Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies First Volume - "Bible Only" a false principle
Celledoor.com ^ | 1938 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 07/16/2009 12:27:42 AM PDT by GonzoII

"Bible Only" a false principle



565. The Gospel of Christ is simplicity itself.

In one way it is. It tells us clearly that Christ established a definite Church which He commissioned to teach all nations. It is very simple from this point of view, for men have but to accept the Catholic Church, and be taught by that Church.

But the Gospel is not simplicity itself in the way you intend. Men have devoted their lives to the study of the Gospels, preparing themselves for the task by profound research in the Hebrew, Syrian, Arabic, Greek, and Latin languages. And even then, many passages are most difficult to understand.

566. But at least the plan of salvation can be understood by the simplest person. We Protestants even tell our children to read their Bibles in order to discern it.

According to the findings of your simple readers there must be hundreds of conflicting plans of salvation, all revealed by the one Christ! As for the capacity of your children, you might as well give them the article in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica on Spectroscopic Analysis as the subject matter of their studies. But the Bible itself is against your theory. Thus St. Peter says that in Scripture there are certain things "hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Pet 3:16. To his mind the private interpretation of Scripture can be most dangerous.

567. God has given us brains to think for ourselves. We do not need Help to understand Scripture.

God had given men brains before He came to teach them Himself, and He came to teach them precisely because their brains could not succeed in finding out the things which were to their peace. If you say that His revealed teachings in the Scriptures together with our brains are enough, those very revealed teachings tell you that they are not. Even in the Old Law God said, "The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth." Mal 2:7. In the New Law Christ sent His Church to teach men, transferring to His Church that authority of God once possessed by the Priests of the Old Law. In the New Testament itself we find Philip the Deacon saying to the Ethiopian, who was reading the Scriptures, "Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?" and the Ethiopian replying, "And how can I unless some man show me?" Acts 8:30. St. Peter, too, explicitly refutes your ideas. "No prophecy of Scripture," he writes, "is of any private interpretation." 2 Pet 1:20.

568. St. Peter means that the Prophets did not prophesy by their own will, but by the Holy Spirit. He does not refer to interpretation by us.

Your own Protestant Bishop Ellicott says of these verses, "The words private interpretation might seem to mean that the sacred writers did not get their prophecies by private interpretation, but by divine inspiration. But this is certainly not the meaning. The real meaning is that the reader must not presume to interpret privately that which is far more than ordinary human thought."

569. Any man who can think has the moral right to interpret anything.

He has not. The very laws of the state are not subject to the interpretation of each and every citizen. There is such a thing as thinking erroneously. In difficulties of civil law a man consults a lawyer who knows legal practice and parallel statutes. Who gives you the right to take greater liberties with divine legislation? A man who knows nothing of Hebrew or Greek, and is quite untrained in Scriptural exegesis, would misapprehend the sense of Scripture in hundreds of places.

570. Did not Christ promise that He would send the Holy Spirit to teach us all truth?

He did not promise that the Holy Spirit would teach each individual separately. If every individual were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all who read Scripture sincerely should come to the same conclusion. But they do not. The frightful chaos as to the meaning of Scripture is proof positive that the Holy Spirit has not chosen this way of leading men to the truth. It is blasphemy to say that the Holy Spirit does not know His own mind, and that He deliberately leads men into contradictory notions. Christ promised to preserve His Church as a Church by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the only Church which shows signs of having been preserved is the consistent Catholic Church. The individual is guided by the Holy Spirit to a certain extent in the ways of holiness, but in the knowledge of revealed truth he is to be guided by the Catholic Church which Christ sent to teach all nations.

571. I don't see the need of learning to understand a simple story for simple people.

The Bible is not a simple story for simple people. We live thousands of years after the Bible was written, and our language and customs are very different now. No book written at one age is easy for another age. The study of antiquities demands a knowledge of primitive languages of which few are capable, and for which still fewer have the time. Anyway God never intended the Bible to be the sole guide to religion for all time. Christ taught orally and with authority, and He sent His Church to teach in the same way and with the same authority.

572. Hoiv does it help to know Hebrew or Greek?

Because one must know what the original words meant in the language in which Scripture was written. A knowledge of Hebrew and Greek soon shows that the translators do not always find an English word to express the exact sense of the original. God inspired the thoughts of the original writers, not the work of the translators. And if you read a sense into Scripture which God did not intend at all, you no longer have God's Word.

573. Christ chose poor fishermen, not learned men.

He trained them personally, and infused into their minds an exact knowledge of His doctrine. We cannot claim to have received a similar revelation, that we should rank ourselves with them.

574. Then Catholics have to believe just what the Priest likes to tell them?

The Priest cannot tell the people just what he likes. He is obliged to teach just what Christ taught, and which has been taught him in the Name of Christ by the infallible Catholic Church.

575. Is your Church afraid that people will form opinions for themselves?

If we consider some of the opinions people have formed for themselves from their private reading of Scripture there is need to be afraid. Christ's method was to establish a teaching Church. Protestants have a peculiar method of their own, but you cannot blame the Catholic Church for not using the Protestant method, a method which has led to nothing but uncertainty and widespread unbelief.

576. Admitting the necessity of guidance, are not our Protestant ministers as capable as Catholic Priests in telling us what Scripture means?

They might be, if Priests had not an infallible Catholic Church to guide them. The Catholic Church rejoices in the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, and the Priest has the help of her defined doctrines and the constant Catholic tradition as a safeguard. But your Protestant ministers do not claim to be spokesmen of an infallible Church. On their own principles they have to admit that they are possibly wrong. And as a matter of fact, where all Priests are agreed in the essential teachings of Scripture, your ministers come to all kinds of contradictory conclusions. The unity of teaching among Catholic Priests is a greater indication of capability than the chaos which prevails outside the Catholic Church. But the capability of Catholic Priests has little to do with relative personal attainments. It is derived from the authority of the infallible Catholic Church.

577. You speak of the authority of the Church and the weight of tradition. But I have been taught that Scripture is the only rule of faith.

You have been taught wrongly. Scripture itself denies that it is the only rule of faith. The last verse of St. John's Gospel tells us that not all concerning Our Lord's work is contained in Scripture. St. Paul tells us over and over again that much of Christian teaching is to be found in tradition. One who clings to the reading of the Bible only might be able to cite hundreds of texts yet not know Christian doctrine by any means. In fact, the adoption of the Bible only has led to as many opinions as there are men amongst non-Catholics. Finally, Scripture tells us most clearly that the Catholic Church is the rule of faith, that Church which Christ sent to teach all nations and which He commanded men to hear and obey. He who believes in Scripture as his only guide ends by believing in his own mistaken interpretations of the Bible, and that means that he ends by believing in himself.

578. Is not the Church built on the knowledge it gets from the Bible?

No. The Catholic Church was built by Christ and upon Christ before a line of the New Testament was written. She received her doctrine immediately from the lips of Christ, and is safeguarded from error in her teaching by the Holy Spirit. Between 40 and 80 years after her foundation, some of her members wrote the Books of the New Testament. If the Gospels were the only rule of faith, then before they were written there could have been no Christian rule of faith at all!

579. Christ gave us the command to search the Scriptures. Jn 5:39.

That was a retort, not a command, and you cannot turn a particular rebuke into a universal law. Were it a universal law, it would have been impossible of fulfillment by the vast majority during the fourteen centuries prior to the invention of the printing press! But take the context. The Jews, who boasted of their fidelity to the Mosaic Law, would not believe in Christ. He challenged them: "(You) search the Scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me." The Catholic Church could say in the same way to Protestants: "You are ever speaking of searching the Scriptures as opposed to my methods, and think in them to have everlasting life independently of me; yet the same are they that give testimony of me."

580. Do we not read that the early Christians searched the Scriptures daily? Acts 17:11.

They first received the true doctrine from the teaching Church, and then merely checked it in the Scriptures. That is the right procedure, and Catholics today do the same. But your way is not first to be taught by the Church, and then verify, but to try to make out your own religion from the Bible with an untrained mind and by that private interpretation which Scripture itself forbids.

581. Well, I am afraid of nothing as long as I have the pure Word of God to fall back upon.

Without the Catholic Church you cannot prove it to be the pure Word of God. Nor need anyone be afraid of the pure Word of God. What we must fear is the Word of God adulterated by people who read into it whatever they like.

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/


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic
KEYWORDS: catholic; radiorepliesvolone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

Historical Context of "Radio Replies"


By markomalley

If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.

It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.

While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.

And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.

A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.

Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.

The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324

269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.

1 posted on 07/16/2009 12:27:43 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.

"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days.  My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."

Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.

In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:

"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."

"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."

"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."

Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty

I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour,  from St. Paul, Minnesota.

I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."

I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.  

It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.

The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.

To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.

Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.

"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."



Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.

Source: www.catholicauthors.com

2 posted on 07/16/2009 12:28:11 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex
 Radio Replies

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”

ON / OFF


3 posted on 07/16/2009 12:29:09 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The Radio Replies Series: Volume One

Chapter One: God

Radio Replies Volume One: God’s Existence Known by Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of God
Radio Replies Volume One: Providence of God and Problem of Evil

Chapter Two: Man

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Man & Existence and Nature of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Immortality of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Destiny of the Soul & Freewill of Man

Chapter Three: Religion

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Religion & Necessity of Religion

Chapter Four: The Religion of the Bible

Radio Replies Volume One: Natural Religion & Revealed Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Mysteries of Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Miracles
Radio Replies Volume One: Value of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Inspiration of the Gospels

Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 1]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 2]
Radio Replies Volume One: Old Testament Difficulties [Part 3]
Radio Replies Volume One: New Testament Difficulties

Chapter Five: The Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: The Religion of the Jews
Radio Replies Volume One: Truth of Christianity
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature and Necessity of Faith

Chapter Six: A Definite Christian Faith

Radio Replies Volume One: Conflicting Churches
Radio Replies Volume One: Are All One Church?
Radio Replies Volume One: Is One Religion As Good As Another?
Radio Replies Volume One: The Fallacy of Indifference

Chapter Seven: The Failure of Protestantism

Radio Replies Volume One: Protestantism Erroneous
Radio Replies Volume One: Luther
Radio Replies Volume One: Anglicanism
Radio Replies Volume One: Greek Orthodox Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Wesley

Radio Replies Volume One: Baptists
Radio Replies Volume One: Adventists
Radio Replies Volume One: Salvation Army
Radio Replies Volume One: Witnesses of Jehovah
Radio Replies Volume One: Christian Science

Radio Replies Volume One: Theosophy
Radio Replies Volume One: Spiritualism
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholic Intolerance

Chapter Eight: The Truth of Catholicism

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The true Church
Radio Replies Volume One: Hierarchy of the Church
Radio Replies Volume One: The Pope
Radio Replies Volume One: Temporal Power

Radio Replies Volume One: Infallibility
Radio Replies Volume One: Unity
Radio Replies Volume One: Holiness
Radio Replies Volume One: Catholicity
Radio Replies Volume One: Apostolicity

Radio Replies Volume One: Indefectibility
Radio Replies Volume One: "Outside the Church no salvation"

Chapter Nine: The Catholic Church and the Bible

Radio Replies Volume One: Not opposed to the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: The reading of the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: Protestants and the Bible
Radio Replies Volume One: "Bible Only" a false principle

4 posted on 07/16/2009 12:30:42 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
578. Is not the Church built on the knowledge it gets from the Bible?

No.

Ain't that the truth.

5 posted on 07/16/2009 3:55:18 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

You wrote:

“Ain’t that the truth.”

As it must be for the Church established by Christ. Christ established the Church BEFORE the New Testament was written. The Church, therefore, is built upon Christ, the Apostles and the truth given to them. Any Church which claims to hve been built upon the Bible must naturally have been established by men and not Christ, and is, therefore, a sect, false and rebellious against Christ.


6 posted on 07/16/2009 5:30:32 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Bible only is not a false principle. However, it is the ultimate rule of our faith. That does not mean that we shouldn’t be guided by the elders of our churches or any true promptings of the Holy Spirit.

For example, what is the authority for the trinitarian theology of historic Christianity? Every authority I’ve seen, ultimately falls back on scripture, even the early fathers.

One should never give the impression that Scripture is an unworthy principle.


7 posted on 07/16/2009 5:54:28 AM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Ya got that right, always.


8 posted on 07/16/2009 6:01:22 AM PDT by Marysecretary (GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
As it must be for the Church established by Christ. Christ established the Church BEFORE the New Testament was written. The Church, therefore, is built upon Christ, the Apostles and the truth given to them. Any Church which claims to hve been built upon the Bible must naturally have been established by men and not Christ, and is, therefore, a sect, false and rebellious against Christ.

Christ identified the Church as all who acknowledge Christ as their savior. Your whole premise is false. It is the Catholic Church which is based on tradttions of men. Just because Christ's words were only later recored in the New Testament doesn't mean a Bible based Church is therefore a sect. Your argument lacks logic.

9 posted on 07/16/2009 6:36:19 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Sorry, forgot to remove the italics in last post....

As it must be for the Church established by Christ. Christ established the Church BEFORE the New Testament was written. The Church, therefore, is built upon Christ, the Apostles and the truth given to them. Any Church which claims to hve been built upon the Bible must naturally have been established by men and not Christ, and is, therefore, a sect, false and rebellious against Christ.

Christ identified the Church as all who acknowledge Christ as their savior. Your whole premise is false. It is the Catholic Church which is based on tradttions of men. Just because Christ's words were only later recored in the New Testament doesn't mean a Bible based Church is therefore a sect. Your argument lacks logic.

10 posted on 07/16/2009 6:37:12 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

The irony of “Bible only” is that it is not Biblical!


11 posted on 07/16/2009 7:14:07 AM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

“Whosoever believeth in Me shall not perish, but have everlasting life”.

I don’t recall that being modified by “if you join the right denomination”.


12 posted on 07/16/2009 8:15:54 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

You wrote:

“Christ identified the Church as all who acknowledge Christ as their savior. Your whole premise is false.”

No, your premise is false. Your premise is anachronistic. you are a Protestant. You believe in Jesus as other Christians do. You read the NT and see in it that the Church is of te believers. You then, anachronistically, assume that that means your sect is incorporated into Christ or that you personally ar incorporated into Christ without any Church at all. Both assumptions are wrong. Christ established a Church. When He established it - and through out the NT period - the Church contained all the believers. Thus, when Jesus or the NT writers discuss the Church as being made up of all believers they are absolutely right. There was only one Church. Christ didn’t establish your sect. It didn’t exist until less than 500 years ago (more likely, much, much more recently than that).

“It is the Catholic Church which is based on tradttions of men. Just because Christ’s words were only later recored in the New Testament doesn’t mean a Bible based Church is therefore a sect. Your argument lacks logic.”

No, my argument is irrefutable. The Church came before the NT. Period. Irrefutable. Any sect today - like yours - that claims to be Bible based is really just a johnny-come-lately man-made sect based on the opinions of men.


13 posted on 07/16/2009 8:44:44 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

You wrote:

“I don’t recall that being modified by “if you join the right denomination”.”

I don’t recall claiming it was. Don’t you think you would be more successful in your arguements if you actually argued against something I said rather than attack something I never said?


14 posted on 07/16/2009 8:46:56 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
No, my argument is irrefutable. The Church came before the NT. Period. Irrefutable. Any sect today - like yours - that claims to be Bible based is really just a johnny-come-lately man-made sect based on the opinions of men.

First Jesus never established The Catholic Church. The rock the Church is built upon is Jesus, not a bunch of Popes. Secondly, your argument about when the Bible was written makes no sense. What Jesus said is the Truth, it didn't just become the Truth when they were written down. When they were written has no bearing on what constitutes a church. You argument is nonsensical unless you are implying the NT is inaccurate.

15 posted on 07/16/2009 9:03:17 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

You wrote:

“First Jesus never established The Catholic Church.”

Yes, actually He did.

“The rock the Church is built upon is Jesus, not a bunch of Popes.”

The cornerstone is Christ. Peter was the Rock. Peter means Rock after all.

“Secondly, your argument about when the Bible was written makes no sense. What Jesus said is the Truth, it didn’t just become the Truth when they were written down.”

I didn’t say it did. And my argument not only makes sense, but is irrefutable: 1) The Church existed before the New Testament. That cannot be denied by any rational person. 2) When the NT was written there was only the Church and those short-lived heretics and schismatics who left it who were otherwise forgotten. That too is irrefutable. There is only one Church according to Christ and the NT.

“When they were written has no bearing on what constitutes a church.”

You’re in a sect. It is a sect because it was founded by men sometime after 1500. Your sect has no foundation in Christ, does not come from Christ, and is not, and cannot be, a Church. It’s just a sect.

‘You argument is nonsensical unless you are implying the NT is inaccurate.”

I am insisting on the exact opposite. The NT is entirely accurate and inerrant. That’s how we know you’re in a sect. Your sect was established more than 1400 years (more likely more than 1900 years) too late to be the NT Church Christ founded. It is, therefore, irrefutably a sect. Again, the NT shows Christ established a Church. Period. To claim that some sect founded in 1988 or 1534 or 1712 is anything but a sect denies the reality of the New Testament and that is exactly what you’re doing.


16 posted on 07/16/2009 9:22:17 AM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
***No, my argument is irrefutable. The Church came before the NT. Period. Irrefutable.***

Since the church was before the New Testament, why do the sermons and letters of the Apostles differ so much from later church teaching? Can you reconcile wht is taught in ROMANS (the bible within a bible)with the early and later church fathers?

17 posted on 07/16/2009 9:29:58 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (La commedia e' finita!. Now it's serious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"Bible only is not a false principle."

There is no historical/Biblical evidence for the "Bible only" principle.

"However, it is the ultimate rule of our faith."

Same answer as above.

18 posted on 07/16/2009 10:09:53 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

Sorry, that was not aimed at you in particular, but at those who insist that only one of the Christian churches has the path to salvation. I should have made that clear.


19 posted on 07/16/2009 10:10:32 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Allow me to suggest you read any of the ante-nicean fathers. They cite it as an authority continually.

And, to quote Paul, “”All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

So, “The Bible Only” as being DIRECTLY from God is a matter that is settled by Paul.


20 posted on 07/16/2009 10:27:27 AM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

ante-nicene


21 posted on 07/16/2009 10:29:44 AM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
The cornerstone is Christ. Peter was the Rock. Peter means Rock after all.

You can either take that interpretation or you can be consistent with the rest of the Bible and conclude Matt 16:18 is referring to the confession of Peter that Christ is the son of the living God is the cornerstone/foundation. Peter is a small rock, like the rest of believers, who make up the Church. The self-serving Catholic interpretation ignores many passages throughout the Bible including 1 Peter 2:5-6, Acts 4:11, and 1 Cor 3:11. Christ is the cornerstone.

22 posted on 07/16/2009 10:40:35 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: xzins
So, “The Bible Only” as being DIRECTLY from God is a matter that is settled by Paul

It doesn't follow from the 2 Timothy quote. No one is disputing that the Bible is inspired, useful in arguments and in training, and it has been used as such by the Fathers of the Catholic Church since the time of the Apostles. What is being disputed is that it is the only rule of faith.

23 posted on 07/16/2009 10:43:19 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: xzins
“”All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

Granted, all Scripture is inspired by God.

St. Paul says Scripture is "useful" he does not say it is sufficient.

And in the context of this quote he is referring to the Old Testament not the New Testament as he tells Timothy: "because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." The New Testament had not yet been penned, certainly not 2 Timothy.

24 posted on 07/16/2009 10:45:57 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Your sect was established more than 1400 years (more likely more than 1900 years) too late to be the NT Church Christ founded.

My Church started when Jesus came to the earth. The only requirement is that you accept Jesus as the son of the living God who died for your sins. The NT serves as a testimony for that. It doesn't matter when the NT was written or when the NT was first printed for the masses or any other random date you come up with. Any of that is irrelevant.

25 posted on 07/16/2009 10:50:20 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Further, that quote condemns the shameful Protestant attempt to truncate the Bible to accomodate their theological fantasies.


26 posted on 07/16/2009 10:51:45 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Peter affirms that Paul’s writings are themselves scripture. He says Paul’s words are twisted, that same as OTHER scripture is.

But, you miss the point.

Scripture is inspired BY GOD.

Name one other source of authority about which there is an authoritative statement that it is ITSELF “inspired BY GOD.”


27 posted on 07/16/2009 10:52:10 AM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Name one other source of authority about which there is an authoritative statement that it is ITSELF “inspired BY GOD.”

Why, the Holy Apostles, of course (Jn 20:22). In other words, the One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Church is inpsired by God per the Holy Scripture and is authorized by Christ to sort out disputes (Mt 18:18).

28 posted on 07/16/2009 11:12:38 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"Name one other source of authority about which there is an authoritative statement that it is ITSELF “inspired BY GOD.”

According to you're statement you would believe any writing that claims to be the word of God.

You need an authorized authority to put any such claim to the test.

That Authority is the Catholic Church historically established by Jesus Christ which has proved it's Divine origins by the fact that it has existed for 2000 years unchanged, as Christ predicted.

29 posted on 07/16/2009 11:12:42 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: annalex
John 20: 21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

While that isn't exactly saying "inspired by God", I'll go ahead and accept it as a scripture granting authority.

Now I ask you, "Where do you find the words of the Apostles?"

30 posted on 07/16/2009 11:19:37 AM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"Allow me to suggest you read any of the ante-nicean fathers. They cite it as an authority continually."

But according to the "Bible Only" principle the Fathers would be a non-Biblical authority, making them useless.

31 posted on 07/16/2009 11:24:08 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
You need an authorized authority to put any such claim to the test.

I agree with that to a degree. If I wish to establish the authenticity of a document, I need proof, don't I? If I have a writing that claims to be "Letter to the Ephesians from Paul the Apostle" I need some evidence to verify that.

Happily for us, that evidence was presented by those who had had chain of custody on that letter from Paul, and therefore, it was accepted into the canon of scripture.

Now for part 2.

Once I've agreed that these are the words of the Apostle Paul, my part is to do what: (1) pretend I'm in charge of those words, or (2) Acknowledge the authority of those instructions of an Apostle over me?

No matter how we approach it, we end up with the unique authority of scripture.

That is not to say that there isn't authority in the church for there is. However, we must admit that the Bible ONLY contains the inspired Word of God through His prophets and His apostles.

32 posted on 07/16/2009 11:32:57 AM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins

We find the teachings of the Apostles in the Catholic Church. Some of these were recorded verbatim and are in the Scripture, others were transmitted orally and are incorporated in the doctines and the liturgy of the Church.

Your question presupposes a certain answer, because you did not ask about the teaching but about the “words”. But the Holy Ghost ispired all the activities of the Apostolic College, not just writing, as is clear from the Scripture itself.


33 posted on 07/16/2009 11:39:40 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: annalex

You are unable to prove that contention. That is its weakness.

We know, however, what the words of the Apostles in the Bible say.

Therefore, it is quite safe to say, “The Bible ONLY contains the words of the Apostles.”


34 posted on 07/16/2009 11:44:10 AM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Both the written scripture and the doctrines that explain and expound it come from the same source. So, your confidence in the scripture is no greater than my confidence in the entirety of the apostolic doctrine.

Besides, what you think you know through some evidence is not the same question as the question that is in front of us: is ONLY the scripture inspired?


35 posted on 07/16/2009 11:54:16 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"However, we must admit that the Bible ONLY contains the inspired Word of God through His prophets and His apostles."

We must not and cannot admit that because the Bible itself says there is another authority to be obeyed:

2Thes:2:15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.

36 posted on 07/16/2009 11:57:21 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: annalex

What is before us is this: “”Bible Only” a false principle”. It was part of the title to this article. It is to that which I objected. I have already agreed that A FAITHFUL church and the true promptings of the Holy Spirit can also be authoritative.

I have demonstrated that the title of this article is wrong, because the Bible ONLY contains the provable, inspired Word of God through the Apostles. Therefore, “Bible Only” is NOT a false principle.

Now, I suspect that in regard to that question we both owe fidelity to some explanations from which we are not going to budge anytime soon and certainly not now.

Is there some other aspect of this which we should explore?


37 posted on 07/16/2009 12:14:36 PM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
2 Thess 2:from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. 14 He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

I would first point out that the context of the passage is teachings about salvation that had been handed down, but I'll be flexible.

First, the passage says these teachings had already been passed down by word prior to the writing of the letter to the Thessalonians. It says some of them had been delivered face-to-face (by word) and some by epistle.

It is obvious that none of us living today were present to hear those face to face sermons of Paul. But it is comforting to know that very early Paul affirms the authority of his epistles, and that some had already been written and sent out.

There is no acknowledgement that anyone other than the "our" mentioned in the passage could be the source of any teaching that was to be followed. Therefore, it had to be a teaching of Paul.

And we have the other necessary teachings of Paul preserved in his many other letters.

38 posted on 07/16/2009 12:40:19 PM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: xzins
“”Bible Only” a false principle”. It was part of the title to this article. It is to that which I objected. I have already agreed that A FAITHFUL church and the true promptings of the Holy Spirit can also be authoritative.

This is a contradictory statement. If you accept authority other than the Bible then you agree that Bible Only is a false principle.

39 posted on 07/16/2009 12:43:28 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"It is obvious that none of us living today were present to hear those face to face sermons of Paul."

No, but St. Paul preached what he had received and that truth must still be able to be found whether written or orally passed on as Christ said "teaching them to observe ALL things.. and I am with you all days". It is impossible for Christ to have failed to keep all his truth available to the world.

40 posted on 07/16/2009 12:48:39 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Bible Only is a just misnomer made by Catholics. I am never sure what the point is except to try to prove some false premise.


41 posted on 07/16/2009 1:07:58 PM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

You wrote:

“Since the church was before the New Testament, why do the sermons and letters of the Apostles differ so much from later church teaching?”

They don’t. What differs is your Protestant interpretation from reality.

“Can you reconcile wht is taught in ROMANS (the bible within a bible)with the early and later church fathers?”

Yes, without any difficulty whatsoever. It’s already been done (by Protestants no less): http://www.amazon.com/Romans-Ancient-Christian-Commentary-Scripture/dp/083081356X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247775587&sr=8-1


42 posted on 07/16/2009 1:20:33 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

“Bible Alone” and “Faith Alone” are two cornerstone, and faulty, principles of the Reformation, proclaimed by Luther.


43 posted on 07/16/2009 1:21:18 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

You wrote:

“You can either take that interpretation or you can be consistent with the rest of the Bible and conclude Matt 16:18 is referring to the confession of Peter that Christ is the son of the living God is the cornerstone/foundation.”

That’s not consistent at all since that’s not what Christ said.

“Peter is a small rock, like the rest of believers, who make up the Church.”

No, that old, tired and erroneous argument is known to be wrong even according to reputable Protestant scholars such as D.A. Carson.

“The self-serving Catholic interpretation ignores many passages throughout the Bible including 1 Peter 2:5-6, Acts 4:11, and 1 Cor 3:11. Christ is the cornerstone.”

Nope. It doesn’t ignore anything. It just gets it all right.


44 posted on 07/16/2009 1:25:12 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

You wrote:

“My Church started when Jesus came to the earth.”

Nope. If you were to state the name of your sect we could prove that easily enough.

“The only requirement is that you accept Jesus as the son of the living God who died for your sins. The NT serves as a testimony for that. It doesn’t matter when the NT was written or when the NT was first printed for the masses or any other random date you come up with. Any of that is irrelevant.”

No, it matter for what we’re talking about. You have to insist it doesn’t because that false line of reasoning is all you have.


45 posted on 07/16/2009 1:27:11 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: annalex
If you accept authority other than the Bible then you agree that Bible Only is a false principle

Hardly, I said that the Bible Only contains the inspired words of God.

Those words affirm the authority of the church and of true guidance from the Holy Spirit.

46 posted on 07/16/2009 1:46:21 PM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I'm having trouble following you on this....

Hardly, I said that the Bible Only contains the inspired words of God.

As in, "only the Bible contains the inspired words of God?" If so, then I don't see how you could square it with this:

Those words affirm the authority of the church and of true guidance from the Holy Spirit.

But if the Holy Spirit "provides guidance," then that's God providing information from a Source other than the Bible.

So ... what is your definition of "Bible Only?" It seems not to match the way the authors use it.

47 posted on 07/16/2009 1:52:36 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

The Bible Only means that no other source is the repository of the Word of God.

That the Bible affirms the authority of a faithful Church or of times when true promptings of the Holy Spirit are made evident does not diminish the authority of the Bible.

How do you see me using it differently?


48 posted on 07/16/2009 1:56:33 PM PDT by xzins (Chaplain Says: Jesus befriends all who ask Him for help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: xzins

There are many true affirmative statements that can be made with “Bible only” in them. The article presents arguments against certain specific propositions, 565-581 that are characteristic of the principle “Bible Only”, widely adopted by the Protestants since Luther. It makes no argument against any other statement that points to the unique character of the Bible. Do you have a disagreement with the article on its substance?


49 posted on 07/16/2009 1:59:53 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: xzins
How do you see me using it differently?

It could be interpreted as you saying it's the only source of the Word of God ... whereas the Holy Spirit is obviously not "the Bible," and yet still expresses the Word of God.

And to be honest, I'm not really sure even what you mean by "repository."

50 posted on 07/16/2009 2:02:27 PM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson