My response to a Catholic challenge

[PhilVaz]

boule/Patrick << 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. >>

BTW, to get the story straight on Newman, the early Papacy, Vatican I, and papal infallibility, you can read these articles

Cardinal Newman and papal infallibility in reply to Salmon
History of Vatican Council I in reply to Salmon
The early Church and the Papacy by Mark Bonocore
Rome has spoken, the case is closed: Augustine and the Papacy by John Chapman and other articles in this series

Phil P

 

[ANWK]

Hi BT,

I’ve been following this thread with much interest and read above that you said that the Holy Trinity is “a doctrine attested to on every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation”

Are you tying to say that a lay person who has never heard of Christianity and given just the Bible with no external help can come to the conclusion that God is Trinitarian, that He is actually 3 persons, equal in splendour, power and majesty and yet still remain one God, not three?

Are you saying that ANYONE that asks of help from the Spirit can come to this conclusion? (assuming of course that he even understands that such a thing as the 3rd person of the Trinity even exists in the first place)

Tell me, did you come to this conclusion that God is Trinitarian in nature just by reading the Bible, or did someone tell you so? Did you discern this truth or did someone tell you about it?

My point here is that the Trinity is not as clearly spelt out in the Bible as you make it out to be. How can it when it took the early Christians centuries to formally understand what it actually is? Either that or the early Church Fathers which included intellectual giants like St Augustine, St Jerome, St Basil the Great, St Eusebius etc must have been complete idiots compared to us today. Men that needed a couple of hundred years to figure out a concept (the Trinity) that we can so easily understand and rattle off after 5 minutes of Bible studies. Guess it must be the poor nutrition back then.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

BouleTheou:

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

There is an old Dominican flogging me for saying this:
No, scripture is the only place that we know infallibly contains the teachings of Christ.
When I meant this:
No, scripture is the only place that we know infallibly contains the teachings of Christ as he gave them.

This is clearer if you read the sentence after the one above. What I was refering to are the apocryphal gospels that are not in the NT versus the ones that are in the canon.

Oh, and if a bishop asks, I do agree 100% with Trent.

BouleTheou:

You then said:
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.

Well, if it is something that is biblically consistent but not directly listed is that ok?

Ban on Contraception (consistent with the Bible but also in Natural Law–another form of revelation)
Immaculate Conception
The Canon of the Bible (it just isn’t in the Bible–well, in the table of contents added by a Catholic and then butchered by a protestant)

BouleTheou:

??.. ok

Some scientists theorize that we could possibly hear the voice of Christ.

BouleTheou:

No, No, No, No. I’m saying that’s the only source she possesses.

Wrong answer. Read Humane Vitae and read the parts about Natural Law.

BouleTheou:

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.

Actually, they do. If you want to talk about the Protestant concept of justification(there really isn’t just one but a whole bunch of different concepts) we can easily refute sole fide by looking at the points in the Bible that say “work out your salvation” (phil 2:12) or “baptism is what saves”(1 peter 3:21) or you could read Romans 2:12-16. Protestants kindly forget these verses. Also, it nevers say that the only way anyone can get to heaven is by having faith in Christ alone. Does it? Ahh, I see what it is. You don’t hate Catholicism but just what you have been taught to think it teaches. A few Catholics that misrepresent, unwittingly, what a medal means to them. A few ex-Catholics (usually bitter because they can’t divorce and remarry–talk about unbiblical) that rant about nasty stuff.

So, if you think these doctrines have no foundation in scripture, are they 1) inconsistent with it 2)special revelation? You are trying to argue both sides of the coin and it is irritating.

One the one hand you say that Catholics have nothing outside of scripture and on the other that they have all of this outside scripture. Mean what you say and say what you mean.

Why do you hate Catholicism so much? Why has it hurt you so?
Whose approval are you trying to win by this work?

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[Ella]

Boule/Patrick, I have a question for ya. Do you believe that Catholics are saved? Do you believe that Catholics go to heaven?

 

[Chris_W]

Boule,

I was away from the computer for the last day and a half, so sorry it has taken me a while to respond (had a golf tournament that I had to go to for work, gotta do what’s required to keep my job ).

Anyway, When I said not all of revelation, or the teaching of Christ are contained in Scripture, I am not saying we have some secret documents somehwere that quote Jesus. What I am saying is that Jesus taught the Apostles, explained truths to them, explained scriptures to them and that these explanations are a deposit of teaching called Apostolic Tradition, which is not recorded in scripture. Will you argue this point?

We know, and you must admit, that the Bible says Jesus taught the Apostles for forty days after His Passion, yet we do not see where those teachings are recorded in the Bible. And we know, and you must admit, that the Bible says it could not contain all that Jesus said and did, or it would take more books than the world contains. Therefore, the Catholic position is consistant with the Bible. Please explain how you position is consistent with the Bible.

Additionally, I still cannot get past the fact that you cannot explain, and thus far have refused to even attempt to justify, how your methodology, if it were correct, could possibly work. How can I determine for myself which books are contained in the Bible since the original manuscripts no longer exist? How can I determine for myself if the current Bibles we have today have been properly translated? How can I determine by myself, when two Christians disagree, which (if either) interpretation is correct?

For about the third time in this thread, I am pleading with you to answer my question, How does your methodology work, Boule? Do you really expect to convince people of the “truths” you have learned, if you cannot explain how that applies to us? You keep insisting you have found the truth, but if I can’t figure out how to use the “truth” you are arguing for, I cannot even consider it.

Please!..Help me out here…How does it work? How can a person use your formula and arrive at truth with any sense of confidence? If you will not, or cannot explain this, I will conclude, as I have thus far, that it doesn’t work, and therefore cannot be true, no matter how emphatically you argue for it.

 

[RBushlow]

ANWK:

Hi BT,
I’ve been following this thread with much interest and read above that you said that the Holy Trinity is “a doctrine attested to on every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation”

Are you tying to say that a lay person who has never heard of Christianity and given just the Bible with no external help can come to the conclusion that God is Trinitarian, that He is actually 3 persons, equal in splendour, power and majesty and yet still remain one God, not three?

Are you saying that ANYONE that asks of help from the Spirit can come to this conclusion? (assuming of course that he even understands that such a thing as the 3rd person of the Trinity even exists in the first place)

Tell me, did you come to this conclusion that God is Trinitarian in nature just by reading the Bible, or did someone tell you so? Did you discern this truth or did someone tell you about it?

My point here is that the Trinity is not as clearly spelt out in the Bible as you make it out to be. How can it when it took the early Christians centuries to formally understand what it actually is? Either that or the early Church Fathers which included intellectual giants like St Augustine, St Jerome, St Basil the Great, St Eusebius etc must have been complete idiots compared to us today. Men that needed a couple of hundred years to figure out a concept (the Trinity) that we can so easily understand and rattle off after 5 minutes of Bible studies. Guess it must be the poor nutrition back then.

Awsome. This is an excellent exposition of the issue. I wonder what **BouleTheou **will answer.
What Say Boule?

 

[kepha1]

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.

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.

All men are given a measure of faith, not the full measure of knowing truth. Some are given a full measure of a thimble full, and some are given a full measure of a barrel full, but full measures nonetheless. You are telling me the bible has all the answers to all moral questions. That, sir, is a joke. Give me a verse that condemns human cloning as immoral. Give me a verse that says a cancer patient can truthfully and morally decline the agony of another round of radiation treatments, which may or may not cause more suffering than the disease itself. Give me a verse that says it is moral or immoral to withdraw life support on a 95 year old in a vegetative state. You are telling me it’s up to the individual to be guided on all matter of faith and morals, without any moral expertise to guide them?

Nowhere in the bible does Jesus, or the Apostles, give out the gospel message to be possessed by each individual believer to interpret for himself. Nowhere. It was entrusted only to the Apostles and their successors to teach.

“…they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.”(Gal. 2:7)

“…in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” (2 Cor. 5:19)

“…in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” (1 Tim. 1:11)

• St. Timothy

“Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.” (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:4)

“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.” (1 Tim. 6:20)

“…guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim. 1:14)

So I challenge you, sir, to provide one verse that says the individual was entrusted with the gospel message, or even for self-interpretation for that matter. And where in the bible is “gospel message” reduced to scripture alone?

 

[kepha1]

I believe Jesus held all men individually responsible for knowing the truth on all matters of faith and morals.

Sounds a bit more like the serpent in the garden of eden, rather than our Lord.

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.

2Pet.3:16 …speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

We are accountable for our behavior, not for knowing all truth. Truth comes from God, our behaviour comes from ourselves.

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?

By apostolic succession, which is in the bible, which you deny. And by the testimony of many writings, some of which were later proven inspired by the Church after the writings proved that Jesus rose from the dead, and all the things He taught was true. Was else was proven along with the major tenents of Christianity is that the Church was who she always claimed to be. To deny the teaching authority of the Church is the same as denying the other teachings, like the Birth, Death, and Resurrection, or, or the Eucharist. To say otherwise is to deny history, and Protestants have done an excellent job in re-writing it.

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.

I have read of conversion stories of Protestants who come home to the Church through the study of philosophy, or history. This claim has no foundation, but indicates personal bias. Personal bias would influence ones personal interpretation of scripture, for if you can’t interpret a simple reality as to the common everyday nature of conversion stories which can be found in numerous places on the internet, how can you expect to interpret something as complex as the bible and be free of bias?

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?

No. We do have the authority to interpret scriptures. As long as our interpretation does not conflict with the teaching Church, and that gives us much more leaway than any individual could muster up.

kepha1

 

[Philthy]

BouleTheou:

In an email exchange I’ve been having with a Catholic apologist, I was given this challenge:

To which I responded:

Glad to take up your challenge. Jesus operated on exactly that method in his dealings with everyone he was faced with:

Thus, our Lord clearly operated on the assumption that each individual was responsible before God for not only knowing what the canon of Scripture was, but also its correct interpretation.
The fact that people come up with opposing interpretations says much more about human sin, pride, and blindness than it does for the need of an infallible interpreter.

BouleTheou

OK, let me get this straight. You want us to disprove the conclusions you reach and support based on your interpretation of what was not written in Scripture by the recipients of Christ’s words? That’s odd. Seems like a stretch to me. Well, lets look at your actual conclusions.
A) “Thus, our Lord clearly operated on the assumption that each individual was responsible before God for …knowing what the canon of Scripture was…”
Well, lets start with the basics. You shouldn’t get too many dissenters from this conclusion. Im Catholic and I agree with your conclusion. the problem is you haven’t said what you mean to say. What you mean to say is that our Lord operated on the assumption that each individual was responsible before God for INDIVIDUALLY DETERMINING and knowing the canon. The fact that you left “individually determining” out hints at the fact that you might not fully appreciate the subtleties of the original challenge. Of course you can’t individually determine the canon - no one can. 5 minutes of honest reflection will lead you to this conclusion. You may reach intellectual certainty beyond reasonable doubt but that’s a FAR cry from KNOWLEDGE my friend. Deal with it.

Gotta break this post up!

 

[Philthy]

Originally Posted by BouleTheou
*In an email exchange I’ve been having with a Catholic apologist, I was given this challenge:

To which I responded:

Glad to take up your challenge. Jesus operated on exactly that method in his dealings with everyone he was faced with:

Thus, our Lord clearly operated on the assumption that each individual was responsible before God for not only knowing what the canon of Scripture was, but also its correct interpretation.
The fact that people come up with opposing interpretations says much more about human sin, pride, and blindness than it does for the need of an infallible interpreter.

BouleTheou
*
*B)“Thus, our Lord clearly operated on the assumption that each individual was responsible before God for… its (Scripture’s) correct interpretation.”

Lets, for the time being, accept your conclusion: even so, where’s the beef? Catholics are individually responsible for knowing the correct interpretation of Scripture as revealed by the Church. You again fail to support the Protestant claim that each individual is responsible for INDIVIDUALLY interpreting scripture correctly. And that’s the whole point of the discussion. Leaving “individually” out of the conclusion is not mere semantics: it’s the essence of the debate.:yup:

Now, do the verses you quote even support your claim? Im not fully convinced - here’s why: First we’ll deal with “each individual” being responsible:

In all of these Matthew verses you’ve cited Christ isn’t just talking to just anyone, he’s talking to the Pharisees, the “chief priests and teachers of the law” v15,23,45 -the teachers of the people. **To extrapolate that “each individual” is held accountable to the same standard of knowledge as those put into the authority to teach is simply erroneous.

**The other obvious reality is that Jesus was teaching them using the Scriptures - he wasn’t necessarily judging them. He was showing them what was not so obvious from Scripture. He even says in Matt 22:29-33 “Jesus replied, ‘You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of god.’ He then goes on to say…‘have you not read what God said to you’…(and quotes some more Scripture) When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.” Here he is simply teaching, not saying anything about who should know canon, etc. He’s revealing the truth - and they are “astonished” by it. Kinda like they never even considered what he was telling them.

The fact that people come up with opposing interpretations says much more about human sin, pride, and blindness than it does for the need of an infallible interpreter. This, of course, isn’t even a conclusion - it’s an unsubstantiated opinion. It requires no further comment. BTW though, since we are all proud, blind sinners how are we gonna know the truth?

Blessings,

Philthy
*

 

[BouleTheou]

Greg -

I asked:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BouleTheou
*kpartlet/kotton -

How does one come to make the decision to embrace the correct infallible interpreter, without using the very private interpretation you condemn?

BouleTheou*

To which you then replied:

2 Timothy 3:14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,

How does this even begin to answer the question I asked about embracing the correct infallible interpreter of Scripture?

1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

Or this?

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Or this? Are you suggesting that what Paul taught them orally was not the same as what he wrote to them? If so, tell us what these extra-Biblical traditions are - I’m very curious.

remain faithful to what you have learned and believed

hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you

stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught

No idea how this answers the question I originally asked.

BouleTheou

 

[kepha1]

It is absurd to pit scripture against tradition, and to pit scripture an/or tradition against the Church. That is what Protestantism has done.
I am reminded of an atheist pathologist who, after doing autopsies upon tens of thousands of human bodies, declared that he has never found a soul. BouleTheou, you will never see the Church by disection.

kepha1

 

[Chris_W]

Boule,

I really had hope that you might attempt to explain how the theory you are arguing for might be implemented. That is to say, I really hoped to hear how you have determined for yourself what texts are to be included in the Bible. How you determined for yourself that the texts were interpreted correctly. How you resolve the problem that exists when two Christians, both utilizing your theory, come to different conflicting interpretations.

I was hopeful you might try to explain this to us, because every time I have asked these questions of a person who claims Sola Scriptura, my questions are always and without exception ignored. What conclusion can I possibly draw from these experiences, other than the fact that your theory is not functional or practical? Even those who claim to adhere to the idea cannot explain how to use the belief. What good is it then? Yet you continue to throw Bible verses out there trying to validate what you must know is false.

So now I will bow out of this thread, as the discussion is futile in my opinion.

 

[BouleTheou]

Chris W -

I really had hope that you might attempt to explain how the theory you are arguing for might be implemented.

Allow Scripture to have the final say in all matters of faith and morals.

That is to say, I really hoped to hear how you have determined for yourself what texts are to be included in the Bible.

Whatever books were received by God’s people as the Word of God are Scripture. This was done without the existence of an infallible teaching office in the OT, the same in the NT.

How you determined for yourself that the texts were interpreted correctly. How you resolve the problem that exists when two Christians, both utilizing your theory, come to different conflicting interpretations.

We go back to the text and look harder. Just as when two Roman Catholics disagree about the meaning of a dogmatic definition - they do not turn to yet another authority, they go back and try to understand the definition better.

Those are simple questions which I assumed you were asking only for rhetorical purposes. But since you were not, I’ve answered them.

BouleTheou

 

[Chris_W]

BouleTheou:

Allow Scripture to have the final say in all matters of faith and morals.

Whatever books were received by God’s people as the Word of God are Scripture. This was done without the existence of an infallible teaching office in the OT, the same in the NT.

Please elaborate, how exactly did God’s people receive the Word of God as Scripture? If you mean that you trust what the Catholic Church determined should be included, and that the Catholic Church correctly interpreted the original manuscripts, how can you say you determined for yourself what the cannon is? Nor does this address the issue of the various books of the OT that have been removed from the cannon by Protestants.

What’s more, if you are trusting the Catholic Church to have done things right when translating and compiling the NT, wouldn’t this be to say you trust that the Holy Spirit protected the Catholic Church from making any errors during that time?

BouleTheou:

We go back to the text and look harder. Just as when two Roman Catholics disagree about the meaning of a dogmatic definition - they do not turn to yet another authority, they go back and try to understand the definition better.

You’re missing something here. Catholics can turn to the infallible interpretation of the Catholic Church when disagreements arise…hence the infallible proclamations that have been made by the Catholic Church. If you mean to suggest that we rely on personal interpretation to determine what those infallible proclamations mean, your arguement falls flat because the source of those statements is still physically here on earth to clarify. With Catholicism, there is a means to resolve conflict. Outside the Catholic Church there is no means to resolve conflicting beliefs derived from personal interpretation.

For that matter, your answer doesn’t address the real issue. You said we have the ability individually to arrive at truth relying exclusively on personal interpretation of only the Bible. My question is, how do you account for disagreement when your theory doesn’t allow the possibility that two people would ever disagree? The fact that we do disagree, seems to me, disproves your whole theory.

Do you mean, instead, to suggest that we have the ability as individuals, based on private interpretation of only the Bible, except now you’re adding that we also need to discuss these issues with others to verify the correctness of the truths we’ve determined so that we can together decide for sure what is true?

BouleTheou:

Those are simple questions which I assumed you were asking only for rhetorical purposes. But since you were not, I’ve answered them.

BouleTheou

I don’t see them as the least bit simple, and you have not completed the expanation yet. Thanks for beginning to address them though, and I look forward to your continued explanation.

 

[Peace-bwu]

There was only one Jewish faith, one Jewish Tradition and the Cannon was generally the same throughout the community. The Old Testament Cannon didn’t change until the reformation. Why would they question the cannon as Christians must today? The cannon they used was the same as the Catholic Old Tesatment Cannon preserved by the Catholic Church today.

Many of the followers of Jesus, including the Apostles as well as the Pharasees did not understand Scripture the way it was intended, ( examples: focusing on illness as a result of sin, that the Messiah would be a Jewish King, a warrior that would raise the Jewish people above all others.) Jesus Himself said he came not to change the laws of Moses but to fullfill them. Without Jesus we would not understand Scripture the way we do today. Jesus needed to remind and teach His Apostles and sent His Holy Spirit to lead them, He said "Go out and Teach all that I have taught you , not , hurry up and write all these scriptures down on paper and figure out a way to mass produce it and then send copies to everyone so they can figure it out for themselves. Furthermore if the Holy Spirit wold lead every single Christian to understand Scripture there would have been no need for Jesus to commission the Apostles and for the Apostles to choose successors. We did’t invent this system, Jesus did. If Jesus intended for the Holy Spirit to lead every single Christian to understand Scripture without the help of the Authourity of Apostolic Tradition, there would not be so many Protestant denominations which interpret the Bible in thousands of different ways.

Your argument does not work becasue it was the Son of God Himself teaching the Apostles about Scripture, they weren’t reading it. It sounds like Jesus needed to explain and remind them of Scripture they already knew (since they were 13 or so they had these scriptues memorized?) they didn’t understand it’s full meaning without Hiim. Jesus then sent His Apostles to teach all that they had been taught. (not hand ppl a Bible and let them decide for themselves) You rely on Catholic Apostolic Tradition if you use a Bible, no matter what schism rewrote it.

You know what the Cannon is today, because The Catholic Church kept it intact, there would be no question about Cannon if it had not been changed to fit the theology of men during the reformation. So the Apostles had no question about Cannon, had no way of knowing 1500 years later some men would decide to take books out. They didn’t fully understand the Scriptures, or Jesus wouldnt’ have needed to teach them. Jesus sent the Apostles to go out and teach, the Apostles had successors, that chain has never been broken in the Catholic Church. You can trace it all the way back to Christ. Those poor souls who don’t have the benefit of Apostolic Tradition to teach them are trying to interpret everything for themselves and reinvent the wheel. How else do you explain so many misinterpretations among thousands of Protestant denominations? The Holy Spirit doesn’t lead us to confusion.

 

[Peace-bwu]

There is nothing wrong with private interpretation as long as it doesn’t conflict anything in the entire body of Scripture and the Tradition it came out of. Catholics read the Bible everyday, we just have the benefit of Sacred Apostolic Tradition so it makes it easier to interpret. Without knowing and understanding the Tradition Scripture was written in and from how can you possibly understand it completely? You trust Scripture but don’t trust the Tradition it was written from?

 

[Chris_W]

BouleTheou:

Whatever books were received by God’s people as the Word of God are Scripture. This was done without the existence of an infallible teaching office in the OT, the same in the NT.

BouleTheou

Not sure if I made this point in the previous post:

How do you figure the NT was “received by God’s people as the Word of God”…“without the existance of an infallible teaching office”?

Unless you have found all the original manuscripts that have been thought to be lost for centuries, then you do no have a NT (other than the documents provided by the Catholic Church, which are an translation of the original texts). The documents contained in the NT are not all of the documents that existed at the time. Rather the NT contains only the texts that the Catholic Church, employing the very authority you now deny, determined should be considered by God’s people to be divinely inspired.

You have no NT canon outside of the Catholic Church, because you have no NT outside of the Catholic Church, Boule.

 

[dominosNbiscuts]

moira:

If private interpretation works so well, why are there over 25,000 different Christian denoninations?

Well for starters, people are sinful thus imperfect. Hence their interpretations of scripture are bound to be imperfect and therefore differ.

With regard to Catholicism, there’s only one sinner doing all the deciding, hence only one very poor interpretation! And woe be to the Catholic who dares question any of it!

The real question is this: given the millions of Protestants in the world and the notion that private interpretation doesn’t work, why are there not also literally millions of denominations?

 

[mercygate]

dominosNbiscuts:

With regard to Catholicism, there’s only one sinner doing all the deciding, hence only one very poor interpretation! And woe be to the Catholic who dares question any of it!

Dom, at least get the facts straight before you make inaccurate statements like this!