My Objections To The Catholic Faith, #1

[ICTHUS]

And here, the Protestant will demand "Scripture, please?"

[quote name='Jake Heuther']Also, here is a concise argument for Sola Scriptura in light of what someone said earlier:

But people were either Jewish or heathens. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul taught mainly from scripture (the OT mind you) because they were converting Gentiles and Jews. They had to first prove historically (using historic / inspired documents) that Jesus was the ONE. The Old Testament, in conjunction with what they had seen Jesus do, proves this. But beyond that, then, once the Bereans (and incidentally all the Converts) accepted that Jesus was the True ONE of God, the Messiah who was to come, then they listened to the Apostles. Remember that the Apostles only used the OT. So if they followed Sola Scriptura back then, we wouldn't have the NT. Before they were identified as one of the books of the Bible, Pauls letters were...well...letters. They were as good as his spoken word. He had to write since he was an evangalist traveling all over.


Besides for this... to answer your question...

Did the Bereans find anything that Paul taught contradictory to what they read in Scripture? NO![/quote]

So what does this prove? It proves, among other things I suppose, that Paul's teachings (i.e. much of the NT) was backed by the OT.


[quote]Scripture, Paul's point is, if it is Scripture at all, is God-breathed. Paul is not speaking about the extent of the canon (that it only applies to the NT, as  but the nature of Scripture itself as originating in God. All Scripture then, including the New Testament, is God-breathed. [/quote]

Edited April 4, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Dave]

Paul was trying to convince Jews that Jesus is the Messiah and fulfilled the prophecies about Him in Scripture. That's why the Bereans searched the Scriptures -- to verify if these prophecies about whose fulfillment Paul is speaking are really true! But where does it say that the Bible alone is sufficient? And while I'm thinking about it, why are the Bereans called "more noble-minded" than the Thessalonians? Well, look back at what happened in Thessalonica. There was a mob -- while some Gentiles came to belief, "the Jews became jealous and recruited some worthless men loitering in the public square, formed a mob, and set the city in turmoil. They marched on the house of Jason, intending to bring them before the people's assembly" (Acts 17:5). They simply refused to check the Old Testament to see if things were Paul had said. Because the Bereans did not refuse to do so, but actually searched the Scriptures, they got praised for it.

[Hananiah]

The Berean argument is self-defeating. Proponents of sola scriptura admit that the oral preaching of the apostles was the word of God, and that sola scriptura was not active while new revelation was being given. So, by their own admission, the Bereans could not have been practising sola scriptura.

Edited April 5, 2004 by Hananiah

[p0lar_bear]

[quote]And here, the Protestant will demand "Scripture, please?"[/quote]

Do want Scriptural evidence of the Immaculate Conception, that Mary is the Mother of God, or Scirptural evidence that doctrines can go beyond Scripture?

Or do you want further evidence that sola scriptura is unsupportable?

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Do want Scriptural evidence of the Immaculate Conception, that Mary is the Mother of God, or Scirptural evidence that doctrines can go beyond Scripture?

Or do you want further evidence that sola scriptura is unsupportable? [/quote]

Both the immaculate conception, and that sola scriptura is wrong and doctrines can go beyond Scripture.

Also, some food for thought. Pauls letters were recognised as Scripture as soon as they were written.

St. Peter says, concerning the letters of St. Paul...

2 Pet 3:16

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, [b]as they do the other Scriptures[/b], to their own destruction.

He refers to Pauls letters as Scripture, even back then! The apostles had authority to write Scripture, because they were apostles - the Church today, since we are no longer in the Apostolic age, no longer has the authority to make up new doctrines or add to the deposit of faith.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Apr 5 2004, 05:56 PM'] Both the immaculate conception, and that sola scriptura is wrong and doctrines can go beyond Scripture. [/quote]
Alright, for the first issue, permit me to engage in some shameless self-promotion.

[url="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/blessed.htm"]http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/blessed.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/immaculata.htm"]http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/immaculata.htm[/url]

While I'm at it, let me do it some more for the second issue.

[url="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/solasyllo.htm"]http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/solasyllo.htm[/url]

[quote]He refers to Pauls letters as Scripture, even back then! The apostles had authority to write Scripture, because they were apostles - the Church today, since we are no longer in the Apostolic age, no longer has the authority to make up new doctrines or add to the deposit of faith.[/quote]
Indeed it cannot.

[ICTHUS]

Something to consider.

The letters of Paul were recognized by St. Peter as scripture as soon as they were written. Thus, although it wasn't canonised, we had a NT as soon as it was written, and the people Paul preached to judged all other doctrines on the basis of his teachings. Thus, Sola Scriptura holds true, because the Apostolic Teaching was scripture!

What say you?

[cmotherofpirl]

The early church also considered the Letter of Pope Clement to the Corinthians on 96AD as scripture and read it as well.

[HS_Dad]

I'm going to be a new Catholic this Easter. So, I am curious if this
post is considered outside the mainstream. Read it carefully. Because
I believe this is orthodox Catholic teaching.

Polar_Bear writes, "First, it must be understood that the Church is
subordinate to the truth, both in Scripture and Tradition. Contrary
to the claims of some, nothing that the church teaches is contrary to
Scripture."

Jake Huether writes, "It is noteworthy to say that if you use the NT
to "test" the Church, you are really re-inventing the wheele. The
Church wrote the NT, so you are testing Church Teaching with Church
Teaching."

I believe that Polar_Bear is right and it must be understood that the
Church is subordinate to the truth ... in Scripture (and Tradition).
So, judging Church Teaching by the bible is totally legitimate. But,
that OFFICIAL teaching will never contradict scripture when INTERPRETED
PROPERLY (apostolic authority here). (Since many liberal Catholic
theologians don't believe in the reality of miracles, etc. I think we
can see some strength to judging the teaching of Catholics by
Scripture.)

One of my concerns as a new Catholic this Easter is that the Church
may not give sufficient emphasis to many biblical teachings about
faith and belief because of the (quite right) focus on the sacramental
approach and historical doctrinal concerns about Protestantism.
(But I know that JP2 has talked much about the importance
of conversion and evangelization!) JP2 has also talked about the
importance of unity with the Orthodox so the church can once again
"breathe with both lungs"... I believe that American Evangelicalism
could add much to the Church through an emphasis on Evangelization and
conversion.... As Cardinal Kasper (sp?) has said (paraphrased), only
through increased unity can the Church experience her true Catholicity.
Let us not cease praying for unity and believing in the power of the
Holy Spirit to bring healing to the broken body of Christ on Earth.
Ut Unum Sint!!!

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='HS_Dad' date='Apr 7 2004, 08:07 PM'] Polar_Bear writes, "First, it must be understood that the Church is
subordinate to the truth, both in Scripture and Tradition. Contrary
to the claims of some, nothing that the church teaches is contrary to
Scripture."

Jake Huether writes, "It is noteworthy to say that if you use the NT
to "test" the Church, you are really re-inventing the wheele. The
Church wrote the NT, so you are testing Church Teaching with Church
Teaching."

I believe that Polar_Bear is right and it must be understood that the
Church is subordinate to the truth ... in Scripture (and Tradition).


[/quote]
HS_Dad,

There is no conflict with what Polar Bear said and what I said. You see, there are three aspects of the Word of God. The Word of God is manifest to us in 1.) the Scriptures, 2.) Tradition, and 3.) the Magesterium (that is the Teaching Body of the Church).

The Teaching of the Church embodies the Tradition and Scripture. So to test one with the other is to test Teaching with Teaching. Since the Teachings of the Church cannot contradict Scripture, nor Scripture Tradition, nor Tradition either of the other two, it really is reinventing the wheele. The Church Taught what was written in the Scripture, before it was even written. Evidence of this is the fact that the Church existed several decades before the first NT Scriptures were written. One is not greater than the other. They are all under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Church's Teachings are subordinate to the Truth. For this reason they will not contradict Scripture. Likewise, Scripture and Tradition are subordinate to the Truth, and so they will not contradict what the Church Teaches.

I hope that helps clarify.





[quote]So, judging Church Teaching by the bible is totally legitimate.  But,
that OFFICIAL teaching will never contradict scripture when INTERPRETED
PROPERLY (apostolic authority here). [/quote]

Indeed, exactly as I said. You would have to test the Church Teaching with the Teaching of the Church on what the Bible means. So to test Teaching with Scripture is really testing Teaching with Teaching. You cannot test Teaching with a personal interpritation of Scripture. Otherwise 9 times out of 10 you will find a conflict. And if you find a conflict, you would have to presume that either the Teaching is wrong, or your interpritation is wrong. Unfortunately for humanity in the present, most prefer to think that they are right and the Church is wrong. The New Testament is a Teaching element. The Apostles wrote most of the NT in order to Teach their respective churches.



[quote](Since many liberal Catholic
theologians don't believe in the reality of miracles, etc. I think we
can see some strength to judging the teaching of Catholics by
Scripture.)  [/quote]


Yes, I agree. We must judge the teachings of Catholics (both Religious and Laity). But we can do so using Scripture, Tradition, or the Teachings of the Church since neither conflict. In fact, we should test the teachings of everyone who has some personal opinion or teaching. And we should test them using all three Scripture Tradition and the Teaching of the Church. You see, the teachings of some Catholic theologian is not the Teachings of the Church. We are right to guard against the teachings of individuals.




[quote]One of my concerns as a new Catholic this Easter is that the Church
may not give sufficient emphasis to many biblical teachings about
faith and belief because of the (quite right) focus on the sacramental
approach and historical doctrinal concerns about Protestantism.  [/quote]


But here is where I think you are confused. The Bible can't teach us by itself. The Bible isn't a living Teacher without THE living Interpreter. "Biblical teachings" is a general term that must be clarified. It could be the teachings of any number of Protestant sects from the Bible. You could mean any individual thinking they are taught by the Bible itself. One cannot be taught by the Bible. One may teach themselves using the Bible. This is dangerouse. Which is why Scripture itself warns about using Scripture privately (2Peter1:20). But remember that "Scripture is profitable for...teaching." The Bible isn't a teacher. If it was, then there wouldn't be several thousand conflicting denominations. If the Bible is a teacher, and all are taught by the Bible, and the Bible doesn't lie, then someone's got some explaining to do.

I don't think you can say that the Church doesn't give sufficient emphasis to many biblical teachings. Since the Church's Teachings embody the Scriptures. It is the Church that produces the ONLY viable "Biblical Teachings". All other "biblical teachings" cannot be trusted because they will always be based on one's own interpretation. The Spirit may guide an individual to the correct interpretation, that being based on the will of the individual allowing the Spirit to guide them. But the Spirit was guaranteed, promised, to the Church. God Himself declared that the Church would be led to all Truth. Not one individual, but the Church.


God bless you on your journey. My prayers are with you.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Apr 7 2004, 05:37 PM'] The letters of Paul were recognized by St. Peter as scripture as soon as they were written. Thus, although it wasn't canonised, we had a NT as soon as it was written, and the people Paul preached to judged all other doctrines on the basis of his teachings. [/quote]
The epistles of St. Paul may have been recognized immediately, but such was not the case for James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, etc.

[quote]Thus, Sola Scriptura holds true, because the Apostolic Teaching was scripture![/quote]
Scripture is, by definition, written. Oral apostolic teaching belongs to the realm of Sacred Tradition.

[Jake Huether]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Apr 8 2004, 09:48 AM'] The epistles of St. Paul may have been recognized immediately, but such was not the case for James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, etc.


Scripture is, by definition, written. Oral apostolic teaching belongs to the realm of Sacred Tradition. [/quote]
I would even argue that it wasn't recognized.

The passage says, "other Scripture", but I don't know that "other" translated from Greek implies the state of the original letter.


Maybe I'm wrong... Either way, it was the Church, that decided which were Scripture.

[the lumberjack]

icthus, if I may...a beginning to what should be a long post:

the following is out of the Bible, from Mark 7. Its where Jesus is confronted by some Pharisees, and how the Pharisees saw the Apostles not sticking to the Traditions that had been handed down and kept as law...I'm sure you know where I'm trying to head with this....

Mark 7:

[quote]2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.[/quote]

and 2 Timothy 3:14-17 would tackle MANY birds with one stone...from sola scriptura to sola fide....whatever else you could find thru here.

[quote]14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

[b]15 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.[/b]

16 All [b]scripture[/b] is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.[/quote]

I'll be back later...God bless.

[cmotherofpirl]

Jesus was objecting to the traditions added which nulified the Law, not Law itself.
Jesus could not object to the Law since they were given by God to Moses.

Verse 14 makes reference to things learned, not things read. Things learned were traditions and stories of Jesus. But they were not yet Gospels as we know them. The only Scripture known to Timothy since childhood was the Old Testament. The OT could provide all the prophecies pertaining to Jesus.

There were writings being circulated and read but they did not all end up in the New Testament. For example, the letters of Pope Clement were read in the early church along with the letters of Paul. Not all of Paul's letters made it to scripture, some were lost. So not everything that could be scripture made it, but only what the Church choose to include.

All scripture is profitable, but no where in that sentence does it say ONLY scripture is profitable. Remember verse 14 "things learned"? That is not referring to Scripture but what Paul taught.
So Scripture and Tradition are both useful.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Apr 8 2004, 12:43 PM'] and 2 Timothy 3:14-17 would tackle MANY birds with one stone...from sola scriptura to sola fide....whatever else you could find thru here.
[/quote]
On the contrary about Sola Fide, it says 'able to make you wise through salvation by faith in Christ Jesus'.

I see nothing there about faith alone, and I find this verse very agreeable to the Church's position that salvation is by grace, through faith sustained by hope and working in love.