Scripture Apologetics: Are we barking up the wrong tree?

[StPeterCanisius]

**How do we deal with statments that our protestant separated brethren have about intrepretation of scripture? **

The classic way, seems to just find scripture quotes that refute their ideas. EG John6 for those who deny the Real Presence etc.

However, by using scripture in this way, aren’t we failing our separated brethren, since it is the very idea that something must be found in scripture to be believed, that is the wroot problem? Aren’t we then confirming them in their problem, by giving them such a bible quote answer?

The fundamental difference between Catholic and Protestant, is that we believe things, not because they are found in scripture, but because catholics always believed them, or are necessary truths related to things we have always believed. Protestants believe things, because they individually find their beliefs in scripture more times, than the counter-argument (or at least, that’s what they may say).

I think if we are really to make head-way in Christian unity, and help them to understand our positon, we need to discuss with them the basis of our Christian faith, so that we have a common understanding, or at least understand each other better, BEFORE entering into discussions on scripture. Essentially, Catholics believe, through the gift of humbly listening: taking into consideration a higher authority than our own personal beliefs, in the Magisterium of the Church. Protestants on the other hand, take no higher authority than their own conscience, and personal interpretation of the bible-hence so many denominations, and no central teaching authority in a protestant church.

So how do we do this? What suggestions do you have? Here are mine:

I think when they make such a statement, we could say something like:

1. Why does it have to be in the Bible? (After they’ve had their say, then explain how Jesus never wrote anything, but told the Apostles to “Go, Teach all nations” and not “Go, write down everything I told you.” The earliest New Testament writings we have are around 20 years after Christs death. The writings of the New Testament are not a systematic explaination of the faith, but rather mainly letters to specific churches that had a specific problem. Then quote a number of places that stresses the importance of believing that what you have been taught by word of mouth: 2Thess2:15, 2Tim3.14 etc. This should show clearly that early christians did not believe their faith was something to be found in scripture alone, but primarily in the teachings that were handed down to them.
2. How do you know if you have the correct books in the New Testament? Surely, the church must be infallible to say what is infallibly scripture, otherwise the New Testament cannot be infallible, since it is christians who decide themselves what went into scripture. Therefore, when the church decided from the many hundreds of early christian writings, which were to be considered the New Testament, the church must have had an infallible Character, and so the church itself does have an infallible character, and can tell us infallibly what is scripture means, as the church decided what went into the New Testament, by choosing books that only taught what the church itself was teaching and believed around this time (circa. 398AD).
3. If the correct method of Christianity was about arguing your case from scripture, and the person who is right, is the one who just knows more bible quotes than someone else, then aren’t we reducing Christianity to those who are able to use arguments, and logic better than someone else? Since when did Christianity become this?

Conclusion I think we should always go down this route, whenever asked anything about our interpretation of scripture, even if we first cite John6 to those who question the Real Presence etc. I’m sure that protestants would like us to go “off task” and talk about something else, but we must keep them on this, so that they really understand our position, and that (praise God) they may come home. Has anybody used this method to much success?

 

[NHInsider]

I’m not sure how this would work as a “first round” approach. I can confirm that for me, coming from a Bible-only background many years ago, learning about the origins of the canon helped me overcome the bias. But it was learning about the Didache and the writings of Justin Martyr and Ireneaus and the rest of those very early writings that are so clearly Catholic that first made me question what I had been taught. And before that, it was the simple beauty of the liturgy and the genuine faith of Catholics I met through the Charismatic renewal that set me on the road.

Ultimately it does come down to Authority. But I don’t know if you can get to that conversation with someone who truly believes if it’s not explicitly in the Bible it’s apostasy.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Canisius,

I’m not very big on apologetics, but a person who specializes in it once told me that the main object of talking to non-Catholics is to dispel the misunderstandings they have about us. This clears the way for more intelligent discussions.

As for the rest, in the words of Dale Carnegie, you can never win an argument. Use the opportunity to show kindness and understanding.

Verbum

 

[Jesus_123]

… 1. Why does it have to be in the Bible? (After they’ve had their say, then explain how Jesus never wrote anything, but told the Apostles to “Go, Teach all nations” and not “Go, write down everything I told you.” …

1. How do you know if you have the correct books in the New Testament? Surely, the church must be infallible to say what is infallibly scripture, otherwise the New Testament cannot be infallible, since it is christians who decide themselves what went into scripture. …

A gentle correction:

The above reflections along with many others recorded in the original post regarding Sacred Scripture, when held up to the light and teachings of the Magesterium in the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding Sacred Scripture’s holy origins and holy purpose . . . *as understood and taught by the Catholic Church *. . . are considerably lacking and in error. Below are quotes from both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture regarding the Holy Word :bible1: of God. As Catholics we know our Wonderful God as TRIUNE in Nature . . . **three persons in **One . . . 1. God the Father . . . **2. God the Son **. . . and 3. God the Holy Spirit . . . and we know God the Holy Spirit as the one and only **Author **of **Sacred Scripture **. . . using mankind as His holy scribes/writers/secretaries . . . To gain a fuller and more comprehensive view of how our Holy Mother Church truly views Sacred Scripture . . . the rest of these sections of the Catechism are marvelous enlightening and informative reading . . .

****. . . :coffeeread: . . . ****
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

PART ONE: THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

Article 2 - THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

81
Sacred Scripture is the **speech of **God as it is put down in WRITING under the breath of the Holy Spirit.

Article 3 - SACRED SCRIPTURE

104
In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it NOT as human word, “but as what it really is, the Word of God.”
**
In the sacred books,
the Father** who is in heaven
comes lovingly
to meet his children,
and talks with them.

**Link: **usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.shtml

:bible1: “How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them! If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand …” Psalms 139:17-18b

:bible1: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” Isaiah 55:8

:bible1: “So shall **my word **be that goeth forth out of **my **mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which **I **please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto **I **sent it.” Isaiah 55:11

:bible1: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but **my words **shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35

:bible1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

"And the
Word
was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
and we saw his glory;
the glory as it were of the
only begotten of the Father,
full of grace and truth."
John 1:14
:bible1:

"To be ignorant of Scripture is to be ignorant of Christ." - St. Jerome

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Blessed Lord+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+
. . . our "Father Who Art in Heaven"
we love Thee+
. . . thank You Dear Father+​

 

[ctkrcia]

I have been married to a non-Catholic for almost 30 years. She is the most wonderful, loving, caring person I have ever known. However, she comes from a solo scriptura background and will not budge. As one can imagine, we have had many “discussions” about religion over the course of our marriage. Very rarely does one side or the other get their point across and accepted, even rarer is the time when that is acknowledged.

The only way I have ever gotten a point across is to use scripture to support a position. This could be for confirmation, reconciliation, or even the real presence. Once I started doing this, the arguing essentially stopped. One day, I actually switched from defense to offense. My question was, “If your position is that you believe only the Bible and what is said in the Bible, where is the Bible does it say that?” The made her a bit uncomfortable, because she couldn’t produce such a statement. Then I went on to remark that until she could prove that to me, I wouldn’t respond to her constant question, “Where is THAT in the Bible?”. If she cannot show where a doctrine HAS to be in the Bible, then that question has absolutely no relevance.

After teaching RCIA for a number of years, I have come to realize it all comes down to a question of authority, as you stated. Some people put their authority in the Bible while Catholic put their authority in their leadership, as Jesus empowered them.

Remember the words of Archbishop Sheen, “Win an argument, lose a soul.”

Jeff
1 Pet 3:15

 

[twinc]

most of what has been suggested here is the problem and not the solution or the way to Unity but to division even among Catholics.No two Priests will give exactly the same interpretation of the gospel of the day nor will the same Priest give the same homily the same gospel comes around.All that has been said will discourage and not encourage Catholics to study,search and know scriptures as required of Catholics in order to as advised by our first Pope at 1Peter,3:15 "be prepared to give an answer to any who ask"etc.Christ three times refuted the devil via both their knowledge of scriptures for He said “it is written,it is written,it is written” and He did indeed,tell John to write - btw the Church is not always avialable to interpret for us everytime and everywhere - twinc

 

[StPeterCanisius]

Thanks for your replies friends,

A running theme seems to be that the journey we embark on is usually a long one, as people are slow to change, but quick to get their arguement in- that includes me. I know I suffer from this, and recently I have taken to reading James 3:1-12 every day to help re: how the tongue needs to be controlled, and how if we can control it, all else will fall into place in becoming truly incontrol of our human bodies with analogies and important points to drive the message home.

I liked in particular the response from ctkrcia which gives a simple starting point: Where does it say in the Bible, that anything has to be in the Bible, to be Believed? It seems to have been useful for him/her over the years in their mixed marriage. Also, to those who have responded saying the Bible is important and we should quote it (I particularly liked twinc’s answer, by showing how Jesus responded to temptations from the Devil by quoting scripture after each temptation). However, I think it important to note that Jesus didn’t just use scripture quotes to drive his message home to his audience, but parables, logic etc. Also, in Jesus’ time, they didn’t have Sacred Tradition, only what we now call the Old Testament. Therefore, Jesus could only quote the Old Testament, and not what Bishops and Apostles have said, as these hadn’t arrived yet.

I wasn’t saying scripture isn’t the Word of God, or that it isn’t important, but just trying to suggest we could get our separated brethren to see that not all of God’s revealed truth is found explicitly within scripture, but in Sacred Tradition, and that as CCC83 points out, Sacred Scripture is in fact a writing down of Sacred Tradition, which is equally the Word of God. The CCC81 only says that Sacred Tradition ENTIRELY transmits the Word of God, it doesn’t say that of scripture. However, Sacred Scripture & Tradition should be equally reverenced since they both say the same thing: God’s Word.

 

[JRKH]

The reason for using bible quotes to counter protestant claims is multifold.

1. 
   *]Protestants will often claim that this or that Catholic belief is not found in the Bible. Showing the proper passage demonstrates that the teaching is indeed in the Bible
   *]St Paul, I believe, indicated that we should try to meet people where they are. To be “All things to all men”, or somthing like that. Since the Bible is where they are at, this is a good place to start.
   
   I agree that at some point the issue of interpretation and authority will come up and then the development of the Church/Bible can be broached and discussed. However, I have also found that if this is broached too soon it can have a damping effect on the conversation. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve been accused of not respecting the “Word of God”.
   
   In the end I think the approach we take needs to be tailored to the individual situation.
   
   Peace
   James

 

[COPLAND_3]

I think we should always attempt to use Scripture in order to support our position, but I also think we should always seek first to see how the Church has articulated it because the Church uses Scripture Herself. For example, when you go to defend the real presence, look it up in the Catechism and read the explanation, then you can use those passages of Scripture that the Catechism used to explain it, as well as the Patristic tradition, this will allow you to not only back you position up with Scripture but also show that Christians have always believed it from the start.

The Early Church Fathers are another option in our vast Catholic arsenal. Anytime the Church Fathers interpreted Scripture they always wove Scripture with Scripture in order to illuminate it in order to give the fullness of the meaning. Many times one passage of Scripture may only give you partial support of a doctrine, but when combined with other passages it allows you to see the whole picture. That is the main issue with faith and works, some Protestants will use Scripture in order to “support” faith alone, but without using the rest of Scripture you will most likely be in error.

But until a non-Catholic sees the need for Apostolic Authority then they will usually not completely agree with us on certain doctrines. Sometimes it takes a long process to finally get it, but many of them have a few hurdles to go over. But if they are seekers of truth and intellectually honest, then they will eventually be willing to think outside of the box in order to see clearly what it is that we believe and why we believe it, but until then they will not look past their own bias and misconceptions that they were brought to believe about Catholicism.

 

[twinc]

btw before we close the topic or book,it is important to note that it is really important to know,love and search and study the scriptures.Scriptures come as near as saying as makes no difference to stating that it alone[sola]is enough for our salvation viz “there are many other things that Jesus said and did that are not written in this book but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,the son of God and that believing you may have life in His name” - twinc