Are Catholics "born again"?

[djrakowski]

Don’t hold your breath djrakowski, when so thoroughly cornered genus Protestantis plays dead, doesn’t breath, and waits for the thread to move on then reappears later thinking we didn’t noticed they were simply silent.

However on this occasion a simple little question was obfuscated with about 4 millions words of blurb by CARM.

ALLFORHIM: Please answer djrakowski’s query. Why do you think there is no need for Oral Tradition if scripture states otherwise as in the above verse…

I had to answer these very “stumpers” from an evangelical Protestant perspective (which sounds quite similar to where ALLFORHIM worships), and I couldn’t. So I converted

I’m a very patient person, especially as I’ve noticed a rather charitable and honest approach to this discussion from ALLFORHIM, who could hardly be described as anti-Catholic. But I’d like to know how someone who accepts the Bible only as the final authority feels comfortable referring to the teaching of a human being (in this case, Matt Slick of CARM) to explain her position. Scripture ought to speak for itself, or at least, that’s what I’ve gathered of ALLFORHIM’s position on the matter.

 

[Sixtus]

Do Catholics consider themselves to be born again? If so when or how are they?

Are you serious?

Since ALL Catholic belief is firmly founded on Sacred Scripture, you have your answer.

When they commit a “mortal sin” do they then “die” and aren’t born again until a Priest says they are?

I find that so hilarious that I do not believe the person who wrote it, is serious. No, I think it is a wind-up! Nice one

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I had to answer these very “stumpers” from an evangelical Protestant perspective (which sounds quite similar to where ALLFORHIM worships), and I couldn’t. So I converted

I’m a very patient person, especially as I’ve noticed a rather charitable and honest approach to this discussion from ALLFORHIM, who could hardly be described as anti-Catholic. But I’d like to know how someone who accepts the Bible only as the final authority feels comfortable referring to the teaching of a human being (in this case, Matt Slick of CARM) to explain her position. Scripture ought to speak for itself, or at least, that’s what I’ve gathered of ALLFORHIM’s position on the matter.

Hi,
Thank you for being kind to me. I do not know who Matt Slcik is. I was just looking at different websites and happened upon this one. I am certainly not anti-catholic at all. If I was I would probably be a mean obnoxious poster. That is not what Christ would want so that is never how I would be.

P.S. Thanks for explaining why you dont like CARM:thumbsup:

 

[djrakowski]

Hi,
Thank you for being kind to me. I do not know who Matt Slcik is. I was just looking at different websites and happened upon this one. I am certainly not anti-catholic at all. If I was I would probably be a mean obnoxious poster. That is not what Christ would want so that is never how I would be.

P.S. Thanks for explaining why you dont like CARM:thumbsup:

Please consider your sources for seeking information about even what you believe. Matt Slick is the operator of the “Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry,” and is notorious around here for being extremely anti-Catholic. He’s the one who most likely wrote the material you posted above. I’ve seen exchanges on his forums in which he argues that Catholics aren’t even legitimately Christian, and I don’t think, based on your posting history, that you’d want to be associated even in the least with that kind of thinking.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Don’t hold your breath djrakowski, when so thoroughly cornered genus Protestantis plays dead, doesn’t breath, and waits for the thread to move on then reappears later thinking we didn’t noticed they were simply silent.

However on this occasion a simple little question was obfuscated with about 4 millions words of blurb by CARM.

ALLFORHIM: Please answer djrakowski’s query. Why do you think there is no need for Oral Tradition if scripture states otherwise as in the above verse…

Hi,
You can let your breathe go. Reagrding the verse 2 Thessalonians 2:15
First if you go to 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8
15:3
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
15:4
that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
15:5
and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
15:6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
15:7
Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
15:8
and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Now go back to 2 Thessolnians 2:13-16
2:13
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.
2:14
He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.
2:16
May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope,

Until the NT was written, essential christian teaching was passed on in the “tradition,” either written or oral. The traditions Paul was talking about was the GREAT TRUTHS which have been handed over to us in sacred scripture. The GREAT TRUTHS are the ones in which Paul speaks of in the above verses.
That is how I see it.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Please consider your sources for seeking information about even what you believe. Matt Slick is the operator of the “Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry,” and is notorious around here for being extremely anti-Catholic. He’s the one who most likely wrote the material you posted above. I’ve seen exchanges on his forums in which he argues that Catholics aren’t even legitimately Christian, and I don’t think, based on your posting history, that you’d want to be associated even in the least with that kind of thinking.

Hello,

Point taken. I went to their forums and I was a little taken back by how some of the christians spoke to catholics. I do see it here sometimes but at least those people get kicked off here.

 

[djrakowski]

Until the NT was written, essential christian teaching was passed on in the “tradition,” either written or oral. The traditions Paul was talking about was the GREAT TRUTHS which have been handed over to us in sacred scripture. The GREAT TRUTHS are the ones in which Paul speaks of in the above verses.
That is how I see it.

Nothing in scripture, including the verses you included above, says that the teaching authority of the apostles was taken away when the scriptures were completed. Furthermore, the canon of scripture wasn’t finalized until at least the 4th century (I’ll find some references later if you’d like). That means the church was the pillar and foundation of truth, but only until the 4th century? And it means that we were to hold fast to traditions until the Bible was completed and sent to all the churches in the world? I don’t see that in any translation, and to suggest such is adding your views of teaching authority back into the scriptures.

Where in scripture is it said that oral tradition was eliminated by the Bible?

And, in 1 Corinthians 15, you must believe that only the Old Testament is authoritative, because that’s the scriptures to which the writer was referring, considering that the entire canon (including those 7 books) wasn’t in complete form at that time.

Additionally, you’re relying upon a tradition of the church to make some of your arguments (albeit incompletely). The canon of scripture didn’t drop out of the sky in the form in which any of us hold it today, but was finalized by councils of the Church. The men who finalized the canon also had quite different views about the Bible than you did.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Nothing in scripture, including the verses you included above, says that the teaching authority of the apostles was taken away when the scriptures were completed. Furthermore, the canon of scripture wasn’t finalized until at least the 4th century (I’ll find some references later if you’d like). That means the church was the pillar and foundation of truth, but only until the 4th century? And it means that we were to hold fast to traditions until the Bible was completed and sent to all the churches in the world? I don’t see that in any translation, and to suggest such is adding your views of teaching authority back into the scriptures.

Where in scripture is it said that oral tradition was eliminated by the Bible?

She wasn’t saying that oral tradition was eliminated, just written down into what we now know as the Bible. (Correct me if I’m wrong, ALLFORHIM).

djrakowski:

Additionally, you’re relying upon a tradition of the church to make some of your arguments (albeit incompletely). The canon of scripture didn’t drop out of the sky in the form in which any of us hold it today, but was finalized by councils of the Church. The men who finalized the canon also had quite different views about the Bible than you did.

The tradition of the church can be found in the bible as I was once told that nothing the Catholic Church teaches contradicts the bible.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

She wasn’t saying that oral tradition was eliminated, just written down into what we now know as the Bible. (Correct me if I’m wrong, ALLFORHIM).

The tradition of the church can be found in the bible as I was once told that nothing the Catholic Church teaches contradicts the bible.

Yes Mrs. abbott thank you .

 

[MariaG]

She wasn’t saying that oral tradition was eliminated, just written down into what we now know as the Bible. (Correct me if I’m wrong, ALLFORHIM).

The tradition of the church can be found in the bible as I was once told that nothing the Catholic Church teaches contradicts the bible.

Yes Mrs. abbott thank you .

But where in Scripture do you base this belief? Where does it tell us in scripture that it has all been written down now only follow the written?

I know I’ve asked you this question before, but if you truly believe that all Tradition was written down and is part of inspired scripture, where do you find this belief IN Scripture? In the last verse in John it tells us not all the books in the world could contain all Christ did.

Not that it is profitable. We both agree that it is profitable. But we have scripture telling us to follow the written and oral without any distinction made between the two.

Where does scripture then say that, “Okay, the Holy Spirit inspired us to write it all down, and we now have, only follow the written.”

Conversely, since all Sacred Tradition of the Church IS actually at least implicit in Scripture, who does scripture tell us to entrust the teachings with? Faithful men. Not a book that self interprets itself. But faithful men. The only faithful Christian men for over 1000 years would be found in the Catholic Church. So why don’t you look to the faithful men whom the teachings were entrusted to for your Bible studies instead of those who disagree with those faithful men?

Your sister in Christ,
Maria

 

[Mickey]

So why don’t you look to the faithful men whom the teachings were entrusted to for your Bible studies instead of those who disagree with those faithful men?

Common sense!

 

[djrakowski]

The tradition of the church can be found in the bible as I was once told that nothing the Catholic Church teaches contradicts the bible.

You’re right - nothing the Church teaches, rightly understood, contradicts scripture. But wouldn’t you agree that the Church interprets scripture quite a bit differently than evangelical Christians like ALLFORHIM? That interpretive office, the teachings of the living Church, have not passed away merely because scripture was eventually written down and compiled into a canon (a process, by the way, which is part of Catholic tradition).

 

[mrs_abbott]

But where in Scripture do you base this belief? Where does it tell us in scripture that it has all been written down now only follow the written?

Mark 13:31
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”
Passing tradition down orally leaves room for omission. Once the Bible was written, we had oral tradition converted to the written Word. To me, that’s more reliable than oral tradition.

MariaG:

I know I’ve asked you this question before, but if you truly believe that all Tradition was written down and is part of inspired scripture, where do you find this belief IN Scripture? In the last verse in John it tells us not all the books in the world could contain all Christ did.

Then how can the Church know that what they know about Christ is true? Particularly the stuff not written in the Bible? I, personally, see the Bible as a big history book linking us to the time of Christ (NT) and knowing what led up to His coming (OT).

MariaG:

Where does scripture then say that, “Okay, the Holy Spirit inspired us to write it all down, and we now have, only follow the written.”

They wrote it down so that we would have some direction in life and would know that we were saying about God was true.

MariaG:

Conversely, since all Sacred Tradition of the Church IS actually at least implicit in Scripture, who does scripture tell us to entrust the teachings with? Faithful men. Not a book that self interprets itself. But faithful men.

So honest, God-fearing, bible-studying Christians who are legitimately led by the Holy Spirit are in error?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Sola Scriptura

When in 1517 Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-five Theses on the church door at Wittenberg he was merely disputing abuses in the Roman Catholic practice of “indulgences.” The dispute intensified and widened, however, until Luther and his followers found it necessary to break entirely with Rome. So began the Protestant Reformation, and the doctrinal issues which separated the Reformers from medieval Catholicism are the same issues which divide Protestants and Catholics today. While the doctrine of salvation (i.e., justification) became the central issue under dispute, the underlying question of religious authority was also a major concern.

Luther was convinced that the authority structure of Catholicism (Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium or Teaching Office) was illegitimate. He maintained that the church fathers, the papacy, and church councils were fallible, and had, in fact, erred. During his debates with Catholic theologians, Luther formulated the principle of sola scriptura (solely Scripture) which recognized Scripture alone as the supreme and infallible authority for the church and individual believer. All ecclesiastical authorities were to be judged by Holy Writ, and never the reverse. The principle of sola scriptura rejected both the idea that the Roman church possessed revelation apart from Scripture, and that the church was the infallible interpreter of Scripture.

Since the Reformation, theologians from a wide variety of persuasions have appealed to an equally wide variety of sources as the ultimate religious authority. These include reason, experience, creeds, church consensus, and the individual conscience. While recognizing that these have importance, historic Protestantism has continued to assert that the Bible alone is the final authority in matters of faith and practice. On this point, however, some questions are often raised: How do we arrive at this principle of sola scriptura? How does the Bible derive its authority? And, where does Scripture teach this principle?

To answer these questions it is important to recognize that Christian theology views authority as a chain. For the Christian, the absolute authority is God Himself. More specifically, it is the triune God who reveals Himself, for authority and revelation are correlates. While God revealed Himself in deed and in word in the Old Testament, His greatest and clearest self-disclosure is found in the incarnate Logos – the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1,14; 14:6-10). Jesus Christ, who both reveals God and is God, is the imperial authority for the church and individual believer (Heb. 1:1-3). However, Christ the Living Word has delegated His authority to His apostles, who – through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – have recorded the written word (John 14:26; 2 Pet. 1:21). Thus, Scripture has become our authority because as an infallible record of God’s self-revelation it perpetuates Christ’s personal authority. Scripture is objectively the Word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 3:16), and is therefore authoritative!

to be continued

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura? The best way to answer this is to examine how Christ and His apostles viewed Scripture.

The Gospels reveal that Jesus held Scripture in the highest regard. His statements speak for themselves: “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35, NIV); “Not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law…” (Matt. 5:18); “It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law” (Luke 16:17). Jesus asserted that greatness in heaven will be measured by obedience to Scripture (Matt. 5:19), while judgment will be measured out by the same standard (John 5:45-47).

The strongest evidence for the authority of the Bible is the fact that Jesus used Scripture as the final court of appeal in every matter under dispute. When disputing the Pharisees on their high view of tradition, He proclaimed, “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition…” (Mark 7:13). Scripture therefore determines whether tradition is acceptable. When Jesus was tested by the Sadducees concerning the resurrection, He retorted, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures…” (Matt. 22:29). When confronted with the devil’s temptations, He responded three times with the phrase, “It is written” (Matt. 4:4-10). Clearly, Jesus accepted Scripture as the supreme authority and subjected Himself to it (Luke 24:44). And, as followers of Christ, our view of Scripture cannot be inferior to His.

What about the relationship between Scripture and the early church? While it is true that the church preceded the apostolic writings, it was the message (the gospel preached) – which was later recorded and expounded upon in the apostolic writings – that produced the church. The New Testament became a permanent, infallible record of what was earlier an oral message. Because Scripture is identified with the gospel, it is authoritative. The church (made up of gospel-believing communities) submits to the Word (gospel) which created it. Scripture derives none of its authority from the church; its authority is inherent because it is the very words of God: “All Scripture is God-breathed…” (2 Tim. 3:16).

The purpose of the Scripture is to bear witness to Christ, who Himself bears witness to the integrity and authority of Scripture: “You search the Scriptures…and it is these that bear witness of Me” (John 5:39).

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura? Yes! Jesus Christ speaks to us authoritatively only through the objective Word of God.

Written By: Kenneth R. Samples

 

[mrs_abbott]

You’re right - nothing the Church teaches, rightly understood, contradicts scripture. But wouldn’t you agree that the Church interprets scripture quite a bit differently than evangelical Christians like ALLFORHIM? That interpretive office, the teachings of the living Church, have not passed away merely because scripture was eventually written down and compiled into a canon (a process, by the way, which is part of Catholic tradition).

The Church has it’s own way of interpretting scripture, that’s for sure, that’s different than the mainstream interpretations. I know that oral tradition is important but since we have written tradition (a.k.a. the bible), it’s easier to refer to writings than to keep asking our church leaders questions about everything that can ultimately be found in the bible.

 

[mrs_abbott]

The strongest evidence for the authority of the Bible is the fact that Jesus used Scripture as the final court of appeal in every matter under dispute. When disputing the Pharisees on their high view of tradition, He proclaimed, “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition…” (Mark 7:13). Scripture therefore determines whether tradition is acceptable.

Verses 14 and 15 add to that claim:
He summoned the crowd again and said to them, “Hear me, all of you, and understand.
Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile.”

 

[djrakowski]

Mark 13:31
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”
Passing tradition down orally leaves room for omission. Once the Bible was written, we had oral tradition converted to the written Word. To me, that’s more reliable than oral tradition.

He said “my words,” not “the Bible.” The Bible contains part of Christ’s words, as is stated specifically in the last chapter of St. John’s gospel:

John 21:25 (DRB) - “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

The scriptures also tell us what is more reliable:

1 Timothy 3:15 (DRB) - “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” This does not say that the scriptures are the pillar and ground of truth, so it makes no sense to claim otherwise, regardless of what you personally believe to be more reliable.

Then how can the Church know that what they know about Christ is true? Particularly the stuff not written in the Bible? I, personally, see the Bible as a big history book linking us to the time of Christ (NT) and knowing what led up to His coming (OT).

Because scripture explains that this is left to the Church (1 Timothy 3:15 - see above), and he gave authority to Peter, including the power to bind and loose:

Matthew 16:18-19 (DRB) - “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

He also gave this charge to Peter:

John 21:17 (DRB) - “He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

He also has promised the Holy Spirit to the disciples:

John 14:26 (DRB) - “But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.”

And again:

John 16:13 (DRB) - “But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.”

So honest, God-fearing, bible-studying Christians who are legitimately led by the Holy Spirit are in error?

Given that we all hold vastly different interpretations of the same holy scriptures, we can’t all be right!

 

[djrakowski]

The Church has it’s own way of interpretting scripture, that’s for sure, that’s different than the mainstream interpretations. I know that oral tradition is important but since we have written tradition (a.k.a. the bible), it’s easier to refer to writings than to keep asking our church leaders questions about everything that can ultimately be found in the bible.

What is a mainstream interpretation? How does one determine which of the myriad interpretations offered by mainstream theologians is correct? If they differ, they can’t all be right!

 

[djrakowski]

The strongest evidence for the authority of the Bible is the fact that Jesus used Scripture as the final court of appeal in every matter under dispute. When disputing the Pharisees on their high view of tradition, He proclaimed, “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition…” (Mark 7:13). Scripture therefore determines whether tradition is acceptable.

Untrue.

First, the “word of God” is not synonymous with scripture (see John 21:25). Second, the Bible doesn’t take as dim a view of tradition as you do, as has been explained time and time again with the passage from Thessalonians. John 1 also says that the word is Jesus, not the Bible.