DeoOmnisGloria.com

I know better than to try to answer those questions. :) But, just to turn it around a little bit, I have a couple questions. (I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just curious.)

If the apostles really wrote virtually all of the canonized books of the New Testament, why didn't they make it clear in their writings that Jesus had ordained the church structure as has come to be the Tradition of the Catholic Church, since that seems to be what the Catholic belief is. (Maybe my understanding is faulty?) Why not just come right out and say that "Peter is the head of the Church on earth" or something to that effect? If all these traditions were really so important, why didn't they make them clear when they were writing the Gospels and Epistles? Why didn't Luke find them important enough to record when he was writing Acts?

With all due respect, I think Rebecca is looking at this from a Protestant mindset. We must remember that the New Testament was not written before the Church was being established and the world evangelized, but indeed after.

Surely we can agree that everything Christ said is not in the Gospels, and since by the time the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written (the dates of which I can never remember, but surely towards the end of the 1st century), we must remember that the New Testament writers, apostles as though they were, we must remember that they were writing to evangelize people into the Church that was already established. And that the Church's basic structure, nascent as it may have been, was assumed.

Rebecca,
Good question and I'm glad you asked. First of all you must remember that the Bible is NOT a catechism for the Christian faith. The Gospels and Epistles were to either to serve as accounts for Christ's redemptive work or as letters to Christians already part of the Church. Second, there was no need to explicitly say that, "Peter is the head of the Church" because the Sacred Tradition passed on by the Apostles was and is authoritatively binding. You have to remember that the Bible came after the Church not before it, and that it was compiled 300 years after the death of St. John--the Bible itself is part of Tradition! Just like a small child the Church's "formative years" and foundation were laid by oral Tradition and teaching. Additionally, "Sola Scriptura" was unheard of until the 1500s and the majority of people (Christians and non-Christian alike) were illiterate. So the oral Tradition of the Apostles was THE primary source of how the Word was spread and the Church developed. This oral authority was unquestioned by believers for almost the entirety of Christianity. So the real question is why would Christ build his Church on the preaching of the Word for over 300 years and then decide 1200 years later that is was a bad idea and instead it would be be better if all Christians authoritatively decided for themselves what Scripture meant and which doctrines were to be followed? This line of thinking is illogical, unhistorical, and unbiblical. I hope that this is helpful in understanding Tradition (Apostolic) and why there was no reason to explicitly dilineate the structure of the Church.

Yes, I sound Protestant because I am Protestant. At least that's how I was born and raised and more or less have been for my whole life.

Rebecca, I too was born a Protestant. I was brought up in the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and even married a Lutheran pastor. I learned German and read Luther's works in the original language, translating them for my husband to use in his sermons.

After a divorce, raising two children and bringing them up in the Assembly of God denomination, I returned to my Lutheran roots, preached the sermon on two consecutive "women recognition Sundays."

A couple of years later, I started reading a translation of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The more I read, the more I wanted to know. The more I wanted to know, the deeper in Church and Liturgical history I searched. I finally found myself "in the upper room" and then "followed Peter to Rome."

An excellent book to read is Scott Hahn's book Rome Sweet Home. He has a website: http://www.scotthahn.com. You can find the book at: (http://www.getfed.com/product_detail.cfm?ID=531&AID=164&new=yes) Scott is a former Presbyterian Minister. I highly recommend any of Scott Hahan's books and especially Rome Sweet Home for Protestants to read to help them understand Catholicism from a Protestant's point of view.

1) Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

During His ministry on earth, Jesus taught people from scripture (Luke 4:18-21), taught His closest disciples about Himself from Scripture (Luke 24:27), refuted Satan with scripture (Matt 4), and claimed that scripture could not be broken (John 10:35). Do you see a pattern here? In word and deed, Jesus taught a special reliance on the written word of God.

But what of tradition? Jesus frequently rejected it--in favor of the word of God. Take for example one of His many rebukes for the tradition-soaked Pharisees: "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition." (Mark 7:9)

We should thank God that our faith is not held captive by any contemporary group of fallible men who may or may not possess the faith of the Apostles. As Jesus admonished, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." (Matt 23:9). Accordingly, Peter wrote that we are not slaves of men but of God: "Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God." (1 Peter 2:16). Paul, too, spoke of this freedom in Col 2:16-17: "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

What good news it is that the Holy Spirit Himself indwells us, teaches us, and leads us to glorify Christ. With this good news in mind, we can look favorably upon Christian tradition. It can inform us, enlighten us, and even inspire us. But for Christians who rely upon the word of God, we know it cannot enslave us! Let us always bring honor and praise not to the past traditions of the church, but to the Lord Jesus Christ in the steadfast hope of our glorious future with Him!

I will try to respond to a few of these.

1. Jesus is not the only one that has anything worthwhile to say in scripture. If we would go by your rules we would have to throw out all the Old Testament and all but four books of the New Testament.

We listen to what is said in all of scripture. So, what does scripture say about the importance of scripture. In Joshua 1:8 we see "Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful."

Now put this in context. This is the Old Testament book Of Joshua. He is the guy that took over for Moses after Israel crossed the river Jordan after being in the desert for 40 yrs. So I think it is safe to assume that by the time Joshua wrote this, he at least had access to the first five books of scripture. So Joshua was a man of the book.

Now in the New Testament: In Paul's second letter to his student Timothy we have... 2 Timothy 3:15-17

15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

So I think it is pretty clear we get at least a huge chunk of our revelation about God and our knowledge of how to live from scripture.

Question one down... I think the rest would be a doctoral dissertation so I will stop for now.

I think Catholics do a huge disservice to the Universal Church by degrading or downplaying the importance and the role of scripture.

Thank being said, I think evangelicals do a huge disservice to the Universal Body of believers, "The holy catholic church" by totally ignoring the power richness and value of tradition. Correct tradition can be good. Erroneous tradition is very bad, and yes the Catholic church has been wrong on some traditions. Why can't we admit this?

Wayne,

I think there is a danger in these discussions of employing arguments from authority (a fallacy) i.e. "This tradition is good and true because I believe it. That tradition is false because I don't believe it."

I would be interested in hearing which traditions you think the Church has been 'wrong' on; and whether you distinguish between 'traditions' and 'Tradition'.

I would also like to hear your views on the relationship between the Church and the Holy Spirit, with particular reference to the promises Christ made to the apostles.

Peace

Kaffinator,
My first question would be to you as a Christian is do you believe that it is necessary to believe and abide in all that Christ taught? I am assuming an enthusiastic--YES! Since I believe that I can safely assume this is the case for you and for all who call themselves Christians, I would ask you to ponder this. Why would John in 21:25 say, "there are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world could contain the books that would be written.?" This is an incredible statement and illustrates that there was so much that the Apostles witnessed and learned during their time with Christ that they were overwhelmed by it. Further, it indicates that much of Jesus' teaching was left out of his (John) writings, and the question is does it make them less important? Do you not want to know what they are? I certainly do! Therefore, we rely on Tradition (capital "T") to shine light on the Holy Scripture to illuminate it and help us to undersatnd it in its fullness. You must understand that Scripture and Tradition are not competing with one another and one does not supercede the other. As the Catechism states, (CCC 80) "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the age". Therefore, Tradition is the oral part of Christ's teaching given to and witnessed by Peter and the others who have faithfully transmitted it from the beginning of Christianity. The Bible itself attests to this oral tradition and that is the reason for my initial question. So if you did answer yes, and I'm sure you did, then it is imperative to read Scripture as a whole and not individually pick and choose verses that seem to create a doctrine or agree with your pre-conceived beliefs. This approach to Scripture is the real "tradition of men" that is to be avoided at all cost.
In Truth,
Matthew

All:

I have a few questions:

What was the point of writing down the Gospels, if they knew that everything could have just as easily been handed down via an infallible Tradition?

What was the point of figuring out what was Scripture and what was not in the fourth century if Tradition already sufficiently and infallibly encompassed it all?

Why has the Catholic Church historically refused to translate the Scriptures (God's own Word to his people) into the layman's native tongue, so that anyone could read it for themselves?

Why has the Catholic church historically discouraged the layman from reading Scripture for himself?

I have never gotten a satisfactory answer for these questions.

In Christ,

Thomas

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for the kind response. Indeed, I join with all believers past, present, and future in seeking to follow the teachings of Christ: the ones he gave on earth, the ones He modeled for us, and the ones delivered through His apostles.

John 21:25 compares to an earlier statement of John’s in chapter 20:30-31 which contains perhaps a more complete statement:

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

These have been written so that we may believe, so that we may have life in His name. And that's just the gospel of John! The teachings of Scripture are an unending source of riches, the depths of which I will never fully explore in this lifetime! Now I too believe it is wise to look to the traditions (i.e. activities and beliefs) of the saints who followed in the apostles. They have much to teach us! But there is no reason to think that those activities and beliefs are to be placed on an equal footing with what God explicitly reveals to us in Scripture.

For example we can look back to the tradition spoken of by Tertullian in The Chaplet. He spoke of the "tradition" of his time--to baptize three times, to avoid bathing for a full week after baptism, to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, to consider kneeling or fasting on Sunday to be unlawful, and so forth (see Chapter III). Now, we do not follow these traditions today but we can look back to them and find ideas for traditions that might be appropriate in our day and age.

You mentioned that certain of Jesus' teachings were passed to the apostles but were never written down by them. What were these teachings, and why were they not written down? In my studies of Christianity I have never encountered a doctrine 1) can be shown to have originated with the apostles and 2) seems essential to "life in His name". Perhaps you could describe one of these teachings, and how it is you know that it originated with the Apostles.

In Christ,
Kaffinator

Hi Matthew,

Something else occurred to me while I considered your post. It suggested several interpretations of John 21:25:

• the apostles were "overwhelmed" by the scope of Jesus' teachings,
• therefore the Apostles left out many of His important teachings,
• therefore we should seek out those teachings (which are presumably to be found exclusively within Roman Catholic tradition).

I'm not sure I agree with those conclusions based simply on the text (and especially in light of the parallel passage in John 20), but that's beside the point.

My question for you is this: How do you know that you are not picking and choosing an interpretation of John 21:25 to create doctrine that agrees with your pre-conceived (Roman Catholic) beliefs? Later in your post you said we must avoid doing this at all cost, but it seems like this is exactly what you did. This leaves me a bit confused. Perhaps you can explain?

Thomas,

You questions are in bold, my comments follow each questions in normal font.

What was the point of writing down the Gospels, if they knew that everything could have just as easily been handed down via an infallible Tradition?

First of all, the Gospels are specific testimonies of those who followed Christ, written down to “bear witness to these things.” The four Evangelists were not alone in this “bearing witness” as St. Luke clearly attests to:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning these things of which you have been informed. – Luke 1:1-4

Again, how do we know that the New Testament is divine revelation if not for the Apostolic Tradition present in the Catholic Church? The New Testament never makes such a claim. The theology of Sacred Scripture itself has developed down through the ages, namely through interpretation and the compiling of the canon. The belief that the writings of the Apostles and those early followers like St. Mark and St. Luke were inspired by God is a tradition held from the earliest of times itself. In Acts and in the various epistles we see the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition unfolding, we see their dependence on one another. This continued to play out from those early centuries following the time of the Apostles down to our present age.

What was the point of figuring out what was Scripture and what was not in the fourth century if Tradition already sufficiently and infallibly encompassed it all?

Thomas this is where you continue to misunderstand the proper meaning of Tradition. Tradition, as taught by the Catholic Church and manifested throughout her history, does not act as an independent authority “creating” as it were new beliefs, rather it is the interpreting and defining of those things necessary for belief in accord with, first and foremost, Sacred Scripture and, secondly, with those doctrines and dogmas previously declared by other councils and Magisterium teachings (all based on interpretations of Sacred Scripture by those appointed successors of the Apostles). In terms of the need for figuring out what was Scripture allow me to quote again what I presented before:

"Scripture itself does not state what writings make Scripture . . . It was the Church which decided which were inspired writings, and formed them into the New Testament . . . It is all very well to say that Scripture is inspired, but we must also know what is and what is not Scripture. It was the Church that made this decision and thus made the Bible . . . The Church which made the Bible, likewise interprets the Bible."

Why has the Catholic Church historically discouraged the layman from reading Scripture for himself?

In reply to these last two questions, I have posted an article on this commonly held misunderstanding of the history of the Catholic Church and the Bible.

Are Catholics Allowed To Read The Bible: An Article by Francis J. Ripley

In Christ,
Joe

Greetings all in Christ Jesus
(from Daniel)

Here's a thought, how about letting scripture interpret scripture.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

1 John 1:1
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

After reading those scripture there shouldn't be any questions as to what scriptures are from God and are indeed God. Hebrews 4:12 sheds more light.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

By revelation we understand that Christ is the Word. He is the focus in the old testament as the Land of Cannan and is typified by everything else God brings into the lives of His people. The temple is Christ, the produce of the Land reveals Christ, the commandents express His character and heart and almost every item or Godly man in the old testment points to Christ.

Colossians 2:2
that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself,

Colossians 1:27
to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Also, pretaining to other teachings and the testing of our faith:

1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Corinthians 13:5
Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?

What do you think Paul was asking the Corinthians to examine themselves against. A writting word or prophet? Or the Spirit of Christ in them.

1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

ABIDE IN HIM, AMEN! GOD BLESS

Jesus said "Go ye into all the world and teach my gospel to every creature," not "write my gospel to every creature." Teaching may incorporate speaking as well as writing, but is not exclusively made up of writing. One has to assume that the manner in which Jesus taught the disciples was the manner in which He intended them incorporate in order to "teach" others.

Kaffinator,
In response to your second question: "How do you know that you are not picking and choosing an interpretation of John 21:25 to create doctrine that agrees with your pre-conceived (Roman Catholic) beliefs?" This is an easy one. First, I do not assume for a moment to interpret Scripture in any way to create doctrine due to my fallible nature. Second, Tradition is not a doctrine per se. If you read my comments carefully I wrote that the passage "indicates" certain things and that it is all. I also didn't make an assumption that "agrees with my Catholic beliefs" at all. Simple reasoning and logic tells you that the "many things" not recorded that Jesus did in the presence of his disciples that guided them in preaching the Gospel were passed on by other means. Simple as that. It requires no interpretation at all. Scripture testifies to that fact (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; Rom. 10:17). That is the part that amazes me about Protestantism. Every Protestant denies the authority of the Church and the Pope, but instead would reserve the individual right to BE the Pope for themselves. This is the Achilles heel of the post- "Reformation" in my estimation.

To answer your previous quesiton it is even easier: You stated, "In my studies of Christianity I have never encountered a doctrine 1) can be shown to have originated with the apostles and 2) seems essential to "life in His name". Perhaps you could describe one of these teachings, and how it is you know that it originated with the Apostles." Well, to stay on topic we are talking about Tradition which flows from the Apostles, to the Church, to the faithful. First and foremost is the Trinity. All Christians believe in the Trinity. Why is that? Because you trust the teachings (Tradition) of the Church. Why do you believe that Jesus was both God and man (the hypostatic union)? Because you trust the teachings of the Church. Lastly, and probably most importantly from a Protestant perspective is the Bible itself! You believe that the 27 books of the New Testament are the God-breathed, inspired, and infallible word of God because of the Church and how it it handed it on (i.e. Tradition) to the whole world! So my question to you is why do Protestants find it so easy to accept the authority of the Church to define the canon of Scripture, but deny that same authority to determine what Apostolic Tradition is? Why would Jesus tell his disciples that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18) and Paul would say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) if it were not the case? The Church was and is protected from teaching error from Christ himself. So why would Christ protect the Catholic Church from determining what books belong in the Bible, but nothing else. It is illogical, unbiblical, and makes Jesus untrue to himself if the Protestant view is to be believed. How do you reconcile that inconsistency of belief in the Protestant camps?
In Truth,
Matthew

Hi Matthew, thanks for responding. Unfortunately being limited in space and time I cannot respond to all of the questions in your post. But I will try to hit the main points. You said you were not actually interpreting John 21:25 but merely "indicating" an interpretation. You went on to say that you used "simple reasoning and logic", and then finally that your extra-Biblical conclusions required "no interpretation at all". Unfortunately this leaves me more confused then when I asked for clarification. Do your suggested conclusions comprise an interpretation, or not? Did you apply human reasoning and logic, or not? Is this your interpretation, or the RCC's? Are you not arguing that I should interpret the passage as you do?

When I have engaged Catholic apologists I have often seen this sort of dual-mindedness. On the one hand, it is the RC magisterium alone that retains the ability to interpret scripture. But on the other hand, it is always manifest that the Catholic apologist has a free license to interpret scripture without first seeking ecclesiastical approval (I can only assume you did not first check with your Bishop before posting your statements regarding John 21:25?). I would think that an apologist who truly accepts the RC magisterium's sole interpretive authority would always refer me immediately to the magisterium for any interpretation.

My position is that scripture, for the most part, speaks quite plainly, and especially so in the essentials of the faith. I know that has not always been the position of the RCC. But take the doctrine of the Trinity, which I have been studying recently. You claim this as an example of doctrine which is apostolic and essential but not essentially scriptural. I disagree. I believe in the Trinity because the Holy Scriptures teach it. But I do find lots of help from theologians through the ages, Athanasius for example in his Four Discourses Against the Arians. You should note that he argued his points extensively from scripture, and rarely if ever from the conclusions of church councils. For example:

"For if they speak, a condemnation will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast at them from every side." (from Chapter III, Paragraph 10)

Of course, Athanasius did praise the conclusions of the councils. Not because they emanate from authority higher than scripture, but because they were drawn from and reminiscent of the faith expressed in scripture:

"…for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, Part I, Paragraph 6)

Your second example of an essential, apostolic, but not scriptural belief is the NT canon itself. It is not known whether any apostle assembled a complete New Testament canon; only John survived long enough to do so and it is not clear whether he had access to all of them. So you cannot assert that canonical list came from the apostles themselves, nor can you assert that it was one of the teachings referred to by John 21:25. My understanding is that the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, came to conclude which books were scripture and which were not, and that this was merely formalized at a later point by church council. It is the working of God which I recognize as authoritative, and this may or may not occur through the action of any church council made up of fallible men.

And so I remain unaware of any teaching which the Apostles (or Christ Himself) passed on, which is essential to the faith, and which is not already contained in the Holy Scriptures.

May the Lord bless you as you seek His truth, Matthew.

Kaffinator,
First of all I had no question related to John 21:25 and I don't know why it is such a sticking point here. I've tried to answer it twice now. However to respond to your somewhat condescending remark I did not get the approval from my diocese on John 21:25, but I'll gladly give you there number if you wish:) Beyond that, as an apologist there is free reign to the extent that as long as I or any other apologist does not go beyond or against the teaching of the Church all is good. I thank God that we have the Magisterum to guide us. Scripture no matter how much Protestants try to argue otherwise is NOT perspicuous in many matters. Now on the other hand, when a Protestant engages in apologetics it is like the wild west...anything goes so long as they are personally convinced of it because there are no boundaries. Again, we have millions of aspiring "Popes" with their fallible yet sincere determinations of doctrine. This causes further division in the body of Christ and is unfortunate.

As far as the Trinity goes, the Bible does suggest it but it is not clear as you would purport it to be. Where in the Bible does it explain the doctrine of the Trinity, or even use the word “Trinity”? Also, where does the Bible tell us the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity? Sure there are verses that allude to the Trinity (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Heb. 9:14), but I want to know how do you KNOW that the Trinity is true from the Bible alone? You say that you believe it because Scripture clearly teaches it, but this is a circular line of reasoning. A book cannot authenticate itself. Besides that, and this is another topic altogether, if you only know of the Trinity because of Scripture then how did the majority of Christians, especially before 393 A.D., come to know about it? The same way that you and every other Christian knows today…the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church. What all non-Catholics must understand is that the Magisterum is the servant of God’s Word—not the servant of the Bible alone--and not superior to it.

As far as a canonical list goes, I never said that the Apostles compiled it nor did I say that John 21:25 had anything to do with it. However, the entire NT canon as we have it today WAS determined by the Catholic Church with the protection promised by Christ himself (Matt 16:18). In your words: “My understanding is that the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, came to conclude which books were scripture and which were not, and that this was merely formalized at a later point by church council.” Well, you are partly right, but needless to say the canon was not “merely” formalized at a later point. Besides, when you say “the [C]hurch” what church are we talking about here…? There was only one Christian church in existence at the time. This is a historical fact. Beyond this, the canon was determined according to whether or not the epistles adhered to Apostolic teaching (i.e., Tradition). As I said in a previous post, the Bible itself is part of Sacred Tradition.

Kaffinator, I’m sorry that you may still feel that you unaware of these things, but if you go further in your search I promise that you will find it. As Cardinal Henry Newman once said, “to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” I will pray for your continued journey as my brother in Christ and would ask that you would do the same for me.
In Truth,
Matthew

Hi Matthew, I honestly was not attempting to condescend, just to help you clarify your position. You confirmed that you did not check in with your diocese--so how it is you know you are not going beyond or against the teaching of the RCC when you freely interpret John 21:25 to have certain specific implications? Certainly you arrive at a conclusion that seems friendly to magisterial teaching authority, but how do you know that the means you used to get there were correct? If it is just that it "seems reasonable" to you, I ask, what if your interpretation does not seem reasonable to others? I hope it is not your claim that your powers of reasoning are improved simply by way of your allegiance to Rome.

Speaking of reasoning, you have claimed my reasoning is circular when I say I believe something (doctrine of the Trinity) simply because Scripture teaches it. But what is this teaching: simply that Christ Jesus is and always was God; the Holy Spirit is and always was God; and God the Father is and always was God--yet there is one God. Are these teachings not made crystal clear in scripture? Athanasius certainly thought so; perhaps your argument is with him, not me. As an example of his position in action, Athanasius in the Four Discourses quotes a blizzard of NT and OT scripture and concludes:

"It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity" (Chapter 4 paragraph 13)

Once again, I emphasize Athanasius did not point to "apostolic tradition", in fact he didn't even mention tradition in his one-hundred-thousand-word Argument. Rather, he quoted scripture, hundreds upon hundreds of times, to make his case. I hope it is not your claim that that Athanasius, by firmly grounding his arguments exclusively in Holy Scripture, was circular in his reasoning?

Matthew, we need to go back to the beginning here. You first claimed, based on John 21:25, that important, extra-scriptural teachings were passed from Jesus to the apostles and that we therefore should seek them. I challenged you to show me a doctrine that is a) essential to the faith, b) demonstrably apostolic in source, and c) absent from scripture. So far you have offered the Trinity (which is clearly referred to as scripturally-derived by those we both agree were saints of God) and the Canon (which we have both agreed is not directly apostolic). Is there not one single teaching you can offer as a demonstration of your original interpretation of that passage?

I thank you kindly for your prayers. May the Holy Spirit guide us all.

Kaffinator,

I have come to give Matthew some assistance in the debate on the correlation of Sacred Scripture with Church Tradition.

From reading your posts, it is clear that you, the “Kaffinator,” believe in “Scripture Alone” as the means to attain salvation, and, therefore, consequently you believe that Sacred Tradition and the Catholic Church are “not necessary.” However, your arguments for “Scripture Alone” are insufficient in so much as you misinterpret Scripture, and misunderstand what the Church means by Tradition.

What is Tradition?

In this debate it is important to understand what the Catholic Church means by Tradition. Contrary to the belief of numerous persons outside and even within the Church, the term, “Tradition,” does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, liturgical rubrics or even “avoiding to take a bath for a full week after baptism.” Sacred or Apostolic Tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. It is true that a majority of these teachings overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

Jesus and the Apostles were Pro-Tradition

Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3) (Mark 7:9 is parallel). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles (Sacred Tradition) which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs. Let’s look at Matthew 15:6–9, "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Jesus was not condemning all traditions, only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12). Kaffinator, granted you are correct in saying that Jesus used and instructed with passages from the Old Testament often, but He also instructed His followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3, Mark 7:9 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They fail to see that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

The Bible denies that it alone is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching compiled in Sacred Scripture that came to them years later. Jesus instructed his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given by Christ the authority to teach; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

How would the apostle make disciples of all the nations? By giving everyone they met a Bible? No, but by preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a serious error to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. "‘But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you" (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that Peter, who never laid eyes on the Bible, used the word "preached"—that is, communicated orally. The integrity of the oral Word of God endures for the Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13). It would not be replaced by a written record like the Bible but rather supplemented and would continue to have its own authority. The truth that the preached word of the Lord would continue to have authority after the passing away of the original apostles is easily seen when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of Sacred Tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his martyrdom (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

Paul tells what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). Furthermore, the apostle praised again those who held to Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).

The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, Sacred Tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).

These teachings have been handed down and entrusted to the Church. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow Sacred Tradition, which is supplemented and strengthened by Sacred Scripture, for Christ said to His apostles, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me.” (Luke 10:16)

Scripture Alone

Kaffinator and many other Fundamentalist and Evangelicals claim that Sacred Scripture is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for salvation and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s Magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In Kaffinator’s view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, recognizes that Sacred Scripture does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture (See Above about Tradition) The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus Sacred Tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: "Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by stating a couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is this: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17). However, these two passages and the significance given to them by Protestants can be thwarted.

First as Kaffinator so graciously brought to the light, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). What does this mean? It means John 30:21 does not prove the theory of sola scriptura but rather only that the Gospel of John is sufficient. Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Gospel was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, it is common fact and I have already stated that the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

The Protestant argument for 2 Timothy 3:16-17 falls short for their designs just as the verse from John. To say that all inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against these claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled "Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."

He wrote:

"It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. "Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic Epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith."

In addition, the two verses immediately before 2 Timothy 3:16-17 state: "But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15) Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to Sacred Tradition; the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. In other words when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is really teaching the importance of Sacred Tradition!

Obviously, Protestants might be sold on the belief that Sacred Scripture is solely sufficient for salvation but Sacred Scripture, itself, rebuts the notion of “Scripture Alone.”

Licensed To Interpret?

Here’s the answer, straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to your question on the Catholic Church’s guidelines on the reading and interpretation of Sacred Scripture. There is also a little on the interpretation of Sacred Tradition as well.

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77 The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80 (St. Thomas Aquinas)

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89 (St. Augustine)

III. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HERITAGE OF FAITH

The heritage of faith entrusted to the whole of the Church

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum Fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practicing and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful."46

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

I Am So Confused

I want to clearly establish that the Church under the authority of Peter and his successors, the popes, was given the keys of the kingdom and the guidance of the Holy Spirit by Christ, as attested to by Sacred Tradition and later written down in Sacred Scripture. Therefore, the Catholic Church solely holds the right to the authentic interpretation of the revealed truths of God found in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. As seen by Her declaration of Dogmas, such as the Trinity, the Catholic Church exercises this right to propose and expound truths found in the richness of Divine Revelation at the time deemed proper by the Holy Spirit.

So with this said, by what authority do you, Kaffinator, interpret Sacred Scripture? Can you show where you have received the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in these matters? And if personal infallibility, as you believe, is granted to each individual in interpreting Sacred Scripture than why does the so-called personal infallible method of interpretation always produce confusion, contradiction, and disunity among Christians. Prime example, the mess Martin Luther and his followers caused in Europe and the world? You yourself said, “The teachings of Scripture are an unending source of riches the depths of which I will never fully explore in this lifetime!,” but later on you say, “My position is that scripture, for the most part, speaks quite plainly, and especially so in the essentials of the faith.” So, the teachings found in the Scriptures reach depths that you as a man will not explore, and yet for the most part Scripture speaks plainly! Are not confusion, contradiction, and disunity the direct opposites of what Christ prayed for at the close of John’s Gospel?

Closing Thought

Peter, the first pope of the Church, speaks of the dangers of personal interpretation of Scripture, “In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.” (2 Peter 3:16)

In truth attested to not by my own personal sanction but by the authority of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,

Joachim

Kaffinator,
To answer you in finality to your question: "I hope it is not your claim that your powers of reasoning are improved simply by way of your allegiance to Rome." If my “interpretation” as you say does not seem reasonable to others I do not have to worry. I cannot force my views on anyone. My allegiance to the Catholic Church is synonymous with my allegiance to Christ, and since Christ promised the [Catholic] Church that he would not lead it into error I am confident in its teachings. So the answer is a definite yes in terms of improved reasoning. As I said before, as long as I do not go against or beyond the Church’s teachings then I can be confident in my reasoning. That is how the Church encourages the faithful to read the Bible, “within the living Tradition of the Church.” In this way one can always check their understanding of a passage against the way the Church teaches. I know that most Evangelical Protestants and Fundamentalists find it hard to submit to ecclesiastical authority, but these are not my precepts. They are of Christ. Lastly, I think I have made it rather clear at several points in my posts where I stand on the issue of Tradition as it relates to reason, logic, and interpretation, but I find it rather perplexing that you have continually dodged SEVERAL pertinent questions of mine or any of the 10 questions that began this blog. I asked...

1.Why do Protestants find it so easy to accept the authority of the Church to define the canon of Scripture, but deny that same authority to determine what Apostolic Tradition is? AND…
1a. Why would Jesus tell his disciples that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18) and Paul would say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) if it were not the case?
3. Where in the Bible does it explain the doctrine of the Trinity, or even use the word “Trinity”?
4. Where does the Bible tell us the Holy Spirit is one of the three Persons of the Trinity?
5. How do you KNOW that the Trinity is true from the Bible alone?
6. If you only know of the Trinity because of Scripture then how did the majority of Christians, especially before 393 A.D., come to know about it?

I feel that it is necessary at this point for you to address these questions because it seems that they are purposefully avoided to pin me down on issues of passage interpretation (i.e., John 21:25). I have provided several arguments from Scripture verses, the Catechism, Church Fathers, and Church history itself to back up my claims. I would like for you to help me to better understand your perspective on these things.

Additionally, I find it interesting that you would use Athanasius to bolster your claims on the Trinity--especially since he is a Catholic par excellence. I’m glad that you are exploring the Fathers though. Yes, his treatise on the Trinity is jam packed with Scripture, but his writings were not used to PROVE the Trinity from Scripture. Many of the Fathers writings were intended to defend the faith against heresies. Instead he used Scripture in line with the Apostolic teaching (i.e., Tradition) already in place from the beginning of the Apostles mission. Athanasius was far from being circular in HIS reasoning because his reasoning was supported by the teaching of Church and confirmed at Nicea (325 A.D.) As far as saying that I have not given you a single demonstration of a teaching not clearly taught in Scripture I would strongly disagree (ex. Trinity, hypostatic union, canon). There are many things that are explicit in Scripture and many things that are implicit in Scripture. Regardless, Apostolic Tradition cannot be escaped by defaulting to Scripture. I say once again, they are NOT competing with one another—they compliment one another--and I find it hard to understand why it is so hard to understand or accept.

Again, I think it is important for you to address the questions above before we continue any further. Due to the lack of a cogent argument in regards to them I don’t see the Protestant view holding much if any weight. I look forward to your answers.
In Truth,
Matthew

Well, wow, what can I say, Joachim. It's too bad that you insist on lumping me in with those who believe the whole of tradition is unnecessary, irrelevant, and wrong. I've never said that, in fact I've said just the opposite. If you wish to engage in a dialogue it will serve us both if you respond to what I say, not what you would hope that I might say, simply so that my position might be more readily demolished.

Nevertheless I appreciate many of your comments and the obvious care that you put into your post. So I hope to return your investment by making three observations.

First, you claimed that Jesus' frequent condemnations of tradition extended only to erroneous ones (with the implication that He did not condemn what would later become Roman Catholic tradition, because such tradition is always correct). But I ask you to turn back to scripture for a fresh look. Consider Matthew 23:5. At first reading, Jesus appears to be condemning the wearing of phylacteries (texts of scripture worn on the arm or forehead). But this kind of tradition, in and of itself, is certainly not unscriptural, see Exodus 13:16 where the very practice is commanded! So, back to the Matthian passage: it begins "they do all their deeds to be noticed by men". I think you'll agree that here and elsewhere, Jesus condemns the misuse, corruption, or addition by men of what was originally a practice established in scripture. And why does he condemn these corruptions? Because they cause us to neglect the actual commandments, teachings, and word of God. So we see that Jesus consistently did not point to religious tradition as normative or infallible, because it is corruptible; for authority he always pointed either to the infallible word of God in scripture, or His impeccable self. It is my belief that this general pattern, advocated and practiced by our Lord, should remain.

Second, you mentioned 2 Tim 2:2. Now, I have no problem with that passage, or others that refer to oral tradition, because it seems evident to me that the faith of the Apostles was purposefully encoded into scripture by a special work of the Holy Spirit. In other words, I trust that the faith delivered by the apostles orally is fundamentally equivalent to what they passed on in writing. But, like the poster Matthew, you seem to take these passages as referring to additional teachings which are a) certainly apostolic, b) essential to the faith, and c) absent from scripture. So now I ask you, as I asked Matthew, to describe a single one of these teachings. Matthew seems unable to do this. And in all of your words above I do not see that you mentioned one either. Why is this challenge so difficult for Catholic apologists to answer?

Third, you accused me of a self-contradiction when I state that scripture teaches a faith so deep and so rich that a lifetime is not enough to plumb its depths, and also that the essential truths are plain. Take for example the dual nature of Christ. It is quite plain from Scripture both that Jesus is and always was God, and that Jesus became man. What a mystery we have in this simple statement! Meditating on such a mystery is like drawing water from a bottomless well. It speaks so plainly yet it is rich with meaning. We might cry out in gratitude that God loved us so much as to humble Himself in this way. Or, we might observe that God could still be God even while clothed in human flesh…and this might strengthen our hope that He can make some of His attributes alive in us.

I hope this explains better what I meant. It does hurt me personally, Joachim, that in your very first post to me, you didn't give me a chance to explain the contradiction you identified, but instead accused me of attempting to subvert the intent of Jesus Christ Himself! But I do not say this to shame you. I realize I am encouraging people on this board to think critically about tradition and that this is going to lead to some negative reactions. So I beg your forgiveness if I have said anything unkind, and your correction if I have said anything untrue.

In Christ's name,
Kaff

Hi Matthew,

I'm sorry you feel I am dodging and lack cogent argument. You are gracious to continue dialogue even though you feel this is the case. But let me say, it is not my intent, nor do I have time, to answer every possible question you might pose. I beg you to see this as a personal weakness in myself before you see it as an expression in of any weakness in my position.

I am befuddled by your claim that Athanasius was not using scripture to prove the Trinity, especially when Athanasius himself explained that this was precisely what he was doing when he writes such things as "proofs from scripture will be cast at [the Arian heretics] from every side".

I completely agree that tradition and scripture should not compete, when both are properly understood. Yet, I believe it is your assertion that they are different in their teaching content that sets up a "competition" as it were. This is why I continue to seek a defense of your interpretation of the John passage. I believe none of your examples (such as the canon) meet all three criteria discussed above.

In good faith, I will do my best offer answers to your questions 1-6. I say "in good faith" because I do not seek an attack from you, but only that you might understand why I do not think my position is as completely devoid of reason and perspective as you seem to think it is. Also please note that I do not consider myself "Protestant" any more than you think of yourself as "Papist". I am first and foremost a Christian, a believer in Jesus Christ, totally dependent on his grace for my salvation. So I will answer not from some supposed "Protestant" perspective, but from my own heart and mind, which I can only pray is being conformed into the image of Christ's.

1. I believe it is the entire body of saints who recognized the authority that was already present in the works of scripture. I believe, just as all pre-Hippo (393 AD) Christians must have, that any formal proclamation by any governing church body is helpful but not strictly necessary in order to accept the New Testament works as "scripture".

1a. The universal Christian church seems quite strong to me, and I continue to see the universal Christian church holding forth the light of truth in God's word out to the world. So I see Jesus' prophesies fulfilled, just perhaps in a different way than you do.

3. (Incidentally there was no question 2). The notion of "trinity" is composed of distinct elements, each of which is adequately demonstrated in scripture. That Jesus is and was always God (for example, Heb 13:8, Titus 2:13), the Holy Spirit is and always was God (for example, 1 Cor 12:3), the Father is and always was God, and there is indeed one God (Isaiah 46:9-10, James 2:19, Mark 12:29). The word trinity is not used but the concept is clear.

4. I mentioned 1 Cor 12:3 where the Holy Spirit is identified as the Spirit of God.

5. By examining the direct scriptural proofs, and by seeking to learn how Christians have always understood and lived out such passages.

6. Either through the teaching of scripture itself, or the teaching of those who adequately handle scripture, or in the very earliest cases, from the apostles themselves. And I do not mean that pre-Nicean Christians believed and taught something they called "Trinity" per se, only that Jesus truly was God eternal, which is really the point, isn't it?

May God's grace flow down on us all, because, man, do we need it,
Kaff

Kaffinator,

I have taken up this discussion under the new article that Joe posted.

The Correlation of Sacred Scripture with Church Tradition.

Joachim

At the Beginning of this discussion I read someone quoting "call no man on earth your father". John Corapi said "Then Paul was a heretic" in regards to this interpretation.

In Romans 4:16 and James 2:21 the Apostle Paul calls Abraham his father. In Romans 9:10 he calls Isaac "our father".

The discussion has some good points on both sides. Whether you are Catholic, Baptist, Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, etc. You must admit that you have the Bible you do and you read it the way you do because early in your christian life someone handed you a Bible and showed you how to read and interpret it (unless you are an exremely unusual individual who examined all your alternatives first.)
This is your tradition, and no matter what church you go to you believe that the preacher at that church is guided by the Holy Spirit to teach you correct doctrine. This is true whether you are Catholic or Fundamentalist or Lutheran or etc..
I'm sure someone will say "No, No, The Bible is my authority" but even with that said an infallible book (which the Bible is) is only as good as the guidance (by the Holy Spirit or one's own will) given to the individual reading from it.

Dear Joe:
The early Church was Bible-reading christians. They were not Bible+Tradition reading christians.The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written. Rom. 10:l7: “So then faith cometh by HEARING and hearing by the word of God.” Matt. 28:19; “Go ye therefore and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Mark. 16:20: “And they went forth, and PREACHED everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.” Mark 16:I5: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and PREACH the gospel to every creature.” (Underlines in this section is FCFC’s emphasis.)
Jesus founded a teaching AND (not or) Bible-reading church. Paul testifies in 1 Thess.5:27:“I charge you by the Lord that THIS EPISTLE BE READ unto all the holy brethren.” The Bible in those days were read, not according to the Traditions. Yes there were Traditions, as i said before in the Blog "I believe in everlasting Life" but those traditions were spirt-filled that were not pass-on the other uninsipired Catholic fathers.
In Revelation 1:3, we read:

“BLESSED IS HE THAT READETH, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
We also read in Acts 17:11 of the Bereans who were “more noble” in that they

“...received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures DAILY, whether those things were so.” This was talking about False teaching, if a doctrine is made, SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES.
In Acts 28:31, we read that Paul for two whole years was “preaching the kingdom of God” and “teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ”. (Emphasis mine) Now does this mean that Paul was teaching and preaching something other than scripture? The answer is no. If we back up to verse 23-24 we read:

“And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, BOTH OUT OF THE LAW OF MOSES, AND OUT OF THE PROPHETS, from morning till evening. And some believed the things which were spoken [oral], and some believed not.”
Paul never told us that Traditions were equal with the Bible and that there were needed in Church's. This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the early church was a Bible-reading church
Shortly before 400 A.D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own Divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not.

Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was not.

If the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now? If the Church was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not worth the paper it is written on, because internal evidences of authenticity and inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of this Council cannot now be rechecked; this is obvious from reply to next question. The Council erred when they used the corrupted manuscripts out of Alexandria, Egypt, instead of the true manuscripts out of Antioch.the Council’s decision to use corrupt manuscripts is only one example of her fallibility. They took the unispired books instead of the Insipired ones.
The Lord promised to preserve His word (Ps.12:6-7) but He did not promise to preserve the “church fathers”.
Answer to Q 4: Because there is so much different interpretation of the Bible; there is so much different interpretation of the Bible because there is so much wrong interpretation; there is so much wrong interpretation because the system of interpreting is radically wrong. You cannot have one Fold and one Shepherd, one Faith and one Baptism, by allowing every man and every woman to destort and pervert the Scriptures to suit his or her own pet theories.

I Just answer certian questions.

God Bless
Ramon

I really cant believe that Catholics would say that The Bible and Traditions are there supreme Authority. The Bible is infallible and our only Authority.
Can the same things be said about tradition? Is it pure, perfect, inerrant, or infallible? If it is not, then the claim that tradition is equal to the word of God is false. The answer is NO...Jesus used Scripture to correct the errors of tradition in several instances. In Matt.15:1-9 for instance, Jesus answers the Pharisees and scribes who complained that the disciples were transgressing the tradition of the elders:

"...Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?...Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, TEACHING FOR DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN.
I believe it is revelant that Jesus never appealed to tradition as a standard of authority, but quite the contrary, he always corrected tradition with Scripture. Should we not imitate our Lord and Savior, who set before us His standard? And as we can see from the above Scripture, tradition is not inerrent, infallible and it definitely is not settled in heaven since Jesus rebuked it. Colossians 2:8 warns us to beware of "traditions of men". Is it pure? Again, the answer is NO!
Paul said "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." (I Cor.15:3-4) The gospel that Paul and the apostles preached is not of man (Gal.1:11), but it is that which "...he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures" (Rom.1:2) and "...now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God...." (16:26)

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." (I Pet.1:18-19)

God does not want us tossed to and fro, and carried about by every wind of doctrine (Eph.4:14), He wants us rooted in His Word as Peter says,

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Pet.1:19-21, 2:1)

Eph.6:17 only mentions one weapon, not two! And that weapon is the sword, the Word of God. In your other hand you should have the shield of faith. That leaves no hands to hold on to tradition.
The inspired scriptures are our authoritative source for doctrine and conduct (2 Timothy 3:16-17). They fully equip us "unto every good work" because they are inspired of God (God-breathed). The only way to hear Christ today is through the message preached by His apostles and prophets (Matthew 17:5; Hebrews 1:1-2; Luke 10:16; John 13:20). So the idea of Bible-Reading or Bible-only christians is very true.
I think many Catholics aways go to this Scripture to back them up:
2 Thes 2:14 says, ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.’ St. Paul places oral Tradition on the same level as the Written Word of God.’”
But Paul said “whether by word or by our epistle.” This denotes that the tradition he is speaking of was already written in his epistle, so that whether or not you heard it spoken or read it in the epistle, you were to stand fast on it. Had Paul said we should stand in the oral traditions and the epistles, then Rome would have a leg to stand on. But as it is, Paul is very clear that the tradition was already written in the epistle, “whether by word or by our epistle”. Also, if you look up the Greek word for tradition, you will notice that it says “specifically Jewish traditionary laws”. We are not talking about Roman traditions which they claimed “evolved”. Paul couldn’t possibly have meant that we were to stand on the traditions that would evolve 1,000 years down the line, especially in light of the scripture where Paul says: "For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." (Acts 20:27) Therefore the tradition that Paul talks about could not be the same traditions that Rome speaks of. But I guess there just want to follow more Traditions than the word of God.....
2Tim.3:14-15:

“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.”

Notice that it said “Holy Scriptures” are able to make thee wise unto salvation. Cathloic church admits that when it says, “holy scriptures” that it is speaking of the written word of God, not tradition. Here we have Paul, speaking to Timothy telling him that the only necessary thing to make him wise unto salvation is the “holy scriptures”. In Romans 15:4, Paul again talks about the written word as scripture:

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience, and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.”

If tradition is the word of God, then why didn’t Paul say something like “whatsoever things were written and orally passed down were for our learning that through the comfort of scripture and tradition we might have hope.”??? It’s evident that Paul is placing the written word above all, as he does in 1Cor.4:6 where he says, “that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written.”
Did Paul preach outside the law and the testimony? No, by his own confession, the gospel he preached was "promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures.” (Rom.1:2) That’s why Paul also said,

“Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the word began, but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting god made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.”

The gospel is made manifest by the Scriptures! There is no evidence that the gospel is made known by written scriptures and oral traditions. The gospel Paul preached was already written in the Old Testament. That’s why Paul said to stand fast in the traditions, or the Jewish traditionary laws. It was the law and the prophets that revealed Christ. In Gal.1:14, Paul said that he had been “exceedingly zealous for the traditions of his fathers.” (This is before he got saved, my friend, so the traditions he is talking about are definitely Jewish traditions) and in Romans 11:2, Paul bore record that the Jews had a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. You see, the written law which Paul loved and was so zealous for, the “traditions” of his fathers, could not be understood unless a man was born-again. In 2Cor., starting at verse 14, we read,

“But their minds were blinded: for until this day remainteth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.”
Revelation 20:12 says that we will be judged by the things written in the books. Doesn’t say we will be judged by the traditions that are not written down, but only by those things which are written. So why Have Traditions, is useless!!!!!!!!!. We Cant serve both God and Men!.

And my last post was address to Joe, but everyone.

God Bless
Ramon

Ramon,
Tell me this. Since the Bible was not authoritatively determined for almost 400 years after Christ was crucified, it was written in Greek, few people in the world could read (much less read Greek), and the printing press was not invented until around 1500 A.D., how did the Gospel (i.e., the good news) primarily spread?? ...Preaching and teaching BY WORD OF MOUTH i.e., oral or APOSTOLIC TRADITION! I confidently say that the Traditions of the Apostles are not mere "traditions of men." However, since these previous points are historical facts which one can easily find how could one believe that sola scriptura which was invented by Martin Luther [a man] is a true doctrine? Isn't this the real "tradition of men"?

We all know the Bible is the written word of God. I have attended many "Bible is my only authority" churches. and in every case the preacher does not simply read the text and let it speak for itself, he then tells you what HE believes the text or series of verses means: by doing so he is subjecting it to his tradition.
Once you say "the text means..." you are subjecting it to your tradition whether you are willing to admit you have one or not.

The difference between Protestants and Catholics is that Catholics are emphatic about their tradition while Protestants deny they have one-which is a tradition in and of itself, and may be responsible for the 33,800 different protestant churches who all think their church belief set alone is 100% correct in following Christ, and every one of them can give you a load of biblical proofs for the unique beliefs of their faith. So who has the authority to interpret scripture anyway?

When the Apostle Paul rebuked the Apostle Peter neither one of them cried out "The Bible alone" and broke away to start his own rival church. Perhaps this is why both men went on to write infallible encyclicals that you will find in the back of your New Testament.

God Bless

Dear Matthew:

It was not oral tradition. Like i said before the Traditions that Paul was talking about does mean what many Catholics is professing to be. It did not gave us the Authority to PASS-DOWN unlaw, unholy tradtitions that men just made up. Sola-bible is true doctrine. It may not be word for word in the bible but look: See what Acts says:

We also read in Acts 17:11 of the Bereans who were “more noble” in that they

“...received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures DAILY, whether those things were so.” This was talking about False teaching, if a doctrine is made, SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES.
The inspired scriptures are our authoritative source for doctrine and conduct (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Do you disagree with God's Word?

By 100 A.D. all the books were completed. Until the testimony of Jesus was written down, they depended on the Old Testament, which prophesied of that same grace. (1 Pet.1: 10-12) As the apostles wrote the epistles, faithful men copied them and sent them to all the churches commanding them to be read. This means that the early Christians had access to the word of God at all times. How else could the Bereans search the scriptures daily?

Romans 1:1-2 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

The true Bible was placed under one cover no later than 145A.D., and was known as the Syrian Peshitto. The “Old Latin Vulgate” was the next Bible to be compiled by the year 157 A.D. The corrupted Latin version of Jerome, translated by order of Constantine, was published in about 380 A.D. The RCC chose the name “Vulgate” or “Common” for Jerome’s translation in an attempt to deceive loyal Christians into thinking that it was the true common Bible of the people. It was rejected by real Christians such as the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albigenses, and other groups throughout Europe who held doctrinal purity dear to thier hearts. According to Dr. Bill Grady, in his book Final Authority, page 34:

“For the Syrian people dwelling northeast of Palestine, there were at least four major versions: the Peshitta (A.D. 145); the Old Syriac (AD. 400); the Palestinian Syriac (A.D. 450); and the Philoxenian (A.D. 508), which was revised by Thomas of Harkel in A.D. 616 and henceforth known as the Harclean Syriac. True to the meaning of its name (straight or rule), the Peshitta set the standard because of its early composition and strong agreement with the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. Because of the obvious embarrassment caused by this document bearing witness to a text some two centuries older than either X [Codex Sinaiticus]or B [Codex Vaticanus] , modern Nicolaitane scholarship has conveniently assigned the Peshitta's origin to A.D. 415. The first translation into a purely European tongue is known as the Gothic version. This work was prepared in 330 A.D. by the soul-winning missionary Ulfilas...Once again, the strength of this version is found in its age and agreement with the Textus Receptus. Edward Hills cites F.G. Kenyon's 1912 edition on New Testament criticism that, ‘The type of text represented in it is for the most part that which is found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. Thus, Ulfilas had access to King James Version readings a full two decades before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus were copied. An excellent example of his superior manuscripts is reflected by the Gothic inclusion of the traditional ending to ‘The Lord's Prayer’ of Matthew 6:13. The familiar words, ‘for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen’, are conspicuously absent from both of the ‘two most ancient authorities.’ There are only eight surviving manuscripts of the Gothic version.”

God Bless
Ramon

Ramon,
First of all I would encourage you to formulate your replies from more credible sources than from cutting edge.org or from FCFC and not merely copy and paste from them. Sadly, both sources do not have an understanding of the Catholic faith at all. I would encourage you if you really want to know what Catholic's believe then read the official Catechism of the Church.

To begin, I would encourage you to actually research the Syrian church for yourself. The Syrian church is identical in many ways to the Catholic Church. Everything from the seven sacraments (Eucharist, baptism, holy orders, marraige, confirmation, annointing of sick, penance) to the perpetual virginity of Mary. In fact there are several joint declarations between the Catholic Church and the Syrian church that demonstrate how much we share in common. So if your argument is for the Syrian church then you've made a step toward Catholicism, and I hope that you are open to that.

In regards to your copy and paste from FCFC the writer is only partly right.

"The true Bible was placed under one cover no later than 145A.D., and was known as the Syrian Peshitto."

However, according to information directly from the Syriac Orthodox Resources website they say:

"In the early fifth century, the long process of revising the Old Syriac came to a halt, culminating in the Peshitto version. Hence, the Peshitto is not a new translation, but rather a revision of the Old Syriac Gospels. However, the Peshitto also contains the rest of the books of the New Testament except for the Minor Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Jude) and Revelation. To this day, readings from these books are not read in Syriac Churches. In the Peshitto manuscripts, the Catholic Epistles are placed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Epistles."

So if your argument is for the Syriac translation of the Bible then you are advocating for removal of certain books from the Bible as indicated above. I am assuming that the Bible that you own contains all 27 books of the New Testament, and since you do, you have undermined your argument. Because you trust that the Catholic Church was given the authority to determine the New Testament canon in 393 A.D. Otherwise if you adhere to the Syrian translation of the Bible then your Bible is incomplete at best.

Beyond that, the Scripture that the Syrians compiled was NOT the complete Bible. It was merely the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John called the Diatessaron a Greek word meaning 'through [the] four [Gospels]'. As the Syrian Orthodox Resources site explains:

"As its name implies, this Gospel was made up by 'combining' the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) into one text. The Diatessaron was very popular in the early Syriac Church, but later was replaced by the four separate Gospels."

So Ramon your sources are flawed here. Yes, the early Syrian church did read the epistles from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and compiled them into a manuscript, but it is not the Bible per se. The issue here is that these writings were recognized almost universally because the people (i.e., Christians) were alive at the same time of the Apostles or were second generation Christians who recognized them as the Apostles because of the things they were taught "either by word of mouth [oral tradition] or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15) So Ramon again, I pray that in your search for truth that you at least search out the truth for yourself versus taking someone else's "truth" at face value. This is my prayer and encouragement for you as a brother in Christ. God bless.
Matthew

Dear Matthew:

I didnt copy and paste from that site, i sent a email to the author. Thanks anyway for letting me know it was there all along.
Our discussion is base on wither the Bible supreme authority right? I will reguest to look-upon my discussion on the Authority of the bible before you posted and the post i made under the topic "I beieve in everlasting life".
Are tradition equal with the Word of God?, did Jesus teach the Word of God plus Tradition?, Did Jesus told us that Traditions should place as if there were equal with the Word of God?. I really request you to look-upon your Doctrines and compare them with the Word of God please.
In John 7:38 Jesus said " As the scripture has said"
Jesus referres to the "Scripture" because it was the very Word Of His Father (Do you believe that?) and therefore the Supreme authority for his life and teaching. Scripture is also the supreme authority for Christians, For God alone ha sthe right to determine our standards of Conduct. He has chosen to exercise this aithority by making his truth known in scripture. Why then you put Traditions above the Bible? Matthew do you think you better than God? The Bible, as God's revealtion, carries the same authority as if God himself were speaking to us directly.
The inspired Scriptures (Do you believe that matthew?) are the believer's ultimate authority. Ecclesiastical traditions, prohecies, suppose new revelations, doctrines and human ideas must be tested against Scripture and should never be elevated to a place of equal authority with the Bible. (Mk 7:13, Col 2:8, 1Pe 1:18-19).
To profess equal or greater allegaince to any other authority (Traditions) than to God and his inspired Word is to remove oneself from the biblical faith and the lordship of Christ. To say that any person, institutions, creed or church possesses equal or higher authority than God's inspired revelation is tantamount to idolatory. In the same way all those who are not willing to submit their beliefs to the authority of the NT place themselves outside of Biblical Christianity and slavation in Christ.
Matthew it was already proved that the Early church were Bible-Reading Christians.
We also read in Acts 17:11 of the Bereans who were “more noble” in that they

“...received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures DAILY, whether those things were so.” This was talking about False teaching, if a doctrine is made, SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES. How can there have searched the Scriptures without having one in the first place.
The inspired scriptures are our authoritative source for doctrine and conduct (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
God's Word must be received, believe and obeyed as the final authority in all things pertaining to life and godliness (Mt 5:17-19; Jn 14:21; 15:10; 2Ti 3:15-16) Matthew if you Church does not obey this Biblical Doctrine then you should leave that Chruch and find one that does.
Also you need to open your eyes. "Scripture" as used in 2Ti 3:16 refers primarily to the OT writings (3:15). There is inducation, however, that at about the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy some NT writings were already viewed as inspired and authoritative Scripture (1Ti 5:18, which quotes Lk 10:7; 2Pe 3:15-16). For us today, Scripture refers to the Authortive Scriptures of Both the OT and NT, now called the "BIBLE".
You cant not say, that because one church in which you find to all true to teach both the Scriptures and Traditions to be equal. Why because not all churches follow of the Bible says. Does your obey everything in the Bible and do not put Traditions obove or queal to the Word of God? True Chrurch's do not follow or even teaches Traditions because they are not equal with the word of God. If your Does then you need to Moved.

The Church
Christ has given authority to certain men to be leaders (often termed elders or bishops) in his church. Their task is to shepherd the church with love and humility as the servants of Christ and his people (I Tim. 3:5; I Pet. 5:1-4). A loving submission to their leadership is urged on Christians (I Thess. 5:12-13; Heb. 13:7, 17). Christ never gave authority to today churches to preach onother Gospel (Traditions), he told them to preach the original teachings. There will be absolute loyalty to the Gospel, the original teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

So Matthew i prayed that you look at your so called Beliefs and doctines and look at you Church and see for you self if they go by everything from the Bible or they putting there unholy Church Fathers false teachings to corrupt, destroy and mix with the Bible authority.

God Bless
Ramon

Ramon:
You remarked that the Albigenses and the Waldenses were "Real Christian" groups. So your idea of Real Christianity goes like this:
The Albigenses taught that the spirit was created by God, and was good, while the body was created by an evil god, and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another "spirit" in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden though fornication was permitted (try finding THAT in your King James Bible, I know its not in mine).
Don't Protestants always complain about the celibacy requirement of the western rite Catholic priesthood, where marriage is not universally forbidden by the way: married ex Protestant clergy can become Catholic Priests.

The Waldenses for the most part believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the effectiveness of the sacraments, infant baptism, that “the Sacrifice [of the Mass], that is of the bread and wine, after the consecration are the body and blood of Jesus Christ”, that good deeds of the faithful may benefit the dead, to name just a few. This sounds quite Catholic to me.

The Baptist-Fundamentalist tradition looks absolutely nothing like the beliefs of these two groups you call Real Christians. So you are telling me that "Trail of Blood" (another example of a non-Biblical tradition b.t.w.) believing Baptist-Fundamentalists are not real Christians. Even I don't believe that.

I can't find those Bible verses in my KJV where Jesus & the Apostles give Altar Calls. In the 9 conversions in the Book of Acts no one "got saved" by praying a "sinner's prayer".
What really amazed me was that the most vicious attack on these beliefs that I have seen comes from another "Bible Alone" Church called The New Testament Church.

Ramon,

You wrote (or at least cut and paste):

"The RCC chose the name “Vulgate” or “Common” for Jerome’s translation in an attempt to deceive loyal Christians into thinking that it was the true common Bible of the people. It was rejected by real Christians such as the Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albigenses, and other groups throughout Europe who held doctrinal purity dear to thier hearts."

From reading your previous posts, I think I have a fair understanding of your beliefs. That you can state that Waldenses and Albigenses were true Christians reveals that you do not really know what they believed.

Brother, please, less cutting and pasting - more research.

Peace

Brian

I must say you do a great job showing God's love and mercy to protesting christians while defending the faith. I am currently reading The Catholic Controversy by St Francis de Sales... I'm sure you know he aided in the conversion 72,000 Calvinists (via printed apologetics) in 4 years in an area of France that had not heard a mass in 3 generations! He was known as the gentleman saint as you are gentle. In regards to the primitive thoughts on the trail of blood- like excuses by "pretend churches" (St. Francis' word for them) he says :

"Our Lord had cast a fire of his charity upon the earth, the Apostles blowing on it by their preaching had increased it and spread it throughout the world: you say it has been extinguished by the waters of ignorance and iniquity;-who shall enkindle it again? Blowing is of no use: what is to be done then? Perhaps we must strike again with nails and lance on Jesus Christ the holy living stone, to bring forth new fire:-or shall it be enough to have Calvin or Luther in the world to relight it?"

St. Francis de Sales

pray for us

I keep on hearing from our seperated brothers that the catholic church is not the true church. Who are we to believe? Jesus or some man? Jesus clearly told us that he would be with us always and that the gates of hell would not prevail. I have heard the argument from our seperated brothers(baptists, pentecostels, "bible believing christians") that the there are other churches that seperated on early that are the true churches, like the Greek orthodox or other faiths. My question to them is, Why not Join these "true" churches. As catholics we accept them any ways. They can never give me a straight answer. Just a little food for thought. and to my Hermano Ramon, since you have an hispanic name i can only assume that at one point you were catholic. I encourouge to study and learn the catholic faith on your own and not from false teachers. In Latin america we have a huge crisis of extremists anti-catholism that only disperse lies about the faith that Jesus himself established. I will pray for you on your journey back HOME!

Esaul:
You make a great point about our separated brothers and sisters, we must pray for them and point out their errors, especially the falsehoods they spread about the One Holy Catholic Church.
I have heard people slam the Church and then say "I love Catholics". This is dumb. You don't have a Catholic Church without Catholics they are all part of the same body. Does it sound smart to say I hate the New York Yankees but I love every person who works for their organization?

Hearing people slam the Church is upsetting, but reading some of ArchBishop Fulton Sheen's radio replies taught me that an attack by a misinformed accuser gives you the opportunity to bear your cross for Christ and show the person what the Church is really about, it can be tough because there is so much to know and learn.

I'm actually a fallen away Catholic who is disgruntled with "non-denominationalism" and looking to return because I have been turned off by the Anti-Catholicism that saturates many Protestant and non-denominational sects.

God Bless

Brain I mean Brian

I'll pray for you bro...have you looked into the coming home network? www.chnetwork.org or do you watch the Journey Home on EWTN?

Why did you fall away?

Brian,
I am so happy for you my friend. We are made by God to seek truth and I rejoice as does all of the Church to welcome you back. This is a wonderful site to learn more about the faith. Joe, Jay, and Dave present relevant topics and provide accurate, insightful, and articulate responses to any and all who misunderstand the Church or are downright anti-Catholic. I commend them most for their non-defensive straighforward manner. When truth is on your side there is no need to make things ugly. Again Brian, I welcome you back as a brother in the true faith and may God continue to light your path with His truth.
In Christ,
Matthew

Thanks for your support.
Why did I fall away?
I didn't feel the Catholic church was the only way to heaven when I met the woman that would become my wife, she is from the Assemblies of God and her parents are anti-Catholic (through both the AOG's doctrines and some bad past experiences with Catholic Priests).
Before finding her I was disappointed by my previous relationship (by an avid Catholic girl who quit on our relationship and ironically turned me down when I asked her to go to mass with me). I asked the Lord to show me the right girl, and he did! that's how I noticed my future wife in grad school. I even waited 5 months thinking it was not her, during that time no one else surfaced. So I finally asked her for a date and we started seeing each other, we totally clicked in everything except we came from different faith backgrounds.

At that time I was a bit of a "cafeteria Catholic", specifically I was not comfortable with the sacrament of Reconcilliation. Thanks to the Holy Scriptures I now understand the importance of this sacrament.

I kept love for the church though I left to try to find a church that both my wife & I would be comfortable with. I did my best (though often my lack of knowledge hurt the cause) to explain and defend the Catholic faith to the critics I would face.

Last Christmas I hit a turning point when my in-laws were saying that "I can't find anything that justifies infant Baptism in the Bible" I responded "The Catholic Church has a biblical basis for everything it does, you may not agree with their interpretations but that begs a more important question: Who has the authority to interpret scripture anyway?" They were stumped. Since then I began reading such Catholic Apologists like Steve Ray, Dave Armstrong, Jim Akin & Lane Elcore, you want the Bible? these guys will give you the Bible.

I watch quite a bit of EWTN, mostly Marcus & the Coming home network along with Classic Mother Angelica and my personal favorite: Father John Corapi.

To help get us back top the main discussions of this forum: Someone asked for an apostolic tradition that is not found in scripture: I'd say Infant Baptism: though there are many more indirect references such as when Jesus said : Baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We do not find an explicit endorsement or prohibition of Infant Baptism in the Holy Scriptures. Even Martin Luther believed in Infant baptism.
Your thoughts?

Brian LOL!!!

What a story!

Ahem...well that is pretty much my story (substitute Presbyterian for AOG). That God of ours what a sense of humor. I think there are alot like us out there...Curtis Martin of "Focus" comes to mind. I guess you never realize how much you like Water until you are stuck in a desert. Then you return to your Father's house to find all the Water you could ever drink!

That IB question is one that started my feet backward to home. When getting my kids (before the age of accountablity) baptized at the Presbyterian church we ran into a huge fight from my wife's grandfather (a non denom pastor) who never thought Catholics could be "saved" (he has changed his mind since yours truly) He came to the baptizm to raise well ummm heck and got his asterisk kicked by the PCUSA pastor in Greek re: all the times in acts you see "household" baptized, that somehow is strongly inferred to include kiddos...I wasn't really paying attention I was more worried about not tripping up front...but it stuck in my mind the vast differences in interpretation btw protesting christians (heck if he'd been amish he may not have made the baptism due to the whole transportation thing somehow being clearly scriptural and all...ooooh if I'd been a shaker I wouldn't have had kids to baptize being clearly scriptural and all) anyway I ran into Hahn/Grodi/Keating/Sungenis but I think I'm going Boyer then Armstrong next. Keating (Catholicism and Fundamentalism) as well as that PCUSA pastor have solidified my belief in infant baptism especially if you accept material sufficiency of scripture like Ratzinger. If you haven't read Keating's above book it is a MUST read.

In fact that would be the Cardinal's point I believe if he was on that above debate..."Catholics can't find any of their doctrines outside of scripture" he would say "Of course we can't because all of our doctrines are either directly stated or implied by Holy Scripture. What is your point? Why then do you protest against us if you yourself find our doctrines materially sufficient?"

In the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ

wwwo

Dear esaul:

Been gone for a while. Need to catch up. Anyway. I was never Catholic. I was born and Raise as a full Petecostal. From my toes to my head. I been studing the Catholic Faith for a long time, and i felt almost all the stuff they teach are not right according to the Word of God. They say they have Biblical Support for there teachings, but do they? I dont Hate people who are Catholic but i just feel the Catholic Church are not teaching what the bible saids. Both of my parents grew up in the Catholic Faith but left it at a early age for the many things they found wrong according to the Word of God. Jesus never made the Catholic Church. Just Read the NT. Many things you will find in there that will condict God's Word. Will Jesus be the one that will find that Catholic Church that will go agaisnt his teachings? This is what every Catholic saids to defend their Faith but they have no idea what they talking about.

God Bless
Ramon

Ramon
You are right about one thing: Jesus did not found a Church that goes against his teachings, He founded a church that often goes against your (Pentecostal Church) teachings: The Catholic Church has been in existence from Pentecost Sunday right down to Today. The pages of any history book will bear this out, and it doesn't have to be a Catholic history book either. For the first 800 years of Christian History there was no other church but the Catholic Church. I even know a Baptist with a P.H.D. in theology from a Baptist Bible College who agrees with this statement.
(much of the following is paraphrased from Lane Elcore's Web page: Trusting 100% in Jesus)
Now, The Catholic Church actually believes that Jesus meant what He said, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit" (John 3:5 NIV).
And the Catholic Church dares to believe that Jesus meant what He said to Peter, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18 NIV).
And the Catholic Church actually believes that Jesus meant what He said when He told His Apostles, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven" (John 20:22-23).
And the Catholic Church dares to believe that Jesus meant what He said and said what He meant, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you" (John 6:53).
Now, what I want to know is this: How much are you following Jesus' teachings when you explain away the clear meaning of His own plain words?
I have some advice for you: stop hating the Catholic Church, and stop "knowing" that the Catholic Church is wrong, and you will find yourself able to actually take the words of the Lord at face value.

You demonstrate a good passion for the Holy Scriptures, and it is obvious your parents raised you in a strong Christian home. I am not surprised you deny the scriptural legitimacy of Catholic beliefs since your parents are ex-Catholics. Just because Catholicism wasn't their theological "cup of tea" doesn't automatically make all of it totally wrong.
B.T.W. I still haven't found those Bible verses where Jesus and the Apostles give Altar Calls.

Merry Christmas
Brian

in june 2001 i excepted jesus as my lord and savour and was immedatetly filled with the holy spirit . i have seen miracles happen and impossible prays answered . this does not happen in dead religous people you first must be born again and it really is expereanced {john ch 3 v3 }today i have seen many thousands of catholics knowing the awesome power of christ and becoming born again set free from relion respectivily now many churches in the republic of ireland have 80 to 90% ex catholic belevers in pentecostels and methodist presbeterains churhes all this in about 5 years . also there are many protestants who are becoming born again and set free by the cleansing blood of jesus christ, just because they go to a church does not give them salvation but God is already apearing to thousands of muslims in visions and dreams and they are now born again not religous theologains . jesus came to save sinners not set up a dogmatic religous church but i pray your eyes shall be opened and set free from the dead works of religion and know jesus personally not just know about him expereance christ in your life for real become a true follower .not a luke warm religous person depending on ritual and good works christ said have faith not religion like the pharisees salvation comes from the price paid for our sins by jesus on the cross not by going to purgitory or by going to a protestant church you must and can only have that personal relationship with God that adam first had before sin got in the way .you must be born again . unfortunatly scott hanh was not born again and has moved to another system that will not save his soul if he had been born again he would still be preaching to his presbterain congragation and saying the words of christ ye must be born again men do not build a church but only the holy spirit a pope cannot be the head of the church only christ as history shows both protesant calvin who was not born again and many popes have been involved with murder this is recorded in history christ wants to save souls not religions. fred born again christain ireland

Ramon, Ramon, Ramon,
I feel sad for you. I am a Catholic in Salt Lake City, Utah. Land of the Mormons(for right now)To be perfectly honest I have never doubted the Faith that our most holy savior founded and which is guided to the day by the Holy Spirit. Living in Utah has only made my faith Stronger and deeper. I have studied mormons inside and out, its funny cuz sometimes i feel like i know more about their faith than they do. When their missionaries come by i invite them in, Let them talk for a while then i come in with my questions and they cant answer a single one. the reason I bring this up is because these mormon brothers are so confused and completely on the other end of anything Cristian. Where did they come from? Well Joseph Smith (their founder)came from protestant beginings. He took his beliefs and completely twisted them out. this sounds pretty similar doesnt it? Martin Luther didnt agree with certain things in the church so he went off and started his own religion. Today there are more than 30,000 "Cristian" sects worldwide. It makes me sad when i drive by an indrustrial are and among the chemical plants theres and old paper factory that has been converted into a "church". It seems like anyone can start their own church and interpret scripture as they pleas. YOu got Methodists and Baptist who agree on certain passages yet have completely different views in others and then you have mormons with totaly bizzare views on scripture. Lets just be one as jesus wanted. He clearly told us that he would be his church forever and that the gates of hell would not prevail against us. I truly believe our Lord when he said this and I hope you belive him to and not take a man in a tie, word for it. I will continue to pray rosaries for you and all our confused brothers.
In Crist and Mary
Esaul Viramontes

Fred,
I love you in Jesus' name. I am a charismatic Catholic. I too have seen miracles and things that cannot be explained by science. More than once the lord has giving me the grace to experiance the smell of roses as we prayed the holy rosary in community.(this is a sign that our Blessed mother was with us) And this is coming from someone who went cold as a catholic for a while because I thought that i was smart and knew it all and did not need god. I can go on and on with my testimony but i dont want to take up to much space. Contact me if you want it later. I guess what im getting at is that the the church has got charismatic groups as well. We are a diverse and loving church. And the church has it all. The holy sacraments, the HOLY eucharist where firmly believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is present, because we literally believe scripture when he told us take and eat for this is my body. We have youth groups, prayer groups, ministries to visit the sick and help the poor, and on and on. We as catholics have the privelage of having it all and we have had it for 2,000 yrs. You have talked about corruption within the church but those are just individuals. They dont represent The Church of Crist. Jesus had 12 disciples and one turned out to be a traitor. This happens every where Every now and then you hear of Protestants pastors doing evil as well, But im mature enough to realize thats not how al protestant ministers are. Your message sounds like a lot of hate towards your fellow catholics so i will try to combat your message with love as our Holy Lord would have wanted it. I ask you to read Dr. Hanns books with an open mind and heart. You will be surprised how the holy spirit will work and bring you back home,
In Crist and Mary,
Esaul Viramontes

All,

I still don't see where in scripture it says to go by tradition of man?...And i really dont see where this "Holy Tradition" comes into play...

As for Sola Scriptura, in Isaiah 8:20 KJV, it says "To the LAW(the first books of scripture) and the testimony (the rest), if they speak not according to this WORD, there is NO LIGHT IN THEM"...and don't read that in the newer translations, those are somewhat inaccurate.

I know Jesus told us to teach, and preach, and tell people...but that doesn't make it tradition. I can PREACH EXACTLY what is in the Bible. I can teach and tell people scripture, and bible verses. I dont have to rely on the flawed tradition of men.

All,
read your bible it tells us to go by our holy traditions. Didnt Jesus celebrate passover, a religous tradition? isnt the sabbath really on Saturday not Sunday? the church, through the guidance of the holy spirit, made the sabbath on Sundays and 99.9 of protestants have adopted this tradition. So i invite you to come back home to rome.
In Jesus and Mary,
Esaul

David

What faith are you by the way?

I think we all interpret scripture when we read it. If all we need is scripture, why do we need pastors? Does your pastor read strictly from scripture? really? he/she never preaches aside from reading from the book? are your songs/hymns strictly from scripture or are they feelings? Do you stand up and accuse pastors of creating traditions when they step up to speak and say something not in the bible? Why not?

In April of 2001 Newsweek magazine researched the boom in Protestant denominations. They found around 30000 with 5 new ones forming each week. Each of these churches believes like you do in sola scriptura...but call them...see what they believe...each believes they are the one with the full revalation and the other 29999 are missing something. Why? They all believe they can PREACH EXACTLY what is in the Bible...if it were true then call them... I do all the time just to see what is out there. Seriously...pick up the Yellow Pages.

You may say well there are 20-251 different Catholic denominations...yes that depends on how you count them but the difference is that the Catholics all subscribe to the same faith...just different robes and dress.

I have many Protestant family members who love to get into it...the only thing they can agree on is Jesus Saves...then is that all that the Bible teaches? Mine has more and so does yours.

In Love

when we were one

when we were one,

Good Comment.

I'm going to veer in a totally different direction. What is your interpretation of the revelation, specifically the part in the 13th chapter. What do each of the beasts represent, and what is the mark of the Beast?

Just Curious to know what you think.

David

David

You have chosen arguably the best passage of Scripture to discuss interpretation.

As Christians we must be careful regading *personal interpretation.* For we fall under an ancient curse that now plagues the splintering masses of the 30000 listed above.

You see Peter predicted the splintering of Christianity by this forbidden personal interpretation. 1 Peter 1:20- 2:1

"20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation...1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction..."

Peter is clear, private interpretation will lead to false prophets. In chapter 3 he speaks of how the unstable can twist easily what Paul will say...I remind you that it was Luther that added the word *alone* to Paul's letter to the Ephesians 2:8 to make it say *by grace you have been saved through faith (alone).* This misled millions that were just starting to read. The Catholic Church has always taught it is by sola gratia (grace alone) which is consistent with the unaltered text. It (Luther's modification)has been since removed...but remains in Luther's Bibles printed in the 1500s.

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So with Peter warning us of personal interpretation how do we interpret Revalation? Catholics align with the 1st/2nd Century view of Revalation since it was these that were taught by John. My hands down recent favorite is "The Lamb's Supper" by Scott Hahn. Hahn, if you aren't familiar, was the top Presbyterian scholar at the Gordon Conwell Seminary who converted to Catholicism after leading a life of staunch Anti-Catholicism. Here is a great cd recounting his conversion as well as much of his scriptual reasoning...only $7.95 it is incredible!

http://www.saintjoe.com/p/sh_cart.pl?action=add&product=560&format=CD

You see David, Hahn was a top notch Revalation scholar and he grew up in bible studies about the beast. But...he figured it all out when he decided to sit in on a "Mass"... to see apostasy in action...bible in hand...open to the Book of Revalation! He couldn't believe what he saw smelled and heard...the Mass is Revalation. 2 parts as is (Revalation)...the liturgy of the word (seals are broken and read) and the liturgy of the Eucharist (sacrifice of the Lamb of God). All in all he finds pages of Revalation that come to life only in the Catholic Mass. He looks around at the church and the celebration and catalogs the countless parallels.

Perturbed he hits the church fathers... especially the disciples of John the Apostle ... He finds that the early Christians treated Saint Polycarp as THE angel of Smyrna Rev 2 (he was the bishop of Smyrna and favored by John). It was these disciples that John entrusted with the book of Revalation and they are the ones that explain to the 1st Christians that the way God wishes to be worshiped is found in Revalation and as you may find in books by Mike Aquilina on early worship...that is the Holy Mass.

So I suggest picking up a copy of "the Lamb's Supper" by Dr. Scott Hahn...in there you will find a pretty Orthodox view of the Catholic view of Revalation. And I believe in all that the Catholic Church teaches; that which I know and trust in that which I do not.

In Love

when we were one

when we were one,

Thanks for the comment. I appreciate it!

David

Thank you for sharing your grace with me, I appreciate it and I thank the Lord for giving you the grace to share with us here. You see David ... by grace are we saved, not by any merit of our own (has always been the Catholic salvic mantra)...the questions coming to your heart are grace directly from God. You are blessed.

John 6:44 - No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Continue to follow Him David He is calling you to the full truth. If you get a chance I highly recommend that Hahn conversion cd (many Protestants and Catholics that hear that cd are blown away...I think you may even consider it life changing)...if you like Hahn's style then spend the bucks and get his book on Revalation since the cd is his conversion and supporting scripture.

My feeble and humble prayers go with you.

In Love,

when we were one

I was invited to this and yes, I am an Evangelical Christian.
The question has been asked,"where in the Bible does it say it is the sole rule of Faith?" Answer: where in the Bible does it say it is NOT the sole rule of Faith? Here are a few references we should consider:
1) 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 PERFECT, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO EVERY GOOD WORK(II Tim. 3:16-17).
2) According as His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue(II Peter 1:3).
3) ...it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints(Jude 3).
As for variances in the Protestant churches. There can be minor opinions but some things we must all agree upon: Christ is the ONLY Redeemer(I Peter 1:18-19). ALL titles for Mary are UN-Biblical and I'd be happy to prove it! Christ is the ONLY way to salvation! The idea that Mary is co-redeemer to whom we can entrust the hour of our death entirely to her care is also un-Biblical!
As for the Catholic church being the true church. I have a book that lists the various Christian churches thoughout history but many people of these groups were burned at the stake by popes who said that extermination of "heretics" was a "divine right."
For more information you can read the book,"The Gospel According to Rome" by FORMER Catholic James Mc Carthy available through www.thebereancall.org.
In 1987 Pope John Paul II told a group of Jewish people that,"all people serve the same god despite their religion."This of course is NOT true(see John 3:16-18;John 3:36; Acts 4:12, etc). If that is the case, then why are you so uptight with Protestants?
--Peter M. Haugo.

I have also heard the CD from Mr. Hahn and he has a lot to say about experience but his conclusions are NOT based on the Word of God.
One can also contact www.chick.com for more information on Roman Catholicism. They offer a book by a former missionary to Rome for over 20 years entitled,"Answers to my Catholic friends." This book is very easy reading and costs around $7.00. It is really worth reading. (I wonder if this will be posted).
Note: In 1986 Pope John Paul II(this can be documented in a Catholic newspaper from the archdiocese in Los Angeles if you need proof! And, Dave Hunt's video,"A Woman Rides the Beast"-available through www.thebereancall.org which has former Catholics on their staff-shows footage of this event) invited ALL the major world religions to Assisi Italy to "pray to God for world peace." Well, if John Paul II knew the Word he would have known that Christ said that wars and rumors of wars would be only the beginnings of sorrows. Also, the Bible says not to have any fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them! A Catholic bishop trying to defend what John Paul II did said Jesus said,"My peace I give unto you." Yes, but read the following from the same verse,"not as the world giveth give I unto you." Christ was not talking about something that would never happen(until He reigns from Jerusalem, NOT Rome!) He was talking about an inner peace for He knew the disciples would need that in the coming days!
The best defense a Catholic had for this was,"the pope didn't do that. But, HE DID and this can be proved by an article from the archdiocese that the Berean Call can give by request. The Berean Call has a number of good material from former Catholics that one can order.
(again, I wonder if all this is going to be posted). To those reading, get some of this material for yourselves and you will see clearly that Roman Catholicism will take you into a trap!
There is NO such thing as "purgatory."(I can provide a number of verses that refute that too!).
--Peter M. Haugo.

Peter,

Did you know that Martin Luther and John Calvin taught that Mary was perpetually virgin? Did you know that both of them also condemned the use of contraceptives? Do you consider their beliefs to be a "minor variation" from your own?

By the way, while I am more than happy to discuss and defend things Pope John Paul II has done (especially his treatment of non-Christian religions), I have little appetite for reading information provided by former Catholics who write as if they have the inside scoop on what the Catholic Church teaches. These former Catholics have no idea what the Church teaches and what they reject bears no resemblance to what I accept. Jack Chick's material in particular represents the Catholic faith with such inaccuracy that I cannot even consider him to be critiquing the Catholic faith.

I am more than happy to discuss the actual Catholic teachings on Mary, purgatory, and the papacy from a biblical perspective. I am not, however, willing to spend time debating whether the actual teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are to be found on Jack Chick's website or in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

While everyone has the right to freely leave, join, or remain outside the Roman Catholic Church, no one has the right to say that the Roman Catholic Church teaches other than it does.

Peter

You're kidding right? Recommending Chick? Are you going to recommend next that I brush my teeth using a toilet brush?

If you claim to be evangelical you are no doubt aware of the leading fundamentalist magazines "Christianity Today" and "Cornerstone", but unaware of their in depth investigations of Chick? Are you aware that they debunked his major sources as frauds and felons? I guess you agree with Chick's sources such as John Todd that Billy Graham and Debbie Boone, The Assemblies of God and the Southern Baptists are members of the illuminati attempting to take over the world.

Peter tell me. Do you believe as claims Chick that ... The Catholic Church keeps "the name of every Protestant church member in the world" in a "big computer" in the Vatican for use in future persecutions?

You may have gotten that data from Chick source, Alberto Rivera that your these magazines have completely invalidated ie.

Christianity Today’s story by researcher Gary Metz revealed that:

He (Rivera) is being sued in a Los Angeles court at the present time [1981] by a man who said that Rivera, on behalf of the Hispanic Baptist Church, which he started, borrowed $2,025 with which to invest in property, but never purchased the land. When the man asked for his money back, he received a receipt acknowledging his "contribution" of $2,025.

further, Cornerstone notes that:

Alberto now claims that he was once a Jesuit bishop. None of his former associates remember this being part of his testimony until early 1973. Former associate Rev. Wishart (once a pastor of the First Baptist Church of San Fernando), who questioned Alberto about this, reported that Alberto admitted that he had never been ordained a bishop but used the title for prestige. He continues to call himself the bishop of his own church, the Hispanic Baptist Church

These are your sources? Hey I read your misguided post... check this well written source http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

re: your first post, you clearly need to question your tired sources on that Timothy quote. There is a huge difference in saying something is good for you and ONLY something is good for you.

If I told you that vegetables were good to eat, in fact they are PERFECT THOUROUGHLY FURNISHED FOR EVERY MEAL is that the same as saying that ONLY vegetables should be consumed?

So you ask "where does it say the bible is NOT the sole rule of faith?" We seem to agree that no where in scripture does it say bible alone. But you challenge the possiblity of oral transmission of tradition.

Do you really believe that everything Christ said and did is documented in scripture? show me where scripture says that. And if I can show you where verbal traditions are commanded to be kept would you at least on this point agree with the Catholic view that "Every word of God" not just those written are important?

You also strike me as a "by faith alone are we saved" guy... can you show me where that exists in scripture? because you haven't yet shown me "by scripture alone" anywhere in scripture?

As far as I am concerned all you have shown me is that you are good at creating man made tradition such as sola scriptura.

In Love

when we were one

1) No, I never said that everything Christ did was recorded in Scripture. The end of John tells us that the world could not contain all the miracles in which He did. But, Everything that pertains to life and godliness the Holy Spirit HAS left to us(II Peter 1:3).
2) When II Tim. 3:17 says, "That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly(Gr. perfected) furnished unto all good works," this means that we have all we need and need nothing else. Acts 17:11 tells of the Bereans who checked EVERYTHING PAUL WAS SAYING BY SCRIPTURE! Tradition must never be equated along with Scripture. If tradition ever goes against Scripture then it must be tossed out!
3) You asked if I was aware about a certain belief of Luther and Calvin. This is the beauty of being an Evangelical: If any person says something contrary to the Word of God, then the Word of God prevails and what that person said goes out the door! IF MY PASTOR(AS POPE JOHN PAUL II SAID) said that all people serve the same god despite their religion, I would go to another church(after going to him personally and then taking someone else if he didn't respond to me). I would not defend him like a Catholic has to do their pope even though he says something TOTALLY UNBIBLICAL! Scott Hahn said in his cd that pope John Paul II had,"excellent scriptural teachings." But, this totally is against the Word of God(see the passages I quoted earlier)!
4) The Catechism of the Catholic church contains a seal,"without error". If you don't adhere to that then you need to confront your Vatican. Codex Irurex(sp?) Canonici declares that if a dogma(like pronouncing something "without error") is disagreed to, then that person is anathema.
5) A danger in pronouncing tradition equal to the Word of God. A former Catholic in his booklet,"Roman Catholicism-claims and contradictions"(available through www.thebereancall.org) lists many changes in Catholic teachings thoughout the ages. You might want to buy this booklet, it is from a man by the name of William Webster.
6) If a staff member of Chick has done something wrong, then I don't defend that. I will look into the other allegations you mentioned. The book I recommended,"Answers to my Catholic friends" by Thomas Heinze-a former missionary to Rome for 20 years-can also be obtained through the Berean Call. Note:the book:"The Gospel According to Rome" by former Catholic James McCarthy(also a former missionary to Ireland for many years) has forwards by former nuns and priests.
7) I am reminded of passages such as Isaiah 48:11 where the Lord says,"I will not give my glory to another." Yet, the Catholic church calls Mary,"our hope," "our advocate", "co-redeemer", and "our life" amongst other non-biblical things. In the Word, who is "our life"(Jesus!: John 15:6; Col. 3:4), "our advocate"(I John 2:1), "our redeemer"(Chirst alone-I Peter. 1:18-19), "our hope"(again, Christ alone-I Tim. 1:1). Note also Hebrews 1:3,"When He(Christ) had BY HIMSELF purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high." Praise God! There's no need of purgatory because it doesn't exist!: When Christ spoke to the thief on the cross, what did He say? "Today thou shalt be with me in purgatory?"-no, paradise! "To be absent from the body is to be present in purgatory?"-no, with the Lord! When the Holy Spirit addressed the believers in Colosse, what did He say,"When Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory."
8) Scott Hahn(whose material you recommend) mentioned about a personal experience he had. But, if experiences do not line up with the Word of God then they are to be thrown out.
My late-brother's friend had a mother who was Roman Catholic and on her death-bed she cried out,"no, the demons, the demons!" In the other hand when my grandfather and uncle died they saw something beautiful! I don't hate you my friend, I just want to prevent you from going to this same place. Purgatory doesn't exist! You are trusting something that doesn't exist! Many who trusted in that will be dismayed when they die for Christ ONLY talked of Heaven and Hell. A friend of mine in Bible College told me that she was raised Catholic and the Lord spoke to her one day and told her that the way she was following was not right. Someone must have been praying for her and I will pray for you my friend!
Again, we must take the Word of God as our only standard! Anything that goes against it no matter how sacred to us it may be must be tossed out. Many years ago when my mother was debating a Cathoic priest using the Word of God the priest finally got frustrated and looked at the Bible my mom had in her hands and said(a word I don't normally say),"oh! That darn thing!"
--your friend, Peter.
PS You closed your other reply affectionately,"when we were one." Though many of your popes would have had me burned at the stake! I can only hope I would have been like Jan Huss the night before he was to be killed. He was passing his hand through a candle and asked himself how he would be burned at the stake the next day. The Lord spoke to him and said,"it is not tomorrow." The next day he died with such a peace he was singing as he went home to be with the Lord.

Pete

You have only shown that Sola Scriptura is a man made tradition not listed in scripture. Remember saying something is good is not the same as saying only something is good. The bible says scripture is good but not ONLY (solely) scripture.

Your quote from Peter reads as such "3His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness." Show me where our knowledge is limited by Peter to written letters only and not verbal... You are making this up it doesn't exist in this passage.

Again, nowhere in scripture does it support your man made tradition on this new one you added to 2 Peter. That is why you truncated the verse! But I have a bible too. You are twisting scripture which has been foretold.

Let me see, we know that throughout scripture the verbal transmission AND written transmission of knowledge is what is commanded by the apostles. This is the knowledge spoken by Peter not the half truth of scripture alone which you fabricate...show me! where in 2Pet 1:3 where does it make any claim such as yours!

As Catholics who put scripture together, we believe scripture cannot be removed, added or shown to contradict. I note you avoided your initial quote: "Where in scripture does it not say scripture alone." When I offered to show you passages emphasizing oral transmission you balk. Why? Because they exist. We ARE COMMANDED to keep not only that which is written but also transmitted by MOUTH! So you see this command and you then fabricate "written tradition supercedes verbal transmission!"

Out of thin air you invent another dogma! Another man made tradition! Nowhere in scripture does it teach that the written script supercedes the verbal transmission as you have made up! Now don't twist passages that say scripture is GOOD. Catholics love scripture and believe it is GOOD. But what you try to make scripture say is not good. It is evil.

Our 3 options are 1)Written Tradition Alone (your position) 2) Verbal Tradition Alone (neither yours nor the Church's) 3) Every word of God Verbal and Written Traditions (the Catholic position). ONLY #3 is supported by scripture!

Pete, where do you get the power to create dogma? Are you allowed to privately interpret scripture and its many prophecies?

You claim that evangelicals vary only in minor things. Really?? what about salvation? about as major as you can get. My cousin in law (evangelical in the south) has a theology degree and says we are not justified/saved by faith alone. What do you believe? His wife an equally faithful evangelical says once saved always saved/ faith alone. I have a friend currently at a Willowcreek Church that is sleeping with another members husband because once saved always saved but her best friend at that church is offended because she does not believe in that.

OK how about abortion and gay marriage. I have evangelical friends on both sides of that issue. I have actively gay evangelical friends hmmmm. They quote scripture saying Jesus never said no! You and I may quote Paul until we are blue in the face but why should they believe you? Who speaks for the Evangelical church? Pete? Pope Pete?

As Catholics, that Catechism you mock is a compilation of our beliefs. You invent yours without any formal council as is directed in Acts 15! Where in scripture does it say that you are to invent doctrine for the rest of Christians? For you... are you Pete the pillar and foundation of truth?

In Love

when we were one

Peter, I have three questions for you:

1. How important is the doctrine that salvation os bu God's gratuitous, unmerited gift of grace?

2. Do you know whether the Roman Catholic Church accepts or rejects this doctrine?

3. What did the Bereans of Acts 17 do after they tested the Apostle's words against the Scriptures? Has it ever occurred to you that Roman Catholics might be more like the Bereans than you are because they tested the words of their bishops against the Scriptures, found the teachings to be sound, and then accepted them?

Just a quick comment. I am not going to delve into this topic because I have done so plenty of times on this site before. Now, since RC apologists hold to what early church fathers say over or equally to Scripture, read the following.

Augustine:
"This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and asfterwards by the Apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called cannonical, 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." [St. Augustine, City of God, Book XI, Chapter 3.]

Here Augustine states that Scripture has paramount authority. Paramount means supreme, as in the very top. Augustine clearly states that Scripture has the highest authority. Added to this commentary is that all matters should to the supreme authority vested in the Scriptures. When I previously raised this point, Jay and others would randomly quote Augustine with the hope of convincing themselves as well myself that Augustine gave tradition equal authority to the Scriptures. Now I have found a quote by AUgustine in particular that clearly says that Scripture has the highest authority. My question to you is can you find a quote from Augustine that clearly states that tradition is equivalent to the Authority of the Scriptures?

God Bless

First of all, I'm sorry if I have said anything that insulted anyone. I stand on the Word of God and make no apologies for that but I'm not trying to insult anyone.
I wasn't trying to truncate anything! I notice that many of the points I said are unanswered but will delve into some of what was commented too.
My point is that our doctrine MUST be confirmed by Scripture and if anyone, man/woman or child clearly vioates it then the Word of God must be upheld and the error thrown out!
1)Scripture is the Word of God(John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20, 21). Tradition is the words of men(Mark 7:1-13).
2)Paul told Timothy,"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. Notice here that the Word of God is able to make one wise unto salvation. Tradition must be based upon the Word but must not be labeled equal to it.
3)Acts 17. The Bereans were commended by checking everything Paul said with the Word of God. That is what we all should do as well! SO, WHEN A POPE SAYS THAT ALL PEOPLE SERVE THE SAME GOD DESPITE THEIR RELIGION, WHO DO WE GO WITH? THE WORD OF GOD OR WHAT THE POPE SAYS? If a gay person claims to be a Christian despite the Word warning that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God(Rom 1) who do we side with? Pope John Paul II also said that all religions must be subject to Rome. He didn't say,"all people must be subject to Christ." When he invited all the world's religions to Assisi Italy in 1986, he even invited Indian Shaman witch doctors. Hindus, Muslims, etc were all invited! I'm saying that if anyone(even a pope) says something contrary to the Word of God then the Word of God takes authority! The Lord Jesus Himself said,"He that believeth is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."(John 3:18). So, if a pope says otherwise or if a catechism(which, states that Muslims worship the biblical god when the Muslims don't even believe in the deity of Christ) then who do we go with? The WORD of God! A Catholic friend of mine returned from Rome one time and said that they have an office there for all the world's religions. Is this true? Pope Urban(1090) said that Muslims do not have God. Pope Leo 13th(around 1900) decreed that "Protestants are enemies of the Christian name." Yet, 60 years later Vatical II called us "seperated brethren" and that Muslims worship the same biblical god and that salvation is extended to them. Well, isn't there a discrepency here in "sacred tradition?" Various popes throughout history said there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. Yet, Vatican II, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Cathechism, Pope John Paul II(who said everyone serves the same god) said differently. If God determined this tradition, why did He change His mind? The Word of God doesn't change and reading it without comments will allow one to know that there is only Heaven and Hell, Mary-a good woman on earth-is NOT involved in our salvation and we only should pray to the Lord. There is NOT ONE instance in the Word of God where someone is taught to pray to anyone besides the Lord. People did and they were severely judged for it. Call it "veneration" if you want but Biblically it is defined as idolatry(see Gal. 5 and Rev. 21:8 on God's view of idolatry). This violates the second commandment which says that we should not erect a graven image in ANY likeness of ANYTHING whether heaven above or earth beneath.
4)Sorry if it seemed I insulted your catechism. I am told to be ready to give an answer of what I believe with meekness and respect and if I didn't do that I'm sorry. What I'm trying to say if a catechism(such as saying the Muslims worship the biblical god) is incorrect, then the Word must take precedence.
5)"Pete." Cute. I used to like to be called this.
6)As for the question of Augustine. I'm not sure but the Berean Call would know:www.thebereancall.org.
7)Doctrine. If ANY doctrine(such as the unbiblical belief in purgatory, UNScriptural ideas of Mary, etc) contradict God's Word then the Word of God must take precendence. I know this is said above but is worth repeating. The disciples in Acts 15 didn't set up a "sacred tradition" they were gathering together in regards to the Gentile converts. By the way, James presided over that event. Peter had an input but James made the final decision.
8)There is a friend of mine(a former Catholic) who has a ministry that one can look at things he has written on line or order materials. He does it in a loving way(which, in my passions I might take a good lesson from him if I have been insulting to anyone):
www.evangelicaloutreach.org/catholic.htm
--peterhaugo@juno.com

Just a few more things before I go to bed:
1)As for the Augustine comment. Yes. A booklet by former Catholic William Webster which documents changes in Catholic tradition documents that quote you just gave. That booklet can be ordered from the Berean Call Ministries(see above). As for more quotes, again, I'm not sure but they would know.
2)If "sacred" tradition contrasts the Word of God it can't be sacred.
3)As for the Calvinist question. I'm not one myself but they are my brothers and sisters in Christ because they have come to Christ in the Biblical way. My brother Jonathan was named after the Calvinist preacher Jonathan Edwards who the Lord used to bring many people to Him. Charles Spurgeon was also a Calvinist for the most part and there will be many in heaven because of his ministry as well.
4)Let's have a little fun with my nickname. If I wrote a book entitled,"Pete's catechism" and I said things that were clearly against the Word of God even though I myself may call what I said sacred it surely wouldn't be.

Peter,

Please demonstrate how tradition has contradicted the word of God. Like the Bereans, I have listened to the teachings of Christ's Apostles (which must include their successors if they include Paul), and found them (my bishops) to be in line with the Scriptures. Like the Bereans, I have submitted myself to the Apostolic teachings because the Scriptures confirm what they say. You want to be like the Bereans? Do as they did and accept the teachings of the successors of Christ's Apostles.

A few more questions: is it idolatry to ask someone to pray for you? Does the Bible tell us to pray for one another? Is it idolatry to believe that Mary was perpetually virgin?

I find it odd that when a Roman Catholic baptizes infants, they are valuing tradition over scripture. But when a Protestant baptizes infants, they are exercising their right to interpret scripture. Why is it that Calvinists are allowed to interpret scripture differently than Evangelicals but when a Roman Catholic interprets scripture differently than an Evangelical, they get accused of rejecting the authority of the Bible?

Pete and SandT

Lets see what I wrote above: "Out of thin air you invent another dogma! Another man made tradition! Nowhere in scripture does it teach that the written script supercedes the verbal transmission as you have made up!" So since you couldn't disprove me in scripture, you now stretch out to the church fathers (Augustine) to attempt to validate your positions because you have found no support in scripture.

What is your logic? You say scripture alone...you couldn't defend that by scripture...you actually find scripture teaches written + verbal...so you then create another tradition of man by misquoting 2 Peter...when I blog the entire passage showing no support for your written tradition of man you do what...create your 3rd tradition of Pete, written is superior to verbal... when you find that scripture does not say this you do what???? Agree with SandT to go beyond the bounds of scripture for support.

As has been explained ad nauseum with no effect to you SandT, No where in Catholic doctrine does it say that a Saint is infallible... again show me... again you can't. You continue talking yourself into factitious positions because you see we are correct... again the board waits for your evidence that "Saints are infallible" is a Catholic teaching.

You guys have shown me nothing but what the Catholic church already holds...Scripture is good.

You complain some of your questions go unanswered. Well, why don't we start with the 10 at the very top of this thread from Joe that are unanswered. I note Joe has not interacted with you Pete... perhaps because you have addressed nothing from the initial thread.

Now back to your latest misunderstandings. You note that Scripture is the word of God... surprise 100% agreement here. I guess you don't mean scripture is all of God's word because we discussed that above. You then attempt to use Mark to say that all of tradition is the word of man. With the implication that the Catholic use of oral tradition is not scriptural. As you know this is not supported one iota by Mark 7. Show me again in Mark 7 where he notes that ALL tradition is of man as you claim. You can't because it doesn't say so....surprise...again.

As Karl Keating notes in Catholicism and Fundamentalism...a book I recommend for you Peter; "The Bible actually denies that it is the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ's work is in Scripture (Jn21:25), and Paul says that much of Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition that is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim 2:2). He instructs us to "stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle" I don't see Paul saying either oral or written tradition is superior as you claim.

Keating continues "...oral teaching must be accepted by Christians as they accepted the written teaching that at length came to them. 'He who listens to you, listens to me; he who dispises you, dispises me' (Lk 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his stand in. 'Go, therefore, making disciples of all nations' (Mt28:19). How was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction:'See how faith comes from hearing, and hearing through Christ's word' (Rom 10:17)

Well then after being unable to prove anything, you manufacture another tradition of Pete (man)... "see how tradition must be based on the word but not labeled equal to it." Ummm no Pete. It doesn't say that in scripture. Does it say "faith comes from reading and reading through Christ's word?" Uhhhh just the opposite eh?

Then you go off and quote Acts 15 you note James presided and made the final decision. Uhhhh no. Where does it say James presided? He does announce his judgement but only after Peter speaks "and the whole assembly fell silent." In fact James uses Peter's statements to enhance his own opinion.

What tradition of Pete are we up to now? I lost count. For a guy that claims sola scriptura you sure love to make up your own traditions.

Oh Bereans...ya you twist that the wrong way. The Bereans Jews were more noble than who?... the Thessalonican Jews... I knew you knew that. But why? Check Acts 17: 1-9.... the Thessalonican Jews argued with Paul over scripture for 3 days! They went sola scriptura baby. The Bereans checked scripture to see if it matched Pauls oral revalation (remember no bible for 400 yrs). Remember Paul did as was commanded..."he who hears you hears me..." Not as these jokers you read have told you "he who reads you reads me :)"

Say Pete, you didn't answer Joe's thread yet and also I asked... If I could show you where we are commanded to keep both written and oral traditions, would agree on that point with the Catholics?... Also I asked if you believe in salvation/justification by faith alone? That is a huge topic amongst my evangelical friends... they don't view you as their pope. They think you run wild and loose with scripture. They think their interpretations (man made traditions)of scripture are as valid as yours. They read scripture and the Holy Spirit speaks to them... just like you. Oh yea you didn't answer me on ...Do you believe you can interpret scripture and its prophecies privately?...you sure do alot of interpretation here.

Looking forward to reading your next imaginative post.

In Love

when we were one

1)Okay, back to more fun. First of all, my "assumption" that Scripture must be held at all costs over tradition is NOT my "man made" ideas. Note Colossians 2:8,"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Roman Catholicism in claiming divine tradition has contradicted itself many times: Just a few examples:
a)It was a sin to eat meat on Fridays but it is no longer. So, did God change His mind?
b)Salvation is only through the Catholic church. Now, everyone serves the same god and the Vatican has offices for all the major world religions. Pope John Paul II said that all world's religions must be subject under Rome.
c)Killing heretics is a divine right. Pope John Paul II(to his credit) apologized for the inquisitions. So, all those popes that advocated it and said it was a divine right were wrong.
2)As for a saint not being infallible. First of all, the word "saint" in the Bible almost always describes an alive believer. Now, I agree that no one is infallible but the Cathechism states that the pope is infallible in his teachings. So, if the pope goes against Christ then he's still infallible?
3)As for the three questions on Catholic beliefs on being justified by faith. A survey was done in 1996 by National and International religion report. 88% of active Roman Catholics surveyed said that one enters heaven by just being good enough. Now, we know that must mean going though the non-biblical idea of purgatory. Two Catholic friends of my parents think that as long as they are good enough they will go to "purgatory." So, although the Bible says ALL sin is punishable eternal death(Rom. 6:23, etc) as long as someone is a "good person" they will go to "purgatory". So, being justfied by faith to a Catholic means being good enough to go to purgatory.
4)Pope John Paul II vs. the Lord Jesus Christ. To my Catholic friends, choose you this day whom you will serve. The teachings of a man(who meant well I'm sure) who stated that all religions serve the same god or the Lord Jesus Christ who said salvation is only through Him.
5)Proof that "sacred tradition" is NOT sacred:
Both the Catechism of the Catholic church and the Catholic encyclopedia BOTH have the seals,"without error." So, what are some things that both these books say(being labeled "sacred tradition") that clearly aren't correct:
a)Muslims worship the biblical god(both)
b)positive reviews of Transcendental Meditation(encyclopedia). Marharishi Yogi who founded this occult practice admitted himself that the chants used in TM are to Hindu deities.
c)the book of Daniel was written in 165B.C.(encyclopedia).
d)Mary is the Mother of the church(Catechism). No such thing. Gal. 4:26,"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."
Now, what do we believe, the Word of God or the previous statements?
6)The believers in Berea checked the SCRIPTURES DAILY(Acts 17:11-says Scriptures, not oral tradition). Many Old Testament scriptures foretold of Christ and the Bereans had the old testament.
7)After they "all kept silence" they gave audience to Barnabus and Paul declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentliles by them. And after they held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me..."(Acts 15:13)...Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from the Gentiles are turned to God..."(vs 19).
8)As for idolatry. Sure, we can ask someone to pray for us but Paul told the believers to do that WHILE THEY WERE ALIVE. Setting up ingraven images(forbidden by the second commandment) IS idolatry and those who do so shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Paul said in Philippians 1 that FOR THEM it would be more profitable for him to remain but he himself desired to be with the Lord which was far better. There is no scripture anywhere that tells us to pray to a dead person. In fact, in praying we are told to cast all our care upon CHRIST(I Peter 5:7).
9)If "sacred tradition" goes against God's Word or if it changes from time to time(see Websters booklet) then it cannot be sacred.
10)As for all religions being subject to Rome. This is a prelude to the coming one-world government!(see Dave Hunt's book or video) "A Woman Rides the Beast" available through the Berean Call:www.thebereancall.org.
11)It IS idolatry to pray to anyone or to trust in anyone other than Christ for one's salvation. Pope John Paul II entrusted the hour of his death entirely to Mary's care. On his robe the Latin phrase,"Mary I am all your's" was printed. Salvation is ONLY though Christ and Christ alone(Acts 4:12). Whether someone entrusts their salvation to Buddha, Mary, "Allah" or anyone else, they will find eternal consequences!
12)On the above note. In a book published by Rome by bishop de Ligouri(a man canonized as a "saint" by pope John Paul II), a vision of "Mary" appeared to pope John XXII telling him that whoever wears the brown scapular(a necklace telling the wearer that whoever wears it shall not suffer eternal fire-that the Saturday after their death Mary will snatch them out of "purgatory" into heaven, "Mary's promise") shall be saved from eternal fire. How blasphemous to think that wearing a piece of cloth can bring salvation! ("The glories of Mary",page 235). Can anyone see the strangeness of this besides me?
13)For a thorough explanation of Mary not being a virgin after Christ you can read,"The Gospel According to Rome" by former Catholic James McCarthy available from the Berean Call.
14)Yes! The Word of God MUST be defended. And if any leader(despite the idea of them being infallible in their teaching)says something different then what the Word of God says it must be thrown out.
--peterhaugo@juno.com

SandT,

I'd like to draw attention to your accusation the Roman Catholics value tradition over scripture. It would seem to me, and please correct me if you disagree, that in order to value tradition over scripture one would have to do the following two things:

1. that tradition was in contradiction with scripture
2. submit to the authority of tradition

Catholics submit to the authority of tradition but they do not believe tradition to be in contradiction with scripture. Protestants believe tradition to be in contradiction with scripture but they do not submit to the authority of tradition.

If in fact you are right and Catholic tradition violates Scripture, the most you can possibly accuse us of is poor exegesis. You can only say that we value tradition over scripture after you convince us and not just yourself that tradition and scripture contradict one another.

I would wager that you cannot find even one person who accepts the authority of tradition and yet believes tradition to contradict scriputre.

Until you find this person, I would ask that you accuse us of interpreting the Bible poorly rather than rejecting the authority of the Bible.
While Protestants say they accept Scripture and reject Tradition, absolutely no one says of themselves that the accept Tradition and reject Scripture.

Burnt,

You are straying from the point. A common tactic employed by RC apologists. Avoid the main question and divert somewhere else. Let us remain focused.

As a protestant I believe that all Christian doctrines and practices must be supported by the Bible. All things yield to the authority of the Scriptures. My question was simple. I will copy and paste again.

"My question to you is can you find a quote from Augustine that clearly states that tradition is equivalent to the Authority of the Scriptures?"

God Bless

Pete

Now you have failed to answer any of my questions and/or any of Joes at the top of the thread. I did go through your last post in a relatively complete form.

Lets review again how you create vain traditions of men (Pete). You claim a tradition of bible alone but find the bible does not say this. The bible actually calls for both oral and written tradition opposite your philosophy. You philosophize Peter in an attempt to create support... I post Peter which says nothing you say. You then create another vain tradition of man... please note traditions of man are bad and you keep pulling them out of your hat! Colossians 2:8,"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." So the next tradition of man you create is "written superior to oral tradition"...you quote 3-6 passages none of which say this new tradition of yours. So when you realize this you actually go against your own newly created tradition (Sola Scriptura) to find support in the arms of St. Augustine outside the bible you claim as the sole rule of faith wow! Since you couldn't prove any of the above from the bible you then make another tradition up and say "well all tradition is man made" and quote a verse which says no such thing. In fact the reason I quoted Colossians was to show you that the bible speaks against these man made traditions of yours. But commands us to keep good traditions like oral and scripture in Tim. Next new traditions of yours is that Acts 15 calls James the leader of the Council of Jerusalem and he is the one that decides for the council... it didn't say that... anywhere. A creative tradition but again not real. Then we have the Berean Jews and the Thessolonican Jews. Both review scripture with Paul but Paul praises only the Bereans why? As it says in Acts 17 only "some" (Acts 17:4) of the Thessolonicans accepted the new teachings but "many" (Acts 17:12) Bereans matched scripture to the new oral revalations and accepted Christ. You claim that they ONLY reviewed the Old Testament. Really? Thats imaginative. So Paul would go town to town not preaching Christ crucified... just holding Old Testament bible studies eh? Doesn't hold water because again in Acts 17:9 we see the angry Jews of Thessolonica dragging Jason to the "city officials" saying what? "They are defying Caeser's decrees, saying there is another king, one called Jesus."

So Pete, how did they know Jesus by name from the old testament? Show me Pete. Where is the name Jesus in the old Testament specifically linked to the Christ? Not. Therefore since there wasn't yet a KJV they knew his name by yep say it with me bro...Oral transmission. Not just OT as you claim.

Former Evangelical scholar Robert Sungenis (Not by Scripture Alone) notes: "The Bereans believed that the apostle's oral message had as much divine authority as the Scripture. In Acts 17:13 Luke specifies Paul's oral proclamation as: 'Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea,' making it clear that the Bereans considered the Paul's oral message the very word of God. Paul was not merely speaking about the word of God, he was speaking the actual word of God. Elsewhere, Paul's own assessment of his oral teaching to the Thessalonians confirms its superlative distinction, for in 1 Thess 2:13 he states:

"We also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God,

This is a pivitol passage because it shows that Paul considered his message...as divine revalation on par with Scripture.

You agree the Bereans had the OT and imply they could derive Christ from just the OT. This again contradicts Scripture for as former evangelical author Mark P. Shea notes: "Paul insists we cannot grasp the meaning of the Jewish Scriptures apart from the revalation of Christ. They remain, says Paul, "veiled" until the gospel he preaches...(2 Cor 3:14)...This is clearly the teaching of Acts. For nobody in Acts derives the gospel from their supposedly formally sufficient Bibles as we derive a sum from a set of numbers in a math problem.

Anyway more man made philosophy and tradition on your part. You half heartedly apologize if you offend anyone yet don't mind using corrupted sources that believe that Billy Graham, Southern Baptists and Assembly of God are in a conspiracy with the Illuminati to conquer the world. Gee thats nice of you I'm sure they love that. You claim to disown the frauds (by Christianity Today) on the list of sources for Mr. Chick yet you modify and claim for your own the dying grandma story from Alberto Rivera (an exposed fraud by your own Fundamentalists magazines!) What integrity. I quote for you real Evangelicals I know that disagree with your personal interpretation of scripture. You disown them. Yet you won't tell me your own view of salvation for the 3rd or 4th time... are you justified/saved by faith alone? If Evangelicals disagree about salvation who answers for them? You claim minor disagreements .... it doesn't get bigger than salvation dude. Who appointed you Pete amongst the Evangelicals to decide on faith alone? Actually you never responded so I'm not sure you even know.

Anyway it would be nice to know as well as: do you think you can privately interpret scriptures and their prophecies as you have done continuously here? Do you want me to show you where not all sin causes death? If I do would you agree with the Catholic position on that point? You hate Purgatory for some reason... it exists by the way also in scripture here I'll help you with this one... the Latinate word purgatory means a purgation or burning by fire. Thats your clue Pete now go get it. Also I'll give you 1 more. I know others on this site and in the Evangelical community dispise Chick, you haven't gotten much scriptural bang for your angst because they won't interact with shoddy work like that. Here is another for you... Coredemtrix... In Latin the suffix trix=woman...the prefix co=with... Go get it Pete find the woman with the redeemer she exists in scripture too :)

In Love

when we were one

1)I have shown that Catholic tradition indeed has violated and contradicted Scripture. Read what I mentioned that is contained in both the Cathechism(declared,"without error",therefore,"sacred" and the Catholic encyclopedia-also,"sealed without error" and therefore, declared,"sacred"). Read the books for yourself and you will see that not only do they contradict other traditions in the past(which, were also declared,"without error") but also contradicts the Word of God. There is no bad exegisis here! Christ said that salvation was ONLY through HIM! Vatican II, the Catholic encyclopedia and the Cathechism all say that Muslims worship the biblical god and that salvation is extended to them! They also contain other traditions that contradict statements made,"without error" from other councils in the past.
2)A survey was done about 15 years ago amongst Catholic priests. In that survey four-fifths of Catholic priests were more concerned about what their church said than what the Bible says.
3)"Poor exegisis?" To say that Christ is the only way to salvation and to recommend that one reads the Word of God and anything that opposes it is NOT of God is not "bad exegisis." It is the Word of God. If anyone was guilty of poor exegesis it was Pope John Paul II who said that,"all people serve the same god despite their religion." I commend the author of this website for realizing that the pope made a false statement,"not every saint is infallible." True, NO one is infallible but God.
4)I know Pope Innocent III(1198-1216) forbade Bible reading in the common language but you do have the right to read the Bible for yourself. If you simply read through it for yourself you will see that a believer is a priest(II Pet. 2:9);Mary was a member of the church, not the "mother of the church",there is NO such thing as "purgatory",a saint is an alive believer,we are to stay away from idols, etc.
5)I know I have struck a nerve that goes to the heart of Catholicism. I have proved what I need to prove and don't think any more is necessary.
6)The constant insults to me(perhaps because I have shown that if tradition contradicts itself or contradicts the Word of God it is NOT sacred even if it is labeled as such) are forgiven because I realize that this has struck a nerve and if offensive to some. But, a simple reading of the Word and going by what it says(even if a pope says something contrary) will inoculate one from things that are not in God's Holy Word.
7)I never tried to hide anything or leave anything out despite the comments to the contrary.
8)When you see all religions gathering in Rome the next time-remember, this is what will usher in the coming one-world government that we are warned not to take part of.
9)The Berean Call has a free-monthly newsletter that one can get simply by asking to get on their mailing list. I think you have to write them to do so though. They have materials on all sorts of things and not just Catholicism:
The Berean Call
PO Box 7019
Bend, Oregon 97708-7019
They have debates on cd with Catholic apologists.
10)To correct something that I said in the last column. The New Testament, though not gathered into one set for a number of years after was written book by book to various churches all within 90 years of Christ's ascension. The various churches had these divine letters and were able to share them with other churches. Revelation of course was the latest one but all the others were much closer to the ascension and were regarded as Scripture.
11)The Lord impressed on me that one common thing in many religions is that they have something ALONG with the Bible. The Mormons have the book of Mormon, the JW's have the nwt, the Muslims have the Koran and the Catholics have tradition. It has been seen(see below as well) that tradition is the words of men(James McCarthy goes into great detail on how,"...hold fast to your traditions," etc cannot mean what it is thought to be by the Catholic church) and the Bible is God's Word and never should be contradicted. Even if an angel from heaven(or "manifestation of Mary" which one said,"all religions are the same...") does so!
12)Some more papal decrees "ex cathedra":
a)Sixtus IV (1471-84):sanctioned the Spanish inquisition. Whereas Jesus said love your enemies.
b)Nicolas V (1447-55):authorized war on the African peoples and their enslavement.
c)Innocent IV (1241-54):sanctioned torture of suspected heretics to extract confessions.
d)Clement XI (1700-21):issued a papal bull against Bible reading.
13)Right now all the major world's religions have an office at the Vatican. The Bible says not to fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them. (Reprove doesn't mean burn at the stake). This agian is going to usher in the anti-christ and the one world religion(see "A woman rides the beast" by Dave Hunt).
14)When I was in Junior college I fell in love with a Catholic girl. But, the Holy Spirit convicted me that she didn't know the Lord and to get out of trying to date her. I know this may be offensive but I'm doing this out of love. I told about a Catholic woman who on her death bed cried out,"no, the demons! the demons!" And then she died. My grandfather and uncle though saw something beautiful when they died. My grandfather said,"hallelujah!" And then he died. There is no such thing as purgatory and if you read the New Testament you will see clearly that there is either heaven or hell. Some(like Scott Hahn) try to twist the passage in Corinthians but first of all, that passage is talking about a future event. More solid exegesis on that verse is given in McCarthy's book.
15)Again, I'm glad someone finally admitted that what pope John Paul II said was not true. But, to say such an outrageous statemtent such as that and then to invite even witch doctors to help you pray for something Christ said would never happen! What makes one think he didn't say other outrageous things?! People need to be checked with the Word of God.
16)Getting ready to close. Salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. The hour of our death is to be entrusted to His care(not anyone else such as Mary or another person). Pope John Paul II didn't entrust Christ with that moment, he entrusted Mary. There is a choice to be made here!
17)The Holy Spirit assured me today that what I would say would plant a seed. There is nothing more needed here. I have proven that "sacred tradition" HAS indeed contradicted itself and Scripture. Indeed, hallelujah! May the Lord use this to encourage people to check things out with God's Word and if it doesn't hold up, the Word is true and the statement contradicting the Word is NOT no matter who says it!
Praise the Lord!
--sincerely, Peter Marshall Haugo. --john 3:16-18.
PS there is another ministry by a former Catholic one can consult:
www.pro-gospel.org
But, at least get on the Berean Call's mailing list. I think you will find that they check the Word first above all else.

Pete

As Burnt had suspected early on, you are a radical fringe Christian. Come in from the fringe brother. You really do believe all of that one world order paranoia (where is one world order anywhere in scripture?). I note you don't deny thinking like Chick about fellow Evangelicals like Pat Robertson or Billy Graham. I really don't think they or the Southern Baptists and AOG are trying to take over the world dude.

Since you couldn't prove any of your Scriptural claims from Scripture I note you now have moved onto that old song and dance... "Ok maybe there is some good tradition but it is not to be found in the Catholic church." You cut and paste from some really unstable people and wham its on the net. Dude you have to check your sources... All of your scriptual claims, I'm able to debunk because I have a Bible. But these fringe folks make up alot of stuff Pete. I hope while debunking your Scriptual claims you give me some leeway in going through the morass of baloney these dudes post.

On 2 of your latest points I have these at hand. 1)On the twisted truth that Catholics banned reading the Bible... Pete these books were at best bad science fiction with the word Bible written on them. And yes some were destroyed to protect the Bible you now cherish. Even Luther gives us credit for this man. Here on this site that myth was blown away in Nov 05... read on.

http://www.deoomnisgloria.com/archives/2005/11/are_catholics_a.html

Regarding the myth of slavery, ever wonder why there are so few African American Catholics? answer: The slavers were predominantly Protestant. The Catholic church excommunicated any Catholic slaver... period. This started with the discovery of the Canary Islands. So it basically went Muslim African/Arab selling to Protestant America. The Baptists just allowed African Americans to join their church in the 1980s-1990s. Catholics have had a former slave for a Pope. Dr. Leslie Rumble notes:

"As regards slavery, you can have no objection to the Catholic Church when you advert to the facts.

Slavery was deeply interwoven with the Roman civilization when the Church first began her work. The Church labored to better the lot of slaves from the beginning. She taught their equal human dignity; worked for their emancipation; ordained them as priests; and by the year 225 had a fugitive slave as Pope. She urged those owners who were converted to Christianity to release their slaves; and within 200 yrs of Constantine's conversion she had practically eradicated the pagan concept of slavery. Later in history the inroads of Mahometanism revived slavery, for the Moors regarded it as a duty to enslave captive Christians. Religious Orders sprang up dedicated to the ransom of slaves, and from 1198 to 1632 the Trinitarians and the Order of Mercy redeemed from slavery over 1,400,000 slaves.

When Spain and Portugal captured their American colonies, the Popes did their utmost to prevent slavery. Pius II, in 1482, Paul III in 1537, Urban Viii, in 1639 and Benedict XIV in 1741 all actively denounced and resisted slavery. Gregory XVI and Leo XIII both fought the later African slave trade. But it was chiefly being fostered in American colonies founded from Protestant England; and remember that catholics themselves were not emancipated from penal laws in England until 1829."

So again these dudes you are cutting and pasting from are misleading you. Now that I've responded to pages of these baloney claims, do you think you can privately interpret scriptures and their prophecies as you have done continuously here? Do you want me to show you where not all sin causes death? If I do would you agree with the Catholic position on that point? Do you believe that you are saved/justified by faith alone? or are you a closet Catholic...you know contrary to what these frauds tell you we believe in by grace alone are we saved. Do you yet want me to show you where in the bible it commands us to keep verbal traditions as well as the written ones? If I do would you agree with the Catholic point on that? What do you think of Ripley's article I linked above? Would you want to read a Bible that incorrectly transcribed the word of God we both love and respect? Are you going to answer any of Joe's 10 points at the top of the thread?

In Love

when we were one

SandT,
Brother please. You know that Augustine was/is Catholic and you know that he submitted himself to the authority of the Church. That being the case, Augustine was not, nor ever will be a "bible alone" Christian nor can protestants ever make him their own. As can be easily shown, Protestant history begins in the 1500s and Catholic history begins in 33 AD. Pick up any high school history book. Regarding St. Augustine and his view on tradition please take special note of the following quote:

"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church WHICH THE AUTHORITY OF THESE SAME SCRIPTURES recommends to you." Augustine, C. Cresconius I:33 (c. A.D. 390).

Here we have Augustine plainly stating that the authority (i.e. Tradition) of the Church is the same as the Scriptures. Hmmmm...sure sounds like Catholic teaching to me. There's your one:)

I decided to throw in a few extras SandT:

"It is obvious; the faith allows it; THE CATHOLIC CHURCH APPROVES; it is TRUE." Augustine, Sermon 117:6 (c. A.D. 397).

"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty...The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, SO DOES HER AUTHORITY, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate… For my part, I SHOULD NOT BELIEVE THE GOSPEL EXCEPT MOVED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can I but consent?" Augustine, Epistle of Manichaeus 5,6 (A.D. 397).

"The authority of our Scriptures, strengthened by the consent of so may nations, and CONFIRMED BY THE SUCCESSION OF THE APOSTLES, BISHOPS, AND COUNCILS is against you." Augustine, Letter to Faustus 8:5 (c. A.D. 406)

So SandT, I have provided an answer to your question most plainly. In fact, I have shown that Augustine would not even believe the gospel were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church. Let that sink in for a bit SandT... An object, or in this case St. Augustine, that you try to pound into square hole that is round will never work no matter how hard you hammer.
In Truth,
Matthew

SandT, please help me out, I am genuinely confused here. It appears as if:

1. You claim that Scriptures are the supreme authority.
2. You quote Augustine as saying that Scriptures are the supreme authority.
3. The Council of Trent, the Second Vatican Council, and pretty much all the Roman Catholics here acknowledge the supreme authority of scripture and agree with you on this point.

Why do you claim that we do not agree with you on this point? To be sure we have differences on the correct interpretation, but it seems as if you make a claim about Scripture, the Church Fathers agree with you, numerous ecumenical councils re-iterate this agreement, the Catholics on this blog repeat this agreement, and yet you refuse to believe we accept your point.

Why is this still perceived as a point of disagreement? I can think of hundreds of legitimate issues of disagreement, why are we stuck on debating a point on which we all seem to agree? I am truly puzzled and would like to understand.

WWWO,

I just read your comments. Actually, I have previously commented on how Scripture itself says that it is the rule of our faith and is superior. However, in the past, with others on this blog, the use for patristic writings were called into play. According to Jay and others, the early church fathers, including Augustine, supported and the idea of co-authority between Scripture and traditions set by the church. I merely showed that this is not so. Since I am assuming that you agree with Jay, I am assuming the same. MAybe I am wrong. However, I had one question. That was it above. As for the Bible clearly supporting itself as authoritative.

"Timothy 3:16-17, "All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work."

That is the one of the many supports.
Or Jesus rebuking the pharisees and showing that the word of God is AUTHORITATIVE.
Jesus supported this notion time and time again with use of "IT IS WRITTEN"
But when this bought up, the appeal to early church fathers has always been made. Therefore, you have my question.

GOd Bless

SandT

If you read the first interaction with Pete you will see that nowhere in this quoted passage does it say either Scripture ALONE as our rule of faith, which is the mantra of sola scriptura. It is one of many passages that says scripture is GOOD. Catholics put scripture together...even Luther credits us with that. We love scripture and 100% agree with the passage: "God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work."

But this is not saying ONLY scripture as the rule of faith just that Scripture is good. Think of it like this SandT: "Vegetables are God-made food, for eating, for decoration, for flavoring, in order that the man of God may be healthy and fully equipped for every good work." It however does not mean we can ONLY eat vegetables.

If logic 101 doesn't make it clear enough, former Evangelical and author Dave Armstrong puts it in a scriptural perspective:

"'And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ'(Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture."

Contrary to what many frauds may tell you, the Catholic church finds Scripture consistent (cannot contradict in true meaning) and inerrant. I think what we are saying is: You and I head off to preach the gospel...today, using even the KJV if you want, what makes your interpretation of scripture more valid than that of the Fathers who learned from the Apostles directly what the true interpretation should be? As I have pointed out no single father is infallible but as a Magesterium both Scripture and sacred Tradition has been compiled. Your many views although very interesting some are not consistent with the Magesterial view of Tradition, many are. I mean you can find some local traditions that never made it into the Tradition of the Church. You can also find many local letters that never made it into Scripture. The Traditions of the church are not local events man they were and have been broadly accepted as coming from the mouths of the apostles directly for centuries! I wouldn't argue to add a new book to the Bible would you? Why do you add invented man made traditions like sola scriptura? You may wish to read a book by a former Calvinist pastor who on further research like many Protestants, found that you can't rewrite history and claim to be Christian (because to whitewash history is to lie) here is an excerpt: http://catholicity.elcore.net/GrahamOnNewTestamentCanon.html

So my questions back are: Where in Scripture does it say ONLY written tradition should be kept? What makes Sandy's interpretation of scripture greater than that of those who learned at the feet of the apostles? If I can show you where we are commanded to keep both verbal and written transmission alive would you agree with the Catholic view on this? Do you believe that the "word of God" is limited to written letters? Do you believe that we do not need instruction (oral) regarding the meaning of Scripture?

In Love

when we were one

SandT, please tell me which of the following statements you agree with:

1. The Scriptures are without error.
2. Only the Scriptures are without error.
3. The Scriptures are inspired.
4. Only the Scriptures are inspired.

Can you tell me which of these statements you think the Roman Catholic Church agrees with? I get the distinct impression that while we disagree on many issues, we appear to disagree more than we actually disagree.

WWWO,

Sola Scriptura is the following. All that is needed is found in Scriptures, anything that is not supported or founded in Scripture is to be rejected. Again, I have bought this point many at times on this blog.

Paul when writing to Timothy writes the following.

"And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Timothy 3:12; 4:5)"

Here Paul writes that the Bible has all that is needed for Christian doctrine. Not only that, but Paul forsees others turning away from the truth and following unsound doctrine. He even instructs Timothy to be prepared to rebuke and reprove, obviously with the Scriptures, which Paul had just wrote is good for rebuking and correction. Paul does not mention oral tradition.

Furthermore, to back all this up, Paul in Corinthians writes do not go beyond what is written. Marian theology, a Vicar of Christ, praying with or to dead saints...all of it is not found in the Scripture and therefore goes beyond what is written. To correct you, I can refer to Scripture.

Burnt, your question quite honestly makes no sense.

God Bless

SandT

You claim "anything that is not supported or founded in Scripture is to be rejected." This is illogical by the text. Nowhere in the text is anything like this present. It is a "myth" as in..."For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths." (2Tim3)

Your first statement, however, has some merit. Are you familiar with Formal vs Material sufficiency? And I did answer your question...I'm still curious re: Where in Scripture does it say ONLY written tradition should be kept? What makes Sandy's interpretation of scripture greater than that of those who learned at the feet of the apostles? If I can show you where we are commanded to keep both verbal and written transmission alive would you agree with the Catholic view on this? Do you believe that the "word of God" is limited to written letters? Do you believe that we do not need instruction (oral) regarding the meaning of Scripture?

In Love

when we were one

Pete

If you are still out there thanks for the time. I've now pretty much debunked all of your pastes re: Tradition.

1) A bunch will be found here:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9810fea3.asp

2) The seals on certain Catholic works really don't extend in anyway or shape how you claim. I'm looking at Keating's Catholicisim and Fundamentalism right now and I will quote: "The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book is considered to be free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therin that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat or the Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed." Nothing devious as you implied. The reason these are great to have will be addressed as I debunk your last remaining who haa.

3)The Pope considers the Muslim God to be the same God. Well as it turns out after talking with an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine. JPII is correct and you are wrong. You see in the OT, Ishmael, son of Abraham is the 1st born and the father of Islam. In fact Jews consider Islam closer to their core beliefs than Christianity. To quote him "You guys made a regular Jewish boy a God."

Further, within Evangelical circles, Ravi Zacharias is considered a preeminent apologist. In his book; "Light in the Shadow of Jihad," Zacharias quotes liberally from Genesis 16 recognizing indeed the Islamic connection to Abraham.

So as we see... your sources for both Scripture and Tradition were quite flawed. Surprise. Further... you didn't answer 1 question... just make unsubstantiated claims. Such as, Evangelicals just have a few differences...1 you couldn't answer if you are saved by faith alone and 2 you don't know which God you worship because if mainstream Evangelicals like Zacharais think in one way and you disagree...what you excommunicate him? Gimme a break. Ya small differences. This is why we have those seals listed above! So there is 1 mind, 1 faith. Do you believe in multiple Christian faiths? Sounds like you may need some seals... but who will authorize you doctrine? you?

I'm glad you left your email so bloggers may invite you back to answer any question since you just posted smoke. I'm sure you will continue in that vein but this time you must reply.

In Love

when we were one

SandT,
I am getting a little hurt here by the lack of attention to my post on Jan 8:) You've replied to Burnt and WWWO twice since then. I anxiously await your response, or maybe the silence is the actual response; I'm not sure.

Anyway, to refresh your memory you tasked Burnt or any Catholic apologist in the previous entry:

"As a protestant I believe that all Christian doctrines and practices must be supported by the Bible. All things yield to the authority of the Scriptures. My question was simple. I will copy and paste again."

"My question to you is can you find a quote from Augustine that clearly states that tradition is equivalent to the Authority of the Scriptures?"

Well SandT, I gave you your answer on Jan 8 so I guess we can now agree that St. Augustine held that the Tradition (capital T) via the authority of the Catholic Church was equal to that of the Scriptures. Take note once again, and feel free to re-read my previous post.

"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church WHICH THE AUTHORITY OF THESE SAME SCRIPTURES recommends to you." Augustine, C. Cresconius I:33 (c. A.D. 390).

As I said before, here we have Augustine plainly stating that the authority (i.e. Tradition) of the Church is the same as the Scriptures. Hmmmm...sure sounds like Catholic teaching to me. SandT...there's your one:) Besides SandT, St. Paul one chapter earlier in 1 Tim. 3:15 says that the church is the pillar of truth not the bible. Additionally, as most scholars will tell you, in your most recent post St. Paul was speaking to Timothy of the Old Testament. The New Testament did not exist as of yet. So if anything, your argument proves too much--the all that is needed for salvation is the Old Testament. This is not your argument I know, but you must read the passage in context.
In Truth,
Matthew

Matthew,

The quote you showed me does not say that the church or tradition has ultimate authority. As a matter of fact, that quote says the the Scriptures has the authority.
Now while you fail to show that Augustine supports the authority of tradition with that quote, I am aware that there are other quotes that show he gives support to the authority of the church and sometimes tradition. I give authority to my church, my bishop and my pastors. However, even they will say that the ultimate authority goes to the Bible. Which is what Augustine has said. He describes Scripture as having paramount authority. So yes, the church can have authority, but it;s authority yields to the Scriptures. Anything that is not founded in the Scripture is not true. Once again, I asked you to show where Augustine gives tradition or the church paramount authority or directly says that the tradition has equal authority to the Scriptures. You have not done so.

WWWO,

Please re-read my previous post. Feel free to break down each sentence and tell me what you don't understand. I won;t re-type it again.
As for formal and material suffiency, that concept by Peter Madrid was already addressed by James White, who broke down the Scripture in the greek text to prove the point of Scripture being sufficient. To which Madrid could respond by saying well, I don;t know greek.
Once again WWWO, do not go beyond what is written. I don't know what that means to you, but it sounds like, if it is not written in Scriptures, don't do it or believe it.

God Bless

SandT, the only thing we can agree on is that we do not seem to understand each other in the slightest. Let me try again.

What do we do about issues on which the Scriptures give no clear answer? For example, polygamy. The Old Testament allows for polygamy as long as it does not become excessive. The new Testament only restricts the practice of polygamy for elders and deacons.

Martin Luther noted that there are no explicit universal biblical prohibitions against polygamy to be found in the Scriptures. While he "frowned on" the practice, he actually recommended it to a duke with a mistress. He repeatedly pointed out that if you take Sola Scriptura seriously, you have no grounds to forbid polygamy. His observation has held through centuries of scriptural scrutiny.

Roman Catholics claim that Tradition, Scripture, and Natural Law all have binding claim on the conscience of man and that they must not contradict one another. I think we are agreed that no truth may contradict the Scriptures. I think we disagree as to whether binding truth (like the prohibition of polygmay) can be found outside the Scriptures. For the Catholic, polygamy is denounced both by Tradition and Natural Law. For the Protestant polygamy is either forbidden by the scriptures or must be allowed.

Notice that we cannot say the Roman Catholic Church in its teaching on against polygamy contradicts scripture. But we can say that it presents a truth not contained in scripture.

From this we can say that the Roman Catholic Church accepts the authority of the Bible but it also accepts authority outside the Bible. This does not say that we value Tradition over Scripture. It says we value Tradition and Scripture.

If you want to say that you and every follower of Christ ought to value Scripture and not Tradition, fair enough. If you want to say the Roman Catholics are offend God by valuing Tradition and Scripture, fair enough as well - you are entitled to your interpretation.

But please do not put words into our mouths and say that we value Tradition over Scripture or that we reject the authority of the Bible. Like Protestants who belong to a different denomination than you, we reject your interpretation of the Bible and not the Bible.

Do you have any idea how frustrating it is for someone else to tell you what you believe? How would you feel if I told you that your were a polygamist because you, like Martin Luther, believed in Sola Scriptura?

SandT

Matthew's quote absolutely shows Augustine's view of Church authority re: the legitimacy of scripture. (Consistent with the Church's view of Scripture, Tradition and Magesterium) Yet you deny it. It reminds me of you thinking yourself a greater patristics scholar than the Oxford professors of patristics in re: Augustine's view of the Eucharist!.

SandT you wish not to read the obvious... reread my post, no need to repeat your lack of any proof.

Did you check with a Catholic source of Greek re: material sufficiency? How about former Evangelical and Greek Scholar Robert Sungenis, in (Not by Scripture Alone) who disposes many of Whites fabrications? Did you ever wonder why the Greek Orthodox Church holds principles near identical to Catholic and opposite White? I think they know their Gk better than White (there are over 300 million Orthodox) who has been found by Sippo to tout a questionable doctorate.

Oh Ya Pete... I mean SandT, I answered yours, can't answer mine? Do you need my help or should White answer for you? Is he your Pope?

In Love

when we were one

SandT:
Let me break it down for you my friend.

1. You say quote Augustine:
"This Mediator (Jesus Christ), having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and asfterwards by the Apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called cannonical, 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." [St. Augustine, City of God, Book XI, Chapter 3.]

2. You state: "Augustine states that Scripture has paramount authority. Paramount means supreme, as in the very top. Augustine clearly states that Scripture has the highest authority."

3. You ask: "My question to you is can you find a quote from Augustine that clearly states that tradition is equivalent to the Authority of the Scriptures?"

4. I give you the response:
"...on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church WHICH THE AUTHORITY OF THESE SAME SCRIPTURES recommends to you." Augustine, C. Cresconius I:33 (c. A.D. 390)

5. We see that Augustine in your quote says, "...produced the Scripture which is called cannonical,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."

So we have Augustine saying Scripture has paramount authority. OK, no problem we as Catholics agree with authority of the scriptures as being the word of God. Nowhere do we see Augustine saying anything remotely close to "all that is needed is the scriptures" or "scripture alone" is the only authority. Nowhere. Besides, Augustine in my previous post clearly says "...The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate… For my part, I SHOULD NOT BELIEVE THE GOSPEL EXCEPT MOVED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH."

6. So now we have Augustine saying that he believes the gospel BECAUSE of the AUTHORITY of the Catholic Church, not the authority of your church or any other "church" or pastor. In addition, the quote I provided for you did in fact equate the authority (Tradition) of the Catholic Church with that of the scriptures. Read it again... "that has appeared good to the universal Church WHICH THE AUTHORITY OF THESE SAME SCRIPTURES recommends to you." Clearly, Augustine is says that the universal [Catholic] Church has the AUTHORITY OF THESE SAME SCRIPTURES.

7. If, according to Augustine, the Catholic Church's Tradtion (authority) is the same as the scriptures, then they are EQUAL to one another, not over, against, or competing with one another. My quote shows specifically how Augustine appealed to Tradition as equally authoritative because as he said, "To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures..." We see here how Augustine appeals to the Tradition of the Church because the scriptures were silent on the matter at hand. I don't know how much more clear one can get.

SandT, as I've shown (again) St. Augustine was not a sola scriptura adherent. I would prayerfully ask you to re-read my posts, and others, with an open an objective mind.
In Truth,
Matthew

Bravo Matthew! I would meekly add.

SandT

Read your quote from Timothy. ""And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them."

So there are 2 groups 1) evil imposters and 2) an antidote to group #1 that antidote per the Scripture you quote is "knowing from whom you have learned them."

In Evangelical Baptist Rod Bennett's book the Four Witnesses he notes the extreme importance, to 1st century Christians, of this exact passge.

Bennett notes that the Simon Magus, listed in Rom 8, becomes one of the leaders of an early gnostic group. According official to Roman historical documents, Magus befriends the Emperor and launches this Gnostic group. The Gentiles knew which group was authentic by "knowing from whom you have learned them." Bennett shows how many other passages also helped in this discernment.

But you may be tempted to say then this was only for the early times... reread your post. "impostors will proceed from bad to worse."

We see Augustine in Matthew's post says, "...The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate…"

If I employ this antidote emphasized by Scripture and the early Church, I can trace myself to Augustine and he to Peter and then Christ. Who do you trace yourself to? I'm still interested in hearing your answers to my other posted questions.

In Love

when we were one

Matthew

Let's start with your quote.
"For my part, I SHOULD NOT BELIEVE THE GOSPEL EXCEPT MOVED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH."

This comes from the letter against the Manicheans in which Augustine was discussing the validity of the apostleship of Manicheaus. AUgustine pointed out that if the Manicheans were to use the Scriptures, that he would believe what the Catholic church taught over what they taught because under the authority of the Catholic church is how Augustine came to know the Scriptures. However, Augustine also said, a few lines after the quote you pasted, that if the were able to find concrete eveidence on the apostleship of Manicheaus, that his authority of the church would weaken and that he would not believe them(the Catholic church) nor the Manicheans. You most likely were not aware of that, since what you probably did was just googled search for points to support your argument. In google searching you found that quote, which superficially may look to be in support of your argument, but when you delve in to it deeper, that is not the case. For Augustine clearly says that his REGARD for the AUTHORITY of the CATHOLIC CHURCH would WEAKEN if the Scriptures, again, if the SCRIPTURES were to show proof of the apostleship of Manicheaus. Clearly showing that as much authority the church may have, that authority is trumped by the SCRIPTURES. There is not a demonstration of co-authority in this letter.

I have shown that AUGUSTINE has stated that
1. Scripture has ultimate authority
2. Augustine has stated that all doctrine should be proved via the Scriptures.
3. Augustine would disregard the authority of the Catholic church based on Scripture.

Again, my challenge is for someone to show a verbatim statement by Augustine in which he says that Scripture and Tradition are equal. None of you have done so yet. You have quoted Augustine giving authority to the church. But Augustine clearly saying that SCRIPTURE and TRADITION are equal in authority has not been proven.
The succession of priest quotation does not say it. THe quote I just commented on does not say it either.
Nor does the quote from his letter to Cresconius.

WWWO
Again, you I have heard and seen debates with James White, where he destroys that point. He did so against Patrick Madrid. However, Sungenis, declines to debate against James White. But that is neither here nor there.

God Bless

WWWO,

You might want to be wary of Robert Sungenis. He's parted ways with EWTN and Catholic Answers because they refuse to denounce the actions of the papacy. I think Art Sippo's website has a bunch of stuff refuting what Sungenis says.

In particular Sungenis maintains that although we have a civil right to choose our religion, we have no moral right to choose our religion. Sippo's site begs to differ.

Burnt,

Thank you for your concern. I agree.

I am aware of the integralist nature of Sungenis' perspective. His books I quote have been awarded the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. As my prior discussion with Pete... this is exactly why these seals are important. Linus Pauling has 2 Nobels but later went off deep with his ideas on Vit C. Just because he went way deep later doesn't diminish his earlier work.

Sand T

Read what you just wrote. You further prove the early Christians point re: the needed Apostolic succession. You have just shot yourself in the foot because you have no such evidence to back you...you have also failed to answer me in any logical or meaningful fashion revealing the flimsy nature of your belief structure and your avoidance of fact.

In Love

when we were one

WWWO,

Ahh. You have certainly learned the debating tricks from the likes of Sungenis and Madrid. Make boastful victorious claims without proof.
Please feel free to break down my argument, point by point and show me where I shot myself in the foot.

God Bless

SandT

1) read your quote from Scripture

2) read your quote from Augustine

3)read my quote from Bennett

4) read your quote to Matt re: Augustine. Note Augustine bases his firm footing on the history of the Church. He notes if the Manicheans found such history it would weaken his argument. Clue ... there is no such history directly to Christ aside from the Catholic position. Get it... you just lost. Augustine uses history to support his interpretation of Scripture directly to Christ (the Catholic position). You and the Manicheans use your private interpretation of Scripture and its prophecies (that is why you have 30000 different Protestant faiths and growing...each of you thinks themselves an infallible interpreter ie personal Magesterium...how arrogant). Many other Protestants are desperately looking for this alternate reality because they realize the imperviousness of Augustine's point. They end in ridicule. Ever wonder why mainstream Baptist seminaries have ended any discussion of the "Trail of Blood?"

Summary: you argue from a Manichean perspective (no connection to Christ but claim your interpretation of Sripture is the true perspective). Catholics argue like Augustine's perspective... our interpretations of Scripture are grounded in the teachings of the 1st Christians who were taught by Christ himself.

The victory is obvious enough. You answer 0 questions I pose but continue to talk to yourself. Let me refresh you: What makes Sandy's interpretation of scripture greater than that of those who learned at the feet of the apostles? If I can show you where we are commanded to keep both verbal and written transmission alive would you agree with the Catholic view on this? Do you believe that the "word of God" is limited to written letters? Do you believe that we do not need instruction (oral) regarding the meaning of Scripture?

In Love

when we were one

SandT wrote:
1. Scripture has ultimate authority
2. Augustine has stated that all doctrine should be proved via the Scriptures.
3. Augustine would disregard the authority of the Catholic church based on Scripture.

As far as I know, no one is arguing against you on any of these points. Roman Catholics accept the authority of the Tradition and the Magisterium precisely because they, like the Bereans, have searched the Scriptures and found the oral tradition and magisterial teachings to be in harmony with the scriptures.

I left the Roman Catholic Church thinking that it had misinterpreted the scriptures and returned when I realized that it was me, not the Roman Catholic Church that misinterpreted the Scriptures. What I have read of Jay's conversion story suggests that he too entered the Roman Catholic Church after he became convinced of the scriptural foundations for Roman Catholic teaching.

Why do you insist that we disagree with Augustine's three points above? Do you, like Peter Haugo, know what we believe better than we do because you've read materials from authoritative sources like ex-Catholics and Jack Chick?

As far as I can tell Peter and you and the Catholics on this blog all agree that the Scriptures are authoritative. So how about we rejoice over this common belief or move on to a real disagreement or do both?

In the meantime, can you answer my question on how Sola Scriptura relates to the Christian tradition of forbidding polygamy? I know of only four alternatives, please let me know which you accept or teach me of a fifth alternative.

1. The Scriptures do not explicitly forbid all forms of polygamy and so polygamy is not always forbidden (Martin Luther and Joseph Smith's position - some African Churches attempt this position as well)

2. The Scriptures do not explicitly forbid all forms of polygamy but polygamy stands opposed to the natural moral order which also binds the conscience of mankind. (Roman Catholic teaching which violates Sola Scriptura of course)

3. The Scriptures do explicitly and plainly forbids all forms of polygamy and so polygamy must not be practiced. (this violates the exegetical principle of only reading into scriptures what can be certainly read out of it - arguably worse from a Protestant standpoint than violating Sola Scriptura as an extra biblical notion has not only been accepted it is inserted into the Scriptures)

4. The Scriptures do explicitly and plainly forbid all forms of polygamy but the Scriptures are do not authoritatively bind the conscience of mankind. (Liberal or atheist position which rejects the authority of Scripture)

BUrnt,

First, let me say that you are the first on this blog that is a Roman Catholic that states the Scriptures have the highest authority.
Now in regards to polygamy.
It is taught that it is wrong.

I will summarize briefly.

God's plan

" 'FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE; AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'?"

God's law

"THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY"

Here you have the way God planned it, and God's say on it. Yes it occurred in the Bible, but it was not God's way. Therefore it is wrong.
In addition...

"Neither shall he have a great number of wives, lest his heart be estranged, nor shall he accumulate a vast amount of silver and gold.
When he is enthroned in his kingdom, he shall have a copy of this law made from the scroll that is in the custody of the levitical priests."
Deut 17.

In the case of Solomon we see the consequence of not following God's command. Solomon had many wives who turned him to other gods.

If you look in the Scriptures not only do you see how God planned it, but you will see the consequences of polygamy. Jesus in the NT reiterates how God planned it. One man, one woman, the two shall become one flesh. Not one and 3, and not one man and one man...anything contrary to that is wrong, simply because it goes against God's word. So there you have it, the Bible does in fact teach against polygamy. And it is clear as day. There is no hidden message on the topic.

God Bless

SandT,

Are you aware that Deut 17 forbids many wives (as in the case of Solomon) rather than simply than one? Did you notice that this rule was made specifically for kings rather than the general populace? Did you notice that taking many wives is not considered adultery as the usual punishment of death by stoning does not apply?

Did you know that David had multiple wives and the Lord only rebuked him when he took someone else's wife? In Nathan's rebuke David learns that the Lord gave him his master's wives and that he could have had more had he asked.

Monogamy as a strict rule (rather than an ideal plan) has no direct scriptural support. To forbid polygamy you need an authority apart from but not necessarily above scripture. Do you realize that by taking the Scriptures as you have done and claimed that God prohibits polygamy, you are doing exactly Peter did in Acts 16, and exactly what you forbid our Pope from doing? Namely, you have become a Magisterium making definitive rulings and interpretations on God's behalf in areas where the Scriptures are unclear.

The difference separating Catholic and Protestant beliefs is not Papal infallibility (Roman Catholics do not believe the Pope to be any more infallible than Protestants believe themselves to be) but the lack of infallibility for the Catholic layperson.

As for me being the first Roman Catholic believing that Scripture is the highest authority, it has been repeatedly stated by Roman Catholics that the Scriptures (I can find quotes the Second Vatican Council if you wish) are inspired and infallible and contain the complete deposit of inspired divine revelation of God to the world. It is not, however, considered the only authority which binds the conscience of man. I'm not making this stuff up - there is nothing original in any of my material.

As far as I can tell, in all these discussions, the Roman Catholics and Protestants have all proclaimed the supreme authority of Scripture and merely disagreed over the correct interpretation and whether the Magisterium and Tradition necessarily had the correct interpretation. Where do you get the idea that I'm somehow different than the other Catholics?

To the other Catholics, if I've ventured into heterodoxy concerning the place of the Scriptures, please let me know. I've until now received no indication there are any problems with my belief that Tradition and Magisterium are "able to reliably interpret the Scriptures but may not contradict them".

I was under the impression that the Council of Trent left open the possibility that Tradition and Magisterium could create new teachings as long as the did not contradict the Scriptures or previous declarations. I was also under the impression that the Second Vatican Council closed that possibility.

I have a really hard time believing that I'm the only Catholic on this blog that believes the Scriptures to be authoritative. WWWO, Matthew, Jay, Joe?

SandT,
The recent dialogue began with you stating the question:

“My question to you is can you find a quote from Augustine that clearly states that tradition is equivalent to the Authority of the Scriptures?”

I have illustrated this point several different ways now and still you do not accept my answer. Instead, you hypocritically resort to tactics that you accuse us of. To be precise, you accused Burnt Marshwiggle on January 6th in the following statement:

“Burnt, You are straying from the point. A common tactic employed by RC apologists. Avoid the main question and divert somewhere else. Let us remain focused.”

However, on January 13th after I went through point by point the logical deduction of St. Augustine’s view on the equality of Tradition (i.e., authority and practice) to that of the Scriptures you go off in another direction by addressing Augustine’s statement of, “For my part, I SHOULD NOT BELIEVE THE GOSPEL EXCEPT MOVED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH." This diversion tactic, so to speak, is much more common of non-Catholic and especially anti-Catholic “apologists” who would prefer to not face a sound, logical response to their accusation and would rather divert to another topic. This is especially hypocritical since you since you accuse us Catholics of employing such tactics and seven days later after admonishing Burnt…you do the same thing. As you said, “let us remain focused.” So I will.

First, as I’ve shown previously, I gave you the Augustinian quote you asked for:

"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church WHICH THE AUTHORITY OF THESE SAME SCRIPTURES recommends to you." Augustine, C. Cresconius I:33 (c. A.D. 390).

Let me give you another perspective and see if this clarifies things. I’m not sure if you are a parent or not, but either way I believe you can follow my logic. As a father, we are given the title “head of the household” which in theory would mean that whatever we say goes—or is supreme. As a father I am tasked to discipline and admonish my children among other things. My authority is supreme over my children. Agreed? However, my wife is my partner and co-parent of my children. Even though “theoretically” I am head of the household my wife is equally supreme over my children. We compliment each other and do not override each other’s authority, and are EQUAL in terms of being supreme authority. This is basically what Augustine is saying in my initial quote. Just insert Sacred Tradition and Scripture for father and mother.

So to parallel my scenario above I showed you how Augustine appeals to the Tradition of the Church because the scriptures were silent on the matter at hand, “To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures..." Again, I’ve illustrated that because the scriptures were silent…then something else MUST, I say again, MUST be EQUALLY AUTHORITATIVE to settle the matter. In this instance, Augustine specifically says (because of the absence of biblical evidence), “...on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church WHICH THE AUTHORITY OF THESE SAME SCRIPTURES recommends to you." Here Augustine appeals to the authority or Tradition of the Church which follows the thought of the Scriptures, but at the same time is in possession of the same authority of the Scriptures themselves! This is a clear and logical deduction that may be hard for you to admit to…but that is the truth in this case. If not, the burden is on you to use the same logic to deduce anything contrary to my case.

I pray that you will yield your position and at least agree with me that I have satisfied your question regarding St. Augustine’s regard for Scripture and Tradition.
In Truth,
Matthew

Burnt,

It is not the complicated. Did God plan marriage to be one man and one woman? Yes or no?
Does Scripture teach that going against God's word or adding to it is wrong? Yes or no?

The answer is yes to both of these, and I am sure you are aware that this is found in Scripture. It is found CLEARLY in Scripture.
It is that simple.
Now, you can debate whether God means 2 or 10 when He says not to multiply wives or not to have many wives. I will simply look at how God planned it, and follow it.
It is found in Scripture.
In regards to Nathan and David, David was given the authority that was previously not His. Wives included. This does not mean that God condoned it. How does Scripture tell me this? Look at God's original plan. It is that simple. You can argue whether God was mad that David took Uriah's wife or whether he was mad that he took Uriah's wife after killing him, or he was mad at both. Based on God's plan and His word, both were wrong.
In summary, Monogamy does indeed have scriptural support. Simply put it is written that God planned it that way. One man and one woman.
It is also in the Scriptures that anything against the word of God or adding to it, is wrong. Therefore polygamy is wrong, with proof from the Scriptures. I don't know what more scriptural proof you need.

Now, if you believe that Scripture is the highest authority, why do believe in the bodily assent of Mary? It is not in Scripture. Why do you seek Mary in prayer or any other dead saint? It is not in Scripture. The only way you can support this is by adding to Scripture, which is against the word of God, or you can do what most Roman Catholics do, and that is to give equal authority to tradition and the Vatican.

Matthew,

Please read the comments I made on the letter to the Manicheans and get back to me. And if you could, please find that letter to Cresconius and paste it here.
As for you parent analogy, it is a weak one simply because we as men are flawed. However as the man of the house and as a man of God, If I say my child cannot go out, and my wife feels I should let her out, it is my word that carries more weight and in that instance my wife should be submissive to me. All this is in agreement with Scriptures.

God Bless

Burnt

Brian Mullady, O.P. says better than I.

"This magisterium is not an independent experience of the Word of God outside Scripture and Tradition. The magisterium cannot define new doctrines which are not contained at least implicitly in Scripture and Tradition. The magisterium is not a source for new revelation. By the promised aid of the Holy Spirit, the magisterium expresses what the faith of the apostles has always been, whether in the written or the spoken witness to the Word of God. The magisterium cannot make a new revelation. It is the servant of the one deposit of faith contained in Scripture and Tradition."

Evangelical convert Jimmy Akin notes: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510bt.asp

"Sola scriptura is understood in different ways among Protestants, but it is commonly taken to mean that the Bible contains all of the material needed to do theology. According to this theory, a theologian does not need to look to Tradition—or at least does not need to give Tradition an authoritative role.

This view is not acceptable to Catholics. As the Second Vatican Council stressed in its constitution Dei Verbum, "it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws its certainty about everything that has been revealed. Therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence" (DV 9)."

Burnt Marshwiggle notes even more elegantly than Tobias could: "The difference separating Catholic and Protestant beliefs is not Papal infallibility (Roman Catholics do not believe the Pope to be any more infallible than Protestants believe themselves to be) but the lack of infallibility for the Catholic layperson."

These above statements are true to my assessment. I'll be out over the weekend.

In Love

when we were one

SandT,
I thought we were remaining focused here? I will gladly address your comment regarding Augustine and the Manicheans once you've logically established your case against Augustine's equal authority given to Scripture and Tradition. You have not even attempted as of yet and I see no need to go off in another direction at this time. So I wait and wonder if the deafening silence or absence of a cogent response is in reality my answer.

I'm sorry you didn't appreciate my parenting analogy, but I was not going off in another direction regarding submission. I thought I was giving a very basic example that in my absence (as in the case in question the absence of bibilical evidence) my wife has the same authority as me to make binding decisions (in this case Sacred Tradition). Simple as that. I thought that the connection was rather clear, but I am sorry if was not.

Anyway SandT, as I said above, I will gladly address your other question(s) once you have logically answered mine. You put it best, "Let us remain focused."
In Truth,
Matthew

SandT,

The Scriptures support the bodily Assumption of Mary, support asking people (both living and dead) to pray for you, forbid using contraceptives just as much as they forbid polygamy.

Roman Catholic teaching acknowledges that people may in good faith come to other interpretations and provides a Magisterium and Tradition to provide definitive guidance when believers come to differing interpretations of the Scriptures (which always have highest authority).

Martin Luther and John Calvin both taught that the Bible clearly forbids the use of contraceptives. Their biblical argument forbidding the use contraceptives is much much stronger than yours which forbids the polygamy.

A true Sola Scriptura Protestant would need to conclude as Martin Luther did and pronounce using contraceptives as inherently evil, Mary as perpetually virgin, and polygamy as permissible.

Funny how today's Protestants would reject all three of these "Sola Scriptura" teachings from their hero Martin Luther. Today's Protestants have succeeded where the Roman Catholic Church failed: they have successfully removed Martin Luther's teachings from Christian thought.

Matthew,

"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church WHICH THE AUTHORITY OF THESE SAME SCRIPTURES recommends to you." Augustine, C. Cresconius I:33 (c. A.D. 390)."

This does not say that tradition and Scriptures have the same authority. I don't even know the question that Augustine was addressing. However, Augustine is talking about Scripture and in regards to the question at hand, whatever the Church had thought was good, followed the true thought of Scripture. Whatever was observed by the church was also recommended by the authority of the SAME SCRIPTURES that Augustine was discussing. I fail to see where you conclude that Augustine give equal authority to both, when in that statement he says that the church is following the true thought of Scriptures. He is deferring to the Scriptures. Now, what you probably did was a quick google search and cam across this statement as well as others, however if you are able to come across the whole letter, please paste it here.

In short Matthew, your quotes do not show Augustine clearly stating that Tradition is equal to Scripture in authority.

WWWO

And my point is that Augustine never gave equal authority to tradition and the Scriptures. So whatever may have been said, if it is not written, it is not valid.

God Bless

SandT

St. Augustine's statement quoted by Matt actually argues logically that Scripture is a subset dependent on the set known as Tradition...you lose again.

Say do you have any answers for any of my questions?

In Love

when we were one

SandT,
How about I use a Protestant source for my case: Phillip Schaff? He has a well documented compilation of Christian history although not totally unbiased [towards Protestantism] is useful for our purposes here.

I cannot give you the entire context of Augustine's quote in question. It was found at www.scripturecatholic.com which does not give the entire document. Regardless, I can give you the reasoning of thought behind Augustine's quote. First, we must agree that Augustine is a Catholic. Second, he deferred to the authority of the Catholic Church, and third his esteem for the Scriptures as authoritative is unquestioned. The issue here is his thoughts on the role of [Sacred, i.e., Apostolic] Tradition.

The quotes below are directly from Phillip Schaff's book(s) regarding the role of Tradition in the early Catholic Church. History of the Christian Church, Chapter XII: The Development of Catholic Theology in Conflict with Heresy, 139. Catholic Tradition.

"Besides appealing to the Scriptures, the fathers, particularly Irenaeus and Tertullian, refer with equal confidence to the "rule of faith;" that is, the common faith of the church, as orally handed down in the unbroken succession of bishops from Christ and his apostles to their day, and above all as still living in the original apostolic churches, like those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome. Tradition is thus intimately connected with the primitive episcopate. The latter was the vehicle of the former, and both were looked upon as bulwarks against heresy."

"Irenaeus confronts the secret tradition of the Gnostics with the open and unadulterated tradition of the catholic church, and points to all churches, but particularly to Rome, as the visible centre of the unity of doctrine. All who would know the truth, says he, can see in the whole church the tradition of the apostles; and we can count the bishops ordained by the apostles, and their successors down to our time, who neither taught nor knew any such heresies. Then, by way of example, he cites the first twelve bishops of the Roman church from Linus to Eleutherus, as witnesses of the pure apostolic doctrine. He might conceive of a Christianity without scripture, but he could not imagine a Christianity without living tradition; and for this opinion he refers to barbarian tribes, who have the gospel, "sine charta et atramento," written in their hearts."

"Tertullian finds a universal antidote for all heresy in his celebrated prescription argument, which cuts off heretics, at the outset, from every right of appeal to the holy scriptures, on the ground, that the holy scriptures arose in the church of Christ, were given to her, and only in her and by her can be rightly understood. He calls attention also here to the tangible succession, which distinguishes the catholic church from the arbitrary and ever-changing sects of heretics, and which in all the principal congregations, especially in the original sects of the apostles, reaches back without a break from bishop to bishop, to the apostles themselves, from the apostles to Christ, and from Christ to God. "Come, now," says he, in his tract on Prescription, "if you would practise inquiry to more advantage in the matter of your salvation, go through the apostolic churches, in which the very chairs of the apostles still preside, in which their own authentic letters are publicly read, uttering the voice and representing the face of every one. If Achaia is nearest, you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi, you have Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you live near Italy, you have Rome, whence also we [of the African church] derive our origin. How happy is the church, to which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood..."

"To estimate the weight of this argument, we must remember that these fathers still stood comparatively very near the apostolic age, and that the succession of bishops in the oldest churches could be demonstrated by the living memory of two or three generations. Irenaeus in fact, had been acquainted in his youth with Polycarp, a disciple of St. John.”

"In the substance of its doctrine this apostolic tradition agrees with the holy scriptures, and though derived, as to its form, from the oral preaching of the apostles, is really, as to its contents, one and the same with there apostolic writings. In this view the apparent contradictions of the earlier fathers, in ascribing the highest authority to both scripture and tradition in matters of faith, resolve themselves. It is one and the same gospel which the apostles preached with their lips, and then laid down in their writings, and which the church faithfully hands down by word and writing from one generation to another."

So SandT, from the information provided above, from a non-Catholic historian, you can see that Tradition is considered equally authoritative in matters ecclesiastical. Keep in mind that Augustine was alive from 354-430 A.D. Ireneus died in the late 2nd or early 3rd century (there is not and exact date), and Tertullian died around 225 A.D. Augustine’s perspective is no different than that of his predecessors when his says, “…on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church WHICH THE AUTHORITY OF THESE SAME SCRIPTURES recommends to you." I’ve connected that dots for you SandT and I pray that this time you will appreciate my clarification.
In Truth,
Matthew

Burnt,

Sorry, I just now read your post. Please demonstrate in Scripture where it is written that Mary was assumed, was sinless and was to be prayed to? Because no one has been able to show it so far.

God Bless

Matthew,

We were not talking about Ireneus and Tertullian. Once again, going off on a tangent.
Matthew, I could care less about Mr. Schaff. All you did was quote his opinions. I could quote some non protestant that favors my side of the discussion. Nonetheless, you have not connected any dots, despite your claim in doing so.
I also knew that you quoted from a website the letter of Cresconius. That is key, because you do not know the context of the whole letter.
The support for your argument is
1. a quote which does not say that TRADITION IS EQUAL TO SCRIPTURE
2. the quote you use, you cannot even find the whole letter it was quoted from

I am sorry to dissapoint you, but you have not clarified anything.
All I am asking is for you to provide a writing from Augustine that has him clearly stating that Tradition is equal to Scripture in authority.
I have shown where he has said that Scripture has the highest authority. Can you show me a statement from Augustine that proves your point? You have not done so.

God Bless

SandT,
I beg to differ that I'm going off on a tangent "again" (your words). I have remained focused throughout our discussion. However, I felt it necessary to frame the context for the thought of Augustine via a non-Catholic author from the historical perspective of his predecessors. You see, as Catholics we have a history that we can trace directly to the Apostles. This is vitally important in our discussion and something that Protestants cannot do unfortuntely.

SandT, let us back up for a moment here. I have logically laid out my case for Augustine's equal view of Scripture and Tradition several different ways. As I said above, the burden is on you to do the same. At this point all you have done in reply to me is say:

"This does not say that tradition and Scriptures have the same authority. I don't even know the question that Augustine was addressing."

"The succession of priest quotation does not say it. THe quote I just commented on does not say it either. Nor does the quote from his letter to Cresconius."

"Once again, I asked you to show where Augustine gives tradition or the church paramount authority or directly says that the tradition has equal authority to the Scriptures. You have not done so"

This are opinions...nothing more. I asked you to logically make your case and you have not done so. So as I said before the burden is on you. In fact, the best definition for the word "logic" I could find sums it up best: Logic=the relationship between certain events, situations, or objects, and the inevitable consequences of their interaction. This is EXACTYLY what I have done in various ways, but you've yet to demonstrate. Until you can do so fitting the above definition all you are doing is stating YOUR interpretation of Augustine's words. So I ask you to kindly and logically break it down for us.
In Truth,
Matthew

Matthew,

My original post was a challenge to for someone to show where Augustine clearly says that Tradition has equal authority to Scripture. All you have shown are statements from Augustine that you interpret as him equivocating Scripture and Tradition. I however, have shown you a quote where simply says that Scripture has the highest authority. That means there is no equal. It is simple english and simple logic. Now, on one hand you have Augustine clearly writing that Scripture has the highest authority and that Scripture sets the rule of the faith. Yet despite the lack of a quote that has Augustine saying that Tradition and Scripture are equivalent, you still believe he says that. That must mean he contradicted himself or is just confused, logically speaking.
Now, if you want to include other early church father writings, you will find more of the same.

Gregory of Nyssa
"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."

Clearly, Gregory is saying all things must measure up and harmonize with Scriptures.

Cyril of Jerusalem

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."

Another early church father saying that all things should be proven by Scripture.
At least 3 of the early church fathers gave Scriptures the highest authority. I agree with these statements. Not because they so, but because Scripture says so. Your belief in tradition prevents you from seeing the authority that Scripture itself proclaims. Bottom line, I have shown you 3 church fathers who have said that all things pertaining to the faith, must measure up and harmonize with Scripture. If tradition agrees and can be proven by Scripture, according to the 3 church fathers I quote, then it is fine. Otherwise it is igenious reasoning.

God Bless

SandT, let's go back to the Augustine quote in debate:
"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church WHICH THE AUTHORITY OF THESE SAME SCRIPTURES recommends to you." Augustine, C. Cresconius I:33 (c. A.D. 390).

This appears to say three things:
1. we have an unknown issue being debated and a clear ruling cannot be found in the Canonical Scriptures.

2. to determine the "true thought scriptures", we must follow the interpretation that "has appeared good to the universal Church" because...

3. "THE AUTHORITY OF THESE SAME SCRIPTURES recommends to you" the universal Church

This has been the Roman Catholic position for years. When debate arises on how to interpret the scriptures because the scriptures are unclear, the authority of the Church makes an interpretation because the scriptures indicate that this authority has been given to the church.

In other words, Scripture has the highest authority, and where scripture is unclear or silent - the scriptures tell us to submit to the authority of the Church.

What do you perceive as the difference between the Augstine quote and the present Roman Catholic position? Remember that no one claims that the Church has a higher authority than the Scriptures. The Roman Catholics claim that the Scriptures give the Church a lesser authority which nevertheless gives the Church a higher authority than any individual believer.

Burnt

"In other words, Scripture has the highest authority, and where scripture is unclear or silent - the scriptures tell us to submit to the authority of the Church."

What biblical reference are you using?

SandT, I was paraphrasing the Augustine quote as you asked for evidence that Augustine accepted the authority of the Church. As for scriptural references which show that Christ's apostles could make rulings when believers could not agree on how to interpret them, you can start at Acts chapter 16.

Burnt,

What were you paraphrasing and please show what in Acts 16 shows "the scriptures tell us to submit to the authority of the Church."
Because I do not see it.

God Bless

SandT,
Unfortunately you seem to be overly slavish to having someone produce a quote from Augustine that says "Scripture and Tradition are equally authortative!" Although at this point we have not given you what you seem to be wanting and at the same time because we haven't you conclude that your position is correct. How convenient.

As far as where we are now in the discussion, Burnt has above re-summarized my central point and broke it down similarly to one of my earlier posts. I stand behind it as well. Your insistence that because there hasn't been a quote that "directly" as you say equivocates Tradition and Scripture then we must defer to your interpretation of Augustine's words.

You said above: "Yet despite the lack of a quote that has Augustine saying that Tradition and Scripture are equivalent, you still believe he says that. That must mean he contradicted himself or is just confused, logically speaking."

Regarding your thoughts above, I say no to both of your deductions. No he didn't contradict himself and no he is not confused...I offere you a third option which is...he is an orthodox [Roman] Catholic!! His thoughts and quotes are well in line with Catholic teaching regaring the relation of Scripture and Tradition. The sad part is SandT is that YOU KNOW THAT HE IS A CATHOLIC and yet you still try to make him into a sola scriptura adherent.

Lastly, I'll say this for what it is worth. Do you believe in the Trinity? Of course you do if you claim to be a Christian. Well, please show me where in the Bible it specifically explains the nature of the Trinity or where it even contains the word Trinity. You can't because although there is lots of evidence pointing to the Trinity it does not specifically lay it out. This situation is similar in the sense that although Augustine does not "specifically" say in the aforementioned quote that "Tradition is supreme" or "Tradition and Scripture are equally authoritative" it does clearly imply such a relationship. And as far as the three Church fathers you provided, I can give you 20 more on top of that proclaiming the relationship of Sacred Tradition AND Scripture. I appreciate your contributions though.
In Truth,
Matthew

SandT,

My apologies for sending you to the wrong passage, the passage I meant to refer to is Acts 15:6-32. In particular verse 28.

A debate arises amongst believers as to whether Christian converts need to get circumcised according to the Law of Moses. They searched the scriptures and people on both sides presented a scriptural case.

After considering what is said, Peter (the primary Apostle) ends the debate in verse 7 by presenting his official interpretation. In verse 28, he now goes so far as to speak on behalf of the Holy Spirit even though the scriptures have not yielded a clear answer. At this point we are faced with a trilemma similar to the one posed by the Church Fathers, CS Lewis, and Josh McDowell except in regards to Peter rather than Christ.

Peter claims to speak on behalf of the Holy Spirit. Either the claim is true or false. If false, then either he knows it to be false or he does not know it to be false. If he does not know it to be false, it cannot be a simple mistake (as when, I referred you to Acts 16 when I should have referred you to Acts 15) it must be a paranoid delusion. If he does know it to be false, he must be a charlatan of grandiose proportions and so must the early church for allowing this audacity (some Mormons and Muslims believe this but those who believe in the inerrancy of scriptures have no such option). The remaining option is that as "first Apostle" he has the authority to make definitive, universal, moral rulings on areas where the scriptures are silent or unclear.

Augustine re-iterates this principle in the quote Matthew brings to your attention at your request. The Roman Catholic Church subscribes to this principle as well.

As far as I can tell, there is no debate between Catholics and Protestants that the Scriptures have the highest authority. There is debate as to whether the Scriptures are the only authority which bind the conscience of mankind.

The Catholic Church also recognizes the authority of Natural Law, Tradition, and the Magisterium in areas where the Scriptures are silent or unclear. For example, the Scriptures when outlining punishment for sexual sins do not explicitly and universally absolve a woman of guilt in the case when she gets raped (for example, a leading Muslim cleric with a great following said that a woman is 90% guilty when she gets raped).

Thankfully, almost all Protestants understand in practice that a victim of rape is not guilty of sin - but this contradicts the idea of Sola Scriptura.

Yes I am aware of the passage in Leviticus which allows a raped woman to go unpunished if she cries out. Now if a married woman were gagged (so that she could not cry out) during the rape and brought before a Sola Scriptura tribunal, she would be considered guilty of adultery under Levitical law. Thankfully, almost no Protestant is so heartless as to take their Sola Scriptura seriously in this case.

They would almost surely look realize that the crying out is less important than the attempt to cry out in such a case. But this would be to admit to moral principles outside of the Scriptures.

When a Roman Catholic says: "I acknowledge authorities outside of the Scriptures", do you interpret that to mean: "I reject the authority of scripture"?

But when a child says "I accept the authority my mother", do you interpret that to mean "I reject the authority of my father"?

If a child can accept the authority of mother and father, why can we not accept the authority of Scripture and Tradition?

Matthew,

The Bible clearly describes God as a Spirit, as the Father, and as the Lord Jesus. All three are God, completely, yet the Bible says there is only God. So I believe that God exists in three persons. If you want to call it the trinity, triune, or whatever so be it. Now, if you want to look at the Scripture, please read the addition made by the Latin Vulagate of 1 John5:7. I do not need this passage to show biblical proof of the "concept" of the trinity.

Burnt
Please show me what IN Acts15 says that in all unclear matters we are to follow the church?

As far as the child parent analogy, as the father I am the head of the household and my wife does have authority. However, mine is higher, meaning that if daddy says no to going to a party, mommy cannot say yes. We are to be in agreement. My child would be wise to know whose word has the highest authority if such a disagreement would take place. However, you know how kids can be.

Same goes for Scripture and Tradition. Both are authoritative, but the tradition better line up with the Word of God or else it is not valid.

God Bless

SandT,
My addendum to my last post regarding the Trinity was not the primary issue, as you know, but you decided to respond to it in full instead of remaining focused. So I appreciate all of your efforts and time, but I am bowing out at this point. I have presented my perspective as thoroughly and logically as possible, but I don't think we have progressed very much in the discussion. Again, I thank you for your willingness to engage in discussion and may God's truth always light your path.
In Christ,
Matthew

Matthew,

Matthew, you tactic was an attempt to get me to say that I believe in the trinity despite the word trinity not being in the bible. The same tactic has been used before. Another example is abortion. Someone challenged that whether a fetus is a valued life is proven biblically. I showed that it was. The point of your tactic was an attempt to see if you can prove my belief in matters pertaining to the faith that are not clearly explained in Scripture. You could not do so.
Now as far as your statements go, that you can find other church fathers that say tradition and Scripture are equal, that may or may not be. However, it shows that there were different thoughts and beliefs among the church fathers. Which is not in accord with the claim of the Roman Catholic church that all believed the same.(regards to the early early church)
With that said, I also thank you for your time. These discussions move me to read Scriptures more and more. I too pray that God moves you and I closer to His truth, more in tune with His Spirit so that we both attain a supernatural understanding of whom our God is.

God Bless

SandT wrote:

Same goes for Scripture and Tradition. Both are authoritative, but the tradition better line up with the Word of God or else it is not valid.

Good enough for me. We can debate whether Tradition lines up with Scripture another day.

For now can we agree that as long as a Catholic believes Tradition (and the Magisterium) to be lining up with the word of God (even if this belief is mistaken), then one can still rightly say that Catohlics value Scripture as the highest earthly authority?

On another note, the parent analogy as you present describes very well the difference between Catholic and Protestant thought both on marriage and on the role of Church authority. We can discuss this another time.

I leave you with this question: Why do you use the unbiblical phrase "head of the household" when Bible declares man to be the head of the wife but nowhere declares him the head of the house?

Burnt,

I am pleased to hear that you value the authority of Scripture higher than tradition. Now, can you please show where in the Scripture that teaches prayers to Mary or any dead saint. Can you also show where it teaches the bodily assumption of Mary. Also please do show where it says that Mary is sinless. These are a few things that is not taught in Scripture, and where those on this blog have supported these teachings by giving authority to tradition and the vatican.

God Bless

SandT,

Concerning the beliefs on Mary, I would like to ask you if believe that John Calvin and Martin Luther valued Scripture as the highest authority? Their views on Mary's perpetual virginity and sinlessness are pretty much the same as Catholic ones and accepted these teaching solely on the authority of the Scriptures. Luke 1:28 and Genesis 3:15 are the two commonly cited sources for belief in the sinlessness of Mary. While you may disagree with their interpretation of Scripture, will you admit that they nevertheless believe the Scriptures to be the highest authority? If so, will you admit that Catholics who disagree with your interpretation of Scripture can still value Scripture as the highest authority?

While we are on the topic of Calvin and Luther, I was taught by Protestant theologian J.I. Packer that those two had very different approaches to Scripture even though both accepted Scripture as the highest authority. In his Reformation, Luther taught that every practice that was forbidden by the Scriptures had to be tossed out but the rest could stay. Calvin taught that every practice that was not required by the Scriptures had to be tossed out.

To use your father-mother analogy, consider the situation where a question gets asked, the mother says something, and the father says nothing at all or something that could be interpreted in multiple ways. Luther and Catholics would allow the mother to make a ruling (though they would disagree as to who the legitimate mother was). Calvin would demand that the father speak and not give preferential treatment to the mother's interpretation over the child's. By demanding that I find Scriptural proof for every activity, may I conclude that you adopt Calvin's approach? If so, are you still willing to say that Luther (who took a different approach to Scripture than Calvin did) still valued Scripture as the highest authority?

Given that the Scriptures say we are to pray for one another and that they do not say whether this practice depends on either party being on this earth - one can still defer to the authority of the Church on this Scripturally unclear issue while still valuing Scripture as the highest authority.

In the meantime, can you tell me why you insist on using the unbiblical phrase "the head of the household" to describe the father when Ephesians 5:23 speaks of husband as "the head of the wife"?

Believe it or not, my question to you headship has very much to do with the question on the authority in the Body of Christ. The widespread Protestant refusal to acknowledge that Christ bestowed infallible authority upon Peter in Matthew 16:18 is very much related to their perversion of Saint Paul's words in Ephesians 5:23.

To carry your excellent mother-father analogy further, we see that the authority of the mother in the house corresponds to the authority of Tradition and the Magisterium. Protestants reject both. Roman Catholics are called to accept both.

Burnt,

How does Mary being called highy favored and blessed among women equate to meaning she is sinless despite the Bible distinctly saying that all have sinned?

How does " 15And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." equate to Mary being sinless?

The only way to believe that this is what it means is to accept another person's translaton as final and authoritative. But I am curious, please tell me how these passages explain Mary's sinless nature? Please break it down. Also, where does the Bible say Mary was assumed into heaven? That is nowhere in the Bible.

As far as John Calvin and Martin Luther go, the bottom line is as follows, if they believed or taught something that was not in the Bible, then it is incorrect.

As for praying to the dead...
1. Christ said that 2 on earth could pray with each other. To assume that he also meant those who have passed into heaven is adding to his word. Also no one in the Bible practiced praying to dead saints.
2. Speaking of praying to the dead, it is frowned upon in the Scriptures.

To ignore this fact and believe that it is OK is to disregard what Scripture is plainly and clearly saying. To come to those beliefs is by ingenious reasoning.
I can find where praying to the dead is considered wrong, can you find where it is encouraged in the Scriptures?
Can you find one instance of someone praying to a dead saint in Scripture?
Can you find where it says Mary was sinless, or are you assuming she was sinless based on the Scriptures you pointed out?

As for your red herring,
I am the head of the household because my wife is instructed to submit to me. That means that my authority is higher. So while head of the household may not be used, my wife is told to submit to me as I am submit to the Lord.
So yes, I am the head of the household, and it is supported biblically.

We are called to accept the authority of the church, but that authority is to yield to the Scripture. So we too, accept both. However, it has been made clear that despite no clear biblical proof for Mariology, that it is accepted as such because that is what the RCC teaches. So if you could, please explain how you come to understand the Scriptures as to teach Mariology. Please be specific, please type the scripture and please break it down.

God Bless

SandT wrote:
How does Mary being called highy favored and blessed among women equate to meaning she is sinless?

The phrase is: "full of grace" (greek charitao, charis = grace). Protestants understand grace as "God's unmerited favor" and thus translate the passage as "favored one". For example, in Lutheran theology, saving grace can co-exist with even the worst of sins in the soul - Luther even taught that accepting God's grace did not require the renunciation of sin. Catholics understand grace as "God's unmerited favor which also drives away sin". That is why we are saved from our sins by grace. Sin is a rejection of God's grace, so anyone full of grace has no room for sin in their soul.

But that is beside the point. My point is that Luther and Calvin believed (we can discuss rightly or wrongly later) that Mary was sinless and yet still believed the Scriptures to be the highest authority. The point I am making is that even if someone (such as myself, Luther, or Calvin) comes to an incorrect interpretation of scripture, you have no right to conclude that they do not value Scripture as the highest authority. The most you can say is that they interpreted the bible wrongly.

As for enmity between "the woman" and "the serpent", remember that to the extent that there exists sin in a person, one has an alliance rather than enmity with the devil/serpent. So Genesis 3:15 refers to a sinless woman. This cannot be Eve as she has fallen. Just as God formed the body of Eve without any sin out of the body of Adam when Adam was sinless, God formed the body of Jesus any without sin out of Mary when Mary was ....

Again my point is that Luther and Calvin accepted the Marian doctrines solely on the authority of Scripture. They may have misinterpreted, but they still revered the Scriptures as the highest authority. Or does everyone who disagrees with your interpretation value their man-made tradition over Scripture? (In which case you have declared yourself Pope)

The issue of asking a dead person to pray for you as contained nowhere in the scriptures. It neither frowns on it (Saul was not asking Samuel to pray for him when he used the witch of Endor) nor requires it. Since the highest authority, Father God, is silent, we ask the lower authority, Mother Church. If we press Father for an answer when Mother has already answered he says "listen to your Mother".

I am the head of the household because my wife is instructed to submit to me

You've got it backwards and wrong there. Your wife is instructed to submit (I shudder to think what your interpretation of that word is) to you because you are the head of the WIFE - not the household (that phrase is unbiblical and demeans the authority of mother/wife over the household - which brings us back to you rejecting the authority of mother church over believers).

In case you've forgotten, the description of the ideal wife at the end of Proverbs mentions that she buys and sells property wisely without the knowledge of the husband. While the husband is head of the wife, the two become one flesh and rule the household jointly.

Scripturally speaking, your wife has the authority to sell your house and buy another one without consulting you. In other words, she has as much authority/headship over the household as you do. And when she exercises this authority. Again from Proverbs 31 you don't have a need or a right to override her decisions to purchase land - instead you rejoice knowing that her decisions are wise.

The biblical phrase "the head of the wife" points us to the beautiful mystery of complimentarity between man and woman. The unbiblical phrase "the head of the household" reduces the wife to a servant or child. Christ raised his disciples from slaves to friends (John 15). Husbands reduce their wife to a slave when they confuse the authority which they should share with their wives over the household with their role as head of the wife.

Every time I cringe over the unbiblical phrase "head of the household", my wife reminds me that thanks to the Holy Spirit, no reasonable Protestant couple actually lives out the cruel doctrine of "head of the household" that they fortunately only pay lip service to.

Let me put it another way. May a man keep secrets from his children or servants? May a man force them to do something they do not wish to do? Yes, that is what it means to be master of the children and servants.

May a man keep secrets from his wife? May a man force her to do something she does not wish to do? No, because Christ never did this to his Church - he revealed all his friends and invited all to follow his ways. And so the head of the wife may not do to the wife what the head of the church does not do to the church. And so "head of the wife" means something very different from "head of the household". The first reflects Christ's love for the Church. The second distorts it for the man must not treat his wife as he does the children and the servants.

I can just imagine what would happen if your (unhusbandly) wife had as much authority as you give to (unbiblical) tradition.

Mother: Come inside children - it's time for lunch.

Children: Did Daddy say we must come inside?

Mother: No he didn't say anything, he's at work.

Children: Show me where Daddy says we must come inside, he's the highest authority in the family.

Mother: I'm the second highest authority, the highest authority is silent, so you must listen to the second highest authority, and I say come inside for lunch.

Children: Nuh-uh, Daddy is the highest authority. I listen to only Daddy. Only Daddy. Sola Daddy.

Mother: Child, Daddy said you have to listen to me when he's not around. And by the way he never said Only Daddy. Sola Daddy is something you made up yourselves.

Children: You don't respect Daddy's authority. I'm telling! Just you wait till he gets home.

Mother: Now that's a tempting thought Child. Now you listen to your mommy and maybe you won't be needing him to spank you when he gets home.

Will Daddy say the children were reasonable? So why does this seem like reasonable behavior for Protestants? Why is this your line of reasoning when it comes to asking your friends, including those who have passed on, to pray for you?

To forbid a practice simply because the scriptures are silent raises the problem of why we do not instead forbid the opposite of that practice based on that very same silence.

Luther dealt with this problem by allowing practices on which the Scriptures were silent - such as polygamy. Calvin ignored this problem and seemed to think it perfectly reasonable to forbid a practice simply because the Bible didn't mention it.

Burnt

"The phrase is: "full of grace" (greek charitao, charis = grace). Protestants understand grace as "God's unmerited favor" and thus translate the passage as "favored one". For example, in Lutheran theology, saving grace can co-exist with even the worst of sins in the soul - Luther even taught that accepting God's grace did not require the renunciation of sin. Catholics understand grace as "God's unmerited favor which also drives away sin". That is why we are saved from our sins by grace. Sin is a rejection of God's grace, so anyone full of grace has no room for sin in their soul"

We both know that the text does say that Mary was sinless. You are going by someone else's ingenious interpretation. Mary was not the only one who was full of grace. Stephen was said to be a man full of grace and power, it still does not mean he was sinless.

"But that is beside the point. My point is that Luther and Calvin believed (we can discuss rightly or wrongly later) that Mary was sinless and yet still believed the Scriptures to be the highest authority. The point I am making is that even if someone (such as myself, Luther, or Calvin) comes to an incorrect interpretation of scripture, you have no right to conclude that they do not value Scripture as the highest authority"

Burnt, I can show you church fathers who believed Mary to be sinless and others who believed she was with sin. The bottom line is whether or not it is in the Bible. All you have done so far is to say so and so believed this or that. My question is does Bible excuses Mary from being sinless. Does the Bible teach to be full of grace means that you are sinless? Find the proof for me please. Do not waste time saying "well so and so believed this, or the RCC interprets it this way." Because it does no good. A Muslim once told me that Mohammed was prophesied in the Bible. All I simply said is to show me his name in the Bible. He too also explained some ingenious reasoning to support his cause. At the end of the day, he could not show me clear cut proof. Bottom line is, show me the Scripture that says Mary was sinless. An angel saying Hail Mary does not mean she was sinless, nor does being full of grace mean that she was sinless.

"The issue of asking a dead person to pray for you as contained nowhere in the scriptures. It neither frowns on it (Saul was not asking Samuel to pray for him when he used the witch of Endor) nor requires it. Since the highest authority, Father God, is silent, we ask the lower authority, Mother Church. If we press Father for an answer when Mother has already answered he says "listen to your Mother."

"Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them: I am the Lord your God." (Leviticus 19:31)

"When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you." (Deuteronomy 18:9)

Burnt, again, it is clear that the Bible is not silent on this issue. Whether you are the person who seeks the medium to reach the dead or you directly communicate with the dead, it is an abomination to God. KJV uses the word necromancer in place of one who calls up the dead, which means the same anyways.
Either ways, God frowns upon communication with the dead, and it is present in Scripture.

"In case you've forgotten, the description of the ideal wife at the end of Proverbs mentions that she buys and sells property wisely without the knowledge of the husband."

Where does it say that? And I mean the part without knowledge of the husband?

"Every time I cringe over the unbiblical phrase "head of the household", my wife reminds me that thanks to the Holy Spirit, no reasonable Protestant couple actually lives out the cruel doctrine of "head of the household" that they fortunately only pay lip service to."

Once again the Bible does say that the wife is to submit to the husband. However, as men we are told to love our wives as Christ loves the church. So to slave my wife, disrespect my wife, or to hit my wife is not Christ like love. I will work hard for my wife, I will protect my wife with my life, I will listen to her and so on. However, we are to be in union and in sync. So again, if I we disagree, the Bible would says that she is to submit to me. Just like the church (who are those who believe in Christ) submit to the Word(The Word became flesh).

As for you Mommy and Child playscript. Its amusing but senseless. Please stick to proofs from the Bible.

Once again, please quote the Scriptures which clearly show Mary to be sinless and assumed into heaven. That's all I ask.

God Bless

SandT,

Do you believe Jesus Christ to have been married? Why does every Christian denomination (that I know of) believe Jesus Christ to have never been married?

Tradition.

It never mentions it in the Bible one way or another.

SandT, before continuing I want to know if we are agreed on two things:

1. Christians (such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Roman Catholics) who interpret scripture wrongly in your eyes still regard the scriptures as the highest authority.

2. Christians (such as Martin Luther and Roman Catholics) who do not demand clear scriptural support for every practice still regard the scriptures as the highest authority. Protestants call this debate the "regulatory principle" and the Protestant community is divided on whether every practice requires biblical support. Christians on both sides of the issue acknowledge that the scriptures are the highest authority.

Do we have agreement on these two points? I at one time thought the answer was yes, but based on your response, I am now unsure and need some clarification.

PHILIP,

Maybe tradition is your reason that you believe that. However, you are right the Bible does not mention anything of Jesus having a wife or children. However it does mention that He had a mother, father and siblings. Since it is not in the Bible we don't accept it...the same goes for Mariology and prayers to dead saints. Once again, because it is not in the Bible and not because of tradition.

GOd Bless

Burnt,

It all depends. If Calvin or the Roman Catholics have a belief, yet cannot prove it via Scriptures and yet still hold on to that belief, then the answer is no. No they don't hold Scripture with the highest authority. Like I said, the Bible is not vague. Now, if one has a belief and it is not proven via Scripture, if said person lets go of that belief, then they regard Scripture with the highest authority.

So, once again, just show me where it says that Mary was sinless, where Mary was assumed, and where any dead saint was prayed to. Just show me examples in the Bible. You asked me to show you where praying to the dead is wrong, and I did. Now please, return the favor and show me where it says that...
1. Mary was assumed in the heavens
2. MAry was said to be sinless
3. An example of someone praying to a dead saint

If you can show me these things not based on same vague interpretation, but rather reading the plain text...then I will see your reason for these practices.

God Bless

SandT,

Are you saying then that because Luther and Calvin cannot convince you that their beliefs in Mary's perpetual virginity were biblical, that they do not believe Scriptures to be the highest authority? Luther and Calvin were convcined by the scriptural argument advanced in Saint Jerome's letter on Mary's perpetual virginity.

I for one am content having people say that I respect the Scriptures as much as Luther and Calvin did. Though I am intrigued at the thought of Protestants saying that Luther and Calvin do not respect the Scriptures as the highest authority. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

I am similarly intrigued by the notion that your "reading of the plain text" is sufficiently accurate that those who disagree are not only wrong but also rejecting the authority of the Scriptures. For in your efforts to respect the authority of Scriptures you have in essence crowned yourself Pope of all Christianity.

Now I begin to understand how respect for the Scriptures necessarily demands an infallible papacy to interpret them. Now I understand what Scott Hahn meant when they noted that when he said that when Protestants reject a Catholic idea, they always bring it back in through the back door.

For years I have been trying with great difficulty to understand better the biblical foundations for the Papacy. And now you have laid out for me an excellent biblical case for the papacy. Thank you! This is wonderful! (Yes, I am being totally serious when I say you have helped me grasp a point of the Catholic faith that has for years eluded me)

Burnt,

Anyone who believes something that is contradictory to Scripture or not proven by Scripture does not hold Scripture with the highest regard. Now, I have noticed that you are avoiding the issue. All I ask is that you show me he Scripture where it says
1. Mary was sinless
2. Mary was assumed into heaven
3. WHere we are to pray with or to dead saints.

It is obvious that you cannot find it in the Scriptures. SO now you are trying to make a case for giving full authority to the vatican as opposed to Scripture. So basically, I will answer the questions for you. There is no proof in the Bible that shows Mary to be sinless or assumed into heaven, and definitely not an example to pray to the dead.

God Bless

SandT,

Apparantly, Jesus was going against Deuteronomy 18:10–11 and Leviticus 19:31 when He had Moses and Elijah appear with him on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3).

Anyways, we don't have to prove anything through the Bible as long as what we believe doesn't go against what it says(which Catholics hold their beliefs don't). You're the one who should be proving to us that the Bible alone is a biblical belief and not just some tradition of men that has been around for only 500 years.

Also, I too can quote any of the Church Fathers out of context to make it look like they were sola Scriptura or sola Fide, when in actuallity they were totally Catholic in practice and belief.

Philip,

Please elaborate on how Jesus went against Dt. Because I really do not see what your point is.
As far as the "burden is on you" tactic. That has been seen and addressed already. Feel free to peruse the site.

The Bible says that all have sinned, but Roman Catholics say that Mary was sinless. Hmm...sounds like that is against the Bible.
The Bible says that mediums , spiritists and those who call up on the dead are an abomination to God. Yet Roman Catholics endorse prayers to saints. Hmmm....sounds like that is against the Bible.

In any case, I will not recap the discussion again. If I do that the point and focus of the current discussion between Burnt and myself will get lost.
But at least you are one Roman Catholic who seems to be admitting that their is no biblical proof for Mary being sinless and assumed into heaven.

God Bless

Burnt

We now see SandT claims to be better at Scripture than Luther and have more patristics experience than Oxford.

In Love

wwwo

WWWO,

All I see is words of how I think I am this and that. Yet you cannot find the biblical proofs that I have requested. Just show me the proofs or admit that there is no mention of Mary being sinless or assumed into heaven, in the Bible. The only way you can support that is using the same logic that can make 1+1=3. And that would be illogic.
Again, just show me the Scripture that supports your belief wholeheartedley.

God Bless

I believe we did show you where we believe that Scripture mentions Mary to be sinless, but you say our interpretation is wrong, and yours is the correct and only interpretation to be followed.

Sounds like you are being your own pope.

SandT

LOL you're kidding right? You haven't answered 1 question I've asked in the last 12 mo.
Did you even call Oxford yet to let them know that you have a secret stash on Augustine and their stash is wrong? LOL!

In Love

wwwo

Philip,

Philip no one has shown biblical proof of Mary's assumption or sinless nature. But if you feel that you can show the proof, then please do.
For example, we both no the Bible says that shalt not kill. So we have Scriptural proof that murder is wrong. So despite the Bible saying that all have sinned, how does the Bible prove Mary to be sinless? I am aware of the references used by the Roman Catholics to attempt to prove the validity of Marian doctrine. But it is not clear cut. Being saluted with Hail does not equate to being sinless, unless you can proof it biblically. Does it say that MAry was assumed into heaven? The Bible speaks of others who were assumed into heaven. But not MAry. So biblically you have no proof. Lastly I have shown that praying to the dead or communicating with the dead is an abomination to God. So why do you feel that prayers to saints are acceptable, despite this fact and also knowing there is not a single instance of prayers to the dead that was approved by God in the Bible.

So where is your biblical proof. If you cannot show anything just say so. Show me your references and logically break it down. Ultimately I think you will end up either saying because the Vatican says so, or you will copy Karl Keating and post it here.

Anyways, God Bless

SandT,

It my intention not to convince you of Marian dogmas but to convince you that Roman Catholics, like Lutherans, Baptists, and Calvinists accepted the Sacred Scriptures as the highest authority. I was operating under the assumption that people who disagreed on how to interpret the Bible might still all accept it as the highest authority.

Though based on your statements, I'm not sure this is possible anymore.

Anyone who believes something that is contradictory to Scripture... does not hold Scripture with the highest regard

Does that mean when Martin Luther counselled a Duke to marry his mistress (polygamy) because the Scriptures permitted it, he was not only wrong in his interpretation but also did not hold Scripture with the highest regard?

Anyone who believes something that is... not proven by Scripture does not hold Scripture with the highest regard.

Baptists and Pentecostals wait until a personal choice can be made before getting baptized because the Scriptures do not prove that you can baptize infants. They of course ignore that the Scriptures do not prove you must wait.

The Dutch Reformed, Lutheran, Anglicans baptize infants because the Scriptures do not prove you must wait. They of course ignore that the Scriptures do not prove you can baptized infants.

I was under the impression that although these Protestants disagreed on how to interpret Scripture, they all regarded Scripture as the highest authority. Though your statements make me wonder if we have agreement on this point.

Are you saying that those who (or do not) baptize infants do not regard the Scriptures as the highest authority?

All I ask is that you show me the Scripture where it says
1. Mary was sinless
Luke 1:28, Genesis 3:15.

2. Mary was assumed into heaven
Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:27 indicate that the bodies of those who are sinless (see Luke 1:28 and Genesis 3:15) do not undergo decay.

3. WHere we are to pray with or to dead saints.
I have never said that we are to pray to the dead (that can be discussed later). I have said that we are to ask them to pray for us. James 5:16 says we are to pray for eachother. Since dead saints are more diligent obeying biblical commands than I am, asking them to pray for me is good biblical sense.

Anyone who believes something that is contradictory to Scripture... does not hold Scripture with the highest regard

And since you do hold Scripture with the highest regard, then can we conclude that you do not believe anything that is contradictory to Scripture? And so you have introduced the concept of Papal Infallibility and crowned yourself Pope.

And now I realize that one need not convince a Protestant of the authority of the Pope. The debate lies in determining the identity of the Pope.

Burnt,

You are going off on a lot of tangents. You can pick a specific topic after this issue is settled, then we can discuss it. However, the topic at hand is simple. Show me the proof that Mary was sinless. I already addressed Luke 1:28. Being saluted with Hail or being called full of grace does not make you sinless. The theory that this is a different grace to mean sinlessness has no proof linguistically and has been debunked by Greek Scholars.

"Psalm 16:10, Acts 2:27 indicate that the bodies of those who are sinless (see Luke 1:28 and Genesis 3:15) do not undergo decay."

Actually, Acts 2:27 is a quote from Psalms 16. And the person being quoted is David. David of course was speaking of the HOLY ONE. not holy ones. It was a prophesy of Christ. It has nothing to do with all sinless people being assumed. Peter addressed the crowd in Acts and made it a point to say that Christ is not in the grave, but David is still in His grave. It was a specific reference to Christ. I know this because biblically, Christ is the only one referred to the Holy One.
In any event, it says you will not allow your Holy One to decay. So the question is who is the One? According to Peter...it is Christ. So the use of that Scripture to support your argument is weak. Again, Enoch was assumed or taken up into the heavens. The Bible does say that. But it does not say that about Mary. Do you see what I mean by proof Burnt? Not a vague intrepretation which you are presenting. But clearly saying that such and such was taken up if they were taken up by God, or being sinless if they were sinless.

"I have never said that we are to pray to the dead (that can be discussed later). I have said that we are to ask them to pray for us. James 5:16 says we are to pray for eachother. Since dead saints are more diligent obeying biblical commands than I am, asking them to pray for me is good biblical sense."

Ok, well whether it is praying to the dead saints or asking them to pray for you, THE BIBLE says that God clearly says that those who communicate with the DEAD are an abomination unto Him.
And here is my bibilical source that I am using...

"When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you." (Deuteronomy 18:9)

"And since you do hold Scripture with the highest regard, then can we conclude that you do not believe anything that is contradictory to Scripture? And so you have introduced the concept of Papal Infallibility and crowned yourself Pope."

I do hold Scripture with the highest regard, and I always attempt to do so with a humble spirit and being led by the Holy Spirit. No, I do not crown myself a Pope. Rather I hold to the fact that I can be taught and corrected with the Scriptures, since they are all God Breathed. If you can show me clear proof, then I will believe. But you have not done so. The case you are making is for the interpretation you are taught. You accept it as such because Rome said so. You accept their interpretation on how they are right. Despite what Scripture says. That is why Roman Catholics always degrade what they understand to be sola scriptura and therefore give all authority to the Pope and the Vatican because if they were too hold Scripture as the ultimate authority, a lot of false doctrines would be found in Roman Catholicism.
Now, I addressed Lk 1:28, Ps 16 and Acts 2 and look foward to your input.
All I ask is when you respond, if you are going to use Scripture to make a point, please type in the verse. Please elaborate and break it down as best as you can.

God Bless

SandT,

So any communication with the dead is sinful, correct? What about 1 Samuel 28:12,14-15 and Matthew 27:50-53? It's obvious these examples of the dead communicating with the living were allowed by God. As I mentioned before Matthew 17:3 is also example of the communication with the dead.

Yet you still say all communication with the dead is an abonimation to God. So does Deuteronomy 18:9 not apply in these situations, or was it referring to something else entirely. I don't see "asking dead saints to pray for us" any where in Deut. 18:9, implicitly or explicitly.

You do agree the saints in heaven are praying and can pray to the Lord, do you not? (Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4, 6:9-10) So, what is wrong with asking them to pray for us then?

Regardless of the Catholic interpretation of the bible, you still hold the Bible above all else, which in itself can become a form of idolatry. You want us to prove something to you using the Bible, yet we don't rely on the Bible alone, so we don't have to. We turn to the Mother Church when the Bible is too vague or silent on issues, you know that. After all, the Bible says the Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15.

Burnt, Phillip, and WWWO (and SandT),
As I have continued to follow this conversation with SandT it is obvious that as Catholics we are following the wrong path. The Holy Spirit was obviously off base....and Benedict XVI was falsely elected Pope. It is clear that the charism of infallibility has been conferred upon SandT and we should do well to listen to him... OK, I think you get the picture here.

This discussion is interesting from the standpoint that in SandT's tradition (Protestants of all stripes) says that one should read scripture with guidance of the Holy Spirit and follow it wherever the Spirit leads them. I agree to a point. Where we divert is that as Catholics we defer to the living apostolic Tradition of the Church in doctrinal matters versus our own fallible interpretation. For SandT and others, it is their own fallible interpretation of what they believe the scriptures to say is where it begins and ends. My estimation is that if the Protestant position regarding Scripture reading is true then don't we as Catholics have that same privilege according to the [“right”] Protestant position? (i.e., to read and follow wherever we feel the scriptures are leading us). As John Martignoni would so eloquently say…

So SandT, if this is the case (and you are reading this) then you are essentially saying that your personal fallible interpretation of the scriptures is BETTER than the personal fallible interpretation of Burnt, WWWO, Phillip, myself, or anyone for that matter. How can you give yourself such authority? In all, I have to agree with Burnt in that you are totally missing the picture here. Yes, scripture is God-breathed and is of the highest authority, but without some way of authentically interpreting it then you might as well be reading a romance novel. SandT, if you truly strive to be humble here as you said above then there is no way that you can imply, on purpose or not, that your interpretation or what the Holy Spirit leads you in is better or more accurate than anyone else. True humility comes when one recognizes that they just might not have all the answers.

Lastly, I re-read one of SandT's last paragraphs above and I rearranged it in the perspective as conveyed in this posting (from a self-appointed authoritative perspective):

[SandT on February 21, 2007. My insertions will be in brackets]

I do hold [my interpretation] of Scripture with the highest regard, and I always attempt to do so with a humble spirit and being led by the Holy Spirit. No, I do not crown myself a Pope. Rather I hold to the fact that I can be taught and corrected with [my interpretaion] of the Scriptures, since they are all God Breathed [and my charism of infallibility]. If you can show me clear proof [in black and white and contrary to my interpretation], then I will believe. But you have not done so [in my opinion]. The case you are making is for the interpretation you are taught [my case is my own interpretation]. You accept it as such because Rome said so [I accept mine because my interpretation is right and yours is wrong]. You accept their interpretation on how they are right. Despite what Scripture says [I accept mine because I KNOW what Scripture "really" says]. That is why Roman Catholics [Protestants] always degrade [esteem] what they understand to be sola scriptura and therefore give all authority to the Pope [ourselves] and [not] the Vatican because if they were to hold [my interpretation] of Scripture as the ultimate authority, a lot of false doctrines would be found in Roman Catholicism.

I think that is a more true assessment of the commentary. But hey...it's only my interpretation:)
In Truth,
Matthew

SandT,

What you call a tangent is the only point I wish to clarify. Namely, do Christians who reject your interpretation of the Bible (for example Luther who advised adulterers to commit polygamy to remedy their situation) still accept it as the highest authority?

I am more than happy to have you disagree with whether "full of grace" means "without sin" or whether "pray for one another" means that everyone living or dead can pray for everyone else living or dead. I have no objection to you saying that we blaspheme God by proclaiming Mary to be without sin. I have no objection to you saying that we break the Law of Moses when we ask a dead person to pray for us. Disagreement over how to interpret the Bible is to be expected amongst those who take the Bible seriously.

The only thing I object to you saying that Roman Catholics do not regard the Scriptures as the highest authority. To put it bluntly, this is slander. If you consider this issue tangential, retract your accusation.

I have been careful not to respond to most of your posts because you have every right to state your beliefs - even those I disagree with. But you have no right to state our beliefs unless they really are our beliefs. Say what you want about your beliefs, but when you go around spreading misinformation about we believe then I demand that you provide evidence.

So far the only evidence you provide that Roman Catholics do not accept the authority of Scriptures is that they do not agree with your interpretation of the Bible. If that is the case, perhaps you could just say Roman Catholics do not accept your interpretation of the Bible.

If you want to go further and say that Roman Catholics do not accept the authority of the Bible, you must first either crown yourself Pope or convince Roman Catholics (not yourself) that their doctrines oppose biblical teaching. Until you have done so, I ask you to stop putting words in our mouths.

Philip

I do not mean to offend you, but you probably need to read the Bible more.

"So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he had committed against the Lord, because he did not keep the word of the Lord, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance." (1 Chronicles 10:13)

HE died because he contacted the dead. This is a reference to Saul and the witch of endor. Philip this clearly says that it was not OK with God for that little seance to have taken place.

I do not see your point in Matthew, so how about you cut and paste the Scripture and please break it down.

As far as holding the Bible aboe all else being a form of idolatry, that is humorous. The Bible is the Word of God. So holding God's own Words above all else being called idolatry just makes no sense.

God Bless

SandT,

It was the consulting of the medium for guidance that was a sin. He turned to a medium, and God decided it was time to let him know what was going to happen. The medium had no power in bringing about Samuel, as it was a miracle of God that rose Samuel's spirit up, as Samuel's prophecy of Saul's impending death mitigates against any other cause for the spirit coming up (whether the actual rising of Samuel was demonic or evil in origin or not).

You mention 1 Chronicles 10:13, but you forget the next verse. 1 Chronicles 10:14 finishes up "...and did not inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse." He turned to a pagan soothsayer/witch/medium and not to the Lord for guidance, which of course was the sinful deed. Of course theres more to his sins than just turning to a medium to bring up a spirit.

As for Matthew 27:50-53:
"And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

The dead saints were obviously raised in this passage and went and appeared to many people. Either this was an abonimation towards God, or it was God's doing and he allowed it (and caused it).

So not all communication is an abonimation to the Lord, like you said it was.

As for the idolatry of the Bible, when one puts the Word of God and their own interpretation of the Bible above God himself, it ends up pratically worshiping the Bible instead of the Lord, it can become a form of idolatry.

I personally believe that nearly all Catholic doctrine can be found explicitly or implicitly in the Bible, just as you hold that your own beliefs are also found in the Bible.

Philip,

God says that those who call up the dead, a.k.a a necromancer are an abomination to God. The medium who called up on Samuels spirit is a necromancer. She called up on the dead. She was an abomination to God. Not only that, GOd instructed to avoid spiritists and mediums, for they are detestable to Him.
Whether you turn to a familiar spirit(which are what dead saints are), or medium, or you call up on the dead...it is all wrong according to God. It is clearly stated.

"When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you." (Deuteronomy 18:9)

All of it is wrong. Now you as a Catholic do not use a medium, however you do call up on Mary or St. whomever. Guess what, you are calling up on the dead. God finds this detestable. LOOK at the verse.
It is clear, THERE IS NOTHING VAGUE ABOUT THE PASSAGE.

I won't debate whether the medium had demonic powers or whether it was an evil Spirit that Saul had consulted. However, I can say, according to the text, Samuel was wrong for consulting a medium, because GOd finds it detestable. The witch did something which God hates, which is calls up on the dead. God said do not do it. It is very CLEAR. Calling up on the dead is wrong according to God. ANd it has never been in encouraged in the Bible.

"The dead saints were obviously raised in this passage and went and appeared to many people. Either this was an abonimation towards God, or it was God's doing and he allowed it (and caused it)."

There is nothing wrong with resurrection. That does indeed show God's power. However, I don't see your point, because when they appeared to the many people...they were no longer dead. They were very much alive.
God here is not allowing a communication between the living and the dead.
Resurrection obviously is taught in the Bible. Not all can do it though. However calling on the dead is wrong. As clearly stated.

Burnt,

Despite Dt. 18:9 and the lack of prayers to Mary in the Bible and the lack of prayers to the dead in the Bible. Why do you still believe it? Are you just accepting the teaching by the Roman Catholic church? Because so far, you have not been able to logically say such and such Scripture clearly shows this.
You have not found any Scripture that overrides Dt. 18:9.
And you have not found any Scriptures that show an example of praying to saints. Now I go to a church that speaks in tongues. I can show you in the Bible where tongues are spoken. Not that it is needed for salvation...but if you were to ask why we do it, I could give you a reference. All I am asking, is for you to show me proof. You have not so far. If your ultimate answer is I accept what I was taught, then you are not placing Scripture with the highest authority.
Please, just show me you proof.

God Bless

Right on SandT.

SandT and David,
The fundamental basis of your argument is "if it isn't stated chapter and verse in the Bible then I won't believe it." This is a faulty assumption is illogical and has no historical evidence to back it up. On the other hand there IS over 2000 years of evidence where the Church [Catholic] has been the arbiter of truth in the area of faith and morals. What is unfortunate as well is that your own tradition [Protestant] does not even resemble itself in its original form. If you have such esteem for Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin in their "Reformation" then I would assume that you would follow their lead. However, as has been repeatedly shown in your posts the only opinion or interpretation that is valid is the one YOU determine to be correct. This is why sola scriptura is a tradition of men. God's truth is not subject to the individual interpretation of those who just pick up the Bible. Never has been and never will be. If Christianity was to survive based on Scripture ALONE without an authentic interpreter, then how did it survive before the advent of the printing press and the literacy to be able to read it?
In Truth,
Matthew

Matthew, the fundamental assumption of "if it isn't stated chapter and verse in the Bible then I won't believe it." was first introduced, as far as I know, by John Calvin. Evangelicalism traces its roots to Calvinism (though it denies "Irresistable Grace" for non-believers) and inherits this tradition from Calvinism. I believe this tradition is known as "the regulatory principle".

I have no issue with Christians promoting and defending the regulatory principle in opposition to the Roman Catholic tradition.

But I have been trying to point out without much success that those who reject the regulatory principle (e.g. Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic Church) still accept Scripture as the highest authority.

Martin Luther insisted in forbidding every practice he believed to be condemned by Scripture. John Calvin went a step further and insisted on forbidding every practice he believed the Scriptures to be silent on. Hence the early 20th century Evangelical ban on drinking, dancing, smoking, etc...

I have no issue with Christians promoting and defending an interpretation of the Bible at odds with the Roman Catholic interpretation.

But I have been trying to point out without much success that those who hold interpretations of the Bible which differ from those Evangelicals (e.g. Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic Church) still accept Scripture as the highest authority.

Or to put another way, if we were to assume for the sake of argument that the Roman Catholic interpretation of Luke 1:28 was wrong and that there was no scriptural support for asking saints to pray for us (for example if we were to tear the epistle of straw from the bible), it still would not follow that the Roman Catholics did not accept Scripture as the highest authority. If that were the case the most one could say is that Roman Catholics had misinterpreted the Bible and that Roman Catholics had accepted a practice which was not explicitly approved in the Scriptures.

Though I am at a loss how to explain this more clearly. I can even see myself slipping into my old habits of just repeating myself over and over again (Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing and expecting different results).

I've been reasonably successful at responding to people's questions and remaining silent when people state their point of view and do not show any interest in hearing a response, but I still do not have any idea on how to respond to people who put words into the mouths of the Catholic Church.

I would think that a basic rule of dialogue is to allow people to state their own point of view and defend it rather than state someone else's point of view and attack the straw man. Though it appears as if I am making unwarranted assumptions. Just as my assumption that two Christians may hold differing interpretations of the Bible and still accept the Bible as the highest authority appears unwarranted. My assumption that a Christian who acknowledges a lesser authority could still acknowledge a higher authority also appears unwarranted.

I actually have no idea how to even have a discussion about Scripture without this common ground. Perhaps it is time to remember Wittgenstein's conclusion "of that which we cannot speak, we must pass over in silence".

Matthew,

If you read from the beginning of these discussions you will find that I showed writings from ear;y chuirch fathers which defer authority to the Scriptures. I'll summarize, Augustine said the Scriptures have paramount authority. Paramount means supreme. He may give authority to bishops and churches, however he never says that anything is equal in authority than the Scriptures. I asked if anyone could find writings where he says this and no one could.
"if it isn't stated chapter and verse in the Bible then I won't believe it." --> THis actually does have historical backing.

Cyril of Jerusalem

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures."

I mean it does not get any clearer. Matthew I am sure you have read this before because it was a response to your post.
You copy and pasted a letter to Cresconius by Augustine as your support for Augustine saying the both Scripture and tradition are equal. Not only did the part you copied say no such thing, you could not even find the whole letter. Which means you do no know the context of the statement you used.
But to reitierate myself as always CYRIL apparently BELIEVES ALL THINGS SHOULD BE PROVEN BY SCRIPTURE. So for you to say that it has no historical backing is absolutely false.
Anyways, we fast foward. You used a common tactic of having me try to prove important doctirnes and belief with Scriptures. You bought up the trinity. I answered. I even asked about 1 John5:7. That is an addition by the Latin Vulgate. You never answered. You bowed out of the discussion at that point.
So then, Burnt says that Roman Catholics do hold Scripture with the highest authority. So if this supposedley true then why practice communion to saints and why believe Marian doctrine.
This is the point we are at. You can read the previous posts if you are truly interested in this discussion.

God Bless

SandT,

It does not help your position to have early church fathers say nice things about scripture. Catholics believe in scripture. What we don't beleive in is somebody taking their own reading of scripture as justification for breaking up the church, declaring popes and bishops to be illegitimate, declaring eccumenical councils to be wrong, etc. Do you have any quotes from ECF's saying these things? I don't think so. It was understood that scripture was to be read and interpeted in accordance with Sacred Tradition. That is what protestants threw out.

So the basic problem remains. Protestant christianity is very different from historical christianity. Like any heresy it takes some Catholic truths and overemphasizes them to destroy other Catholic truths. The difference you find with the ECF's is in the way they affirmed the truths you deny. Not in the way they affirm what we all hold in common.

SandT,
Well, well, well...this is a VERY interesting development. Last time anyone checked Augustine and Cyril were Catholics. I guess Augustine and Cyril were the proto-typical “cafeteria Catholics” who believed in the actual body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, infant baptism, purgatory, communion of saints, papal supremacy, Mary’s sinlessness, apostolic succession, etc. but were sola scriptura adherents at the same time. Eh….I don’t think so:(

SandT please, we’ve been through this already. You know them both to be Catholics and you know that any non-Catholic Christian can take excerpts from the Church Fathers out of context and make them sound plausible. As I’ve said before, I can give you quotes from the same Father, or any other, with a clearly Catholic perspective (and at least 10 more just like it). That is what you fail to admit! The fathers ARE Catholic and you cannot piecemeal their writings to understand their thoughts. Besides, proof from Tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original Apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is. Simple as that!

The quote you provided proves nothing, because opposing sola Scriptura does not mean opposing Scriptural proofs or use of Scripture in opposing falsehoods. Sola Scriptura is a (new) rule of faith which goes against an authoritative, binding Church. So to determine whether St. Cyril (or any other Father) believed in sola Scriptura, or the Catholic three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Church, one has to also look at what he wrote about Tradition AND the Church, in order to interpret his statements about Scripture, IN CONTEXT, with that fuller understanding of his view on the rule of faith. If we take a look a bit further in from the quote that you provided we see as follows [Cyril is providing instruction in the Apostles Creed to new Christians]:

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, WHICH IS NOW DELIVERED TO THEE BY THE CHURCH, and which has been
built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart, taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than THAT YE HAVE RECEIEVED, let him be to you anathema. So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and HOLD FAST THE TRADITIONS WHICH YE NOW RECEIVE, and write them on the table of your heart.

So again, here we have another Church Father expounding upon the Creed in the same way that the Catholic Church teaches things today: the authority of the Scriptures, Apostolic Tradition, and the Church [Magisterum]. Things have not changed…for Catholics at least. The mode is the same as it always has been.

Lastly to quote your statement above:
“You used a common tactic of having me try to prove important doctrines and belief with Scriptures.”

Uh…did I miss something? Really SandT, are you kidding me here? The tactic is so common because this is YOUR TACTIC. You’ve explicitly used this tactic in EVERY posting with me and anyone else on this board. This is the height of hypocrisy in my book. You can hold Catholics to this standard, but when you are asked to do the same then is degraded as a “common tactic.” Wow! To answer your question though, Burnt has cogently shown that one can hold Scripture as the highest authority without TOTALLY subverting the role of Tradition or the authority of the Church. This is your theology [sola scriptura] not mine, not Burnt’s, nor in the history of Christianity. I submit myself to Christ’s appointed authority here on earth via the Scriptures, Apostolic Tradition, and the authentic teaching authority of the Catholic Church [Magisterum]. I follow the same path as Augustine, Cyril, or any other Church Father you wish to quote.
In Truth,
Matthew

Matthew,

So what if he Cyril mentions that those who can't read be taught by the church. He also says in your quote that all the church does is built up FROM the Scriptures. Again, deferring authority to the church. Now, once again, tradition is fine, as long as it does not fall away, add to, or contradict Scripture. All of your quotes show this. So what if the traditions received are to be held to. What makes you think that they are different from Scripture? SHOW ME YOUR PROOF.

As far as the "common tactic" comment. I was summarizing the posts for you. You indeed did ask for me to show you where in the Bible does it prove the existence of the trinity. You did this, because you assume that I believe in the trinity as Christian. Which I do. You wanted me to prove something that I believed with the Scriptures. Your hope was to have me stumble and not find biblical proof so that you could say that since I believe something not implicitly in Scripture, that validates your reasoning in accepting a teaching by the RC that is foreign to Scripture. However, I showed you the biblical proof for God being described as a spirit, the father and son. Still pending from any Roman Catholic is Scriptural proof of prayers to saints despite Dt. 18:9, and proof of Mary's assumption and prayers to her as well. Now, I understand that you may accept the RC teachings as law and may not require obvious proof from the Bible. However, Burnt said that there was proof, so all I ask is to show me.

God Bless

Greetings,

I have responded at length to "SandT's" comments and challenged in three separate papers:

Answers For An Inquiring "Bible Christian" on Bible and Tradition Issues (Particularly St. Augustine's Position)

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/answers-for-inquiring-bible-christian.html

Answers For An Inquiring "Bible Christian" on "Praying to Dead Saints" (Including a Newly-Discovered Biblical Argument For Same)

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/answers-for-inquiring-bible-christian_5021.html

Answers For An Inquiring "Bible Christian" on Mary's Assumption (Including a Newly-Discovered Biblical Parallel For Same)

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/answers-for-inquiring-bible-christian_01.html

Anyone is welcome to come to my blog to discuss these in the comboxes below the posts, or else I'll check in here to see if there is any reply to my ruminations.

Keep up the great apologetics here. I was very impressed with the answers. I didn't have time to read the whole thread, so forgive me if I used some of the Catholic arguments already presented.

"challenged" (first sentence) should be "challenges".

ho hum de dum dum dum (twiddling my thumbs).

Has anyone seen SandT? But it's the weekend . . . I'll look back during the week.

Dave,

I am working on my response. I will respond one item at a time so we don't lose track of the discussion. You will hear from me by the end of the week.

God Bless

Great.

SandT:
To quickly answer your post above. All Catholic teaching is to be found explicitly or implicitly in the pages of Scripture (all of it--to include the Deutero-canonical texts). The more you write the more your lack of Catholic theology shows unfortunately. I guess the real question is SandT, are you here to understand why and how Catholics believe or are you here to try and "prove" that Catholic teaching is completely erroneous? Sadly, I think it is the latter. A second question on what authority should we as Catholics believe that your interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? Doesn't everyone [Catholics inlcuded] have the same right to read and follow Scripture as the Holy Spirit leads? At least according to Protestant theology?
In Truth,
Matthew

Matthew,

I too thought that according to Protestant theology, individuals who accepted Scripture as the highest authority might conceivably differ in their interpretation of Scripture and may or may not accept Calvin's regulatory principle. SandT appears to reject this assumption.

He appears to suggest that if one rejects his interpretation, then one is not only wrong but one does not accept the authority of Scriptures. I have asked for clarification three times on this point and each time was told that I am avoiding the issue. I am at a loss on how to continue the discussion from here.

SandT, let me try and understand you by asking a hypothetical question. Suppose you convince myself and Joe but not Jay that the Bible (Romans 3:23 and Psalm 51 for example), declares Mary to have been born in sin. Suppose that in this case, I stop declaring Mary to have been born in sin but Jay and Joe persist.

We would in this hypothetical case agree that Joe had rejected the authority of the Bible. But how would you convince me that Jay had rejected the authority of the Bible if you had convinced me but not Jay that Mary was born in sin?

Argh... my previous post should have read:
Suppose that in this case, I stop declaring Mary to have been born without sin but Jay and Joe persist.

When it infact read:
Suppose that in this case, I stop declaring Mary to have been born in sin but Jay and Joe persist.

Burnt,
Yes, I have concluded that SandT is convinced of his pre-eminence regarding biblical exegesis. However, I tried to encapsulate his perspective from a bit more honest, and humorous, slant. I'm not sure if you read it previously (on Feb 21st) but here it is again:

[SandT on February 21, 2007. (My insertions will be in brackets)]

I do hold [my interpretation] of Scripture with the highest regard, and I always attempt to do so with a humble spirit and being led by the Holy Spirit. No, I do not crown myself a Pope. Rather I hold to the fact that I can be taught and corrected with [my interpretaion] of the Scriptures, since they are all God Breathed [and my charism of infallibility]. If you can show me clear proof [in black and white and contrary to my interpretation], then I will believe. But you have not done so [in my opinion]. The case you are making is for the interpretation you are taught [my case is my own interpretation]. You accept it as such because Rome said so [I accept mine because my interpretation is right and yours is wrong]. You accept their interpretation on how they are right. Despite what Scripture says [I accept mine because I KNOW what Scripture "really" says]. That is why Roman Catholics [Protestants] always degrade [esteem] what they understand to be sola scriptura and therefore give all authority to the Pope [ourselves] and [not] the Vatican because if they were to hold [my interpretation] of Scripture as the ultimate authority, a lot of false doctrines would be found in Roman Catholicism.

I think this is the attitude that is shining through and we have noticed. It is unfortunate since this discussion has been stifled and cumbersome at times because of it. Frustrating indeed!
In Truth,
Matthew

Matthew,

The only explanation I have for what SandT has said is as follows: SandT has made the fundamental assumption that the Bible is so clear and plain that we all must agree that his interpretation of the Bible (e.g. declaring Mary to have sinned in Romand 3, 1Tim2:5 forbidding saintly intercession) is the correct one.

If we grant this one assumption for the sake of argument, everything SandT has said makes perfect logical sense.

So when we proclaim Catholic teaching on the Saints, then by the fundamental assumption, we are proclaiming a teaching that we know to be in contradiction to the Bible. And thus we do not accept Scripture as the highest authority - even though we claim otherwise.

Also, when any of us that SandT has misinterpreted the Bible, we are not only uttering falsehood, we are doing so knowing full well that he has interpreted the Bible correctly (back to that fundamental assumption). To be blunt, we are deliberately lying through our teeth.

As Catholics, we are taught that one can misinterpret the Bible even when one is acting in good faith - this is why we have a Magisterium and Tradition. But imagine for the moment that the Bible is so clear and plain that everyone interprets the Bible in the exact same fashion. Then the need for Magisterium and Tradition vanish. And those that say they interpret the Bible differently can be ignored as they really don't hold to a different interpretation.

If I held to the tradition of the "plain" reading of the text (a popular teaching in some Protestant circles), I would believe pretty much what SandT says. But if there is only one interpretation of scripture and it is plainly obvious to all, then why bother having a discussion at all?

And to think that I once subscribed to the "plain meaning of the Scriptures" school of thought. Now I understand better that these schools of thought while innocuous enough when first stated have been followed to their conclusion and are known to lead to dead ends.

Burnt,
The great convert G.K. Chesterson aptly described such interactions with Protestants, and especially those who were hostile to the Church:

"The great temptation of the Catholic . . . is the temptation to intellectual pride. It is so obvious that most of his critics are talking without in the least knowing what they are talking about, that he is sometimes a little provoked towards the very un-Christian logic of answering a fool according to his folly. He is a little bit disposed to luxuriate in secret, as it were, over the much greater subtlety and richness of the philosophy he inherits; and only answer a bewildered barbarian so as to bewilder him still more. He is tempted to ironical agreements or even to disguising himself as a dunce."

"So many people are at once preoccupied with it [Catholic Church] and prejudiced against it. It is queer to observe so much ignorance with so little indifference. They love talking about it and they hate hearing about it . . . I fancy there is more than meets the eye in this curious controversial attitude; the desire to ask rhetorical questions and not to ask real questions; the wish to heckle and not to hear."

Amen G.K.!!!

Matthew,
In light of your slam of non-RCC theology, I suggest you refer to your history books to study the European Enlightenment and Reformation. Concerning the latter, I think you should read some Martin Luther and John Calvin. Two young men who had quite a bit of intellectual prowess - maybe even as much as you. Ole Marty and John not only helped bring Christian Theology to the public, they were instrumental in developing the German and French languages. They may not measure up to your sharp Catholic wit and intellect (as they were two Protestants), but maybe they come close.
Best,
Michael

Michael,
I'm sorry you felt that I "slammed" non-Catholic theology. I didn't and haven't done that at all. Please read the entire exchange here before casting me a villan. All I've done (and others) is pointed out the inconsistencies with SandT's position and his obvious disregard to anything other than his own private, fallible, interpretation of Scripture. Not to mention his total lack of appreciation and understanding of Catholic teaching. I can handle someone who disagrees with me on an issue, but I will not allow someone to argue a point with me when they don't even have a full understanding of what they are talking about. For instance, I'm sure you wouldnt' appreciate it if I told you how to do your job when I don't really have a complete picture of what you actually do. The same goes here. SandT is convinced that Catholic theology is wrong, but is unwilling to accept a straight answer from a knowledgeable Catholic. On top of that he commits the fatal flaw of sola scriptura that has plagued Christianity since the times of Luther (and Calvin)--being convinced of one's own interpretation as the "right" one.

As far as reading some of Luther and Calvin's work, I have done so. Please don't get me wrong...I do not believe that non-Catholics are not Christian, bad, etc. The [Cathoic] Church does not teach this at all. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say that they brought Christian theology to the public however. Although I would agree with you that they brought their own personal, fallible, version of Christianity to the public. From their rebellious seed we now have a fractured body of Christ--which is truly unfortunate. Luther himself recognized the problem early on:

"One rejects Baptism, another the Eucharist, another constructs a new world between the present and that which will arise after the Last Judgment, some deny the divinity of Christ. One says this, the other that, there are as many sects as there are heads. Everybody imagines himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and wants to be a prophet."
(Luther, in his letter to the Christians of Antwerp)

The problem with Luther as I see it is that he desired for reform--and at that time there was some corruptible practices going on amongst the Church. However, Luther's zeal (some say madness) did not usher in reform. If it truly was a reform then the original would have remained the same. What Luther did was revolt and create schism. If he truly loved Christ's Church as he professed then he would have worked from the inside out to effect change, but instead his pride set him off in a direction that he could not contain.

So Michael, please do not mis-characterize me as Protestant bashing. That is not my intention, nor is it good for building bridges among Christians of all stripes. However, I will be honest, straightforward, and sometimes blunt when defending my faith. I try to be as charitable as possible, but I do not always accomplish my intentions. Pray for me that no matter what that I will always speak the truth in love as Christ would have me...even if you don't agree with me. I will do the same for you and I pray that Christ's prayer of unity in John 17 will one day be fulfilled.
In Truth,
Matthew

Could someone please send me an e-mail if SandT replies to my responses? Thanks.

Matthew,

Luther didn't write his 95 thesis to separate from the Catholic Church. Eventually, he was asked to recant all his statements of reform, and he refused to do so. The RCC excommunicated him, thus removing him from the Catholic Church. He was kicked out, as the Medici's would accept nothing less. The true "madness" was not in the mind of Luther, rather in the collective egos and interests of Rome's most powerful institutions - mostly the Papacy.

The Catholic portrayal of Luther as a crazy man is entirely inaccurate. Political leaders in England said the same about Hamilton, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and the leaders of the state militias during the American Revolution. All were "crude, rude, border-line crazy and hate-filled" - very similiar to Rome's description of Luther.

The same was said in Jewish circles about Paul. Same old reaction.

The Orthodox-Catholic schism happened nearly 500 years before the Enlightenment/Reformation in Europe. So, Luther, Calvin, and the Medici weren't at all involved in the Christian Church's intitial fracture.

Best,
Michael

This is sheer nonsense. See my paper:

50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy or Established Practice by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-ways-in-which-luther-had-departed.html

Michael, are you willing to answer the questions I asked SandT?

1. Even though Luther and Calvin declare Mary to be perpetually virgin (citing the same scriptures that Catholics do), can they be said to hold the scriptures in the highest regard even though their interpretation differs from yours?

2. Even though Anglicans and Lutherans (like Catholics) accept the idea that when the Bible is silent on a practice, the issue is debatable rather than forbidden (Calvin's regulatory principle), can they still be said to hold the scriptures in the highest regard?

3. When Luther and Calvin (like Catholics) condemn the use of contraceptives (based on Genesis 38), have they rejected the authority of the Scriptures?

Michael,
You speak in such generalities with no evidence and with clear bias. Besides, I'd be willing to bet that YOUR church and its beliefs and teachings do not resemble that of Luther's version of Christianity. That is the sad case of Protestantism...it lost it's own original identity almost immediately after it's inception. Otherwise, all Protestants (following Luther) would believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, communion of saints, the real presence in the Eucharist, infant baptism, etc. However, Protestantism, in its American Evangelical versions barely resemble the beliefs of the founders of Protestantism. At least the Eastern Orthodox churches have RETAINED the original Apostolic teaching and there is little to differentiate them from the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict, and his predecessor, John Paul II have made great strides to return to a full communion between them. Comparing the eastern Orthodox to Protestantism is like comparing apples to oranges.

As to Luther, I pray that you do not succumb to his selfishness. If he is the "hero" of the "reformation" then I'd rather be a bad Catholic than a good Protestant any day of the week. Here are a list of his errors that as a non-Catholic you may agree with.

(1) There is no supreme teaching power in the Church.
(2) The temporal sovereign has supreme power in matters ecclesiastical.
(3) There are no priests.
(4) All that is to be believed is in the Bible.
(5) Each one may interpret Holy Scripture as he/she likes.
(6) Faith alone saves, good works are superfluous.
(7) Man lost his free will by original sin.
(8) There are no saints, no Christian sacrifice, no sacrament of confession, and no purgatory.

Well, let me share with you some excerpts from Luther's writings and lectures, and then compare them with what Christ taught. (Taken from the book CHRIST VS. LUTHER, edited by R. A. Short, copyright 1953 by the Bellarmine Publishing Company, Mound, Minn.) As far as Luther's madness goes...well that is a debate for another forum. All I can say is compare Luther's teachings to that of Christ's and it is apparent who's ego needed to be checked:

- On Sin -
Christ: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication . . . murder . . . and suchlike. And concerning these I warn you, they who do such things will not attain the Kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-21).

Luther: "Sin boldly but believe more boldly. Let your faith be greater than your sin. . . Sin will not destroy us in the reign of the Lamb, although we were to commit fornication a thousand times in one day" (Letter to Melanchton, August 1, 1521, Audin p.178).

Christ: "And do not be drunk with wine, for in that is debauchery" (Eph. 5:18). "Keep thyself chaste" (I Tim. 5:22).

Luther: "Why do I sit soaked in wine? ... To be continent and chaste is not in me" (Luther's diary).

- On Good Works -
Christ: "What will it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but does not have works? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:14,26).

Luther: "He that says the Gospel requires works for salvation, I say, flat and plain, is a liar" ("Table Talk, Weimer Edition, II, p.137).

- On Truth -
Christ: "Do not be liars against the truth. This is not the wisdom that descends from above. It is earthly, sensual, devilish" (James 3:1~15). "Do not lie to one another" (Col. 3:9). "The Lord hateth... a lying tongue... a deceitful witness that uttereth lies. . . "(Proverbs 6:1&17). "A thief is worse than a liar, but both of them shall inherit destruction" (Ecclus. 20:27).

Luther: "To lie in case of necessity, or for convenience, or in excuse, would not offend God, who is ready to take such lies on Himself" (Enserch Conference, July 17, 1540).

- On Marriage -
Christ: "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" Mark 10:11-12).

Luther: "As to divorce, it is still a moot question whether it is allowable. For my part, I prefer bigamy" (DeWette, Vol.2, p.459).

- On Free Will -
Christ: "Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It were better for that man if he had not been born" (Matt. 26:24). "Let no man say when he is tempted, that he is tempted by God; for God is no tempter to evil" (James 1:13).

Luther: "Judas' will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world" (De Servo Arbitro - Against man's free will).
Accosted on all sides by charges of heresy, even by many of his former associates in the Protestant movement, Luther found refuge in this, the strangest of all his beliefs. NO MAN IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR HIS ACTIONS actions, Luther taught, no matter how evil. Not even Judas!

"Luther finally brought himself to indulge the pleasing delusion that the Catholic Church was the detestable kingdom of Antichrist . . . that he himself was John the Evangelist... "(From the book LUTHER, P.65).

These Michael, are the teachings of the first so-called "reformer" of Christ's Church! If Luther was divinely inspired or called in an extraordinary manner like the prophets before him, why did God permit him to fall into so many absurdities in points of doctrine?

Lastly, and probably the most disturbing of all of Luther's writings is this:

"Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died."(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33; also in Luther's Works, American Edition, Volume 54, p 154

So Michael, Luther's delusional, self-indulgent, arrogant, and prideful demeanor was heretical and has not only fractured Christianity, but stripped away the Apostolic teaching of the Church since it's inception. We have seen the ramifications of this ever since. I pray that one day we truly all will be one again--but it won't happen as long as there are those who uphold Luther's rebellious attitude as a heroic act.
In Truth,
Matthew

Dave,

I read most of your Luther and his Orthodoxy report. Excellent work. However, it seems your goal was to demonize Luther, much like a T.V. smear attack by one politician on another. Sentences, words and tones taken out of context in front of the backdrop of an innocent, tender, and just Catholic Church. Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici was quoted as saying that "the Christ myth has served us very well." The head of the Catholic Church wasn't even a Christian during Luther's years, Dave! Can you blame him for being disgusted with the Papacy and the Orthodoxy it pushed? They were power brokers, Dave, not spiritual leaders. Machiavelli wrote The Prince to inspire and assist the Pope and his family - they accepted his instruction and gained much fame and wealth because of it.

Behind that backdrop, I think that demonizing one man who faced constant torture/death threats and wanted to reform Christianity seems petty. As he had supporters throughout the Church and all of Europe, Luther was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

Michael

Matthew,

Concerning the Luther quotes you posted. Someone once observed that the people who know these quotes are mostly Roman Catholics. In other words, modern day Lutherans have succeeded where the Roman Catholic Church has failed: they have eradicated Luther's teachings from the Christian consciousness.

Burnt,
This may or may not be the case(regarding Lutherans vs. Catholics), but my inclusion of the quotes proves a point. Michael's sympathetic stance toward Luther is misplaced and misinformed. He stated that,"the true "madness" was not in the mind of Luther, rather in the collective egos and interests of Rome's most powerful institutions - mostly the Papacy." I simply pointed out through the quotes provided that Luther's ego was the one that truly needed to be checked. I find it rather hypocritical for someone to portray Luther as a hero when he time and time again illlustrates his arrogance, lack of humility, and blatant disregard for Christ's established authority on earth i.e, the Catholic Church. So as far as Lutheran's eradicating Luther's teachings from their Christian consciousness I say...Amen! However, one cannot have it both ways as many Protestants want to. One cannot hold Luther up to be something that he was not and be honest with themselves regarding his true nature. That is all.
In Truth,
Matthew

Burnt and Matthew,

Do Catholic schools quote Giovanni di Lorenzo's many anti-Christian rants? According to German royalty at that time, Giovanni was renouned to spouting-off against the myth of Christianity, and wondering outloud how the poor could continue fall for such a story - "all the better for us." Have Giovanni's quotes/teachings been eradicated from the Catholic consciousness? Or, did the Vatican court notetaker hold his pen away from paper during Pope Giovanni's rants (to "protect the Church")? Look at Giovanni under the same microscope as you do Luther, and we may find that Luther was by far the better Christian man. I hope I won't be judged by future generations on the basis of a few strings of my rants presented to the public in cold isolation and drawn out of context - by gentlemen who seem to want to eat Marty while requesting more nice Chianti and fava beans. Don't project all blame for the RCC's failures and intellectual shortcomings on one crude, but absolutely brilliant German Augustine monk. Poor guy.

Michael

Michael,

are you willing to answer the three questions I asked you?

Michael,
Your red herring tactics are transparent and sadly misinformed my friend. The Catholic Church readily admits that some Popes have had sub-par tenures. Sigismondo Tizio, whose devotion to the Holy See undoubted, writes truthfully:

"In the general opinion it was injurious to the Church that her Head should delight in plays, music, the chase and nonsense, instead of paying serious attention to the needs of his flock and mourning over their misfortunes".

Von Reumont says pertinently–"Leo X is in great measure to blame for the fact that faith in the integrity and merit of the papacy, in its moral and regenerating powers, and even in its good intentions, should have sunk so low that men could declare extinct the old true spirit of the Church."

However, as to your notation of Pope Leo X's (not Pope Giovanni) anti-Christian rants...well you should really consider your source. The dubious "quotes" primarily stem from a satire written by John Bale a vehement anti-Catholic, called "The Pageant of the Popes." Not to mention the fact that Bale was not even a contemporary of Pope Leo. However, you have only solidified the case for the Catholic Church, and the papacy, with your insinuations. The Catholic Church despite the failings of some of its members, even its leaders, has stood the test of time and is still flourishing—2000 years and counting! Were the [Catholic] Church a mere human institution and not divinely protected then the Church would have been a mere page in the history books long ago. If you did not know already the Pope can and does sin. He is not impeccable, which the Church does not teach. The Pope’s office has the charism of infallibility conferred upon him by the Holy Spirit in the areas of faith and morals ONLY. So Pope Leo not considered one of the better popes, in all of his shortcomings is no Luther—again you are comparing apples to oranges.
In Truth,
Matthew

Burnt,

In regard to your March 11 questions about the authority of scripture....
Actually, I believe in the authority of Christ's Church here on earth, in addition to that of the Bible – I’m not the “Bible Christian” you were addressing. I see how things fall apart in this world, and I support a conservative Church that endures the ages. I believe that orthodoxy causes detachment and complacency much of the time, but its positives include discipline, structure, consistency, proper weekly articulation of the Christian faith and our salvation, weekly communion, and respect for history and God’s hand guiding it. For me, the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Plus, I’m inspired by the big cathedrals, powerful organs, cozy atmosphere of dim lit chapels, history, and intelligence networks (the Jesuits are an impressive bunch – smart, serious and driven).

Actually, Burnt, I’ve taken many of your well-articulated beliefs to heart and put them into action – literally. Your inspired words on (the sin of) contraception has resulted in my wife and I preparing for Irish twins – two newborns in less than a year. God help us.

Michael

Michael,

Congratulations on the addition to your family. Your courage, generosity, and dependence on God testifies to the power of our Risen Lord.

May I be so bold as to ask if you accept the "Roman Catholic" idea that although the use of contraceptives is sinful, one may still licitly plan one's family through the use of Natural Family Planning?

Christopher West makes a compelling case that the use of natural methods to plan a family differs greatly from the sin of contraception. Do you agree with the distinctions he makes?

Burnt,
I still remain unconvinced on the premise of your solution, which is a form of limiting births in a family. Abstaining from having sex a few days a month is a way to not have babies, and it seems that this is a sinful state of mind, according to your previous arguements. Does the sin lay in the 'spilling of the seed' or in the attempt not to have another baby?
Mike

The sin lays in the "spilling of seed" not because babies are avoided but because the marital act is rendered infertile. Notice that Judah and Selah also avoided a baby with Tamar but they were not killed.

Do you agree with the principle that a couple which knows they are infertile (for example, because they know the woman has reached menopause) can still morally engage in marital relations?

Do you agree with the principle that a couple that has serious reason to postpone or avoid pregnancy and knows they might be fertile can morally avoid marital relations?

The Roman Catholic Church, and it alone to my knowledge, advances the idea that both of the following are good:
1. exercising both prudence and generosity in planning their family
2. respecting the gift fertility by refraining from any activity which removes ferility (Natural Family Planning does not remove fertility, it simply identifies fertility and infertility)

Those who justify using contraceptives accept the good of the first. Many who accept the good of the second reject the good of the first. Only the Roman Catholic Church to my knowledge promotes both the gift of fertility and the gift of prudence as good.

You all put way too much importance on this mythology. It's like sitting in a psych ward listening to truly sick people discussing the voices in their heads. May you all fall off your soapboxes and get well soon.

David R.,
So do you have a question or comment related to the topic at hand or did you just pay us a visit to be insulting? Thanks for the diagnosis though:P
In Christ,
Matthew

Post a comment