Catholic:
May I have additional questions please:
1. Before Paul set out on his journeys, why did Paul go visit Peter in Jerusalem: to talk about the fine Jerusalem weather? Talk about the weather for two weeks? Or might not Paul have picked Peter’s brains for everything that Peter remembered about what Jesus taught, the same teachings that Paul would later implore Timothy to zealously guard?
Sunday, August 16, 2009
# 2 Catholic-Protestant Exchange
Catholic:
Sir: Here’s my first answer to your questions # 1-8:
You seem to hang your argument that Peter was never Pope on your claim that Jesus restricted Peter to being only the apostle to the Jews, while making Paul the apostle to the Gentiles. Your reasoning runs like this: Since Peter was head of only a local church, he couldn’t have been the head of the Church, he could never have been Pope.
Indeed doesn’t Mt 10:5 say “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.” And, nicely corroborating everything, doesn’t Acts 9:15-16 say “ But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."
Finally, and for good measure, didn’t the three pillars of the Church Peter, James, John confirmed Paul’s appointment as apostle to the Gentiles?
Very compelling reasons, were it not for two passages -- Acts 1:8 and Mt 24:14-- that seem to suggest otherwise.
Acts 1:8
“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
Mt 24:14
“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”
To me, it looks like these two passages are clear enough on one point: the kingdom is to be proclaimed to all nations and in all times, and the Apostles were to do it. Which is just as it should be, for, certainly, Jesus didn’t come to save only those people alive during his time, and only those the Apostles could reach. Surely, Jesus came to save all.
Which can only mean that both sets of passages quoted above are all true.
The Apostles skipped the Gentiles and avoided entering any town of the Samaritans. But the fact that they did doesn’t mean they didn’t venture into Gentile country perhaps at some later time; in the same way that, since God chose Paul as his chosen instrument to carry his name before the Gentiles and their kings, and to the people of Israel, it couldn’t possibly happen that Peter and the other apostles worked also with Gentiles.
See, this is another example of that funny “Protestant” either/or dichotomy: since salvation is a gift, it cannot be a reward, even for a human act which has God as its beginning and end; since it’s God who acts in man’s salvation, it couldn’t be man (which is the case, since it’s God and man, God’s grace working with man’s cooperation).
How and where did the Apostles die? Except for James (Acts 12:2), you don’t know, simply because the details are not found in the Bible (you couldn’t even say how Paul died, and for the same reason: it’s not found in the Bible).
How then, could you be sure that all of them died in Jerusalem? Which is the position that you would necessarily take if you insist the Apostles never worked with Gentiles
Sir: Here’s my first answer to your questions # 1-8:
You seem to hang your argument that Peter was never Pope on your claim that Jesus restricted Peter to being only the apostle to the Jews, while making Paul the apostle to the Gentiles. Your reasoning runs like this: Since Peter was head of only a local church, he couldn’t have been the head of the Church, he could never have been Pope.
Indeed doesn’t Mt 10:5 say “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.” And, nicely corroborating everything, doesn’t Acts 9:15-16 say “ But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."
Finally, and for good measure, didn’t the three pillars of the Church Peter, James, John confirmed Paul’s appointment as apostle to the Gentiles?
Very compelling reasons, were it not for two passages -- Acts 1:8 and Mt 24:14-- that seem to suggest otherwise.
Acts 1:8
“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
Mt 24:14
“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”
To me, it looks like these two passages are clear enough on one point: the kingdom is to be proclaimed to all nations and in all times, and the Apostles were to do it. Which is just as it should be, for, certainly, Jesus didn’t come to save only those people alive during his time, and only those the Apostles could reach. Surely, Jesus came to save all.
Which can only mean that both sets of passages quoted above are all true.
The Apostles skipped the Gentiles and avoided entering any town of the Samaritans. But the fact that they did doesn’t mean they didn’t venture into Gentile country perhaps at some later time; in the same way that, since God chose Paul as his chosen instrument to carry his name before the Gentiles and their kings, and to the people of Israel, it couldn’t possibly happen that Peter and the other apostles worked also with Gentiles.
See, this is another example of that funny “Protestant” either/or dichotomy: since salvation is a gift, it cannot be a reward, even for a human act which has God as its beginning and end; since it’s God who acts in man’s salvation, it couldn’t be man (which is the case, since it’s God and man, God’s grace working with man’s cooperation).
How and where did the Apostles die? Except for James (Acts 12:2), you don’t know, simply because the details are not found in the Bible (you couldn’t even say how Paul died, and for the same reason: it’s not found in the Bible).
How then, could you be sure that all of them died in Jerusalem? Which is the position that you would necessarily take if you insist the Apostles never worked with Gentiles
# 1 Catholic-Protestant Exchange
1. The author says 50 NEW TESTAMENT PROOFS . . . But one need not be a bible scholar to notice that the author primarily cited texts entirely or largely on the GOSPELS only which of course covers the ministry of Jesus with the 12 apostles with Peter as most prominent in JERUSALEM .
2. In some items he cited texts found in the book of Acts, but he was choosy to use only chapters 1-12 which covers the account of the movement of Christianity among the Jews in Palestine with again, the 12 apostles with the leadership of Peter and James.
3. He intentionally did not cite texts found in chapters 12-28 OF ACTS which practically is silent about Peter and 12 apostles. This is a 16-chapter blow-by-blow account of Paul and new names [Silas, Barbanas, Timothy, Tituts, etc] which were never mentioned in the Gospel. This portion of the Bible is EQUALLY important as it records the movement of Christianity among the Gentiles with Paul as the main actor and I MUST MENTION THAT ROME IS A GENTILE COUNTRY.
4. In Ephesians chapter 2 and elsewhere, Paul talks about the CHRISTIAN CHURCH as composed of both JEWS and GENTILES and so why is this author focused only his reference to the portion of the Bible that records the church movement among the Jews [GOSPELS and ACTS 1-12].
5. The author miserably omitted Acts 9:15-16 – The Lord’s charging of Paul as apostles to the Gentiles.
6. The author miserably omitted Galatians 2:7-10 where Peter, James and John recognized Paul’s apostleship to the gentiles.
7. He also omitted Matthew 10:5 where the Lord RESTRICTED the 12 including Peter to go to the Gentile places. And again ROME unfortunately for the PAPIST is a gentile country and so Peter cannot be there. Quite IMPOSSIBLE.
8. The author nowhere in his writing proved that Peter later became Pope. I cannot find any.
9. On the contrary [and again he omitted], Peter is the ONLY APOSTLE called by Jesus as SATAN in Matthew 16:23, just few verses after he “WAS MADE POPE” as claimed by ROME .
10. Peter is the only apostle REBUKED sharply by Paul in Galatians 2:11-14. This is unlikely to happen to a Pope whom Rome claimed to be infallible.
11. In item 50 of the article, the author desperately tried to prove that Peter was in Rome when he wrote 1 Peter. I asked you before why don’t they mention why Silas was with him [5:12] If you trace Silas journey, he was with Paul from the very beginning of Pauls missionary trips – see Acts 15:36-40 and the only incident that Peter and Silas were together was during the Jerusalem council meeting Acts 15. Until now I did not receive any answer from you and other faith defenders that I asked about this.
Also if you examine 1 Peter 5:13, nowhere did it indicates that it refer to Peter to be in rome .
ü He uses “she” in reference to the CHURCH as a third person not himself.
ü The church THAT IS IN Babylon is referred to somewhere not within the immediate proximity of the writer Peter/Silas.
2. In some items he cited texts found in the book of Acts, but he was choosy to use only chapters 1-12 which covers the account of the movement of Christianity among the Jews in Palestine with again, the 12 apostles with the leadership of Peter and James.
3. He intentionally did not cite texts found in chapters 12-28 OF ACTS which practically is silent about Peter and 12 apostles. This is a 16-chapter blow-by-blow account of Paul and new names [Silas, Barbanas, Timothy, Tituts, etc] which were never mentioned in the Gospel. This portion of the Bible is EQUALLY important as it records the movement of Christianity among the Gentiles with Paul as the main actor and I MUST MENTION THAT ROME IS A GENTILE COUNTRY.
4. In Ephesians chapter 2 and elsewhere, Paul talks about the CHRISTIAN CHURCH as composed of both JEWS and GENTILES and so why is this author focused only his reference to the portion of the Bible that records the church movement among the Jews [GOSPELS and ACTS 1-12].
5. The author miserably omitted Acts 9:15-16 – The Lord’s charging of Paul as apostles to the Gentiles.
6. The author miserably omitted Galatians 2:7-10 where Peter, James and John recognized Paul’s apostleship to the gentiles.
7. He also omitted Matthew 10:5 where the Lord RESTRICTED the 12 including Peter to go to the Gentile places. And again ROME unfortunately for the PAPIST is a gentile country and so Peter cannot be there. Quite IMPOSSIBLE.
8. The author nowhere in his writing proved that Peter later became Pope. I cannot find any.
9. On the contrary [and again he omitted], Peter is the ONLY APOSTLE called by Jesus as SATAN in Matthew 16:23, just few verses after he “WAS MADE POPE” as claimed by ROME .
10. Peter is the only apostle REBUKED sharply by Paul in Galatians 2:11-14. This is unlikely to happen to a Pope whom Rome claimed to be infallible.
11. In item 50 of the article, the author desperately tried to prove that Peter was in Rome when he wrote 1 Peter. I asked you before why don’t they mention why Silas was with him [5:12] If you trace Silas journey, he was with Paul from the very beginning of Pauls missionary trips – see Acts 15:36-40 and the only incident that Peter and Silas were together was during the Jerusalem council meeting Acts 15. Until now I did not receive any answer from you and other faith defenders that I asked about this.
Also if you examine 1 Peter 5:13, nowhere did it indicates that it refer to Peter to be in rome .
ü He uses “she” in reference to the CHURCH as a third person not himself.
ü The church THAT IS IN Babylon is referred to somewhere not within the immediate proximity of the writer Peter/Silas.
Titus 3:10-11
(Credit: Navarre Bible)
Titus 3:10-11
“As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”
“As for a man who is factious” (airetikos in Greek, haeriticus in Latin): literally, a heretic. “This is the only time this word appears in the New Testament; it did not yet have the technical negative meaning of someone who denies a revealed truth; it simply meant someone who followed his own erroneous ideas, even if that did not involve a direct attack on the Church.
Here it refers to those false teachers who rejected Titus’ teaching, even if they did not do so in any formal or organized way. If they do not listen to fraternal correction as Jesus taught (cf Mt 18:15-17), they must be treated as estranged from the Church.
It should be noted that it is not the Church who condemns them; it is they who have gone astray and the Church simply takes its position to show the faithful where error lies.
Titus 3:10-11
“As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”
“As for a man who is factious” (airetikos in Greek, haeriticus in Latin): literally, a heretic. “This is the only time this word appears in the New Testament; it did not yet have the technical negative meaning of someone who denies a revealed truth; it simply meant someone who followed his own erroneous ideas, even if that did not involve a direct attack on the Church.
Here it refers to those false teachers who rejected Titus’ teaching, even if they did not do so in any formal or organized way. If they do not listen to fraternal correction as Jesus taught (cf Mt 18:15-17), they must be treated as estranged from the Church.
It should be noted that it is not the Church who condemns them; it is they who have gone astray and the Church simply takes its position to show the faithful where error lies.
Tradition
(Credit: Karl Keating “Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on ‘Romanism’ by ‘Bible Christians’”)
In any discussion of Tradition, it’s important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by Tradition.
The term does not mean legends nor mythological accounts, nor does it mean transitory customs or practices that come and go as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics.
Tradition means the teachings and teaching authority of Jesus, and, derivatively, the apostles . These have been handed down and entrusted to the Church (which mean to her official teachers, the bishops in union with the Pope).
It’s necessary that Christians believe in and follow this Tradition as well as the Bible (Lk 10:16: “ He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.")
The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph 3:5: “which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (Jn 14:16).
Even Paul illustrates what Tradition is: “The chief message I handed on to you, as it was handed to me, was that Christ, as the scriptures foretold, died for our sins. . . that is our preaching, mine or theirs as you will, that is the faith that has come to you” (1 Cor 15:3).
Paul also said to Timothy, who was a bishop, “Thou hast learned, from many who can witness to it, the doctrine which I hand down; give it into the keeping of men thou canst trust, men who will know how to teach it to others besides themselves (2 Tim 2:2).
In other words, Timothy, one of the successors to the apostles, was to teach what he has learned from his predecessor, Paul. St Paul praised those who followed Tradition: “I must praise you for your constant memory of me, for upholding your traditions just as I handed them on to you” (1 Cor 11:12).
The first Christians “occupied themselves continually with the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a Bible. In the fullness of the Christian teaching was found, right from the first, in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, NOT IN A BOOK. The teaching Church, with its oral traditions, was authoritative.
Paul himself gives a quotation form Jesus that was handed down orally to him: It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:25). This saying is not found in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul.
Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral Tradition that has been written down (Lk 1:1-4: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught).
What’s more, Paul doesn’t quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns (Eph 5:14 “14for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you"). These and other things have been given to Christians “by the command of the lord Jesus” (1 Th 4:2: “For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus).
Fundamentalists have objections to all of this, of course.They say Jesus condemned Tradition. They note that Jesus said,” Why is it that you yourselves violate the commandments of God with your traditions?” (Mt 15:3). Paul warned, “Take care not to let anyone cheat you with hs philosophizings, with empty fantasies drawn form human tradition, from wordly principles: they were never Christ’s teaching (Col 2:8).
But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions , NOT TRUTHS HANDED DOWN ORALLY AND ENTRUSTED TO THE CHURCH. These truths are part of what is known as Tradition (upper-case “T”).
Consider Mt 15:6-9 which Fundamentalists often bring up: “So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocritres, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain , for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.”
At first glance this seems to undercut the Catholic position, but look at the context. Jesus was not here condemning al traditions.He condemned only those which made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees making a pretended dedication of their goods to the temple so they could void using them to support their aged parents.By doing this, they dodged the commandment “Honor thy father and thy mother” (Ex 20:12).
Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments (Mt 23:2-3: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.)
In Mt 23:23, Jesus calls “hypocrites” Pharisees who ”give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.”
In other words, Jesus insisted we should follow all legitimate traditions.
The problem is, Fundamentalists, simply to trash the Church, deliberately see “tradition” in Mt 15:3 or Col 2:8 or elsewhere and rejects it. They deliberately refuse to acknowledge that the term may be used in a different sense, as in 2 Thess 2:15, for instance.
In any discussion of Tradition, it’s important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by Tradition.
The term does not mean legends nor mythological accounts, nor does it mean transitory customs or practices that come and go as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics.
Tradition means the teachings and teaching authority of Jesus, and, derivatively, the apostles . These have been handed down and entrusted to the Church (which mean to her official teachers, the bishops in union with the Pope).
It’s necessary that Christians believe in and follow this Tradition as well as the Bible (Lk 10:16: “ He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.")
The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph 3:5: “which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God's holy apostles and prophets.), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (Jn 14:16).
Even Paul illustrates what Tradition is: “The chief message I handed on to you, as it was handed to me, was that Christ, as the scriptures foretold, died for our sins. . . that is our preaching, mine or theirs as you will, that is the faith that has come to you” (1 Cor 15:3).
Paul also said to Timothy, who was a bishop, “Thou hast learned, from many who can witness to it, the doctrine which I hand down; give it into the keeping of men thou canst trust, men who will know how to teach it to others besides themselves (2 Tim 2:2).
In other words, Timothy, one of the successors to the apostles, was to teach what he has learned from his predecessor, Paul. St Paul praised those who followed Tradition: “I must praise you for your constant memory of me, for upholding your traditions just as I handed them on to you” (1 Cor 11:12).
The first Christians “occupied themselves continually with the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a Bible. In the fullness of the Christian teaching was found, right from the first, in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, NOT IN A BOOK. The teaching Church, with its oral traditions, was authoritative.
Paul himself gives a quotation form Jesus that was handed down orally to him: It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:25). This saying is not found in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul.
Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral Tradition that has been written down (Lk 1:1-4: “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught).
What’s more, Paul doesn’t quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns (Eph 5:14 “14for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you"). These and other things have been given to Christians “by the command of the lord Jesus” (1 Th 4:2: “For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus).
Fundamentalists have objections to all of this, of course.They say Jesus condemned Tradition. They note that Jesus said,” Why is it that you yourselves violate the commandments of God with your traditions?” (Mt 15:3). Paul warned, “Take care not to let anyone cheat you with hs philosophizings, with empty fantasies drawn form human tradition, from wordly principles: they were never Christ’s teaching (Col 2:8).
But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions , NOT TRUTHS HANDED DOWN ORALLY AND ENTRUSTED TO THE CHURCH. These truths are part of what is known as Tradition (upper-case “T”).
Consider Mt 15:6-9 which Fundamentalists often bring up: “So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocritres, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain , for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.”
At first glance this seems to undercut the Catholic position, but look at the context. Jesus was not here condemning al traditions.He condemned only those which made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees making a pretended dedication of their goods to the temple so they could void using them to support their aged parents.By doing this, they dodged the commandment “Honor thy father and thy mother” (Ex 20:12).
Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments (Mt 23:2-3: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.)
In Mt 23:23, Jesus calls “hypocrites” Pharisees who ”give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.”
In other words, Jesus insisted we should follow all legitimate traditions.
The problem is, Fundamentalists, simply to trash the Church, deliberately see “tradition” in Mt 15:3 or Col 2:8 or elsewhere and rejects it. They deliberately refuse to acknowledge that the term may be used in a different sense, as in 2 Thess 2:15, for instance.
2 Tim 3:16-17
2 Tim 3:16-17 is being used by Fundamentalists to prove the completeness and sufficiency of the Bible.
Not so, Catholics would say, citing passages where the Bible itself says it’s not complete (Jn 20:30, Jn 21:25) and even pointing to the Church as the final authority on matters of faith, morals, and discipline (Mt 18:15-18), not the Bible, as Fundamentalists believe.
So the question is: “How valid is this Fundamentalist claim?”
Karl Keating observes that “to say that all inspired writings ‘has its uses’ is one thing , to say that such a remark means that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against the Fundamentalists’ claim. It is the contradiction that arises out of their own interpretation of this verse.
John Henry Newman explains it this way:
‘It is quite evident that this passage furnishes us no argument whatever that the Sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith, for, although Sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, sill it is not said to be sufficient.
'The Apostle requires the aid of Tradiion (2 Thess 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the Scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. Now a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood : some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when St. Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books.
'He refers then, to the Scripture of the Old Testament, and if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz, that the Scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith.’”
Not so, Catholics would say, citing passages where the Bible itself says it’s not complete (Jn 20:30, Jn 21:25) and even pointing to the Church as the final authority on matters of faith, morals, and discipline (Mt 18:15-18), not the Bible, as Fundamentalists believe.
So the question is: “How valid is this Fundamentalist claim?”
Karl Keating observes that “to say that all inspired writings ‘has its uses’ is one thing , to say that such a remark means that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against the Fundamentalists’ claim. It is the contradiction that arises out of their own interpretation of this verse.
John Henry Newman explains it this way:
‘It is quite evident that this passage furnishes us no argument whatever that the Sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith, for, although Sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, sill it is not said to be sufficient.
'The Apostle requires the aid of Tradiion (2 Thess 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the Scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. Now a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood : some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when St. Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books.
'He refers then, to the Scripture of the Old Testament, and if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz, that the Scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith.’”
Friday, August 14, 2009
Acts 17:11-12
Catholic:
Let’s see what we’ve agreed on:
(1) The Bereans are Jews.
(2) They have “Scriptures” which is the Old Testament only.
(3) St. Paul comes into their synagogue and explains to them the Gospel.
(4) After hearing Paul’s explanation of Christ’s teachings they consult the Old Testament to check if the claims made by Paul match the Old Testament prophecies.
(5) Paul’s claims match the Old Testament prophecies, so the Bereans accept Paul’s teachings.
Now, from the above, we draw different conclusions:
You say this means that “Scriptures” is the final authority, not the Church.
I say all the above means is what happened: the Bereans used Scriptures to see if Paul’s claims match the prophecies of Scripure. It does not at all mean one uses the Bible as a checklist for all Christian doctrines.
Here’s why I’m saying what I’ve said.
“Scripture” in Acts 17:11-12 refers to the Old Testament. There was no New Testament then, so it is wrong for you to claim, as you do now, that the BIBLE is the final authority on questions of faith, morals, and discipline. Or are you changing your statement now and saying the “Scriptures” in Acts 17:11-12 includes the New Testament?
I doubt you will, so let me shoot another question: Do you believe, then, that the Old Testament is sufficient as a rule of faith, and we can now ditch the New Testament? Is that what you’re saying?
Let’s see what we’ve agreed on:
(1) The Bereans are Jews.
(2) They have “Scriptures” which is the Old Testament only.
(3) St. Paul comes into their synagogue and explains to them the Gospel.
(4) After hearing Paul’s explanation of Christ’s teachings they consult the Old Testament to check if the claims made by Paul match the Old Testament prophecies.
(5) Paul’s claims match the Old Testament prophecies, so the Bereans accept Paul’s teachings.
Now, from the above, we draw different conclusions:
You say this means that “Scriptures” is the final authority, not the Church.
I say all the above means is what happened: the Bereans used Scriptures to see if Paul’s claims match the prophecies of Scripure. It does not at all mean one uses the Bible as a checklist for all Christian doctrines.
Here’s why I’m saying what I’ve said.
“Scripture” in Acts 17:11-12 refers to the Old Testament. There was no New Testament then, so it is wrong for you to claim, as you do now, that the BIBLE is the final authority on questions of faith, morals, and discipline. Or are you changing your statement now and saying the “Scriptures” in Acts 17:11-12 includes the New Testament?
I doubt you will, so let me shoot another question: Do you believe, then, that the Old Testament is sufficient as a rule of faith, and we can now ditch the New Testament? Is that what you’re saying?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
