Starting a discussion with a Protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter go_Leafs_go
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
let us read it and figure it out for ourdelf.

That is an unbiblical concept. We can interpret Scripture, but it must square with the teaching of the Church which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Christ did not promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the individual infallibly. He did promise that His Church would be, though.

it is always dangerous to follow somene else’s relationship with Christ.

I do not. I follow what the bible teaches. And the bible most closely teaches Catholicism as the fullness of Christ. You say that you have authority in your Church. In a way, then by your own admission, they must follow your interpretation of Scripture. It is not the bible i disagree with, just private personal interpretation that claims to have authority outside of what Christ promised in Isa 22:22 and Matt 16:18-19 and Matt 18:17-18, and Jn 20:23 and 1Tim 3:15 and Eph 2:20.

the bible is for all of us, that was a large part of the protestant reformation,

that is one of the great misconceptions of the reformation. This is rhetoric because it assumes that the CC teaches that it is not for all of us.

, taking the power out of corrupt hands

more rhetoric. There was no corruption of the truth of the gospel. this is a baseless charge. there was political corruption, not doctrinal corruption.
 
Hey Dan the man, I hope you don’t mind me using you here, you are helping me out big time. I have a lot of good stuff on my pwn, just not very good at applying it, you obviously are and your comingon here to help me is a blessing.

As for the others, Thanks so much, I’ve used some of what you have had to say too. I will post his response here to my e-mail
 
Here is what I wrote to him, his response will follow:

You Wrote: but what was left was the stories of Jesus, being scripture. again, as i said before, it was at this time that we came to trust in scripture alone,
Not true because Scripture explicitly says that not everything was written down. See verses… (see my list below)
You Wrote: “and did so thru the apostles, and when they were gone, that succession did NOT continue”
Please provide proof for this assertion. Scripture refers to Successors. Timothy was one of them. See below for more.
You wrote:
where are you getting this from? what is this supposed to mean?
Will answer below
You Wrote:
you quoted two bible references and you interpreted them wrong.
By what authority can you make this claim?
its just that once the scriptures were finally brought together, there is no logical reason to continue using it.
Baseless charge. The OT had both the Scripture and the oral law of Moses. The jews didn’t see fit to throw out the OT, so why should we since the NT doesn’t say that the bible alone is the sole rule of faith and morals. I think that you assume sola scriptura but do so without biblical mandate, which makes sola scriptura a protestant tradition. And I thought that you rejected traditions of men, which sola scriptura is.
You Wrote:
what do you do when one pope contradicts another? im sure that it has been shown over the
years that the papacy is not infallible, as it has had to retract countless
errors in practice and theology, so how can we call that authorative.
I challenge you to show this, as no pope can contradict another pope ON AN INFALLIBLE DECREE OF MATTERS CONCERNING FAITH AND MORALS ONLY. An personal opinion of his as a private theologian may contradict that of another pope, but that’s not infallibility.
I guess the last thing i would ask you is, where do u get your theology of
the sucession of the papacy and its infallibility?
Though this is a subject all on it’s own, briefly, the doctrine of papal infallibility means that when the pope is speaking on matters of faith and morals (on something that pertains to the entire church), he cannot make a mistake. It does not mean that he cannot sin…and all popes certainly do sin. For more reading on this, go here:
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
You wrote: scripture and the gospel makes it very clear that only jesus was God and perfect and holy, we dont even come close.
Of course, not. That is why infallibility is a charism of the Holy Spirit. Don’t confuse the charism with the person. The Holy Spirit is the Person who protects the Church from error. The Pope and Bishops are the vessels by which He does this, not a book (which by the way was decided upon by Bishops of the Church infallibly as being inspired by the Holy Spirit)
You Wrote: no where ever did God put someone in leadership as infallible.
Actually he did. See verses below…and note that you would also have to compare your understanding with that of the Early Church Fathers.
You Wrote: “the people at my church are to submit to my authority, but there are checks and balances. what i say must not contradict scripture and even more than that, it must preach the gospel in all its accuracy”
You contradict this when you say that it is dangerous to follow someone else’s relationship with Christ. Why do you assume that what you preach is biblical and that the Catholic Church teaches someone else’s faith. It appears that you have contradicted yourself.
You Wrote: it is because we are all human beings that we trust in scripture and scripture alone
That is a clearly unbiblical statement. Nowhere does Scripture say this. I do trust Scripture, but it is not Scripture you’re talking about. You are talking about your interpretation of Scripture. That is the error of protestantism.
 
You Wrote: have you ever read the bible by itself. just to see what its all about.

Yes, of course, I have. However, I also know that, like the Eunuch said to Phillip, I need help of an interpreter so that I may understand (Acts)

You Wrote: let us read it and figure it out for ourself.

That is an unbiblical concept. We can interpret Scripture, but it must square with the teaching of the Church which is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Christ did not promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the individual infallibly. He did promise that His Church would be, though.

You Wrote: it is always dangerous to follow somene else’s relationship with Christ.

I do not. I follow what the bible teaches. And the bible most closely teaches Catholicism as the fullness of Christ. You say that you have authority in your Church. In a way, then by your own admission, they must follow your interpretation of Scripture. It is not the bible i disagree with, just private personal interpretation that claims to have authority outside of what Christ promised in Isa 22:22 and Matt 16:18-19 and Matt 18:17-18, and Jn 20:23 and 1Tim 3:15 and Eph 2:20.

You Wrote: the bible is for all of us, that was a large part of the protestant reformation,

That is one of the great misconceptions of the reformation. This is rhetoric because it assumes that the Catholic Church teaches that it is not for all of us which is ridiculous given the careful preservation of the Bible by the Church.

You Wrote: taking the power out of corrupt hands

Quite honestly, more rhetoric. There was no corruption of the truth of the gospel. This is a baseless charge. There was political corruption, not doctrinal corruption.

I have read what you have written and admit that you ask some good questions which I have attempted to answer, and make some good points, but really I think you fail to answer the questions of “Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time?”
how did the early Church possibly deal with doctrinal questions without an authority on how to proceed? I see two possible responses:
  1. that the Apostles were temporarily the final authority while the New Testament was being written, and
  2. that the Holy Spirit was given to the Church and that His direct guidance is what bridged the time gap between Our Lord’s Ascension and the completion of the New Testament.
Would you agree? I’ll elaborate once you reply.

Some more response to your points in the e-mail.
You said "like i said, God’s progressive revelation had ended during the time of the early church, so there should be no new theology arising after that time. we have in scripture everything we need to know about salvation, sin, grace, redemption, the return of Christ.
the queston i would ask you is what else do we need to know? to be honest
with you, if we are coming up with new stuff after thousands of years, there
is something VERY wrong with our theology of divine revelation.

The Catholic Church agrees, that ALL NEW REVELATION ENDED WITH THE DEATH OF THE LAST APOSTLE. Not sure if you realise that. My question to you is do you understand all of Scripture? or do you learn new things from that Scripture every time you read? That is all the Catholic Church has done for 2000 years. New understanding of that which has already been revealed. This is much different than say the Mormon church that says it has further new revelations.
 
You questioned Apostolic succession, Church Authority, etc. How do you reconcile the following?
Some scripture may overlap, but here is the biblical teaching on the pope, authority, succession, and authority of the CHurch. Therefore, it is quite obvious from “Scripture” as to the establishment and authority handed down by the Apostle’s.

Apostolic Church
Jn 15;16 - Jesus chose special men to be his Apostles
Jn 20:21 - Jesus gave the Apostles his own mission
Lk 22:29-3 - Jesus gave them a kingdom
Mt 16:18 - Jesus built Church on Peter, the rock
Jn 10:16 - one shepherd to shepherd Christ’s sheep
Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17 - Peter appointed to be chief shepherd
Eph 4;11 - church leaders are hierarchical
1Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - identifies roles of bishops, priests, deacons
Tit 1:5 - commission for bishops to ordain priests

Authoritative Church
Mt 28:18-20 - Jesus delegates all power to Apostles
Jn 20:23 - power to forgive sin
1Cor 11:23-24 - power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist)
Lk 10:16 - power to speak with Christ’s voice
Mt 18:18 - power to legislate
Mt 18:17 - power to discipline

Infallible Church
Jn 16:13 - guided by Holy Spirit into all truth
Jn 14:26 - Holy Spirit to teach & remind them of everything
Lk 10:16 - speak with Christ’s own voice
1Tim 3:15 - Church called “pillar and foundation of truth”
1Jn 2:27 - anointing of Holy Spirit remains in you
Acts 15:28 - Apostles speak with voice of Holy Spirit
Mt 28:20 - I am with you

Outside the Church… / Excommunication (authority to act in CHrist’s place)
Matt 18:17-18Matt 10:40 " Matt 28:19-20Lk 10:16Acts 4:12
1Cor 5:3-51Tim 1:20Ti 3:10Gal 1:6-9

Primacy of Peter
Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
Mt 16;19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
Lk 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 - given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
*Gal 2:11-14 - I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocrisy
Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
“Peter and his companions” Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
Spoke for Apostles - Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together
 
Apostolic Succession
2Ch 19:11 - high priest is over you in everything of Lord’s
Mal 2:7 - seek instruction from priest, he is God’s messenger
Eph 2:20 - Church built upon foundation of apostles & prophets
Eph 4:11 - God gave some as apostles, others as prophets…
1 Cor 12:28-29 - God designated in church: apostles, …
Acts 1:20 - let another take his office
Acts 1:25-26 - Matthias takes Judas’ apostolic ministry
1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - qualifications for: bishops, priests, & deacons
1Tim 4:14 - gift conferred with the laying on of hands
1Tim 5:22 - do not lay hands too readily on anyone
Acts 14:23 - they appointed presbyters in each church
2Tim 2:2 - what you heard from me entrust to faithful teachers
Titus 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed

Holy Orders
Acts 20:28 - Holy Sprit appointed you overseers, to tend Church
Lk 22:19 - do this in memory of me
Jn 20:22 - As Father sent me, I send you…receive Holy Spirit
Acts 6:6 - the apostles prayed and laid hands on them
Acts 13:3 - they laid hands on them & sent them off
Acts 14:22 - they appointed presbyters in each church
1Tim 4:14 - gift received through laying on of hands of presbyterate
2Tim 1:6 - gift of God you have through imposition of hands
Tit 1:5 - appoint presbyters in every town as I directed you

Authority of Bishops
Acts 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.
Acts2:42 continued steadfastly in the apostles doctrine.
1Tim3:15 the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth
1Jn 2:27 Listen to the one who was anointed so that you are not led astray.
John 14:26 Christ will send the Holy Spirit to the apostles
John 15:26-16:1 The Holy Spirit will testify through the apostles, and they will not go astray.
Papacy/Infallibility
Peter always mentioned first, as foremost apostle
Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32
Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69
Peter speaks for the apostles
Acts 2:14-40 Pentecost: Peter who first preached
Acts 3:6-7 Peter worked first healing
Acts 10:46-48 Gentiles to be baptized revealed to Peter
Jn 1:42 Simon is Cephas (Aramaic: Kepha for rock)
Mt 16:18-19 “on this Rock I will build my Church; Peter given keys to Kingdom; Given power to bind and loose”
Is 22:22; Rev 1:18 Keys as symbol of authority
Jn 21:17 “feed my sheep”
Lk 22:31-32 “Simon strengthen your brethren”
Lk 10:1-2; 16; Jn 13:20; 2 Cor 5:20; Gal 4:14; Acts 5:1-5
“Vicars” of Christ
Matt 23-2 The Seat of Moses as teaching authority
Eph. 2:20 Built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets
 
Back to Oral Tradition and the question you asked above, with St. Paul Commanding us to keep them. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, for instance, we read, “Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you.” St. Paul is obviously commending the keeping of oral tradition here, and it should be noted in particular that he extols the believers for having done so (“I praise you…”). Explicit in this passage is also the fact that the integrity of this Apostolic oral tradition has clearly been maintained, just as Our Lord promised it would be, through the safeguarding of the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:3).

Perhaps the clearest Biblical support for oral tradition can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14, where Christians are actually commanded: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” This passage is significant in that 1) it shows the existence of living traditions within the Apostolic teaching, b) it tells us unequivocally that believers are firmly grounded in the Faith by adhering to these traditions, and c) it clearly states that these traditions were both written and oral. Since the Bible distinctly states here that oral traditions – authentic and Apostolic in origin – are to be “held” as a valid component of the Deposit of Faith, by what reasoning can you dismiss them? By what authority do you reject a clear-cut injunction of St. Paul?

Moreover, we must consider the text in this passage. The Greek word krateite, here translated “hold,” means “to be strong, mighty, to prevail.” This language is rather emphatic, and it demonstrates the importance of maintaining these traditions. Of course one must differentiate between Tradition (upper-case “T”) that is part of divine Revelation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Church traditions (lower-case “t”) that, although good, have developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith. An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism; an example of a Church tradition would be the Church’s calendar of feast days of Saints. Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable, while Church traditions are changeable by the Church. Sacred Tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing what the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it is always understood any given portion of the Bible. One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Church’s public worship.
 
You alluded the “unbiblical” or “new” doctrines based on Tradition, asserting that such Tradition contains doctrines which are foreign to the Bible. However, this assertion is wholly untrue. The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Tradition contains nothing whatsoever that is contrary to the Bible. Many Catholic scholars would even say that there is nothing in Sacred Tradition which is not also found in Scripture, at least implicitly or in seminal form. Certainly the two are at least in perfect harmony and always support each other. For some doctrines, the Church draws more from Tradition than from Scripture for its understanding, but even those doctrines are often implied or hinted at in the Sacred Scripture. For example, the following are largely based on Sacred Tradition: infant Baptism, the canon of Scripture, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Sunday (rather than Saturday) as the Lord’s Day, and the Assumption of Our Lady (none of which we can even begin to delve into as of yet and I won’t attempt to here).

Sacred Tradition complements our understanding of the Bible and is therefore not some extraneous source of Revelation which contains doctrines that are foreign to it. Quite the contrary: Sacred Tradition serves as the Church’s living memory, reminding her of what the faithful have constantly and consistently believed and who to properly understand and interpret the meaning of Biblical passages. In a certain way, it is Sacred Tradition which says to the reader of the Bible “You have been reading a very important book which contains God’s revelation to man. Now let me explain to you how it has always been understood and practiced by believers from the very beginning.”

It is highly unlikely that a Church Father from the 2nd or 3rd century would have gotten it wrong all the way back then while we know better now, 2000 years later.
Now, back to Sola Scriptura.

It is very interesting to note that in I Timothy 3:15 we see, not the Bible, but the Church – that is, the living community of believers founded upon St. Peter and the Apostles and headed by their successors – called “the pillar and ground of the truth.” Of course, this passage is not meant in any way to diminish the importance of the Bible, but it is intending to show that Jesus Christ did establish an authoritative and teaching Church which was commissioned to teach “all nations.” (Matt. 28:19) (hence why the Universal Faith is in 117 nations). Elsewhere this same Church received Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), that He would always be with it (Matt. 28:20), and that He would give it the Holy Spirit to teach it all truth. (John 16:13). To the visible head of His Church, St. Peter, Our Lord said: “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matt. 16:19).

It is plainly evident from these passages that Our Lord emphasized the authority of His Church and the role it would have in safeguarding and defining the Deposit of Faith.
 
It is also evident from these passages that this same Church would be infallible, for if at any time in its history it would definitively teach error to the Church as a whole in matters of faith or morals – even temporarily – it would cease being this “pillar and ground of the truth.” Since a “ground” or foundation by its very nature is meant to be a permanent support, and since the above-mentioned passages do not allow fro the possibility of the Church ever definitively teaching doctrinal or moral error, the only plausible conclusion is that Our Lord was very deliberate in establishing His Church and that He was referring to its infallibility when He called it the “pillar and ground of the truth.”

If you adehere to Sola Scriptura, you have a dilemma here by asserting the Bible to be the sole rule of faith for believers. In what capacity, then, is the Church the “pillar and ground of the truth” if it is not to serve as an infallible authority established by Christ? How can the Church be this “pillar and ground” if it has no tangible, practical ability to serve as an authority in the life of a Christian? The Protestant would effectively deny that the Church is the “pillar and ground of the truth” by denying that the Church has the authority to teach.

Also, most Protestants understand the term “church” to mean something different from what the Catholic Church understands it to mean. Protestants see “the church” as an invisible entity, and for them it refers collectively to all Christian believers around the world who are united by faith in Christ, despite major variations in doctrine and denominational allegiance and I’m sure you feel the same Marq. Catholics, on the other hand, understand it to mean not only those true believers who are united as Christ’s Mystical Body, but we simultaneously understand it to refer to a visible, historical entity as well, namely, that one – and only that one – organization which can trace its lineage in an unbroken line back to the Apostles themselves: the Catholic Church. It is this Church and this Church alone which was established by Christ and which has maintained an absolute consistency in doctrine throughout its existence, and it is therefore this Church alone which can claim to be that very “pillar and ground of the truth.”

Protestantism, by comparison, has known a history of doctrinal vacillations and changes, and no two denominations completely agree – even on major doctrinal issues. Such shifting and changing could not possibly be considered a foundation or “ground of the truth.” When the foundation of a structure shifts or is improperly set, that structure’s very support is unreliable (cf. Matt. 7:26-27). Since in practice the beliefs of Protestantism have undergone change both within denominations and through the continued appearance of new denominations, these beliefs are like a foundation which shifts and moves. Such beliefs therefore cease to provide the support necessary to maintain the structure they uphold, and the integrity of that structure becomes compromised, Our Lord clearly did not intend for His followers to build their spiritual houses on such an unreliable foundation. Is this the HOLY SPIRIT that you claim to be guiding the “church” (of course “church” as you understand it). If so, where, prior to Luther, has the Holy Spirit been for 1500 years? I don’t ask these questions to offend you, these are my honest concerns.
 
go Leafs go:
So I’ve started discussing Sola Scriptura as I believe that once this myth is debunked, the others should really follow suit.
Click to expand...
Sola Scriptura is the the FOUNDATION (not a mere abstraction, as was stated in one of the posts) of the Protestant worldview. The logical starting point is the foundation, not individual doctrines. In the end, all questions hinge on the question of authority. The written Scriptures as the sole infallible authority and the supreme rule of an individual’s private judgement must be showed to be practically and historically unworkable to arrive at Truth.

Do your best to lovingly demolish this foundation, then demonstrate the Biblical and historical evidence for Catholic doctrines. You sound like you’re very well read, so even if you fail to convince him of the Truth, he hopefully will at least be left with a profound respect for the Catholic Church, and maybe even wistfully admire Her.

Peter John
 
The last point I want to touch on is the quote you gave from Martin Luther. The Bible says in 2 Tim. 3:17 that the man of God is “perfect, furnished to every good work.” This verse means only that the man of God is fully supplied with Scripture; it is not a guarantee that he automatically knows how to interpret it properly. This verse at most argues only for the material sufficiency of Scripture, a position which is held by some people today.
“Material sufficiency” would mean that the Bible in some way contains all the truths that are necessary for the believer to know; in other words, the “materials” would thus be all present or at least implied. “Formal sufficiency,” on the other hand, would mean that the Bible would not only contain all the truths that are necessary, but that it would also present those truths in a perfectly clear and complete and readily understandable fashion. In other words, these truths would be in a useable form," and consequently there would be no need for Sacred Tradition to clarify and complete them or for an infallible teaching authority to interpret them correctly or “rightly divide” God’s word.
Since the Catholic Church holds that the Bible is not sufficient in itself, it naturally teaches that the Bible needs an interpreter. The reason the Catholic Church so teaches is twofold: first, because Christ established a living Church to teach with His authority. He did not simply give His disciples a Bible, whole and entire, and tell them to go out and make copies of it for mass distribution and allow people to come to whatever interpretation they may. Second, the Bible itself states that it needs an interpreter.
Regarding the second point, we read in 2 Peter 3:16 that in St. Paul’s epistles there are “certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”
In this one verse we note three very important things about the Bible and its interpretation: a) the Bible contains passages which are not readily understandable or clear, a fact which demonstrates the need for an authoritative and infallible teacher to make the passages clear and understandable; b) it is not only possible that people could “wrest” or distort the meaning of Scripture, but this was, in fact, being done from the very earliest days of the Church; and c) to distort the meaning of Scripture can result in one’s “destruction,” a disastrous fate indeed. It is obvious from these considerations that St. Peter did not believe the Bible to be the sole rule of faith. But there is more.In Acts 8:26-40 we read the account of the deacon St. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. In this scenario, the Holy Spirit leads Philip to approach the Ethiopian when Philip learns that the Ethiopian is reading from the prophet Isaias, he asks him a very telling question: “Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?” Even more telling is the answer given by the Ethiopian: “And how can I, unless some man show me?”
Whereas this St. Philip (known as “the Evangelist”) is not one of the twelve Apostles, he was nonetheless someone who was commissioned by the Apostles (cf. Acts 6:6) and who preached the Gospel with authority (cf. Acts 8:4-8). Consequently, his preaching would reflect legitimate Apostolic teaching. The point here is that the Ethiopian’s statement verifies the fact that the Bible is not sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and people who hear the Word do need an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand what the Bible says. If the Bible were indeed sufficient of itself, then the eunuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of the passage from Isaias.
 
There is also 2 Peter 1:20, which states that “no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” Here we see the Bible itself stating in no uncertain terms that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation. It is also most telling that this verse is preceded by a section on the Apostolic witness (verses 12-18) and followed by a section on false teachers (chapter 2, verses 1-10). St. Peter is obviously contrasting genuine, Apostolic teaching with false prophets and false teachers, and he makes reference to private interpretation as the pivotal point between the two. The clear implication is that private interpretation is one pathway whereby an individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to follow erroneous teaching.

I must say that I am impressed in your responses and appreciate the Charity in your responses, very Christ-like, unlike some I have talked to. I’ll stop here for now, I have much more on Sola Scriptura that I have researched and would be more than happy to share as there is much more to consider when subscribing to this doctrine to practice the faith handed down by the Apostles.

THIS IS ALL I WROTE TO HIM****

Here is his response:
 
hey dude, ya well u really did send me a big one there. sorry if im not able
to comment on a lot of it, for time sake.

you are right, when you say that not everything was written down in
scripture. i totally agree with you there. where this before very dangerous
is where this then becomes a loop hole to add in doctrine. from this very
little section of scripture, some have decided to make a huge deal of it,
because, well, not everything is in scripture, so it isnt suffiecient then.
like i said, this is a very gangerous practice. the reason we trust what was
written down in scripture alone is because from the time the apostles died,
the followers of christ were gone, and so if we wanted to stick to what
jesus said and taught, then we followed what was written. using an argument
like not everything was written down, and thats why we need to be taught
what scripture means is a very weak argument, and like i said, a very
dangerous one too.

when it comes to succession, you are right, timothy was one of them, and im
sure he appointed others as well. the early church began to realize that a
lot of time had passed since the early church fathers lived and the church
was becoming so large that they needed to put oral tradition into writing.
as you said, there were many herecies arising, and so they needed to form a
rule of scripture. this was the major reason for the formation of the canon
at that time.

when it comes to biblical interpretation, authority is not something that is
needed. that is why i assert that we do not need someone else to teach us
what the bible says. yes i totally agree with you that the church has been
given the keys of the kingdom, but unlike you, the church is not a physical
building or organization, it is the body of Christ, his followers. but when
it comes to using scripture to defend or make arguments, we must make sure
we are using them properly. those two verses, like i said, are talking about
the Holy Spirit. read the entire section, not just the verse. context is
important. letting someone else tell you what a verse means is dangerous. we
are allowed to use our own brains. when i brought up the mormons i didnt
mean that catholics are like them, but in biblical interpretation, it can
lend itself to the same dangers. that is why luther said, let the common man
read it for himself. if he comes up with something different, then lets
discuss it. the things that are very clear from scripture are written over
and over and over again. these are the things that we call foundational. the
things that are not clear, or can be interpreted by equal persons in
different ways we need to chill on. things like, sin, salvation, redemption,
these are the major foundational things. To say that the protestant
reformation happened because of political reasons and not theological ones
is to really not understand the history of what took place at that time. the
problem the reformers saw was that the present church was nothing like the
early church, neither in form, practice, fluidity, or theology. that is why
the kept saying that we as the catholic church need to go back to the way it
was, but powerful people dont give up power so easily.

i know that it is only a matter of time before we get into discussing the
major thelogical differences between Catholicism and evangelicals ( wouldnt
use protestant, because that an over simplification). we are presently
discussing the groundwork for licenced Christian theology at present. what
happens next is where these presuppositions bring us into the most major of
conflict.

John, like you, i like talkin to ya, there is no harsh feelings here at all.
i am a chill guy. i am shocked by the way you responded to pretty much
everything i wrote, but i admire your desire to know God. keep it up. peace.
 
A lot to read, I know, how should I respond to this guy, he’s being pretty vague if you ask me and obviously questions interpretation of verses.
 
White Knight:
Dan-Man916, Thanks for posting that awesome link earlier…that’s one of the best apologetics websites I’ve ever been to.

Does anyone have any advice on how to explain the order of the Mass to a(n) (open-minded) Protestant? I’m usually pretty good about explaining the beliefs, doctrines, traditions, etc. of Catholicism…but I’m not exactly sure what to say when they ask why the Mass follows the same format every week. Anyone have any insight on this? Thanks and God Bless.
Click to expand...
Point them to the fact that it doesn’t follow the same format every week. The Scripture readings change daily. The hymns change daily. The homily changes daily. Many of the prayers change daily. Stress the importance of the liturgical calendar. Read Hahn’s book on the Mass (as heavenly worship). Explain why the Eucharist is (and always has been) the center of Christian worship (even the early Reformers would not dream of relegating communion to a five minute once a month remembrance as many non-liturgical churches now practice).

Catholic Answers has a new booklet titled “Mass Appeal” by Jimmy Akin that would clearly explain the order of the Mass.

Also point out that most Protestant worship changes little from week to week. At the Evangelical Free Church I used to attend it was general announcements, worship songs, offering, sermon, a couple more songs, and once a month a symbolic remembrance of the Lord’s Supper. They essentially had the same structure of worship from week to week as well.

Peter John
 
go Leafs go:
A lot to read, I know, how should I respond to this guy, he’s being pretty vague if you ask me and obviously questions interpretation of verses.
Click to expand...
I would not get caught up in responding to all his points, which could be extremely frustrating. He is being very non-specific because he really doesn’t know the specifics (ie he stated that he was sure Popes had contradicted themselves, but offered no examples and probably doesn’t grasp even the most basic Catholic teaching on infallibility).

You have to jump on statements like this:

when it comes to biblical interpretation, authority is not something that is needed. that is why i assert that we do not need someone else to teach us what the bible says.
Code: 
 Send this statement back with a page(s) of arguments demonstrating the absolute need for an authoritative teacher in regards to disputed important Christian doctrines and morals. 

Also show him that Catholics aren't disallowed from reading and studying Scripture, and coming to conclusions and meditating on it for ourselves.  We only must do this within the  boundries of definded doctrine/dogma. 

 It may be more effective to supply him with listening material to suppliment your e-mail discussion.  St. Joseph's communications has a great 6 CD set (about five hours) on Sola Scriptura by Ken Hensley ---> [saintjoe.com/p/prod_desc.pl?id=529](http://www.saintjoe.com/p/prod_desc.pl?id=529)
These CD’s are very understandable, easy to listen to, rather in depth, and convincing.

He shows that even if giving lip service to certain “Tradition” (however defined), Creeds, Councils, Fathers, Doctrinal Confessions, it still all boils down to the ultimate authority of the individual’s private judgement and what THEY believe Scripture says. If they claim a Creed (ie. Nicean) or Doctrinal Confession (ie. Westminster Confession of Faith) … …, it is only because it agrees with THEIR PERSONAL private judgement of Scripture.

Good luck man.

Peter John
 
Little Mary:
Also, be sure and thoroughly research everything he tells you.
Good luck.
Click to expand...
A simple way to keep him honest: whenever he cites a verse, INSIST that he read TO YOU two paragraphs before, the paragraph in which the verse appears, and two paragraphs after the verse. This almost always reveals that the context is quite different from the protestant usage.

And don’t forget to have your Bible with you - read it yourself as well.

Finallly, don’t let him carpet bomb you with verse after verse - insist on staying on a single topic (and usually one verse and it’s surrounding text) until it’s fully discussed.

Good Luck.

Clint
 
Little Mary:
Also, be sure and thoroughly research everything he tells you.
Good luck.
Click to expand...
A simple way to keep him honest: whenever he cites a verse, INSIST that he read TO YOU two paragraphs before, the paragraph in which the verse appears, and two paragraphs after the verse. This almost always reveals that the context is quite different from the protestant usage.

And don’t forget to have your Bible with you - read it yourself as well.

Finallly, don’t let him carpet bomb you with verse after verse - insist on staying on a single topic (and usually one verse and it’s surrounding text) until it’s fully discussed.

Good Luck.

Clint
 
hi leafs,

ok, here is another shot at it. again, these are mostly a shoot from the hip approach.
I didn’t read your email, but just read his and responded to some of the points (which were very non-specific.
Like i may have already said, you can take what i wrote and use whatever you think is worthwhile.
I have a friend i correspond with who is an ex catholic and belongs to the evangelical church i used to go to.
we debate like this all the time, so this is old hat for me.
like i said, i may be very curt, but these are only quick from the hip responses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top