these words can be interchanged. I just don't see it...I try and I try, but the more I do, the more my soul says its not true. There is a lot I have learned over the past few months, all culminating to these past few days. I have been thinking for about a month to convert. I just wanted to some confirmation that I was doing what God wanted. I am going to pray some more, you guys please pray for me too. You too Ray and all who posted.

Jason

Posted by: Jason at January 19, 2004 10:28 PM

Jason,
This is a good example of why you should trust the Church, who has studied the Bible for 1,500+ years, rather than your friends.

The Biblical word adelphos would not mean "sisters." So it would be odd to call Mary and Elizabeth "brothers," wouldn't it? So the translator intelligently decided to use "cousins" in the sentence.

Also, Jason, a small mistranslation would not prove that the protestant church was right. I understand that maybe you have friends that you would enjoy going to church with, but is it worth your soul? You would be giving up the things Jesus designed to help us get to heaven. Why? For friendship? Don't say, "It's to please God" since you cannot please God by leaving His Church.

Keep in mind, the Bible was written and compiled by the Catholic Church. They have kept it protected since the fourth century. The protestants don't even have the full Bible (Martin Luther had to throw books out in order to justify his beliefs) and they miss out on Tradition. The Bible is clearly Catholic, so you would be giving up the real Bible as well as the real Church by converting. We'll pray for you.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at January 20, 2004 8:05 AM

Jason,

Luke 11:27-28 in no way puts down Mary rather it reveals an even deeper insight into the Mother of God, in that Jesus points more so to the fact that Mary heard the word of God and kept it as clearly shown in Luke 1:25-2:56. As far as the level of veneration that we Catholics show her we are following not only the Tradition of the Catholic Church, again that existed before the Bible, but also the Bible itself (Luke 2:48). She is "blessed" and said as much herself, but more importantly God said as much for this is from the Bible, the Word of God.

In regards to your comments about Matthew 13:54 -55, as Jay indicated above, I wrote an article on this, simply put these same brothers are also referred to in other verses as children of other women in the Bible. I think it would be good for you to read that article.

Luke 22:24-27 is more so a lesson in humility than a description of the Church hierarchy. If you want to try to intrepret this to prove that Peter isn't the head of the Apostles than I guess you would likewise have to concur that Jesus really isn't that important for He says:

For which is greater, one who sits at the table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves."

Again this was clearly simply a lesson in humility. But, interestingly enough what follows immediately after this?

Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Luke 22:31-32

Three important things need to be noted here:
1) Jesus only says this to Simon Peter. So obviously Jesus felt Peter was significant in leading for He clearly instructs Peter to strenghten his brethren.
2) Peter is the only apostle who Jesus says "Satan demanded". Why would Satan demand Peter? What set him apart? Keep in mind that chronologically this discussion occurred after Matthew 16. Peter was to be the leader the Church on earth, Jesus' steward, the keeper of the keys.
3)Please note that Jesus knew Peter would fall, yet he still confirms Peter's obligation to "strengthen his brethren", thus showing that Jesus in no way intended to take back the authority He had given Peter in Matthew 16.

One more comment, I would hope that all that you read here on this blog and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church would be enough to prove to you that the Catholic Church is not only the only Christian church that can be traced back to Christ but also the Church that gave the world the Bible as we know it today. You need to study your Church history, the miracles of the Church, the lives of the saints, and most importantly the sacraments. DO NOT SELL OUT FOR A HALF-TRUTH. It clearly sounds like you are very emotional about your friends that have converted to Protestantism, and maybe you are on the verge of following but remember this...
There is no biblical foundation for Sola Scriptura (the Bible Alone) nor Sola Fides (Faith Alone) which are the pillars of Protestantism, yet their are multiple biblical pillars for the Catholic Church and what she teaches. You, as a Catholic, have a moral obligation to know your Catholic Faith, so, if you don't have one already, go buy a Catechism of the Catholic Church and learn exactly what you believe as a Catholic. Don't abandon the Church Christ founded because some Protestant pointed out a couple verses that you don't comprehend. And whether you realize it or not, your Protestant friends are challenging your faith, so as I said earlier challenge theirs, your foundation is built on the Rock, for you below to the Church Christ founded (Matthew 16).
I'm praying for you, brother and I know all other Catholics reading this are as well. Go to Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament, He will lead you.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at January 20, 2004 11:04 PM

Jason I got this off of a website for you.
Catholics sometimes quote 1 Tim. 3:15 which states, "...The church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth" to prove that the church is invested with authority to legislate in divine matters. (See Father Smith Instructs Jackson, p. 35; The Question Box, p. 96). The phrase "pillar and ground of truth" does not mean that the church is the originator of truth, or that it can make or change the laws of God.
It simply means that it is the upholder, defender and proclaimer of the truth. The apostles often praised churches for proclaiming the truth, "for from you the word of the Lord has been spread abroad" (1 Thess. 1:8). They commended them for defending the truth, "partakers with me...in the defense and confirmation of the gospel" (Phil. 1:7). However, there is not a single verse in all of the holy Scriptures which indicates that the church has the authority to originate truth or to decree laws for God.
The apostles and prophets and they alone were commissioned by the Lord, not to originate truth--"For ever, O Lord, thy word is firmly fixed in the heavens" (Psalm 119:98 Catholic Edition RSV)--but to reveal the truth. Their task was once and for all completed for they gave us the written New Testament of Christ. The responsibility of he church today is simply to follow, defend and proclaim the truth which they revealed.
The Catechism for Adults, page 54 says, "The Catholic Church alone has the authority to rule and to teach." However, the authority is not in the body, but in the Head (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). The ruling is not in the kingdom, but in the King (Heb. 7:1-2; Rev. 1:5-6). The authority is not in the church, but in Christ (Matt. 28:18; 1 Pet. 3:22). The church is not the Savior, but simply the body of the saved (Acts 2:46; Eph. 5:22-24).

I'll share more with you later.

God Bless
Alex

Posted by: Alex at January 21, 2004 5:46 PM

Is that your final answer Alex... Oh, sorry that is incorrect. ;-)

You state:

However, there is not a single verse in all of the holy Scriptures which indicates that the church has the authority to originate truth or to decree laws for God.

But the Bible says:

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:18-19

If that isn't authority I don't know what is...by the way that was Jesus Christ who said that.

Also, 1 Timothy 3:15 states:

"...if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." - 1 Timothy 3:15

So where does it say in the Bible (of course) that it simply means as you stated above "It simply means that it is the upholder, defender and proclaimer of the truth." Just curious.

Also, still no answers on how the Christians in the first 3 centuries managed without the Bible...

I wish I could just get some straight answers to my questions listed above.

Waiting with patience and in Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at January 21, 2004 8:10 PM

Joe, I fail to see how Christ gives authority to make up new laws and tradition to Peter or anybody. I challenge you to show me any laws or practices that demonstate that it was OK for Peter to establish new law. Show me where he did it. Also, a pillar...its a support structure that does what? Upholds another structure. A bulwark, that happens to be a solid wall like structure made for DEFENSE. Pillar is upholder, bulwark is a defense. So to answer your question Joe, the statement of a pillar and bulwark states what it means. The church is the upholder and defender of the truth. NOT the ORIGNATOR of truth. See the difference? DO you see the difference Jason? No where does the Bible say that church is the originator of new law and new traditions. Joe, you won't find it in the Bible. I will post more from the website for all to see and analyze.

Alex

Posted by: Alex at January 21, 2004 8:57 PM

Where do you find that we are making Peter's authority up? Read Acts.

A pillar is also a foundational structure, in case you want to get into architectual terms. Also, Jesus stated that Peter was the rock that He (Jesus) would build His Church upon.

Again, how did the Christians for first 392 years of Christianity get by without the Bible? You still fail to acknowledge that fact that the Bible, as we know it today, only came into existence in the year 392 A.D. It was the Catholic Church that compiled it. So if the Bible contradicts the Catholic Church why in the world would the Pope and the Bishops of that time have compiled it to begin with?

By the way, what denomination do you belong to? I would be happy to tell you the origins of your church.

Historically, biblically, theologically, and philosophically the Catholic Church is the only Church Christ founded. I challenge you to prove me otherwise. And I can prove it biblically, so where does the Bible say Sola Scriptura (the Bible Alone) is the way to go? We have posted multiple articles addressing all of these issues.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at January 21, 2004 9:50 PM

Alex,
As Joe said, we've written numerous articles that prove what you are looking for. I recommend you read these two posts we have up: the Primacy of Peter and 50 Biblical proofs of the papacy.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at January 21, 2004 10:51 PM

Jesus and His Word teach...
You are saved by faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9).

All who rely on observing the law (commandments) are under a curse (Galations 3:10).

Salvation occurs at the moment you believe the Gospel (Ephesians 1:13).

Jesus purifies sin (Hebrews 1:3).

You can know for sure you are saved (1 John 5:13).

The sacrifice of Jesus is finished (John 19:30).

The Pope and his church teach...
You are saved by faith plus works.

Obedience to the commandments is a condition for salvation.

Salvation is a process from baptism through purgatory.

Purgatory purifies sin.

You are condemned if you claim to be saved.

The sacrifice of Jesus continues in daily Mass.

As you can see these two teachings directly oppose one another. You must make the choice as to which is true and which is deception. Your choice will determine your eternal destiny. Either Jesus changed his tradition by instructing the Popes or the Popes and the Catholic Church got a bit creative with the Catholic doctrine as it is today. It's funny that you can say that you believe the Bible to be God's inspired words but accept traditions that clearly contradict it. Your arguments for refusing the Bible as the ultimate authority is weak. God knew how the Bible would come about and in what way. While the Bible as we know it was not put together the way we know it today. The old church was taught via oral and written traditions. The same traditions. The apostles had left the churches during THEIR time with written instructions. Check your Bible for that proof. Either way, God has a Word for us...it is in the form of Jesus Christ. God INSPIRED men to write HIS WORD...which is firmly fixed in the heavens. God knew how the Bible would be put together. God knew everything that would be written in the BIBLE. To say that the Catholic church believes the Bible to be Gods word, yet invent or contradict is God's word...that in itself is contradictory.

Daniel

Posted by: Daniel at January 22, 2004 6:56 PM

Daniel,
Actually you have to ignore much of the Bible to get your meanings. Catholics interpret the Bible as an infallible whole, you pick the verses you like and ignore the rest. For example:

"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?" James 2:14

"So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." James 2:17

"So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;" John 6:53

These are just two examples of verses that completely contradict your beliefs. Let's be clear: Jesus founded a Church that the gates of hell will not prevail against (Matt 16). Are you suggesting He founded your Church? I can prove that my Church not only understands the Bible in it's fullness (without ignoring verses), but also that my Church decends from the "Rock" of St. Peter (Matt 16).

By the way, some of the things you claim the Church teaches are way off, I recommend you read some of the articles on this site. I have one question for you: where does the Bible teach that it is the sole source of Truth (this is sola scriptura, a belief you abide by if you are protestant)? I can show you where the Bible teaches that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15), but I have yet to hear one person show me where the Bible teaches that the Bible is the source of Truth. I'll look forward to your answer.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at January 22, 2004 9:53 PM

I agree with you Alex, Daniel and Marc. Jason, any church you go into, you need to check your Bible and see if it goes against the word of God. Catholics will argue that it does not say in the Bible that the Bible is the authoratative law of God. Some Catholics will ask show where does it say that in the Bible that the Bible is the absolute source of authority. Then they will pull out a weak argument that the Bible was not even put together until the 3rd century. Some others will even ask, why wouldn't Jesus just write a book if He wanted us to just follow a book. So, how is the Bible authoratative? Simple. We believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. Both Catholics and Protestants believe this. So where, in the inspired scripture known as the Bible does it show proof that the Bible is authoratative?
Jesus our example of how we are to be, referred to scripture. It is written...is what Christ would say referring back to the written word of God. Show me where Christ said...it is the teaching of the church? You can't.
The Bereans were called more noble than the Thessalonians, for they received the MESSAGE with great eagerness and examined the scriptures EVERYDAY to see if what Paul said was true.
Christ teachings unto the apostles was written, Paul was teaching the Bereans about Christ. They referred to the written word. Look to Acts 17:11. This point is further backed up by 2 Tim 3:16 which says that all scripture is GOD BREATHED and is useful for teaching, reproof and correction in training of righteousness. It pertains to righteousness. I have heard Catholics argue that it is not authoratative on everything(meaning science, cars etc.) To this ridiculous statement I point out that that is not what Sola Scriptura is about. We believe the Bible is God's teaching and God's law.
Ephesians 3:1-5 shows that Paul did indeed write about Christ and his teachings. It may not have conglomerated into one book..but doesn it mean that it was not Sacred Scripture? It was taught by Christ himself. Paul wrote it down...is it not Sacred? If you look at the books of the Bible, they all support each other. Lets make this clear...the Bible was not written by the church..it was written by Apostles and Prophets as instructed and inspired by God. The teachings of Christ are CONSISTENT with the Old Testament Scriptures. Show me where in the Bible that the Apostles...Paul, Peter or whomever taught a NEW teaching. You won't find it in the Bible. You asked where does the Bible support Sola Scriptura...I have shown you scripture that proves that scripture was used for reproof and correction. If you are going to refute this, I want you to back it up with scripture. Also, show me where Christ gives authority to anyone to INVENT NEW WAYS. Show me where the Apostles taught something new. The Bible consists of a span of 1500 years...and it all remains consistent. Mary, purgatory, papacy etc...not consistent with the 1500 yrs. of scripture. Jn 21:25 says Jesus did many other things. Things like miracles, eating, preaching and sleeping. It does not say he taught about purgatory, Mary or a papacy.
The Church in the 3rd century did not write the Bible...they merely organized Scripture that WAS being used...into one big book. They recognized what was Holy scripture and what was not. If you read Mark and Matthew and Luke...they recount the story of Christ. Separately they are Holy Scripture and by themselves...it is still Holy Scripture. So, show me what I asked. Where it CLEARLY states that the Apostles taught a new thing. You won't be able to, because it is not in the Bible. Sola Scriptura does not mean that we do not look to other sources such to get to know God. I listen to Gospel music, I read Christian books and I watch TV evangelicals. In the end, what determines if what these other sources are telling the truth is the Bible. Does it agree with the Bible? The Bible is the ultimate authority..that is what Sola Scriptura is. I have shown scripture where Christ refers to WRITTEN scripture as reproof. I can show more. I have shown instances where the WRITTEN word is used to see if the truth is being told. I have even shown you proof that Christ's teachings were written down. I ask again...that if you refute this...back it up with scripture. In addition, I ask that you show where the Apostles or Peter taught something that God never taught before. Stop going in circles...I answered your question with scripture that is in the BIBLE. I ask that you answer mine

Nelson

Posted by: Nelson C at January 22, 2004 10:07 PM

Here is a good article for you all to read. Daniel

Is the Doctrine called Sola Scriptura Biblical?
by Tony Warren
First we need to define the term "Sola Scriptura!" It is a latin phrase which was coined by the Reformed Church during 1500's. It means "scripture solely" or the "scripture alone". By these words the faithful Christians of the day were standing up for the Biblical principle that the Holy Scriptures were God's inspired Word, and as such were the sole infallible rule of faith. It was the ultimate Authority for the Church, and not (as some had supposed) the Roman Church, it's Magisterium, or Pope. Since the Position of the Roman Church and those faithful Christians who Protested it (protest-ant), were mutually exclusive, both obviously could not be correct. If the faithful Christians were going stand for God's Word as the ultimate Authority, then there would have to be a "Reforming" of the Church. A restoring of the the Laws of God which the Church formerly held. Much like when a criminal reforms to obey the law which was always there. These faithful Christians understood they must return to the former reliance upon the authority of the Word of God, and thus, on October 31, 1517, "The Reformation" began when the German Monk named Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the Roman Church door in Wittenberg Germany. The Church would lean upon Scripture alone as the ultimate Authority. Sola Scriptura!

Actually, calling it "Sola Scriptura" is a bit of a misnomer, because it is not a doctrine which teaches that we believe that there are not other authorities, nor that they have no value or place. Rather, it means that other authorities must be subordinate to the Word of God. Sola scriptura implies several things. First, that the Scriptures are a direct revelation from God, and as such, are His Authoritative Word. It is also a term which illustrates that the scriptures are all that is necessary for Church faith and practice. Not only that the scriptures are sufficient, but that they also are the ultimate and final court of appeal on all doctrinal matters. Because however good and faithful a Church leader may be in giving his guidance, all the fathers, teachers, popes, and councils are still fallible. The only infallible "source" for truth is the scriptures. Besides God Himself, Only His Word (the Scriptures alone), is infallible.

The Reformation Doctrine of Sola Scriptura ultimately pointed to a most basic concern of the faithful Church of that day which was expressed in their cry of Soli Deo Gloria, meaning, to God alone be the Glory! This expresses the true Christian perspective that God should receive the Glory and not men, and that this is done by keeping His Word as the final authority. The head of the Church is the infallible Christ, and not a fallible man. And so the Authority of the Church must likewise be His Word, and not the word of men. No matter how faithful, it's still the word of men and thus subordinate to God's word. What is called Sola Scriptura was, and is essential to true Christianity. For it's the difference between God's traditions and ordinances, and man's traditions and ordinances.

What some people call Oral tradition of the Church, is subject to change, development, degeneration, and deviation. There is absolutely no guarantee given by God or Scripture (His Word) that such an oral tradition would be preserved or was even needed. Indeed, 2nd Timothy chapter 3 strongly implies such a thing was not needed.

2nd Timothy 3:16-17

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness;

that the man of God may be thoroughly Furnished unto all good works."
The Old Testament scriptures thoroughly furnished man of that day unto all good works, and Christ continually referenced it to prove truths. Jesus and others read and quoted Scripture (never any oral tradition, except to condemn it). That's not an insignificant point. And when Satan tested Jesus, Christ made reference to the Authority of scripture to prove his error.

Matthew 4:3-4

"And when the tempter came to Him, he said, if Thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
What proceeds out of the mouth of God is God's Word, and His Holy Word is written in the Bible. That is what man lives by. The Word of God, not the words of men, no matter how faithful they may appear. Jesus could have answered any way that He wanted, for He is God and an original and perfect answer He could have spoken afresh at any moment, but He instead pointed to what was already written in the scriptures as the reply to the adversary. I.e., that was the perfect answer! What God had inspired to be written, not the oral tradition of the day, but what had proceedeth from God's mouth and written in His Word. And this deferral to what was written in the scriptures is a lesson for all faithful Christians of what Authority we go to in order to prove truths. And Christ did this not only in answering un-biblical assertions, but also when presented with scripture that were taken out of context. Jesus again defers to "other" scripture which qualified the scripture in question. For example;

Matthew 4:5-11

Then the Devil taketh Him up into the Holy City, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the Temple,

and saith unto Him, if Thou be the Son of God, cast Thyself down; for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee, and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest at any time Thou dash Thy foot against a stone.

Jesus said unto him, It is Written Again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
In other words, Jesus replies to scripture taken out of context with an additional scripture which clarifies (not denies) it. So we see the meaning is that, "Yes, God will watch over us, but that doesn't mean that we can test/tempt the Lord God!" The Authority of Scripture clearly delineated by our Lord, even in the face of other scriptures. The Perfect answer by Christ to combat a erroneous understanding of scripture was to quote additional Scripture to shed more light on it's true meaning! I.e., it was authoritative over what man might read and think was right by considering just one passage. Another passage qualified or explains more about the first. in this we bring reconciliation to both truths of these scriptures, denying neither.

Matthew 4:8

"Again, the Devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

and saith unto Him, all these things will I give Thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."
Again, Jesus presents scripture, God's Word, to counter Satan's ideas and visions. He says, It is Written! In other words, God says thus and thus! Never, God's Priests say, our leaders say, or oral tradition says! Jesus, our example, says, it is written! This is our example and the posture to take with anyone in order to try the Spirits to see whether they be of God. Compare their words to God's Word, countering their tradition with the authority of God's Word! The same can be said about any debate of doctrines by the Church. The correct principle in faithful Hermeneutics is to always defer to scripture, not to religious leaders or heads of the Church. Just as Jesus demonstrated in His debates with the religious leaders of His day, He appealed to the Scriptures, not to Congregational leaders, traditions or any Ecclesiastical body.

Matthew 21:42

"Jesus said unto them, did ye never read in the scriptures, the Stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our Eyes!"
Where was it written? The Scriptures, the Authority which furnished them unto all good works whereby they should have searched and known of Christ. Likewise, the New Testament logically follows that same principle of thoroughly furnishing us unto all Good works. We should understand that once completed, the New Testament scriptures (like the old was) is the guidebook of truth. It (old and new together) is a completed work, not a work or book in progress, or a incomplete work. We can't add to it or take away from it by oral tradition. The Bible is now one cohesive whole, complete thoroughly furnishing us. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of faithfully following God's word above all other, and it is built upon solid ground.

There are some Roman Catholic church apologists that say that this doctrine was not even heard of until "the reformation" of the 16th century. This of course is an inaccurate and self serving claim, which can be proven false quite easily (even apart from scripture). Read this quote from the 5th century, 1100 years before the Reformation and see if you can glean who wrote it:

This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has Paramount Authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.
Do you know who authored this affirmation of the principle of Sola Scriptura, the doctrine of ultimate authority of the scriptures? The Author is Saint Augustine. It's a quote taken directly from his book, "City of God" (book 11, Chapter 3). This unambiguous declaration by Augustine is about as definitive a statement for Sola Scriptura as any Protestant declaration I've read. And so we see this Roman catholic argument fails on both fronts. On both Biblical and Historical grounds, it fails miserably. The Word of God both is, and was the Supreme authority of the Church. The Apostles and all the faithful fathers deferred to it. it's not some new thing which Protestants invented.

Can traditions contradict God's completed Word?
Can the Scriptures contradict what some allege is oral "apostolic tradition", and have that tradition still be of God? The answer of course is a resounding, No! God is not the Author of confusion. The undeniable fact is, two infallible God-breathed sources cannot contradict each other. Else one of them is not infallible! That's a fact! Yet God's Scripture and Roman Church traditions constantly contradict each other. This should alert any faithful student of Holy Canon that one is neither infallible, nor of God. Just a few of the myriad of examples..

The scriptures of God teach that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23; Ezekiel 18:4,20), and all sin is purged and we are purified in Christ, on the cross. While Roman Catholic traditions teach that sin can be purged later, in a place called Purgatory (place of purifying).

The Scriptures of God teaches that the office of bishop and presbyter are the same office (Titus 1) but Roman tradition says they are different offices.

The Scriptures of God teaches that Christ offered His sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:28,10:10), while Roman Catholic tradition corrects this, claiming that the Priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at mass.

The Scriptures of God teaches that we should not use vain repetitions in prayers (Matthew 6:7) thinking that we will be heard for our much speaking, while the Roman catholic traditions teach repeating hail Mary's in prayer as penitence, as if God indeed will hear us for our much repetition.

The Scriptures of God teach that All have sinned except Jesus (Romans 3:10-12, Hebrews 4:15), while the Roman Catholic traditions claim that's not true, as Mary was also sinless.

The Holy scriptures teaches that all Christians are Saints and Priests (Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9), but Roman Catholic tradition has made Saints and Priests special cases and offices within the Christian community, dealt out by their Church.

The Scriptures of God says that we are not to bow down to statues (Exodus 20:4-5), but the Roman Catholic tradition makes no such claim, nor teaches against this practice.

The scriptures of God says that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but Roman Catholic tradition claims Mary is co-mediator with Christ.

The Scriptures of God says that Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the Church rests, the foundation stone, and the Head of the Church (Luke 6:48, 1st Peter 2:7-8, Matthew 16:18), But Roman Catholic tradition claims that the foundation Rock of the Church is Pope Peter, and that the pontiff is the head of the Church, an aberration which in effect makes God's Church, a two headed Church!

The Scriptures of God says that all Christians can and should know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13), but Roman Catholic tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life.

The Reformers understood clearly that the words of our Saviour Jesus Christ to the Pharisees, applied equally to those of their day:

"..thus you have made the commandment of God of non effect by your traditions!" -Matthew 15:6
Comparing these traditions with God's Word, sadly we also understand that this practice of unrighteousness continues today. You simply cannot have tradition and scripture contradicting each other and both be an infallible teachings of God. It's Confusion! Any Oral traditions passed upon the church is subject to the written Word of God, as it has always been. As it was for the Scribes and Pharisees. To deny this is tortuous of scripture!

Moreover, if there was an ongoing oral tradition (which there is not), it still would require a standard point of reference to check itself against, such as God speaking from the Mountain, or either the scriptures. True Christians (under God's direction), realize the danger of Church tradition becoming corrupted by fallible men (as had been the case with the Pharisees, and throughout history), and so faithfulness required and requires a scriptural basis. Christians led by the Spirit of God, understood the need for a Final authoritative checkpoint to which every person must be subject to God. Thus the importance of maintaining God's authoritative Word became of very great concern to them, even as it had previously with the Scribes maintaining the Old Testament books. If we were to totally ignore the facts of history that there was no Roman Church nor Pope making the claims he now does during the first three or four centuries (as the foremost Church historians overwhelmingly attest) and were to wrongly assume there was such a Church headed by an infallible pope as the Roman Church does, then this could not even begin to explain the importance they placed on maintaining the texts of the New Testament. For indeed there would have been no need to maintain them at all. One would only need to consult the infallible Pope, who, being under God's guidance would know the truth more certainly and accurately than the Apostle's written word. In 2nd Peter 1:19, where Peter said, "we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it", that would be worthless!!

But of course, true Christians do realize that doctrine and oral tradition are indeed subject to change, development, degeneration, and deviation and "therefore" require a standard point of God Breathed reference to check itself against. Scripture supplied and continues to supply this Check! By this only we can try (test) the Spirits to know whether they be of God or not (1st John 4:1). How would we do this without the Authority of scripture? Tradition which proclaims what is non-scriptural cannot have absolute Authority; It may have the Authority of age, antiquity or large consent, but it does not have ultimate compulsion or necessity! In short, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that any church, any tradition, or any pope or minister is equal to Scripture! Therefore, scripture is the Final authority to try the spirits with.

Can Tradition be on a Par with God's Word?
Since the Bible "is" the Word of God (as even Roman Catholics whole heartily agree), then it's only rational and logical to profess that any other authority, cannot either contradict it, nor be on a par with it, nor be above it. I.e., there is no Authority higher than God. For who's Word supersedes God's? And no word is on a par with it. For who's word is as good as God's? Therefore, again logically and rationally speaking, in order for someone's word to be on a par with God's Word, the one speaking it would have to be God, or at the very least equal to God, or have God speak in a voice to him. The Only other alternative is to be "quoting" God from His Word! Neither the Pope, a Priest, nor anyone else is equal to God to have his word be on a par with God's Word, nor is God speaking to anyone from the smoke on the mountain today, or creating new oral scripture from a burning bush. The Bible is Complete, not incomplete. It needs no additions.

This of course is the tangled web in which the Roman Church finds itself by placing tradition on a par with God's Word. For unless something is God's Word, then it cannot be equal to God's Word. And simply saying God gave it is not sufficient for anyone to claim tradition is the Word, just as it wouldn't be for the traditions that the Pharisees held and Jesus condemned saying they made the Word of God of non effect.

True, God breathed His Word through the apostles and placed it in the form of the "Word of God" just as He did Old Testament scripture. But unless God is continuing to write his book (the scriptures) through the Roman Church, then that giving of the law through those who penned scripture has ended. If it has not, then the Pope must rip out the page of Revelation where God says don't add to His word, throw it away, Proclaim the Bible incomplete, and write down every infallible tradition he (supposedly) receives of God and place it on the pages of the Bible, as it is the Word of God! If tradition was on a par with God's Word, then it would be God's Word. In fact, then there would "again" be no oral tradition, as it would join written ordinances! Again, the tangled web that is woven by this un-biblical dogma.

More than that, tradition can become corrupt in the congregation of God (even as it certainly had with the Pharisees in Jesus' day -mark 7:9), and so common sense dictates that it simply cannot and must not be trusted as the ultimate authority, as the Word of God is. It is the words and doctrines of men, often unjustifiable in scripture, and contradictory to it. Not surprisingly, scripture bears out the truth that any tradition or ordinance must be subordinate to the Word. Jesus made it quite clear that we simply cannot hold to any traditions which are not subordinate to scripture, and that teaching such a doctrine is contrary to the gospel of Christ. Consider carefully..

Mark 7:7

"howbeit in vain they do worship Me, teaching for Doctrines the commandments of men,

for laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups, and many other such like things you do."
Clearly, and without ambiguity, Jesus is telling them that the tradition of their congregation is subject to the scriptures, and not vice versa. Any Christian doctrine which denies this, considering scriptures such as this one, is ludicrous. Jesus would not have condemned them for their traditions, if the tradition of God's people was on a par with scripture. It made no sense then, and it makes no sense now!

Proverbs 30:5-6

"Every Word of God is pure, He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him.

add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a Liar!"
This is a solemn declaration that every word of God is tried and pure and that we are not to add to His words, lest we be liars. This law of God is an enduring restriction on God's revelation. Holy men of old who spake as they were inspired of God, wrote scripture. Those scriptures are now complete, it's not an ongoing book anymore. As God's people, under God's care, we have the Authority of God's Word. No other supreme Authorities or institution or object is so circumscribed. Note that in Ecclesiastes, after reflecting on the vanity of life, the Preacher summarizes our basic duty as to, "fear God and keep His commandments" (Eccl. 12:13). We must not add to God's Word by claiming traditions are God's Word. We keep His Word alone as the Authority.

Understanding this, we therefore know that those who reject the Scripture today as the only infallible rule of faith and practice, ultimately are subordinating the Word of God to tradition by making congregational tradition and Leadership the interpreter of God's Word. It sets the words of men in the Church (no matter how faithful they may be) on a par with God's Word, and this is a dangerous and un-biblical thing to do, for every individual is ultimately responsible for what he believes, not the Church, and not his Priest or leader. Each man is judged for his own sin. We are all responsible to study the Bible, not leave that for others to do for us, and indeed Jesus himself said,

John 12:48

"He that rejecteth Me, and receiveth not My Words, hath one that judgeth him; the Word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the Last day!"
No one practicing the Catholic doctrine of Church Authority will be able to stand before God at the judgment and plead, "..the Pope and the Magisterium or my Priest told me to believe in this or that!" There is no such excuse available to men! We are to listen to God's Word, not their word. We therefore should carefully consider which Authority is really infallible, and therefore which one we should follow. God's Word (a given), or our Church tradition.

John 10;27

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me!"
What is the voice of Christ? Is it Church leadership, a Priest, the Magisterium, or is it the Word of God? Certainly this is the crux of the matter. And the truth is, it is Scripture alone that should be the final Authority in matters of faith, practice, and doctrine of the Church (not the only authority, but the final, or ultimate Authority).

The Lord Jesus Christ taught us replete with examples of this principle. When the Pharisees argued with Jesus the points of the law of God concerning the Sabbath, did Jesus petition to tradition concerning it? Did he lean to ecumenical counsels? No, He leaned upon the written scriptures. ..as should we!

Matthew 12:3-5

"but He said unto them, have ye not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with Him?"
Again, when they questioned him about the law of God concerning divorce..

Matthew 19:4-5

"And He answered and said unto them, have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

and said, for this reason shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh."
Again, as the sadducees questioned Him concerning doctrines of the resurrection. Did Jesus appeal to congregational heads or tradition? No, He appealed to the written Word.

Matthew 22:31-32

"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you BY GOD saying,

I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God of the dead, but of the Living!"
Again, when the man came to Him and asked what they must do to inherit eternal life, did Jesus say, talk to your Priest, get Church absolution, or follow the congregational traditions? No, he once again appealed him to look to the scripture.

Luke 10:26

"He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?"
You see, that is where they would find the answers! In the scriptures! Again, the Sadducees, denying the doctrine of the resurrection and trying to trap Jesus with a loaded question, tempted him in hopes to snare Him. Jesus could have there on the spot given them a legitimate and awe inspiring answer without an appeal to Scripture. It is not curious that He did not, but instead, as usual, appeals to scripture. He tells them,

Matthew 22:29

"..Ye do ERR, not knowing THE SCRIPTURES, nor the Power of God!"
Once again, Jesus rejects ecclesiastical tradition of the Sadducees in favor of "Sola Scriptura!" He says (as the Church says today of error), you are wrong because you don't really know the scriptures! In other words, the scriptures is what they should have known that would guide them into the truth, but they didn't know them, thus they were in error! It was not in the Congregational leaders and traditions, Jesus appeals to God's Word!

Matthew 26:24

"The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born".
God, the Perfect teacher, yet He is appealing solely to Scripture to show them that He must do what is written. Sola Scriptura! Again, when the Jewish people sought to Kill Christ (-John 5:18, as they thought that they were God's Chosen People and had Eternal life), Jesus once again directed them to the real Authority where they would find the truth about the matter.

John 5:39

"Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me."
Why would Jesus be sending them to a non-Authoritative source for truth? ..He wouldn't! He directed them to scripture for the very same reason that the Bereans (acts 17:11) appealed to scripture. Because it (not the leaders or tradition of their congregation) was the ultimate Authority, as it was the infallible Word of God! Reformed Protestantism understands this wisdom most evident in Jesus Teachings!

Roman Catholic Objections?
Most Roman Catholics object to Sola Scriptura from two distinct fronts. They argue that:

(#1) The New Testament references to oral "tradition" (II Thess. 2:15; II Tim. 2:2; II Cor. 11:2) illustrate the unbiblicalness of this teaching, and that
(#2) The Scripture nowhere teaches the doctrine.

Isn't it ironic that in both cases, they appeal to scripture as the "final proof or authority" that their tradition is correct? When it suits their purpose, they can always appeal to scripture (as in the keys of the kingdom, Peter the rock, translations of Mary's other Children, etc., etc.) as the final say, but when it doesn't suit their purpose, curiously, scripture isn't really the final Authority on doctrine.

Nevertheless, the first argument is based on a simplistic and naive understanding of Sola Scriptura in that it presupposes the doctrine means there was never any oral tradition or teaching done. This of course would be ludicrous, as much of the New Testament was oral tradition or teaching of God before it was written down (see the Study on "Traditions of men vs. Traditions of God). I have yet to find anyone except catholics themselves who believes Sola Scriptura means what they purport, so this argument is the proverbial "Straw Man" argument. Things that Peter was inspired of God to say (oral tradition or ordinances) became the written "Word of God" as they were penned, just as the Old Testament was. But the Bible is Complete today, I.e., there is no book of Pope John, or Pope this or that, like there is a book of Peter or John or jude, etc. Because the Bible is Complete!

In so far as the second argument is concerned, as I've been demonstrating throughout this document, Scripture clearly teaches what has been labled "Sola Scriptura", from the beginning of it to the end. But it requires the Holy Spirit of God to discern this, just as any doctrine of scripture does. To simply say scripture doesn't teach it, despite the mountains of scriptures supporting it, is to stick ones head in the sand. With Jesus proving that what He says is true by directing us to the scriptures, it would seem that the Roman Church and Pope would likewise direct all to the scriptures. Instead, they claim an infallible authority "over" the Word of God itself, alleging that only they can interpret it. What nonsense!

It would seem to me that given the abundance of examples and illustrations of God, that the onus is on the RCC to "disprove" the sufficiency of scripture, rather than on the Church to prove it's sufficiency, because both sides agree scripture "is" the Word of God, and no other Authority is above God!

In order to disprove sufficiency of scripture, one would need to show us exactly where oral tradition differs from Scripture. If it doesn't differ, then what is the need of Oral tradition, and why does God say scripture thoroughly furnished them unto all good works? And If oral tradition is not found taught in the scriptures (because it presumably differs from), one must then prove that that "oral revelation" which was not found in Scripture, is apostolic. Despite claims of such proof by some, no such proof exists. Therefore, they cannot prove any Oral tradition handed down through tradition of a Church, is of God!

The fact is, the reason that the early Churches of the second century were so diligent in collecting and preserving the New Testament writings of Paul, John, Peter, and others in the first place, was to guard against oral teachings which could not be checked for accuracy once the apostles had all died. I.e., it's God himself inspiring them to preserve His Holy Word, as he did with the Old Testament Scriptures before the first advent of Christ. Sola Scriptura does not mean the rejection of every tradition, Sola Scriptura means that any form of tradition, must be tested by the higher Authority, and that Authority can only be God (and thus God's inspired Holy Word, the Bible).

False Dichotomy between Scripture and Traditions of God
The Roman church error lies in creating a dichotomy between two things that cannot be separated, and then using that false dichotomy to deny Sola Scriptura.

1 Cor. 11:2

"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
2 Tim. 1:13

"Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith and Love which is in Christ Jesus."
2 Tim. 2:1-2

"Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

and the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
2 Tim. 3:14-17

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

and that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto Salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
There is simply nothing in these passages to support the idea of a separate oral tradition different from what was written. In order to deny Sola Scriptura, we must make the erroneous "assumption" that what Paul taught in the presence of many witnesses is different from what he wrote to entire Churches! Is such an idea founded in reality? Of course not! It's rationalization by the Roman church in support of oral tradition, not proof of it.

1st Thessalonians. 2:13

"For this reason also we thank God without ceasing, because, when ye received the Word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in Truth, the Word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
2nd Thessalonians 2:15

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
There is nothing future about this passage at all. Does Paul say to stand firm and hold fast to traditions that will be delivered? Does Paul say to hold on to interpretations and understandings that have not yet developed? No, this oral teaching which he refers to has already been delivered to the entire Church at Thessalonica. ..Now, what does oral refer to? We first note that the context of the passage is the Gospel and its work among the Thessalonians. The traditions Paul speaks of are not traditions about Mary, Purgatory, Repetitions of hail mary, or Papal infallibility. Instead, the traditions Paul refers to have to do with a single topic, one that is close to his heart. He is encouraging these believers to stand firm--in what? Was it in oral traditions about subjects not found in the New Testament? No, he is exhorting them to stand firm in what he has orally taught them of what is in the gospel. The Old Testament concealed is the New Testament revealed. There is simply nothing in these passages to support the idea of a separate oral tradition different from what was written or what Paul taught.

Note in 2nd Peter 3:2, Peter stresses the consistency of his teaching with that of the prophets, and of the other apostles. The unity of the Old Testament with the apostolic writings is illustrated in passages such as 1st Peter 1:10-12, and 2nd Peter 1:19-21.

One example of what is known as Sola Scriptura is made plain in the Abrahamic covenant. God again reveals Himself, apart from a divine expositor, and pledges Himself to fulfill His covenant (Gen. 15). When Abram seeks confirmation of God's Glorious Promises, the Lord confirms His divine Word by His divine Word!

Hebrews 6:13

"For when God made promises to Abraham, because He could swear by no greater, He sware by Himself.."
No Pontiff or magisterium or Sacred Tradition is invoked to verify God's Word. That's an important point not to be missed! The supreme Authority is the Lord's own testimony to His Word. No further appeal is possible. He didn't swear by the Priests, He swore by himself! Nothing else could confirm God's own Word but God Alone! Other than Himself, His Holy Word stands alone as the Supreme Authority. Sola Scriptura! Truly, what other authority is on a Par? ..or Higher? ..or Better? ..from a better platform? ..more Trustworthy? ..infallible? The answer is, None! Which is why Jesus always directed those with questions and objections to His teachings, to the scriptures. Both ancient theology endorses this, as well as the New Testament Church. As in the past, God's people may discern truth by going directly to the Scriptures: As God explained in the parable, when confronted with the question of how they would believe.

Luke 16:29

"...they have Moses and the prophets, Let them hear them!"
God could have very easily said, they have the Church, the Church leaders, the magisterium, but He appealed to the scriptures as their source for Authority they should listen to. Christ even tells us why people get into errors in their doctrines. It's not because they lean unto understanding of the scriptures, but the exact opposite. It's because they do not understand them "because" they don't know them!

Matthew 22:29

"Jesus answered and said unto them, ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God."
Christ did not direct anyone to secondary explications or extra-Scriptural Hebrew traditions (though plentiful) as authoritative norms but He directed them continually to examine the Word of God itself. He says, "read the scriptures, it is written, search the scriptures, have ye not read, as saith the scriptures, that the scriptures might be fulfilled, as saith Isaiah, etc., etc." In the New testament, the exhortation to the Authority of scripture continues, (Rom. 15:4; Eph. 6:17; II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:19; Rev. 1:3). Scripture commends those who examine the written revelation of God ("open minded, and more noble" -Acts 17:11) and illustrates that Christians have the ability to rightly divide and interpret scripture apart from any (supposed) infallible interpreter whether Church or pontiff (2nd Timothy. 2:15; Acts 17:11). Interpretation must come from the Word of God. As a little girl humbly, honestly and simplistically asked,

"how do we know it's REALLY God's Word, if we don't get it from God's Word?"
...and all God's people said, ...A M E N ! Out of the mouth of babes!
For knowing the nature of man, that indeed is a Good Question! Again, note the manner in which Christ refuted error. It was, "God said thus, but you say..." (Matt. 15:4-5; Mark 7:10-11) After Jesus mentioned, "God said," He then quoted Scripture. That was His manner in which He drew a clear, concise contrast between the written Word of God and the teachings of men. Let that be a lesson unto us.

1st Peter 2:21

"for even hereunto were ye called; because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps."
We can fully understand the frustration of those who think Christians should listen to the Roman Church instead of God, and how it's annoying when we won't bow to that authority. But there is a very clear warning about making man the Authority in the Church in 2nd Thessalonians 2. Man must never "Rule" in the Temple of GOD! Only God can Rule (have Authority) over the Church. And God's Word is the Bible! ..so really, what's to debate?

The fact is, the only way that Man is going to stand with the righteous, overcoming in Christ, is if he has "kept" the Word of God as truth, and the word of man as error. Belief in the Word of God over man's words of tradition is what separates true believers from unbelievers. It's what separates those who can be deceived, from the Elect who can never be deceived into false Gospels. We know what the truth is because we know where the truth is. It's in the written Word from God, not the Church. The Church is the Pillar and ground of the truth, it's not the truth! It is merely the Witness of God's Truth. It bears faithful testimony to God's truth, and that's what makes it the Pillar and ground of the truth! Faithfulness to truth (which is God's Word, not man's word) makes us as a tree planted by the Rivers of Life. God's Word is true, man's tradition which contradicts it is not! As it is written,

Romans 3:3

"For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

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."
The truth is in God's Word, not in the words of Pontiff J., or Pastor B, or Church tradition Y, or even Tony Warren. The Truth is in God's Word. And if we don't read it in God's Word, then it's not God's Words. In determining which word has the Authority, let God be true, and every man a Liar!

Scripture declares that if you build on a foundation that is not the Word of God, and will not hear God's Word, then you build on a foundation which will crumble when the winds and the rains come (luke 6:47-49). God likens you to a foolish man. That's what God says! Build upon God's Word alone as the supreme Authority and you build upon a Rock! Sola Scriptura! A Firm foundation on the Word of God.

Peace,

Copyright ©1998 Tony Warren

Posted by: Daniel at January 22, 2004 10:31 PM

I thank all of you. Daniel,Joe, Jay, Alex and Nelson thanks for the scriptures that you have shared with me.

Jason

Posted by: Jason at January 23, 2004 8:00 AM

Daniel (and Jason),
Because your post was so long, Joseph answered it in this article: A Response to Tony Warren. He explained clearly the mistakes Mr. Warren made and why Sola Scriptura remains a doctrine opposed to the Bible. I'll look forward to your comments.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at January 24, 2004 7:45 AM

Nelson,
I also recommend you read the article http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/mt/archives/000162.html >Apologetics 101: A Response to Tony Warren, since he makes some of the same mistakes you do. But I wanted to make sure to point out some of the errors. First, I agree that your Church should be in agreement with the Bible – of course, only the Catholic Church follows the Bible completely - protestant churches ignore parts of it in order to reach the interpretations they desire. Now for your argument. You say:

So, how is the Bible authoratative? Simple. We believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Why? You have no proof that the books contained in your Bible are the correct books of the Bible. There were many books, such as the Gospel of Peter, that were not included. There were also books such as Revelation that were included though many thought they were not inspired. How do you know the right books are included? Jesus did not leave a list of the correct books; you must trust that the Catholic Church created the Bible infallibly, which means you must agree that Martin Luther was wrong when he (a) added a word to the Bible and (b) removed books.

You raise some good questions. Where does the Bible say the completed Bible is the “pillar and foundation of Truth”? It doesn’t, but it does say the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth in 1 Tim 3:15. Where did Jesus command that the apostles create a Bible? He didn’t – does that mean that the Bible is a result of oral tradition? Hmmm.

Next, you say that Jesus referred to Scripture, which He did. Then you ask: “Show me where Christ said . . . it is the teaching of the church? Okay, look here:

Matt 23:1-3. Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but do no what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”

Despite the fact that the scribes and Pharisees are not holy men (quite the opposite at this point), simply because they are part of the current church, Jesus tells the people to do whatever they tell you. This was even without the authority Jesus gave to his new Church in Matt 16:18 ff. Jesus not only referred to written scriptures, but also to the authority of the church, so your argument is without merit. On another note, at that time there were various sets of “Scripture” (all Old Testament) that different groups followed. There was not one book of “Scripture” as we know it today.

Next you discuss the Bereans, who had some Scripture in Acts, but not much (most of it was written long, long after). Likely they simply had the letters from Paul, not even the Gospels. You would have to ignore Paul’s other teachings on the Word which is passed by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess 2:15). If your interpretation is correct, Paul and the Bible contradict themselves and therefore are not infallible. If mine is correct, both are in unison. Which do you choose to believe?

One big issue Protestants have is their utter lack of historical knowledge. The Scripture writers were rational men who understood reality. The Bible wasn’t put together until the fourth century A.D. and much of it wasn’t written when 1 Timothy was written. So how can you possibly apply it to all of Scripture? You can’t – it’s completely irrational and ignorant. You can apply it to the Old Testament, which was around then or to the book it is quoted in. To go further is really ridiculous.

Then you make a interesting error:

Show me where in the Bible that the Apostles...Paul, Peter or whomever taught a NEW teaching . . . Also, show me where Christ gives authority to anyone to INVENT NEW WAYS. Show me where the Apostles taught something new.

There are numerous places that show this. First, show me in the Bible where it says that we should worship on Sunday and not Saturday (where they worshiped in the Old Testament). It isn’t there, so obviously it was taught outside of the Bible by the Apostles. Next, go to Acts 6:1-7. Where did Jesus teach the apostles should appoint deacons? Next Acts 15:11. Where did Jesus teach circumcision is no longer necessary? In fact, the Old Testament demands circumcision. Christ gives the apostles the authority to "bind" in heaven and on earth, which is very powerful in Matt 16:18.

That answers the question that you “demand” an answer to. Now a question for you that I “demand” an answer to: Where does the Bible say it alone is the Truth? Sola Scriptura is not only illogical, it contradicts Biblical teachings. You are not following the Bible when you assert the Bible alone. It’s that simple. I have more than answered all of your questions; now answer mine.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at January 24, 2004 10:19 AM

Jay
You still have not proved anything.
1st you do what all Catholics do...you take a snippet of scripture and twist it. If you read ALL of Matthew, you would understand that Christ was pointing out the flaws of the Pharisees. They were being warned and rebuked for NOT practicing what they preached. Yes the Pharisees taught the LAW of Moses. But guess what...the LAW was WRITTEN! Later you will find Christ going over the commandments in Matthew. The Pharisees where unholy...yet they were teaching God's law which was written. The church are the members of a body which follows God and his teachings. The Pharisees clearly did not follow God's teachings, does this mean that they were the church? So why would Christ tell you to follow and trust the Pharisees. He wouldn't...he knew the Pharisees were corrupt yet they did teach the WRITTEN LAW, Christ emphasized on following God's commandments and God's laws were written(God's law, not his covenant with Israelites). Scripture will support this...and I'll gladly guide you to them if you would like me to. Your argument is very weak on this point. As for circumcision, In the Old Testament circumcision was a physical, visible reminder of the agreement God made with His people. Let me refresh your memory of the content of that historic agreement and the wonderful things God promised to Abraham.
"I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God." (Gen 17:6 - 8 NIV) “This will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-- those who are not your offspring."(Gen 17:10 – 13) Circumcision had nothing to do with their acceptance by God. Abraham was already accepted by God before God asked him to be circumcised. It's important that you remember that.
God wanted the people to have a physical reminder of His promise to make of them great nations. There are always two parties to an agreement.
It either party fails to uphold the terms of the agreement, the agreement can be declared null and void. The Children of Israel failed to live up to their end of the agreement and so God declared it null and void and made a new agreement with them. The New Testament is that new agreement. (See Hebrews 8-12) "But God found fault with the people and said: "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. (NIV) I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." (Heb 8:8 - 12 NIV)
It would be good for you to study Hebrews chapters 8-12 for a fuller understanding of this new covenant. Jay remember Christ came to fulfill His father’s work. Christ is that new covenant. So why do you need a circumcision to remind you of your covenant with God if you have Christ? The BIBLE says that CIRCUMCISION was a SIGN of the covenant between God and the Israelites.
But because Christ and of this new covenant, the New Testament teaches us that circumcision is not necessary for our personal salvation. (see Acts 15:1,24) It wasn't necessary for acceptance by God in the Old Testament because Abraham was accepted by God before circumcision. Paul gives some teaching to the Corinthians and the Galatians about the place circumcision has in our relationship to Jesus Christ.
"Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. (1 Cor 7:18 - 19 NIV)
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”
(Gal 5:6 NIV) Jay again, Scripture shows that you assessment that the Apostles changed the Law on Circumcision is false. God changed the Law through his son Jesus Christ…the NEW COVENANT. As for the Sabbath, Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” According to the Law of Moses, you were not supposed to work on the Sabbath day. Jesus picked grains in the field with His disciples on the Sabbath day, and as He stated himself he worked on the Sabbath day. God’s work is what matters…so whether it be Saturday, Sunday or Tuesday….if it is about God, that is all that matters. Jesus demonstrated this clearly by performing miracles on the Sabbath also by preaching and teaching on the Sabbath. Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath…so says the Lord Jesus Christ. Again you are wrong in stating that the disciples changed the Sabbath day, when in fact Christ changed it. Finally your last point Jay, which is your weakest…you bring up Acts 6:1-7. Christ himself gathered the 12 disciples and taught them the Word of God. Christ wanted His Word to be spread. Christ also taught about compassion and love for one another. Not only did the disciples follow Christ’s example of recruiting men to spread God’s word but they also showed compassion by making sure those who needed to be fed, were fed. Spreading the Gospel was not a new teaching of the disciples…it was a teaching of Christ!! AMEN! Jay, you still have not shown where there was new teachings taught by the disciple. Everything they taught, Christ already taught. Once again Jay, we Protestants listen to preachers and ministers, but in the end…the ultimate authority on whether it is of God is His Word. Still waiting for proof Jay…and please quote scripture next time and show how it correlates to your point.

Nelson

Posted by: Nelson at January 25, 2004 10:06 PM

Nelson,

Quick question in reference to God's original covenant with Abraham - did God give it to Abraham in writing or orally?

And since everything the Jews believed and had to do as faithful Jews was written in the Bible - please reconstruct for me the process of offering a sin offering from the Old Testament alone...

In reference to Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus is referring to "oral teaching" for He says "do everything they tell you." Telling equals speaking equals "oral"...I think you get the picture.

Next question - If you want to talk about biblical miscontext and "twisting Scripture" to fit one's beliefs, where does it says that it is by the Bible alone that we are to know Christ or better yet, show me one verse that says that Scripture is the "sole source of authority"?

Matthew 16:15-19 clearly says that Christ founded a Church and that He (Jesus) gave authority to Peter, 1 Timothy 3:15 clearly says that the pillar and bulwark of truth is the Church, please note that it doesn't say the Bible (probably because the Bible wasn't even compiled at that time, that would happen over 300 years later). So I believe the burden of proof is laying squarely on the shoulders of Protestants.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at January 25, 2004 10:45 PM

Joe,
You obviously did not read the scripture on circumcision. Also the laws that Abraham followed were the Laws of Moses...you know, those things we called commandments. They were DEFINITELY written.
Nonetheless, you still have not shown where a new teaching was taught.
So as for that, I am still waiting.
Nelson

Posted by: Nelson at January 26, 2004 5:51 AM

Nelson,
We've pretty much proven your arguments incorrect. You said again, "you still have not shown where a new teaching was taught." Yet I did show several:

There are numerous places that show this. First, show me in the Bible where it says that we should worship on Sunday and not Saturday (where they worshiped in the Old Testament). It isn’t there, so obviously it was taught outside of the Bible by the Apostles. Next, go to Acts 6:1-7. Where did Jesus teach the apostles should appoint deacons? Next Acts 15:11. Where did Jesus teach circumcision is no longer necessary? In fact, the Old Testament demands circumcision. Christ gives the apostles the authority to "bind" in heaven and on earth, which is very powerful in Matt 16:18.

The Bible was all eventually written, no one is arguing that. But how did Christians function for 400 years without a written Bible? How did the people before Christ know how to perform a sin offering (it isn't in the Bible). Oral Tradition has always been a part of the Church - keep studing, you'll see I'm right.

Also, to say that Jesus didn't mean what he said in Matt 23:1-3 is ridiculous. If Jesus meant "only when they teach the law" He would have said that, but He didn't. Are you trying to argue that the Pharisees never said anything but the law? That's a reach. Clearly Jesus was teaching that the faithful must follow the oral teachings of the Pharisees. I'm sorry you didn't realize that was in the Bible before.

By the way, you continue to avoid our questions. Why? I think I know why, but I'll ask them again and wait patiently for your response:

• Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura? If it isn't in the Bible, then it's completely illogical (and it rules itself out).
  
• Where does the Bible show you how to perform a sin offering?
  
• Where does the Bible teach that we should attend church on Sunday?
  

This is just a sampling of the valid questions we asked, but I'll be happy if you can answer them.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at January 26, 2004 9:13 AM

Jay
You obviously did not read the scripture that I pointed out to you.
You said that the disciples changed the Sabbath law. This is incorrect...Jesus changed the Sabbath day. Read the scripture I pointed out to you. Jesus told the Pharisees that he is always at his Father's work, and He also told the Pharisees that he is Lord of the Sabbath. Again, Jesus changed the way Sabbath was observed. Read your scripture, the source of truth. AS for circumcision....that was a sign of the covenant between Abraham's descendants and God. It was not needed for acceptance because Abraham was accepted by God before circumcision. Dt. 10:16 shows that God is after circumcised hearts. This is the same point that the disciples bring up when discussing circumcision. Most important...this was the old covenant between God and the Israelites. Christ represents the New Covenant. Look to Jeremiah 31:31-34. The LORD says his NEW COVENANT will be written on the the hearts of his people. God wanted circumcised hearts. Scripture shows this time and time again. The Old Covenant says circumcised flesh...the New Covenant in Christ says circumcised hearts. So Jay and Joe...circumcision again...was not changed by the disciples..neither was Sabbath....it was changed by the Lord. As far bishops and deacons. This is another weak point. Just as Christ recruited the disciples to follow Him and to teach them about His Father's work....the disciples also recruited men to spread the Jesus' work. Nothing new there. So, as I have said...the disciples never taught anything that Christ did not teach. 2 Timothy 3:15 says that Scripture is used for reproof. Do you know what reproof means? It means to reprove, to correct, to rebuke. In other words, it is the standard by which things are done. It is used to correct mistakes! No where does it say in the Bible that tradition of men or that oral teachings are used for reproof. It says scripture is used for reproof. The Catholic doctrine does not measure up to the bar.
Peter in 2 Peter 3:16 Says that Paul writes Scripture. So you see, even by Peter's admission, contrary to your belief, there were writings. Peter...YES Peter...follows this up in 3:17 by saying...since you already know this....this being that Paul WRITES SCRIPTURE inspired by God...BE ON YOUR GUARD so that you may not be carried away by the ERROR of lawless men and fall from your secure position. Peter is also showing the authority that is in the written word. He letting you know that Paul writes scripture, inspired by God and because you know this..you have a reference for all truth so you may not err. IT gets no clearer than this gentlemen. Peter ends it all by saying that....3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, To him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.
Peter in this passage shows that scripture was written, that scripture is inspired by God, and that the people can look to the scripture so they would not err. In addition he shows that Scripture will help you grow in Christ. He did not say..."follow us", "follow me", "trust us"...no...he said instead to trust the written word. Jesus, Peter and all disciples deferred to the scriptures...they held Scripture as the ultimate authority. As a Christian, I hold the Bible as the measuring stick. I use it for reproof...I believe it is God's Word. I believe it to be authoratative on ALL matters concerning the Church. As shown, this is CLEARLY biblical. Trusting in traditions of men...is unbiblical. Follow the Word of God.

Nelson

Posted by: Nelson at January 26, 2004 10:04 PM

Nelson,

Three things
1) Being "Lord of the Sabbath" and changing the day on which we, as children of Almighty God, worship Him on are two different things. You are attempting to say that because Jesus said that He was Lord of the Sabbath that that meant He changed the day we worship Him on. That is not biblical. Jesus never said "Now you shall worship God on Sunday rather than Saturday (or the last day of the week), a day chosen for rest since the beginning of time, for the 7th day was the day God rested on. Again, I challenge you to find one verse in the New Testament commanding this change.
2) In reference to circumcision, you still miss the point. We understand that God wanted "circumcised hearts" more than circumcision of the flesh, but that does not change the reality that circumcision was commanded by God as the physical sign of the covenant. No where in the Gospels does Jesus change this, He does insist on the necessity of Baptism (and the eating and drinking of His Flesh and Body for that matter), but He never says, "you now have Baptism therefore circumcision is no longer the necessary sign of the covenant." Ultimately, this was a decision made by the Apostles, who had been given the authority to make such changes (Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18).
3) You still have yet to provide one verse that shows that Bible is the sole source of authority and truth. Sola Scriptura is not biblical so who needs to be concerned about not obeying the Bible...us or you? We follow the Catholic Church, that gave this world the Bible, that has defined so many fundamental beliefs that all Christians believe in, and that was established by Jesus Christ Himself. Again, who founded your church? I guarantee it was a man (and not the Man - Jesus Christ). Tell me your denomination and I'll look into it for you.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at January 28, 2004 6:12 AM

Joe
You obviously fail to acknowledge Christ as the NEW COVENANT!! Circumcision was the OLD COVENANT. Circumcision was a covenant between God and Abraham's descendants. It was a sign. But the Israelites failed miserably when it came to following God. They fell out of God's favor. Go then made a new covenant! Meaning the old is old and is to be replaced by the new. The NEW COVENANT is Christ. So just by being...Christ removes the need for circumcision. God made a new covenant...a new sign...a new promise. That was fulfilled in Christ Jesus. So again...no disciple changed circumcision...God changed the law on circumcision. God speaks of this NEW COVENANT in Jeremiah 31:31
"The time is coming," declares the LORD ,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to [4] them, [5] "
declares the LORD .
33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD .
"I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD ,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,"
declares the LORD .
"For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."
Once again...God changed the covenant...and by doing that he changed circumcision. Not a disciple...but God.
You still have yet to disprove this.
I will show you more scripture later on about Sabbath and how the word Sabbath means rest and that Christ is that rest. But just know that Christ taught also by his actions...I will leave that subject for another day as I am pressed for time right now...going to church:) You also have failed to acknowledge how Peter told people to look to what Paul was writing as complete truth. How Peter spoke of the scriptures as a measuring stick for truth.
Still you have not proved your arguments to be correct. I will break down for you how Christ is our Sabbath.
Still...waiting for scriptual proof how disciples changed the law or taught something new.

Nelson

Posted by: Nelson at January 29, 2004 8:06 PM

Nelson,
How can you ignore all of my proofs? I'm just curious. You picked the one think you think you're correct on and ignored all of the others where you are obviously incorrect. By the way, Jesus came not to destroy the law (the Old Covenant), but to fulfill it. Where does it say, "Now ignore everything God said before today?"

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at January 30, 2004 11:36 AM

Nelson,

In reference to your comment about Jesus doing away with the Old Covenant "just by being", let's see what Jesus has to say about that:

"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
- Matthew 5:17-19

Next...you still haven't answered one of my questions above...

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at January 30, 2004 8:50 PM

Sorry for the long break, I was away on vacation. I am going to make this quick. If you look at Leviticus chapter 23-24. You will find that the 10th day of some month was referred to as a sabbath. The 10th day was referred to as a sabbath of rest. In addition to this sabbath day, they were to keep the standard sabbath. God wanted the Israelites to observe more Sabbath's. Not more Saturday's more Sabbath...more rest unto God. So while the regular sabbath day was a saturday...there were other days on which the sabbath was observed. A sabbath day is a day when one ceases from one's own activities of work. Sabbath was not JUST saturday. To see the sabbath as restricted to saturday is not truly understanding the Sabbath. You can read Leviticus read more about the different sabbath's. This is what Paul was referring to when in Col 2:16 he said do not let anyone judge you by what eat or drink or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
The Pharisees added their own tradition and contorted the law of Sabbath. That's why they were angry when Christ healed a man on the Sabbath day. But a Sabbath is to rest from one's own work. Christ was doing his father's work...as God operated through Christ. Christ ceased from his own work and rested into the Heavenly Father. That is why Christ said He is ALWAYS at His Father's work.
Christ also said that we can FIND a rest in Him. We can take His yoke. He will do the work while we rest from our own work. Paul backs this up by saying in Col 2:17 that the reality of the New moons or a sabbath day are a shadow of things to come, the REALITY is found in Christ.
Why did the Sabbath go from Saturday to Sunday? Was it because Christ was resurrected on a Sunday or did the Apostles just feel like worshipping on a Sunday. It doesn't matter...as long you rest unto God. Our rest is in Christ.
Christ truly did fulfill the commandments...each and every one of them. We should constantly, everyday, find our rest in Christ. That is our Sabbath. Once again scripture proves your point wrong...you have yet to show that Church traditions overrule the scriptures. You have yet to demonstrate that the Apostles taught something that Christ did not teach. Your argument for the sabbath day being changed is weak, because the Old Testament shows that a sabbath was not relegated only to a Saturday. Second Christ showed what the true meaning of Sabbath is...it for the delight of men. That is found in the OT. That is why Christ said..."the sabbath was made for man..not man made for sabbath" We get to find rest in God. Amen to that. It was not so much the day that Christ was worried about. Its like the woman at the well in John 4:20 She asked if we are to worship in the mountains or in Jerusalem. Christ didn't give her a clear cut answer. He finished with that True worshippers worship in Spirit and in truth. Jesus showed by example what the true sabbath is. The scriptures back this up, which shows that there was not anything new that Christ did not teach, taught by the Apostles.

Nelson

Posted by: Nelson at February 23, 2004 12:51 AM

Sorry for the long break, I was away on vacation. I am going to make this quick. If you look at Leviticus chapter 23-24. You will find that the 10th day of some month was referred to as a sabbath. The 10th day was referred to as a sabbath of rest. In addition to this sabbath day, they were to keep the standard sabbath. God wanted the Israelites to observe more Sabbath's. Not more Saturday's more Sabbath...more rest unto God. So while the regular sabbath day was a saturday...there were other days on which the sabbath was observed. A sabbath day is a day when one ceases from one's own activities of work. Sabbath was not JUST saturday. To see the sabbath as restricted to saturday is not truly understanding the Sabbath. You can read Leviticus read more about the different sabbath's. This is what Paul was referring to when in Col 2:16 he said do not let anyone judge you by what eat or drink or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
The Pharisees added their own tradition and contorted the law of Sabbath. That's why they were angry when Christ healed a man on the Sabbath day. But a Sabbath is to rest from one's own work. Christ was doing his father's work...as God operated through Christ. Christ ceased from his own work and rested into the Heavenly Father. That is why Christ said He is ALWAYS at His Father's work.
Christ also said that we can FIND a rest in Him. We can take His yoke. He will do the work while we rest from our own work. Paul backs this up by saying in Col 2:17 that the reality of the New moons or a sabbath day are a shadow of things to come, the REALITY is found in Christ.
Why did the Sabbath go from Saturday to Sunday? Was it because Christ was resurrected on a Sunday or did the Apostles just feel like worshipping on a Sunday. It doesn't matter...as long you rest unto God. Our rest is in Christ.
Christ truly did fulfill the commandments...each and every one of them. We should constantly, everyday, find our rest in Christ. That is our Sabbath. Once again scripture proves your point wrong...you have yet to show that Church traditions overrule the scriptures. You have yet to demonstrate that the Apostles taught something that Christ did not teach. Your argument for the sabbath day being changed is weak, because the Old Testament shows that a sabbath was not relegated only to a Saturday. Second Christ showed what the true meaning of Sabbath is...it for the delight of men. That is found in the OT. That is why Christ said..."the sabbath was made for man..not man made for sabbath" We get to find rest in God. Amen to that. It was not so much the day that Christ was worried about. Its like the woman at the well in John 4:20 She asked if we are to worship in the mountains or in Jerusalem. Christ didn't give her a clear cut answer. He finished with that True worshippers worship in Spirit and in truth. Jesus showed by example what the true sabbath is. The scriptures back this up, which shows that there was not anything new that Christ did not teach, taught by the Apostles.

Nelson

Posted by: Nelson at February 23, 2004 12:51 AM

Sorry for the long break, I was away on vacation. I am going to make this quick. If you look at Leviticus chapter 23-24. You will find that the 10th day of some month was referred to as a sabbath. The 10th day was referred to as a sabbath of rest. In addition to this sabbath day, they were to keep the standard sabbath. God wanted the Israelites to observe more Sabbath's. Not more Saturday's more Sabbath...more rest unto God. So while the regular sabbath day was a saturday...there were other days on which the sabbath was observed. A sabbath day is a day when one ceases from one's own activities of work. Sabbath was not JUST saturday. To see the sabbath as restricted to saturday is not truly understanding the Sabbath. You can read Leviticus read more about the different sabbath's. This is what Paul was referring to when in Col 2:16 he said do not let anyone judge you by what eat or drink or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
The Pharisees added their own tradition and contorted the law of Sabbath. That's why they were angry when Christ healed a man on the Sabbath day. But a Sabbath is to rest from one's own work. Christ was doing his father's work...as God operated through Christ. Christ ceased from his own work and rested into the Heavenly Father. That is why Christ said He is ALWAYS at His Father's work.
Christ also said that we can FIND a rest in Him. We can take His yoke. He will do the work while we rest from our own work. Paul backs this up by saying in Col 2:17 that the reality of the New moons or a sabbath day are a shadow of things to come, the REALITY is found in Christ.
Why did the Sabbath go from Saturday to Sunday? Was it because Christ was resurrected on a Sunday or did the Apostles just feel like worshipping on a Sunday. It doesn't matter...as long you rest unto God. Our rest is in Christ.
Christ truly did fulfill the commandments...each and every one of them. We should constantly, everyday, find our rest in Christ. That is our Sabbath. Once again scripture proves your point wrong...you have yet to show that Church traditions overrule the scriptures. You have yet to demonstrate that the Apostles taught something that Christ did not teach. Your argument for the sabbath day being changed is weak, because the Old Testament shows that a sabbath was not relegated only to a Saturday. Second Christ showed what the true meaning of Sabbath is...it for the delight of men. That is found in the OT. That is why Christ said..."the sabbath was made for man..not man made for sabbath" We get to find rest in God. Amen to that. It was not so much the day that Christ was worried about. Its like the woman at the well in John 4:20 She asked if we are to worship in the mountains or in Jerusalem. Christ didn't give her a clear cut answer. He finished with that True worshippers worship in Spirit and in truth. Jesus showed by example what the true sabbath is. The scriptures back this up, which shows that there was not anything new that Christ did not teach, taught by the Apostles.

Nelson

Posted by: Nelson at February 23, 2004 12:51 AM

Sorry for the long break, I was away on vacation. I am going to make this quick. If you look at Leviticus chapter 23-24. You will find that the 10th day of some month was referred to as a sabbath. The 10th day was referred to as a sabbath of rest. In addition to this sabbath day, they were to keep the standard sabbath. God wanted the Israelites to observe more Sabbath's. Not more Saturday's more Sabbath...more rest unto God. So while the regular sabbath day was a saturday...there were other days on which the sabbath was observed. A sabbath day is a day when one ceases from one's own activities of work. Sabbath was not JUST saturday. To see the sabbath as restricted to saturday is not truly understanding the Sabbath. You can read Leviticus read more about the different sabbath's. This is what Paul was referring to when in Col 2:16 he said do not let anyone judge you by what eat or drink or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
The Pharisees added their own tradition and contorted the law of Sabbath. That's why they were angry when Christ healed a man on the Sabbath day. But a Sabbath is to rest from one's own work. Christ was doing his father's work...as God operated through Christ. Christ ceased from his own work and rested into the Heavenly Father. That is why Christ said He is ALWAYS at His Father's work.
Christ also said that we can FIND a rest in Him. We can take His yoke. He will do the work while we rest from our own work. Paul backs this up by saying in Col 2:17 that the reality of the New moons or a sabbath day are a shadow of things to come, the REALITY is found in Christ.
Why did the Sabbath go from Saturday to Sunday? Was it because Christ was resurrected on a Sunday or did the Apostles just feel like worshipping on a Sunday. It doesn't matter...as long you rest unto God. Our rest is in Christ.
Christ truly did fulfill the commandments...each and every one of them. We should constantly, everyday, find our rest in Christ. That is our Sabbath. Once again scripture proves your point wrong...you have yet to show that Church traditions overrule the scriptures. You have yet to demonstrate that the Apostles taught something that Christ did not teach. Your argument for the sabbath day being changed is weak, because the Old Testament shows that a sabbath was not relegated only to a Saturday. Second Christ showed what the true meaning of Sabbath is...it for the delight of men. That is found in the OT. That is why Christ said..."the sabbath was made for man..not man made for sabbath" We get to find rest in God. Amen to that. It was not so much the day that Christ was worried about. Its like the woman at the well in John 4:20 She asked if we are to worship in the mountains or in Jerusalem. Christ didn't give her a clear cut answer. He finished with that True worshippers worship in Spirit and in truth. Jesus showed by example what the true sabbath is. The scriptures back this up, which shows that there was not anything new that Christ did not teach, taught by the Apostles.

Nelson

Posted by: Nelson at February 23, 2004 12:51 AM

just curious christian and would like info on the gospel of saint thomas. if anyone has any insight i would appreciate it......caleb

Posted by: caleb wright at July 18, 2004 2:03 AM

Nelson,
So you're arguing that the Jews have made an error since the time of Leviticus by believing the Sabbath is on Saturday and its mandated by God? But now Nelson has it right, correct?

Nelson, take a minute and look at history. The Sabbath wasn't changed to Sunday until after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Until then the apostles continued worshiping on Saturday in the synagogues. They clearly changed this after the ascension of Christ into heaven. All this takes is a little study of history - you can even study it from a non-religious historian, if you prefer. This isn't questionable, it's fact.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at July 18, 2004 2:40 PM

Joe,

I must agree that there is much Biblical truth to support Peter being the most significant Church leader at the start of the Church. However I have done some digging and become troubled by the different ways that the Catholic Church views him.

I hate to break it to you but you have been mis-led by the Catholic Church of History. The truth of the matter is that in the early Church Peter was probably the primary leader, however there are a few things you must be made aware of.

First, the Roman Catholic Church as you have come to know did not truly begin to emerge until almost 800AD, the power of the church during this time had them bac date their own history. As you look at most history books and they name who the Pope was in 320AD you will see how the influence of the Church in history has caused History to become "covered" and tainted. The official title POPE was not commonly used as an office of the Church untl around 800AD the descision of the then Church leadership to re-name the previous Bishops of Rome as Popes happened, and the historical writings had to reflect the new application of titles. For some time "stories" about Peter going to Rome and being the Bishop there (Pope) then being crucified there had circulated, however we really have no reputable early source to confirm this. In fact what we do know is that Paul definately went to Rome, but The Bible never mentions Peter going there, nor do any early authoritative works.

You raise the point about Sola Scriptura, I find it amusing that You consider the Scriptures to have come from the Roman Catholic Church, I see it a little differently. The Church was not "Roman" until much later, well after the Cannon had been agreed upon. The Coptic tradition from Egypt would disagree that the RC are the only Church that dates all the way back to Christ, I also think that the Eastern Orthodox would disagree as well. Keep in mind that for nearly a thousand years the RC had a huge political and cultural powerbase that allowed them to influence the writings and recodings of those times. These were the times that drove the divisions in the Church that you speak of. The danger of placing the authority of the Pope or the Church above or equal to that of Scripture is that is the road that led to the selling of indulgences. You could buy your way out of purgatory for a somewhat large fee. This was the fund raising for St. Peter's Basilica where the good Saint is supposed to be buried, however that can only be claimed and never proven. The belief in that tradition came at that same time as the other historical relics of the Church were being displayed so that people could pay to see them and that touching these artifacts would take years off in purgatory etc... It was interesting that there were claims of the same relics being in different places, all by supposedly well respected authorities in the Church. When the RC took a firm stance on man's authority and down played the Word's authority it led to corruption, this is what caused the beginning of Church division. The Pope has no basis for title or position in the Bible, there is no statement from Scripture giving any person or group greater authority than the Bible.

If we cannot hold on to Sola Scriptura, then we have no footing for the foundation of the Church. The strength of the Words of God should always out weight the descisions of Men. I believe that just like the writing of the Cannon was a series of miracles breathed by God, so was the putting together of that Cannon into one book a miracle as well. As soon as we place our selves in greater authority that His Word, we have placed ourselves as our own gods.

The papacy is nothing more than another extension of RC ido0l worship much like their treatment of Mary and some of the Saints. I have some friends who are RC and I believe they are very much in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. However these peopel are not the norm for the RC, most people just go through the motions of an empty idol worshipping religion under the mask of Christianity. Nothing more than a cult, that used to be Christian.

By the way nice site.

Bruce

Posted by: Bruce at March 31, 2005 12:33 PM

Bruce,

First, thanks for commenting. I apologize for not replying sooner but circumstances have kept me away from the site and Jay had to point out to me that someone had posted a comment that I needed to address. I will attempt to be more vigilant in the future :-)

To say that the "Roman" Catholic Church didn't emerge until around the year 800 A.D. and that the Church has "backdated" history to "taint and cover" this fact is simply not true. You mention that you have studied this, would you please provide some "historical proofs" that this was the case. On the side of the Church and the existence of the "Roman" Catholic Church we have only to look to the historical documents that do exist, namely the various histories of the ancient world and the writings of the Early Church Fathers. All are "historical" documents that have been "found and dated" by archeologists and those in those particular fields of expertise not the Catholic Church. The documents say what they say. To imply that simply because the Church wasn't titled "Roman" doesn't change the fact that it was distinctly "Roman". It most certainly didn't submit to this notion of Sola Scriptura. We find many of the Fathers of the Church confirming the very things the "Roman" Catholic Church holds today, the theology of the Eucharist is a prime example. The suggestion that the Coptic Church or the Greek Orthodox Church would take exception here is also not substantiated, namely because the Coptics do remain in union with the "Bishop of Rome" and the Greek Orthodox have never attempted to "deny" the validity of the "Roman" Catholic Church, just as the "Roman" Catholic Church has never denied the validity of the Greek Orthodox Church. In addition to this, it was St. Ignatius of Antioch in the year 110 A.D. who first coined the word "Catholic" for the Church and applied the "Roman" attribute as well. If you seriously want to be historically and intellectually honest I suggest becoming a little more familiar with the writings of the Early Church Fathers (historical documents mind you).

As to St. Peter's presence in Rome, Jay has already adequately addressed that issue here:

Was the Apostle Peter ever in Rome?

In light of these facts I have to disagree with you. Secondly, have you examined the actual archeological records of the excavation or are you simply basing your comments on what you found on the internet by those have something to gain by the remains of St. Peter not being in Rome?

Another comment that you make above that is not substantiated at all is the use of the title "Pope" which you would have us believe wasn't used until around 800 A.D. The truth of the matter is that we have St. Cyprian of Carthage using this title in several letters around the year 250 A.D. Yet regardless of the use of the title we have adherence and deference being give to the Bishop of Rome from the beginning as indicated in St. Clement's Letter to the Corinthians written in 80 A.D.

I see the Word of God, Sacred Scripture, as coming from Almighty God...period. Yet I also see the Church as the bride of Christ (who is God) and I see Him giving authority to the Church. Now that Church, from the beginning has been consistent in teaching and Tradition, from whom we have received the canon of Sacred Scripture. As Catholics we believe the following about Sacred Scripture:

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 had no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time. - St. Augustine
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.
104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God." "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."
- Catechism of the Catholic Church

Your concluding statements reveal more about the extent of your research than even your earlier ones. To suggest that the Papacy is a form of idol worship is about as ridiculous as my saying that the U.S. is Communist, for they both make no sense. Catholics don't worship the Pope...nor do we worship Mary...nor do we worship the saints...period. In all your studying you obviously have fallen short in one crucial area....what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches. If Protestantism and Sola Scriptura are true why the mass division? Why the compromising of key moral issues like divorce, abortion, homosexuality, and contraception? Why the lack of sacraments like the Eucharist and Holy Orders, two sacraments clearly attested to by the Early Church Fathers and the Church down through the ages? I don't mean these questions or my above comments in a mocking or condescending way but as something for you to think about and pray about.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at April 3, 2005 4:14 PM

Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: