Protestant Response to "Response to Letter from a Protestant to a Catholic Friend" (Part 3)

Hi [Names Redacted],

I would agree that this isn't the best way to have this discussion (by email), but since it's all we have for now I will try to clarify some things.  Please know my heart, in all this, is not to offend or argue but to hopefully bring to light the truth of God's word as it pertains to Roman Catholicism.  That being said, Fred couldn't be more correct in saying, "He probably believes he is trying to deliver you from false teaching."  That is my thought exactly.  

First off, what I mean by "determine doctrine" is better summed up this way:

"In Roman Catholicism, "the Word of God" encompasses not only the Bible, but also the Apocrypha, the Magisterium (the Church's authority to teach and interpret divine truth), the Pope's ex cathedra pronouncements, and an indefinite body of church tradition, some formalized in canon law and some not yet committed to writing. Whereas evangelical Protestants believe the Bible is the ultimate test of all truth, Roman Catholics believe the Church determines what is true and what is not. In effect, this makes the Church a higher authority than Scripture.

Creeds and doctrinal statements are certainly important. However, creeds, decisions of church councils, all doctrine, and even the church itself must be judged by Scripture--not vice versa. Scripture is to be accurately interpreted in its context by comparing it to Scripture--certainly not according to anyone's personal whims. Scripture itself is thus the sole binding rule of faith and practice for all Christians. Protestant creeds and doctrinal statements simply express the churches' collective understanding of the proper interpretation of Scripture. In no sense could the creeds and pronouncements of the churches ever constitute an authority equal to or higher than Scripture. Scripture always takes priority over the church in the rank of authority.

Roman Catholics, on the other hand, believe the infallible touchstone of truth is the Church itself. The Church not only infallibly determines the proper interpretation of Scripture, but also supplements Scripture with additional traditions and teaching. That combination of Church tradition plus the Church's interpretation of Scripture is what constitutes the binding rule of faith and practice for Catholics. The fact is, the Church sets itself above Holy Scripture in rank of authority."   ---John MacArthur 

Let's talk about Sola Scriptura.  This principle 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.  Scripture does not speak on all topics. It will not teach you to speak Chinese or tell the secrets of DNA. The point is, scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it does speak.  Just because everything Jesus taught and did is not in Scripture it is irrelevant to the principle of Sola Scriptura.  And to be sure, we are not to "exceed what is written" 1 Corinthians 4:6.  Also Jude 1:3 and Revelation 22:9, 18.

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.  Scripture is the only infallible source of Divine revelation.  The church, the pope, any other man are not infallible things with an infallible message.  The apostles were given divine revelation to pass on to all Believers.   We know their message was from God because God gave them miraculous abilities like healing the sick and even raising the dead.  (things only God can do) Can anyone do these signs of the Apostles today that would cause us to listen up for some new revelation?  You said it yourself, that revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.  In my previous email, perhaps I wasn't specific enough in explaining the significance of 2 Tim 3:16.  It's not that we don't need the church, pastors, brothers and sisters in Christ, or other God fearing elders we can lean on.  It is that whatever these people or groups say have to line up with scripture.  All of these are fallible and imperfect.  Checking things with the infallible word of God, is how we determine if something is right, whether a certain teacher is from God.  If what is being taught goes against scripture, it would be labeled a false teacher.  This is what the Bereans did, they checked out what Paul was teaching with scripture.

In response to steadfastness and endurance making us complete in James 1:4.  I would contend that we need to exegete this whole passage.  In its context, which is getting through trials, it actually confirms 2 Timothy 3:16.  "God's word is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness" and when we are going through trials and when our "faith is tested" isn't that what we need, we will need God's word.  Jesus defeated temptation by quoting scripture, "as it is written".  This phrase is used over 90 times in the New Testament.

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.  

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.  

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,

"To put it another way, if we accept the voice of the Church as infallibly correct, then what Scripture says about these questions is ultimately irrelevant. And in practice this is precisely what happens. To cite but one example, Scripture very plainly says, "There is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). Nonetheless, the Catholic Church insists that Mary is her Son's "co-mediatrix." And in the eyes of millions of Catholics, what the Church says is seen as the final and authoritative Word of God. First Timothy 2:5 is thus nullified by Church tradition."  Also Macarthur.

As to the question of which came first; the Bible or the church.  I'm not sure I understand the question or the significance of the answer.  Are we talking Old Testament, New Testament?However, Moses began the Bible around 1500BC.  New Testament between 40-90AD.  The church began at Pentecost which Acts records.  Interestingly enough, even 2 Peter 3:16 considers Paul's writings to be scripture.  2 Peter was written in the mid 60s AD.  All books of the bible were written before the end of the first century.  If you're insinuating that the church gave us the Bible that's not really a solid argument, the apostles wrote it.  And in fact there writings were considered "scripture by other Christian leaders by the end of the first century and early in the second century.  In John 14:26, Jesus promises the Holy Spirit to "bring to remembrance all that I have said to you" for the purpose of writing it down.  In addition, much of what they taught was given by letter which is now our Bible.  They didn't write one thing and verbally teach another.  It all matched up.

As for the "mediator" in 1 Timothy 2:5,  this is a description of Jesus' atonement on the cross in relation to our salvation.  His death allows us to be covered from God's wrath because of sin.  As for prayers, yes, we can pray for each other to God.  Note, however, that it doesn't include here "praying to" any saints, no prophets, no priest, and not Mary or any pope, which was my point in mentioning this.  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.  

Acts 15 is an entirely different mediation between disagreeing groups.  It is similar to the process in Matthew 18:15-19.  Notice in Acts 15:12-19, James made a decision after debate and used Scripture to back up what he decided.  

You ask me where it says the canon is closed towards the end of your email?  Towards the beginning you stated that revelation from God ceased with the death of John.  Can you clarify?Again, Revelation 22:18.

As for the pope, this will no doubt offend, but Gods word makes no room for this position ANYWHERE!  As for Matthew 16:17, there is much debate over this passage and what it means exactly. 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.  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.  Peter appears as the spokesman and leader of the Jerusalem church but is still sent by other apostles to Samaria in Acts 8:14 and he has to give an account of his actions to the Jerusalem church in Acts 8:11.  Peter is presented as having only one voice at the Jerusalem Council and James has the decisive final word. Acts 15:7. Jesus declared that he will build his church on the apostles and the prophets (who gave us the scripture) and Christ Jesus himself is the cornerstone.  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.  "Called out people" not an authoritative organization in Rome.  

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.

In 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul said, “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The pope has assumed for himself a position of authority that does not belong to any man.

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.

As to the books that were "removed".  Are you referring to the Apocrypha?  This is my understanding of those books.  Some say there are 13 books and some say as many as 18.  Depending on if you count each individually or not and wether or not you count Psalm 151 as one.  Regardless, here is what I know.  

-Apocrypha means hidden or concealed.  Which implies they were in the "background"  They were always "postscript".

-some may be useful for inter-testamental history

-they were never a part of the Hebrew canon

-Jerome's 5th century vulgate did not initially include them.

-they contain errors and contradictions to other canonical books especially in Esther.  Contradictions that cannot be explained away 

-only 2 were possibly included in the Dead Sea scrolls?

-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?

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.  Hebrews 9:27 is pretty clear, "and just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,". (Luke 16:19-31) tells of the rich man wanting to go back and tell his family about God, there was a chasm too wide to cross over into Abraham's bosom, Abraham states "and none may cross from there to us".  If there was any place in the Bible to explain Purgatory or indulgences this was it, but Abraham makes no mention of any way to cross over after death. Martin Luther simply pointed out that the church was sponsoring something that is not in the Bible.  So to answer your question who gave him the authority, God's word does.  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.  

The bottom line here is this.  People have been arguing these points and others for centuries.  We are probably not going to solve them here.  Please know this, that I don't write any of this out of hatred or spite, but I tell you all this in love.  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:

-initial justification is by means of baptism(1262-1274).     

*Justification is by faith alone (Romans 3:28)

-adults must prepare for justification through faith and good works(1247-1249

*God justifies ungodly sinners who believe (Romans 4:5) good works are the result of salvation not the cause(Ephesians 2:8-10)

-justification is furthered by sacraments and good works(1212,1392,2010)

*Justification is the imputation of the perfect righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21) in Christ the believer has been made complete(Colossians 2:10)

-justification is lost through mortal sin(1033, 1855, 1874) 

*Justification cannot be lost. Those whom God justifies will be saved from the wrath of God(Romans 5:8,9)

-catholics guilty of mortal sin are justified again through the sacrament of penance(980, 1446)

*There is no second justification. Those whom God justifies, he also glorifies(Romans 8:30)

-Faith is believing God and the firm acceptance of all that the church proposes for belief(181-182, 1814)

*Saving faith is the entrusting of oneself to Christ as Lord and Savior(Romans 8:8-17)

-Sanctifying grace is the quality of the soul is super natural disposition that perfects the soul(1999-2000)

*Grace is the undeserved favor of God(Ephesians 1:7-8)

-Grace is merited by good works(2010, 2027)

*Grace is a free gift(Romans 11:6)

-Venial sin do not incur eternal punishment(1855, 1863)

*Every sin is punishable by eternal death(Romans 6:23)

-Serious sins must be confessed to a priest(1456, 1457)

*Sin is to be confessed directly to God(Ezra 10:11)

-The priest forgives sin as a judge(1442, 1461)

*No one can forgive sin but God alone(Mark 2:7)

-Indulgences dispensed by the church for acts of piety release sinners from temporal punishment(1471-1473)

*Jesus releases believers from their sins by his blood(Revelation 1:5)

-no one can know if you will attain to eternal life(1036, 2005)

*The believer can know that he has eternal life by the word of God(1John 5:13)

-The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation(846)

*There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, "for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12)

Thank you guys for this conversation. It has caused me to study further the word of God and giving me a further understanding of what Catholics believe.  I will be praying that God, through his word, will show you truth in every facet.  

Sincerely,

[Name Redacted]