+ the BEGGAR KING: Answer to an Anti-Catholic + Part I

Beggar King ^ | Oct 28, 1999 | Larry Nolte

[GonzoII]

"I can assure you that in every true believers life there is that “experience” of a changed heart."

The heart experiences many things on the emotional side and you will never convince me the believers do not have apposing feelings or aversions toward the will of God. Does that make them not born again?

[Jack of all Trades]

The RC church did a little bit more than burn the Abligensian bibles. Arnaud reported to Pope Innocent III that he slaughtered 20,000 people for their heresy. Arnaud: the guy who coined the phrase "Kill them all, and let God sort them out". Then of course, there was Simon de Montfort who mutilated prisoners and put them on display.

That's some fine tradition.

[LetMarch]

May we not forget: “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God which liveth forever.” (1 Peter 1:23)

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (2 Peter 1:3)

[GonzoII]

"If that experience does not exist, then I claim you have not been baptised, but merely went for a swim--much like just showing up at church twice a year."

I'll take the Scripture's word over your word, they never say I need to feel anything but clearly that I need Baptism.

[ShadowAce]

...you will never convince me the believers do not have apposing feelings or aversions toward the will of God.

Of course not. We all have feeling that oppose the will of God. That doesn't make us any less saved or emotionally invested, nor does it make the positive experience at baptism any less valid.

Does that make them not born again?

I think we can agree that Paul was born again.

Read Romans 7--the entire chapter. I think that will answer your question.

[ShadowAce]

...they never say I need to feel anything...

Matthew 3:16-17

When Christ was baptised, His Father came down and announced that He was proud of His Son for obeying Him. Are you saying that there was no emotional factor there at that event?

[LetMarch]

“Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to Thy Word. With my whole heart have I sought Thee: O let me not wander from Thy commandments. Thy Word have I hid in mine heart that I might not sin against Thee.” (Psalm 119:9,10 & 11)

“Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” (Psalm 119:105)

“Entrance to Thy Words giveth light; it giveth understanding to the simple.” (Psalm 119:130)

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

[ShadowAce]

Don’t forget Deu. 4:29 and Deu. 6:5

[alancarp]

(1Ti 3:15) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Am I to believe that this single verse is justification for all of the extra-Biblical traditions, beliefs, and practices of the Roman Catholic church??? Wow.

There's so much wrong with that - I just don't know where to start. Just to begin with, the context of entire book is a guide for a young pastor - Timothy - in getting his church started: how his own temperament should be, how to select officers for his church, and describing the basis of general order in worship for the church. Yes, the church is intended to be the place where truth is preached and defended.... but that basis must be originated by God. What better place than the love letter God left for us? After all, anything outside of those words leaves one wide open to this charge of being outside the scripture. One could argue perhaps that certain traditions are good and noble if all other practices contained in scripture were also included. But even on this (quite liberal) test the RCC fails.

Obviously, then, the RCC decided that scriptures were entirely inadequate, since (for example) in this very letter Paul laid down the office of deacon and elder in this very book, and the RCC uses neither.

Yet (in context) when Paul describes in a subsequent letter to Timothy that there will come times of trouble, (2 Timothy chapter 3), he comes back to scripture as the basis of truth:

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (vv. 2 Tim 3:16-17)

You want a verse about the authority of scripture? That one's a good start. How about that Christ himself insured that scripture was fulfilled in every prophecy about himself (John 13:18,19:28, et al)? It was important to have these things be completely true... lest be open to the argument of factual error. Yet the RCC ignores much about scripture, and adds on all kinds of other things from outside... and by that I mean serious doctrinal beliefs that are well outside the clear teachings of the Holy Bible:

> Marianism
> Purgatory
> Prayers for the dead
> the priest system (directly opposed to the teachings in 1 Timothy cited above)

These are just a few: and every single defense of these I've seen simply talks these topics to death, but utterly fails to cite any scripture to explain a rational basis for any of them. You have to start and end with scripture! Without this, you have nothing to fall back on to justify the doctrines that are the underpinnings of your entire existence!

In response, I want to know how you can have a system of beliefs and doctrines that exist from sources that do not include the Holy Scriptures. That's the only argument that matters here. How can one justify any such religious system without that? Even the Muslims and the Mormons (as whacked out as they are) cite their own scriptures as the basis for everything they do. They understand this argument (of course, their own error lies within their own doctrines).

[Iscool]

I still see no justification for Sola Scriptura in your verses but I do see oral communcation of the truth without the Bible:

You can't possibly know if there is any truth from oral communication outside of the Scriptures, or if it even came from God if you didn't get it from the Holy, preserved, written words of God...

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

In order to prove all things, one must have the standard of proof from which things can be tested...

On the one side of the scale we have the preserved written words of God...On the other side we have human sinners who claim their 'truth' is authoritative and yet have no record of any source of their 'truth' except other sinful men...

Why would any Christian chose the word of men over the word of God??? I don't believe it's possible...

1Th 5:27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.

[Cronos]

Why would any Christian chose the word of men over the word of God??? I don't believe it's possible..

Why would a non-Christian ask that?

[JPII Be Not Afraid]

I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess 2:15)

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. (2 Thess 3:6)

What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 4:9)

St. Paul says that the traditions were taught not only through writing (letters), but also by word of mouth and by example.

[GonzoII]

"When Christ was baptised, His Father came down and announced that He was proud of His Son for obeying Him. Are you saying that there was no emotional factor there at that event?"

God said "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Matthew 3:16-17 "Or Thou art my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Mk 1:11, 3:22.

The sense is the same. That testimony given by the Father was for the benefit of those who heard it. Christ didn't need to know he was God's Son because he Himself is God.

Also Christ didn't need to be baptized because he had no sin there would have been no emotional feeling of being freed from anything. Any way John's baptism didn't make you born again that came only through the baptism instituted by Christ which included the Spirit:

Acts: 19:2 And he said to them: Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? But they said to him: We have not so much as heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. 3 And he said: In what then were you baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. 4 Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the baptism of penance saying: That they should believe in him, who was to come after him, that is to say, in Jesus. 5 Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them.

[ShadowAce]

Nothing in that post negates the experience part of baptism. I’m not sure what you are trying to say here.

[GonzoII]

"In response, I want to know how you can have a system of beliefs and doctrines that exist from sources that do not include the Holy Scriptures. That's the only argument that matters here. "

Scripture

I. The Word of God is Transferred Orally

Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 - Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ's name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 - the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 - Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth."

Rom. 10:8 - the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 - faith comes by what is "heard" (not just read) which is the Word that is "preached" (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 - faith comes from what is "preached" (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 - the Gospel which is "preached" (not read) to me is not a man's Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 - hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church's living tradition.

Col. 1:5 - of this you have "heard" (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 - the Word of God is what you have "heard" (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 - oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 - Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 - God's word is manifested "through preaching" (not writing). This "preaching" is the tradition that comes from the apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 - the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was "preached" (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles' successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 - Peter says that he will leave a "means to recall these things in mind." But since this was his last canonical epistle, this "means to recall" must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 - John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 - Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God's appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isa. 40:8 - the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isa. 59:21 - Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 - tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 - the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

Top

 

II. Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition Matt. 15:3 - Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. Some Protestants use this verse to condemn all tradition. But this verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.) Mark 7:9 - this is the same as Matt. 15:3 - there is a distinction between human tradition (that we should reject) and apostolic tradition (that we must accept). Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 – Paul also writes about “the traditions of my fathers” and “human precepts and doctrines” which regarded the laws of Judaism. These traditions are no longer necessary. Acts 2:42 - the members obeyed apostolic tradition (doctrine, prayers, and the breaking of bread). Their obedience was not to the Scriptures alone. Tradition (in Greek, "paradosis") means "to hand on" teaching. Acts 20:7 - this verse gives us a glimpse of Christian worship on Sunday, but changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday is understood primarily from oral apostolic tradition. John 17:20 - Jesus prays for all who believe in Him through the oral word of the apostles. Jesus protects oral apostolic teaching. 1 Cor. 11:2 - Paul commends the faithful for maintaining the apostolic tradition that they have received. The oral word is preserved and protected by the Spirit. Eph. 4:20 – Paul refers the Ephesians to the oral tradition they previously received when he writes, “You did not so learn Christ!” Phil. 4:9 - Paul says that what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do. This refers to learning from his preaching and example, which is apostolic tradition. Col. 1:5-6 – of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you. This delivery of the faith refers to the oral tradition the Colossians had previously received from the ordained leaders of the Church. This oral tradition is called the gospel of truth. 1 Thess.1:5 – our gospel came to you not only in word, but in the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul is referring to the oral tradition which the Thessalonians had previously received. There is never any instruction to abandon these previous teachings; to the contrary, they are to be followed as the word of God. 1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition. 2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings. 2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture. 2 Thess. 2:15 - in fact, it was this apostolic tradition that allowed the Church to select the Bible canon (apostolicity was determined from tradition). Since all the apostles were deceased at the time the canon was decided, the Church had to rely on the apostolic tradition of their successors. Hence, the Bible is an apostolic tradition of the Catholic Church. This also proves that oral tradition did not cease with the death of the last apostle. Other examples of apostolic tradition include the teachings on the Blessed Trinity, the hypostatic union (Jesus had a divine and human nature in one person), the filioque (that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son), the assumption of Mary, and knowing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew. 2 Thess. 3:6 - Paul again commands the faithful to live in accord with the tradition that they received from the apostles. 2 Thess. 3:7 - Paul tells them they already know how to imitate the elders. He is referring them to the tradition they have learned by his oral preaching and example. 1 Tim. 6:20 - guard what has been "entrusted" to you. The word "entrusted" is "paratheke" which means a "deposit." Oral tradition is part of what the Church has always called the Deposit of Faith. 2 Tim. 2:2 - Paul says what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. This is "tradition," or the handing on of apostolic teaching. 2 Tim. 3:14 - continue in what you have learned and believed knowing from whom you learned it (by oral tradition). 1 John 2:7 – John refers to the oral word his disciples have heard which is the old commandment that we love one another.   Top
Source:	Copyright 2001 - 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved. johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

[GonzoII]

"Nothing in that post negates the experience part of baptism. I’m not sure what you are trying to say here."

I'm saying Christ felt no elation on being baptized because he had no sin to be forgiven.

[ShadowAce]

I'm saying Christ felt no elation on being baptized because he had no sin to be forgiven.

Christ was fully human and fully God. You're saying that Christ felt nothing when His Father proclaimed publicly that He was proud of His Son?

I find that quite difficult to believe.

[Hegewisch Dupa]

The subject matter disallows me from saying I’m playing devil’s advocate - but would their be elation from hearing The Father, yet alone His Father, providing such a affirmation?

[painter]

has repeatedly discouraged Bible reading and study, and even banned or restricted its use, distribution, and possession.

That,is a bold face LIE!!

[LetMarch]

“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.” (John 20:31)

“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye believe on the name of the Son of God.” (1 John 5:13)