My response to a Catholic challenge

[CatholicMatthew]

BouleTheou:

I believe Jesus held all men individually responsible for knowing the truth on all matters of faith and morals. Thus, I believe each individual has the authority from God to read and understand Scripture. All of those passages I cited prove that without question.

Now you are saying something slightly different then what you were before. You may have intended one or the other all along but this is different than earlier. Yes, Jesus holds us all accountable and responsible for knowing and seeking the truth. We find that in union with the Church that is “the pillar and ground of truth”. We know that all scripture is usual for reproof and teaching but it is not the pillar and ground of truth.

The bible is the Written Word of God. However, holding us responsible for knowing truth and each of us having the authority to interpret scripture is a huge logical jump you have not even begun to show or you have not shown us anything that says that scripture gives authority for private interpretation.

God calls us to know the truth and we are responsible for that.
Individual interpretation of scripture has guarantees that most do not know the truth. 1=1 and 1 not equal 1 cannot both be true.

BouleTheou:

The answer I seem to be hearing from all of you is that, no, Jesus did not hold men accountable for knowing his truth and that each individual does not have the authority, from God, to interpret the Bible for himself. This then leads to the next question: How then can anyone come to believe that the Roman Catholic Church is what it claims to be? Every conversion story I’ve ever heard or read has over and over and over again pointed to individual, private interpretation of Scripture as being foundational to the conversion itself. But if men do not have the authority to interpret Scripture for themselves, have you not just sawed off the branch of the tree you are sitting on?

Again, see above. Jesus holds us accountable for knowing and seeking the truth. However, responsibility to know truth and scriptural interpretation authority are miles apart. Here is your syllogism
Christ held people responsible for knowing truth on Faith and morals, therefore we have authority to interp scripture.

A therefore C is illogical and false.

We all have the individual ability to read and grow from scripture but it must be in the context of a well formed conscience that is held up to the bar that Christ gave us so that we may not go astray from truth. It is obvious with the various sets of beliefs that most protestants do not have the right set of beliefs. This is simply shown by the great number of contradictions. It must be so, without argument.

If we form our conscience and weigh our personal understanding of scripture against the pillar and ground of truth than our interpretation is not just private but is hopefully guarded against error that the protestants have fallen into.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Originally Posted by BouleTheou
*Luke -

None. But it was oral before it was written down. It pre-existed the church because it created it.*
BT,
Actually, this is the official position of Roman Catholicism in how Scripture came into being. That is to say it was a oral tradition before it became written. The second part that scripture pre-existed the Church is false. You yourself admit that it was oral tradition before it was a written letter. That letter was then written to a particular people in a particular time. Later these were gathered and then the Cannon was determined by the Church.
Remember, Christ did not command the scripture to be written. He did command the oral preaching of the Church for the salvation of sinners.
Under the Mercy,
Matthew

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

mercygate -

Not at all. You’re just starting to understand the actual Protestant position on this matter rather than the misrepresentation of it by Karl Keating and the gang at Catholic Answers. The real question for the Catholic is this: If you reject the proposition that all special revelation was committed to Scripture, then by all means tell us the part that wasn’t. Mercygate, I’m listening

The straw man most Catholics are used to fighting against doesn’t put up much of a fight…

BouleTheou

Boule, if you accuse me of fighting a straw man in my view of Sola Scriptura you have the wrong target. I can defend the doctrine better than most Protestants, and have done so on these forums in the interest of **not **attacking a straw man. The fact that I held a “high doctrine” of Sola Scriptura before my conversion actually makes my embrace of Holy Tradition richer for my own understanding and more credible.

Others have cited for you many places in Scripture that support the “Church, which is the ground and bulwark of truth” as including Sacred Tradition. “Special revelation” does not apply to Sacred Tradition revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle. The guidance of the Holy Spirit entrusted to the Apostles in John 20:22-23 is the means of interpreting Revelation and applies as we grapple with issues that did not exist in the first century. Others have quoted sources outside Scripture which affirm the early dates of supposedly late Catholic inventions.

A remark like, Mercygate, I’m listening" fails to augment your position and gives the (hopefully) false impression that you are thoughtless and sarcastic and that you are more interested in a battle than in understanding the Catholic position.

 

[JPrejean]

All of those passages I cited prove that without question.

First of all, that’s not true literally because people have questioned it here.

Second, it’s not true logically based on the numerous arguments presented above.

Third, it’s just a dumb thing to say, because it would mean that all Catholics are irrational, dishonest, or ignorant (otherwise, they would agree with you). That doesn’t even pass the “straight face” test.

Every conversion story I’ve ever heard or read has over and over and over again pointed to individual, private interpretation of Scripture as being foundational to the conversion itself. But if men do not have the authority to interpret Scripture for themselves, have you not just sawed off the branch of the tree you are sitting on?

Conversion is sola gratia; the fact that individual, private interpretation played a part in the process doesn’t make individual judgment definitive. My interpretation may allow me to recognize that what the Church says is true, but what the Church says is true whether I recognize it or not.

 

[BouleTheou]

Mercygate -

If you really do understand our position, then you know the only way to refute it is to show us another God-breathed source of divine revelation that exists outside of and is different in content from Scripture.

Have at it.

BouleTheou

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

Mercygate -

If you really do understand our position, then you know the only way to refute it is to show us another God-breathed source of divine revelation that exists outside of and is different in content from Scripture.

Have at it.

BouleTheou

Members of this forum, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and other resources have all done that to exhaustion. I will not try to convince you that the Catholic position is the only one that makes ultimate sense. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. More words at this point would only show my lack of faith in the power of the Holy Spirit to convict your heart.

 

[papist1]

The Oral torah was true, not traditions of men.

Just as the Traditions handed down by the apostles were true, and still are today.

The Canon of scripture, made official in 382ad by Pope damasus and then again in 393 and 397 and Hippo and Carthage, are the greatest form of sacred Tradition we have.

This is why there were 73 letters within the official canon of scripture until 1521ad.

The Bible is a Catholic Book, written, protected and canonized by the one Church in existence between 33ad and 1521ad.

There was no other church, with no toehr doctrine in these years. The orthodox Church was still Catholic, so I am not using it as a seperate example.

 

[BouleTheou]

Mercygate -

Please give us five examples of doctrines which were taught by Christ and the apostles, which are not taught in Scripture, which are essential to the Christian faith. Citing the Catechism isn’t going to cut it. Give some examples.

Thanks,

BouleTheou

 

[BouleTheou]

jprejean -

Conversion is sola gratia; the fact that individual, private interpretation played a part in the process doesn’t make individual judgment definitive. My interpretation may allow me to recognize that what the Church says is true, but what the Church says is true whether I recognize it or not.

And it doesn’t get any more circular and self-defeating than that.

BouleTheou

 

[BouleTheou]

papist1 -

The Canon of scripture, made official in 382ad by Pope damasus and then again in 393 and 397 and Hippo and Carthage, are the greatest form of sacred Tradition we have.

The canon was not made officiel in 382 from the Roman Catholic perspective. It was April of 1546 at the Council of Trent that the very first ecumenical council made an infallible officiel declaration of the canon. Your own Catholic Encyclopedia even admits that. So, from your perspective, I guess that means not a single Christian person had any certainty at all about what books were supposed to be in the canon.

BouleTheou

 

[Chris_W]

BouleTheou:

The real question for the Catholic is this: If you reject the proposition that all special revelation was committed to Scripture, then by all means tell us the part that wasn’t. Mercygate, I’m listening

The straw man most Catholics are used to fighting against doesn’t put up much of a fight…

BouleTheou

I posted this a while back on this thread…perhaps you missed my post, where I said, “Jesus spent forty days after His Passion teaching the Apostles, and we have no record of what He said or did (Acts1, 3).”

Would you have us believe that what Jesus taught the Apostles during this time was not important? Or, if it was important, then where do you suppose we can learn what He said? If you would argue that the subsequent letters of the Apostles contain all Jesus taught during that time, then I would ask you for evidence to support that notion (i.e. where does it say that?).

So I ask you then, Boule, to provide your evidence that that all revelation was committed to scripture, when it seems pretty clear in Act 1, 3 that is not the case.

I would also like to hear your explanation of how it is that men of good will do infact disagree on matters of faith. You have yet to explain how this is possible by your methodology.

Why is it that everyone doesn’t agree with what you find so plainly obvious? Would you actually claim that Boule has found objective truth via private interpretation, and thus everyone who disagrees with Boule is wrong? This would mean that only those who believe exactly what Boule beliveves are truely being led by the Holy Spirit. And, if you would be so bold as to make these claims, couldn’t I then accuse you of claiming the very gift of infallibility that you deny the Catholic Church is capable of?

If you merely ignore these challenges, I will conclude you are not interested in a productive dialogue and I will engage other people in these forums who do want a productive dialogue.

 

[BouleTheou]

Chris W -

Please tell us what exactly it was that Jesus taught his apostles that was not later committed to the New Testament. Do that, and Sola Scriptura is defeated once and for all.

BouleTheou

 

[jpusateri]

BouleTheou:

Chris W -

Please tell us what exactly it was that Jesus taught his apostles that was not later committed to the New Testament. Do that, and Sola Scriptura is defeated once and for all.

BouleTheou

An effort doomed to failure if one decides a priori that there can be nothing reliably known about Jesus’ teachings apart from the New Testament.

Catholics do not hold such a view.

Also, since Sola Scriptura is an assertion, it is up to those who assert it to provide reasons. I have seen MANY and none hold up. It all comes down to the interpretation of the Bible and I’ll stick with the infallible interpreter who says Scripture is NOT alone.

 

[RMP]

Previously stated:

“I believe Jesus held all men individually responsible for knowing the truth on all matters of faith and morals. Thus, I believe each individual has the authority from God to read and understand Scripture.”

The above statements are true, but only 1/2 of the story is here.
point 1:
Men ARE personally RESPONSIBLE for learning the truth of ALL matters concerning Faith and Morals. (CATHOLICS teach the same.). The question is HOW do we do this? How do we learn to know ALL matters of faith and morals? My consciense doesnt always get it right… No, We learn from people around us as well as scripture. ORAL and WRITTEN.
If men are responsible for ALL matters of faith and morals, then we should NOT be in disagreement over matters of faith and morals. We should all be speaking of the same faith. (Universal!)
Unfortunately, this is hardly what is happening on this forum or the rest of christian apologetics.
point 2:
Responsibility and authority are totally different. I have a responsibility to know ALL truths in Faith and Morals. (unfornately, learning may take a lifetime) I beleive in my own free will to choose or look for truth. But that does not give me personal AUTHORITY to MAKE something true or false concerning my FAITH and MORALS. That authority was given toPETER. Truth exists despite what I determine it to be, or there is no such thing as truth. Just because I believe something does not make it to be true. History has shown us that man cannot make something true or false. It is true or false regardless of the way we think about it. This why our faith can only be KEPT and PROTECTED from foreign ideas and novelty additions. Elements of Faith are passed on from one generations to the next. That is what the Catholic church gives us. The more I grow up challenging the Catholic church, the more I realize how misled I was in my own devices and trust the church instead. Im slowly becoming a BLIND beleiver you might say. Removing my own will and trying to receive the Lords MESSAGE.

The deposit of truth was here before you or I was born. IT has to be passed on. But w/o proper guidance, and u being left to your own devices, u will not find IT w/o out a visible authority in this world to pass it to you. SCRIPTURE and TRADITION (Catholic) is the only way. Otherwise you must depend on luck.

If you think otherwise. Then please settle this matter. ASK christ himself what is going on? After all, u seem to be guided by the spirit, while we Catholics all seem the be lost in our traditions of men!.. Oh, and be sure to tape record his answer, because we will expect nothing less, just like you expect from us and our history of the church and our oral traditions.

I am only trying to make a point. I conceded to the half truths of this discussion. Trying to show love and charity.

Observation: If heretical thinking is getting me this upset, what must GOD be feeling? I know, I know. Love, patience, longsuffering mercy.

Thank GOD I’m not the one in charge. Thank GOD, I dont have AUTHORITY. Do I still have responsibilty? Oh yeah, I’m a Catholic. Better go find out what the Pope thinks about this matter. Make sure I havent stepped out of bounds.

All u Caholics trying to make a dfference, THANK YOU.

 

[Fidelis]

jpusateri:

An effort doomed to failure if one decides a priori that there can be nothing reliably known about Jesus’ teachings apart from the New Testament.

Catholics do not hold such a view.

Also, since Sola Scriptura is an assertion, it is up to those who assert it to provide reasons. I have seen MANY and none hold up. It all comes down to the interpretation of the Bible and I’ll stick with the infallible interpreter who says Scripture is NOT alone.

This is exactly the issue, since you started the thread as an answer to the original challenge:

I challenge you to prove to me that each individual reader of the Bible has the authority, from God, to interpret the Bible for himself so as to come to an understanding of what is true and what is false on all matters of faith and morals.

You have answered this challenge to nobody’s satisfaction but your own. The question remains: how can you justify the completely unbiblical and unworkable doctrines of private interpretation and Sola Scriptura? So far you have failed miserably resorting to answering questions with questions and deluding yourself that you have proved your point from your own flawed interpretation. Prove it to us from your own standard–Scripture-- or your whole premise collapses and your failure is complete.

 

[RBushlow]

BouleTheou:

Chris W -

Please tell us what exactly it was that Jesus taught his apostles that was not later committed to the New Testament. Do that, and Sola Scriptura is defeated once and for all.

BouleTheou

Sola Scriptura is already defeated. Why? Because it is self contradictory. Sola Scriptura says that all true doctrines and beliefs must come from Scripture Alone. Since the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” is not in Scripture, it is, therefore, false.

Yours in Christ.

 

[Chris_W]

BouleTheou:

Chris W -

Please tell us what exactly it was that Jesus taught his apostles that was not later committed to the New Testament. Do that, and Sola Scriptura is defeated once and for all.

BouleTheou

Hmmm. You are asking me to disprove a negative statement. You see, Catholics realize that not all of God’s revelation to man was written in the Bible. We acknowledge that truths, and the more thorough explanation of what was in fact written down, has been handed down from the oral teachings of the Apostles and is protected from error by God, through the Catholic Church.

Conversly, Protestants make a *positive * claim, that everything we need to know was written in the Bible. This relatively new assertion can in fact be examined, which I why I asked you to explain Acts 1, 3.

What you are asking for could be likened to a person asking me to prove there is no life on Jupitor. All I can say difinitively is that we have no evidence to support the claim that there* is* life on Jupitor, and therefore the burden of proof is on the person who would make such an outrageous assertion.

Does that make sense?

I could point you to every authoritative statement made by the Catholic Church over the course of her 2000 year history. I could say that these explanations, or perhaps better yet, the theology behind those explanations of revealed truth were not written in the Bible but are indeed part of the Apostolic Tradition that has been handed down. But would you give credence to any of them? You have no way whatsoever to approve or disapprove of any infallible statements made because you rely exclusively (so you say) on the Bible, and the whole reason they were necessary is because the Bible is not plainly obvious and clear on the topic. So for you and I to debate those statements is absolutely pointless, in my opinion.

Therefore, in the interests of all our time, and since you are the one making the positive claim, I again ask you to address the challenges I posed in the previous post.

 

[JPrejean]

And it doesn’t get any more circular and self-defeating than that.

What an odd response! “Circular” and “self-defeating” would imply that I was making an argument, which I obviously wasn’t. I just stated the Catholic position; I didn’t claim (or even try) to prove it. Your question was whether we had sawed off the branch upon which we were standing by people having been led to the Church by their personal interpretation of Scripture, and the answer was “No.” The reason is that we consider interpretation of Scripture to be one of many fallible methods by which humans arrive at the correct rule of faith, but there is a need for grace to obtain faith no matter what the means. When we present Scriptural arguments, it is not because we consider them necessary or infallible, but because they act as a relatively common (though fallible) means by which people come to faith through God’s grace.

 

[RMP]

I believe Jesus held all men individually responsible for knowing the truth on all matters of faith and morals. Thus, I believe each individual has the authority from God to read and understand Scripture. All of those passages I cited prove that without question.

Is this the Protestant creed? You believe we have responsibility to learn and know, therefore GOD gives you authority to read and understand? …So we all have authority now? Just read and understand. Thats it?

You dont need authority to read and understand, you have free will to do that as you choose. You need authority to Interpret and TEACH Infallably . So GOD gave you the gift of infallability, just from reading and learning, because of responsibility?

Man, I give up, I guess we Catholics just missed the boat this time! And the bible proves it without question. And it took Luther 1500 yrs to finally get this right. How could I, Igantius, Clement, PJ II, Augustine, and all the other SAINTS have been so stupid…NOT!

Now I free guilty. Why would GOD show me the road to ROME, but hide it from you? You have spirit, and your own authority, You should use it more responsibly.The spirit cannot mislead, it cannot divide. What happened? Id like to know. Why is our house divided? We both choose to be christain.

Quit trying to figure everything out by yourself, We have THE Church to do it for us…All you have to do is pay attention and act upon what is being taught…in the CATHOLIC church.

Doesnt Jesus talk about submission and humility to authority. Are you a preist or pastor now? Your own authority on GOD? A preist or pastor of what? A symbolic eucharist, and invisible church, a world of total depravity, a world devoid of goodness, for men of infinate corruptability, of only 144000 people, ect. what ever denominations you hold too that may try to water down the previous issues. OR do you have your own denomination yet?

By GOD’s authority… I protest against your protest against the Catholic church! The Holy spirit has demanded I do so.

 

[mayra_hart]

examples of jesus’ and the apostles’ reliance on oral tradition matt. 2:23- the prophecy " he shall be a nazarene" is oral tradition. it is not found in the old testament. this demonstrated that the apostles relied upon tradition and taught by oral tradition. matt 23:2- jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging moses’ seat of authority (which passed from moses tojoshua to the sanhedrin). this is not recorded in the old testament. god make me an instrument of your peace.