Apologetics Help Needed.

[Guest StoryofaSoul]

Hey phamily,

I'm currently a Catholic catechumen and am so eager to enter the Church next year. I'm wanting to learn everything I can about the faith and know that this is a great place to come for support and answers. Throughout my long journey to the fullness of truth in the Church, I've been having conversations with my former Protestant pastor and am trying hard to answer all of the questions he's given me. However, I am still in the learning process, and I just thought that you guys could help me out a bit and make sure that I am giving accurate answers that are faithful to Catholic teaching and belief. Thanks so much in advance. God bless+

[Guest StoryofaSoul]

Well I guess it would help if I gave a topic to discuss!

Ok so, we were on the topic of the Bible and Sola Scriptura, and I got into how we need the Church and Magisterium to protect and teach the Scriptures in their truth.

What I got back was:

"Where do you get the assumption that God gave us a book that needs someone else to tell us what it means? I maintain that if a person had no one else speak to them at all about the Bible, and they only had the Bible to read, they could be lead by the Holy Spirit to believe in Jesus as their Savior. My reason for this is John 20:31 “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

A comment about protecting Scripture. Scripture doesn’t need me to protect it in the sense that it needs my help. But, only in the sense that when false teachings outside of Scripture, or quotations that are taken out of context are used, then we can “protect” its integrity. But, Scripture will stand on its own, as it has done throughout history, without our protection.

A comment about “teach them.” Yes – to teach them about Jesus from Scripture. Not to teach them about something else claiming that it came from God, if it contradicts when God has already said in his inspired, infallible Word."

[son_of_angels]

First of all, the Scripture he refers to is in fact what he claims it is, an indicator of the intent of that particular book of the Bible. The Bible was written as an evangelistic outreach to Churches, so that they might have a good record of what Jesus did, as so that, upon hearing it, they might be strengthened in faith. What it also indicates is that the Gospels are NOT books of doctrine (the letters of Paul are living examples of the need for doctrine, however), they are intended to remind us of the personhood and reality of Jesus our Lord.

However, consider if we only had the Gospels. We would be without any of the important theology which has been taught by Paul in his apostolic letters, or that which is contained in the first recorded encyclicals (1 and 2 Peter). The need for apostolic teaching which deals with the specifics of Jesus' teaching, and the fullness of understanding the truth is, in fact, even hinted at in the Gospel, "I will send you another, who will teach you everything..." This Holy Spirit does not come until well after the Ascension of Jesus, and it is clear that this essential function of the Holy Spirit will continue as long as the Church continues. Apostolic teaching is necessary.

Secondly, if Scripture didn't need protecting, why did the denomination which your Baptist pastor represents feel the need to "protect" the Bible from books which had been included in the Christian canon for millenia?! Why did the early church decide to exclude books, like 1 and 2 Enoch, when they are clearly referenced in the book of Jude? Why did the wonderful book, the Shepherd of Hermas, clearly represented in many early canons, eventually get excluded from the Catholic body of Scripture? The need for protection of the Bible has always been apparent, throughout history. The question, then, is not whether someone needs to protect the Bible, because all Christians have had their share in doing so, but rather in who has the authority to judge the veracity/usefulness of including some books while excluding others.

Finally, the Catholic Church never claims to, nor indeed is it within its scope of authority to, contradict what has been accepted and recorded in Holy Scripture. It has, through the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit, the authority to affirm or modify our understanding of those Scriptures, and to illuminate our understanding of them with sound doctrine, which "a time will come when men will not endure."

The Bible is not the Qu'ran, as my philosophy professor points out. The Quran claims that it has ultimate authority, as it is written in Arabic, over all the perceptions of revelation, that it was directly written by God, and that it alone is capable of guiding people to salvation. Rather, "believe that you might understand," is the purpose of our Christian Scripture. Yes, through Scripture we can believe in Christ, we can love him, we can worship him, but without sound doctrine we cannot understand him, we cannot know him, and name him. This is the growth of the Spirit, prophesied by our Lord.

[jswranch]

The very next thing you need to do, after some prayer, is check out our defense directory.

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/646"]Here are a number of articles on sola scriptura.[/url]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/3"]Here are some futher articles on the magisterium (teaching arm the HS uses to guide Christians)[/url]

Feel free to print these off for your old pastor.

To me the argument over the interpretation of scripture boils down to:

Since the HS is the interpreter is scripture, does the HS infallibly interpret to every contrite individual who finds a bible, or to a special group of individuals who have an annointing?

I can bang out a number scripture references to support my case if you want them.

[Katholikos]

Ask your pastor where we got the Bible.

The book by the same name is available online:

[url="http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham_contents.html"]http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deutero...m_contents.html[/url]

If you want the hard copy, go to www.catholic.com.

The Catholic Church alone was founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world. All other churches are man made.

The answer to this question: "Where do you get the assumption that God gave us a book that needs someone else to tell us what it means?" is that there are literally thousands of Protestant denominations, all based on the same truncated 66-book version of the Bible, and no two of them agree about what the Bible means, yet all of them claim to be teaching the truth.

What good is an infallible book without an infallible teacher?


Katholikos
ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, "ex-static to be Catholic!

Edited October 20, 2006 by Katholikos

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

God did not hand us the canon - it was compiled by a Church. To accept the Bible is to accept the decision of that Church.

[Church Punk]

A couple book choices .... Rome Sweet Home by Scott & Jennifer Hahn is wonderful.

Also Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keatings is great!

[PadrePioOfPietrelcino]

Actually God's word SHOWS us that we the scriptures ALONE are not enough I would encourage pointing him to Acts 8:26-31

26
7 Then the angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, "Get up and head south on the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza, the desert route."
27
So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, 8 that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,
28
and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.
29
The Spirit said to Philip, "Go and join up with that chariot."
30
9 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31
He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.


We can see here that indeed God's word IS important to the teaching of everyone, but someone MUST safeguard and explain what the scriptures mean. If scriptures were self explainatory, then how can you and someone else disagree about the meaning of a verse?

[Maria]

That won't always be accepted, PadrePio, because the eunuch had not yet received the HS, and so didn't have the HS to lead him into all truth (something the prots seem to see as being an individual thing, while Catholics see it more as being led as the Church).
Most prots would probably agree that someone who hasn't received the HS would need someone to explain Scripture to them.

However, given that the prot in question said that "if a person had no one else speak to them at all about the Bible, and they only had the Bible to read, they could be lead by the Holy Spirit to believe in Jesus as their Savior", it might work as a reply.
Anyway, I agree that they could be led "by the Holy Spirit to believe in Jesus as their Savior" by reading the Bible, through the grace of God. But even if they did they'd likely be extremely confused about what that means, and what to do about it, and about a dozen other things.

[MIKolbe]

[i]Not by Scripture Alone[/i] by Robert Sungenis is a solid refutation of SS.

[Guest StoryofaSoul]

Hey guys, thanks so much for your responses before. They really helped.

Now, I'm being faced with a discussion about grace and justification. Fun fun. I was asked to send the Catholic definition of both, so I sent what it says in the CCC. And this is what I get in return. Oy vey. I don't even know where to begin...He apparently has a big misunderstanding about what Catholic doctrines really mean. I'm working on a reply, but any help would be awesome. Especially Scriptural help. Thanks so much and God bless.


"This is what you just sent to me from the Catholic Catechism:
Grace- The free and undeserved gift that God gives us to respond to our
vocation to become his adopted children.

What Bible passages can you use to support this definition of grace? What does it means to "live in the state of grace" as taught by the official Catholic teachings? What is meant by "to respond to our vocation"? Those are not clear words, but I suspect I know what they mean. Is the response faith? or works? If faith, then what relationship does faith and vocation have? That will tell you the difference. How do Catholics believe we become his adopted children? Is it because of what Jesus did through faith? Or is it according to the definition of grace you just sent me from the Catholic Catechism? They are opposites.

If you think that the differences between Lutherans and Catholics are based on different definitions of words like justification and grace - you're right. But, one is right and one is wrong. Who or what shall we decide has it right? It has to be God's Word. You have suggested that there is the apostolic succession claimed by the Catholic Church, but when their interpretation of Oral Tradition contradicts what is already written and accepted in Scripture, then we need to listen to Scripture over Oral Tradition.

Simply put. What role do works play in justification (the Bible says none) and sanctification (the Bible says it is a response of faith). The Bible simply says we are justified by grace, through faith, not by works. You don't have to send me quotes from Catholic books that disagree with this statement, I have them already and have quotes from them where the official Catholic Church condemns people who say they are justified by faith in Jesus Christ alone. Also, if works are not necessary for Catholics, then what purpose does purgatory serve?

I think this is the bottom (simple) line. Either we are saved by Jesus through faith without works (Lutheran/Bible), or we are saved by Jesus but still have to do something to complete that salvation (Catholic)."

[thessalonian]

This link might help you. It's about faith and works which is related. It is from the navarre commentary, perhaps the best Catholic commentary in the world on scripture.

[url="http://groups.google.com/group/CIN-Daily-Word/browse_frm/thread/f889ef5f1d1b878b/1ad3710dffd80df3#1ad3710dffd80df3"]http://groups.google.com/group/CIN-Daily-W...ad3710dffd80df3[/url]

[N/A Gone]

I found an awesome audio link a few days ago. Check it out...


[url="http://truthincatholicism.com/truth/?page_id=25"]http://truthincatholicism.com/truth/?page_id=25[/url]

[thessalonian]

It is also good in this discussion to remember that their justification and ours are not the same. Our definition of justification includes sanctification. Theres only includes the forgiveness of sins, but not the damage caused by the sin to our souls and the souls of others. I don't really think they say anything about the souls of others anywhere. That seems to be somewhat of a forgotten part of the equation of sin. Please bear that in mind.

[rako]

On 10/20/2006 at 1:21 PM, son_of_angels said:

Secondly, if Scripture didn't need protecting, why did the denomination which your Baptist pastor represents feel the need to "protect" the Bible from books which had been included in the Christian canon for millenia?! Why did the early church decide to exclude books, like 1 and 2 Enoch, when they are clearly referenced in the book of Jude? Why did the wonderful book, the Shepherd of Hermas, clearly represented in many early canons, eventually get excluded from the Catholic body of Scripture?

You are making a great point, Son of Angels. The Church sorted out which books should be in the Bible, so to declare reliance on the Bible in its current form implies reliance on the Church's authority.