|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
RCC Says NT Not Intended to be Written
Lou writes: The New Testament Was Not Intended To Be Written Note the following quotes from catholic sources: "If Christ Himself had written the book and set it forth as a text-book, so to speak, of His religion, we would rest securely in it, and have no need to inquire farther. That the Bible is not a book, like the Koran for instance, set forth by the founder of the religion as its authoritative exposition, is in fact the fundamental weakness of Bible Protestantism. If Christ had intended His religion to be propagated and preserved by means of a book, can any conceivable reason be urged why He should not have written one? Of His ability to do so there can, for the Christian, be no question." (Plain Facts for Fair Minds, p. 26). "Is it not strange that if Christianity were to be learned from the Bible only, that Christ himself never wrote a line or commanded his apostles to write; for their divine commission was not to write but to preach the gospel." (Question Box, p. 70). "Christ gave his disciples no command to write, but only to teach." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, p. 767). Andrew responds: The quotes cited are quite good and to the point. Unfortunately, the title for this exposition readily reveals that they are misunderstood. Catholicism DOES NOT stipulate that the New Testament "was not intended" to be written. Rather, the emphasis is placed upon the preaching and teaching Church. The continuing missionary thrust of the Catholic faith never precluded the inspired composition of the oral tradition. Christianity is NOT a book-religion in the fashion that the Koran functions for Islam. The command from Christ is to teach and preach and baptize. This is all fact. Lou writes: Roman Catholicism today presents a very fair and mild mannered front. Their leadership are two-faced, they speak on both sides of their mouth, they speak with a forked tongue. On the one hand, they encourage the reading of the Bible and on the other hand, they oppose it's sole authority. Thus, Roman Catholicism's true attitude towards the Bible is disclosed. The three above citations from catholic sources are an attempt to negate the Bible's sole authority as the standard of christian faith and practice. But they are most feeble arguments in favor of their error. They need to write volumes bordering on the size of War and Peace to attempt to refute a simple "Thus saith The Lord"! It just can't be done. Roman catholicism says that "Christ gave his disciples no command to write, but only to teach". Oh really???? The fact is not only does Roman Catholicism NO NOT what they are talking about, Jesus Christ DID make such a command. Here it is: Revelation 1:19 - "Write therefore the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are to come hereafter." Here, Jesus is commanding John to write the book of Revelation. So much for catholic infallibility, eh??? Andrew responds: The error that is made regarding Revelation 1:19 is typical of fundamentalist bible interpretation. The verse has the one "like a son of man" telling John to write down the signs and interpretation of his vision. It refers to this single book of the bible and is addressed to this particular apostle. It is not a fundamental command to the whole Church to write down her oral tradition as the Gospels. However, just as with the epistles and Acts, such a composition is not rejected. Indeed, it will fall within the providence of God. The Church does not deny this point. The fact is simply that the New Testament contains no absolute command from Jesus to do this. The emphasis, as mentioned before, is upon the preaching and teaching Church. A certain canon of written Scriptures will insure the fidelity of this proclamation over the centuries. Lou writes: The fact is that Jesus Himself EXPECTED His words to be written, EXPECTED the New Testament to be written: Matthew 24:15 - When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso READETH, let him understand:) Mark 13:14 . - But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that READETH understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: Andrew responds: Did Christ suspect that his words would be put to writing? I would suspect so, this too the Catholic Church would not deny. The concern is not the intention of Christ but what was his explicit command. Matthew 24:15 and mark 13:14 repeat essentially the same message. The phrase "whoso READETH, let him understand," is in reference to the Jewish Scriptures and the prophecy that Jesus interprets. Scriptures were read in their Synagogue services, an important point, because this mention of reading sounds like a liturgical formula. It is not all that different from the acclamation in Catholic Masses where the lector states: "The Word of the Lord." Attempts by the critic of Catholicism to separate the Church from the bible would have to similarly separate the Jews from their Hebrew Scriptures. The People of God have ownership over their inspired Scriptures. They can only be understood properly by the community by whom and for which they were assembled and composed. Lou writes: You can't read something unless it's been first written, right? Jesus expects these words of His to be READ, not just the words in Daniel! 1 Timothy 4:13 - Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. What was Paul telling Timothy to read? The catholic catechism????? It's the SCRIPTURES. God's Word. The Bible!!!! Andrew responds: We are going over old ground here. It is reasonable to hold that Jesus would want us to read his words as chronicled in the Gospels. The citation mentions reading Daniel, anything more is the type of extrapolation that Sola Scriptura advocates find offensive in Catholicism. As for 1 Timothy, again you need to respect the context. The Pauline author is talking to another minister of the Church: "If you will give these instructions to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound teaching you have followed" (4:6). The early Christian community preserved many of the apostolic letters and considered the Old Testament Scriptures to be their own. If this epistle was composed between 63-67 AD, a complete New Testament would not yet be available. Nonetheless, the Church is proclaiming the saving kerygma. Verse 13 would be understood in this setting. The place of the Scriptures in the Synagogue service has been relocated into Christian worship. Thus the Pauline author admonishes (not Jesus directly), "Until I arrive, attend to reading, exhortation, and teaching" (4:13). The word for reading here is in Greek one that probably signifies the PUBLIC READING of Scripture in the Christian assembly. This practice is still followed today in the first half of the Mass. You see contradictions where there are not any. You slur Catholic ministers as two-faced. You are truly kin to Nicholas and his blind and closed-minded religion of hate. Lou writes: Thus do the Scriptures of Truth most thoroughly bring down this Roman Catholic house of cards teaching of error to the dust of the ground. One bad attitude down - six more to go. Psalms 119:89 - For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Andrew responds: Sorry, the house is still standing-- it is built on ROCK. Why the concerted polemics against Catholicism? Why do you bend over backwards to malign her? Who hurt you? Where did this animus against Catholicism begin? Psalm 119:89 is a beautiful verse. The world itself is created by God's word. This word is permanent and steadfast. The saving word is proclaimed in the Catholic Church. Praise God! Alleluia! Lou writes: Welcome back, Andrew, How have you been? You say that Catholicism "DOES NOT stipulate that the New Testament "was not intended" to be written. Rather, the emphasis is placed upon the preaching and teaching Church" The fact is that the RCC does make such a stipulation. They maintain that Jesus never wrote a line of Scripture, nor had He given any command to do so. And "oral tradition" would be just fine if "oral tradition" were Biblical. However, most of it isn't. And that which isn't Biblical is not of God and is not binding on the Christian. You make mention that the command of Christ is to "teach and preach and baptize." He also commands the following: Luke 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. So, preaching, teaching, and baptizing are nothing without the Word of God. Without the Word of God, what's there to preach? Without the Word of God, whose doctrine is being taught?? Without the Word of God, in whose name are you baptizing??? Without the Word of God, there would only be doctrines of devils - much of what is incorporated into the teachings of Roman Catholicism. And you are correct about one thing: Christianity is indeed "NOT a book religion" It's not a religion! It's a relationship - with Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God - The ROCK, the FOUNDATION, the CHIEF CORNERSTONE. It's a living, vibrant, love-relationship with God Almighty through Jesus Christ, The Son, The Saviour! Roman Catholicism is vain, lifeless, mummery and formalism, of which Jesus Christ NEVER taught and the Apostles NEVER lived. You say that I am "truly kin to Nicholas and his blind and closed-minded religion of hate." I am kin to Nicholas inasmuch as he is in line with the Word of God and visa-versa. How come you keep on bringing Nicholas into our conversations??? I'm not a student of Nicholas and neither is he a student of mine. It just so happens that we both believe in and exalt Scripture. Our presentations of truth may differ, however our beliefs are the same - and all in synch with Holy Scriptures. I worship the Lord. I hate no one! I do, however, hate all the foolish and unScriptural teachings of the RCC. I do also hate what they have done to all those who were not in agreement with her doctrines. Catholics themselves should be loathe to the past history of Roman Catholicism. Catholics say that some of its leaders may have sinned, but the INSTITUTION is sinless. Baloney! That could only be believed by gullible mental midgets. You know, Andrew, most Catholics, I would suspect, don't even know one-tenth about their religion as you do. How is it that with all your seeming knowledge, you fail to see the truth about the RCC??? Can one be so loyal and in love with an institution that one is blind to all the evil that this particular institution is guilty of??? Should not one's first love be Jesus Christ??? I would strive for that first - and then test the institution by the standards of my first love - Jesus Christ. You say "Sorry, the house is still standing-- it is built on ROCK. Why the concerted polemics against Catholicism? Why do you bend over backwards to malign her? Who hurt you? Where did this animus against Catholicism begin?" The house may be standing - but not on the side of Jesus Christ - and not on Jesus THE ROCK. And I do not "bend over backwards to malign her". Her false doctrines, and sinful atrocities are what maligns her. It needs no help from me. You ask "Who hurt you?" - Nobody! I was raised a catholic and went to catholic school. They personally did not hurt me. What bothered me was the realization that they are not what they have touted themselves to be, what I was brought up to believe I found to be not of God. You ask where "did it all begin?" It was when I discovered the Word of God. That's when it began. Without the Word of God, I was ignorant of the truth. Although I'm quite sure that's your opinion of me at present! But, that's OK, I know better. I know that you love your church and my words are probably insulting to you. Believe it or not, my intentions are not to insult you or any other catholic. So far, your defense of Catholicism hasn't stood the test of Scripture. If it did - I'd go back to my roots at Mother Church! Have you ever read the entire Bible prayerfully? With a desire to know truth where ever it leads? I invite you to try it. Andrew responds: Dear Lou, Thanks for asking how I've been. Actually, things have been pretty traumatic lately. The days have been long and the work exhausting. A lot of nights I just say my prayers and crash. If my posts seem intermittent, that is the reason. Lou, do you maintain that our Lord personally composed any of the New Testament? You seem to suggest such when you criticize the Catholic Church for "maintain[ing] that Jesus never wrote a line of Scripture." You then say that most oral tradition is not biblical. I do not think you are following me. I am not talking about TRADITION that has continued to come down to us in the present day. I am talking about the pre-New Testament oral tradition that finds composition in the Gospels and in the doctrines expressed within the epistles, Acts, and Revelation. While some written source elements are obvious, divergences between the texts reflect the various views and stories of particular faith communities. Ah, Lou, look at your citations again. Luke 4:4 mentions the nourishment of the word of God; however, this word was not strictly written but also the oral proclamation-- the teaching of the Church. Luke 11:28 and Romans 10:17 both refer to HEARING the word of God, again the oral proclamation. This supports the Catholic stance you seek to refute. You make divisions where none are necessary. Roman Catholicism firmly believes that her teachings are indeed the Word of God and not the doctrines of devils. The Church and Christianity are so radically REAL that some authorities have spoken about it as the end of religion. However, our relationship with Jesus that you prize so highly and rightfully so, is not only personal but a corporate one. This is a major difference between us. It is also probably the source for your fundamental opposition to Catholicism. My experience of Catholicism has not been as "vain, lifeless, mummery and formalism". Further my study and prayer has confirmed to me that while certain structures have developed over time, they reflect the mind of Christ. As for bringing Nicholas into the conversation, well, the fact that he has deleted most of my posts at this site makes it hard to forget him. The only reason he allows these posts to remain is because you answer them. Otherwise, I have no doubt they would quickly disappear. As for the Church being sinless, I suspect you fail to grasp the distinctions being made. We would readily admit that there are sinners in the Church, there always have been. The sanctity of the Church is perceived as not relying upon individuals or even leaders in the Church; rather, it hinges upon the sinlessness of Christ and what is calling the Church to become. The Church is holy because Christ is holy. You cannot fathom this because you see the Church as merely another flawed human institution. Catholic theology sees Christ fully subsisting in every local church, joining them to himself and to the whole. The intimacy of this relationship (Mystical Body/Mystical Vine) is born out of Scripture and the lived experience of Christian believers. I am not a mental midget, as you have surmised, and yet I find the Church's perception of her self-identify to be satisfying and profound. Are most Catholics ignorant about their faith and the Scriptures? Alas, sometimes people with and eighth grade education in religion think they know all they need to know. This is indeed tragic. I have done my best to teach both the adults and children the truth. While the Lord has done the work, he has used me as a poor instrument in bringing hundreds of souls to faith, baptism, and discipleship. Yes, Lou, our first love should be Jesus Christ. But, please try to understand, that in my informed conscience, REJECTION of the Catholic Church would be FOR ME a RENUNCIATION of Jesus Christ. I see the Church perpetuating his ministry. Feeding the flock with his truths and the sacraments. Thirty plus men and women-- brothers, sisters, priests, and bishops-- were killed last year on their missionary assignments. They died loving the Lord and his Church. They shed their blood loving and praying for those that tortured and killed them. One of my dear friends was martyred in Haiti. I have similarly tried to surrender my life to the Lord Jesus. I currently place myself in real physical danger for the Gospel. I have given up everything to serve Jesus-- home, family, money-- everything that most people deem important. I preach Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead. I surrender my life in bringing needed charity to the poor. And yet, it is as nothing. I have to fight back my pride and frustration. I am a weak instrument and sometimes crude. But, I am informed and sincere. I know that where I am weak, God is strong. I am part of that institution that you hate. Admittedly, my rank is low, but my general is Christ and he knows what needs to be done. I believe everything that the Catholic Church teaches to be true-- not in a mindless and parroting way-- but in a studious and prayerful manner. Where you see sinful monsters and abuse, I see a legacy of saints and martyrs. Where you see corruption, I see charity made real the world over. You write, "Without the Word of God, I was ignorant of the truth. Although I'm quite sure that's your opinion of me at present." Well, yes, and no. You do possess grains of the truth but I think your opposition to Catholicism has hardened you to the rest. Of course, we are all compelled to follow what we hold to be true. Anything else would cause the debit of our integrity. Do I find your views about the Catholic Church insulting? Yes, it is the case. And just as I might not always evaluate the data properly, I would urge you to explore some of your concerns more deeply and to discuss them with knowledgeable Catholics. I have studied the faith all my life and yet am still a student. I would not try to excuse the blackest days of the Church at the cost of truth. However, I would not neglect her glories at the cost of fairness. You ask if I have ever read the entire bible in a prayerful way? My answer to you is yes-- that is the only way for a believer to read it-- and I must say from cover to cover, many times. Further, while I have never mastered Hebrew, I have struggled to read much of the New Testament in Greek and Latin. Quoting Scripture with understanding is very important, but I suspect that our first principles are so in variance that we barely speak the same language. Peace, ANDREW
|