The following email was received from a Roman Catholic, and the points it raises should be of interest to both Protestant and Catholic readers. First the email is presented in its entirety, and then what follows is my response to each of the points raised. (The Catholic who submitted these questions has requested anonymity.)
|
The Response To A Catholic's Questions
| I was just at you website, got there by accident, I was
looking for some relevant information on Pope Innocent III and you
site popped up. Boy was I surprised.
So I thought I would write you back and ask you some questions. I hope in the interest of Charity that you take the time to be honest and answer them. |
This subtly implies that I need to change from the dishonesty of my web site and give straight honest answers. This is known as an ad hominem, an attack on the integrity of the individual. This is frequently the tactic of those who cannot make their case on the merits of facts alone, and so resort to innuendo, name calling and personal attacks.
| I'm sure that if you really think everyone who dies not believing what you are teaching never sees God then you will certainly want to help me by answering my questions. Or is it that you believe the only ones who are for certain never going to see God are Roman Catholics? |
Nowhere on my web site do I say all Catholics are going to hell, or that you must believe what I say (because I said it) in order to be saved. This is an assumption on your part, and a misrepresentation of what I believe.
| Of course if you don't answer my questions then I will assume you don't really believe what you teach on your website. In which case I will be forced so send some emails to the people you have links to, letting them know you don't really believe what you teach. |
First ad hominem, then misrepresentation, and now a threat. Whether I answer your questions or not has no bearing what-so-ever on the validity of the material presented on my web site, or whether or not I believe it to be true. You seem determined to paint me as a liar who is knowingly propagating falsehoods about the Catholic Church. Protestants, it seems, are incapable of honesty and integrity, they are virtues to be found only in Roman Catholics. I will let the reader judge the merits of this approach.
| So anyway, here are my questions:
1. What is "teaching authority"? |
The Catholic sense of this question needs to be understood. The only living
teaching authority recognized by Catholics is called the Magisterium, which is
the Bishops of the Catholic Church in union with the Pope, the supposed
apostolic successor to Peter, who was allegedly given his office of authority
in Matt. 16:18,19. This Magisterium claims the ability to teach on matters of
faith and morals without error, which is to say, infallibly.
See 
Catechism of the Catholic Church,
paragraphs 85-87,
888-892,
2032-2040.
To the Catholic then, teaching authority is a matter of genealogy, or apostolic succession, where God has designated a perpetual line of infallible teachers, having absolute and unquestionable god-like authority.
Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Mat 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
| 2. Do "Bible Believing Christians" claim
teaching authority? a) If you don't claim teaching authority then why do you have a website that tells people what certain bible passages really mean. |
No, I know of no Protestant Christians who claim to have "teaching authority" in the Catholic sense of the phrase, meaning absolute doctrinal infallibility derived from a genealogy of apostolic succession back to Peter. The apostle Paul actually speaks against such apostolic elitism:
1 Cor 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas [Peter]; and I of Christ.
1 Cor 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
In spite of Paul's criticism of this mentality, the Roman Catholic Church declares we are the Church of Peter, and we are the only true church. This surely reached its zenith with the following declaration of Pope Boniface VIII:
We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
Source: Papal Bull
This declaration distills Roman Catholicism into one sentence, its very essence, and yet does it not contradict, in the most flagrant manner, the scriptures already cited? Even Jesus Christ had to deal with the Apostles and the authority they exercised over others in presumption:
Mark 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
Mark 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
Mark 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
So Christ rebuked presumptuous attempts at authority over others by the Apostles.
| 3. Where does the bible say that your church and or church members are the only ones that can tell the true sense of the bible? |
This again presumes that infallibility has been bestowed on some denomination. Scripture nowhere does this, not even to the Catholic Church. I would maintain that any denomination has an equal opportunity to discern the truth of scripture, and teach it. But as with the Catholic Church, many Protestant denominations are bound more by Catholic Tradition than by what Scripture teaches. The keeping of Sunday and infant baptism are two examples.
| 3a. Is there a (singular) true sense of the bible? Or does God equivocate? |
Scripture can be relied upon to infallibly teach true doctrine. This is not a guarantee, however, that everyone reading the Bible will come to the same conclusion. Again, the examples of Sunday holiness and infant baptism are no where taught in scripture, yet they are practiced by the vast majority of Christendom as if a "thus saith the Lord" for them could be found in Scripture. Christ Himself amply explained that there are those who will understand His teaching and there are those who will not:
Mat 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
From this passage it is clear that not everyone will understand the word of God, because not everyone wants to know the truth. Some would rather cling to traditions of men they find more to their liking. What of those sincere people who want to know the truth, will they find it?
Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Mat 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
| 4. It appears you subscribe to Sola Scriptura which forbids submission to any external teaching authority which must also mean that no-one may claim authority over anyone else so as to direct them how to believe something, would you say that is correct? |
So, am I setting myself up as a Pope over others?
Sola Scriptura recognizes the inspired Scriptures as the highest authority, the only infallible teacher for Christian doctrine, which is to say it rejects the unbiblical Traditions of men as an infallible teacher. As Martin Luther said before the Diet of Worms:
I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the councils, because it is clear as the day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the word of God, I cannot and I will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience.
Luther had rejected the presumed authority of Pope and Councils, but stated that he would be subject to the testimony and authority scripture. This did not put Luther in the position of Pope or Councils over others. Sola Scriptura does not in any way setup an individual or council in Protestantism equivalent to the Magisterium, having in themselves a preeminent unquestionable infallible teaching authority. That doctrinal authority is the written word of God, scripture, not the messenger who delivers it.
2 Tim 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Tim 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
2 Tim 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
2 Tim 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
As the above passage demonstrates, Scripture, the word of God, is the remedy to false teaching, and one needs to study it diligently in order to rightly determine its meaning.
| 5. If you are in keeping with other Sola Scriptura
types in that reading the bible is necessary for salvation then what
happened to those who, being born blind before the invention of
Braille, could do nothing but hear someone else read them the bible?
[since Sola Scriptura says reading is absolutely necessary for
salvation, I guess this means you believe God made people specifically
to go to Hell.]
6. What happened if these blind people disagreed with the readers interpretation of scripture? [i.e did they go to Hell?] |
Nothing could more absurd. Sola Scriptura does not demand that one must read scripture in order for the principle to be in effect. This is called a strawman, a misrepresentation of an opposing point of view in order to make it look preposterous and easily confute it. Sola Scriptura only limits dogmatic teaching to the doctrines taught by Scripture, it does not demand that everyone must read scripture themselves in order to be saved. One who is illiterate, or blind, or deaf, need only be taught scriptural doctrines, by whatever means, in order for Sola Scripture to be in practice. Sola Scriptura does not regulate the mode of transmission, only the doctrinal content.
| 7. Who had the authority to teach Sola Scriptura in the first place? [Since "Sola Scriptura" forbids teaching authority it becomes a self defeating argument. The minute you teach it you've denied it] |
Sola Scriptura limits infallible teaching to that taught by the inspired written word of God. It in no way limits anyone from expounding on the true meaning and intent of Scripture to others. To suggest that it does, is a Catholic misrepresentation of the principle, merely another flimsy strawman.
The authority of Scripture for doctrine is taught in the Old Testament:
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
The preeminent teacher of Sola Scriptura was Christ Himself, who rejected the religious Traditions of men that nullified the word of God:
Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered:
and many such like things do ye.
The apostles themselves taught the sufficiency of Scripture:
2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Tim 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
This raises the question, what does the man of God lack if he knows Scripture? If one is "perfect" and "thoroughly furnished unto all good works" as a Christian, what need has he of unbiblical Roman Catholic Traditions for the task set before him, that being to preach the Gospel message? Does Scripture anywhere else claim to be sufficient to salvation?
John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not
written in this book:
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and
that believing ye might have life through his name.
For more, see The
Sola Scriptura Principle, Does the Bible Teach It?
| 8. Where does the bible say revelation was completed with the death of the last Apostle (St. John the Evangelist)? And if the bible doesn't say that revelation was completed at the death of St. John how can you know (with certainty) except by some extra biblical authority that revelation ceased with his death? (Maybe the Church :) ) |
Revelation of truth did not stop with the death of the Apostles, it has been ongoing for the last 2000 years:
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
Anywhere that the Gospel message is being preached according to the Scriptures, the revelation of truth via the Holy Spirit is happening.
But I am not entirely dim, I know what you meant was - how do we know that the canon closed with the death of John the Revelator? The answer is the same though, through the working of the Holy Spirit. All truth means all truth. It is also self apparent that those with the pure doctrinal teachings of Christ are the ones who were closest to His earthly ministry. They are obviously the ones with an authoritative testimony.
| 9. Where within the bible does it say which books belong to the Bible? remember is has to be in the bible or else you can't state it. So you need to show me a list of names, so that I can know for CERTAIN that the books of the bible are in fact the books of the bible. |
I can easily provide you with proof from the Bible that the Roman Catholic
canon is incorrect, and that the Apocryphal books, known to Catholics as
Deutero-canonical, are clearly excluded from the canon of Scripture by Christ
Himself. See How
Many Books Are In The Old Testament? How Can One Know For Sure? I
would suggest that it proves that every single Catholic Council that declared
the Apocryphal books canonical was in error, and contradict the plain teaching
of Jesus Christ regarding the Old Testament canon. So much for an infallible
Magisterium and Catholic Tradition.
| 10. Why is the bible always straightforward when your doctrines are being explained (taught) yet when something as simple as "This is MY BODY" or "Thou are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church" ( singular visible church I might add) is brought up "Bible Believing Christians" equivocate, stumble, add words to Our Lord's statements or better yet invent all new theology (which by the way Sola Scriptura forbids you from doing)? |
See the answer to 3a above.
| 11. Where in the bible does it say which version of the bible is the correct version? |
See the answer to 9 above. The Catholic version, which includes books not in the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, is clearly in error, based on the testimony of Jesus Christ Himself. The Protestant version of the Bible, which is identical in content with the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament, is correct.
| 12. What did "Bible Believing Christians" read before the "reformers" got there fingers on the bible? |
Before, and during the Reformation, the Catholic Church made it as difficult as possible for anyone to have unrestricted access to the Bible. If you did not know Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, there was virtually no chance of being able to read the Bible in your own language. This put the Latin speaking clergy of the Catholic Church in a position of authority over the teaching and interpretation of Scripture. The Protestant reformers sought to rectify this situation at any expense, even at the cost of their lives. Publishing the Bible in the common tongue by Protestants had the automatic result of diminishing the "teaching authority" of the Roman Catholic priesthood. No longer did the layman need to rely on the priest, he could read the word of God for himself. As a result of being able to read scripture, it became obvious that the Church had fallen into apostasy and corruption, and was teaching for doctrine the Traditions of men. This the Catholic Church would not tolerate, and made every effort to suppress these Bibles, and the men who translated, printed, or possessed them.
See: Bible
possession once banned by the Catholic Church!
| Remember all you answers must be biblical, anything else and you are teaching and I would, according to Sola Scriptura, be a fool for allowing any person to teach me anything. At least that's what you call Roman Catholics who submit to authority external from themselves and there own ideas of what the bible says. |
Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Note that the Bereans were receptive to the teaching of Paul and Silas, they were willing to listen to, and earnestly consider, what was presented. Paul and Silas may have even asserted their "teaching authority" to the Bereans, but did the Bereans automatically accept what they were taught without question? No. The Bereans compared what they were taught orally with scripture, and they did this daily. The presumed authority of an apostle was not the deciding factor, Scripture was!
| If, however, you don't answer all my questions biblically then you do not "believe" the bible alone is enough. You suppose it and think it, but you do not BELIEVE it! And what's more it means the bible alone isn't enough and that we as fallen creatures need an external visible teacher. Now where is that teacher except in the Catholic Church? |
Scripture itself says it is sufficient to salvation:
2 Tim 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
| As a matter of definition "Sola Scriptura" absolutely forbids you from doing anything other then opening the bible and reading it to yourself you cannot do anything more then that. You may not speak, write, promote, distribute or in anyway express anything alluding to anything biblical because by doing that you are teaching and, since according to the Sola Scriptura doctrine no one has teaching authority, you become a hypocrite. |
That definition of Sola Scriptura is absurd, a complete misrepresentation of the Protestant position. You need to read what Protestants say about Sola Scriptura, rather than Catholic sources.
| And if "Sola Scriptura" doesn't mean what I say it means, prove me wrong, state some higher authority then my own personal belief about your doctrine. Since personal interpretation of everything is what Sola Scriptura is all about then I am, by your standards, completely competent to interpret doctrine and judge your words according to my own interpretation of Sola Scriptura. Is this not the authority you claim over the Catholic Church? |
No. I claim no authority what-so-ever over the Catholic Church, or over you, a Catholic. That authority you seek is God Himself. His teaching is infallibly set down in inspired Scripture, and that Scripture tells us that it is sufficient to salvation. That is Sola Scriptura in essence. Now you are quite free to distort Sola Scriptura into anything you want, but to what end? Almost anyone is able to see you are not fairly representing it.
| There is as St. Paul said "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism" and its not that Seventh-Day nonsense. |
Paul the seventh-day Sabbath keeper
Acts 13, beginning with verse 14, testifies that Paul exercised his "teaching authority" only on the Sabbath day, and not on Sunday:
Acts 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.
Acts 13:16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.
Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.
Why did the Gentiles, indeed the whole city, have to wait until the next Sabbath day to hear Paul preach again? Why didn't Paul meet with them and preach to them the very next day, Sunday? Simple. Because Paul knew nothing of keeping Sunday, not even with Gentiles. Consequently everyone waited until the next seventh-day Saturday Sabbath. Sunday was clearly not a day the Apostles kept as a holy day.
The Apostolic Church did not baptize infants.
Baptism followed repentance and faith, something an infant cannot do:
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Luke 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Acts 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and [1] teach all nations, [2] baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
I submit that a Church that claims to be apostolic, but baptizes infants, and keeps Sunday rather than the Sabbath, cannot be an infallible teacher of Christian doctrine, since it plainly abandons the pure teaching of the Apostles for the corrupted traditions of men. These are not the only examples of such apostasy.
| Repent and return to the church of your baptism. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome, outside of which no one at all is saved. (of course if you weren't baptized with the words "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" then you weren't even baptized. In which case it would be impossible for you to return to a church you were never a member of.) |
Originally I was baptized by sprinkling as an infant, in the Lutheran Church. However, after coming to an understanding of the true biblical and apostolic teachings, I was re-baptized, as an adult, into the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the biblical manner, by immersion. Now that I know the biblical truths, becoming a Catholic is out of the question. It will never happen.
| So if you are honest and truth seeking rather the Glory
seeking (human glory that is) you will answer my questions without
equivocation and maybe do some thinking about the lies you are
spreading. Otherwise to continue on the path you have chosen is folly
and will with certainty lead to the eternal loss of your soul.
In Jesus and Mary, [A Roman Catholic] |
Believe it or not, it is possible for Protestants to be honest, sincere, and have integrity, and yet openly and strongly oppose the unbiblical teaching of the Catholic Church, although it seems this is something few Catholics are willing to acknowledge. Heaven will not be exclusively for the followers of Peter's alleged successors, neither will it be populated solely by followers of Luther, or Calvin, or any other Protestant. Heaven will be inclusive of all those who put their trust in Jesus Christ, and accept His death on the cross to pay for their sins. By that faith, they will be resurrected from death unto life eternal. That is the simplicity of the Gospel message that scripture teaches effectively and completely.
 http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/ |