Ezeckiel 18:29 And the children of Israel say: The way of the Lord is not right. Are not my ways right, O house of Israel, and are not rather your ways perverse?
"As Catholics were responsible for writing the New Testament (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the Catholic Church doesn't "interpret" the Bible. We explain it. Protestants can only "interpret", because they are not the author (guided by the Holy Spirit), and therefore, can only guess at the possible meaning of a chapter, passage or phrase, just as anyone can only guess at any author's intentions in any other book. As the author, the Catholic Church is the only proper authority to consult in matters pertaining to the Bible." -Catholic Truth
John 5:39 Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me. [40] And you will not come to me that you may have life. Search the scriptures: Scrutamini. It is not a command for all to read the scriptures; but a reproach to the Pharisees, that reading the scriptures as they did, and thinking to find everlasting life in them, they would not receive him to whom all those scriptures gave testimony, and through whom alone they could have that true life. Surely, the Pharisees or the Sola Scriptura adherents will stick to believing in the bible alone is enough to save them. Jesus says otherwise. Reading the bible is not enough and they have to come to Jesus to received the chance to be saved for Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. John 14:6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me. Jesus did not say read the scripture for it is the way, the truth and the life.
Is Sola Scriptura a Doctrine in the Bible?
Sola Scriptura is, ironically, a human tradition not found in Scripture, and it is a huge source of theological chaos and a doctrine not fully lived even by its adherents.
Scripture is the written portion of the Church's sacred Tradition. It cannot be separated from the whole of that Tradition and from the Catholic Church's magisterial authority without distorting the very message God intends us to discover in it. Issue: What does Sola Scriptura mean? What is the Catholic response to this doctrine? Response: Sola Scriptura is the Protestant doctrine that Scripture alone is "the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice (faith and morals)" and that "the Bible nothing more, nothing less, and nothing elses all that is necessary for faith and practice." The Second Vatican Council summarizes the Catholic response to Sola Scriptura, teaching that the Church "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." Discussion: Many Catholics find themselves confronted with questions from Protestant friends about this or that belief or practice of the Church.
If the hapless Catholic mumbles something about "Tradition" under his breath to explain his belief and practice, the Protestant has a ready reply:
1) Jesus condemned the traditions of men (Mt. 15:3-But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition?).
2) Likewise, the apostles condemn "adopting philosophy and empty deceit, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8-Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ:).
3) Instead of tradition, the true Christian should base his faith on the Bible alone since it is totally and completely sufficient for "teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17-[16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.). 4) If "the Bible nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else" does not seem to you to clearly and unambiguously teach these Catholic doctrines, then you should not believe them. Such arguments seem very convincing. Nevertheless, upon closer inspection, they are found to be deeply flawed.
Is Sola Scriptura biblical?
If "the Bible and nothing else" is all that is necessary for faith and practice, then the Bible ought to make this doctrine clear, or at least imply this teaching at some point. The facts are otherwise: Scripture neither says nor implies that it alone is all that is necessary for faith and practice. Citations of Scripture's "proving" Sola Scriptura read into Scripture an intention that is not there. Thus, many arguments for Sola Scriptura will quote something like Deut. 4:2 "you shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it" to claim that Scripture alone is sufficient and that anything outside of what is written in Scripture cannot be God's Word or revelation. Such arguments neglect to note however that, logically applied, this claim means that the biblical books written after Deuteronomy are also "additions" to God's revelation.
Others will cite 2 Tim. 3:16 (All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice) to claim that Scripture is a totally sufficient source of revelation. Here again, this neglects the question immediately raised by such a verse: Granting that "all Scripture is God-breathed," how do we know which books are inspired Scripture and which books are not?
At the time 2 Timothy was composed, not all the New Testament books had even been written. By the time all the books of the New Testament were written, they were being circulated along with numerous other books and epistles of varying quality, all of which vied for the attention of the early Christians. If the "sufficiency" of Scripture of which Paul speaks is a total sufficiency, Scripture should somehow be able to answer the question, "How do you tell which books are inspired Scripture and which aren't?" But, in fact, Scripture does not do this, a fact attested by the different collections of "recognized" scriptural books which existed in the different early Christian Church communities. Similarly, even today different Christians have different canons or collections of Scripture.
The "sufficiency of Scripture" of which Paul speaks is not, in fact, "formal" or total sufficiency. On the contrary, Scripture assumes that the written portion of apostolic Tradition is only "materially" sufficient revelation, and that the Church will rely on two additional authoritative sources to fully discern God's revelation: sacred Tradition and the Magisterium or teaching office of the Church.
The difference between formal and material sufficiency is the difference between having a brick house and having a big enough pile of bricks to build a house. Drawing on this analogy, Christ the Master Builder uses the mortar of Tradition and the trowel of he Magisterium to build His brick house of revelation from a mere pile of bricks
(1. Mt. 16:18- And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it., 2. Eph. 2:19-22- [19] Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, [20] Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: [21] In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. [22] In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit. ; 3. 1 Tim. 3:15-But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.). It is these three elements together -- 1) written Tradition (that is, Scripture), 2) unwritten Tradition , and 3) the Magisterium -- that hand down the fullness of revelation, who is Jesus Christ.
This is the biblical witness as well. When the circumcision crisis arose around 40 A.D., there was , on a Sola Scriptura basis, an enormous amount of biblical precedent for the idea that Gentiles who wished to become Christians must be circumcised. After all, a) everybody from the time of Abraham, including our Lord and His apostles, had received circumcision, as God Himself had commanded (Gen. 17); b) this requirement had always included Gentile converts to the Covenant People, as God Himself had also commanded (Ex. 12:48); and c) Our Lord had never clearly abolished this requirement but had rather insisted that "till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished" (Mt. 5:18).
Nonetheless, the Church concluded that circumcision was unnecessary for Gentiles to become Christians. How? By the clear recognition that the full teaching of Christ is obtained, not merely by reliance on the "Bible and nothing else," but by reading the Bible in the context of her sacred Tradition, which is the common life, common teaching, and common worship of the apostolic Church (cf. Acts 2:42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers).
What the Church did was hold a council—the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)—so that the Magisterium of the Church, i.e., the Apostles, their successors, and other Christian leaders, could examine not only Scripture but the full apostolic Tradition of the Church, both written and unwritten, and render an authoritative decision.
At the Council, the Church sifted the whole of the apostolic message -- not just the written part -- and eventually concluded that, despite what Scripture alone appeared to say, the reality was that the New Covenant of Christ did not require circumcision for Gentile converts.
In fact, Scripture is treated by the Council of Jerusalem exactly as the Catholic Church still treats it today: as the written portion, not the totality, of God's revelation. Revelation is not a one-legged stool of Scripture alone, but a three-legged stool of
1) written Tradition, 2) unwritten Tradition and 3) the Magisterium.
This is why St. Paul tells the Thessalonians to "hold fast to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thessalonian 2:15 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace). These are the first two legs of the stool.
The Council of Jerusalem also illustrates why Paul appointed bishops, among them Timothy and Titus, to "guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Timothy 1:14), for they constitute the essential third leg. Taken together, this three-legged stool gives us a sure basis for discerning authentic apostolic teaching. "Tradition" per se is not condemned by either Jesus or the Apostles. Rather, it is only the "traditions of men" they condemned.
Biblical Teaching on the Bible
The first Christians "were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles" (Acts 2:42; cf. 2 Tim. 1:14) long before the New Testament was written -- and centuries before the New Testament canon was settled. The Bible affirms that Christian teaching is "preached" (1 Pet. 1:25), that the Apostles' successors were to teach what they have "heard" (2 Tim. 2:2), and that Christian teaching is passed on both "by word of mouth [and] by letter" (2 Thessalonian 2:15; cf. 1 Cor. 11:2).
Not everything Christ did is recorded in sacred Scripture (John. 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.).
New Testament authors availed themselves of sacred Tradition. For example, Acts 20:35 (I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring you ought to support the weak, and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive.) quotes a saying of Jesus that is not recorded in the Gospels.
Nothing is impossible with God.
Is Sola Scriptura workable?
If we reject this basic Catholic understanding of revelation, we immediately encounter enormous difficulties.
Adherents of Sola Scriptura assert that Scripture alone is "perspicuous" or clear about the important things that God desires us to know for our salvation, and that those passages which are less clear can be understood in light of passages which are more clear.
However, in practice this is plainly not so. Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Christ or is it a symbol?
Swiss reformer Ulrich Zwingli believed that John 6:63 -- "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail" -- "clearly" showed that Jesus was speaking symbolically of the Eucharist and that the "less clear" passages, such as Jesus' declaration "This is my body" (Lk. 22:19) must be interpreted in light of John 6:63. Zwingli's conclusion: The Eucharist is just a symbol. Martin Luther, on the other hand, regarded "This is my body" as the clear passage and interpreted John. 6:63 in light of it. Not surprisingly, Luther and Zwingli were bitter opponents and split over this issue. In the same way, the foundational sacrament of the Christian life -- Baptism -- is open to wildly divergent beliefs and practices when left to the mercies of sola scriptura.
Scripture alone is not always clear, so various groups and individuals, based on their respective opinions, in practice take on the role of the divinely ordained Magisterium. Is Sola Scriptura consistently Applied?
Sola scriptura is often asserted to argue against aspects of Catholic Tradition unpalatable to a particular Protestant theology, and there are many of these. Thus, for instance, it is argued by most Evangelicals that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is weakly attested to by Scripture.
It is argued that John. 6 and the words "This is my body" can be interpreted several ways. And since "the Bible and nothing else" is all that is necessary for faith and practice, the ambiguity of Scripture alone on this point means the Catholic Church has no right to "add their Tradition to Scripture" and derive a dogmatic belief in the Real Presence. The same logic is applied again and again to various displeasing features of Catholic teaching, ranging from Purgatory, to the office of Peter, to prayers for the dead. Regarding "fundamental Christian Doctrines," however, Evangelicals unconsciously functions exactly like Catholics and read their bibles in light of sacred traditions which has percolated down to them from pre-Reformation Catholic Tradition. Thus, Evangelicals do not declare monogamy to be optional, even though Scripture alone is far more ambiguous about monogamy vs. polygamy than it is about Purgatory or the Real Presence -- a fact recognized by Martin Luther and his colleague Philip Melancthon. Likewise, belief in the sanctity of human life at conception is also very ambiguous on the basis of Scripture alone, as is the doctrine of the Trinity and, a teaching at the core of Evangelical "Bible only" belief, that public revelation closed with the death of the Apostles. Yet Evangelicals typically treat these doctrines with the same certainty that the Catholic Church treats the Real Presence. The reason for this is straightforward: Evangelicalism has unconsciously retained part of sacred Tradition in such instances and reads Scripture in light of it, whereas the Catholic Church has retained the fullness of that same Tradition. |
 The Catholic Church originally gave us the Bible after Jesus established the church with Apostle Peter. The original Bible has 73 books but non-Catholics and Protestants made their own interpretation and reduced the original 73 books to only 66 books. What does this mean? Who added or who removed? Is it possible for the original bible to be mistaken so that all the new copied versions are authorized and has the capacity to do so, revised and reduced it to just 66 books? One thing for sure the new versions were translated according to the mind and understanding of the reviser and not necessarily guided by the Holy Spirit. Everything about the church after Jesus has to be Holy Spirit-centered otherwise without the spiritual guidance and inspirations from the Holy Spirit the bible will be susceptible to perversion and corruption. When the Protestants rewrote the original Holy Bible and came out with their own versions which they claim as the true words of God they effectively removed 7 books to avoid showing the biblicality of the "Purgatory" and others TRUTH that Catholics possess. The purpose of which is misleading others in believing that theirs is the true church and not the church that Jesus established and founded with Apostle Peter. The Protestants claim that the original Bible should only be 66 books and that the Catholic Church added 7 books. To Martin Luther and the rest of the writers that revised the original bible, did they possess the capacity and the authority to re-write and interpret the original bible? Did they have the minds of the Apostles and the Church Fathers?
Number 6 is always associated with Satan and 7 is of God.
So which is the true one - the 66 books or the 73 books?
The Complete Bible:
Why Catholics Have Seven More Books? ISSUE: Catholic Bibles contain seven more Old Testament (46) books than Protestant Bibles (39). Catholics refer to these seven books as the “deuterocanon” (second canon), while Protestants refer to them as “apocrypha,” a term used pejoratively to describe non-canonical books. Protestants also have shorter versions of Daniel and Esther. Why are there differences? RESPONSE: Catholic Bibles contain all the books that have been traditionally accepted by Christians since Jesus’ time. Protestant Bibles contain all those books, except those rejected by the Protestant Reformers in the 1500’s. The chief reason Protestants rejected these biblical books was because they did not support Protestant doctrines, for example, 2 Maccabees supports prayer for the dead. The term “canon” means rule or guideline, and in this context means “which books belong in the Bible (and, by implication, which do not).” The Catholic Old Testament follows the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, the Old Testament which was translated into Greek around 250 B.C. The Protestant Reformers follows the Palestinian canon of Scripture (39 books), which was not officially recognized by Jews until around 100 A.D. DISCUSSION: Prior to Jesus’ time, the Jews did not have a sharply defined, universal canon of Scripture. Some groups of Jews used only the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch); some used only the Palestinian canon (39 books); some used the Alexandrian canon (46 books), and some, like the Dead Sea community, used all these and more. The Palestinian and Alexandrian canons were more normative than the others, having wider acceptance among orthodox Jews, but for Jews there was no universally defined canon to include or exclude the “deuterocanonical” books around 100 A.D. The Apostles commissioned by Jesus, however, used the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek which contained the Alexandrian canon) most of the time and must have accepted the Alexandrian canon. For example, 86 percent of Old Testament quotes in the Greek New Testament come directly from the Septuagint, not to mention numerous linguistic references. Acts 7 provides an interesting piece of evidence that justifies the Apostolic use of the Septuagint. In Acts 7:14 St. Stephen says that Jacob came to Joseph with 75 people. The Masoretic Hebrew version of Genesis 46:27 says “70,” while the Septuagint’s says “75,” the number Stephen used. Following the Apostles' example, Stephen clearly used the Septuagint. (We also know from other ancient Christian documents, like the Didache and Pope St. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians, that the apostles’ successors not only used the Septuagint, but quote from all of the books in the Alexandrian canon as the authoritative word of God.) There is no divinely inspired “table of contents” for the Bible, therefore, Christians need an authority, like the infallible Church established by Christ, to discern which books are the divinely inspired ones. (Indeed, even if there were such a “table of contents” list, we would need an authority to tell if the list itself were inspired.) Even many Evangelical Protestant Bible scholars admit this: While we know that at the time of Jesus there were different canons of the Old Testament because the canonical process was not yet complete, the glorious truth is that God has invited humans to be partners in the putting together of Scripture. I think the implications are that you cannot have Scripture without the community of faith [in other words, the Church]. It’s not just a private revelation. God gives us Scripture, but then the [Church], by God’s guidance, has to choose what’s in and what’s out. Why don’t the Jews accept the Alexandrian canon now, though? They follow after their predecessors, who around 100 A.D. decided that the Septuagint which followed the Alexandrian canon had at least two problems: First, it was written in Greek, which after the destruction of Jerusalem by Gentiles seemed “un-Jewish” or even “anti-Jewish.” Second, Christians, following the lead of their apostolic leaders, widely used the Septuagint, especially in apologetics to the Jews; thus, non-Christian Jews wanted to deny the value of some of its books, such as the Book of Wisdom, which contains a profound prophecy of Christ’s death. In the words of Protestant Septuagint scholar Sir Lancelot Benton: The veneration with which the Jews had treated this [Septuagint] (as it is shown in the case of [Jewish historians] Philo and Josephus), gave place to a very contrary feeling when they found how it could be used against them [i.e., in Christian apologetics]: hence they decried the [Septuagint] version, and sought to deprive it of any authority. What are the classic Protestant arguments against the seven deuterocanonical books? Their major objection is that the deuterocanonicals contain doctrines and practices, such as the doctrine of purgatory and praying for the dead, that are irreconcilable with authentic Scripture. This objection, of course, begs the question. If the deuterocanon is inspired Scripture, then those doctrines and practices are not opposed to Scripture but part of Scripture. Another objection is that the deuterocanonical books “contain nothing prophetic.” This is clearly proved false by comparing Wisdom 1:16-2:1 and 2:12-24 to Matthew’s passion account, especially Matthew 27:40-43. Many Protestants also argue that, because neither Jesus nor His apostles quote the deuterocanonical books, they should be left out of the Bible. This claim ignores that Jesus nor His apostles do not quote Ecclesiastes, Esther or the Song of Songs, nor even mention them in the New Testament; yet Protestants accept these books. Furthermore, the New Testament quotes and refers to many non-canonical books, like pagan poetry quoted by Paul and Jewish stories referred to by Jude, which neither Protestants nor Catholics accept as Scripture. Clearly New Testament quotation, or the lack thereof, cannot be a reliable indicator of Old Testament canonicity. (This also begs the question of which books belong in the new Testament and which do not.) Other Protestants argue that today’s Jews do not accept the deuterocanon. This objection is problematic for two reasons. The first is why the Jews reject those books (see above). These books are rejected by Jews on the basis of bias against Christianity, something to which Protestants should not want to support. The second problem is this: Why should Christians accept the authority of post-Church-establishment, non-Christians instead of the Apostles of the Church that Christ founded? Would God found a Church and then let it fall into grave error concerning the Old Testament canon? This is an untenable position for any Christian to take. Others point to St. Jerome's “rejection” of deuterocanonical material. While Jerome was originally suspicious of the “extra” Old Testament books, which he only knew in Greek, he fully accepted the judgment of the Church on the matter, as shown in a letter written in 402 A.D. What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? I was not relating my own personal views [when I wrote the objections of the Jews to the longer form of Daniel in my introduction], but rather the remarks that [the Jews] are wont to make against us [Christians who accept the longer form of Daniel], (Against Rufinius, 11:33, emphasis added). Remember that Protestants reject the longer, Alexandrian version of Daniel; St. Jerome did not. Still more Protestants claim that the Church did not authoritatively define the canon of Scripture until the Council of Trent and, since that Council was a reaction to the Reformation, the deuterocanon can be considered an “addition” to the original Christian canon. This is also incorrect. Regional councils of the early Church had enumerated the books of the Bible time and again prior to the Reformation, always upholding the current Catholic canon. Examples include the Council of Rome (382), the Council of Hippo (393), and the Third and Fourth Councils of Carthage (397, 418). All of these affirmed the Catholic canon as we know it today, while none affirmed the Protestant canon. This exact canon also had the total support of important Church Fathers like St. Augustine (Christian Instruction, 397). In 405, Pope St. Innocent also taught the Catholic canon in a letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, the same year that St. Jerome completed the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible at the request of the Popes. A thousand years later, while seeking reunion with the Copts, the Church affirmed the same canon at the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442. When the canon became a serious issue following the Protestant schism in the early 1500s, Trent dogmatically defined what the Church had consistently taught for more than 1,000 years. R.C. Sproul, a prominent Protestant theologian, asserts that we must accept the Bible as a “fallible collection of infallible books,” and many Protestants find this idea appealing. There are serious problems with this position however. The chief problem is this: While it acknowledges that infallible books exist somewhere in the world, it implies that we can have no guarantee that all, or indeed any, of those infallible books are in the Bibles Christians use. If the collection is fallible, the contents are not necessarily the books which are infallible. How do we know, then, that John's Gospel, which all Christians accept, is legitimately Scripture, while the so-called “Gospel of Thomas,” which all Christians reject, is not? Sproul’s statement points to the need for an authority outside the Bible so that we can have an infallible collection of infallible books. It is ultimately contradictory to believe in the Bible’s infallibility, and the reliability of its canon, without believing in the Church’s infallibility. To answer the question, “Who decided which books are in the Bible?” we must inevitably recognize the authoritative Church that Christ founded, the Church that infallibly discerned with God's guidance which books belonged and which didn’t. This means recognizing that the longer Old Testament canon is the correct one.
How Did The Old Testament Canon Develop?
Uploaded on Nov 18, 2010
Catholic Answers Senior Apologist Jimmy Akin explains the circumstances behind the development of the Old Testament canon. What Did Early Christians Really Believe? The Answer Will Surprise and Amaze You! The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church is a unique resource that introduces you to the teachings of the first Christians in a way no other work can. It is specially designed to make it easy for you to find the information you want and need. Amazing features in this fact-packed book include:
"We are particularly blessed by this release of Jimmy Akin's superbly compiled synopsis of the writings of the early Church Fathers. There are other works, but Akin's finely selected and categorized collection provides a far more accessible introduction to the early Christians"
—Marcus Grodi, President of The Coming Home Network and host of EWTN's The Journey Home.
|
that can Explain the Bible~
The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament and explain it while Protestants interpret them.
"As Catholics were responsible for writing the New Testament (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the Catholic Church doesn't "interpret" the Bible. We explain it. Protestants can only "interpret", because they are not the author (guided by the Holy Spirit), and therefore, can only guess at the possible meaning of a chapter, passage or phrase, just as anyone can only guess at any author's intentions in any other book. As the author, the Catholic Church is the only proper authority to consult in matters pertaining to the Bible." -Catholic Truth
"As Catholics were responsible for writing the New Testament (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the Catholic Church doesn't "interpret" the Bible. We explain it. Protestants can only "interpret", because they are not the author (guided by the Holy Spirit), and therefore, can only guess at the possible meaning of a chapter, passage or phrase, just as anyone can only guess at any author's intentions in any other book. As the author, the Catholic Church is the only proper authority to consult in matters pertaining to the Bible." -Catholic Truth
Which came first, the Church or the Bible?
Which came first, the Church or the New Testament? We knew that the Incarnate Word of God, Jesus Christ, had called the Apostles, who in turn formed the nucleus of the Christian Church. We knew that the Eternal Word of God therefore preceded the Church and gave birth to the Church. When the Church heard the Incarnate Word of God and committed His Word to writing, she thereby participated with God in giving birth to the written Word, the New Testament. Thus it was the Church which gave birth to and preceded the New Testament.
To the question, "Which came first, the Church or the New Testament?" the answer, both biblically and historically, is crystal clear. Someone might protest, "Does it really make any difference which came first? After all, the Bible contains everything that we need for salvation."
Did not the Lord Himself tell His disciples, just prior to His crucifixion? "When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come" (John 16:13)? He also said, "I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18).
Jesus being all-knowing God, He knew what is to come. Jesus knew that the church He will build will be subjected to non-stop attempt to destroy it by Satan who will put together an army of devil worshipers and anti-Catholics churches and false messengers and teachers. So He specifically told Peter that He will not leave them orphaned and that when He go the Holy Spirit will descend upon them and guide them through all that is to come and He promised them that no matter how hard the enemies try even the gates of hell will not prevail.
Luke
6:22 Blessed shall you be when men shall hate you,
and when they shall separate you, and shall
reproach you, and cast out your name as evil,
for the Son of man' s sake.
Acts
Of Apostles 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas said boldly: To you it behoved us
first to speak the word of God: but because you reject it, and judge
yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles.
(Protestants reject it and judge among themselves as modern-day gentiles).
Matthew
5:11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak
all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake:Among the first enemies to come aside was the persecution by the Jews themselves by Paul of Tarsus who became St Paul the Apostle for the gentiles. Then came the church persecutions by the Roman Empire, by the Persians and Arabs, the medieval persecution of heresy, the early modern reformation movement, the persecutions of Christians in China, Japan, India and many more that followed.
The tree that bearest the sweetest fruits will always be stoned down over and over again by the enemies of the church.
Our Lord did not leave us with only a book to guide us. He left us with His Church. The Holy Spirit within the Church teaches us, and His teaching complements Scripture.
How foolish to believe that God's full illumination ceased after the New Testament books were written and did not resume until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, or-to take this argument to its logical conclusion-until the very moment when I, myself, started reading the Bible.
- Either the Holy Spirit was in the Church throughout the centuries following the New Testament period, leading, teaching, and illuminating her in her understanding of the gospel message, or
- the Church has been left a spiritual orphan, with individual Christians independently interpreting-and often "authoritatively" teaching the same Scripture in radically different ways.
- Such chaos cannot be the will of God, "for God is not the author of confusion but of peace" (For God is not the God of dissension, but of peace: as also I teach in all the churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:33).
As a non-Catholic, how often
would you decide for yourself
what the Scriptures meant?
would you decide for yourself
what the Scriptures meant?
Who came first, Martin Luther or Protestantism?
Protestantism came much later. When Martin Luther was presenting all his arguments, no one has ever thought that everything that Martin was doing was leading to the advent of Protestantism that will change the history of Christianity. Therefore, Martin Luther came first before Protestantism just as the Church came first before the Holy Bible were put together. And this refute the Sola Scriptura as the only basis for salvation according to non-Catholics and Protestant churches.
Who came first, Jesus Christ or the Bible.
Rather than trying to judge the Church according to modern preconceptions about what the Bible was saying, we needed to humble ourselves and come into union with the Church that originally produced the New Testament, and let her guide us into a proper understanding of the Holy Scripture.
After carefully exploring various church bodies, I finally realized that, contrary to the beliefs of many modern Christians, the Church which produced the Bible is not dead and never will be nor apostatized during the first century as other false Churches claim.
Did The Early Christians Subscribe to Sola Scriptura? (Link)
Sola Scriptura is not found in the bible, and cannot be a foundation
for why he have the bible or know what books belong in the bible.
The Books of Scripture are part of the larger whole which is Tradition.
Sola Scriptura aka e Bible Alone
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scri... for scripture verse AND Church Father quotes
"...as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which 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 Peter 3: 15, 16. "Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. " 2 Peter 1:20
Protestant (satanic) Lies Crushed by
the Bible that Catholics Preserved
with their Blood for 2000yrs
Published on Oct 30, 2012
This video exposes the lies of so-called "bible believers" and shows why they're divided into 35,000 sects. Protestants twist the scriptures to their own destruction and lead others to hell by their inability to comprehend the bible, but at the root of it all, by their incredible pride. Their pride keeps them from the obvious truths in the bible and the logical truth of having one Church.
There's one God, one faith, one baptism; this is obvious to
people of good will. Christ prayed his followers to be one, he also started a
Church on St. Peter and told St.Peter to "feed my lambs".
Jesus never commands his followers to privately interpret the
bible, Jesus didn't
preach 'faith-alone' or 'scripture-alone' so
the theory of Sola Scriptura itself denies itself not only in this way, but in
countless ways.
It's really amazing anyone could buy into it actually, it's
utterly ridiculous. It's also very dangerous because the false systems of
protestantism, without a doubt, lead souls to hell by the billions.
It's a
diabolical trap. Satan set it up for people who believe in God and recognize
Jesus in some way, but the system feeds man's pride because he is his own
authority on what he says God says.
So in the end, Satan gets their soul because Christ's followers follow His voice, not their own, not what they say Jesus says. And if you think that's not accurate, look at the evidence; 35,000 heretical false 'christs'.
All the arguments Protestants pose can be turned right back at them. They're unable to see this because satan has their intellect severely darkened.
All the arguments Protestants pose can be turned right back at them. They're unable to see this because satan has their intellect severely darkened.
They say,"Catholic's not in the bible". Actually, the term Catholic is a descriptive of Christian; it describes the universality of Christians and both terms were originated in the same city, Antioch.
Universality of Christians
Christians are everywhere
and they are even in the midst of Protestant Churches and others. There is nothing
impossible with God. Those who love God and obey His commandments are
Christians in their hearts.
Christ is God one and the same as the Father and the Holy Spirit
for they are one God in three Divine Persons.
Salvation is not limited to Catholics only for
the word Catholic is ‘universal’ (Greek). Therefore who ever has Christ in him
(in his heart and soul) and lives by His commandments and always repentant for all
his errors and sins will not be blotted out in the Book of Life.
 |
| Are you in danger? |
The ones who teaches and preaches the goodness of God and yet live on and promote the Sola Scriptura alone as basis of faith are in the risk and in the end of their earthly life they may find their names no longer in the Book of Life.
Those who continuously attack the Catholic Church and its doctrines and those who are physically and spiritually inflicting harm on Catholics and Christians are in danger of being blotted out in the Book of Life.
"May the Holy Spirit touches your heart that you may find the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE."
John 14:6
Jesus saith to him:
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
No man cometh to the Father, but by me."
Jesus saith to him:
"I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
No man cometh to the Father, but by me."
A Baptist friend I met, while we were driving back to our office, asked me a question about John 14:6 verse. "How can Jesus claim this, how about those who doesn't know Him but believe in God the Father, can they not be saved? Jesus is unfair" and he said further the rest of his congregation were telling him he will go to hell because of his stand on Jesus.
He asked me again of what I think about this. I didn't know the answer. He caught me off guard. So I prayed very quickly and asked God to help me with an answer.
Then I answered: "I respect your belief as well as the members of your church. But I am not your judge and I cannot say who is right or wrong. But let me put it this way. What does Jesus really meant when He said that? Maybe Jesus meant something else. There are people who don't know nor heard about Jesus, people who have never seen a bible but they are worshiping someone up there and they are good and kind human beings who would never hurt anyone. Can they go to heaven too? First of all, who is Jesus to us? When he died on the cross he gave us salvation and with His cross He symbolizes and represents many things. Jesus is loving, forgiving, understanding, merciful, giving, compassionate, charitable, obedient and many more good traits. If a man is loving, forgiving, understanding, merciful, giving, compassionate, charitable, obedient and many more good traits, don't you think he has a chance to reach heaven and be with the Father? I think Jesus was telling us that if a man is loving, forgiving, understanding, merciful, giving, compassionate, charitable, obedient and many more good traits he can go to the Father as well." At this point he understood what I meant and he said I made sense. I thank God right away for helping me.
But he continued with a follow up statement. He said: "When I was still young I used my heart but after I graduated in college, I realized I was wrong in using my heart all the time so I started using my mind so no one can take advantage of me anymore. And look at the war going on in Bosnia, if only they use their mind, they will realize that they are just destroying all the things around them. So what can you say about this?"
Once more I prayed to God asking Him to give me the answer. I remember what Jesus told Judas on their way to Jerusalem: "Judas use your heart not your mind but open up your heart and your mind." And so I asked my friend: "When you got married do you still remember how much you loved her and she to you? He replied: "yes." "But did you still remember the times that you have arguments and things were flying everywhere and sometimes you hurt each other verbally and physically that at times you will not be talking to each other for days or weeks? He said: "yes." "But did you also remember sometimes both of you would realize that you would pause for a moment and would say to each other, 'honey, I love you and I am sorry, please forgive me' and then you hug and kiss each other?" Again he said: "yes." And I continued: "Do you still love your wife? And he paused and replied: "You know I am not sure anymore."
At this point I switched to Bosnia and told him: "You know, what if the warring parties suddenly realize that they are brothers in God and say 'hey brother, you are my brother and I love you, let's stop fighting, what do you think will happen? Don't you think they will stop because they love their neighbors and there is no reason to fight among loving brothers?"
But at that moment we arrived at our parking area and he said something that touched my heart. He said: "Thank you my friend, you made sense and I want to talk to you more." And he went to his car but that was the last time we saw each other.
I stayed a little while in my car and I thank God for everything I said to my Baptist friend was new to my mind. I would never have spoken those if it were from me. I thank God for it was His words that came out of my mouth.
He asked me again of what I think about this. I didn't know the answer. He caught me off guard. So I prayed very quickly and asked God to help me with an answer.
Then I answered: "I respect your belief as well as the members of your church. But I am not your judge and I cannot say who is right or wrong. But let me put it this way. What does Jesus really meant when He said that? Maybe Jesus meant something else. There are people who don't know nor heard about Jesus, people who have never seen a bible but they are worshiping someone up there and they are good and kind human beings who would never hurt anyone. Can they go to heaven too? First of all, who is Jesus to us? When he died on the cross he gave us salvation and with His cross He symbolizes and represents many things. Jesus is loving, forgiving, understanding, merciful, giving, compassionate, charitable, obedient and many more good traits. If a man is loving, forgiving, understanding, merciful, giving, compassionate, charitable, obedient and many more good traits, don't you think he has a chance to reach heaven and be with the Father? I think Jesus was telling us that if a man is loving, forgiving, understanding, merciful, giving, compassionate, charitable, obedient and many more good traits he can go to the Father as well." At this point he understood what I meant and he said I made sense. I thank God right away for helping me.
But he continued with a follow up statement. He said: "When I was still young I used my heart but after I graduated in college, I realized I was wrong in using my heart all the time so I started using my mind so no one can take advantage of me anymore. And look at the war going on in Bosnia, if only they use their mind, they will realize that they are just destroying all the things around them. So what can you say about this?"
Once more I prayed to God asking Him to give me the answer. I remember what Jesus told Judas on their way to Jerusalem: "Judas use your heart not your mind but open up your heart and your mind." And so I asked my friend: "When you got married do you still remember how much you loved her and she to you? He replied: "yes." "But did you still remember the times that you have arguments and things were flying everywhere and sometimes you hurt each other verbally and physically that at times you will not be talking to each other for days or weeks? He said: "yes." "But did you also remember sometimes both of you would realize that you would pause for a moment and would say to each other, 'honey, I love you and I am sorry, please forgive me' and then you hug and kiss each other?" Again he said: "yes." And I continued: "Do you still love your wife? And he paused and replied: "You know I am not sure anymore."
At this point I switched to Bosnia and told him: "You know, what if the warring parties suddenly realize that they are brothers in God and say 'hey brother, you are my brother and I love you, let's stop fighting, what do you think will happen? Don't you think they will stop because they love their neighbors and there is no reason to fight among loving brothers?"
But at that moment we arrived at our parking area and he said something that touched my heart. He said: "Thank you my friend, you made sense and I want to talk to you more." And he went to his car but that was the last time we saw each other.
I stayed a little while in my car and I thank God for everything I said to my Baptist friend was new to my mind. I would never have spoken those if it were from me. I thank God for it was His words that came out of my mouth.
Silent Crusader 1995
Meanwhile 'Sola Scriptura' is not in the bible. The word 'Trinity' is not in the bible. So, that argument's totally bogus but they'll do it all the time, which exposes their bad will and dishonesty. And who has dominion over them? God or Satan?
This video highlights the clarity the Catholic Magisterium provides in regards to the bible.
Only a liar would deny it. Protestants are not actually Christian. You see, Protestants twist the scriptures; they create their own god by means of their pride and bad-will.
You have the 'prosperity Jesus', you have the 'rapture Jesus', you have the 'Baptist Jesus', you have the '3rd Day North Korean Reformed Methodist Jesus'. These are all false Jesus's, false gods and abominations. A true believer in Christ will be repulsed by these abominations. If you are not, you should pray.
Only a liar would deny it. Protestants are not actually Christian. You see, Protestants twist the scriptures; they create their own god by means of their pride and bad-will.
- In a sense, so-called-bible-believers create a Golden Calf into their ideal god, then stamp the name Jesus on its head. This should scare anybody; this is very true. This is why
- Protestantism has created 35,000 Golden Calf Jesus's.
You have the 'prosperity Jesus', you have the 'rapture Jesus', you have the 'Baptist Jesus', you have the '3rd Day North Korean Reformed Methodist Jesus'. These are all false Jesus's, false gods and abominations. A true believer in Christ will be repulsed by these abominations. If you are not, you should pray.
Love of God creates hatred of evil. Fear of God creates hatred of evil. Protestantism is a satanic prelude of the French Revolution and the fruits of these failed theories are obvious to anyone who loves the truth and loves Jesus Christ and the ONE Church he established. That makes sense to any reasonable person of good will. If this is not clear to you then you are unreasonable and of bad will because you are of your father the devil. That all being said, this video is a plea for you to reconsider your belief and convert to the Catholic faith. Don't believe the lies, it is the one true faith. One God, One Faith, One Baptism; makes sense. Click on the links below for more information.
John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command."
By David Palm
The Protestant doctrine of
Sola Scriptura—that the Bible alone is a Christian’s authority in matters of
faith and morals—was one of the central tenets on which the Reformers broke
away from the Catholic Church. But in one of those strange quirks of history,
Sola Scriptura lately has been one of the central tenets on which some
Evangelical Protestants have returned to Rome.
Shortly after my wife and
I announced our decision to be received into the Catholic Church, members of my
family urged us to talk to my former seminary professors about our decision. We
were glad to do this and made appointments with two of my favorite teachers,
both professors of New Testament.
In addition to fielding
questions from them about the Catholic faith, I asked these men a question that
had been instrumental in my own decision to become Catholic: "Where does
Scripture teach that Scripture alone is our authority in matters of faith and morals?"
If Scripture makes no such claim for itself, then the doctrine of Sola
Scriptura is self-contradictory, and this undermines a central pillar of
Protestantism. To me this question was critical.
I did not get a persuasive
answer from either scholar, but one of them responded to my question with one
of his own: "Does any New Testament author cite oral tradition as
authoritative for doctrine?" His point was that if the apostles’ use of
Scripture—for them the Old Testament—illustrates that they held to a doctrine
of Sola Scriptura, and then it seems reasonable that this pattern would hold
for later Christians’ use of the New Testament. His argument is a good one, but
only to a point.
One problem is that the
question assumes the truth of the conclusion it is trying to establish. By
asking "Where in the New Testament do you find such and such?" the
questioner is limiting the discussion only to written revelation, but this is
the very point we are trying to establish. We must have some evidence that all
of God’s revelation comes to us in written form; we cannot merely assume this.
So we are back to the original question, "Where does Scripture teach that
Scripture alone is our authority for matters of faith and morals?"
The Answer is Here!
Another difficulty is that
the doctrine of the apostles came to them in oral form from Jesus. In one sense
the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented
by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective,
perhaps 90% of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition (from
Jesus), and the remaining ten percent is from written sources.
But my professor was
concentrating on the way the Apostles treated Scripture. If we could find in
the New Testament no case in which the authors drew on Jewish oral tradition as
authoritative, one could make the case that Sola Scriptura is a doctrine taught
by the apostles, if not explicitly in the pages of the New Testament, then at least
implicitly by their example. While this is not as satisfying as being able to
point to chapter and verse to support Sola Scriptura, it is a way out of the
logical quandary that the doctrine generates.
The Berean Fellowship [Not by Scripture Alone -link]
Interestingly, though, a closer look at Acts 17:11 reveals that the people of Berea were not sola scriptura adherents at all. In actuality, they were primarily Jews converting to Christianity through Paul’s use of Sacred Tradition. Here’s the verse within its fuller context:
Acts 17:10-12
[10] But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither (arrived), went into the synagogue of the Jews. [11] Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so. [12] And many indeed of them believed, and of honourable (Greek women of high standing) women that were Gentiles, and of men (Greek) not a few.
Finally: Catholic versus Protestant Bibles
Bible translations developed for Catholic use are complete Bibles. This means that they contain the entire canonical text identified by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome (382) and the local Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), contained in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation (420), and decreed infallibly by the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1570).
This canonical text contains the same 27 NT Testament books which Protestant versions contain, but 46 Old Testament books, instead of 39.
These 7 books, and parts of 2 others, are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics (2nd canon) and Apocrypha (false writings) by Protestants, who dropped them at the time of the Reformation.
The Deuterocanonical texts are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel.
The Deuterocanonical texts are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel.
Some Protestant Bibles include the "Apocrypha" as pious reading.
The Sola Scriptura is anti-Jesus Christ and here is some important subject that has something in parallel to the Sola Scriptura - the Freemasonry. Clink on this Freemasonry for better understanding who is behind Sola Scriptura. There is one force behind all these. I recommend that you also read this: Who the enemies of the church are?
The Sola Scriptura is anti-Jesus Christ and here is some important subject that has something in parallel to the Sola Scriptura - the Freemasonry. Clink on this Freemasonry for better understanding who is behind Sola Scriptura. There is one force behind all these. I recommend that you also read this: Who the enemies of the church are?
May the Holy Spirit shine upon and
guide you in your quest for the TRUTH.
 |
| THE SILENT CRUSADER |
No comments:
Post a Comment