Just How Deep Has The Catholic Church Penetrated Into Evangelical Circles?
May 9, 2007
Please follow with us as we expose just a small sampling of the infiltration of Roman Catholicism into the ‘Evangelical’ world.
When leading Lutheran theologian Richard John Neuhaus converted to Catholicism in 1990 the move sent shock waves through Lutheran circles in the United States because of his prominence in that Church. Neuhaus was ordained a Catholic priest by his bishop, Cardinal John O’Connor of New York.
Charles Colson and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus authored the ecumenical documents Evangelicals and Catholics Together and Evangelicals and Catholics Together II. The approval for the wording was required to come from Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for promoting Christian Unity. Other noted Evangelical Protestants who have signed this document include (Dr. Bill Bright, Os Guinness, Max Lucado, T. M. Moore, J. I. Packer, Pat Robertson)
Recently Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary hosted a conference ‘20/20 Collegiate Conference - Sex and the City of God’. Fr. Richard Neuhaus and Dr. Peter Kreeft, both Roman Catholics, where Plenary speakers at this conference.
Dr. Peter Kreeft also spoke at a conference sponsored by Prison Fellowship (Chuck Colson).
Dr. Peter Kreeft wrote a book Ecumenical Jihad — consider the following from Southern View Chapel
This book could be quickly dismissed as a good example of pluralism (the view that all religions are legitimate ways of worshipping God), which is so foreign to Scripture as to deserve little attention. What makes Ecumenical Jihad worthy of notice are the endorsements by Chuck Colson (”Peter Kreeft is one of the premier apologists in America today, witty, incisive and powerful. On the front lines in today’s culture war, Kreeft is one of the most valiant intellectual warriors.”) and J.I. Packer (”This racy little book opens up a far-reaching theme. With entertaining insight Kreeft looks into the attitudes, alliances, and strategies that today’s state of affairs requires of believers. Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox alike need to ponder Peter Kreeft’s vision of things – preferably, in discussion together. What if he is right?).
Must I continue …
There is no question that the Roman Catholic Church is making inroads into Evangelicalism like never before. If you understand the apostacy of the Catholic Church, this should cut you to the core. Those in the true Church (all true followers of Christ) must wake up and begin to pray for direction and wisdom in this hour. We must proclaim the truth like never before and begin to expose this infiltration to those we know and influence.
The Roman Catholic Church represents a mission field of over 1 Billion souls. Does this concern you? It concerns me more than I can express. It is a problem that most of the Church doesn’t even understand.
May God expose the darkness and bring forth His marvelous light.
Posted in Catholicism, Chuck Colson, Discernment, Doctrine, Evangelism, God's Word, Missions
May 10th, 2007 at 6:52 am
You may be interested to learn that a new society of Catholic evangelists has been formed and is actively recruiting 69,000 evangelists, 14 years of age and older, to help convert America.
http://www.pjpiisoe.org/Membership.html
With 1/4 of America being Catholic, if every American Catholic brought one person into the Catholic Church, the United States would be almost 100% Catholic in just 3 years!
God bless…
- Timothy
May 10th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Oh brother, I know pretty much nothing about Catholicism, but from what I’ve been witnessing on Symphony… It’s a very dangerous religion.
P.S. Love the new look of the website.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
[...] http://blog.shanetrammel.com/2007/05/09/just-how-deep-has-the-catholic-church-penetrated-into-evange... [...]
November 15th, 2007 at 1:56 am
I am a roman Catholic and just as concerned about evangelicals and catholics together.They are blurring the lines and serious doctrinal differences that are not just affecting evangelicals but catholic theology.They are making the catholic church in America Protestant.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:13 am
.
Alert!!!!
The Roman Catholic “Church” is Not Christian
Practically all precepts of the Roman Catholic religion contradict the Bible repeatedly. It is the largest cult in the world and most preachers will not openly say so because it is so large. For Catholics who read this, please remember this: the person that tells you the truth is the one that cares.
For a glimpse of the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic religion, do a net search on the Inquisition or the Crusades. During the Inquisition, the Catholic religion killed millions. Why? Primarily to suppress any and all opposition to the pope. Side “benefits” included taking the material wealth of its victims and showing the pope’s power. The Catholic Inquisitors tortured, crippled, burned, and imprisioned millions of people. Whatever happened to love your enemies? (Matthew 5:44)
Before we get to specific problems with Catholic doctrine, let’s review how this bloodthirsty organization treated a man who simply wanted to get the Bible into the hands of the common people. In the late 1300s John Wycilf translated the scriptures from the Latin Vulgate. Some 40 odd years after his death, the Catholic religion dug up his bones and burned them calling him an arch-heretick. In the 1500’s William Tyndale sought to translate the Bible into the language of the common people, English. He could not gain approval from the Catholic religon so he worked as an outlaw on the run in Europe, translating the Bible. He was eventually captured, condemned and executed in 1536. It is because of people like these men, Tyndale and Wycliffe, that we have the scriptures today. If the Catholic religion had its way, we’d still be in ignorance about the Bible and enslaved to the pope. Time fails me here to tell of other marytrs like John Hus, John Rogers, etc. who were killed by popish persons.
I’ll list the catholic tradition first and then what the Bible has to say about the matter.
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Call priests father, e.g., Father McKinley.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS -
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Forbidding the priesthood to marry.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS -
1) It is devilish to forbid God’s people to marry when He has given marriage to be received with thanksgiving.
1 Timothy
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
2) Peter was married (remember the pope is supposedly continuing the apostolic line through Peter).
Matthew
8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.
Mark
1:30 But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.
Luke
4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon’s house. And Simon’s wife’s mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her.
3) Paul, a great apostle, remained single; however he made it very clear that he could marry if he wanted to.
1 Corinthians
9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary never had other children after the Lord Jesus. A perpetual virgin.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Mary and Joseph indeed had children. They were the Lord’s half brothers and sisters for their father was Joseph and mother was Mary.
Matthew
13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Mark
6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary is the queen of heaven.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Worshipping the queen of heaven (which is not the Mary of the Bible) is worshipping another god and it provokes the Lord to anger.
Jeremiah
7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.
7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Mary is the mother of God.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Mary is the mother of the earthly Jesus, not God. Jesus pre- existed from everlasting as God (see John 1:1). When He came to redeem mankind, He laid aside His glory and was made like unto sinful man so that He could take our punishment (Hebrew 2:9). God has no mother. He has lived from everlasting which means He had no beginning.
Isaiah
43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. [If Mary gave birth to God, she'd be God.]
Psalm
93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.
Micah
5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler [Jesus] in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Philippians
2:6 Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Pope called Holy Father.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - The term Holy Father is only found one time in the entire Bible. It was when Jesus prayed before He and His disciples went to the garden of Gethsemane. He referred to God the Father as Holy Father. It is blasphemy to call a man by God’s name
John
17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Purgatory, nuns, popes.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - None of these is mentioned in the Bible. It is a sin to add to the Bible.
Proverbs
30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
The pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to no human being. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous (see above).
One does not need the pope to determine what God’s will is. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He (the Holy Ghost) guides and leads us into all truth. All a believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of the Lord. Popery has been treacherous, but worse, each pope has been the blind leading the blind. Jesus said that both will fall into the ditch. Catholics, come out of this system that cannot save and know Jesus for youself, intimate and up-close.
NOTE: Purgatory is supposedly a place where a person is purified of sins–even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the one that purifies us of our sins. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…. When a person dies their eternal home is sealed–heaven or hell–no in between. Hebrews 9:27 …it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Venerating/worshipping images. Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them.
Exodus
20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God…
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - The mass. Through transubstantiation, the wafer/host and the wine supposedly become the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ when the priest prays over them.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Jesus died once for sins, never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the mass as a mass of blood and flesh.
Hebrews
10:12 But this man [Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
John
19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
1 Corinthians
11:24 And when he [Jesus] had given thanks, he brake it [bread], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come (not for the forgiveness of sins or to receive Jesus).
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Saved, in part, by good works.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Good works are the fruits that grow out of being saved. They do not make you saved. An apple does not make its tree an apple tree, it was already an apple tree before any apples appeared. When you see the apples; however, you know what kind of tree it is. If a person is saved, he will shew forth good works because he has the spirit of Christ in him. The good works don’t make him saved only the blood of Jesus can do that.
I John
1:7b …the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Acts 16:31b
…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
Romans
3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
What about James 2:20 “faith without works is dead”?
The kind of faith that saves is a faith that shows forth the works of God. Even devils believe in Jesus and tremble (James 2:19). Many people believe in Jesus but they won’t follow Him. They have a faith, but not the kind that saves. If a person has true faith in Jesus, the Holy Ghost dwells in him and will cause good works will show forth in his life. The good works confirm the faith by which the person was saved. James 2:21-23 uses Abraham as an example. Abraham believed God so when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham, out of his faith in God, offered up Isaac.
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - The church is founded on Peter.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter was a man like you and me. Jesus called Peter Satan in Matthew 16:23 when Peter rebuked Jesus dying. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” (Acts 10:26). The pope needs to remember Acts 10:26 when he has men bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship.
1 Corinthians
3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Matthew
21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
* * * *
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary.
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS - We are to confess our sins and needs to God alone.
I John
1:9 If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Matthew
6:9, 12 After this manner…pray ye: Our Father… forgive us….
1 Timothy
2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope];
I John 2:1, …And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
* * * *
There are many other scriptures that could have been used here to testify against the doctrines of the catholic religion. There are also many other doctrines of the catholic religion which could have been refuted (e.g. the sacraments, receiving the Holy Ghost, salvation through the catholic religion, penance, rosary, etc.).
* * * *
The Catholic religion has a history of taking the money of poor widows in order to say masses for the dead (which do no good) and collecting the material possessions of nuns. In Italy, the heart of Roman Catholicism, there is an often used saying that goes, “Without money, they don’t sing the mass.” That is really pitiful on several fronts–1) mass is blasphemous and people who trust in it are hell-bound 2) there’s no such thing as purgatory and 3) the gift of God is without price.
Roman Catholicism today is probably the wealthiest government in the world. It owns a good share of America’s hospitals and has healthy real estate interests. The bottom line is, if you want to get right with God, you have to go through His Son, Jesus Christ, not some religious organization. There is no salvation in the catholic religion.
Ro 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Catholic Christians - Is This An Oxymoron?
Am 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
Webster’s dictionary defines an oxymoron as “a combination of contradictory words,” such as jumbo shrimp, tight slacks and pretty ugly. Would you put Catholic Christian into this category? Some would say “no”, because they believe Roman Catholicism is a Christian denomination. Others, who know the official teachings of the Catholic Church contradict the essentials of the Gospel would say “yes.” We propose that a Catholic Christian is indeed an oxymoron for two reasons: 1) whom we are is what we believe, and 2) it is impossible for anyone to believe two opposing views simultaneously. Let us consider the contradictory beliefs of Catholics and Christians. By definition we will propose a Christian is one who believes the Gospel while a Catholic is one who believes the official teachings and traditions of his church (presented by paragraph number from the Catechism of the Catholic Church).
Authority
A Christian believes Scripture has authority over church. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). By setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience (2 Cor. 4:2).
A Catholic believes the Church has authority over Scriptures. The manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God (119).
Justification
A Christian is justified once by faith because justification is a permanent declaration by God (Romans 8:30). However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness (Romans 4:5).
A Catholic is justified repeatedly by sacraments and works because he loses the grace of justification each time a mortal sin is committed. The sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification (1446).
Regeneration
A Christian believes he is regenerated at baptism of the Spirit. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body (1 Cor. 12:13), from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth (2 Thes. 2:13).
A Catholic believes baptism of water imparts divine life, the water of Baptism truly signifies our birth into the divine life (694).
Salvation
A Christian is saved by God’s unmerited grace. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast (Eph. 2:8-9).
A Catholic is saved by meriting the graces needed for salvation. We can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for the attainment of eternal life (2010).
A Christian is saved for good works. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do (Eph. 2:10).
A Catholic is saved by good works. The sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation (1129). Catholic catechism
A Christian is saved for all eternity. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance. (Eph. 1:13-14).
A Catholic is saved until a mortal sin is committed. Those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell (1035).
A Christian believes salvation is offered to those outside the church. “We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors as though God were making His appeal through us” (2 Cor. 5:20).
A Catholic believes salvation is offered through the Church. Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation. Anyone refusing to enter it or remain in it cannot be saved (846).
A real born again Christian is purified by the blood of Jesus. The blood of Jesus…purifies us from all sin (1 John 1:7).
A Catholic is purified by the fires of Purgatory. They undergo purification in Purgatory, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven (1030-31).
Saints and Priests
A Christian becomes a saint when the Spirit baptizes him into the body of Christ. And He gave some…for the equipping of the saints…the body of Christ (Eph. 4:11-12).
A Catholic becomes a saint only if the Pope canonizes them. This occurs when he solemnly proclaims that they practiced a heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace (828).
A Christian is a priest. But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God (1 Peter 2:9).
A Catholic needs a priest. Catholic priests are said to be apostolic successors and guarantee that Christ is acting in the sacraments to dispense divine life (1120-1131).
The Lord’s Supper
A Christian believes the Lord’s Supper is a memorial. “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24-25).
A Catholic believes the Lord’s Supper is sacrifice. The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice…the same Christ who offered Himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and offered in an unbloody manner (1367).
A Christian receives Jesus once, spiritually, in the heart. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12). God… put his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee (2 Cor. 1:22).
A Catholic believes he receives Jesus physically, frequently, in the stomach. The body, blood…soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ…is truly, really and substantially contained in the Eucharist (1374-78).
Condemnation
A Christian is condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. Over 100 anathema’s have been pronounced against Christians by the Roman Catholic Councils of Trent and Vatican II. These condemnations are still in effect today and can only be lifted if a Christian returns in submission to the authority of the pope.
A Catholic is condemned by the Word of God. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day (John 12:48). If we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! (Gal. 1:6-9).
These thirteen teachings and traditions of Roman Catholicism demonstrate that a Catholic Christian is indeed an oxymoron. They also affirm how man made traditions nullify the Word of God (Mark 7:7-13). There are many Evangelicals and Roman Catholics who are unaware of how diametrically opposed Catholic dogmas are to the Word of God. The truth must be told. Catholics who believe they are Christians must be lovingly confronted with the truth. Evangelicals must be educated so they can proclaim the true gospel to Catholics instead of uniting with them under a compromised and diluted gospel.
God’s truth coupled with Satan’s lies always produces an oxymoron. Yet the “father of lies” continues to seduce many by mixing a little error with truth. In the final analysis, truth mixed with error never hurts the error, it only contaminates the truth. The veneer of truth covering the false gospel of Rome is deceiving not only Catholics but many Protestants as well. Let us persuade Catholics to turn from the errors of man’s teachings to the truth of God’s Word!
God defines truth with His Word (John 17:17). It is objective, authoritative and sufficient! We must use it to expose the evil deeds of darkness, to set captives free from the bondage of deception and to protect God’s children from being deceived.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Bill,
As a evangelical protestant I have to say, from a historical perspective, protestants do not have a clean record when it comes to persecuting those who did not share their doctrinal views. The persecution of the Anabaptist comes to mind. So, although we should make people aware of the the Catholic Church, we need to be more transparent about the history of our own faith. What about the fact that many so called ‘Protestants’ in America and England owned slaves.
I think the Catholic Church is an apostate church, let that be understood. What I don’t want to do is be hypocritical about the ills of Protestantism as well.
Shane
November 28th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Shane,
ALERT!!! If you confuse a man with the “actual history” of Christianity and western civilization, it may conflict with the history that is built up in his own mind.
“In this country you could not find a hundred people who hate the Catholic Church, but you can find uncounted millions who hate what they mistakenly believe the Church to be.”
- Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
“Bigotry is the inability to formulate a rational premise” - GK Chesterton
November 28th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Brett,
True bigotry is indeed wrong.
What gets labeled as bigotry is not always such.
As the editor of this sight, I would like to make it clear that I will not allow real bigotry to be on this blog.
Now for your quote from Sheen. Catchy, but that’s about all I can say. This is a common argument I get from Catholics (you just don’t understand us, and OH if you did, you would run home to Rome, the one true Church. The Catholic Church is more understood by outsiders than many in it would like to accept.
Shane
November 29th, 2007 at 1:48 am
The “SPanish Inquisition did not kill millions of people” Europe at that time was still recovering from black death. So there is no possible way that the Catholic Church killed “Millions” THE SPANISH INQUISTION ONLY TRIED 3,000 PEOPLE IN A PERIOD OF 300 YEARS. Resources http://www.catholic.com and http://www.scripturecatholic.com.
Bill I AM A CATHOLIC APOLOGIST HIT ME UP WIH SOME QUESTION, Shane if you would like to know more about the Catholic faith check out http://www.fisheaters.com or http://www.staycatholic.com
November 29th, 2007 at 2:11 am
How refreshing to learn that there were no Christians (or “true Christians”) before 1517!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Shane,
You say that “The Catholic Church is more understood by outsiders than many in it would like to accept.” I see absolutely no evidence of that here in the comments. And Bill needs to get his hands on the real Catholic Catechism. What he says it is teaching is completely false. I don’t know where he is getting his quotes. (And his misinterpretations of the Bible for that matter.) If you truly hate the Catholic Church, why not try and find out more about it? Try to debunk it. Read the writings of the early Christians. You will be surprised at how Catholic they were.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:40 am
For example, Bill cites section 1129 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here is what it really says:
1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.51 “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature52 by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Here is a good example of the true Catholic teaching regarding works and salvation:
http://home2rome.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/faith-and-works/
November 29th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Bill,
If you have the time, you may want to address Julie’s comments.
Shane
November 29th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Julie,
Bill’s post was long, so I need to read through it in more detail for myself. Let me say much of what I did read is true.
I for one, do have a copy of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, and I have read much of it. Having said that, I can say the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains considerable error in the light of Scripture.
I have read the ‘Church Fathers’ and many of them were very Catholic in their doctrine and theology that is true. This does not however in any way play in the Catholics favor. This fact just proves the point that heresy has existed from the very beginning of what we call Christianity.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:25 am
So… Evangelicals are being infiltrated by Catholics. Keep a close eye out for albino monks carrying giant tongs to grab unsuspecting protestants to drag them into apostasy! You guys are too much! Have any of you stopped to think that maybe, just maybe the prominent evangelicals who have converted to Catholicism in recent years were searching for the truth- and found it? Or are you smarter than all of them?
November 29th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Shane,
You are saying then, that heresy existed right after the resurrection! And then, the truth came to light 1500 years later????
You say that the Catechism contains considerable error in light of Scripture?? Based on whose interpretation? Yours? My Bible interpretations agree with the official Catholic ones. Am I wrong? Based on whose authority?
November 29th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Timothy, what you said about 1/4 of the country being Catholic, and if each Catholic converted just one person rang with such a wonderful note. What a great idea. We could convert the entire country to the Holy Catholic Church in a short time if we took this approach. Thank you.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Let’s give Bill time to compose his Catholic Catechism. God Bless you all! And have a nice Christmas by the way.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Bill,
I do not have time to respond to all your comments about Catholicism but I wish to respond with a few Bible verses. If I had time, I would respond to all.
Call No Man Father 1 Cor 4:15 15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
St Paul says he is his converts Father. Did St. Paul not know the Scriptures? Did St Paul break Jesus’ command?
Celibacy in the Priesthood
1 Corinthians 7
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a]
If Bill is right, St. Paul got it wrong twice.
Mary and the Brothers of Christ
http://catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
Mary the Mother of God
If Mary was not the Mother of God, Jesus was not fully human. Every human being has a mother, even a divine person who was incarnated. If the divine 2nd Person of the Trinity did not have a mother, the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity did not take on a human nature. If he did not have a human nature, there was no incarnation. If there was no incarnation, there was no redemption.
Confession to a Priest
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
Why would Jesus give his apostles the authority to forgive sins he didn’t want them to forgive sins? How could they forgive sins if they didn’t know? How could they discern which sins to forgive and which not to if they didn’t know them?
I wish I had more time to go over more, but work is calling.
May God open the eyes of your heart.
Shane, If the Church was in error at such an early time that St Paul got a couple of things wrong (as shown above), how can you trust the authority of scripture? We can only trust the authority of Scripture because the Church tells us that it is inspired by God.
How do you know which Scriptures are inspired by God? Who told you that the Bible is inspired? If your faith is in Scripture alone, who had the authority to define what is Scripture?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am
The Tide Is Turning Toward Catholicism. In a macro context it has been for the last 2,000 but in a micro context it has been for the last 10-20 years. Don’t take my word for it look at the words of another Baptist, R Albert Mohler, the head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He admits that while he doesn’t agree theologically with the Church he has to admit that Protestantism has been on a slippery slope with churches who bless gay marriages and mega churches who have leaders who live in mansions and drive rolls royces. Truth be told Shane, the world believed the Catholic teaching on Matthew 16:16-19, John 6:22-69, John 10:16-18, Luke 10:16, 1 Corinthians 11:23-32 long before 1517 rolled around. As a matter of fact, God could not have truly been a Sovereign and Almighty God had we been wrong. God has intervened to change accepted beliefs, but that was during he Apostolic Age when the dietary laws were changed Acts 10:9-16. If God came back to tell us it was OK to eat ribs and crab cakes, he certainly would have intervened to say the Catholic Church was wrong. Why would he let His children stumble in the darkness so long if these teachings weren’t the truth? To say you are right would be the equivalent of someone in 3293 saying we got the American Revolution all wrong, it was totally different than we think. The person would be ridiculed for saying something so ridiculous. The Church Teachings are based on Scripture and Tradition. (2 Thessalonians 2:15) The Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15.)
November 29th, 2007 at 11:26 am
Julie,
My point about heresy is that it is nothing new to the Church. Paul had to deal with it, Peter had to deal with it, John had to deal with it.
You have to remember there were those who were never part of the ‘Roman Catholic Church’.
So, error has always existed in the church and it always will. That is not to say that we should not be able to understand and hold to foundational truths or what might be called essentials by some (the Trinity, how we are justified, diety of Christ, etc.) These doctrines are non-negotionable and our understanding of these issues will naturally devide when we depart from the truth.
Finally, the Reformation simply brought back to light doctrinal truths that have been exactly that, true, from the beginning of the Church.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:29 am
I am a former evangelical minister and now a Catholic priest. I used to buy into all the falsehoods about Catholicism. I was wrong. I discovered that the Bible is a Catholic book. I rejected the traditions of men such as sola scriptura. I discovered the fullness of truth in the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostle Peter. It has been wonderful and I invite everyone to experience the joy of receiving Jesus in the most holy Eucharist. Come home to Rome.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Shane how do we know that Evangelicals “Interpret their own version of the bible” many Protestant Churches are started every year because someone disagree with the pastor.
Many of the Evangelical Mega Churches preach “Health and Wealth” Prosperty without preaching that WE follow Christ’s Suffering.
So, if many Protestant PAstors disagree even Evangelical ones disagree on one “Error” those whose authority do we settle that one “Error”.
The Holy Scriptures just didn’t drop from the sky? The Bible wasn’t written overnight Shane! How do we know which scriptures are inspired or which are heresy.
The First 300 years of the Church, The early Christians relied on “Apostolic Succession”. They didn’t have bible studies?
November 29th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Father,
Bless you. The fruits of Christ’s love do not include hatred toward other religions, nor falsehoods and twisting Bible passages. Did you know, Shane, that Mariology developed as a response to a heresy? I hope you don’t believe that falsehood that the “true” Christians were underground, hidden. That story makes no sense and there is no proof and I would look into that more closely if I were you based on real sources. Please, if only to strengthen your own resolve, look at the Catholic Church and its true doctrines, and at the early Christians. We Catholics are not afraid to open up our doctrines to perusal. We have nothing to hide or be afraid of. Check and see if the Catholic doctrines are Scriptural.
November 29th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Shane,
By the way, I appreciate your zeal and your love of Christ.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Julie,
I have and do hold all things up to scripture to see if they are true. That is exactly why I am so concerned about many of the false doctrines of the Catholic Church.
I think you need to reflect on the ‘Hard Sayings of Jesus’ before you make the statement that Christ did not hate other religions. All other religious beliefs, outside of Christ, are enemies of God. All who are unregenerate remain at odds with God.
Now God is a God of love, that is true, but He is also a God of justice and wrath. The way a true Christian should battle with the enemy (other religious systems, etc) is to know the truth and share it with everyone who does not know it.
Finally, I never said anything about underground Christians. It is an historic fact however that throughout Church History there have been groups of people who have separated themselves from society and even from other faith groups in order to preserve their faith. I do not advocate a separatist mindset, I am just making clear what Church History has recorded. True Christians are to be salt and light in the world.
You should understand I have much to learn in so many areas but I have spent considerable time studying the Word of God, Church History, Historic Theology, and contemporary works in doctrine and theology. So, I am not unlearned in these areas, but I have a long way to go and that will always be the case.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Shane,
I didn’t use the analogy of bigotry because I was offended in anyway; sometimes all you can do is laugh at the absurdity of comments like Bill’s. I do appreciate your wisdom in using history in response. Using Bill’s logic I could go one step further and claim that “Evangelical Christians” are adulterous homosexual drug-dealers, because we have Rev. Ted Haggard as proof; but that would be silly right.
You have probably heard from overzealous catholics that use the same type of approach. The whole “come home to Rome” proclamation probably gets a little old. I would never claim that Catholic doctrines are easy to understand, and some of the stuff probably seems strange to many sincere Christians. It’s been my experience that some of the doctrines are much deeper in mystery when inside the Church. I do enjoy reading your blog, and I have learned much from it. Peace.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Brett,
Thank you for your sincere words. I wish I had more time to spend on the blog but I am using the time God does give me to hopefully glorify Him.
I am only interested in truth and I suspect you are as well.
You are right about “Evangelical Christians”. Sin is in the camp, there is no question about it and God is not pleased.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Mark Patino,
Welcome to the blog. You said
I was just wondering, how long would you say you have been a CATHOLIC APOLOGIST and has this come through formal training or your own study of Scripture, etc.
Do you consider yourself to be someone like a Peter Kreeft or Scott Hahn.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Shane, I also have studied Scripture and find Catholic doctrines not to be false according to Scripture, and that in fact, Scripture supports Catholic doctrines. Do you have the authority to say that I am in error? We are in disagreement, then. You are claiming “false doctrines” based on your Scriptural interpretations. You say your interpretations are fact and you are claiming authority here. My interpretations are different than yours, obviously.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Julie, you have hit this on the head. In my journey on the Evangelical road (which eventually led to the Holy Catholic Church), I found numerous incidents where differences in scripture interpretations led to serious differences, altercations and even mini-schisms. I suppose that is why we now have upward of 58000 different Protestant denominations on the scene. There must be an authority who HAS the authority to interpret scripture truthfully. There IS an authority. It was given to us by Jesus Christ. It is the Magisterium.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Re: the Scripture quote about “call no man father” supposedly invalidating calling a priest “Father” — what do y’all call your dads?
November 29th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Bill, come up for air! It’ll be all right.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Julie,
I can appreciate your comments but I would like to suggest that understanding biblical truth is not a mere matter of interpretation as most consider the word. Proper interpretation of biblical texts goes way beyond opinion for even the most educated of readers. We can peruse the written or verbal guidance of others in our understanding of Scripture but we must ultimately trust in God to make the bible real to us.
In Ephesians 1, the Apostle Paul makes it clear in his prayer for the church that we (the redeemed) should expect to receive ‘the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him …’ from none other than God himself. Not a pastor, not a priest, not a pope, not a dead saint, etc. There is valuable instruction and understanding to be found from those men God uses, but I must make mention again that we must ultimately look to God for understanding, not man.
Paul was praying that believers will have the disposition of godly knowledge and insight of which the sanctified mind is capable (v. 8).
November 30th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Julie,
You ask if I have the authority to say you are in error and I would like to respond.
You suggest that what we have come to is a disagreement and that is true. However, it is much deeper than that. First of all, any authority we have, comes from Scripture. Multiple times in Scripture we are encouraged not only to run from false doctrine, but also to expose it, bring it into the light. We are to warn of error and defend truth.
So, either I am wrong, you are wrong, or we are both wrong.
Here is a good example. Either we are justified by faith and works or by faith alone. To be sure, a full description of Justification can fill volumes, but I think you get my point here. This is one of the fundamental doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism (I really don’t like isms, Oh well !)
Given these two positions on the understanding of Justification, only one can be true or they are both wrong. Lets assume, and I think it is the correct assumption, that one of these doctrinal positions on Justification is true. We may take opposite sides on the argument, but the truth still holds and must be discovered in order for one to be justified.
Consider the following passages of Scripture:
November 30th, 2007 at 2:48 am
Since many of you guys posting comments here seem to be Catholics, I would like to ask you a question.
Can you give your brief opinion of Scott Hahn and/or Peter Kreeft, both considered by many a Catholic as worthy defenders of the Catholic faith.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Shane,
When you say that the earliest Christians went into heresy right away, what are you basing that on? The Bible did not exist yet.
Also — The Christians who decided what went into the Bible were people who believed in the Eucharist, Marian devotions, the Communion of Saints, etc. “Catholic stuff” and they celebrated the Mass. I see also that you appreciate the existence of an authority when it comes to the Bible. I get mine from the church that gave us the Bible. If a sanctified mind is capable of the insight you say enables one to interpret Scripture correctly, why are there 25,000 different Protestant denominations and constant schisms because people cannot agree on their Biblical interpretations? God bless you. You seem to be very well-read and articulate.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Shane,
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15). The Catholic Church is the only one that still has the traditions of the Christians from before the Bible was in existence.
And do you believe that the Protestant reformers knew better than the Christians who knew actual disciples of Christ, were taught by them or by people who were taught by people taught by the disciples?
November 30th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Thanks Dave Levinson! And Hello. Dave says there are 58,000 different denominations. He probably knows better than I. That’s a lot! I think Christ wants us to be united! And Christine, good point! And hey, we all love Jesus, and our lives are changed because of it. God bless.
November 30th, 2007 at 9:17 am
I am very familiar with Scott Hahn. I have several of his books and have watched his many appearances on EWTN ( Eternal Word Television Network). As a former protestant myself, he has been one of my most important teachers in my faith journey as a Catholic by addressing in a lucid, forthright way my questions. Hahn’s website http://www.salvationhistory.com/ is also very useful. Peter Kreeft I’m not as familiar with but I do know he is quite well regarded. I have his book “Prayer for Beginners” (Ignatius Press) I find it invaluable and refer back to it when I hit stumbling blocks in my prayer life. Hope this helps!
November 30th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Shane:
The citation from “Southern View Chapel” calls the work of Evangelicals and Catholics Together “pluralism (the view that all religions are legitimate ways of worshipping God)”–but I have read several things produced by ECT, and that could not be further from the truth.
The participants do not believe “all religions are legitimate ways of worshipping God”–for that matter, they do not believe what separates Evangelical and Catholic beliefs are inconsequential. Rather, they believe that Evangelicals and Catholics have common ground and they seek to explore that. They’ve made the argument that many seeming disagreements are narrower than previously realized, and spring in some cases from misunderstanding. They may be wrong, but to say they are indifferent to the doctrinal issues is a false accusation, and that is sinful.
Do you claim that Evangelicals and Catholics do not have common ground? If so, would you care to say so specifically–then we can examine that proposition, which would mean, for example, that Catholics are not even Christian, do not believe in God, and for that matter, do not even share common concerns about the culture, and about whether our society protects, or destroys, human life.
November 30th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Shane,
Sorry if you’re over run with other Catholics, I promise I didn’t invite them. I wouldn’t excuse any of them for maybe being a little overzealous in trying to “convert you”. But to their defense I could submit that, how would you respond if someone continually called your mother a whore?
You responded to Julie that “Here is a good example. Either we are justified by faith and works or by faith alone”. The actual biblical example uses the phrase “faith alone” one time in (James 2:24) with a very important qualifier NOT BY “faith alone”. A catholic understanding of scripture realizes that there are no errors, or contradictions in scripture. It is not either St. Paul, or St. James was correct about faith. They are BOTH true, whether we can wrap a feeble little minds around it or not.
Maybe the biggest problem some have in understanding Catholic doctrine is your quote from Torrey. I believe that God is not JUST a spiritual being, and the bible in not just a spiritual book. Scripture tells a real story of salvation history and that God actually came into our fallen world in the flesh, and was born in the womb of a young peasant girl. God always has and still does use the things of this world to give us Grace. (Our families, sacrifices between husbands and wives, water, bread and wine, and he can even use chain smoking, beer chugging priests.)
I’m familiar with both Kreeft and Hahn. Kreeft is a philosophy professor and he has some really excellent audio talks for free download on his website. I love Hahn’s books. I would recommend his writings over his talks because he got his start as a Presbyterian preacher and he tends to be a little long winded (but man he knows his bible and Covenant theology)
November 30th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Shane thank you for this dialogue. You seem earnest in your beliefs. I am sure you are very well read. I ask you to ponder the following. I posted some of it yesterday. In a macro context The tide has been turning toward Catholicism for the last 2,000 but in a micro context it has been for the last 10-20 years. Don’t take my word for it look at the words of Baptist, Dr. R Albert Mohler, the head of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He admits that while he doesn’t agree theologically with the Church he has to admit that Protestantism has been on a slippery slope with churches who bless gay marriages and mega churches who have leaders who live in mansions and drive rolls royces. Truth be told Shane the world believed the Catholic teaching on Matthew 16:16-19, John 6:22-69, John 10:16-18, Luke 10:16, 1 Corinthians 11:23-32 long before 1517 rolled around. As a matter of fact, God could not have truly been a Sovereign and Almighty God had we been wrong. Why would he let His children stumble in the darkness so long if these teachings weren’t the truth? We do know that God did intervene to change accepted beliefs during the Apostolic Age when He changed the dietary laws. It came in the form of a dream to Peter (Acts 10:9-16.) If God intervened and told us it was OK to eat ribs and crab cakes wouldn’t He have deemed it important to say the Catholic Church is wrong on all the things you disagree with us on, such as Peter and the popes, the Eucharist, Mary, Salvation etc? To say you are right would be the equivalent of someone in 3293 saying we got the American Revolution all wrong, it was totally different than we think. The person would be ridiculed for such a statement . The Church’s Teachings are based on Scripture and Tradition. (2 Thessalonians 2:15) The Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15.)
November 30th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Well, I really would not say that I have an agenda aimed at converting Shane, though I would welcome a good Bible-believing Christian such as he into communion with us.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:54 am
Brett,
You say:
As the editor of this blog I just want to say I would never use the kind of language quoted above. I have used word like heresy, apostate, false doctrine, false teachers, etc. but never word like whore. To be sure, I will never use such language.
We are to speak the truth in love and we know from 1 Cor. 13 what love looks like.
So Brett, shame on those who use such language !
December 1st, 2007 at 2:15 am
Brett,
I wanted to briefly (for now) respond to your response to my example on justification by ‘faith alone’.
I think you know that when I use the term ‘faith alone’ I am using it in the same way we use the theological term ‘trinity’. As most of us know, the concept of the trinity can be found throughout the scriptures, but the term itself, ‘trinity’, is not in the bible. This is not at all uncommon to use a term that may not be in the bible to describe a doctrine that is found in scripture.
Thus, when I use ‘faith alone’, I think you understand that I am describing the doctrine of justification by faith (alone).
When we look at Ephesians 2:8-10, it is clear that Paul wants us to know that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ and not by works. Since we are saved [not by works] but by grace through faith, we can use the word alone with confidence. The word ‘alone’ serves to make it clear that works has nothing to do with our justification and that it is by grace through faith in Christ,
You mention James 2:24, and I admit that the book of James presents a challenge for those who would defend, if I can use the term, Sola Fide. It’s a challenge not because the bible is a book of contradictions or error. It is a challenge because we must through much prayer, study, and Holy Spirit guidance come to an understanding of the text that in appearance only, seems contradictory.
That’s what Eph. 2:8-9 and James 2:24 seem to do, although they do not, that is, contradict each other.
I would submit, with regard to sheer numbers of references, there are less than a handful of references to salvation that even hint at works having a part in it, compared to the numerous references to salvation by grace through faith (Gal. 2:16; 3:6,11; 5:4, Rom. 3:20-25)
James, when talking of works, makes it clear that saving faith will be accompanied or followed by good works. Good works will not doubt follow all who are truly redeemed. It might be said that a person is “shown to be righteous by his works, and not by his faith alone.” The key here is the word “shown”. Works can be a visible sign that we posses saving faith, not something that is a part of the act of justification.
We will continue to discuss the apparent contradiction between James and Paul in another comment as time allows.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:46 am
Fr Martin Fox ask of me:
The simple answer is no, I do not claim that Evangelicals and Catholics are without some common ground. That is not the issue however in my mind. The issue it this, there is a wide gulf between the Roman Catholic and Evangelical Protestant’s understanding of Justification by Faith. A proper understanding of this is of utmost importance.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:58 am
There have been several here who have brought to light that there are numerous protestant ‘denominations’ and the premise, I suppose, is that this proves Protestantism is wrong and only fosters division.
Well, let me say, it is true there are many protestant denominations and God is not pleased with many of them. However, to presume that being unified under the Church of Rome brings unity is a farce. An honest assessment of the Roman Catholic Church would reveal division within her borders.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Shane,
You are comparing apples to oranges when you speak of the disunity in the Catholic Church being equivalent to the disunity you see in Protestantism. Of course there are individual members of the Catholic Church which may disagree with her doctrines but there is indeed a single body of doctrine which is approved by the magisterium and it is the same for all Catholics everywhere. In Protestantism you could have important doctrines such as baptismal regeneration which may be believed by one Protestant denomination and completely rejected by another one. The unity in the Catholic Church comes from her official teachings, not whether or not individual members adhere to them. This completely different understanding of key doctrines in Protestantism goes to the heart of why Sola Scriptura is an untenable doctrine. It is akin to handing every American a copy of the Constitution and saying good luck read it on your own and decide what it means while having no court systems or other means of interpretation, there would be sheer anarchy in this country. Christ promised the Holy Spirit would guide the church, as a corporate body, into all truth. I see nothing about this guaranteeing each individual person to having infallible interpretation of Scripture. This is the point that is so clearly seen when considering all the individual Protestant denominations who often disagree on key doctrinal issues. Excuse me for suggesting that any one individual who suggests that they can” hold all teachings before the light of Scripture” and make proclamations about what is true or false doctrine is acting with arrogance.
To borrow an example from a Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid: if you have a sentence “I never said you stole money”, on the face of it this may seem very easy to interpret, now let’s manipulate this sentence by accenting different words in the sentence. `I never said you stole money. I never `said you stole money. I never said `you stole money. I never said you `stole money. I never said you stole `money. All five of the sentences have a completely different meaning based on the emphasizing the accented word and unless one was present when the sentence was being said, there would be no way to know what it meant. In the same way the Bishops of the Catholic Church, for which there is historical precedent in their succession with the apostles, act as the person present at the conversation throughout Church history being able to vouch safe the proper meaning of the sentence.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Joe,
Call it apples and oranges if you like. The point is, the Catholic Church is not unified simply because the so called magisterium has published a body of work they claim to be without error. Was Natzi Germany unified simply because Hitler had power? I don’t think so. I use that example only to bring out the point that power and control do not always lead to unity and truth.
Your little example with the sentence leaves out one very important ingredient when we consider how the bible is to be properly interpreted and understood. Namely, the bible is a spiritual book and can only be fully understood through the power of the Holy Spirit who is a guide to all who have trusted in Christ. I addressed this issue in the following comment on this thread, comment-918.
More biblical references to consider
December 4th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Then the Holy Spirit must be schizophrenic in your world, because if what you say is true, he is leading your protestant brethren to multiple different interpretations of the scripture, and all of them are claiming the power of the holy spirit guiding them, so what is it Shawn, are the Lutherans right about Baptism or the Baptists? Are you going to claim that is not an important issue? Who was the Holy spirit guiding when each group came to its doctrinal stance? I never said that each believer shouldn’t read the scripture to gain knowledge and spiritual insight, just like the Bereans, I’m just claiming that God would not leave his Church without a court of final appeal anymore than our secular government could run without a court system.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Joe,
Very, very insightful. You just brought this kind of thinking to its logical conclusion. I am very curious how Shawn is going to answer your questions.
If I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that either:
1. the Holy Spirit is a schizophrenic
2. protestant’s understanding of who has the authority to faithfully interpret scripture is jacked up, in other words unbiblical.
3. The Holy Spirit is not a schizophrenic because he cannot lead different people into different truths and that he is guiding all to truth, not by every christian with a bible theory, but through who he appointed to faithfully interpret his Word.
Is that right Joe?
December 6th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
sorry about calling you shawn, i meant shane.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Joe,
The Holy Spirit is not schizophrenic and you are on thin ice saying such even if it is sarcasm.
I simply refuse to use sarcasm when addressing issues we discuss here and I would encourage you to act in like manner.
I would ask you to address the biblical references I have provided. The bible makes it clear that our ultimate understanding of scripture is enabled by the Holy Spirit. The fact that not everyone comes to the same conclusion only serves to show our humanity.
I am really not trying to make this a Catholic vs Protestant debate. There are clear differences between the two, but my appeal is to scripture, not to a group of people.
However, since you seem to want to focus on the ‘many denominations’ in Protestantism, I will say one more thing with regard to that.
With some exceptions, most Protestant denominations agree on the essentials.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
My apologies as well Shane (not Shawn). Phil, I think it is pretty obvious by the way I’m saying it, but of course I do not believe the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic, however your points two and three above I believe are correct. Shane, I agree with you entirely that it is the Holy Spirit that enables our understanding of the Scripture. Where you and I obviously disagree is that you believe any individual person can pick up the Scriptures and be led to a correct interpretation of them, whereas I believe the Holy Spirit leads the church as a corporate body. I believe my example above (about what baptism does) clearly illustrates that you cannot be right or else there would be complete unanimity of belief among Protestants. I think the example I raised above, and there are others, is not an insignificant issue. It’s easy to claim that there is a singularity of belief on the essential issues in Protestantism, but how do you define the essential issues? Shane, just use some logic here, the church existed for nearly 300 years before a Canon of Scripture was even formed. Many centuries passed until the invention of the printing press, therefore the majority of Christians had no access to Scriptures of their own and relied on the church to teach them the doctrines of the faith. Furthermore, even after the invention of the printing press, the majority of the world’s Christians were still illiterate well into the 19th century. Does it make sense that God would use His primary method of conveying the faith the written scripture, or the teaching church. The answer to this is obvious, and any attempt to tiptoe around this conclusion can only be agenda driven.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Shane,
I agree with your sentiments, and the reason I enjoy your blog is because it contains serious and open minded discussions about Scripture (which as Christians we can all agree contains Divine Authority).
You wrote previously that: “I would submit, with regard to sheer numbers of references, there are less than a handful of references to salvation that even hint at works having a part in it.”
I could not disagree more with you on this statement. I like to read whole books of the bible at once in my prayer time, and I am constantly bewildered at how Christians can believe that God does not require that we “obey him”. Throughout the New Testament I find that the works of Christians “in Christ” are of supreme relevance to salvation. There are probably clearer statements throughout the New Testament (and it is not my attempt to bombard you with scripture), but just skimming through the first book finds multiple hints that works do have a part in it:
(from John the Baptist)
Matthew 3:10 Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire
(from Jesus, Note: I would put these in red if I knew how)
Matthew 5:16 Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father
Matthew 6:14-15 If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.
Matthew 7:19-20 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.
Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
Matthew 9:37-38 he said to his disciples, “The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest.”
Matthew 10:22 You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved.
Matthew 10:38 whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.
Matthew 12:36-37 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.
Matthew 12:50 Whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Matthew 25:44-46 They will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.
I am also curious what your pastoral response would be to this FICTITOUS letter to an evangelical pastor who preaches “Faith Alone”: (I came across this on the internet and it is not meant as sarcasm):
** FICTION ** [I am a former Catholic who was recently saved through the Grace of Jesus Christ. All my life I knew I was a homosexual. The Catholic Church told me that I had to refrain from what I was in order to be saved! I never knew that my good works meant nothing! To think, I would have spent my entire life struggling not to engage in homosexual activity, just to wind up in Hell! I now realize that Salvation is through FAITH ALONE, and not from good works. I am now living as an active homosexual in the freedom of Jesus Christ!]
December 6th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Shane, I been looking in my bible and i just cant find it. i was wondering if you could give me the scripture verses for where it says what the essential and non essential doctrines are? I keep hearing about these but have never seen the list. I sometimes think that Protestants just added this tradition to justify their splintering and divisions. “We might have 100s and 100s of differing and conflicting doctrines, but we agree on the essentials.” I just think to myself, is Jesus really ok with that?
I wonder when he prayed that we may be one as He and the father are one, if He would be ok with all our divisions. I wonder if being one like God is one, means that we not only agree on the “essentials” (whatever those are?), but also the “nonessentials.” Does Jesus believe that he is (in the Catholic understanding) present in communion and the father only believes that Jesus is symbolically present? Does the Holy Spirit believe that he guiding the Catholic Church to all truth and the father believes that he is guiding the protestant churches? Does Jesus believe that it is ok for gays to marry and the father doesn’t think that it is ok? I personally don’t think so. I think they agree on the essentials and the nonessentials. Sorry for the tangent, so back to my question: where is this list of essential and nonessential doctrines that you speak of and do you believe that Jesus is ok that just agree on the “essentials?”
December 6th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
about the verses you referenced. I agree with those verses. I agree that we need the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Phil,
I think it is fair to suggest that any ‘list’ of essential doctrines that one might hold to normally comes by way of a group of people deciding on what those essentials are. I am sure you are aware that throughout the history of the church, creeds and confessions have been established in order to define what might be considered ‘essential doctrine’ or ‘essential faith’. Again, down through the history of the church, councils have convened to discuss such ideas. I must say however, that when we face God on judgment day, he will not ask us which creed or confession we held to. Our justification is based on our faith in Christ.
Now, all that being said, I am not suggesting that the members of these councils where in any way infallible. But, I also am not saying that they where not guided by the Holy Spirit in there development of these so called creeds and confessions.
As for the essentials being listed in the bible as that, essentials, I don’t think they are listed in that way (as we would speak of them). But I do, without hesitation, submit that those essentials are determined from scripture and not the opinion of man, yet understandable and knowable.
I think I should also say that an honest Protestant would not deny that tradition plays a role in ones faith. Where most Protestants, myself included, would disagree with Catholics is to the value of tradition vs. scripture. Protestant churches are full of tradition, some good, and some bad, but none equal to or greater than scripture. If tradition does not illuminate the truth that is already in scripture, then it is not of God.
Humility knows it is dependent on grace for all knowing and believing. “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” (1 Corinthians 4:7). “In humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls” (James 1:21).
Humility knows it is fallible, and so considers criticism and learns from it; but also knows that God has made provision for human conviction and that he calls us to persuade others. “We see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). “A wise man is he who listens to counsel” (Proverbs 12:15). “Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11).
I agree with what I think you are saying about unity, God desires that the body be in unity.
The Apostle Paul had to deal with disunity or division in the church:
1 Corinthians 12:12 says, “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” Christ’s body is not dismembered. It is whole. If we try to puff ourselves up over the other members of the body it would be a contradiction of Christ. The body is one. The fingers on the right hand would be foolish to boast over the fingers on the left hand because their leader is the right wrist and not the left.
Finally, let it be said, Christ desires unity in the body. However, the reality is, perfect unity will escape us until we are perfected at Christ return.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:17 am
Brett says the following and then ask for my response.
Here is my (Shane’s) response
First, I want to thank Brett for being mindful of our recent comments regarding humor and sarcasm. Although Brett’s story is fictitious, this story is representative of what really goes on in the church (not just Protestant churches however).
First of all, in the strictest since of the word, I am not a pastor and do not claim that role. I since a strong calling of God in that direction, but again, I am not a pastor with a church. That being said, I think I can provide relevant insight into how a pastor should respond to such a letter if received.
As a pastor, I would no doubt lead my congregation in an understanding of scripture that would uphold the doctrine of justification by faith alone. As I have said in previous comments and posts, I understand scripture to teach that justification is by faith alone, but saving faith will always be followed by good works. Works is an outward demonstration of inward change. It (works) also demonstrates your obedience and love for Christ and His church. We, as true believers are called to good works (Eph. 2:10, Col. 1:10). Faith without works is dead (James 2:20). A dead faith is a non-saving faith.
So, how would I respond specifically to the letter? I would, in love, point this person to numerous scripture references which would show him/her from a biblical perspective that their understanding of salvation through faith alone was flawed. As new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17) sin should no longer dominate our life. If we walk by the spirit we will not carry out the desire of the flesh. Romans 6, the entire chapter, deals with the fact that the redeemed should be dead to sin and alive to God.
We should expect to experience new life in Christ …
Given the fictitious letter as is, it appears that this individual does not see the homosexual lifestyle as sinful or has some how suppressed that fact.
Finally, it must be said, that although we are justified by faith (redeemed, purchased of God), we will continue to deal with our sin nature. Sin should no longer rule in our life, but we will, until our glorification, experience sin in our life. So, in the case of the person in this fictitious letter, it appears that sin is still in control of the persons life and they have not yet been converted to faith in Christ. Had they indicated in their letter a struggle with desires and a giving in to those desires at times, we would address the issue somewhat differently. It might still be appropriate to share many if not all the mentioned scriptures, but we would also want to expound on the grace and forgiveness of God to those who repent (Godly sorrow). It is likely that a person who is aware of and repentant of their sins (gross and otherwise) has experienced new life in Christ. This is the never ending process of sanctification. The Apostle Paul helps us a lot in the area of sanctification by describing his own walk with Christ (Phil. 3:12).
December 7th, 2007 at 8:23 am
sorry for not sticking on topic (i hate when people are all over the map like i am doing) i will reply to your reply, but one of your comments were extremely interesting…
“I must say however, that when we face God on judgment day, he will not ask us which creed or confession we held to. Our justification is based on our faith in Christ.”
Hmm, what does scripture say? It looks like God will take in account our works or lack of them:
34″Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37″Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40″The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41″Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44″They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45″He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46″Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Question: Do we need to feed the hungry and cloth the naked to be saved? Yes or No?
December 7th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Shane, I hope you don’t feel like you’re being piled on, but you did lay down the gauntlet by making a statement like you did above:
“There is no question that the Roman Catholic Church is making inroads into Evangelicalism like never before. If you understand the apostacy of the Catholic Church, this should cut you to the core. Those in the true Church (all true followers of Christ) must wake up and begin to pray for direction and wisdom in this hour. We must proclaim the truth like never before and begin to expose this infiltration to those we know and influence.”
In light of your concerns, I’m somewhat disappointed that you fail to interact with my post explaining why the Church and not the Scripture alone has been the primary source of teaching and Christian doctrine through the centuries. It’s a very recent phenomena that a large number of Christians have had access to and the ability to read the Scriptures, but you make it sound like this was normative for the last 20 centuries, it clearly was not. Although I’m sure God loves Shane and Joe more than we love ourselves, I don’t think he necessarily loves us more than he loved some poor peasant in the ninth or 10th centuries whose only knowledge of him came from Mother Church and who probably never even saw a Bible. This of course in no way denigrates the importance of holy Scripture, but puts Scripture in its proper place within the Church and her interpretive traditions. It’s a hand in glove scenario, the two are inseparable. Of course when I say Church, I mean the visible historical body founded by the incarnate Jesus Christ who came into history and through his apostles founded a truly visible Church which carried his authority.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Shane,
You may not be a pastor, but that was probably a more well thought out answer than most pastors would give, and I really appreciated the focus on repentance. I realize you don’t have all the answers, and I surely don’t either; but one more question that I am curious about from your response:
You wrote: “This is the never ending process of sanctification.”
If this applies to the person in this scenario, would it mean that the person has already been “Justified by Christ” (and is already saved)? Can I person go through the process of sanctification before he is justified?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Joe,
Don’t get disappointed, I will address you comment as soon as I can. There are only so many hours in a day and I already stay up for too many of them. I should get more sleep than I do. You must understand, I pray and search the scriptures before ever responding to some issues. I am sure you can appreciate the fact that you may know something to be true, but when communicating it to others, it can be a challenge to clearly articulate your thoughts.
When making statements about Christ, his Word, and His Church, I take seriously what I say and desire to be a bearer of truth. I will not give a half backed response just to please someones timetable.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Brett,
Again, remembering that your letter is fictitious, I am making some assumptions about this fictitious person. So, based on the content of this letter, I would conclude that the person in the letter was not a true Christian. Maybe they are, but I would have to say they do not exhibit Christ like behavior.
Therefore, this person would not be justified by Christ and would not be in a process of sanctification. Only those who have experienced faith in Christ can be walking in a state of ongoing sanctification.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Phil,
To answer your question, no, we do not need to feed the hungry and cloth the naked to be saved. If we are saved however, we will do these kind of things and more.
December 14th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Shane,
It is admirable that you don’t like to give answers to questions about important topics without first properly researching and preparing your answer, and I will take you at your word that you are extremely busy and therefore don’t have time to respond quickly to some of these blog entries. I patiently await your explanation about how the Bible alone (which you are proposing is so extremely clear and has no significant ambiguity, so that the individual person can rely on reading it to come to the truth in all matters) has indeed been the primary way God has spread his truth throughout the centuries. I of course do not believe this, but would be happy to be persuaded by you if you could present a sufficient argument grounded both in logic and historical accuracy.
I will take this time however to address another question you have answered. Phil presented several biblical passages in which our Lord and Savior, the man God Jesus Christ, clearly says in the text that you must do certain things to be saved. You however, say that none of these things have to be done, rather only your faith saves you, but you will do these things because of your faith. I would like your explanation as to why the clear words of Jesus are not to be taken at face value. The biblical quotes given by Phil mentioned nothing about faith alone justifying you, so of course you will do these things. It appears to me that Jesus is speaking in a straightforward manner with no theological qualifications.
I believe this is a clear case of isogesis when reading Jesus’s words through the theological lens of justification by faith alone. I know you will quote some Scripture from St. Paul which may seem to suggest this theological novelty, without taking into account that within the Scripture itself Peter states that Paul says many things that are hard to understand and will be twisted by others. I’m not saying that Paul’s writings are not valuable, but they can only be understood properly within the bosom of the Church from whence they sprang. Many Protestants jettison the historic setting off Paul’s quotes as well as his intended audience, and import a meaning on the words which cannot square with the clear and unambiguous meaning of Jesus’s words.
December 14th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Jesus says, “‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” Did Jesus say this because they did not faith in Jesus? No, He says this because, “I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink…”
Shane says, “no, we do not need to feed the hungry and cloth the naked to be saved.” Jesus says, “‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink…”
Should i believe Jesus or Shane?
As the good berean I am, I will believe Jesus.
December 14th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Phil,
If we look at the whole of scripture, we will discover the mystery of the fact that we are saved by faith alone, but the truly saved will exhibit fruit (works) in their life. I have already made reference to numerous scriptures which support the doctrine of ‘Justification by Faith Alone”.
Your reference is indeed the words of Jesus and we need to read and understand them. This passage (Matt 25:34-35) in no way suggest salvation by works. If that where true, we would have to completely ignore
Rather than just looking at Matt 25:34-35, we really need to look at Matt 25:31-46. Verse 37 talks about the righteous and how they will respond to Jesus. These (the righteous) are the sheep described in verses 32 and 33. This is a very important point to bring out. The righteous are not righteous because of their works or anything they do, but because of the finished work Jesus on the cross and their faith in that work alone for salvation by Christ grace. We know that the bible says that the righteous shall live by faith.
Read John Piper’s sermon in its entirety here.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:54 am
“The righteous are not righteous because of their works or anything they do, but because of the finished work Jesus on the cross” Amen, we are in total agreement. (I am not sure how Shane is defining the word Righteous, so I am going to use the word justified or saved) I just want everyone to know that Catholics believe that there is nothing we can do apart from the finished work of Christ that can save us. We cannot have faith or do good works apart from God’s grace. The Council of Trent clearly teaches that. So when you quote esp 2:8, Catholics are in total agreement with that verse. The question is if a person doesn’t walk in the good works that God has ordained, is that person “truly” saved? Yes or No? You said, “the truly saved will exhibit fruit (works) in their life.”: If the “truly” saved (where is that in the bible), need to exhibit fruit (works), why don’t you stop playing word games and agree with Catholics that you need good works to be saved?
I hope everyone is clear on the above paragraph. I am so tired of seeing the same old distortions of Catholic teaching. If someone continues to teach that Catholics believe that they can earn their salvation or any distortion similar to that, may God have mercy on their soul.
Shane, Catholics don’t have to ignore (or distort) any of the verses in the bible. We need to respond to God’s grace with faith and good works (or love as it says in 1 cor 13:2). When Catholics read verses like Mt 25, we can take Jesus at his word and not try to add our tradition of faith alone to his words.
December 15th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Phil,
I am sorry it was not apparent to you what I meant when using the word righteous. Let me try to make it more clear.
Catholics do indeed believe works are required for salvation, they just believe it is only by God’s grace that they have these works present in their lives. This does not agree with Eph 2:8-10. Justification by Faith Alone is not a tradition, it is Eph. 2:8-10.
You are correct in suggesting that “truly saved” is not in the bible. The word Trinity is not in the bible either, nor the word rapture. Using the word “truly” or “alone” only help bring a point home. I can easily remove these clarifying words and still communicate the same thing.
Those who are saved will exhibit good works. However, we are not saved by works, but by faith in Christ.
This is not a play on words at all, just a reference to the truth of God’s word.
You say Catholics are in agreement with Eph. 2:8, what about Eph 2:8-10. We need to look at all three verses to get the complete picture here.
December 16th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Joe,
With regards to your issue about the ‘availability of scripture’ I will provide a quick statement.
First of all, the first century church had the Old Testament. Jesus quoted it, Peter quoted it, Paul quoted it, as did other New Testament authors. As an example, we see Paul making reference to the Old Testament in 2 Tim 3:15
If the above scripture if not biblical proof for the sufficiency of scripture then I don’t know what is.
We also know that Paul’s epistles were circulated during his lifetime.
It is true that not everyone had a copy of the scriptures in their home and that is still true today. This fact does not however negate the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture. I have discussed this before, but if tradition can not be supported by scripture it is to be ignored.
The following link will take you to a debate on the topic of Sola Scriptura. The debate is titled, Does The Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?
December 20th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Shane,
I must say that I am disappointed by the lack of depth in your response. I have listened to James White several times in the past in regard to this issue, while I admire his skills as a debater, the substance of his argument leaves much to be desired. He rests a lot of his conclusion about the utter sufficiency of Scripture on the same biblical passages which you have quoted. While I of course agree with everything said in these passages, I see nothing in the words on the page that say that Scripture is the only source of Revelation and most importantly that it is always the Court of final appeal. What the words do say is that Scripture is God breathed and profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. I agree with each of the statements, but they do not say what you claim they say. I find it untenable that if God intended the Bible alone to be the Court of final appeal that there would not be passages within its sacred text much clearer and unambiguous than the ones you claim. It is clear to me from reading the holy text that Jesus established a church. In none of the passages where Jesus speaks does he mention anything about writing, rather he talks about teaching and preaching. Once again this is not in any way denigrating the importance of the Scripture, but rather to place it in its proper place within the teaching church. You mention that some of the epistles of Paul were floating around in the first century, but you failed to mention the many apocryphal works were side by side with the God breathed scriptures. Without church authority to establish a Canon,(and of course this authority came from the Holy Spirit, using the Church as an instrument) there is no way for any of these early Christians to know what is or is not Scripture. There are historical records of churches reading the letters of Paul and then for instance reading the letters of Clement or the shepherd of Hermas.
I want to suggest a little exercise to see how well your theory of the Bible as the all-encompassing bastion of doctrine can hold up. A heresy of the early Church known as Monothelitism stated that Christ had only one will, a divine one, rather than the orthodox understanding that he had two wills, a divine and human one which are in perfect harmony. Anyone holding to Monothelitism was not considered a Christian in good standing. Please use the Bible alone to construct a clear understanding of why Monothelitism is false.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Joe,
As you have mentioned, Monothelitism w