Thanks
for continuing the dialogue. As I read through your email I couldn’t help but
think of the time of my conversion to the Catholic Faith, I had all of the same
objections. I’m really eager to discuss these issues with you. I don’t assume
that I will persuade you to embrace the Catholic Faith. But I do hope that you
will begin to look at some of the core tenets of the Protestant Faith through a
neutral lens and ask the hard questions, being open to what the truth reveals.
There are several issues listed here, which are all very complex. I will
address each one. However, I want to put the most emphasis on the issue of Sola
Scriptura, since this is the foundation of the Protestant Faith and the source
of your objection to the Catholic Faith.
I
noticed that you quoted John MacArthur extensively. Are you part of a Calvinist
denomination? I was a huge fan of John MacArthur. I own and have read every one
of his commentaries, and have listened to the majority of his sermons (up until
last year). One of my Protestant Bibles was a MacArthur Study Bible. When I
was in the process of trying to prove the Catholic Faith a heresy, I studied
John MacArthur extensively on the subject of Sola Scriptura and the “Apocrypha”
(Deuterocanonical Books). I also studied several other Protestant Theologians
in an attempt to debunk these books as Scripture, including Geisler, Nix,
Stewart, White, etc. As I read their stuff I thought to myself, “How can the Catholics be so blind? It’s so obvious;
the facts are all right here.” The problem was that I was only reading the
Protestant argument and resources. That’s when I came across some things in
Church History and realized that some of the Protestant resources I was using
were not including “all” of the information, some were deliberately leaving it
out, and others flat out gave false information. I was devastated! Some of the
authors I had trusted turned out to not be reliable. The reason I mention this
is that I want to encourage you to view reliable Catholic Resources as well.
Keep an open mind and compare the two arguments against each other, using
Scripture as your guide, and see what honestly makes the most sense to you.
[FYI, I
tried to avoid a lot of cutting and pasting. I actually took the time to write
the majority of this. Out of respect for you, I don’t want you to have to read
a bunch of Catholic stuff you’re not interested in.]
On the
topic of Sola Scriptura:
First,
and most importantly, let me reiterate that we both agree, and the Church
teaches, that “All Scripture is God breathed” and without error in its original
form. It is Holy Scripture… One of the points where we disagree is which Books
constitute The Canon and belong in The Bible.
This
brings us to the very first question; Where did we get the Bible? Church
history shows us that there were many manuscripts that claimed to be Scripture,
but were not. Some of these were disputed between early Church Fathers
(including Jerome, which you mentioned). They met at Councils to authenticate
which ones were legitimately Scripture and which were not. The Canon of Scripture, Old and New Testament, was finally settled at
the Council of Rome in 382, under the authority of Pope Damasus I. It was soon
reaffirmed on numerous occasions. The same canon was affirmed at the Council of
Hippo in 393 and at the Council of Carthage in 397. Another council at Carthage
in 419, reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to
“confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our
fathers to be read in church.” All of these canons were identical to the modern
Catholic Bible, and all of them included the Deuterocanonicals.
This is
the Bible that was used in the Church for the next 1100 years until the
Reformation when Luther began to dispute it.
He opposed the Deuterocanonicals because they teach Catholic doctrine;
he took them out of the Old Testament and placed them in an appendix without
page numbers. He also removed four New Testament books, Hebrews, James, Jude, and
Revelation, and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well.
So this
was the Bible for 1100 years before there ever was a Protestant one. By what
authority did Luther, and then others, remove the Books from the Bible that the
Church Fathers had declared as Holy Scripture, and that the Church had used for
1100 years?
You
mentioned several things related to your understanding of the “Apocrypha”.
First, the word “Apocrypha” is a derogatory term used by Protestants to
describe the “Deuterocanonical” Books. They were included in the Old Testament
and were not considered “in the background”, they are Holy Scripture.
As I
read through your objections on the Deuterocanonical Books, I notice that there
are some dogmatic claims. These are the same ones I used to read in my
Protestant resources. However, there is no additional information to verify the
veracity of the claims. For example, you state that “they were never part of the Hebrew Canon”. That’s just not true,
it is however a partial truth. Your resource failed to give you complete
information. Here’s some info on the Jewish Canon:
During
the first century, the Jews disagreed as to what constituted the canon of
Scripture. In fact, there were a large number of different canons in use,
including the growing canon used by Christians. In order to combat the
spreading Christian cult, rabbis met at the city of Jamnia or Javneh in A.D. 90
to determine which books were truly the Word of God. They pronounced many
books, including the Gospels, to be unfit as scriptures. This canon also
excluded seven books (Baruch, Sirach, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, and the
Wisdom of Solomon, plus portions of Esther and Daniel) that Christians
considered part of the Old Testament.
The
group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish
history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews,
such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the
Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p.
1147).
Needless to say, the Church
disregarded the results of Javneh. First, a Jewish council after the time of
Christ is not binding on the followers of Christ. Second, Javneh rejected
precisely those documents which are foundational for the Christian Church — the
Gospels and the other documents of the New Testament. Third, by rejecting the Deuterocanonicals,
Javneh rejected books which had been used by Jesus and the apostles and which were
in the edition of the Bible that the apostles used in everyday life — the
Septuagint.
So the Protestants have accepted the
decisions of the Jews at Jamnia in A.D. 90 as authoritative regarding the
Deuterocanonicals, but reject their decision regarding the Gospels. Note that
the Protestants also accept the decisions of the Catholic Church Councils at
Rome, Hippo and Carthage regarding the New Testament Canon, but reject the
Deuterocanonicals. So the Catholic Church got it right on the New Testament but
not the Old?
You mentioned that “Jerome's 5th
century vulgate did not initially include them.”. Did you know that he ultimately
agreed with the Church, submitted to their authority, and included them in his
Vulgate?
You
also said “they contain errors and contradictions
to other canonical books especially in Esther. Contradictions that cannot
be explained away”. Please show me these “errors and contradictions”. As a
Protestant, during my conversion, this statement right here is the one that
ultimately revealed to me the truth of the authenticity of the
Deuterocanonicals as Holy Scripture!
You
mentioned that “only 2 were possibly
included in the Dead Sea scrolls?” There were actually four; Tobit, Ben
Sirach, Baruch 6, and Psalm 151. And note that they were written in Hebrew,
which is very important, because that was one of the main objections of early
Protestants. Also, the Book of Esther was not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
but it's included in the Protestant Bible.
You also said that they were “NOT WRITTEN BY APOSTLES or Prophets.
The authors never claim to be from God and they never had any
authenticating power to affirm a God given revelation. There are lots of
books that claim to be from God, if they contradict Scripture how can they be
in the canon?” First, what are the criteria for a book to be considered
Scripture? Where did you come up with that criteria? And, Where is that
criteria in Scripture itself?? Surely if God intended for us to use Scripture
Alone, He would have given us some criteria as to how to determine that in
Scripture. The reason I ask these questions is that The Catholic Church came up
with the criteria as to what was to be authenticated as Scripture and included
in The Canon. Remember, the Canon of Scripture was decided over 1000 years
before the Protestant Reformation. During the Reformation, Protestants came up with
a separate set of criteria in order to remove Books that contradicted their new
set of beliefs. Interestingly enough, they didn’t apply their criteria
consistently to their Books as well.
Second, where do any of the
Deuterocanonicals contradict Scripture?
Third, I’m not clear on your objection that
none of the authors claim to be from God. Are you saying that in all of the
books in the Protestant Bible it states that they are “Divinely Inspired” or
that the author explicitly states that “he is from God” and “God told him to
write it down”? I’ll address both. No book of the Bible explicitly claims
itself to be Divinely Inspired. No Scripture author explicitly states that he
is from God and God told him to write this Book, other than John’s vision in
Revelation.
Lastly, you say that they don’t have any
authenticating power to declare God given revelation. How do you come to this
conclusion? …..
In the Book of Tobit 12:15 The Archangel
Raphael says the following, “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers
of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Lord.”
Can you recall anywhere in the Bible where you see “Seven Holy
Angels before the throne of God and prayers being presented”?…… It is not
mentioned anywhere in Scripture until John writes Revelation approx 400 years
later!! Revelation 8:2-4 says, “Then I saw the seven angels who stand
before God, and seven trumpets were given to them.” “And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer, and he was given much incense to offer
with the prayers of all the saints
on the golden altar before the throne, and the smoke of the incense, with
the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel.” Would that be persuasive authenticating power?
Also, the Deuterocanonicals were included
in the Septuagint, the Greek edition of the Old Testament which the apostles
used to evangelize the world. Two thirds of the Old Testament quotations in the
New Testament are from the Septuagint.
Before
we continue, I want to address John MacArthur’s comments that you quoted.
First, He is very anti-Catholic and his disdain for the Catholic Church colors
all of his writings. He is way off base and totally misrepresents the teaching
of the Catholic Church. I find it interesting that he states, “Scripture is to be accurately interpreted
in its context by comparing it to Scripture--certainly not according to
anyone's personal whims”, which is exactly what he himself does when he
gives us his “opinion” according to his “personal whims” and how they fit his
narrative. The Catholic Church does NOT teach that she is superior to
Scripture, as John MacArthur states, “Roman
Catholics, on the other hand, believe the infallible touchstone of truth is the
Church itself. The fact is, the
Church sets itself above Holy Scripture in rank of authority.” This
official teaching of the Church is stated in the Catechism, “Sacred Tradition and Sacred
Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the
other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come
together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same
goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church
the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own "always, to the
close of the age". CCC 80
Are we to believe that a man today can accurately interpret the
meaning of Scripture using Scripture alone, 2000 years after it was written,
apart from Sacred Tradition and what the early Church actually believed and
practiced at the time of Christ??? Or is it necessary to know what the Apostles
and Early Church actually believed, taught, and practiced for 1500 years until
the Protestant Reformation??
“Sacred Scripture
is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy
Spirit.” “And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which
has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It
transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the
Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound, and spread it abroad by
their preaching.” CCC 81
You said, "This principle [Sola Scriptura] has to do with the sufficiency of
scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. All truth
necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or
implicitly in Scripture..." Where in the Bible do you see this claim?
(Honestly, I’m not trying to be sarcastic) This totally contradicts the
teaching of Scripture itself. Are you saying that someone that has never read
the Scriptures cannot be “saved”??
I think one of the biggest problems
when debating some points, especially Sola Scriptura, with Protestants is they
always seem to take an “Either/Or” approach (Either Scripture OR Sacred
Tradition), when Catholics teach “Both/And” (Both Scripture AND Sacred
Tradition; Both Faith AND Works). Scripture itself teaches both Scripture and Sacred
Tradition, and the Catholic Church agrees with Scripture. 2
Thessalonians 2:13, 15 “And we also thank God constantly
for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God,
which is at work in you believers.” “So then, brethren, stand firm and
hold to the traditions which you
were taught by us, either by word of
mouth or by letter.”; 2 Timothy
2:2 “and what you have heard from me
before many witnesses entrust to
faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”
2 Thessalonians 3:6 “Now
we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep
away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.” Honestly, how do you reconcile
these Scriptures with Sola Scriptura?? And these are just a few, I could go on
and on. But it’s not necessary, these verses alone totally contradict the whole
concept Sola Scriptura.
You also
stated that “The apostles were given
divine revelation to pass on to all Believers.” How does the Bible
say the Apostles were to pass on this Divine Revelation? As we see in the
Scriptures above, they are to pass it along by writing, speech, and practice.
In 2 Timothy 2:2 Paul instructs Timothy, “and
what you have heard from me before
many witnesses entrust to faithful men
who will be able to teach others also.”
You
said, “Just because everything Jesus
taught and did is not in Scripture it is irrelevant to the principle of Sola
Scriptura.”
I would
disagree that what Jesus taught and did that is not in Scripture is not
relevant. God came down in human form to teach us, and everything He said and
did is relevant. Remember, Jesus did not write down anything. He SPOKE!
I think if you take an honest look
at this argument for Sola Scriptura, and even the verses you use to support
“exceeding what is written” (1
Corinthians 4:6. Also Jude 1:3 and Revelation 22:9, 18)
you will have to admit, the argument doesn’t stand up. In 1 Corinthians 4:6, “I have applied all
this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us
not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of
one against another.” Paul
is not telling us to ignore Sacred Tradition, if so he would be totally
contradicting himself in other places of Scripture (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15;
3:6). Using your own method of interpreting and authenticating Scripture using
Scripture, Paul’s letters to Thessalonica and Corinth would have to be
considered not to be Scripture because they contain errors and contradictions.
Of course that is not the case. “Context” is key! What is Paul talking about
here to the Corinthian Church? He is referring to “humility”, saying not to be
arrogant by boasting beyond what was written. He is referring specifically to
the verse he quoted earlier from the OT (1:19, 31; 3:19–20). We know this by
reading the entire letter. Just read the very next verse, “For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not
receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?”
In Jude
1:3 there is nothing related to going beyond what is written. “I found
it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once
for all delivered to the saints.” He’s referring to the Gospel (the faith),
the Gospel doesn’t change. If he was referring to not going beyond what was
written, then why did he feel it was necessary to go beyond and write them a
letter, if it had been “once for all delivered”?
In
Revelation 22:9, “but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant
with you and your brethren the prophets, and with those who keep the words of
this book. Worship God.” We are told not to worship angels. The Catholic
Church condemns the worship of anyone other than God. CCC 2084. And “the words of
this book” are referring to the specific prophecy and instructions in
Revelation (see below).
In Revelation
22:18, “I warn every one who hears the
words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to
him the plagues described in this book,” Refers ONLY to the Book of
Revelation. God only wanted John to write down exactly what he had seen and was
told, nothing more, and nothing less. Remember, there was no complete canon of
Scripture yet. It didn’t come to be until 200+ years later. If this were to
refer to the Bible as a whole, then John himself is violating Scripture. It says
in Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to
the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the
commandments of the Lord your God
which I command you.” So using your principle, everyone that wrote
Scripture after the Book of Deuteronomy sinned by breaking God’s command,
including Jesus. We would have to remove all books from the Bible after
Deuteronomy.
You
said, “As for Sola Scriptura not being in
the bible, neither is the word we both believe, "trinity". An
idea doesn't have to be explicitly referred to if a collection of data from the
bible support it.”
Let’s
take a good objective look at what you’re saying. You are making an argument
that Scripture and Scripture alone contains “everything” we need for Salvation
and Christian life, yet when I ask you where that is in the Bible, you state
that the statement doesn’t have to be in the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches
Scripture and Sacred Tradition, so we as Catholics can look at what the Church
actually believed and taught. You on the other hand, based on your own claim,
must provide your beliefs from the Scripture Alone. You also said a “collection of data from the Bible support
it”. But unfortunately that collection of data does not exist. I know this
may seem harsh in writing; I’m sincerely not trying to be unkind. I’m lovingly
pointing out that not only is the concept of Sola Scriptura not in the Bible,
the Bible itself actually totally contradicts it. I have mentioned a few verses
above (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim 2:2), just these verses alone
totally contradict SS.
You also
said that, “Scripture is the only
infallible source of Divine revelation”. Where does the Bible say that?
This verse says completely the opposite, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 “And we also thank
God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you
heard from us, you accepted it not
as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God,
which is at work in you believers.”
The thing you have to remember is
that Sola Scriptura did not exist until the late 1500’s. It’s easy to make
claims today regarding things that are so far removed from our time. Sometimes
we just assume things or take them for granted. We must look at the Early
Church and what they believed and practiced. We can’t change it today just
because we don’t agree.
I truly share this with you out of
love. Remember, I was a serious Protestant for over 20 years, and a Protestant
Chaplain. I always thought I had a “relationship” with Jesus and Catholics
didn’t. When in fact, the relationship I have with Jesus now in the Catholic
Church, is far beyond anything I could have ever even conceived as a Protestant!!
I want other Protestants that have a relationship with Jesus, love Him and His
Word, and have knowledge of Truth, to
come into the FULLNESS of TRUTH! That’s why I share this. So you and I both
have the same goal. Protestants are missing out on the Fullness of Truth. Even
as a Bible Alone Christian you’re missing seven Books of the Bible. How much
greater would your relationship be with just the addition of those?!!?
Regarding 2 Timothy 3:16 and James
1:4, you’re original argument was that 2 Timothy 3:16 proved that all we need
is Scripture Alone and it’s all we need to be complete. James 1:4 totally
contradicts that claim. We both agree that the Scripture is “profitable”,
that’s what it teaches, but it’s not all you need. We went through this
previously. I agree that you must always use the complete context. Exegeting
this whole passage as you suggest, we find in James 1:12 that, “Blessed
is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive
the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him.” Far from faith alone, but that’s
a totally different topic. We also see in verse 1:18, “Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth,….” The
Greek word here for WORD is again ‘Logos’ which means here “the content of what
is preached about Christ or about the good news—‘what is preached, gospel.” So
further exegesis actually contradicts the “Written” Scripture alone tradition.
We absolutely need God’s Word, both Written and Spoken, which is what this
passage actually shows.
You said, “Jesus defeated temptation by quoting scripture, "as it is
written". This phrase is used over 90 times in the New Testament.”
Because Jesus quoted the Old Testament when
He was tempted doesn’t suggest that is ALL we should do. Jesus actually says, “You have heard that it was said….but I TELL
you”. Should we only use the OT to fight the devil and temptation?? Did
Paul contradict Jesus when he commanded the believers in Thessalonica to hold
to the “Traditions”??? ‘You mentioned that “It is written” appears 90 times in
the NT. Does that mean we should disregard every Scripture that teaches us to
obey both the Written and Spoken Word?? The word LOGOS (which means primarily
“spoken”) appears 293 times in the New Testament. Remember, it’s not
‘either/or’, it’s ‘both/and’.
You said, “Jesus never referred to any oral tradition to defend truth, he always
referred to the scriptures. I'm sure Peter told of good ways to catch and
clean fish, but that wasn't something God wanted in his divine revelation.
Maybe that's a bad example but you see my point. Not everything
Peter (or other apostles/prophets) said or wrote was revelation from God.”
I agree with you that not everything
the Apostles said or even “wrote” for that matter, is Scripture. However, when
they spoke on matters of “Faith and Morals” their teaching was binding, whether
written or "spoken” Here’s an example in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 “For even when we
were with you, we gave you this command:
If any one will not work, let him not eat.”
Just as today, the Pope is human, he is a sinful man, just as the Apostles
were. Not everything he says or writes is considered accurate or binding.
However, when he speaks from “The Chair of Peter” (with the Authority of
Christ), on matters of Faith and Morals, he is without error in his
declarations.
Jesus does refer to tradition in
Matthew 23:2-3 “The scribes and the Pharisees
sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not
what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” In fact, Jesus tells them to
obey whatever they say from “The Seat of Moses” (Tradition)… Regardless, to use
the argument that if Jesus didn’t say it, then it must not be Authoritative or
the Word of God, is to negate almost the entirety of Scripture.
You said, “Mark 7:1-13 Jesus explicitly warns against holding tradition over the
word of God. "Well did Isaiah prophecy of you hypocrites as it is
written this people honors me with their lips but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of
men." Matthew 15:3 also refers to this. He was speaking
specifically to religious leaders who used their tradition to misinterpret
scripture.”
In Mark
7:1-13 Jesus condemns hypocrisy and is referring to “traditions of man” NOT
“Sacred Tradition”. Those are two totally different things. Sacred Tradition is
brought by the Prophets of the OT, and the Apostles of the NT, not by
hypocritical religious Pharisees and Sadducees, which Jesus and the Apostles
condemn. Again, Matthew 15 refers to the traditions of man. The Catholic Church
agrees, only “Sacred Tradition”, which is from God and not man, is
authoritative.
You said, “The Catholic Church, much like the Watchtower, wants the authority of
scriptural translation to be the the Roman Catholic Church itself. And if
someone doesn't agree, then they are anathema. To quote John MacArthur
again,…..”
You can’t even begin to compare the Watchtower with the Catholic Church. The Jehovah's Witnesses religion began in the nineteenth century in America. It was started by William Miller, a Baptist lay preacher in apporx 1816. Note that he was a Protestant! Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and all of the others would have never been possible without the Protestant Reformation and the tradition of Sola Scriptura. [Just to clarify, the Jehovah’s Witnesses Religion was started officially by Charles Taze Russell in 1879. But he was influenced by the teachings of William Russell and came out of his Adventist Movement.]
John
MacArthur has to know that he is totally misrepresenting the Catholic Church
and what the Scripture teaches. He’s way too smart for that. We’ve been through
this before, 2 Timothy 2:5 says “For
there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus” You yourself said, “this is a
description of Jesus' atonement on the cross in relation to our salvation".
The Catholic Church teaches that there is only ONE Mediator and it is Christ
Jesus. But we are “co-mediators”
through Christ. Have
you ever prayed for anyone? You said, “As
for prayers, yes, we can pray for each other to God.”. Has John MacArthur
ever prayed for anyone? If so, then he himself is acting as a “Mediator”
between God and man. So in his own words, he is putting himself above Scripture
and “nullifying Timothy 2:5”. He can’t have the argument both ways. Either we
can mediate or we can’t.
You
said, “And Jesus taught us in what manner
to pray with the Lord's Prayer. What's interesting is that he didn't ever
pray or tell us to pray to anyone but God. This would prevent any Bible
believer from praying to another man or woman, especially dead ones.”
As far
as praying to dead people, when a person dies they are not “dead” their soul
lives for eternity. The Bible says that those who die in Christ “shall be like him, for we shall see him as
he is.” 1 John 3:2 …” Matthew
22:29-32 says, "But Jesus answered them,
“You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are
like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not
read what was said to you by God, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is
not God of the dead, but of the living.”
Also, we
know that others have knowledge of our prayers in Heaven, “And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the
twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints;” Revelation 5:8 How
did they get our prayers if we only pray to God?
Regarding
your response to my question, which came first, The Church or The Bible? We did
not have a complete Bible before the Church. We had several different Writings
that were Scripture. The Scriptures to later be included in the NT were not all
written at the time of the Book of Acts. And there was no definitive list of
the complete Canon until the late 200’s. The Apostles did write the NT. However
it was the Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit that concluded which Books
were ultimately to be included in the Canon. To contend that everything the
Apostles taught was exactly what they wrote down, and nothing different, is
just not true. I’ve cited examples of commands given by Paul that weren’t
written down, and we don’t know how many more he gave. However, you are correct
if you are saying that they did not “contradict” what was written.
You
mentioned John 14:26 as a support for Sola Scriptura. “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I
have said to you.” Where does this say that it is “for the purpose of writing it down” as you state? This is in fact
a proof for the infallible power of the Magisterium of The Church.
Regarding
Acts 15, you had originally said that Scripture was all we need, “No mention of a Pope”. I responded with
a simple example of Church Authority in Acts 15. If all that was needed was for
James to pull out some Scripture, does that mean that Paul and Barnabas didn’t
understand the Scripture or Jesus’ teaching? That’s why they had to bring it
before Peter, The Apostles, and the Elders of The Church, to get an
authoritative ruling.
You
said, “Notice in Acts 15:12-19, James
made a decision after debate and used Scripture to back up what he decided. “ It’s
interesting, because I used the same exact objection when I was arguing against
the Catholic Church when I was a Protestant. But once I took my Protestant
“lenses” off and studied the passage with an unbiased approach, it was obvious that
Peter was the one that made the “authoritative, doctrinal proclamation”… Acts 15:6 “The apostles and the elders were
gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them…” 10-11 “Now therefore…… But we
believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as
they will.” It’s interesting
how after Peter stood and spoke, everyone present was then silent and the
subject changed. Paul and Barnabas then go on to share about the things God did
through them during their trip. Before they end, James gave his idea for a
“Pastoral plan” of how to address the gentiles when they returned. James still
had Apostolic Authority, as do the Magisterium of The Church today. As Acts
15:22 goes on to say, “Then it seemed
good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole Church,” Peter and the
whole Church liked the idea. Just as the Pope doesn’t unilaterally make decisions
today, he seeks wise, authoritative counsel first.
Regarding
my Closing of The Canon question, I asked where in the Bible it says that the
Canon of Scripture is closed? The Catholic Church made that declaration in the
early councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late 300’s, which we both accept.
However, I wanted you to take a historical look at how and when that happened,
because it’s not in the Bible. As a Sola Scriptura Christian, it’s impossible
to make the claim that The Canon is closed from the Bible alone. That will help
support the Authority of The Church for you.
In
regard to your issues with the Pope:
I
really, really, want to talk about the Pope issue in depth. But just as this
topic (Sola Scriptura) is extensive, that’s a whole new can of worms (The Pope).
You say “Gods word makes no room for this
position ANYWHERE!” Here are a few verses for you to review in the
meantime; Mt 16:18-19, Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17, Acts 1:13-26, Gal 1:18.
I will
attempt to touch on this topic relating to each one of your objections, but
again we can dig deeper later.
You
said, “As for Matthew 16:17, there is much debate over this passage and
what it means exactly.”
There’s
no debate over Matthew 16:17, only by Protestants who have to debate it to
justify the existence of the Protestant Church.
You
said, “But what we do know, is that Jesus
did not mean that Peter would have greater authority than the other apostles
Ephesians 2:20 nor does it
mean that he would be infallible in his teaching as Jesus rebukes him in
Matthew 16:23.”
Ephesians
2:20 doesn’t say that Peter doesn’t have greater authority. It says The Church
is “built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,” The
only mention of “supreme authority" in this verse is that “Christ” is the
“cornerstone”. The Church does not claim that the Pope is above Christ.
Remember, Jesus gave Peter “The Keys”. Only the Prime Minister can have “The
Keys” (Isaiah 22:22). When the King gives his Prime Minister The Keys, he is
giving him the chief authority to do things on his behalf. The King still has
the ultimate authority. He never steps down from his throne. He’s the King! He
just gives The Keys to the man he puts in charge of overseeing The Kingdom.
I think
you still have a misunderstanding of “Infallibility”. It does NOT mean that
everything the Pope says in infallible. It simply means that when he teaches
from The Chair of Peter, on “Faith and Morals”, he is without error, by the
power of the Holy Spirit, as you brought up earlier in John 14:26, “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom
the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things,…” When Jesus
rebuked Peter, Peter wasn’t speaking from that role, he was just talking to his
friend who he loved, Jesus.
You said
“Also, Matthew 18:18 uses similar verbage
addressing a community of disciples, not just Peter. This verse also does
not imply anything about a special office for Peter or successors to such an
office.” I’m really glad you brought that up, because it actually
makes the point of Peter’s exclusive role. First, Matthew is speaking of two
separate instances. They are not the same event. In the first, Jesus
specifically calls out Peter, and gives him, and him alone, The Keys to the Kingdom.
At this time he only gave Peter the power to bind and loose. Later in Matthew
18:18, Jesus gives all of the Apostles this authority regarding Church
discipline (along with the power to forgive and retain sins John 20:23).
However, he did NOT give any of the other Apostles The Keys to The Kingdom,
only Peter. A simple look at the text in
Greek makes this clear.
Matthew
16:18 says, “ I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose
on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” The word “you” in this passage is the
Greek word “soi” Strong’s #G4671. It
means “you; pronoun, personal, second person, dative, SINGULAR”. Here Jesus
uses the singular pronoun to address Peter, and Peter alone…… whereas he
addresses all the Apostles in 18:18 regarding discipline.
Matthew 18:18, “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The word
“you” in this passage is the Greek word “sy” Strong’s #G5213. It means “you; pronoun, personal, second
person, dative, PLURAL”. Here Jesus uses the plural pronoun to address
the entire group of Apostles.
It seems
that two issues keep getting conflated. Peter, in his role as the “Chief
Apostle” has a unique authority and office. All of the Apostles have authority
given by Christ, but not the same authority as Peter. The Catholic Church does not teach that the
other Apostles did not have any authority. They are “Bishops” in Church
structure. That being said, just because the other Apostles “sent” him and John
to Samaria in Acts 8:14, doesn’t mean that they had authority over him or equal
to him. For example, I “sent” my dad to San Diego to check on my friends…. Just
because he went, doesn’t mean I now have equal or superior authority over my
dad.
The
thing you have to keep in mind is that the Church for 1500 years did not see
things the way you do or interpret the Scripture the way you are interpreting
it. The Church has understood this passage to mean that there is a physical
Church (The Kingdom) on earth and that it has a leadership structure that is
authoritative and binding. We just need to look at Church History and see what
the Church did and how it operated. We are now on our 266th Pope
(Francis), in a direct line of succession all the way back to Peter. It’s easy
for so called “bible scholars” and “teachers” to come along 1500-2000 years
later and dispute what the Apostles or the Scripture meant. Proving those
claims is a totally different matter.
It’s
interesting that you referenced the Septuagint… Furthermore, the word for church in this particular verse is ekklesia,
which refers to God's "called out" people and has substantial
background in the Septuagint. not an
authoritative organization in Rome.” Did you know that the Septuagint, the Scriptures
that Jesus and the Apostles used, contained the Deuterocanonicals, which are
not in the Protestant Bible?
Regarding
ekklesia, the word occurs 97 times in the Septuagint. The majority of the time
it refers to the “congregation, assembly”. It applies to the “body of
believers”. Does this body of believers have an “organizational structure” in
Scripture? Does this “organizational structure” have an “overseeing
authority”?? Or is the Church (body of believers) free to do whatever they want
and not submit to anyone other than Christ?
Let’s
look at Scripture and see what it says about “authoritative organization”…
Matthew
16:18-19 “And I tell you, you are Peter,
and on this rock I will build my Church,
and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the
keys of the kingdom of heaven”
Which “Church” is Jesus talking about? What are “The Keys” to? What is the
“Kingdom of Heaven” Jesus is referring too? If there is no Church structure,
were these “keys” worthless??
Matthew
18:15-17 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between
you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if
he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may
be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen
to them, tell it to the Church;
and if he refuses to listen even to
the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” In
this scenario, Jesus is talking about Christians. He says, if your “brother”
sins against you. Then he says tell it to “the Church”. So if “the Church”
refers to all believers exclusively, who
is he going to tell the unrepented sin to….every single believer?? As you see
in this verse, “The Church” has authority to excommunicate those in sin.
Acts
14:23 “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and
fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.” What is
this referring to and why are there “Elders” with authority?
Romans
16:1 “I commend to you our sister Phoebe,
a deaconess of the Church at Cenchre-ae”
1
Corinthians 11:18 “For, in the first
place, when you assemble as a Church,..”
Individual believers being distinguished separately than when assembled. Were
they not part of the Church when they weren’t assembled together?
James
5:14 “ Is any among you
sick? Let him call for the elders
of the Church,..”
Ephesians
4:11-14 “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets,
some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip
the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the
faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the
measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we
may no longer be children, tossed back
and forth and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men,
by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.” I think it is evident from Scripture that the Church was an
“organization” with “structure” and “leadership”. Note in Scripture that
wherever Peter was, that’s where the ultimate leadership was. Take a look again
at Acts 15. Paul and Barnabas had to go where Peter was.
This statement puts it succinctly, “Jesus used the term ekklesia that explicitly denotes community. But
the idea of community does not negate the essence of an institution, since all
institutions as organization should be a community. Moreover, the fact that
Jesus established the church on Peter, thus making him a leader formally
implies that, the ekklesia the Lord had founded is an institution”
In addition, we have Letters to all of the Churches sending them
“authoritative” instructions. The Pastoral Epistles all address issues related
to the authority structure of the Church and how those roles should be
fulfilled.
In Luke 22:31 Jesus tells Peter specifically, “strengthen your
Brothers”,“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan
demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” And in John 21:15-19 when Jesus asks Peter
three times if he loves Him, Jesus instructs Peter to; “Feed my Lambs, Tend my Sheep, and Feed my Sheep.”
You said, “If the pope is Christ substitute on earth, there should be many
similarities in their lives, however while on earth Jesus never controlled
great wealth. The pope controls one of the wealthiest corporations in the world.
Jesus dressed like a common man, the pope on the other hand, is never
seen in anything but regal apparel. Jesus lived in simple surroundings
but the pope views opulence at every turn. Jesus tirelessly served the
multitudes, the pope travels the world on his private jet meeting with World
leaders from every nation in the name of unity. Most people eventually
rejected and hated Jesus because he told the truth the pope is worshiped and
adored by millions worldwide again because unity is preached rather than truth.”
It's
in the public record that for the 2011 calendar year John MacArthur earned
$402,444 for working PART-TIME for Grace To You and $103,000 for The Master's
College and Seminary. That's more than
$500,000, not counting his church salary, book royalties, speaking fees, etc.
He wears a nice suit every weekend, and most likely every day. He lives in an
expensive home in beautiful California. Unlike Jesus who "had no place to
lay His head". So does this disqualify John MacArthur from evangelizing
(as a representative of Jesus Christ) or carrying out pastoral duties???
You
obviously have a misunderstanding of the Pope. He is a very modest, humble
man. He has dedicated his entire life to
"tirelessly" serving the body of Christ and the poor. And just
because the Church has great wealth, doesn't mean that the Pope gets any of it,
unlike John MacArthur. You make it seem like the Catholic Church has banks full
of extra money. Did you know that the Catholic Church is the greatest
contributor to charities and to feeding the poor in the world! Did you know
that they started the University System and Hospitals? ..... The Pope has to
use a private jet for security purposes. Because people who oppose Christ are
trying to kill him! John 15:18-16:2
"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated
you....If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.....the hour is
coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God."
Did you know that three members of Pope Francis' family died in a car accident
in Argentina a few months ago? He couldn't even go to see his own family or
perform the funeral because of security risks..... And how do you expect him to
travel to other countries to meet with World Leaders to
"evangelize"?? Mark 16:15
"And Jesus said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to
the whole creation."... Did you know that the Pope performs Mass every
single day?!? His whole life is service!! Regardless, where in the Bible did
Jesus give the criteria you listed on how Peter and his successors were to
live?
You
said, "In a sermon, titled “Christ
Glorified,” Spurgeon said Christ did not redeem His church with His blood so
the pope could come in and steal away the glory. He never came from heaven to
earth and poured out His very heart that He might purchase His people so that a
poor sinner, a mere man, should be set upon high to be admired by all the
nations and to call himself God’s representative on earth! Christ has always
been the head of His church."
Charles
Spurgeon was born in 1834. In 1834, The Catholic Church was on its 254th Pope,
Gregory XVI. For a Protestant Preacher to come 1800 years after Christ
established His Church and make a statement like this is just arrogant, and has
absolutely no merit. The very content of his statement just proves his
ignorance of the Catholic Church. The Pope does not desire to have any glory,
but only to bring glory to Christ. In fact, the Church forbids it: "Idolatry not only refers to false
pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in
divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres
a creature in place of God,...." CCC 2113
Spurgeon's
issue isn't with the Pope, it's with Jesus Christ himself, who established the
Church with Peter as its Shepherd. Jesus said, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and
he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16
This
next issue is extremely important and this is what it all comes down too, the Authority
of The Church.
You
said, "Finally, who gave Martin
Luther the authority to establish the Protestant Church? The reformation came about as a backlash from
Indulgences and other unbiblical practices.
These indulgences are still part of the catechism of the Catholic
Church, The teaching of the church not of the word of God. That is, paying money for the sale and
purchase of salvation of the dead.
Martin Luther understood this to be unbiblical and that the Roman
Catholic Church was overstepping its authority."
Let's
talk about Indulgences. I'm not sure where you got this information on
Indulgences, but it's completely wrong. First, Indulgences have absolutely
nothing to do with the Salvation of the Dead. The Catholic Church teaches that
once you die, you are either going to Heaven or Hell, and there's no way to
change that after death. You cannot obtain Salvation after death. It must be
done during this lifetime. The Church teaches that if a "Saved"
person has any remaining impurities at the time of death, they must be purified
through Purgatory before entering into Heaven. Because no impure thing can
enter Heaven. (1 Corinthians 3:12-15
"....If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he
himself will be saved, but only as through fire.") But ALL souls in
Purgatory will enter Heaven.
Here's
the definition of an Indulgence, "An
indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins
whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly
disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when,
as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the
treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints"
(Indulgentarium Doctrina 1).
One never could
"buy" indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the
scandal that gave Martin Luther an EXCUSE (not Authority) for his heterodoxy,
involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund
or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no
outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "[I]t
is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be
encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would
naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these
purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor
is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely
not go unrewarded."
In
addition, the abuse of Indulgences that Luther had issues with were in his
local Churches in Germany, NOT throughout the entire Church. The Church in Rome
did not approve of the practice..... Is it possible for you to control everything
that happens in every Protestant Church in the world, or even within your own
denomination for that matter?? Is it possible that a Church affiliated with
your denomination is doing some sinful things that your church doesn't approve
of??
Because of these
abuses the Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of
granting indulgences, "in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of
indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic
Encyclopedia).
And
yes you are correct, indulgences are in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "An indulgence is obtained through the
Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ
Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury
of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the
remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins." The Church does
this not just to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of
devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478). As you can see from the
Catechism, this is a completely biblical and praiseworthy act. Matthew 18 and
John 20:23 Jesus gives the Church authority in the matters of forgiveness and
discipline of sin.
It's
interesting to me that Protestants object to this practice, because in essence
they offer a far greater level of indulgences by claiming "Eternal
Security/Once Saved, Always Saved". So if you say a prayer and "ask
Jesus into your heart" once, then regardless of what sins you commit,
you're still going to Heaven, which is totally unbiblical by the way. But
that's a separate topic for future discussion.
So
now to the Authority issue.... For arguments sake, let's say that the Catholic
Church was totally wrong in the practice of Indulgences during Luther's time.
How does that translate into Martin Luther having authority to start a new
church?? I assume we both agree that in Matthew 18 Jesus gave the Church
authority in matters of discipline, and that authority is binding. I know you
disagree that it is the "Catholic Church". Regardless, Martin Luther
was Catholic, so it was his Church. So they had authority over him. Whatever
decisions they made regarding discipline were binding on him. Luther totally
disregarded what Jesus said in the Bible and ignored the Church's binding
ruling. He decided on his own accord, contrary to the command of Christ, to
ignore the Church and just go start his own, with his own rules, according to
how he decided to personally interpret the Bible. He ignored 1500 years of
Church teaching and history and essentially said, "I'm" smarter than
everyone else and "I" know what's best for God's people,
"I" know what Jesus and the Apostles really meant and nobody else
does. Nowhere in the Bible is this authority or ability to start a new Church
found. All of the Churches were started by The Apostles. The Bishops were
appointed by "the laying on of hands" by The Apostles and their
Successors. Which Apostle or Successor appointed Martin Luther by "the
laying on of hands" and gave him the Authority??
You
said, "So to answer your question
who gave him the authority, God's word does."
Please
show me where? This would very simply end the debate.
Let
me ask you a question, if Martin Luther didn't have any authority to break off
from the Church Jesus Christ started, how does the church Luther started (and
any Protestant Church that comes out of his rebellion) have any authority at
all???
"I appeal
to you, brethren, take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties,
in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such
persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and
flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded." Romans
16:17-18
"I do not
pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that
they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent
me." John 17:20-21
You
said, "You state in your email that
the Protestant church is built on man-made traditions, that is untrue, it is
built on the word of God and nothing else.
If it comes down to following church traditions/decrees or the word of
God, I will take the word of God every time."
I
completely understand what you're trying to say. Remember, I used to feel the
same way. However, we have to ask ourselves, are we just trying to defend our
position or are we sincerely seeking "Truth"? As uncomfortable as it
might be, it is a fact that Protestantism is a Tradition made by Man. It did
not exist for the first 1500 years of the Church, and it was not established by
Jesus Christ. It was established by a man, a man named Martin Luther. The core
tenets on which it stands, Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone are not found in
Scripture itself or in Church history. I have asked you to show me in the
Scripture where even the "concept" of Sola Scriptura exists and you
haven't been able to do that. I'm sincerely not trying to be confrontational; I
truly say this in love. I asked you above to show me where the authority of the
Protestant Church is in God's Word. I am looking forward to your response.
You
said, "If it comes down to following
church traditions/decrees or the word of God, I will take the word of God every
time." But let me ask you, if God’s Word says to obey His Church. Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me,
and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent
me.” And Matthew 18:17, "if he
refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax
collector." Are you obeying God’s Word by rejecting His Church and
following Sola Scriptura??
You said, “The greatest error in catholocism is its road to salvation.
Please consider these carefully, look them up, read them and consider
what is at stake! Above is the catechism of the Catholic Church and
underneath what the Bible says:
You say that the
greatest error in the Catholic Church is its road to Salvation. Well let's just
clarify the Catholic position on Salvation. The Catholic Church teaches what
the Bible says, that we are Saved according to the Gospel of Christ. The
Protestant Church would claim the same thing; however, they are not proclaiming
the "complete" Gospel. For example, you stated Justification by "faith alone", apart from Baptism. Well,
what does Jesus say? The Great Commission: Matthew 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations, BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit," and Mark 16:15-16,
"And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the
whole creation. He who believes and is BAPTIZED will be SAVED; but he who
does not believe will be condemned." It can't get much clearer than
that.
Justification
and Soteriology are topics that are rather extensive. But I will quickly
address these and ask you to consider what the Scripture says.
First, and most importantly, we need to
make sure that Scripture is being used “in the context” in which it is
presented by the authors. We have a saying in apologetics, “A text without a
context, is a pretext.”
You said, “[objecting to Catholic Teaching]-initial justification is by means of baptism (1262-1274) versus *[support
of Protestant teaching] Justification is
by faith alone (Romans 3:28)”
Romans 3:28 does not say “faith alone”.
Martin Luther actually added the word “alone” to this verse in his original
Bible. The only place in Scripture where the words “faith” and “alone” appear
together is in James 2:24 “You see
that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” This totally
contradicts the claim of Salvation by faith alone. Romans 3:28 says, “For we hold that a man is justified by
faith apart from works of law.” In no way
does this imply we are saved by faith alone. Paul is writing here on the topic
of the Entire Law of Moses and the Jewish Ceremonial Laws such as Circumcision.
He is saying that “Obeying the Law Alone” or “Circumcision alone” does not save
you. Let’s look at the this verse “in context”, here’s what the rest of the
passage says,
Romans 3:27-31 says, “Then
what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the
principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith. 28 For
we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. 29 Or
is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of
Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he will justify the
circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their
faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no
means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”
Paul did not believe or practice a
Salvation based on faith alone. Reading through all of his writings this is
clear. In his same letter to the Romans in 2:6 Paul himself says referring to
salvation, “For he will render to every man
according to his works:…… to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor
and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who
are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be
wrath and fury.”
Regarding Baptism and initial Justification, the Scripture is
clear, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the
body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection
of Jesus Christ,” 1 Peter 3:21….. “And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ for the
forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit.”
Before I address the remaining references you listed, I noticed
there is a common thread that runs through all of them, Justification as a
“single action” that happens “once” and cannot be lost. There’s an important
distinction that needs to be made. Some Protestants, such as yourself I assume,
believe in Justification as a “instantaneous, one-time event”. The Catholic
Church and the Bible teach Justification as a “process”. Where you would say as
a Protestant, “I am Saved”; we as Catholics would say, “I have ‘been’ Saved, I
am ‘being’ Saved, and I ‘will be’ Saved”. It’s important to note that initial
Justification at Baptism is “total and complete”. In other words, you are
totally and completely Justified at Baptism and in a “State of Grace”. However,
if AFTER Baptism you deliberately and knowingly commit a Mortal Sin, or fail to
cooperate with God’s Grace, then you are now no longer in a “State of Grace”. 1 John 5:16 “If anyone sees his brother
committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him
life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death;”
Here are a few Scriptures to show the “process” of Justification.
“Past”: 1
Corinthians 6:11 “And such were some of you. But you were
washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
“Present”: Philippians 2:12 "Therefore, my
beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much
more in my absence, work out your own
salvation with fear and trembling;" 1 Corinthians 9:27 "but I
pommel my body and subdue it, lest
after preaching to others I
myself should be disqualified." 1 Corinthians 15:1-2 ".....I preached to you the gospel, which you
received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless
you believed in vain." John 8:31-32 "So Jesus said to the
Jews who had believed him, “If you
abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the
truth, and the truth will set you free."
"Future":
Matthew 10:22 "....But he who endures to the end will be
saved.", Matthew 24:13 "But he who endures to the end will be saved." Matthew 7:19-21
"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.......Not every one who says
to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’
shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
It's unfortunate
that people have such a misunderstanding of the Catholic Church and its
teachings. The Catholic Church's sole desire is to glorify Jesus Christ and to
please Him. There is no other place on this earth where Jesus is more revered
and adored. Catholics are accused of having a "works" based Salvation
apart from Jesus' redemptive work on the Cross. Nothing could be farther from
the truth. We are saved by the Grace of God through Jesus Christ! All of our
works are worthless and without merit apart from Jesus Christ. However, through
Jesus Christ our works are meritorious for Salvation along with Faith. I can
tell you from personal experience that there is more "Grace" in the
Catholic Church than could ever be offered by a Protestant Church. Take Infant
Baptism for example, how can you get more Grace than that? The baby does
absolutely nothing and is granted Salvation, "by Grace". It's hard to
argue a "Human Works based Salvation" when confronted with this
truth.
You mentioned in
the Catechism of the Catholic Church that, "The
Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation"....
Here's what the
Catechism says, "How are we to understand this affirmation,
often repeated by the Church Fathers? Reformulated positively, it means that
all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his
Body" (CCC 846)
The Roman
Catholic Church is the only Church that Jesus Christ established. It is the "Church of the living God, the pillar
and bulwark of the truth." 1 Timothy 3:15. It contains the
"Fullness of Truth", has the "Complete Gospel", and all of
the "Sacraments" through which God imparts His Grace. So the Church
is the "ordinary means" by which one is Saved and nourished through
the Sacraments. However, God is not bound by the Sacraments. He can bring
Salvation through "extraordinary" means. For example, the thief on
the Cross was Saved even though he was not Baptized, or the proverbial
"person on a desert island that has never heard the Gospel" and
doesn't know who Jesus is.
So one can be
Saved outside of the Catholic Church. The
Church teaches that God only holds us accountable for the knowledge that we
have, "Invincible Ignorance":
"This
affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not
know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not
know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a
sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they
know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal
salvation." (CCC 847)
"All
this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose
hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and
since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to
believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man
the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery." Vatican
II, Gaudium Et Spes (22)
Jesus said, "If
I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have
no excuse for their sin." John 15:22
I’ve done my
best to try to address each of your points. What are your thoughts? I’m
interested in continuing the dialogue. God bless you my friend.
