DEFENDING THE FAITH: BIBLE AND CHURCH AUTHORITY, Lion's Training Ground Part 1-2

The Conversion of St. Paul by Giordano Nancy

Ross Earl Hoffman sent a message to the members of The Lion's Training Ground: Catholic Apologetics.

Ross Earl Hoffman June 20, 2010 at 3:28am

Subject: DEFENDING THE FAITH! I JUST LOVE IT!!!!! PART 1 THIS POST IS TO LONG!!! LOL, SO IT WILL COME IN 3 or 4 POSTS!!!

Andrew Simmons: Debate with an Anti-Catholic- the "Catholic on Trial" tactic! Sean and Andrew, DO A WONDERFUL JOB HERE!!!!!!

Recently, I had an argument with someone who attended the same college I attend. The argument was over multiple things. This is what is called the "Catholic on Trial" tactic. Basically, it is attacking as many different traditions, customs, or teachings the Church has without really backing anything.

*Kristina-*

"2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

So if all Scripture is God Breathed, it comes from God, now God is the final authority, unless you have another authority? So hence all Scripture is good for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. So by saying Scripture is not a good authority, you are saying the words the come from God are not good enough. HMM. Interesting."

*Me-*

"That verse does state that the Bible does have authority. No Catholic will say the Bible does not have authority. Where does it say that the Bile is the ONLY authority. Cause the authority of Church teachings rests in three areas.

1.Scriptures

2.Traditions

3.Magesterium

All three are equal in authority. If one goes away, the other two will suffer for it.

Again, where does the Bible say the Bible is the ONLY authority."

*Kristina-*

"But the Bible is God's Word, and it will not change. So if something put in by the magisterum or by traditions contradicts the bible, then it should be taken out.

When I was in Spain I visited some Catholic Cathedrals and they had the chopped off dead body part of saint so and so in one and the foot of saint so and so in another. It was just sick. I don't see how worshiping the dead or even doing that is biblical. Sick gross and disgusting Catholic Tradition. I was even considering becoming Catholic before I found out about relics. UGG Nasty"

*Me-*

"But...but...if the Bible says nothing about it being the ONLY authority then God never wanted it to be said.

Here is a verse dealing with traditions

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

In the dual relationship of tradition and scripture, Tradition aids the Bible into being more than just a historical/philosophical text, while Scripture prevents traditions from going off into heresy or lunacy.

As for relics, they are not worshiped. Relics are kept as a memento of the past to be revered and respected. Relics are meant to aspire the believer by reminding him of that persons faith. Do I find them silly sometimes, yes. But I understand why they are there. When I go to my college and see the relic of Aquinas there, I am reminded about the mans intelligence and faith, and how I want to be like that saint for the purpose of helping the kingdom of God. "

*Kristina-*

"UM you see having a dead body part of a saint as a reminder? wow, that is just sick. Also notice the scripture there says you were taught by us, not just any old tradradition, but what was taught by the apostles by mouth or letter, that is the scripture and can be found in the bible. Remember what Jesus said about traditions of men? Let me jog your memory:

Mark 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." NIV

Matthew 15

1(A) Then Pharisees and(B) scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2(C) "Why do your disciples break(D) the tradition of the elders?(E) For they do not wash their hands when they eat." 3He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God commanded,(F) 'Honor your father and your mother,' and,(G) 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 5But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, "What you would have gained from me is given to God,"[a] 6he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have(H) made void the word[b] of God. 7(I) You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:

8(J) "'This people honors me with their lips,

but their heart is far from me;

9in vain do they worship me,

teaching as(K) doctrines the commandments of men.'""

Subject: DEFENDING THE FAITH! I JUST LOVE IT!!!!! PART 2

*Me-*

""Mark 7:8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.'"

Yes, there is a distinction between the traditions of man and God. The problem with the Pharisees is that they took the traditions such as washing of the hands and dietary regulations and applied it to God's tradition. Read Mark 7:5. The Pharisees were criticizing the disciples because they wouldn't wash their hands. Jesus reacted to that because the washing of the hands is something meant for the bodies benefit, not for a spiritual benefit. In no way does it condemn all traditions!

Again, feel free to point out what you think are "traditions of man" in the Church, instead of writing off everything as ad due to the word "tradition".

Here is another verse from Matt. 23

"1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3 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. 4 They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them."

The Pharisees failed to follow what they preached, however Jesus points out that they should be obeyed. Also, just to point out something, Jesus refers to the seat of Moses in this verse. The seat of Moses represents the authoritative role they have in speaking about the faith. It parallels the seat of Peter. The seat of Moses is never mentioned in the O.T so this is a moment in which Jesus refers to something outside of Scripture to make a point that the Pharisees have a authority and should be obeyed. Since this is never mentioned before in Scripture, Sola Scriptura is damaged yet again since you would need to use outside sources in order to know what the seat of Moses is.

"UM you see having a dead body part of a saint as a reminder? wow, that is just sick. "

Sorry they didn't have photos in the 12th-18th centuries...."

(Really kinda snarky and impolite to answer the final one that way. I reap what I sow for my laziness)

*Kristina-*

"But they did have paintings. (Me- DOH!) So that is a total fail right there (Me- I had that coming...), also you do know how they choose which saint to cut up and which one not to right? They cut up the bodies of those who start to deteriate. It is just sick and morbid and kinda a all out pagan thing to do. I love How God says not to even touch dead bodies or a person is unclean for so long in the old testament, and now the CAtholic Church has them in their Churches as reveered objects. Kinda messed up."

*Me-*

"Pardon my snarky answer.

The cross is also pagan. Flood stories are also part of pagan myth. All that matters is whether or not the custom is dependent on paganism. Which its not.

Relics have been around since the Early Church Era. Pilgrims would travel to Rome to see the relics of the those martyred. Obviously they did not find it that disgusting. Being able to see that physical appearance of a Saint who died in the service of God is uplifting. Same thing a citizen of this country would feel walking through Arlington cemetery.

The law in the OT about not touching bodies is due to preventing the spread of disease. Same goes for the dietary practices which protected them from food that are difficult to keep fresh. However, advances with medicine and dietary practices made those irrelevant. Also, those laws are part of what Jesus would call traditions for man. They were placed their for man's benefit, not for a spiritual one.

So we can avoid missing the previous topic, where does Scripture say it is the ONLY authority. Since Scripture does clarify that we are not saved by faith ALONE in James 2 then it should also say that Scripture ALONE is enough."

*Kristina-*

"What? No you have it all wrong, faith without works is dead, but it is not the works that saves us.

You see faith is the seed that sprouts the plant and the works are the fruit produced by such plant. The seed is that which the plant comes from. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the very foundation on which the real church, Ekklesia, which is the assembly of believers, was founded on. (The Catholic Church likes to push the man made institution it calls a church onto this meaning but the Greek word means assembly and the assembly is not a building or institution, but the believers in Christ Jesus). There is nothing you can do to earn your salvation, it is a free gift from the Lord Jesus Christ. If you say that works are necessary for salvation then you are saying the work on the cross is as naught. If we could be saved by works then why would we need Jesus?

Faith is the rock on which Christ built his church.

The Catholic Church uses from Scripture Matthew 16:18 as one of the supports for the Papacy: (And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.)

Do any Catholics know the Greek of the new testament at all?

Peter is Petros which is male and means little rock

the rock which

Jesus founded his church on is Petra which is a huge rock and feminine.

So how can Petros the little pebble be Petra the big boulder? And unless I am interpreting the Greek wrong, it would also signify Peter had a sex change to make him that rock.

Jesus is not referring to Peter when talking about "this rock", but is in fact referring to Peter's confession of faith in the preceding verses. Jesus thus does not declare the primacy of Peter, but rather declares that his church will be built upon the foundation of the revelation of and confession of faith of Jesus as the Christ."

*Me-*

""What? No you have it all wrong, faith without works is dead, but it is not the works that saves us."

Not what I was alluding too. I was saying, since the Bible use alone in regards to that, where does it say that Scripture is authority alone. I was showing an example...

"(The Catholic Church likes to push the man made institution it calls a church onto this meaning but the Greek word means assembly and the assembly is not a building or institution, but the believers in Christ Jesus)."

No we do not. We refer to the Church as the community of believers.

It is not works alone or faith alone. We are saved by God's grace, which we recognize through faith, and respond too by our works. It is a three part system just like our view on authority (Scripture, Tradition, and Magesterium). We cannot just have faith, we need God's grace to save us. Even demons have faith, but that will mean nothing since they are beyond God's grace. With God's grace, we respond to it with our works in charity. To be a servant of God is to act like a servant of God. James was going after those who refused to work and show their faith in their lives. Paul went after those who were elitist Jews who believed that their works made them superior to Gentile converts.

Your interpretation is wrong based on the different between Koine Greek and Attic Greek. In the first century, Koine Greek, which Matthew is written in, does not make a distinction between the words. Both petra and petros, in Koine Greek, mean "rock". Small rock would be lithos in Koine Greek. If the book was written in Attic Greek, then it would be little rock since that language functioned with the word distinction."