A response from a pastor i got

[junostarlighter]

so i’m a 21 year-old college student who got into a conversation with a non-denominational pastor (s surprisingly knowledgable one) over the inspiration of the bible and if it can be proved. i gave him more or less the same points brought up in the “Proving Inspiration” section on the website and Karl Keating’s points in his “Proving Inspiration” in Catholicism and Fundamentalism. He said he’d have to think about what I said but he pointed out this which I’m having a hard time with…

“Your argument that the Catholic Church is the only authorization that validates the Bible also means that every position authorized by the Catholic Church through its long history is equally able to be as authorized as Scripture. When the Catholic Church presents its key provisions, and declares certain doctrines to be true (such as the role of the saints or transubstantiation or the role of the Virgin Mary), this is thus equal to Scripture, based on the primacy of the Catholic Church’s self-determined and self-actualizing claim of vital authority. The Mormon church uses exactly the same argument to uphold its claim that its apostolic authority is unbroken since Peter, and God has established a latter-day apostle to lead the church.”

What should I make of that? How would I best go about responding to it?

 

[NotWorthy]

The Mormons can prove that they are Apostolic??? How so? They have a line of bishops and popes that are traceable all the way back to the Apostles? That’s a first!

Ask your friend about the part in the Bible where Paul says (paraphrased) “If an angel should come preaching a Gospel that is contrary to ours…”. This sure sounds vaguely familiar to our Mormon origins.

Notworthy

 

[NotWorthy]

On a second note, Yes, we do have authority equal to the Bible, AND THIS IS BIBLICAL. Now granted, our teaching authority must not contradict Scripture, and thankfully, that has been the case.

I have a feeling your friend is leading you somewhere, so be prepared.

Notworthy

 

[buffalo]

Authoritative Church
Mt 28:18-20 - Jesus delegates all power to Apostles
Jn 20:23 - power to forgive sin
1Cor 11:23-24 - power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist)
Lk 10:16 - power to speak with Christ’s voice
Mt 18:18 - power to legislate
Mt 18:17 - power to discipline

SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION
Bible Alone or Bible Plus Tradition?
1 Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2 Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men
2Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
1Pet 1:25 - God’s eternal word = word preached to you
Rom 10:17 - faith come from what is heard
1Cor 15:1-2 - being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached
Mk 16:15 - go to the whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Mt 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you

 

[1ke]

junostarlighter:

so i’m a 21 year-old college student who got into a conversation with a non-denominational pastor (s surprisingly knowledgable one) over the inspiration of the bible and if it can be proved. i gave him more or less the same points brought up in the “Proving Inspiration” section on the website and Karl Keating’s points in his “Proving Inspiration” in Catholicism and Fundamentalism. He said he’d have to think about what I said but he pointed out this which I’m having a hard time with…

“Your argument that the Catholic Church is the only authorization that validates the Bible also means that every position authorized by the Catholic Church through its long history is equally able to be as authorized as Scripture. When the Catholic Church presents its key provisions, and declares certain doctrines to be true (such as the role of the saints or transubstantiation or the role of the Virgin Mary), this is thus equal to Scripture, based on the primacy of the Catholic Church’s self-determined and self-actualizing claim of vital authority. The Mormon church uses exactly the same argument to uphold its claim that its apostolic authority is unbroken since Peter, and God has established a latter-day apostle to lead the church.”

What should I make of that? How would I best go about responding to it?

Actually, the Catholic Church claims unbroken, and therefore authentic, Apostolicity and unchanged Apostolic Tradition back to the first Apostles. Your pastor friend is correct that Scripture and Tradition are both authoritative.

Mormons, OTOH, claim a great apostacy within the first three centuries, followed by NO ONE having the keys or apostolic authority until a 19th century “restoration” of the “true” gospel via Joseph Smith and his successors.

 

[Della]

These are the witnesses that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ with the authority from Christ to judge the testimony of men and of God:

1John.5
[1] Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and every one who loves the parent loves the child.
[2] By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.
[3] For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
[4] For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith.
[5] Who is it that overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
[6] This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood.
[7] And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
[8] **There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree. **
[9] If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has borne witness to his Son.
[10] He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne to his Son.
[11] And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

 

[Orionthehunter]

junostarlighter:

He said he’d have to think about what I said but he pointed out this which I’m having a hard time with…

“Your argument that the Catholic Church is the only authorization that validates the Bible also means that **every position ** authorized by the Catholic Church through its long history is equally able to be as authorized as Scripture. When the Catholic Church presents its key provisions, and declares certain doctrines to be true (such as the role of the saints or transubstantiation or the role of the Virgin Mary), this is thus equal to Scripture, based on the primacy of the Catholic Church’s self-determined and self-actualizing claim of vital authority. The Mormon church uses exactly the same argument to uphold its claim that its apostolic authority is unbroken since Peter, and God has established a latter-day apostle to lead the church.”

What should I make of that? How would I best go about responding to it?

There is much truth in what he says but it is not the whole truth. And lies w/ portions of the truth sprinkled in are always the most dangerous and effective.

Bold #1: The Church doesn’t claim “every position” is infallible and compatible with Scripture- Just those declared ex chathedra or from a particular synod council (I forget the correct term here).

Bold #2: While I refer you to Buffalo’s and Della’s posts for Scriptural support, this argument by the pastor is the most insiduous. Sacred Tradition and infallible Doctrines/Teachings of the Truth are not supplements to Scripture (The Eternal Word or the second person of the Trinity- Jesus Christ and actually Revelation includes everything God has told us about himself and is greater than just the Bible itself). Christ is all- and omni everything and can’t be supplemented. These Teachings are Holy Spirit inspired expanded explanation of the Living Word made Incarnate. I like to refer to the Doctrine of the Trinity as the easiest use when addressing this assertion made by the pastor. Challenge him to find where in Scripture it says that the Trinity exists. However, even he will concede that this Doctrine/Teaching is correct and part and parcel to Revelation.

The Church proclaims these Doctrines/Teachings to help the faithful think rightly about God. From the Prologue of the Catechism, paragraph #1: “God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.”

For us to know and love God, we have to spend time with Him allowing Him to love us and reveal Himself to us. But if we are blinded by false teachings or false understandings of God, we are bound to unwittingly separate ourselves from Him. The Church’s primary mission is to protect us from these false teachings and understandings. From the 4th paragraph of the Catechism: “Quite early on, the name catechesis was given to the totality of the Church’s efforts to make disciples, to help men believe that Jesus is the Son of God so that believing they might have life in his name, and to educate and instruct them in this life, thus building up the body of Christ.”

Bold #3: It is not self-determined but Scriptural. Buffalo’s post below referencing some (not all) of the Scriptural references to the Church’s Authority should make it clear it is not self-determined.

 

[Nicene]

Mormons, OTOH, claim a great apostacy within the first three centuries, followed by NO ONE having the keys or apostolic authority until a 19th century “restoration” of the “true” gospel via Joseph Smith and his successors.

I always found this intriguing:

Rev 1:17: When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18: and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

Contrasted with:

Mt 16:19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Which is an interesting question because if Christ still has the “keys to death and Hades” when did he take back the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”? If only the immediate apostles were supposed to have them til they died where does that leave His church?

I’ve never had anyone be able to show me in scripture that Christ took back the keys.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

Della:

These are the witnesses that the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ with the authority from Christ to judge the testimony of men and of God:

1John.5
[1] Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and every one who loves the parent loves the child.
[2] By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.
[3] For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
[4] For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith.
[5] Who is it that overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
[6] This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood.
[7] And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
[8] **There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree. **
[9] If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has borne witness to his Son.
[10] He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne to his Son.
[11] And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Hi Della,

Look up the “Johannine comma”, you may find it interesting. It leaves KJV onlyists in a quandry though.

Same goes for “For the kingdom, the power and the glory” in Mt 6. (KJV)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Magicsilence]

Nicene:

I always found this intriguing:

Rev 1:17: When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18: and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and

I have the keys of Death and Hades.

Contrasted with:

Mt 16:19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Which is an interesting question because if Christ still has the “keys to death and Hades” when did he take back the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”? If only the immediate apostles were supposed to have them til they died where does that leave His church?

I’ve never had anyone be able to show me in scripture that Christ took back the keys.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Keys of Death…

Keys of the Kingdom…

Different things no?

IN Christ.

Andre.

 

[John_Henry]

Orionthehunter:

Bold #1: The Church doesn’t claim “every position” is infallible and compatible with Scripture- Just those declared ex chathedra or from a particular synod council (I forget the correct term here).

This is actually only partially true. The universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church is also infallible.

 

[awfulthings9]

Magicsilence:

Keys of Death…

Keys of the Kingdom…

Different things no?

IN Christ.

Andre.

I think that’s her point. They are different things, so where Christ still has the keys to death and Hades, the keys to the kingdom are apprently missing … until, that is, one remembers that he entrusted them to the leaders on earth. Her point is that, should someone claim that the apostolic “leadership” of the church ended with the last apostle, why are the keys still “missing” in heaven. The answer is, Christ has left them in the care of his church until the end of time. Right?

Wow. Brilliant argument. That’s never occured to me.

 

[trogiah]

In reading this thread and many that have presented similar ideas, I have had the following thoughts:

We are not called to seek the kingdom of Scripture. Nor are we called to seek the kingdom of Tradition. Nor are we called to seek the kingdom of the Church.

We are called to seek the kingdom of God. I believe that Scripture is a powerful asset in the search for God’s kingdom. As is the Church and the Traditions established by the Church. I cannot find the kingdom of God only by reading Scripture because there are details of my life that are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture. Also there are parts of Scripture that I don’t understand very well, if at all.

I also don’t believe that I can find the kingdom of God by listening only to the words of popes, bishops and priests, for much the same reasons. I just don’t see asking an authority of the church what he thinks about every decision I make in my life.

I find God’s kingdom through prayer and through keeping God’s word as best I can. No book and no other person can do those things for me. I must compare my life with that of Jesus (as described in Scripture) to see if I am on the right track. I would be foolish not to rely on Church teachings on the many modern issues we have to face today that Jesus never mentioned specifically. I certainly would never be right to say “this Church is wrong and I am going to start another”

My point is (and perhaps the pastor mentioned by the original poster would agree) that God’s kingdom is what matters most. As two great recent popes have observed: “That which seperates us as believers in Christ is far less than that which unites us”

Peace

Jim

 

[TZiggy]

I would think a simple response would be:

“Sounds like you have a good handle on how Catholics view Tradition. While Mormons may view thier traditions the same way, thiers does not begin with the Birth of Jesus Christ”.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

NotWorthy:

On a second note, Yes, we do have authority equal to the Bible, AND THIS IS BIBLICAL. Now granted, our teaching authority must not contradict Scripture, and thankfully, that has been the case.

Hello NotWorthy, many things I have been enlightened to while being here. Now this being said, and I know the arguments around this issue,(about my coming comment) but with your statement above, and scripture where, “all have sinned”…baisically - even if a teaching DID oppose scripture, it would be explained out…

Mary vs. all have sinned…
Jesus and brothers…

As I said, I am familiar with the arguments and I don’t want to debate them but do you see my point?

I guess it is the same thing as “wine” to fundamentalists…they prove from sripture this that and the other thing…that it is grape juice.

Anyway, just seeing if you see my point.

 

[NotWorthy]

malachi_a_serva:

Hello NotWorthy, many things I have been enlightened to while being here. Now this being said, and I know the arguments around this issue,(about my coming comment) but with your statement above, and scripture where, “all have sinned”…baisically - even if a teaching DID oppose scripture, it would be explained out…

Mary vs. all have sinned…
Jesus and brothers…

As I said, I am familiar with the arguments and I don’t want to debate them but do you see my point?

I guess it is the same thing as “wine” to fundamentalists…they prove from sripture this that and the other thing…that it is grape juice.

Anyway, just seeing if you see my point.

Yes, I see your point, and regarding the wine/grape juice debate - that horse is dead, my friend!

But we have a big advantage on our side, the teachings of the early church. From the beginning you see the teachings that agree with our position (just to go with your example, wine over grape juice - that’s still funny, and Mary was sinless). Knowing that we only have a fraction of a fraction of what was written back then, who are we to second guess what was taught back then, when they had so much more first and second hand knowledge then we do.

Take a look at Baptism - Immersion vs. Sprinkling. Some claim that Immersion is the ONLY way that the early church baptized. In the last 100 years, we’ve unearthed baptismal fonts throughout the eastern church regions that were only 15-18" tall. They dated back to the beginning of the Church. These agree with what the Church has been teaching all along.

I know I’m rambling, but hopefully you’ve got my point. And yes, Malachi, you have come to understand our point (not necessarily agree, but understand where we’re coming from) much more than when you first joined. It’s been a pleasure watching this.

Notworthy

 

[malachi_a_serva]

NotWorthy:

Yes, I see your point, and regarding the wine/grape juice debate - that horse is dead, my friend!

But we have a big advantage on our side, the teachings of the early church. From the beginning you see the teachings that agree with our position (just to go with your example, wine over grape juice - that’s still funny, and Mary was sinless). Knowing that we only have a fraction of a fraction of what was written back then, who are we to second guess what was taught back then, when they had so much more first and second hand knowledge then we do.

Take a look at Baptism - Immersion vs. Sprinkling. Some claim that Immersion is the ONLY way that the early church baptized. In the last 100 years, we’ve unearthed baptismal fonts throughout the eastern church regions that were only 15-18" tall. They dated back to the beginning of the Church. These agree with what the Church has been teaching all along.

I know I’m rambling, but hopefully you’ve got my point. And yes, Malachi, you have come to understand our point (not necessarily agree, but understand where we’re coming from) much more than when you first joined. It’s been a pleasure watching this.

Notworthy

Hello NotWorthy

For the record, I no longer hold on to the “wine” is “grape juice” theory…I was weak in my belief to start out with…then after being put through the ringer here…how could I?

I do get your point and hense…my continued journey.

 

[Ignatius]

junostarlighter:

so i’m a 21 year-old college student who got into a conversation with a non-denominational pastor (s surprisingly knowledgable one) over the inspiration of the bible and if it can be proved. i gave him more or less the same points brought up in the “Proving Inspiration” section on the website and Karl Keating’s points in his “Proving Inspiration” in Catholicism and Fundamentalism. He said he’d have to think about what I said but he pointed out this which I’m having a hard time with…

“Your argument that the Catholic Church is the only authorization that validates the Bible also means that every position authorized by the Catholic Church through its long history is equally able to be as authorized as Scripture. When the Catholic Church presents its key provisions, and declares certain doctrines to be true (such as the role of the saints or transubstantiation or the role of the Virgin Mary), this is thus equal to Scripture, based on the primacy of the Catholic Church’s self-determined and self-actualizing claim of vital authority. The Mormon church uses exactly the same argument to uphold its claim that its apostolic authority is unbroken since Peter, and God has established a latter-day apostle to lead the church.”

When was Jesus Christ on Earth? When did The Mormon church start? Are they the same time?

 

[SemperJase]

1ke:

Mormons, OTOH, claim a great apostacy within the first three centuries, followed by NO ONE having the keys or apostolic authority until a 19th century “restoration” of the “true” gospel via Joseph Smith and his successors.

Correct. The Mormon religion is based on the claim that a priesthood was restored to Smith, not that he inheirited it from anyone.
Otherwise Smith would not be a prophet.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi NotWorthy, I think you are thinking of Gal 1:6-8. A LDS can use III Nephi 28 where the Apostle John will not die until the second coming to claim “apolstolic” session.