Whoa there.......Pontiff

[Berean Girl]

Fallacy is fallacy no matter how much you want to pretty it up or slice it....

Catholicism is not Biblical.

Being born-again in the Biblical faith is Christian.

Psalm 119:159-161

159 Consider how I love Your precepts;
Revive me, O LORD, according to Your lovingkindness.
160 The entirety of Your word is truth,
And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.

שSHIN
161 Princes persecute me without a cause,
But my heart stands in awe of Your word.

John 17:17
Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

[JoelH]

I think here are two issues at hand: 1. the issue of whether that stands muddles the issues, and 2. whether that clarified position is true at all.

I can respect Benedict XVI to solidify the Catholic position and purging the doctrinally incorrect relativist ecumenicalists inside the RCC. I also disagree with his traditionalist Catholicism, which is equally wrong from the biblical position.

I think in terms of strategy, there is no more any misunderstanding: we are we, and they are they. Our side and the opposing side has become clear.

[lisaannne7968]

Well, I can understand your concern and I share it.
But in fact, this is nothing new really. The Roman Catholic Church has and does consider itself the only true church for centuries.
It's one of the main reasons it is so very difficult to witness to catholics. They truly don't understand.


Chula~
I was born and raised Catholic. I went to Catholic School & College. I always wanted more. When I was 21 (I am now 39) I dreamt that I was in a third world country. The people were very poor and there were many mountains. The people were all standing around a river. Beams of light were glistening down on this river. The people were poor, but very happy. I asked one of them, "what is this water?" and he replied "it is the river of life". With that comment Jesus came walking out of the water in a white tunic. He came up to me,embraced, & held me. I could feel the dampness of the tunic against my cheek. In my mind I had instant knowledge and said to myself "now I know why I am here". I instantly awoke with an overwhelming feeling of love and peace that I had never known.... I thought my heart would burst. I related the dream to my Aunt ( a Catholic who I believed was saved~ she LOVED Jesus so much) who believed that HE came to me in his purest forms of water and light. Never again have I had such a dream, even though I have asked. Yet, it is still very vivid and real to me.

My husband left the Catholic Church in November 2006 and was saved. He too had always wanted more. He prayed for a Church and boy was he blessed with one! I was saved in January of this year. I cannot tell you how happy we are. My children love it as well. Our Congregation and Pastor are wonderful. They truly are special people filled with both the love of Jesus and a love for HIM and the Holy Spirit. I feel as though I have known them all my life. When I told my parents that I was saved (they do not even go to Church, they are Catholics by tradition) you would have thought that I had become an atheist. You are right, many Catholic do not "get it". I am so worried for them. I have tried to relay to them that it is all about ~a personal relationship with Jesus.

For years I questioned what that dream meant. Now I know. I was meant to be born again and be baptized and filled with the living waters that only Jesus and the Holy Spirit can give us. I am humbled that God has bestowed such a Grace upon me.

I do believe that there are Catholics who are saved, yet so many more are mislead. Jesus is the only true way of having a relationship with our Father.

We need to pray for our Catholic brothers and sisters and hope that their eyes be opened before it is too late.

God Bless & Agape,
Lisa

[Hope]

But the reason Catholics believe it is the Church that Christ instituted is not only because of quotes like these ....

"Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in THE HOLY CHURCH, [intending thereby] assuredly the CATHOLIC. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same ..." Augustine,On Faith and Creed,10:21(A.D. 393),in NPNF1,III:331

....... (and there are many more) but also because historically, its origins can be traced back to the apostles again through the writings of our Christian ancestors, and again I'll use Augustine, showing apostolic succession:

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of "mountain men," or Cutzupits, by which they were known." Augustine,To Generosus,Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,I:298

And there are truly many many more quotes from early Christians that point to the Catholic Church as being THE Church.

There just is no proof or evidence that the Church is not who she claims to be. I have looked, there just isn't any. It is, simply put, the Ancient Church.

Blessings,

Hope

[pegmo]

Hope wrote: There just is no proof or evidence that the Church is not who she claims to be. I have looked, there just isn't any. It is, simply put, the Ancient Church.

Hope, if reading the bible doesn't make it clear to you, then all I can suggest is that you get on your knees and ask Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, whether the RCC is who she claims to be. The Holy Spirit will tell you the Truth. But you have to be open to the answer. And if you were open to the answer, I suspect it would be clear to you when you read the Word.

[Hope]

Thanks for the advice Pegmo, but I have already done that! As a matter of fact, I beseeched the Lord earnestly for several years over the issue, I studied the Bible and what I found was that many scriptures that were vague or "incomprehensible" suddenly made sense.

I do not believe in sola scriptura. It is not practical, it is illogical, non-scriptural, and unworkable in that prior to the printing presses how could it be encumbant upon the believer to "search out a biblical church"? It would have been impossible. No printing presses meant the scripture had to be hand copied. Can you imagine the "typos" that would entail? What about illiteracy? How can the illiterate person search the scriptures, or hand copy scripture, in order to study themselves approved. Impossible! So then if you believe in sola scriptura as the very foundation of Truth, when did this truth become effective? Certainly not at the ascension, or in the days of Pentecost, and certainly not through the dark ages. I don't believe truth is transient, or applicable to certain generations according to the skill of the believer. Like I said, sola scriptura is unworkable, and still is even today with illiteracy being so high in so many poorer countries.

Well, I don't mean to turn this thread into a debate over sola scriptura, I just used it as an example of the evidences that I looked at. Those are just a few. There are plenty more that I won't go into.

Blessings,

Hope

[pegmo]

I repeat Hope, the Holy Spirit will tell you the Truth. But you have to be open to the answer. And if you were open to the answer and filled with the Holy Spirit, it would be clear to you when you ask and when you read the Word.

I wasn't referring to Sola Scripture in my post. I was referring to your statement that the Catholic Church is the One True Church founded by Christ through Peter and passed on through apostolic succession; and particularly that your failed search for any evidence to the contrary is what cements your conclusion.

You have ultimately put your confidence in the authority of the Vatican leaders. I have put my confidence in the authority of Jesus, the indwelt Holy Spirit and His Word.

They can't both be right. They conflict. The Holy Spirit will not lead you in one direction toward religion and lead other believers in another direction into a relationship with Christ and His Word.

[Doxiemom]

Hope,
You are one valuable Christian. There is a sincerety about you that is refreshing.

What is disturbing, and what the non-catholic often fails to see, is the chaos of present day protestantism.

Yes, the pope wants to rein in all of us way-ward free-thinking (some former) catholics and while I do think he used the old fear factor of hell without the wisdom of the Church, he does want the rcc not to fall into that chaos. Chaos is never a good thing. Chaos is Satan's tool.

I often think of the Catholic Church as this grand old lady within whom God chose to give His Word of His Son to the known world. And this she did. Without the Roman Catholic Church , christianity may well have died. It isn't the first time God chose an unlikely place to safe-guard His Son. Sent baby Jesus into Egypt of all places. Egypt-the type for sin. And Rome- pagan , lusty, Rome that was litterly killing off all the christians, was the place chosen to safeguard His Son's gosple.

What the future holds for the INSITUTION of the Roman Church will be what it will be. I am sure you have been told all the stories we can come up with concerning these end times. But , even if the worse is true, those who are Believers, Followers of the Way as they were once called by the early church fathers, have no fear. They shall be caught up, in a twinkling of an eye. Just as it is Written.

Do not ever be ashamed of what your are or where you worship. That only got me far more tears than I thought I could shed. The Holy Spirit has never let me down, nor will He you.

God Bless,
Doxiemom

[tom_roberts]

Did someone say sola scriptura?


Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth?


According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth.

From this combination, the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical, which Protestants reject:

veneration of Mary, penance, indulgence, purgatory, prayer to saints, et. al. Protestantism, however, rejects these doctrines, and Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition, and holds fast to the call "Sola Scriptura," or, "Scripture Alone."

Catholics then challenge, "Is Sola Scriptura biblical?"


The Bible does not say "Do not use tradition" or "Scripture alone is sufficient."

But the Bible does not say "The Trinity is three persons in one God," either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity.

2 Tim. 3:16 says that Scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching.

Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition.

However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says to listen to tradition but also warns about tradition nullifying the gospel -- which we will look at below.


In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made:


1) The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority.


Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example.

The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of Scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation.

To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient.

If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it.

But Jesus does no such thing.

His practice was to appeal to Scripture.

Should we do any less having seen his inspired and perfect example?


The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the Scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching:

Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so."

Paul commends those who examined God's word for the test of truth.

He did not commend them for appealing to tradition.

Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to Scripture, not tradition.

In fact, it is the Scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.

2) It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for sola scriptura to be true.

Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church.

For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead.

Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references.

So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles that they themselves approve of when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.


3) In appealing to the Bible for authentication of Sacred Tradition, the Catholics have shown that the Bible is superior to Sacred Tradition -- for the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7).

You see, if the Bible said "do not trust Sacred Tradition," then Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition would be instantly and obviously invalidated.

If the Bible said to trust Sacred Tradition, then the Bible is authenticating it and the Roman Catholic Church would cite the Scriptures to that effect.

In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority, and by that position are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition.

This means that Sacred Tradition is not equal in authority to the Word of God.


If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible.

But, God's word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim. 3:16).

To merely claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so.

Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture is to effectively leave the canon wide open to doctrinal addition.

Since the traditions of men change, then to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added, and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc.


Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well?

4) If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God.


If it is independent of Scripture, then by what right does it have to exist as an authoritative spiritual source equivalent to the Bible?

How do we know what is and is not true in sacred tradition if there is no inspired guide by which to judge it?

If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning.


In other words, it is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.


5) Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does.


Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not.

But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible.

A natural reading of God's Word does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used Sacred Tradition to add to God's revealed word and then extracted out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines of Sacred Tradition.


Nevertheless, the Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred Tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison.

But, by what authority does the Catholic say this?

Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? So? Making such claims doesn't mean they are true.


Besides, even if it were true, and CARM does not grant that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error.

We saw it creep in with Peter, and Paul rebuked him for it in Gal. 2. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?


To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition?

If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the Church Fathers who say to follow Tradition?

If so, then the Church Fathers are given the place of authority comparable to Scripture.

Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition.


Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth?

Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.


6) One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition.

This is false.
The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible.

They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God.

Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater; but this cannot be, since Catholicism appeals to the Bible to authenticate its tradition.

Conclusion


Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth.

If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesn't, then I will trust the Bible alone.

Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.


Objections Answered

The Bible comes from Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition.

The problem is twofold. First, tradition is generally anything the Christian church passed down and doesn't require inspiration of any sort.

But Roman Catholicism claims such generic tradition under its umbrella of Sacred Tradition.

This is the fallacy of equivocation. In other words, the meaning of the word "tradition" is changed between the first and second reference.

There is no proof that the RCC sacred tradition is inspired.

But there is evidence that it is flawed, particularly when we compare what it has revealed (purgatory, Mary worship, penance, indulgences, etc.) with Scripture, and such doctrines are not only absent from Scripture, but contradict Scripture.


Second, it assumes that the Roman Catholic Church produced the Bible.

The RCC did not produce the Bible.

God produced the Bible and the Christian church recognized the word of God (John 10:27) and endorsed what God had already authored.


To say that the RCC gave us the Bible is to imply that the RCC has the right to tell you whatever it means.

This is problematic because how then do we check what the RCC says?

Sacred Tradition is divine revelation and equal to Scripture.

At best, this is only a claim that cannot be proven to be false by comparing the revelations supposedly given through Sacred Tradition with the word of God.

As mentioned above, there are many such doctrines devised that are not found in the Word of God and even contradict it.


The Bible clearly tells us that God's Scripture is divinely breathed forth and that it is inspired.

There is no such claim for tradition. In fact, though the Bible tells us to follow tradition, it also tells us to be wary of it.

Therefore, tradition cannot be inspired if God's Word warns us against following it.
The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation.

Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God.

In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way.

See Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition.

The Bible clearly tells us that it is the standard of truth.


http://www.carm.org/catholic/biblesufficient.htm

[Buzzardhut]

Hope,
You are one valuable Christian. There is a sincerety about you that is refreshing.

What is disturbing, and what the non-catholic often fails to see, is the chaos of present day protestantism.

Yes, the pope wants to rein in all of us way-ward free-thinking (some former) catholics and while I do think he used the old fear factor of hell without the wisdom of the Church, he does want the rcc not to fall into that chaos. Chaos is never a good thing. Chaos is Satan's tool.

I often think of the Catholic Church as this grand old lady within whom God chose to give His Word of His Son to the known world. And this she did. Without the Roman Catholic Church , christianity may well have died. It isn't the first time God chose an unlikely place to safe-guard His Son. Sent baby Jesus into Egypt of all places. Egypt-the type for sin. And Rome- pagan , lusty, Rome that was litterly killing off all the christians, was the place chosen to safeguard His Son's gosple.

What the future holds for the INSITUTION of the Roman Church will be what it will be. I am sure you have been told all the stories we can come up with concerning these end times. But , even if the worse is true, those who are Believers, Followers of the Way as they were once called by the early church fathers, have no fear. They shall be caught up, in a twinkling of an eye. Just as it is Written.

Do not ever be ashamed of what your are or where you worship. That only got me far more tears than I thought I could shed. The Holy Spirit has never let me down, nor will He you.

God Bless,
Doxiemom

Catholic history cannot be trusted.
Those that don't trust the scriptures (sola scriptura) but replace it with trust in the man made religion of Rome (church alone) are setting themselves up for defeat.
I will always choose God's Word over any religion.