Catholicism And Doctrinal Changes

[Nick_Jones]

This is not exactly true. We know that you have faith in Christ and deserve to be called by the name “Christian”. Therefore, in some small way, you have some communion with the Catholic Church…but it is an incomplete and imperfect communion. As a result of the communion that does exist and in light of the those portions of the true faith revealed by God through His Church to which you still adhere, it is possible you may be saved.

The bible tells us that we have been saved by grace, through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) and not as a result of the communion that does exist and in light of the those portions of the true faith revealed by God through His Church to which you still adhere.

Salvation isn’t granted by some sufficient measure of communion with the Catholic Church or by membership in the “right” religious group, instead, we are part of the church because of our God-given faith in the finished work of Jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Catholic Church does not “grant” salvation…God does. And he does it through His Church.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ of which He is the head. Therefore, being a member of the body is essential. Otherwise, you are cut off from the body and have no connection to Christ.

 

[Nick_Jones]

I do not think that Rome has inserted itself between God and humanity…I think that Jesus left Peter and the boys in charge of what He said He would call His Church. You’re familiar with the keys, of course, and the connection to Isaiah 22, I’m sure, so I won’t belabor that point. I’ll only ask you to consider WHY Jesus would make such a declaration if He didn’t actually mean it!

Of course He meant it. It is very clear that Jesus gave the apostles special authority, and that they were given the mission to spread the gospel of Jesus which is built upon the confession of St. Peter, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Additionally, you are aware that Jesus said, “I am the Good Shepherd.” Yet, at the end of John’s gospel, you have read the passages, “Feed my lambs”, “Tend my sheep”, “Feed my sheep”. It seems to me that Jesus not only handed Peter a set of keys but His shepherd’s crook, as well.

Now, just Who has inserted who?

I read exactly the same in my bible, yet there is no biblical requirement saying:

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

or,

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441

 

[Nick_Jones]

What do you believe is the “biblical” definition of the Church?

I think the basic question is – is the Catholic Church really the Church Jesus founded? If it is, it certainly hasn’t “inserted” itself between God and humanity. If it isn’t, it’s a most deluded church that no one should want to be a part of.

The church consists of every saved human being including those who have already died and those who are still being added to it, and all of them by the grace of God.

The cause of salvation is not by being “in communion with the church.” Salvation results in becoming part of the church. We can know that we are part of the church by what (or who) we trust for our salvation. Trusting in Jesus–and in Him alone, is to be in communion with God… which is what makes us saved.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Ten years ago I was an evangelical Protestant who believed the church was composed of all “true believers” across denominational lines. But I eventually came to see that the church I saw in the New Testament didn’t look much like any of the Protestant churches I had belonged to or visited. There was no real teaching authority in any of them, and no unity of belief from one church to another. I reluctantly began to investigate the claims of the Catholic Church (and Eastern Orthdoxy) to see if they could be verified historically and biblically. I read Catholic, Orthodox, secular and even very anti-Catholic Protestant sources to compare and weigh all the evidence out there. That’s what I invite you to do. Investigate. Study. Pray. And be open to the guiding of the Holy Spirit wherever He leads (Proverbs 3:5-6)

I agree that unity is very important, but it is possible for a religious group to be highly unified in its beliefs, yet horribly antibiblical. Paul warns us (Gal. chapter one) not to accept a “different gospel” than the one “we preached to you.”

Do you think Rome’s gospel is the same one that was preached by the apostles?

 

[Randy_Carson]

If salvation is by grace, through faith, then it follows that it is not by works of the law… including water baptism and the submission to some religious sect, be it visible or invisible. “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom. 4:3)

The CC has plainly stated that we must believe Rome and submit to Rome in order to be saved. As for me, I will trust in Jesus only.

It’s really not that simple, is it? What I mean is that you, personally, may or may not believe in infant baptism and you arrive at your theological opinion on this issue based upon either a) your pastor’s teaching or b) your own study. So far so good.

However, your next door neighbor (who is just as anti-Catholic as you are but a member of a different Protestant denomination) happens to believe the exact opposite.

Now, both of you are “men of God” and you both “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15 KJV)

But you can’t both be right when you hold opposite opinions! Does this mean that one of you is NOT a man of God since at least one of you is wrongly dividing the word of God?

Or does it mean that you are both in error because you have not understood the prayer of Jesus when He prayed to the Father that we would all be ONE.

Jesus did not come to “build what I must call my network of loosely-affiliated non-denominational fellowships.”

He established a Church built upon Kepha. Peter is that “kepha” as even Protestant scholars begrudgingly acknowledge.

(PS - Note that Catholics do read the scriptures after all, and that we can quote them in both NIV and KJV. Tell your friends.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

I agree that unity is very important, but it is possible for a religious group to be highly unified in its beliefs, yet horribly antibiblical. Paul warns us (Gal. chapter one) not to accept a “different gospel” than the one “we preached to you.”

Do you think Rome’s gospel is the same one that was preached by the apostles?

Of course the Catholic Church today teaches the same message that the Apostles taught. But after 2,000 years we understand it better.

Now, let me ask you a question: prior to 1930, all Churches taught that artificial birth control was sinful. However, beginning that year with the Episcopal Church, all major Protestant denominations have caved to public pressure and changed their positions on this issue. The Catholic Church continues its opposition to birth control and it does so based upon scripture!

Now, what are are your thoughts on this doctrinal change, my sola scriptura friend?

Oh, one more dilemma and then I’ll let you stew: if the justification for Protestants changing their stand on this issue is that the Bible does not prohibit birth control, then were they teaching a “merely human tradition” when they opposed it prior to 1930, and if so, then doesn’t that illustrate the falsehood of sola scriptura itself since the teaching was not Biblical but only a “teaching of men”, after all?

But if the Bible does oppose artificial birth control, then why does Protestantism allow it today?

 

[Nick_Jones]

It’s really not that simple, is it? What I mean is that you, personally, may or may not believe in infant baptism and you arrive at your theological opinion on this issue based upon either a) your pastor’s teaching or b) your own study. So far so good.

However, your next door neighbor (who is just as anti-Catholic as you are but a member of a different Protestant denomination) happens to believe the exact opposite.

Now, both of you are “men of God” and you both “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 2:15 KJV)

But you can’t both be right when you hold opposite opinions! Does this mean that one of you is NOT a man of God since at least one of you is wrongly dividing the word of God?

Or does it mean that you are both in error because you have not understood the prayer of Jesus when He prayed to the Father that we would all be ONE.

Jesus did not come to “build what I must call my network of loosely-affiliated non-denominational fellowships.”

He established a Church built upon Kepha. Peter is that “kepha” as even Protestant scholars begrudgingly acknowledge.

(PS - Note that Catholics do read the scriptures after all, and that we can quote them in both NIV and KJV. Tell your friends.)

Water baptism doesn’t do anything to save a person from his or her sins. There are numerous doctrinal issues that divide Protestant denominations, but most of these issues do not seem to be of critical importance.

So, I agree with you completely when you point out that Jesus did not come to “build what I must call my network of loosely-affiliated non-denominational fellowships.”

I must respectfully disagree that even Protestant scholars begrudgingly acknowledge He established a Church built upon Kepha. Peter is that “kepha.” There are big problems with that:

1. If Peter was a pope, how would we know he was?
2. If Peter was a pope, was he infallible, as the CC teaches?
3. Was Peter ever treated as though he was a pope?

 

[Veritas41]

Trusting in Jesus–and in Him alone, is to be in communion with God… which is what makes us saved.

Which Jesus must we trust in to be saved? What about the Oneness Pentecostals today? They “trust in Jesus,” but the Jesus they trust in is only one mode of expression of God, not the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Are they saved? Are they part of the church?

And which Bible am I to rely on as a Christian? Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox all have the same NT, but each has different numbers of books in their OTs – the Catholics having 7 more than Protestants, and the Orthodox having all the ones the Catholics do in addition to several more. What *in *the Bible tells us which Bible is the “correct” one?

1 Timothy 3:15 says the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” If that verse is true, then how can the Church simply be the conglomeration of all true believers who all believe differently about what the truth is? Whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation and whether or not it’s possible to lose one’s salvation seem like some pretty important things for Christians to be in disagreement over. Why would God leave us in such uncertainty and contradiction?

As for your understanding of how Catholics view salvation, it is mistaken. Here are some excerpts from the Catechism (official teaching of the Church):

**1991 **Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.
**1992 **Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:

**1996 **Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

**2019 **Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.

Please pay careful attention to the last paragraph because this is why Protestants so seriously misunderstand what Catholics believe about salvation --it isn’t merely an external justification, but inward renewal and sanctification. Sanctification is very much a part of salvation because as it says in Hebrews 12:14, without holiness no one will see the Lord. This is why salvation is spoken of in the past, present on-going and future tense in Scripture --it’s not just a one-time event. Jesus said in John 17:17 we are sanctified by the truth – how can we be sanctified if we don’t even know what the truth is because we can’t agree on what it is? But with an established teaching authority, gifted with infallibility (Matthew 16, John 16:13), we *can *know the truth and be sanctified through it and the sacraments (visible channels of sanctifying, saving grace). That is what it means to be in communion with the Church (with Christ’s Body) --to believe and accept the truth taught by Christ and live it. It is all centered on Christ:
**773 **In the Church this communion of men with God, in the “love [that] never ends,” is the purpose which governs everything in her that is a sacramental means, tied to this passing world. “[The Church’s] structure is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members. And holiness is measured according to the ‘great mystery’ in which the Bride responds with the gift of love to the gift of the Bridegroom.” Mary goes before us all in the holiness that is the Church’s mystery as “the bride without spot or wrinkle.” This is why the “Marian” dimension of the Church precedes the “Petrine.”

 

[Nick_Jones]

Of course the Catholic Church today teaches the same message that the Apostles taught. But after 2,000 years we understand it better.

Why do you say that “the Catholic Church today teaches the same message that the Apostles taught. But after 2,000 years we understand it better” when several teachings of the CC are nowhere to be found in the bible?

Now, let me ask you a question: prior to 1930, all Churches taught that artificial birth control was sinful.

This could lead us off the topic, but a few quick thoughts:

1. Does the bible tell us not to use artificial BC?
2. How does this illustrate the falsehood of sola scriptura?

 

[Nick_Jones]

Oh, one more dilemma and then I’ll let you stew: if the justification for Protestants changing their stand on this issue is that the Bible does not prohibit birth control, then were they teaching a “merely human tradition” when they opposed it prior to 1930, and if so, then doesn’t that illustrate the falsehood of sola scriptura itself since the teaching was not Biblical but only a “teaching of men”, after all?

But if the Bible does oppose artificial birth control, then why does Protestantism allow it today?

Assuming the bible does oppose artificial birth control, at best, you’ve proved that not all “Protestants” adhere to Sola Scriptura. The yearning for “tradition” is not just a Catholic thing.

 

[Veritas41]

I agree that unity is very important, but it is possible for a religious group to be highly unified in its beliefs, yet horribly antibiblical. Paul warns us (Gal. chapter one) not to accept a “different gospel” than the one “we preached to you.”

Do you think Rome’s gospel is the same one that was preached by the apostles?

I agree that unity by itself doesn’t mean that a church is true, but compare the history of the Catholic Church with that of the Protestant churches: in 2,000 years, the Catholic Church hasn’t changed its teachings (even the ones that are unpopular with Catholics, like on divorce and contraception). If you go back to the very earliest Church Fathers, some of whom were converts of the Apostles (St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius of Antioch-- St. John, for example) they taught the same things Catholics believe today. In contrast, modern Protestants don’t even believe some of what the original Protestant Reformers did (like Mary’s perpetual virginity) and some Protestant churches (Southern Baptist, for one, from predominantly Calvinistic in theology to Arminian) have changed their teachings in just a span of 100 years (not to mention the liberal mainline Protestant churches that have departed even from basic Christian teaching).

Have you ever heard of John Henry Newman? He was a 19th century Anglican clergyman who wanted to see how far back he could trace various Christian teachings. Along the way he discovered he could trace distinctly Catholic teachings all the way back to the earliest times. He wrote a book about his discovery, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, and by the time it was published he had converted to the Catholic faith at a time in England when it wasn’t “cool” to be Catholic. One of his most famous quotes is, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” And that’s what I have found --and it explains why none of the Protestant churches I ever belonged to ever delved into church history before the Reformation except for very selective quotes of particular Church Fathers like St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine --because in learning all that they believed we would learn they were thoroughly Catholic, not pre-Reformation Protestants.

As I was studying the teachings of the Catholic Church I also read and listened to Protestant sources that purported to “expose” the “false gospel” of the Catholic Church (I had a friend who was concerned about my interest in the Catholic Church, and she had a friend who attended an anti-Catholic fundamentalist church who gave her tapes and books to give to me). I wanted to read them because I didn’t want to be duped, but in *every *case the Protestant source had to *misrepresent *Catholic teaching in order to “disprove” it. That seemed fishy to me, especially if Catholic teaching was as unbiblical and wrong as these sources made it out to be.

So, to answer your question, yes, the Gospel taught by the Catholic Church is the same Gospel taught in the Bible:thumbsup:

 

[Nick_Jones]

Which Jesus must we trust in to be saved? What about the Oneness Pentecostals today? They “trust in Jesus,” but the Jesus they trust in is only one mode of expression of God, not the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Are they saved? Are they part of the church?

And which Bible am I to rely on as a Christian? Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox all have the same NT, but each has different numbers of books in their OTs – the Catholics having 7 more than Protestants, and the Orthodox having all the ones the Catholics do in addition to several more. What *in *the Bible tells us which Bible is the “correct” one?

1 Timothy 3:15 says the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” If that verse is true, then how can the Church simply be the conglomeration of all true believers who all believe differently about what the truth is? Whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation and whether or not it’s possible to lose one’s salvation seem like some pretty important things for Christians to be in disagreement over. Why would God leave us in such uncertainty and contradiction?

The atheists argue the same:

Which god should we worship, Bhudda?, Thor?, Allah?, or one of the other thousand gods that have been worshipped?

The premise is deeply flawed, for it assumes that people are inherently good, seekers of truth. Not so! We are fallen! The bible says that “no one seeks God” (Rom.3:11)

The remedy for our “dead in sin” condition, is the grace of God, which makes some people–those who have received the grace of regeneration, to begin to see themselves as they really are: utterly lost and sinful before a Holy God.

God provides His sheep with all that they need to obtain salvation. Not one of His sheep will be lost. Not because of the CC but because of the personal intervention of the Holy Spirit, who will lead the elect to the Truth, and cause them to be willing to accept it.

 

[Nick_Jones]

I agree that unity by itself doesn’t mean that a church is true, but compare the history of the Catholic Church with that of the Protestant churches: in 2,000 years, the Catholic Church hasn’t changed its teachings (even the ones that are unpopular with Catholics, like on divorce and contraception).

There are several teachings of the CC that were not taught by the apostles. Here are just some of them:

1. The immaculate conception of Mary
2. The idea of the papacy.
3. The infallibility of popes.
4. The sale of indulgences.
5. The teaching of “no salvation outside of the RCC.”

 

[Nick_Jones]

I agree that unity by itself doesn’t mean that a church is true, but compare the history of the Catholic Church with that of the Protestant churches: in 2,000 years, the Catholic Church hasn’t changed its teachings (even the ones that are unpopular with Catholics, like on divorce and contraception). If you go back to the very earliest Church Fathers, some of whom were converts of the Apostles (St. Polycarp and St. Ignatius of Antioch-- St. John, for example) they taught the same things Catholics believe today. In contrast, modern Protestants don’t even believe some of what the original Protestant Reformers did (like Mary’s perpetual virginity) and some Protestant churches (Southern Baptist, for one, from predominantly Calvinistic in theology to Arminian) have changed their teachings in just a span of 100 years (not to mention the liberal mainline Protestant churches that have departed even from basic Christian teaching).

I definitely agree. Lots of “Protestant” denominations are teaching serious error. But how do we know error when we see it? I believe that any teaching that conflicts with the bible should be rejected. In addition, teachings that cannot be found in the bible shouldn’t be binding.

 

[Nick_Jones]

1 Timothy 3:15 says the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” If that verse is true, then how can the Church simply be the conglomeration of all true believers who all believe differently about what the truth is?

The early church was not a perfect picture of absolute unity even though they still had the apostles among them, so it hardly seems surprising that perfect unity is still lacking in the church today. The church can be the pillar and foundation of truth even if it consists (on earth) of sinners who are not in perfect agreement on every teaching found in the bible. If you are determined to find **infallible truth **from some church, you are seeking what cannot be found.

 

[buffalo]

There are several teachings of the CC that were not taught by the apostles. Here are just some of them:

1. The immaculate conception of Mary
2. The idea of the papacy.
3. The infallibility of popes.
4. The sale of indulgences.
5. The teaching of “no salvation outside of the RCC.”

1. The Immaculate Conception
   Lk 1:28 - hail full of grace[highly favored] Lord is with you
   Lk 1:30 - you have found favor with God
   Lk 1:37 - for with God nothing shall be impossible
   *Rom 3:23 - all have sinned & are deprived of God’s glory
   *Lk 1:47 - my spirit rejoices in God my Savior

2&3. 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
Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
Mt 16;19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
Lk 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 - given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
*Gal 2:11-14 - I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocrisy
Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
“Peter and his companions” Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
Spoke for Apostles - Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

1. The sale of indulgences is not and was not Church teaching.
2. Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21L 3,1169; De unit.L 4,509-536.

LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.
LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.
AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Water baptism doesn’t do anything to save a person from his or her sins. There are numerous doctrinal issues that divide Protestant denominations, but most of these issues do not seem to be of critical importance.

“For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.” (1 Peter 3:18-22)

(I know this was written by Peter the Poseur who should be completely discredited by now, but still he did manage to write something infallible. )

“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:36-39)

“Repent and be baptized” - wow, nothing about faith in that directive at all. And what is this about children? Is there a whiff of infant baptism here?

From Martin Luther’s Small Catechism:
Q. What does Baptism give? What good is it?
A. It gives the forgiveness of sins, redeems from death and the Devil, gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, just as God’s words and promises declare.

(This quote indicates that baptism is necessary for salvation. Thus, faith alone (sola fide) is not sufficient since baptism “gives eternal salvation to all who [have faith]”.)

So, I agree with you completely when you point out that Jesus did not come to “build what I must call my network of loosely-affiliated non-denominational fellowships.”

Great!

I must respectfully disagree that even Protestant scholars begrudgingly acknowledge He established a Church built upon Kepha. Peter is that “kepha.” There are big problems with that:

1. If Peter was a pope, how would we know he was?
2. If Peter was a pope, was he infallible, as the CC teaches?
3. Was Peter ever treated as though he was a pope?

How would we know who he was? Because Polycarp, Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch knew him personally. I must not understand your question…

Was he infallible? Of course. Jesus declared it: “Whatever you loose on earth is also loosed in heaven, whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)

There are two possibilities: first, whatever Peter says is later ratified in Heaven. Not likely is it? Second, whatever Peter says is already true in heaven; therefore, he is speaking infallibly of heavenly truths. Obviously, if Peter said, "I think we’re going to catch a lot of fish today, and then later it turned out that they caught nothing, that was not an infallible statement.

Was Peter ever treated as though he was a pope? Sure, he is listed first every time the Apostles are named in all of the Gospels, the book of Acts illustrates the authority of Peter on the day of Pentecost as well as at the council in Jerusalem, and even Paul went to see Peter to check his doctrine.

Hope this helps.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why do you say that “the Catholic Church today teaches the same message that the Apostles taught. But after 2,000 years we understand it better” when several teachings of the CC are nowhere to be found in the bible?

All of the teachings of the Church may be found either explicitly or implicitly stated in scripture. This is why the Catholic Church holds the Material Sufficiency of Scripture.

This could lead us off the topic, but a few quick thoughts:

1. Does the bible tell us not to use artificial BC?

Sure. Take a look at:

“Then Judah said to Onan, “Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.” But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.” (Genesis 38:8-10)

Whenever he was having sex with his brother’s wife, Onan withdrew and “spilled his seed” on the ground. Sounds like one form of birth control to me.

1. How does this illustrate the falsehood of sola scriptura?

You missed the point. The horns of the dilemma are that either 1) the above is false and Protestant churches were guilty of teaching this false “tradition of men” prior to 1930 when they unanimously opposed birth control, or that 2) they are now teaching against a doctrine that *is found in scripture *which means that their current teaching on this issue is a not of God but a mere “tradition of men”. Either the Protestants are guilty of teaching something not found in scripture prior to 1930 or they are doing that very thing today.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Assuming the bible does oppose artificial birth control, at best, you’ve proved that not all “Protestants” adhere to Sola Scriptura. The yearning for “tradition” is not just a Catholic thing.

Then why remain Protestant? *Sola scriptura *and *sola fide *were the pillars of the Protestant movement.

If you don’t believe sola scriptura, then come on home! We can talk about *sola fide *along the way!