Questions about the Catholic Faith from a Protestant

[jpete79]

Jlcastagna:

jpete,

Just a few more things to ponder. The cannon of the bible was not finalized until almost AD 400. So for 350+ years christians had no Bible and even if they had less than 10% of the population could read. So, without the church they would have been incapable of even understanding the Bible. Sola Sciptura or Scipture and Tradition? You protestants make this Scipture or Tradition? Its not its both/and. Read “Where We Got The Bible” by Henry G. Graham, who wrote the book as a non-Catholic. So prior to 400 and even more realistically till 1500 when the printing press was invented, Sola Scriptura could not have been practiced anyway. If Christ had intended it to be this way he would have told us so explicitly and provided a means to carry that out. Or the Holy Spirit would have inspired someone.

As far as the Bible not talking about a line of Popes, well Barnabus was chosen to replace Judas as an Apostle and the early Church kept replacing Apostles/Bishops which form the line of Apostles which has replaced Peter as well.

And you still haven’t answered my quetion about which Church you would go to if a disagreement should arise? and if your answer is not the Catholic Church then What Church would you have gone to in 1500 or which church in say 350.

May God bless and protect us
JLC

Sorry JLC I didn’t see your question before…
In 1500 I really don’t know as that is when the reformation was taking place…However, now I would go to my home Church (which is an Evangelical Free Church)…in 350 I would probably go to a Catholic Church (probably but not definately). I am not saying that I have always disagreed with doctrine…I’m saying it has changed throughout time due to various Councils, Decrees, etc…

 

[JSmitty2005]

Jlcastagna:

Read “Where We Got The Bible” by Henry G. Graham, who wrote the book as a non-Catholic.

If you’re interested, it can be found online here:

geocities.com/militantis/biblecontents.html

 

[jpete79]

JSmitty2005:

As I’ve said time and time again, the infallibility of the pope is biblical. It’s a hard concept to grasp for some, but not for those who trust in Christ and know Church history. The Church taught the same doctrines and morals for the past 2000 years. The bad popes that the Church has had actually give witness to papal infallibility. Despite the fact that they were bad men, the Spirit prevented them from making any erroneous judgements on matters of faith and morals.

First Tradition stood alone, then Scripture and Tradition went hand in hand throughout the Church’s history. You can’t keep saying that the Church always believed in Sola Scriptura when the Scriptures weren’t always available. Then, once they were, it simply does not make sense for the Church to abandon Tradition since not everything is found in the Scriptures.

If the Spirit guided all in their biblical interpretations then we wouldn’t see all the divisions in Protestantism. Period.

I think you need to reread your history. The Protestants did their fair share of persecuting Catholics. They didn’t simply “ask for reform.” Luther was a nutcase that caused all sorts of rioting and carnage across Europe. Not to mention that he divided the Body of Christ, a much graver sin. By the way, he also hated the other reformers like John Calvin. They called each other heretics. You may be interested in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=87569

I’m glad you learned some things, but I don’t understand why you’re leaving. You asked us what we believed and why. Then, you objected to our reasoning and interpretation. Obviously that will spark a debate.

I hope that I can make it to Heaven, and if I do, I hope to see you there as well.

God bless!

In Christ,
Jon

Jon:

I admit that I am not “all there” today (I’ve even misquoted Scripture)…as I said before I lost a pet that I cared about.

All the quotes you talked about for false teaching can be seen from my side as well as yours because we view the Bible differently.

The reason I came here was because I had specific questions at first…I didn’t want to come into a debate…the original questions I had were answered…that’s the reason I said I was leaving is because it is becoming I SAY THIS and YOU SAY THAT which was never an intention of mine.

Like I said, I didn’t come for a debate; I wanted to know in what documents I could find traditions in so I can better know Catholicism (not join it though) just for my own knowledge.

Obviously you read the Bible differently then I do and we have obvious difference in thought patterns. I say all men are created in sinful nature and given Christ and the Spirit and can find a relationship with God without traditions (and they don’t need the Bible; they need Jesus Christ-the Bible is just a way to find Him).
I say if man does know Christ they can interpret Scripture (if they have it), however; they will not always do it correctly. Yet I don’t agree with the verses that you use to prove Papal infallibility, while you believe there is a Church infallibility and don’t believe in the verses I used to prove that Scripture alone can lead you to a relationship with Christ (remember there are 5 solas as well Scripture is only one…but my motto is Christ alone).

We are disputed on various points and I pray that you sincerely continue to search for truth (and I will always be doing the same)…my initial questions were answered and I wish you well. As I wish everyone else well too.

May the Savior, Redeemer and Lord of all bless you in every endeavor and avenue of life.

God Bless,
Jim

 

[JSmitty2005]

jpete79:

The Church is NOT the same as it was in the Apostlic Era.

The Church isn’t the same in its appearance, but it’s the same in its teachings. Again, reference the Church Fathers with today’s Catholic Church regarding Sacraments, teachings, and practices. I’m sure you’ve heard this before, but here goes: An acorn does not look like an oak tree, but it is the same thing. Organically they are the same. They have the same DNA. You can’t go back in time and replant the acorn. It’s already been planted by Christ.

jpete79:

Aren’t the ways of salvation and sanctification CLEARLY defined in the Bible? I say unto you, that if they are and our purpose is to be in communion with God and to glorify Him…why do we need to look outside the Bible? That is a question I’ve been asking all along…

The Bible isn’t clear enough for fallible men to come to a consensus. Obviously an infallible institution can do this, and an infallible institution can only be established by God Almighty. This happened when Jesus gave Peter the keys (which symbolize authority). Now, to address why we shouldn’t use the Bible alone, refer to my next post.

jpete79:

can I not have communion with God clearly through a relationship in Christ?

What better way to have a personal relationship with Christ than to be preached to by the people who knew the people who knew Christ Himself? Also, what better way to have a personal relationship with Christ than through the Eucharist?

jpete79:

What I want to know is why do I need to look to another source when the source of Jesus Christ is there? When the source of the Spirit is still inside me…

Again, read my next post. And, again, if you are in disagreement with another Christian that’s supposedly “guided by the Spirit,” then you’ve just proven yourself wrong. You even pointed out earlier in this thread that private interpretation is forbidden by Scripture itself.

jpete79:

I don’t want another person to ask me to defend Sola Scriptura because the Bible is God-breathed…I want to know what I need to know outside of what is written? How can any Church belief bring me closer to the God who is clearly defined in the Bible?

Obviously the Bible isn’t as clear as you’d like to imply. There are thousands upon thousands of different denominations within Protestantism - all having different interpretations. The same spirit cannot be guiding all. God is not the author of confusion, therefore, it’s not the Holy Spirit, but some ungodly one that has been guiding these denominations.

 

[JSmitty2005]

jpete79:

I admit that I am not “all there” today (I’ve even misquoted Scripture)…as I said before I lost a pet that I cared about.

I am sorry to here about your pet.

jpete79:

Obviously you read the Bible differently then I do and we have obvious difference in thought patterns.

Don’t take this the wrong way, but you obviously read the Bible differently and think differently than the historical Church. Just be careful not to have preconceived notions and then try to “prove” them with Scripture - read it with an open mind. (I’m not saying you did this, but many people do.)

jpete79:

We are disputed on various points and I pray that you sincerely continue to search for truth.

I wish the same for you as well.

Now, to address why we shouldn’t use the Bible alone (other than because Christ told us to listen to the Church), I’ll do that in my next post.

-Jon

 

[JSmitty2005]

I have to be honest, I am copying this from somewhere else:

Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura

By Joel Peters

What is Sola Scriptura?

“We believe in the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety as the sole rule of faith for the Christian!”

You may have heard these words or something very similar to them from a Fundamentalist or Evangelical Protestant. They are, in essence, the meaning of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or “Scripture alone,” which alleges that the Bible – as interpreted by the individual believer – is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian’s sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. By this doctrine, which is one of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism, a Protestant denies that there is any other source of religious authority or divine Revelation to humanity.

The Catholic, on the other hand, holds that the immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from the divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as “Tradition.” The teaching authority or “Magisterium” of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope), although not itself a source of divine Revelation, nevertheless has a God-given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian doctrine, the Christian’s remote or indirect rule of faith
Obviously these two views on what constitutes the Christian’s rule of faith are opposed to each other, and anyone who sincerely seeks to follow Christ must be sure that he follows the one that is true.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura originated with Martin Luther, the 16th-century German monk who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and started the Protestant “Reformation.” (1) in response to some abuses that had been occurring within the Catholic Church, Luther became a vocal opponent of certain practices. As far as these abuses were concerned, they were real and Luther was justified in reacting. However, as a series of confrontations between him and the Church hierarchy developed, the issues became more centered on the question of Church authority and – from Luther’s perspective – whether or not the teaching of the Catholic Church was a legitimate rule of faith for Christians.

As the confrontations between Luther and the Church’s hierarchy ensued and tensions mounted, Luther accused the Catholic Church of having corrupted Christian doctrine and having distorted Biblical truths, and he more and more came to believe that the Bible, as interpreted by the individual believer, was the only true religious authority for a Christian. He eventually rejected Tradition as well as the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (with the Pope at its head) as having legitimate religious authority.
An honest inquirer must ask, then, whether Luther’s doctrine of “Scripture alone” was a genuine restoration of a Biblical truth or rather the promulgation of an individual’s personal views on Christian authority. Luther was clearly passionate about his beliefs, and he was successful in spreading them, but these facts in and of themselves do not guarantee that what he taught was correct. Since one’s spiritual well-being, and even one’s eternal destiny, is at stake, the Christian believer needs to be absolutely sure in this matter.

Following are twenty-one considerations which will help the reader scrutinize Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura from Biblical, historical and logical bases and which show that it is not in fact a genuine Biblical truth, but rather a man-made doctrine.

 

[JSmitty2005]

Wow, it just hit me that this essay is like 30 pages long. So, I’ll just list the reasons and you can go to the link at the bottom to read in greater detail for yourself.

1. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible.
2. The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition.
3. The Bible Calls the Church and not the Bible the “Pillar and Ground of the Truth.”
4. Christ tells us to submit to the Authority of the Church.
5. Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.
6. The first Christians did not have a Bible.
7. The Church produced the Bible not vice-versa.
8. The idea of the Scripture’s Authority existing apart from the authority of the Teacher Church is utterly foreign to the Early Church.
9. Heresiarchs and heretical movements based their doctrines on Scripture interpreted apart from Tradition and the Magisterium.
10. The Canon of the Bible was not settled until the 4th Century.
11. An “Extra-Biblical” Authority Identified the Canon of the Bible.
12. The Belief that Scripture is “Self-Authenticating” Does Not Hold Up under Examination.
13. None of the Original Biblical Manuscripts is Extant.
14. The Biblical Manuscripts Contain Thousands of Variations.
15. There Are Hundreds of Bible Versions.
16. The Bible Was Not Available to Individual Believers until the 15th Century.
17. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century.
18. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Produces Bad Fruit, Namely, Division and Disunity.
19. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Allow for a Final, Definitive Interpretation of any given Passage of Scripture.
20. The Protestant Bible Is Missing 7 Entire Books.
21. The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Had its Source in Luther’s Own Emotional Problems.

geocities.com/militantis/solascriptura.html

jpete79, I don’t know whether or not you’re leaving the forums, but I just wanted to wish you luck on your missionary work. It’s great to hear that you’re bringing Christ to the world, now only if it were the fullness of Catholicism…

 

[JSmitty2005]

Some audio files (you need RealPlayer):

The Canon of the Bible

Sola Scriptura

Scripture & Tradition

Also, check out the audio files on my MySpace (the link is in my signature). You’ll have to stop the song (on the left) that comes on as well as the prolife video (on the right). The one is Tim Staples’ conversion story (former anti-Catholic Baptist). The other is Scott Hahn’s conversion story (former anti-Catholic Presbyterian minister). I don’t know if this is the end of this thread, but I hope everyone learned something. I sure got a lot out of it.

 

[AquinasXVI]

jpete:

I can understand not wanting to provide the proof that we are seeking from you. But if anyone is selling the idea that bible alone is the sole source of instruction, one has to provide this proof. I think for your own sake you have to take an honest look at this question for your entire theology is based on the this assumption.

Just take the US constitution, without the legislative and judicial branches to interpret that, every American going at it on his own, you’ll have 33,000 different United States of America. It makes no sense. What more a book written in a span of at least 4000 years with many authors?..denominational confusion. To press the analogy further: just because Clinton made his presidency a joke, the office of the presidency of the US remains and continues to be the seat of leadership for the US. This is the same with the seat of Peter. In a human sense, the organization and the claims of the CC makes complete sense.

I would juxtapose this with everyone claiming that they are guided by the Holy Spirit yet cannot agree whether contraception is wrong. The church guided by the Holy Spirit teaches and exhorts everyone to not practice contraception for it is wrong. That is not a matter of self interpretation.

You said that the councils and the decrees and the additional teaching through the centuries changed the teaching of Christ. Please back up a general statement like this with facts. You might be surprised that all the early heresies that were proven wrong by the church are the same things believed and taught today by non catholic christians.

Now, berfore anyone gets mad, I will say that so many non catholics are impressive and holy. I’m not questioning the individual integrity of my non catholic brothers. I’m merely asserting our systems of thought and practices.

in XT.

 

[mattrue]

sorry about your pet jpete. i will say a prayer to St.Francis for him/her. i believe we will reunite with our pets in heaven. we have a dog at home that just slipped 3 discs in his back. he walks ok for a while then he starts dragging his back legs. my wife is so upset about the whole thing. God Bless Ya Brother

 

[patrick456]

Sola Scriptura is very much like someone reading the constitution and interpreting it by himself.
of course we need someone to interpret it, like a lawyer for example since lawyers studied the law and know much better than us.
Just think if people started their own interpretation of the constitution.

the country would be in turmoil.

 

[Orionthehunter]

part 2. I apologize for the length. Complex issues require complex responses and I’m not smart enough to make the complex simple!

From jpete: I also agree that there are many writings from that era that are NOT included in the Bible. I have read quite a few of these and there are reasons why as they are inconsistent with other Gospels, their authority was never proven, and their timeframes also had errors. I actually have a book on various books that were left out and have read some of them. I will tell you the book also publishes the reasons why these books were left out from the Bible.

This shows that you have pursued this matter honestly and intellectually. Just keep in mind that it was the Tradition of the Papal/Magisterium authority that actually made the decision for these very reasons. If not for this authority, the “Bible” would be broader collection of writings including these heresies allowing for INDIVIDUALS to pick and choose that which they rely for instruction!

From jpete: I admit to not knowing in Paul’s day who actually said what was Scripture and what was not.

I hope I’ve addressed this- The Papal/Magisterium Authority established first by Christ and institutationalized by the Apostles.

From jpete: Now why would it make more sense to have a Book written then to let men have authority?

I think we have great “witness” of the results when “men” have authority of interpretation. We now have over 40,000 different Christian denominations all with their own interpretation of Scripture. If you were to defer interpretation to the individuals, you’d have 200 million different interpretations. See the next quote I address for further discussion on this matter.

Like I said before…even with the Spirit we are MEN. The Scripture is God-breathed as I said before which means its perfect, however, man is NOT. This means that we can interpret Scripture incorrectly; I never said we can’t. We have the same Spirit but still have the hearts of man, which means that we can incorrectly derive the Words of God.

I couldn’t agree more. Mere men are definitely inadequate to interpret Scripture. Even learned Biblical scholars are inadequate to interpret Scripture inerrantly. However, as you say Scripture is “God-breathed.” This is so true. Concurrently, if you hold that the Bible is “God-breathed” it is inconsistent to not award the same “God-breathed” status to the editors/compilers of the Bible-the Tradition of Papal/Magisterial Authority to speak on matters of correct interpretation.

Like I said I apologize for what I said earlier however, you say the Church is here to guide us. Well, if you concede that there have been wrotten Popes and various men who were part of the Church, then you can say you’ve had rotten leaders of the Church…the same people that can make and change doctrine. So directly the decisions of men that you condemned (only in the way that you disagreed heavily with their practice) are influential to Church theology. Now Church looks to doctrine that was created by men. The Church is NOT the same as it was in the Apostlic Era.

I will concede that we have had Popes who have lived lives inconsistent with the teachings of Christ. In fact, I’ll conceded that 100% of the Popes were sinners. I’ll also concede that many of them committed abhorrent sins. But I’ll challenge you to find one single “ex cathedra” teaching by any Pope polluted by the man’s individual sinful lifestyle.

“Ex cathedra” is when when a Pope talks infallibly and is inerrantly "God-breathed. Everything else while possibly inspired by the Holy Spirit and is most likely theologically correct as any Popes Scriptural knowledge is significantly greater than most, we aren’t required to accept this utterance as a matter of Faith.

I would like to see Della and Mercygate get involved in this thread and join Jsmitty. While Jsmitty is very learned and patient, as a cradle Catholic, he begins with a perspective that accepts and understands the concept of the inter-dependancy of Authority, Tradition and Scripture. (I too have this same weakness Jsmitty). However, Della and Mercygate are converts. As I’ve read so many of their posts, they have talked so articulately how once they submitted to the Authority, all other matters became understandable.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Jpete: Mark 34 is taken out of context. The passage refers to when Jesus was teaching the crowds. He would talk in parables to teach them because he knew they couldn’t understand. When he took his disciples aside, he would explain all that he was teaching to the crowds. This is saying that he was explaining the four parables to them not any unhidden truths.

My Bible doesn’t have Mark 34. I know this is a typo but I tried to find the passage that you meant to site by reading the other posts but I can’t find it.

From jpete: John in context is saying hold to what Christ commands…most importantly love God with heart, mind and soul; neighbor as yourself (this is not in that passage but when asked what the most important commandment was…this was his answer). The Spirit will come upon us and guide us. This I might add is the same Spirit that can help us translate Scripture.

First of all, the bolded section you say there may be correct. Do you have the Biblical passage that supports it? Second, considering the fact that the Apostles and their successors had to exert authority and even expel members who taught false teachings, it isn’t inerrantly reliable for you to rely on yourself. But the Apostles and their successors held out that they could be relied on inerrantly. This is why the Catholic Church held onto the pre-biblical Tradition of the Magisterium and they included this correction/authority to interpret in the Bible!

Continued on the following thread.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Jpete: Some of the documents that he wrote, along with two Gospels were in fact considered Scripture by the time he wrote to Timothy and Peter. Many historians will say that. Also, Paul knew the role that he was put in. He knew he did all those things but he also knew that he was a vessel for God’s work. His writings though were consistent with what Christ taught about salvation and what Luke told us in Acts.

Jpete, you raise so many issues in each of your posts it is hard to write a proper response to them all. I’d like to focus on just one issue- The genesis of the compilation of the Bible and Church Authority.

The Apostles took on a yeoman job after Pentecost- spread the Good News throughout the world. They dispersed and established local churches. The initial establishment of local churches was first an extended visit by an Apostle (or ultimately a successor) who laid hands upon a man to be the local Priest. This Priest/Pastor was entrusted to sustain the flock by bringing them together for prayer, worship, instruction verbally and the Eucharist.

The reason they met in small homes and other places were two-fold-

1. In many places they went Christianity was illegal.
2. They didn’t have the economic or organizational resources to establish physical buildings or hierarchies.

After an Apostle left a community to start another local church, the local church would gather on the Sabbath, say Mass by praying and worshipping and consuming the Eucharist (this was always the center of weekly worship). As I’m sure you understand, the faithful longed for “instruction” or the Word on the way of Christ so the ordained Priest (the one who the Apostle laid his hands upon) would do his best to retell a Gospel story but over time Tradition incorporated into the lessen a re-reading of the Letter from the Apostle sent to that particular local church or a story from Acts.

Quickly, it became evident that the fullness of the revelation didn’t transfer in the short time of the Apostles time with them and over time, false teachings began to develop requiring correction from the Apostles (and ultimately a successor). So the Apostle who started the Church would right letters back to them clarifying the instruction (it appears that what would become the Gospels were relatively well tranferred). This is similar to what a Bishop does now to clarify matters for local Pastors.

Additionally, the local church who had recieved a letter came to read that letter over adn over every week such that the Gospel message and stories of the Acts of Apostles had begun to be ignored.

Finally, because the false teachings became more rampant, a body of Scripture developed via Tradition that was manually copied and distributed among the various local Churches. The “editor” that determined which writings were to be considered Scripture and worthy of distribution was Peter and his successor and the Magisterium (Early early Church fathers in communion with Peter and his successor.

My point is that the Mass, the Priesthood, Tradition, and Papal/Magisterium authority all existed prior to the compilation of the Bible. Without these prior Traditions, there would be no Bible. In fact, it is the legitimacy of these prior Christian precedents that gives Catholics the same confidence that the Bible is legitimate. If it was the intent of the compilers (inspired by the Holy Spirit in their compilation) to say that now the Bible supercedes and eradicates the need for the Mass, Priesthood, Tradition and Papal/Magisterium authority), don’t you think they would have said that?

To deny the role of Papal/Magisterium authority in the compilation of the Bible is essentially reliance on superstition that it somehow appeared out of the sky.

 

[Mickey]

jpete79:

Tell me what is not in the Bible that I really need to know? Is not the way into Heaven clearly defined?

Hi jpete!

It’s not about what is in the Bible. It is about the interpretation of the Bible. Case in point:

The teaching is quite clear in Scriptures regarding the “Real Presence” of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. It had always been taught and interpreted this way until sometime after the reformation. But I am guessing that you do not accept this teaching. Why?

 

[CatholicChef]

Scotty PGH:

Start here, under the Library section on the left:

catholic.com/

BTW - you became Christian at the moment of your Catholic baptism, whether you realize it now or not.

I agree and would like to add that just because you “feel” you are a Christian doesn’t make it so. That is one of the biggest differences between protestants and catholics. Protestants seem to go more on feeling than faith. I in no way mean this as a put-down, it’s just what I have witnessed because I live in a majority protestant area and most of my friends and family are protestant and this is what they tell me.

 

[jpete79]

CatholicChef:

I agree and would like to add that just because you “feel” you are a Christian doesn’t make it so. That is one of the biggest differences between protestants and catholics. Protestants seem to go more on feeling than faith. I in no way mean this as a put-down, it’s just what I have witnessed because I live in a majority protestant area and most of my friends and family are protestant and this is what they tell me.

I just have a couple questions today but I’ll go one (maybe two) at a time…

Do you believe we are in fact given Salvation just for faith in Jesus Christ alone? I know Catholic merit talks about deeds but if a person is to have faith in only Jesus Christ, will he/she receive Salvation…

Also, even if tradition is authoritative as well as the Bible; do you believe the Bible is perfect (even if it is not the sole source of information)?

 

[mattrue]

we are saved through grace alone.

being saved is a process - when someone asks us “are you saved?” - the answer is i was saved, i’m being saved and i hope to be saved.

I’m saved (Eph 2:5–8), being saved (1Cor 1:8), and hope I’ll be saved (1Cor 3:12–15). I’m working out my salvation in fear (Phil 2:12), with hopeful confidence in Christ (Rom 5:2).

the bible is perfect, it is the word of God.

 

[Orionthehunter]

jpete79:

I just have a couple questions today but I’ll go one (maybe two) at a time…

Do you believe we are in fact given Salvation just for faith in Jesus Christ alone? I know Catholic merit talks about deeds but if a person is to have faith in only Jesus Christ, will he/she receive Salvation…

Also, even if tradition is authoritative as well as the Bible; do you believe the Bible is perfect (even if it is not the sole source of information)?

There is a thread started by MariaG on Salvation. I think we should keep threads from becoming excessively confusing.

Short answer: Yes. As paragraph 105 in teh Catechism says, “God is the author of Sacred Scriptures.” God is perfect and can’t lie.

Long Answer: Read the Catechism from paragraph 105-133.

P.S. I think that you should show posters the courtesy by acknowledging answers given to you by others as either acceptable answers or where you continue to disagree. It is really hard to just keep dealing w/ different issues w/o regard to whether the prior issue was adequately addressed.

 

[mike182d]

jpete79:

I just have a couple questions today but I’ll go one (maybe two) at a time…

Do you believe we are in fact given Salvation just for faith in Jesus Christ alone? I know Catholic merit talks about deeds but if a person is to have faith in only Jesus Christ, will he/she receive Salvation…

Also, even if tradition is authoritative as well as the Bible; do you believe the Bible is perfect (even if it is not the sole source of information)?

jpete, a couple questions:

1. Who does the Bible say has the authority to interpret it?
2. When does Jesus or the Old Testament grant the Apostles authority to add books to existing Scripture? If they did it without Christ telling them, is it still legitimate? Why or why not?
3. Where does Jesus say that faith alone grants a person entrance into heaven?