My response to a Catholic challenge

[Luke]

BouleTheou:

Ok, let’s try to sum up here:

My Catholic friend challenged me:

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?

BouleTheou

Boule Theou,
In the first sentence in the above quote, you are correct on one account and incorrect on the other. First, you are correct that men are accountable for knowing the truth. However, the means in which they gain knowledge of that truth is where we differ. It is a matter of authority. You claim scripture alone as authoritative (including the interpretation of scripture by anyone). Catholics claim that the church has authority with the pope as its head. This does not mean that scripture is taken out of the equation; rather, it is only part of the equation. This means that personal interpretation is important and it is part of the conversion of many Catholics, but the interpretations that lead to conversion do not go against what the church teaches. We are not saying that individuals have the authority to interpret scripture; rather, we are saying that God may reveal Himself to some individual at any time through the scriptures. I ran in Protestant circles five or six years ago. I learned many things during that time. I had a true desire to know the truth; so, I started to investigate the Catholic faith. I have read many books and learned that many of the things that I believed about the Catholic Church were false. Please know that I have stood in your shoes before and that I am wanting most of all to carry on a charitable dialogue about something I am passionate about. Even when this conversation lessens, please continue to search for the truth. I think you might be surprised by what you find.
God Bless,
Luke

 

[BouleTheou]

Chris w -

I said:

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.

You then said:

Hmmm. You are asking me to disprove a negative statement.

Goodness, do you not know what a negative statement is? I’m asking you just the opposite. We who believe in SS are the ones who are constantly being asked to prove a negative. I’m asking you to prove your positive assertion that there is revelation from God not contained in Scripture. All I’m asking is: What is it?

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.

It is no such thing and you know it. Just tell me what Jesus said that wasn’t recorded in Scripture and I will abandon Sola Scriptura. What Protestants mean by Sola Scriptura is that there is a sole source of God-breathed revelation: Scripture. How do you defeat that negative statement? Show us some more revelation outside of Scripture.

Why don’t you just admit that neither you nor Rome can tell us any because it doesn’t exist? Honest Catholic apologists in debates with James White have admitted as much.

BouleTheou

 

[CatholicMatthew]

BouleTheou:

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.

Did Jesus teach things that are not recorded in scripture? Yes,

John 21:24-25
“It is the disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. There are also many other things Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

Do we know what they are? No.

BT, are you aware that something Jesus said is quoted in Acts but is not found in the NT? Can you find it?

Under the Mercy,

Matt

 

[BouleTheou]

catholic matthew -

Do we know what they are? No.

Hence, Scripture is the only source of Jesus’ teachings possessed by Christians today.

Thank you.

BT, are you aware that something Jesus said is quoted in Acts but is not found in the NT? Can you find it?

Yes, both of Saul’s narrations in Acts 9 and 26 quote Jesus directly.

BouleTheou

 

[CatholicMatthew]

BouleTheou:

It is no such thing and you know it. Just tell me what Jesus said that wasn’t recorded in Scripture and I will abandon Sola Scriptura. What Protestants mean by Sola Scriptura is that there is a sole source of God-breathed revelation: Scripture. How do you defeat that negative statement? Show us some more revelation outside of Scripture.

Why don’t you just admit that neither you nor Rome can tell us any because it doesn’t exist? Honest Catholic apologists in debates with James White have admitted as much.

It is a good thing I had an Old Preacher (Dominican) for philosophy. Do you want to know something that is revelation that is not scripture?
What is revelation? “Act of revealing; that which is revealed; divine communication; the Apocalypse”

The last part obviously refers to a book of the Bible but the first part is what we are looking at. You want to know a way that God has revealed Himself outside of scripture.

Walk to your bathroom and look in the mirror.

Walk outside and dig a 2’ deep whole.

Stare at a tree.

Drink water.

Look at the face of a child.

If you are married, desire and conceive another child ( you will really experience God then, you will participate in creation).

The whole created order is divine revelation. God reveals Himself in everything he creates. Listen to your heart how did you know what was right and wrong when it isn’t listed in the Bible. The law is written in your heart, just like it says in the Bible. God reveals His being to man long before and always without regard to the Bible. The Bible complements what God has already done. There is your revelation: the book of nature.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

Now you have two choices:
1.) Admit you are wrong and journey deeper in faith.
2.) show me that God does not reveal Himself in creation.

 

[BouleTheou]

Matthew -

Of course, I have differentiated between special and general revelation since they are not the same thing. My point the entire time has been to demonstrate that Roman Catholicism is not aware of any special revelation outside of what she possesses in Scripture. God most definitely does reveal himself in creation. Psalm 19, Romans 1, etc… Thus, your attempt to deflect the force of what just happened is rendered void of meaning.

BouleTheou

 

[CatholicMatthew]

BouleTheou:

Hence, Scripture is the only source of Jesus’ teachings possessed by Christians today.

No, scripture is the only place that we know infallibly contains the teachings of Christ. Many other things that are not in the Bible contain “teaching of Christ” but we do not know if they are infallible for sure. I wonder who determines that?

Second, there is a small amount of energy floating out there (according to scientists) heading into deep space that is the sound of Christ’s voice. It should be almost indetectable but who knows.

under the mercy,

Matt

 

[CatholicMatthew]

BouleTheou:

Of course, I have differentiated between special and general revelation since they are not the same thing. My point the entire time has been to demonstrate that Roman Catholicism is not aware of any special revelation outside of what she possesses in Scripture. God most definitely does reveal himself in creation. Psalm 19, Romans 1, etc… Thus, your attempt to deflect the force of what just happened is rendered void of meaning.

Then your question should have been worded more appropriately. So you are saying that all special revelation and what Catholicism teaches is in the Bible? Thank you.
I have to go to work. I will ask questions and hopefully explain your misunderstanding when I get home.

Matt

 

[BouleTheou]

Matthew -

No, scripture is the only place that we know infallibly contains the teachings of Christ.

Wow, you are now under the anathema of the Council of Trent with me.

From the Fourth Session we read:

This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures,[1] our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature[2] as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct. It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves,[3] the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

You then said:

Many other things that are not in the Bible contain “teaching of Christ” but we do not know if they are infallible for sure. I wonder who determines that?

No one because there are no “other things” that are not in the Bible. I’ve asked you to name a few at least half a dozen times now and you have neglected to do so each and every time.

Second, there is a small amount of energy floating out there (according to scientists) heading into deep space that is the sound of Christ’s voice. It should be almost indetectable but who knows.

??.. ok

Then your question should have been worded more appropriately. So you are saying that all special revelation and what Catholicism teaches is in the Bible? Thank you.

No, No, No, No. I’m saying that’s the only source she possesses. What she teaches is a whole different story. The papacy, purgatory, the catholic priesthood, the mass, indulgences, all the Marian dogmas, the catholic concept of justification, scapulars, rosaries, magic medals, etc have absolutely, positively no basis in special revelation (i.e. Scripture) whatsoever.

I have to go to work. I will ask questions and hopefully explain your misunderstanding when I get home.

Sounds good… looking forward to it.

BouleTheou

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

Matthew -

Of course, I have differentiated between special and general revelation since they are not the same thing. My point the entire time has been to demonstrate that Roman Catholicism is not aware of any special revelation outside of what she possesses in Scripture. God most definitely does reveal himself in creation. Psalm 19, Romans 1, etc… Thus, your attempt to deflect the force of what just happened is rendered void of meaning.

BouleTheou

Perhaps I did not make the point clearly enough in my earlier posts where I observed that the Church has never taught that there was any special revelation after the death of the last Apostle. Scripture is the privileged repository of Revelation, and the Church has been entrusted by the Holy Spirit with the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Anybody (Catholic or Protestant) engaging in a discussion like this without a firm grip on what the Church actually teaches on the matter is engaging in mere argument for its own sake.

 

[BouleTheou]

mercygate -

Perhaps I did not make the point clearly enough in my earlier posts where I observed that the Church has never taught that there was any special revelation after the death of the last Apostle.

That has never been the issue. Protestants and Catholics agree on that point. Where we disagree is this: did Christ and the apostles teach other things about Christianity which were not committed to Scripture later? We say: No. You say: Yes (although, Catholic Matthew apparently agrees with us on this point). All I’m asking is: What are those additional teachings?

Scripture is the privileged repository of Revelation, and the Church has been entrusted by the Holy Spirit with the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Are indulgences and the Bodily Assumption of Mary interpretations of Scripture? If so, where exactly are they found?

Anybody (Catholic or Protestant) engaging in a discussion like this without a firm grip on what the Church actually teaches on the matter is engaging in mere argument for its own sake.

I couldn’t possibly agree more.

BouleTheou

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

mercygate -

That has never been the issue. Protestants and Catholics agree on that point. Where we disagree is this: did Christ and the apostles teach other things about Christianity which were not committed to Scripture later? We say: No. You say: Yes (although, Catholic Matthew apparently agrees with us on this point). All I’m asking is: What are those additional teachings?
Are indulgences and the Bodily Assumption of Mary interpretations of Scripture? If so, where exactly are they found?
I couldn’t possibly agree more.

BouleTheou

The points you raise about indulgences, the Assumption of Our Lady and such actually do all have foundations in Scripture, even if they are not openly laid out on its surface. As you know, for example, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not unquestionably apparent from the surface of Scripture. A doctrine need not be superficially patent in order to be true.

If I were asking the questions you are asking, I would seek the answers in Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. A person of your zeal and intelligence should find this book a watershed – one way or the other.

Oh, “magic medals”? You know better.

 

[BouleTheou]

mercygate -

The points you raise about indulgences, the Assumption of Our Lady and such actually do all have foundations in Scripture, even if they are not openly laid out on its surface. As you know, for example, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not unquestionably apparent from the surface of Scripture. A doctrine need not be superficially patent in order to be true.

Few things make me angry more quickly than when such myths as “the Assumption of our Lady” and the dogma of indulgences - things without even the slightest foundation or faintest whisper in Scripture are paralleled with the blessed truth that there is one true God, three divine persons, the Holy Trinity - a doctrine attested to on every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Trying to draw a parallel between Mary’s Assumption / indulgences with the doctrine of the Trinity is offensive to my God.

If I were asking the questions you are asking, I would seek the answers in Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. A person of your zeal and intelligence should find this book a watershed – one way or the other.

Indeed, I did. Newman has given away the store. He admits that there was no papacy functioning in the first four centuries - just little seeds which sprouted over time. Now, compare that with Vatican 1’s pronouncement that the papacy is, “the ancient and constant faith of the universal church.” Sorry, one of them is dead wrong. They can’t both be right.

Oh, “magic medals”? You know better.

Yes, I know Traditionalist Catholics who use them on account of their endorsement by apparitions of Mary.

BouleTheou

 

[RMP]

WHAT ARE THOSE ADDITIONAL TEACHINGS?

So what if we cant list all the Churches oral Traditions formally. The church formally declares Oral Tradition seperate from scripture to be true. The church is infallable. It has the power to bind and loose. DO YOU? A lack of a list does not prove a lack of Oral Tradition outside of scripture. Your question is a good one, always has been, but your conclusion that somehow it doesnt exist anymore is the REAL LEAP of faith. You claim to have the spirit, yet the spirit is telling you there is no need for ORAL TRADITION, its all been written down, says who? You sure its the HOLY spirit telling you this? Because the BIBLE NEVER makes this case. Or at least admit YOU cannot be sure about this doctrine.
All we know is that the case is still open, the facts are ORAL traditonal exist today, it is not formally defined, and until the church formally defines it or declares it otherwise, we submit to the Churchs teaching authority.
Since the beginning of christainity, this has always been a belief. Prove me I’M WRONG. Prove to me that oral tradition has not been a belief in christainity since day 1 and thereby why would it not be allowed today? Until the Catholic church formally declares all ORAL traditions are contained in scripture, it is not the case. This is not a matter for you to decide or for you to declare. Scripture has not decided this for us either. None of the passages you will site can even come close to declaring all ORAL revelation HAS or WILL be recorded in scripture someday if not already. But by all means, please keep sharing your dissenting, heretical ideas with us on this forum. After all, the real issue is authority… do you have it, or do succesors from the apostles still have it? Last I heard, those guys still lived in the Vatican.

Assumption of MARY, Immaculate conception, these are based ORAL tradition even though not fully defined until recently. Even though you disagree with them …PROVE these beliefs are wrong. Tell me who made it up and when did they did it, And dont just cite the formal declaration made by the pope. The Bishops around the world seem to all disagree … WITH YOU and your disbeliefs about veneration of MARY.

Your disbelief proves nothing but your failure to understand. And if not a failure to understand, then it is your failure to submit to the authority of Peter’s successors.

 

[Sarah_Jane]

BouleTheou:

mercygate -

Newman has given away the store. He admits that there was no papacy functioning in the first four centuries - just little seeds which sprouted over time. Now, compare that with Vatican 1’s pronouncement that the papacy is, “the ancient and constant faith of the universal church.”

“I have for these 25 years spoken *in behalf *of the Pope’s infallibility. The other day a review (I forget what) observed with surprise that even in my article on la Mennais in 1838 I had tacitly accepted the Pope’s infallibility. I think I have spoken for itin my Essay on Development of Doctrine in 1845. In 1850 I have introduced the Pope’s Infallibility several times into my lectures at the Birmingham Corn Exchange. In 1852 I introduced it most emphatically and dogmatically into my lectures delivered at the Rotundo at Dublin. In 1856 I spoke of it in a new Preface I prefixed to the new Edition of my Church of the Fathers—and in 1868 I reprinted the passage from my Dublin Lectures in a collection of passages made by a Roman Jesuit Father on the dogma, in an Italian translation.”
****From letter to Alfred Plummer, July 19, 1872. Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, C.S. Dessain and T. Gornall S.J. editors, Volume XXVI, p. 139 (1974).]

 

[RMP]

Oh… and by the way. Newman was not catholic when he shared those beliefs of denying the papal office. He corrected his errors in thinking after converting to Catholism, an honest over sight.

History does matter.

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant…Chesterton.

 

[mercygate]

RMP:

Oh… and by the way. Newman was not catholic when he shared those beliefs of denying the papal office. He corrected his errors in thinking after converting to Catholism, an honest over sight.

History does matter.

To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant…Chesterton.

He corrected his errors in thinking before converting to Catholicism. He corrected the written record afterward.

“. . . deep in history . . .” Newman, not Chesterton.

 

[JPrejean]

BouleTheou:

Few things make me angry more quickly than when such myths as “the Assumption of our Lady” and the dogma of indulgences - things without even the slightest foundation or faintest whisper in Scripture are paralleled with the blessed truth that there is one true God, three divine persons, the Holy Trinity - a doctrine attested to on every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Trying to draw a parallel between Mary’s Assumption / indulgences with the doctrine of the Trinity is offensive to my God.

Fortunately, nobody made such a parallel, so there’s no need for you to get angry.

BouleTheou:

Newman has given away the store. He admits that there was no papacy functioning in the first four centuries - just little seeds which sprouted over time. Now, compare that with Vatican 1’s pronouncement that the papacy is, “the ancient and constant faith of the universal church.” Sorry, one of them is dead wrong. They can’t both be right.

Don’t poor arguments ever die? It seems like ages ago that I had this same discussion here with Jason Engwer, which in turn repeated the same exchange he had with Dave Armstrong and PhilVaz (e.g., bringyou.to/apologetics/debate30.htm). Anyway, the probability that Pius IX was contradicting Newman’s formulation of development is so small as to be practically zero.

First, Pius IX had been a Catholic theologian for decades, and the likelihood that he simply made a mistake or failed to realize that there had been dissent on matters like the papacy or the Marian dogmas is improbable in the extreme. It would be like imagining Einstein didn’t know Newton’s mechanics; he did so much work based on the very material that it would be virtually impossible for a reasonable person to conclude that he was unfamiliar with it. Second, Pius IX and Newman were contemporaries, and Newman was even involved in a controversy over whether declaring papal infallibility was a wise choice (although he later came to see the wisdom of that course). The fact that this controversy never even mentioned or alluded to a difference between the two on the development of doctrine surely creates a strong presumption that there wasn’t any significant disagreement on this point, since it would have been a key issue in the debate. Third, Pius IX himself used the language of development in those very same encyclicals, and moreover, even alluded to the existence of the very controversies of which he was supposedly ignorant.

Now there are some people who won’t be convinced by this argument, just like there are some people who are so biased that they believe that George W. Bush orchestrated 9/11 to provide justification to attack Saddam. But there must be at least a modicum of shared rationality to have any discussion at all, and frankly, anyone who would argue that Pius IX was contradicting Newman in this case is light of the facts that I presented is simply too biased to be worth the effort of reasoned debate.

 

[Luke]

BouleTheou:

mercygate -

Few things make me angry more quickly than when such myths as “the Assumption of our Lady” and the dogma of indulgences - things without even the slightest foundation or faintest whisper in Scripture are paralleled with the blessed truth that there is one true God, three divine persons, the Holy Trinity - a doctrine attested to on every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Trying to draw a parallel between Mary’s Assumption / indulgences with the doctrine of the Trinity is offensive to my God.

BouleTheou

BouleTheou
It is obvious that you are upset by the fact that mercygate brought up the issue of the Trinity. The fact is that the trinity was not formally established until the Council of Constantinople (in 389 I believe). So, it took almost 400 years to formally define the Trinity. Also, there were many heretical groups teaching false things about the Trinity. The differences in each group were miniscule in what they professed to believe. This is not to say that the heretical groups were right in what they said; rather, it was important that we had the Church to proclaim what was right and true. It took a church council to proclaim the true teaching of the church. Even then, groups disproved of this doctine. If it were so plain from the pages of scripture, how could people be arguing about it? How do we have groups like the Jehovah’s witnesses and the mormons today that do not believe in the Trinity if we all use the same scriptures? It is because they are not interpreting the scriptures correctly. They do not have the authority to do so. That authority lies solely with the Catholic Church.

God Bless,

Luke

 

[PhilVaz]

boule << If you reject the proposition that all special revelation was committed to Scripture, then by all means tell us the part that wasn’t. >>

You are a feisty one (Patrick/boule). Of course we don’t have problems necessarily with “all special revelation was committed to Scripture” its the correct and orthodox interpretation of that special revelation committed to Scripture that is the problem.

If we could narrow down the specific points where you disagree that would help. Keith Mathison (a Protestant Reformed scholar) has stated in his excellent book The Shape of Sola Scriptura that the visible Church, outside of which there is no salvation, our Mother, the pillar and foundation of truth, is the only authentic authoritative interpreter of Scripture.

See my “Spotlight” review of Mathison here

If you could agree and go as far as Mathison, then the main question is the identity of that visible Church that does the interpreting of Scripture. Which Church is it today?

Phil P