Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know you addressed this to bilb, but the Catholic Church doesn't claim Peter was only given the authority to forgive sins. I clearly state it above that Jesus talked to all the disciples at Pentecost when He uttered the John 20:23 words. But as usual, straw is the content of choice.
Detestable for 1976 years. Jesus authorized detestable.That's the Catholics.
What is detestable was the teaching that the Reformers fought, "that there was no salvation outside of the Roman Church. I know that position has changed, but it was prevalent during the Reformation.
Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth. Peter's mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men. (Martin Luther 1530 - after he left the Church)
W. F. Albright, one of the best known Protestant theologians of this century, in his Anchor Bible Commentary, says:
Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church....To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence.
When Jesus says "whatever you bind" to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for "you" is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for "you" in "whatever you bind" is plural. These two juxtaposed but similar phrases lay out the early structure of the Church with Peter as the Pope and the other apostles as priests.
If the keys were given to Peter, and I agree, is there anywhere in scripture where they are transferred to popes? or transferred to Rome?
Last edited by jeapostle; 07-16-2009 at 01:49 PM..
Reason: add
If the keys were given to Peter, and I agree, is there anywhere in scripture where they are transferred to popes? or transferred to Rome?
According to the writings of the early Church Fathers, there can be no doubt that there was indeed a succession of Bishops of Rome. Since Jesus gave Peter the keys and the Authority to bind and loose. Peter, who headed the Church, with the help of the other Apostles, along with the power of the Holy Spirit set up the system of Bishop of Rome succession. I know you can't really believe that a tradition developed by St. Peter because it isn't written in the Bible. But the rules of succession were setup over 300 years before the Bible was canonized.
If the keys were given to Peter, and I agree, is there anywhere in scripture where they are transferred to popes? or transferred to Rome?
Again, is there anywhere in scripture where the word "Trinity" is found?
No, but all non Catholic Christians choose to accept that Catholic tradition.
Quote:
His office, let another take." Or as the King James version says, "His bishopric, let other men take." The word there is episcopae, where we get the word episcopacy or episcopal. It's the word for bishop. In other words, there's an epioscopal office that is now empty and vacant. Peter stands up and says, "Well obviously, automatically, in line with the Old Testament tradition, in line with this Old Testament practice of patriarchal succession at every level in God's family, not just at top with Moses and his seed and his successors, but even the seventy elders, when they died, they left empty offices that must be filled," Peter is just obviously appealing to this Old Testament precedent is saying, "Let another man his bishopric, his office, take."
And they draw lots and they choose Matthias. No debate, no novelty. The other ten don't say, "Huh, what are you talking about, Simon? This is weird." No, they understand, but even more, they submit. There's no debate, no discussion.
Notice also in Acts 2, Peter's responsibility, not just over the ten, but over all of Jerusalem. He is the one who preaches the first sermon, that Pentecost, verse 14. He is the spokesman for the Church to the world at Pentecost.
Then you go on in chapter 3, we see Peter's second sermon. We also see that Peter is the instrument by which the first real healing miracle occurs, the lame man in the temple in Jerusalem in the portico called Solomon, I should say.
Then in chapter 4, we see Peter's pre-eminence emerging even further as he exercises his teaching authority over the Jewish senate, the Sanhedrin. He's put on trial, so you think he's going to be defensive. He's going to come to His own defense saying, "Oh gosh, guys, you know, please don't do these things." But no. He puts the Sanhedrin on trial for crucifying the Lord. He exercises supreme authority over the Jewish senate. It left them flabbergasted! Who does this fisherman think he is? The vicar of Christ over the family of God. And so they're set free. They are astounded at his boldness.
Then in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira, two wealthy members of the Church, sell some land and then lie about how much money they gave to the Church. Peter said to Ananias, "What are you doing?" Ananias says, "Well I gave you all the money." And Peter says, "You are lying to the Holy Spirit." Ananias said, "No, I'm just lying to you, Peter." But no. In lying to Peter, Ananias was lying to the Holy Spirit and to the Church. He's struck dead! A few hours later his wife Sapphira comes along. Peter says, "What happened?" "Oh, we sold the land for this amount, and we gave you all the money." And, "Hark, the footsteps of the men who just carried out your husband are coming for you." She drops dead! "And great fear came upon all those who heard of it," in verse 5.
No wonder. Petrine promise was rather apparent here. I mean Peter's pre-eminence was on display for the whole Church and the whole world and all the Jews to see and to behold. And it goes on and on and on. We see Peter, for instance, in Acts 11 and 12 -- even before that -- Acts 8, the first time non-Jewish half-breeds, Samaritans are brought into the Church. They are baptized. Word reaches Jerusalem that these non-Jewish half-breeds, the Samaritans are coming into the Church. Immediately, what do they do? Send Peter and John. They go down there and what do they do? Well, a Confirmation action, here. "They lay the hand," verse 14, "When the Apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed they might receive the Holy Spirit." They were baptized but they hadn't received this additional grace that we often associate with Confirmation. Then the laying on of hands; they received the Holy Spirit and then Simon Magus tried to buy the gift and Peter rebukes him.
"May your money," verse 20, "May your money perish with you because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money. You have no part to share in this ministry because your heart is not right before God. Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord and perhaps He will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart, for I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin." At this point Simon, who probably had heard of Ananias and Sapphira was trembling, you know. "Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me." I mean, even if some don't see Peter's promise, at least Simon Magus, the first heretic in the Church did. He said, "Please pray for me that I won't become the next Ananias and Sapphira."
Acts 11, now we're not talking about half-breeds; now we are talking about just plain outsiders, the Goene, the Gentiles, the swine, those that the Jews had often considered to be mere beasts. Cornelius, the first Gentile believer is going to be let into the Church? This is going to cause scandal. What's the Holy Spirit going to do? Have Peter be the first to authorize and admit the first Gentile Christian.
So Peter has this vision and in Acts 10 and 11, I should say, he has this vision: he's being commanded by God in this vision to kill and to eat these unclean animals that symbolize the Gentiles. He says, "I've never done it." Three times later he says, "Okay, okay, I'll do it." And then these people come and say, "We're being sent from Cornelius, the Gentile Centurion." In a dream, in a vision, the Lord had said to Cornelius, "Send for a guy named Peter." So Peter comes and what happens? Well, Peter goes up to his house and he perceives, verse 34, he says after he's baptizing Cornelius, "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right."
So then he goes ahead, preaches the gospel, baptizes these Gentiles and admits the first non-Jewish believers into the Church. And I mean, this could have been the greatest crisis of all, but there isn't even a fizzle, practically. But look at chapter 11, verse 2, "When Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcised believers criticized him and said, 'You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.'" And he explained exactly what happened and said, "Hey, God told me." It's Peter and they stopped.
But the crisis reaches an even higher point in chapter 15. We have the famous Council of Jerusalem where there's a huge debate tearing apart the Church. These Gentile believers, do we circumcise them or not? Well you might say, "How important is that?" Well, gentlemen, if you were in your twenties, thirties and forties and you were considering conversion and along with conversion, you had to get circumcised, you might end up considering conversion a lot longer than if all you needed was baptism, right? There was sort of a strategic purpose behind all of this. But notice, as the debate is raging, all of a sudden it stops. When? Verse 6 and 7, "The Apostles and elders met together. After much debate Peter stood up and addressed them," and he basically says the Holy Spirit purified their hearts through Baptism, circumcision isn't needed; end all debate! The only thing that follows is that James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, adds the kind of qualifying proviso so that the Jews are not needlessly scandalized in Gentile lands. But Peter's word was final and absolute. The debate ended. Peter had spoken. Now you might say, "Well, this is just Peter." No, the keys symbolize succession, an office which is left vacant must be filled. This is something that the Church understood. This is something that was well-known to the early Church. I hardly have time to get into this, but I have all these note cards about the early Church, after the death of the last Apostles, recognizing that the Bishop of Rome had Peter's authority and that was final and absolute.
According to the writings of the early Church Fathers, there can be no doubt that there was indeed a succession of Bishops of Rome. Since Jesus gave Peter the keys and the Authority to bind and loose. Peter, who headed the Church, with the help of the other Apostles, along with the power of the Holy Spirit set up the system of Bishop of Rome succession. I know you can't really believe that a tradition developed by St. Peter because it isn't written in the Bible. But the rules of succession were setup over 300 years before the Bible was canonized.
Dear juj,
I thought a bishop was supposed to be the HUSBAND of one wife. This the tradition of the Church Fathers also change scripture?
Jesus so clearly gives His new Apostles "disciplinary power" or what's better known as "Authority", to forgive and retain sins. Keep in mind a priest, and the case above, the disciples/Apostles, only act as God's tool, conduit, or vessel. Only God can forgive sins. That is what the Church has always believed. The verse above is the scriptural source for the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Penance. (Confession). Since Jesus said those words at the VERY beginning of the His Church, confession has been a part of His Church since the beginning, also.
Some Catholic terminologies are tad confusing and misleading, eg. “papal infallibility” and “absolve sins”.
“Absolve sin” means “grant remission of a sin”. Essentially it means “forgive”.
Hence I got the wrong idea that Peter was granted authority to forgive sins. But if you are saying that it was just leading people to repentance, then I fully agree with you on that, for John 20:23 also means that. As Peter opened the door of salvation on the Day of Pentecost, to the Jews (Acts 2), and later to the Gentiles (Acts 10), he was given the power to proclaim the terms of forgiveness, NOT to forgive sins.
Luke 5:21
"And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by billb7581
What did Our Lord mean when He told Peter that "whatever" he bound or loosed on earth would be bound and loosed in Heaven? If it doesn't mean what's simply written in Scripture, then what else can it mean?
To “bind” and “loose” simply mean to “forbid” and “permit”. . It refers to the power of judging matters on the basis of the Bible. The church has a divine commission to go forth declaring the gospel, and with it the promise of Christ's kingdom. In today’s context, every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he preaches the gospel and proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. When they offer the gospel to people they are opening the door of heaven to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billb7581
Quote writer: I hardly have time to get into this, but I have all these note cards about the early Church, after the death of the last Apostles, recognizing that the Bishop of Rome had Peter's authority and that was final and absolute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juj
According to the writings of the early Church Fathers, there can be no doubt that there was indeed a succession of Bishops of Rome. Since Jesus gave Peter the keys and the Authority to bind and loose. Peter, who headed the Church, with the help of the other Apostles, along with the power of the Holy Spirit set up the system of Bishop of Rome succession. I know you can't really believe that a tradition developed by St. Peter because it isn't written in the Bible. But the rules of succession were setup over 300 years before the Bible was canonized.
History records reveal that after Saint Peter died in 64AD, St. Evodius took over as the succeeding Bishop of Antioch, and when he died around 67AD, was succeeded by St. Ignatiius. St. Ignatius may have been a disciple of the Apostle John and one of the Apostolic Fathers (the earliest authoritative group of the Church Fathers). He based his authority on being a bishop of the Church, living his life in the imitation of Christ. He is also responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos meaning "universal," "complete" and "whole" to describe the church. He was subsequently martyed in 108AD. Besides St. Ignatius, Pope Saint Clement I was also one of the Bishops during the same time until he was maryed around 101AD.
But that’s not all …. According to the history of Pope : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Rome , Pope Leo the Great made a statement, in about 446AD, that "the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head", clearly articulating the extension of papal authority as doctrine, and promulgating his right to exercise "the full range of apostolic powers that Jesus had first bestowed on the apostle Peter". It was at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 that Leo I (through his emissaries) stated that he was "speaking with the voice of Peter". In other words, he declared HIMSELF to be the Pope!
So then, we see history only unfolding many different accounts of Apostolic successions. How do we know which is the right account? The answer is – we don’t need to know and it does not matter !
Ultimately when we go back to scriptures – the actual Word of God – this is what Jesus really had to say to Peter :-
Matthew 16:16-19
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to YOU that YOU are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
In this particular passage, Jesus is without a doubt speaking SPECIFICALLY and ONLY to Peter, Peter alone and no one else but Peter.
Note that He never said “ I also say to you and your apostolic successors that you are Peter, …. I will give you and your apostolic successors the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you and your apostolic successors bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you and your apostolic successors loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
NO! … He never said that. Instead in the full context of Matthew 18:18, where He also spoke about binding and loosing, do note that He was speaking to believers in general – ie. where two or three come together and agree :-
Matthew 18:15-20
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles must be passed on to those they ordained by apostolic succession. What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does NOT teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. The Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as the measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error.
Galatians 1:8-9
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church, ie His believers – through infallible Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billb7581
Again, is there anywhere in scripture where the word "Trinity" is found?
No, but all non Catholic Christians choose to accept that Catholic tradition.
While the RC Church adopted the concept of “Trinity” based on traditions and other pagan and heathen religions, Protestants understand “Trinity” solely and exclusively based on Scriptures. See my post #5. That the Protestants came later than the Roman Catholics does not necessarily mean that “Trinity” was acquired from the RC Church, and even if it was, it was only because it was entirely biblical, if not, Protestants would have rejected it just like it rejected all the other unbiblical Catholic Traditions!
Even with 3 men claiming to be Pope at the same time, the Church survived. I wonder why that did not destroy the Church. It is interestig that the Church has always acknowledged this fact. Just part of history so it can't be denied. There are a lot of imperfect people in every church. That doesn't make the Church less perfect.
Some Catholic terminologies are tad confusing and misleading, eg. “papal infallibility†and “absolve sinsâ€.
“Absolve sin†means “grant remission of a sinâ€. Essentially it means “forgiveâ€.
Hence I got the wrong idea that Peter was granted authority to forgive sins. But if you are saying that it was just leading people to repentance, then I fully agree with you on that, for John 20:23 also means that. As Peter opened the door of salvation on the Day of Pentecost, to the Jews (Acts 2), and later to the Gentiles (Acts 10), he was given the power to proclaim the terms of forgiveness, NOT to forgive sins.
Luke 5:21
"And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?"
To “bind†and “loose†simply mean to “forbid†and “permitâ€. . It refers to the power of judging matters on the basis of the Bible. The church has a divine commission to go forth declaring the gospel, and with it the promise of Christ's kingdom. In today’s context, every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he preaches the gospel and proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. When they offer the gospel to people they are opening the door of heaven to them.
History records reveal that after Saint Peter died in 64AD, St. Evodius took over as the succeeding Bishop of Antioch, and when he died around 67AD, was succeeded by St. Ignatiius. St. Ignatius may have been a disciple of the Apostle John and one of the Apostolic Fathers (the earliest authoritative group of the Church Fathers). He based his authority on being a bishop of the Church, living his life in the imitation of Christ. He is also responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos meaning "universal," "complete" and "whole" to describe the church. He was subsequently martyed in 108AD. Besides St. Ignatius, Pope Saint Clement I was also one of the Bishops during the same time until he was maryed around 101AD.
But that’s not all …. According to the history of Pope : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Rome , Pope Leo the Great made a statement, in about 446AD, that "the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head", clearly articulating the extension of papal authority as doctrine, and promulgating his right to exercise "the full range of apostolic powers that Jesus had first bestowed on the apostle Peter". It was at the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 that Leo I (through his emissaries) stated that he was "speaking with the voice of Peter". In other words, he declared HIMSELF to be the Pope!
So then, we see history only unfolding many different accounts of Apostolic successions. How do we know which is the right account? The answer is – we don’t need to know and it does not matter !
Ultimately when we go back to scriptures – the actual Word of God – this is what Jesus really had to say to Peter :-
Matthew 16:16-19
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are YOU, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to YOU, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to YOU that YOU are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give YOU the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.â€
In this particular passage, Jesus is without a doubt speaking SPECIFICALLY and ONLY to Peter, Peter alone and no one else but Peter.
Note that He never said “ I also say to you and your apostolic successors that you are Peter, …. I will give you and your apostolic successors the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you and your apostolic successors bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you and your apostolic successors loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.â€
NO! … He never said that. Instead in the full context of Matthew 18:18, where He also spoke about binding and loosing, do note that He was speaking to believers in general – ie. where two or three come together and agree :-
Matthew 18:15-20
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles must be passed on to those they ordained by apostolic succession. What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does NOT teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. The Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as the measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error.
Galatians 1:8-9
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church, ie His believers – through infallible Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
While the RC Church adopted the concept of “Trinity†based on traditions and other pagan and heathen religions, Protestants understand “Trinity†solely and exclusively based on Scriptures. See my post #5. That the Protestants came later than the Roman Catholics does not necessarily mean that “Trinity†was acquired from the RC Church, and even if it was, it was only because it was entirely biblical, if not, Protestants would have rejected it just like it rejected all the other unbiblical Catholic Traditions!
None of these churches teach Sola Scriptura, how does someone 1500 years after the fact tell those who were down from the beginning that they are doing it wrong?
None of these churches teach Sola Scriptura, how does someone 1500 years after the fact tell those who were down from the beginning that they are doing it wrong?
Not only have you answered your own question, but you have also precisely helped proved the point that I was trying to make – that the Catholic denominations, all claiming to be the “OneTrueChurch” , trace back their roots and arrived at DIFFERENT apostolic founders, using what? – the ever-popular Traditions (with capital c) …. or was it some other different “traditions” (with small c)? So much for the “OneTrueChurch”, so much for your Traditions, or traditions, whatever !!! So who’s doing it right ??? Will the real “OneTrueChurch” please stand up?!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okiegirlfriend
Even with 3 men claiming to be Pope at the same time, the Church survived. I wonder why that did not destroy the Church.
Yeah right …. here’s plenty of evidence to show that your “OneTrueChurch’ is surviving pretty well !!
For some reason, Dr James White was not allowed more than a YES or NO reply to the questions posed to him in the video, and based on that high-handed approach of interrogating him like a common criminal, the “final verdict” was thereby delivered that Sola Scripture was false, with a resounding round of applause from the Catholic audience.
What a pathetic straw video! Have Catholic apologists gotten to such desperate measures to prove or disprove something that they have to stoop to such low intellectual levels?
Unlike James While, I’m sure glad that I am not restricted or bullied in any way by anyone. I have the time, pleasure and liberty to add to his responses now and here, which the intimidated Catholic apologist denied James White.
Questions asked in the video :-
1. Did the Apostles in Jesus’ days practice Sola Scriptura?
The Bible wasn’t even in existence during Jesus’ times …. Duh !!!
Jesus and His apostles quoted scriptures though…. Scriptures – NOT traditions.
2. Were the Table of Contents inspired?
No. Just like Catholic Traditions do not automatically become “inspired” just because they are conveniently placed under the umbrella of “oral traditions” of 2 Thess 2:15, the Table of Contents page was not added to the Bible because it was “inspired” nor to mislead anyone, but only to help readers.
The pagination of the pages of the Bible, followed by the Table of Contents that was written, serve as a useful and convenient purpose of flipping to the right book, chapter and pages whenever needed. Can you imagine how frustrating our lives would be without paginations and a Table of Contents page? God has given man something very special – it’s called “Wisdom”. Coupled with education, man is to use his wisdom to improvise on the Bible to make it appealing and convenient to the mass and lay Christians as much as possible, there’s nothing wrong with that. Other useful maps, footnotes, study notes, reference notes, word meanings, red letter speeches of Jesus and nice cover pages are also added to the Bible these days. Anything wrong with that? Do you know what’s the difference between these additions and the additions of Catholic Traditions? – the former complements and aids in the reading and understanding of the Bible and in no way contradict scriptures, the latter however, only CONTRADICTS and CONFUSES the Holy Scriptures!
3. The Catholic apologist insisted that Tradition was not on trial there, only Sola Scriptura was. Based on that, James White was denied any opportunity to even mention traditions.
Says who, and why make so many unnecessary demands?
Well my answer to that is very simple. If Tradition is not on trial and cannot be used against Sola Scriptura, then no believer should have to defend our belief in Sola Scriptura in anyway, to anyone, anytime, anywhere. We believe in Sola Scriptura because we believe in Sola Scriptura. Simple. Period.
It’s like challenging a Muslim to task on why he believes in the Koran, or a Hindu on why he believes in his “holy scriptures”. Can you guess what is likely to happen? A sensitive Muslim will probably start a holy war (Jihad), while the Hindu will probably simply ignore you. So why should Christians who believe in the Sola Scriptura have any special reasons to defend our beliefs? The answer can be found in this question :- Why is it that ONLY the Catholics find it interesting and necessary to argue against Sola Scriptura, but not the Muslims, Hindus or any other religious groups? Do you know why? Because there’s only one thing that makes a world a difference to the Catholics – Traditions. It’s obvious that Sola Scriptura is quite a threat to a fair number of Catholics, so if only Sola Scriptura can be successfully debunked, then Traditions must hold true. Well, just so you know, just because Sola Scriptura may be debunked, it does NOT automatically make your Traditions true. Or just because Sola Scriptura can never be debunked, I don’t believe any Catholic will automatically abandon his valuable “Oral Traditions” either.
Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same however, cannot be said of traditions. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church is that traditions are based on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures, … eg. Different Apostolic successions, and Marian apparitions that led to the dogmas of purgatory, veneration of and praying to Mary and dead saints and angels.
4. In the final question, the Catholic apologist claimed that there was one apostolic tradition that is binding but not found in scripture, and he challenged James White to explain that…..
However the answer given by James White was DELETED. Why was the answer CENSORED? Why was his answer promptly replaced by some OTHER recordings? Do you happen to know? Would you care to explain?
--
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
