Posted on 06/11/2009 2:32:32 AM PDT by GonzoII
331. Where in Scripture does it mention that Christ founded any such system?
In general, Christ terms His Church a kingdom, which supposes some organized authority. However the explicit steps in the establishing of an authoritative hierarchy are clear. Christ chose certain special men. "You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you." Jn 15:16. He gave them His own mission. "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." Jn 20:21. This commission included His teaching authority: "Teach all nations . . . whatsoever I have commanded you." Mt 28:19; His power to sanctify — "Baptising them," Mt 28:19 — forgiving sin, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven," Jn 20:23 — offering sacrifice, "Do this for a commemoration of me," 1 Cor 11:24; His legislative or disciplinary power — "He who hears you, hears me, and he who despises you despises me," Lk 10:16; "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven," Mt 18:18. "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen," Mt 18:17. The Apostles certainly exercised these powers from the beginning. Thus we read in the Acts of the Apostles, "They were all persevering in the doctrine of the Apostles," Acts 2:42. St. Paul himself did not hesitate to excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian. 1 Cor 5:4. And he wrote to the Hebrews, "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them," Heb 13:17.
332. Cannot the Congregationalist make out an equally strong case for a universal spiritual brotherhood, but with local independence of churches?
There is no evidence of independent local churches in Scripture, nor in primitive documents. There is evidence that there were distinct groups of Christians in various places, just as there are Catholics in London under one Bishop, and Catholics in New York under another. All true Christians certainly formed a universal spiritual brotherhood, as Catholics do today; but local autonomy existed only in the sense that there were Bishops in charge of various localities, the Bishops themselves being subject to St. Peter, and after his death, to the successor of St. Peter.
333. I am loyal to Christ, not to any supposed representatives on earth.
No one wants you to be loyal to any supposed representatives on earth. But loyalty to Christ demands loyalty to those commissioned by Him to teach and guide in His name. Test the claims before you reject them on prejudice only.
334. While I walk in the spirit, I do not think it necessary to be subject to any visible organization.
You may say that you believe it unnecessary. But pay attention to the words of Christ I have just quoted. He thought it necessary, and He has the right to map out the kind of religion we are to accept. If Christians had to accept such disciplinary authority in the time of the Apostles, they must accept it now. Christianity is Christianity. It does not change with the ages. If it did, it would lose its character, and not remain the religion of Christ, to which religion alone He attached His promises. And remember His prediction that His flock would be one fold with one shepherd. Jn 10:14. You would have sheep, not gathered into one fold, but straying anywhere and everywhere, having no shepherd with any real authority over them.
335. I admit that the way Catholics are taught by their hierarchy is a most successful policy.
The Catholic method is not a method of human policy. We accept it because Christ imposed it. Yet the mere fact that Christ chose such a method is a guarantee of its wisdom. And the scepticism and irreligion which are the fruits of non-Catholic systems are but a further tribute to the wisdom of Christ.
336. Why do you reserve the hierarchical authority to men? Why not give women a chance?
Nowhere did Christ ever commission women to teach in His name and with His authority. St. Paul explicity forbids women to attempt to exercise such functions. 1 Tim 2:11-12; 1 Cor 14:34. People who would ordain women in the Church seem to believe that they know more about Christianity than St Paul.
337. I don't agree with any of these priestly claims. Anyway, the searchlight of modern science is gradually breaking them up.
The searchlight of science is doing good work in destroying superstition, and showing the fallacies of false religions which are due to the natural instinct of religion in all men, and the ignorance of the true religion revealed by God. But sound science is doing a great work for the Catholic Church and helping many towards her. What is called modern science and thought keeps men away from the Catholic Church only when what is modern but not scientific is falsely supposed to be scientific, or when men, in their attempts at thinking mistake sophisms and fallacies for legitimate conclusions.
338. Are not your priests a great army of drones who neither toil, nor spin?
That idea may arise in the minds of those who do not personally ask their services. But you cannot argue that, because they do nothing according to your specifications, they do nothing at all. Earth worms might similarly argue that men do nothing because they don't burrow in the mud as they. Priests are regularly occupied in their own duties and studies. They would have less hours of employment in a worldly career. And if the Church allowed them to engage in secular business, our Catholic people would be uncared for, and religion would become a mockery. The man who slaves at some mechanical trade or in a commercial office, with little opportunity for regular prayer or continuous study, is not the man to teach religion to others and devote himself to the sanctification of their souls.
339. Do you think society will allow them to continue in existence, despite their place in economics?
Society has no say in the matter. For two thousand years society — the world — has hated the Catholic Church and her Priests. But society has not made much progress against the Catholic Church. Nor have economics anything to do with it. The omnipotent power of God guarantees that the Church will last till the end of time, and as long as the Church lasts, the Sacrifice of the Mass will be offered, which means that there will be Priests to offer that Sacrifice.
Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/
Paul referred to the "Gospel" as preached and taught by the Apostles. When Paul wrote, there was no New Testament (how could there be, if his own letters would be included?). There is, of course, disagreement about the dating of the books of the New Testament, but I think the most common view is that the letters of Paul were the earliest written -- so he couldn't have been referring to what we have as the four Scriptural Gospels.
“Sola Scriptura is a tradition of men. Can you show me where this doctrine originated? It is surely not biblical.”
Scripture = written record of the teachings and actions of the Prophets, Apostles and the Lord Himself.
If not Scripture, then what standard of faith do you propose?
Where in those records is Scripture held up to be the sole rule of faith?
"If not Scripture, then what standard of faith do you propose?"
The Bible, Tradition and the teaching Church expounding both.
The word tradition in the Greek means literally things handed down. That’s all it means. Things handed down. And what he is saying then in that sense is this, stand firm and hold on to the things handed down, the things handed down through teaching by word and letter from us.
That’s divine revelation. In the Pauline letters and the revelation God gave him which he preached to them...the oral things and the written things.
You're sounding like a Catholic apologist.
So if the oral things were not written, where can one find them?
The answer is in the Church, the leaders of which were told to go into the whole world and teach all things that were commanded them by Christ. Mt 28:20
So if the Church says one thing, and the Prophets and Apostles taught something else, which do we go with?
Oral things handed down, like divine revelation were taught to Timothy, doctrinal instruction, authoritative teaching. The point being Paul does not mention anybody or anything that he should look to for help in teaching or mattesr of faith, the Holy Spirit was there for him, not some organization.
Tradition from fallible, corruptible men or God breathed Scripture, not a difficult choice.
There can be no contradiction since the the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth (Jn 14:16):
1) Has spoken through the Prophets. (2 Pet 1:20-21)
2) Has taught and governed through the Apostles (Acts 2:1-4; 15:28).
3) Works and teaches through His Church. (1 Cor 12:4-11, Jn 14:26)
The whole reply to question 331. above shows that there is indeed an authoritative body ("organization") that teaches, of which St. Paul is a member.
The apostles were the authoritative body and to Timothy, the Holy Spirit did the teaching.
Hey Gonzo. The Scriptures teach that the Scriptures are the Word of God and all doctrines must be scriptural or they are but heresies.
2Ti:3
12. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
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.
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
And Peter himself;
2 Peter 1:
15. Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
16. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Okay, for the sake of argument, which books of the Bible are inspired? Where is it written in Scripture that Matthew is an inspired book?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.