Comments on: Wheat vs. Rice: A Response to Critics

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:36:44 +0000

ELC: would it suffice to agree to disagree? In the meantime, I hope you can accept my sincerest apologies for inflaming any tension with these posts.

By: ELC

ELC — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:01:53 +0000

Jeremiah:
I apologize: I actually have no intention of getting into arguments in comment boxes. I should have held my tongue… er… keyboard. :-)
If you want to believe that the Fathers (who believed in bishops, a sacrificing Christian priesthood, baptismal regeneration, forgiveness of sins through the ministerial priesthood, etc.) actually believed in sola scriptura, you go right ahead.
“As for Scripture being the sole Word of God, take a look at 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Isaiah 8:20, and again Matthew 15:1-9.” Oh, I’ve already looked at them. And lots of other scriptures, too.

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:51:47 +0000

Franklin, thanks for the suggestions. I’ve got quite a bit of reading with those links you’ve sent, so you’ll forgive my substance-less post–it may take me a bit of time to respond…

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:44:33 +0000

ELC:
I’ve done a little research of my own. Turns out the Church rejected Sola Scriptura in the 16th century, at the Council of Trent. At that Council, Scripture was deemed incomplete, and that Church Tradition was to be the presiding authority in determining Christian interpretation of dogma. Before that, Church Fathers held to Sola Scriptura, including such early Church luminaries as Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, Barnabus, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. Indeed, someo of these men were embattled by the Gnostics, who claimed they had an Apostolic oral Tradition independent of Scripture.
Church historian Ellen Flessman-van Leer writes that “proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is.” (Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church)
Likewise, Heiko Oberman comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church: “Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition.” (The Harvest of Medieval Theology)
Bishop Cyril, of Jerusalem, offered this defense of Sola Scriptura in A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: “This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”
I found this to be interesting: “A good bit of confusion exists between Catholics and Protestants on sola Scriptura due to a failure to distinguish two aspects of the doctrine: the formal and the material. Sola Scriptura in the material sense simply means that all the content of salvific revelation exists in Scripture. Many Catholics hold this in common with Protestants, including well-known theologians from John Henry Newman to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. French Catholic theologian Yves Congar states: “we can admit sola Scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation.” What Protestants affirm and Catholics reject is sola Scriptura in the formal sense that the Bible alone is sufficiently clear that no infallible teaching magisterium of the church is necessary to interpret it.” (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences)
It appears then, that the disconnect is between the content of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture. Catholic doctrine teaches it has not created the interpretation, just discovered it through exploration of the Scriptures. That seems dangerously close to a self-defeating premise, though I won’t go into that now. What concerns me is the emphasis of Tradition as authoritative and correct.
Jesus himself offers warnings against the teachings of the Pharisees’ traditions (Matthew 15:3, Mark 7:9), while the Colassians 2:8 warns against deceptive human traditions that rely on “hollow and deceptive philosophy”. Then there is 1 Peter 1:17-19 which states, “And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” Then there is all that exhortation against the traditions of the Canaanites given to the Hebrews as they crossed the Jordan. Tradition holds a rather weak spot in the pantheon of authority, yet it’s being wielded like a child with daddy’s gun (and in a way, that’s exactly analagous).
I am not convinced that the 1 Timothy 3:15 Scripture is referring to the Church as the pillar of truth. Indeed, it just as easily could be referring to (and makes more sense to me) God as the pillar and ground of the truth.
As for Scripture being the sole Word of God, take a look at 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Isaiah 8:20, and again Matthew 15:1-9. Not to mention the several thousands of times it says, “Thus saith the Lord…” Scripture itself is witness to the fact that it is God’s sole authority for Christian dogma. Meanwhile, the 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Scripture invalidates many Catholic traditions.
How can we know all this? “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).
[more in a bit]

By: Franklin Jennings

Franklin Jennings — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:33:46 +0000

Jeremiah,
Instead of asking a Catholic layman, why not start by going to what the Church herself has to say?
You could start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, available online at http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc_cont.html
Or you could check a copy of “The Catholic Catechism” by Fr. John Hardon, SJ, (requi

By: ELC

ELC — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 20:26:14 +0000

Then you must also consider the Scriptures to be fallible. This is the problem when debating questions like this – it’s like coming to a gunfight with a tire. Two completely origins of belief. As an evangelical Protestant, I look at what Scripture has to say about “other teachings” that don’t line up with the Word and think, “Huh. Paul just said that other teachings are false and must be fortified against.”
Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is the inerrant, authoritative Word of God. And, actually, St. Paul says to “Hold fast to the traditions you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter”. (2 Thess. 2:15) And that the Church, not the Bible, is “the pillar and bulwark of truth”. (1 Tim. 3:15)
Did you know that the Scriptures teach that Christ died ONCE for man’s sins, and after that he was raised to the right hand of God? Catholic Eucharist teaches that it is literally the blood and body of Christ that is being consumed; in essence, Christ is dying over and over again–a completely illegitimate and blasphemous doctrine. That is why I disagree strenuously with many Catholic practices, because they are grounded in something other than Scripture; man’s traditions, however noble they might appear, if they measure not against the purity of the Word, cannot stand in the place of God.
As has already been indicated, the Catholic Church does not teach that the Lord Jesus dies again in Holy Mass. It is a re-presentation of the one offering of Christ on the Cross. Not another offering, but the same offering. I think you “disagree strenuously” with Catholic practices because you actually have no idea what the Church teaches.
If you don’t believe in the infallibility of the Word of God, and you don’t believe in it as the sole text from which the Christian faith springs, then I can only appeal to you from the grounds of the scripture that says “Let God be true and every man a liar.” Request, implore before God and ask of Him to reveal the Truth of His nature, of His Word.
“Let God be true and every man a liar”. That works both ways, doesn’t it? For starters, how about showing is Bible-ignorant Cathlicks where the Bible says that the Bible alone is the Word of God?
Thanks.

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:28:30 +0000

I’d love some education on the subject, then. Honestly.
If my understanding is incorrect or incomplete, I would certainly like to remedy that.
Can you address the points that I made in this comment, for starters?

By: Elena

Elena — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:25:54 +0000

Then you must also consider the Scriptures to be fallible
That’s an inductive reasoning fallacy. We don’t accept scripture ALONE and frankly neither does scripture as scripture itself never says that it is the sole authority.
Catholic Eucharist teaches that it is literally the blood and body of Christ that is being consumed; in essence, Christ is dying over and over again–a completely illegitimate and blasphemous doctrine.
I agree. Fortunately that is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches.
That is why I disagree strenuously with many Catholic practices, because they are grounded in something other than Scripture
You strenuously disagree with what you think you know about Catholic practices but clearly you really don’t know much about Catholicism.
Request, implore before God and ask of Him to reveal the Truth of His nature, of His Word.
I have – that’s why I’m Catholic.

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 06:13:56 +0000

we do not accept the “doctrine” of sola scriptura.
Then you must also consider the Scriptures to be fallible. This is the problem when debating questions like this – it’s like coming to a gunfight with a tire. Two completely origins of belief. As an evangelical Protestant, I look at what Scripture has to say about “other teachings” that don’t line up with the Word and think, “Huh. Paul just said that other teachings are false and must be fortified against.”
Did you know that the Scriptures teach that Christ died ONCE for man’s sins, and after that he was raised to the right hand of God? Catholic Eucharist teaches that it is literally the blood and body of Christ that is being consumed; in essence, Christ is dying over and over again–a completely illegitimate and blasphemous doctrine. That is why I disagree strenuously with many Catholic practices, because they are grounded in something other than Scripture; man’s traditions, however noble they might appear, if they measure not against the purity of the Word, cannot stand in the place of God.
If you don’t believe in the infallibility of the Word of God, and you don’t believe in it as the sole text from which the Christian faith springs, then I can only appeal to you from the grounds of the scripture that says “Let God be true and every man a liar.” Request, implore before God and ask of Him to reveal the Truth of His nature, of His Word.

By: Elena

Elena — Thu, 26 Aug 2004 05:44:30 +0000

Arguments from scripture alone, or sola scriptura arguments are not compelling or convincing to Catholics as we do not accept the “doctrine” of sola scriptura.
Calling the Magesterium (popes, bishops, councils) “Pharisees” is also not compelling or persuasive becasue it is an ad hominem fallacy attack.
Suggesting that anything that is “good” can be used for communion is indeed too simplistic. Cathlics believe that this is the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and take great care of the consecrated elements. Did you know that the precious blood that is unused is poured down a special sink that empties into consecrated ground? It is never emptied into the sink to go into the regular sewer. LIkewise, the consecrated hosts are also greatly cared for so that not even a crumb should be lost.
You may not understand or agree Catholic theology, but you should know that everything the Catholic church teaches has a reasoning behind it. You could be more compelling and persuasive perhaps if you knew what those were.