Questions on Catholicism

Topic

Questions on Catholicism - Sola Scriptura, Infallibility, et al...

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

If you did not sign up for this newsletter and you would like to be removed from our distribution list, just click on this link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe, then enter the email address that this newsletter comes to and click "Unsubscribe." If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page. Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.

General Comments

Hey folks,

Two things:

1) Just a quick comment about the last newsletter - Mr. Jiehoon James Lee contacted me through Facebook to let me know that, after reading the newsletter, and the arguments I made to counter his, that he realized his arguments were not as logical and consistent as he had originally thought, and he went on to completely renounce the arguments he had made. Now, I can't say that he is on his way back to the Catholic Church or any such thing - maybe yes, maybe no - but I can say that it takes a great deal of humility to make the kind of statement that he did. One has to be open in order to submit to the truth when it crosses their path. So, I would simply ask for everyone to keep him in your prayers, that he will continue to search for, and be open to, the truth, and maybe find his way back to the Church.

2) Here is my latest video in the Questions Protestants Can't Answer series. This one is dealing with Once Saved, Always Saved:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZiHrdiC4Jw I hope you enjoy it.

Introduction

This week I am going to be answering some questions that were sent to me by Zach. Zach is not Catholic, but he certainly is not anti-Catholic. He is someone who is searching for the truth and he wants to go wherever the truth leads. He's not to the point where he believes the truth leads to the Catholic Church, but I'm hoping he will get there eventually. He and I have engaged in previous conversation over the phone and, as a result, he sent me the following questions. I'll print all of his questions first, and then repeat the questions with my answers after each one.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Zach

1.) If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

2.) If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?

3.) In a sense, the veil was symbolic of Christ Himself as the only way to the Father John 14:6. This is indicated by the fact that the high priest had to enter the Holy of Holies through the veil. Now Christ is our superior High Priest, and as believers in His finished work, we partake of His better priesthood. We can now enter the Holy of Holies through Him. Hebrews 10:19-20 says that the faithful enter into the sanctuary by the “blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the veil, that is, through his flesh.” Here we see the image of Jesus’ flesh being torn for us just as He was tearing the veil for us. The veil in the temple was a constant reminder that sin renders humanity unfit for the presence of God. The fact that the sin offering was offered annually and countless other sacrifices repeated daily showed graphically that sin could not truly be atoned for or erased by mere animal sacrifices. Jesus Christ, through His death, has removed the barriers between God and man, and now we may approach Him with confidence and boldness (Hebrews 4:14-16). Doesn't this negate the need for priests???

4.) Lastly, if the Old Testament leaders weren't infallible, why would the New testament leaders be(Pope, councils, etc.)???

---------------------------------------------------------------

Zach

John Martignoni

It is indeed true that Sola Scriptura is not the "correct method of determining truth." Why? Because Sola Scriptura is a false dogma. However, the religious division among churches is not the determining factor for why it is a false dogma. It is a false dogma because it isn't true. The religious division among churches is simply a bitter fruit of Sola Scriptura, and this division acts as evidence against it.

Which means your question doesn't work. It is based on the false premise that religious division is the determining factor in deciding if something is true or not. If that were the case, then we would have to declare pretty much every Christian doctrine as being false. So the correlation you try to make between Sola Scriptura and tradition simply doesn't hold. Besides, the issue causing division between the Protestant churches is not that they all adhere to Sola Scriptura, rather the issue is that none of them are willing to accept the other one's fallible interpretation of Scripture.

Essentially, none of them are willing to accept the other one's authority. And, at it's core, that's the same issue between Catholic and Orthodox. The Orthodox do not accept the authority of the Pope as the head of the universal church. It's not a matter of accepting this or that tradition, it's a matter of authority. So, there is a correlation between the division between Protestant churches and the division between the Catholic and Orthodox churches, just not the correlation you were trying to make using Sola Scriptura. It's all a question of authority.

Here's the thing, Zach, Sola Scriptura doesn't really mean Sola Scriptura. It really means, Sola Individual Interpreter of Scriptura. In other words, it is not the Scripture that is the ultimate authority here, it is the individual reader's fallible interpretation of Scripture that proves to be the ultimate authority. Here's an example of what I'm saying: Let's look at John 6:53 - "So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.'"

I look at that verse and I interpret it to mean exactly what it says - unless I eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, I have no life in me. For me, that verse points squarely to the Eucharist. But, how do you interpret that verse? I assume you interpret it the way most non-Catholic Christians intepret it - you must spiritually eat and drink Jesus' flesh and blood in some way, shape, or form. Maybe you do that through the reading of Scripture. Or maybe through prayer. Or some other way, perhaps.

However you interpret that verse, you interpret it in a way different from how I interpret it. We're both reading the exact same verse of the Bible, yet we are coming up with two different, and contrary, interpretations of that verse. Which means, when it comes to Sola Scriptura, it is not the Scripture itself that is the final authority, rather it is a person's interpretation of Scripture that is the final authority. That is why there are thousands upon thousands of divisions within Protestantism, because with every new interpretation of some verse that someone "discovers," a new denomination is formed.

Let me give you another example: John 20:23, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." I interpret this as Jesus giving the Apostles the power to forgive or retain sins - just as the passage says. And if He is giving them this authority, then that must mean He expects that people will confess their sins to the Apostles, right? So I see the Sacrament of Confession here. How do you interpret this verse? However it is, I'm sure your interpretation is different from mine. Which begs the question: How do we know whose interpretation is right, and whose is wrong?

The question then becomes: If you have two Christians - both of whom love the Lord; both of whom love and devoutly read the Scriptures; both of whom are prayerful people; both of whom ask the Holy Spirit for guidance when they read Scripture; both of whom are fallible - if they disagree as to what a particular passage of Scripture means, then did God give them some way by which they could infallibly know the truth...by which they could infallibly decide which of them is right and which of them is wrong? Or, did He just leave them in a situation where the best they can do is to rely upon their own private fallible opinions? How do you answer that question? Did God leave us with some authority that can infallibly give us the truth when one Christian disagrees with another, or did He leave us with only our own fallible opinions - and thus a lack of certainty - when it comes to knowing the truth?

Zach

John Martignoni

Sorry, but I don't know of a time when "Rome" rejected the inspiration of James and/or Hebrews. I've never even heard of this argument before. Can you give me the source document you're getting your information from on this? Also, same thing in regard to the books that you say were accepted as Scripture then later rejected. Which books, and when were they accepted and then when were they rejected? I have seen writings of different Christians from the early centuries of Christianity that put forth different canons of Scripture, but none of these were officially accepted or rejected by Rome. In other words, to the best of my knowledge, there was no official decision of Rome on the canon of the Bible until late in the 4th century. So I would be interested in seeing exactly to what you are referring.

Zach

John Martignoni

I'm sure you've heard of Korah's Rebellion (Numbers 16:1-40). Korah was a Levite, and was the first cousin to Moses and Aaron. The rebellion he led was, essentially, a rebellion against the idea of a separate priesthood - against having priests that are set apart from the people and who have specific roles reserved to them in the worship of God and the offering of sacrifice. Korah felt that Moses and Aaron and the other priests should not be set apart and should not have any kind of special role in the worship of God. Which is basically what you are saying about the priesthood.

Now, you might be asking, "So what if Korah rebelled against a priesthood that was separate from the people? That was Old Testament. What does that have to do with today?" Well, the interesting thing is, that the essence of Korah's Rebellion also existed in New Testament times. We read in Jude 10-11 that there are men who "revile whatever they do not understand..." and who "perish in Korah's rebellion."

I point to that passage from Jude fairly often whenever I'm discussing the priesthood with Protestants - especially those who are not very liturgical, such as Baptists, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, non-Denominationalists, and so on. Why do I use that passage? Because a great many folks will, like you, say that the tearing of the temple curtain from top to bottom that occurred when Jesus died (Matthew 27:51) meant that there was no longer any need for intermediaries between God and man...no longer any need for the priesthood. That we all now have equal access to God in worship and we no longer need priests to offer sacrifice on our behalf. We can now go directly to God. According to these folks, the ordained priesthood is a false doctrine of the Church because we are all equal members of the royal priesthood of believers (1 Peter 2:9).

These people have told me, in no uncertain terms, that there is no separate priesthood, no ordained priesthood - like that of the Catholic Church - mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. Which means that the priesthood, as the Catholic Church defines it and practices it, since it's "not in the Bible," is a false teaching and a false practice. Yet, what do we take away from Jude 10-11? There were people, in the New Testament era, perishing in Korah's Rebellion. What was Korah's Rebellion? It was a rebellion against having a separate priesthood...an ordained priesthood...a priesthood that is set apart, in certain ways, from the royal priesthood of believers. It's a rebellion against a priesthood that didn't include all of the people.

So, if that's what Korah's Rebellion was about, then how could Korah's Rebellion be occurring in the New Testament era, unless there was an ordained priesthood? A priesthood that reserved certain liturgical functions...certain acts of worship...for these men who were set apart to be priests? This passage from Jude makes absolutely no sense unless there was, from the earliest moments of the Church, an ordained priesthood. You can't have Korah's Rebellion in 1st century Christianity if there was no ordained priesthood - if there was no distinction between the royal priesthood of all believers and the ordained priesthood.

So how could Jude be talking about people perishing in Korah's Rebellion if there was no longer a separate and distinct priesthood? He couldn't. Which means, there was a separate and distinct - an ordained - priesthood in early Christianity. In other words, the priesthood as the Catholic Church has it today - an ordained sacramental priesthood - is in the Bible!

Furthermore, in James 5, it says very clearly that if there are people in the church who are sick, you should "call for the elders" and the elders will pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. Well, who were these elders? Obviously, there was some special function and authority they had that was not held by just any or all of the believers. Why didn't James 5 just say, "Have someone pray over them and anoint them with oil?" Why did it have to be the "elders"? According to the logic that says the tearing of the Temple veil meant that all believers are now the exact same in their status and roles in the Church, then what's the deal with these "elders"?

Nope. The existence of this group known as the "elders," shows that there were those, from the very beginning of the Church, who were set apart for special roles within the Church and the liturgy of the Church. You can call them elders, we call them priests.

Zach

4.) Lastly, if the Old Testament leaders weren't infallible, why would the New testament leaders be(Pope, councils, etc.)???

John Martignoni

Who says that at least some of the Old Testament leaders weren't infallible? Was Moses not infallible when he conveyed God's Law to the people? Did Jesus not say to the crowds and even to His own disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do?" Moses' seat was obviously a seat of authority, in the tradition of Moses' authority. And, were not Isaiah and Jeremiah infallible when they conveyed God's Word to the people? What about Ezekiel? What about the other Old Testament prophets? Were they not infallible in their writings that we now have as part of the Bible?

Do you not think that Peter or any of the other Apostles were infallible? And you mention the "councils." In Acts 15:28, the letter from the Council of Jerusalem that was sent out to the Gentile converts states that the decisions of the Council were approved by the Holy Spirit - "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." Would that not mean that the Council of Jerusalem was an infallible council? So, if the first council of the Church was infallible, why would the others not be?

Think about this: If there is no person, or group, within the Church that is infallible, then the best you can ever hope for - in terms of doctrine and such - is that you are right in what you believe, based on your own private, fallible, man-made, non-authoritative opinion. You will forever have disunity and disagreement within your church, with no way of ever being able to decide who is right and who is wrong on this doctrine or that practice because every thing will boil down to this person's opinion vs. that person's opinion vs. that other person's opinion. There can be no definitive, authoritative doctrinal teaching.

Personally, I reject the idea that Jesus founded a Church that has no authority, no ability to bind and loose, and no ability to definitively decide doctrinal disagreements between its own members. Which is what you are left with when you throw out the doctrine of infallibility.

I will ask you one last question on this matter: Do you believe the list of books that is in the Bible is an infallible list? If so, then who infallibly gave us that list? If not, then how do you know anything in your Bible is actually supposed to be in the Bible?

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week. If you like this newsletter, please remember to share it using the social media buttons at the top or bottom...

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL 35127. Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!