Expert: Elder Greg Madden - 10/8/2009

Question
QUESTION: Please go to http://www.protestanterrors.com/#2 web site and tell me why this is incorrect.
Please check out Dr. Scott Hahn with Lighthouse Catholic Media, many of his tapes/cd's/books.  He is a Theologian, Scholar, Professor/Doctor, Previous 20 something year Minister turned Catholic after seeking the truth through Scripture.
Thank You

ANSWER: Lilly,

Thank you for the opportunity to help you in your pursue of truth. However, I am not sure as to exactly which point on this web site you would like for me to specifically address. Because there are 29 points that are proposed on this site, I would find it difficult in one reply to address all of them. I hope you understand.

Meanwhile, I would like for you to go to the following 2 sites and tell me why (in your opinion) they are incorrect...


http://www.helpforcatholics.org/wecsk/commonQ.htm

http://www.cwrc-rz.org/apologetics/az-006a.php


I look forward to your follow up correspondence.

Elder Greg Madden

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I appreciate your response Mr. Madden and reviewed the web sites you gave.
The web site I gave answers and rebutes all that you gave with extreme truth.  Luther believed in all the Catholics believe and taught all that the Catholics believed but then later left and removed the 7 books that he originally believed in that the apostles gave.  By the way, the 7 books refer to the Catholic Sacraments.  What gives anyone the right to remove books that were there in the Bible for 1500 years?  Look over the quotes in the verses the web sites you sent me and it confirms what I just said.  In the Bible, the words of Eat my Body and Drink my Blood are there 7 times.  Faith Alone not once. On the contrary...it says NOT Faith Alone.  Trinity is NOT in the Bible...but yet Baptist and Protestants believe it.  They need to make their minds up...either don't add to the Bible or consider Tradition etc...  Other religions do not believe the Pope can speak Infalliable but yet they believe that the Apostles could and did write Infalliable words.  Hmmm....So is it possible?  Where in the Bible does it say that you are to have a Personal Relationship with God?  Guess what...not in there. The Roman Catholic Church is the only church that goes back over to the Day of the Apostles, over 1,500 years before Protestant Church.  So what possesses a person other than EVIL doings that they can change the Bible and it's teachings?  The Eucharist & Not Preaching the sermon was and IS the CENTER of the Christian Worship from the begining.  The Cahtolic Church does not believe in divorce because the Orginal CHURHC cleary forbade divorce in all 4 Gospels.  We (Catholics) don't claim to have the authority to change the words of our master.  Do many Catholics not study and read the Bible enough like their counterparts?  Are there and was there wickeness within the Catholic Church at times?  Do many Catholics go to church as a routine and not sincerity?  GUILTY< GUILTY GUILTY...yes....and the Church is a Hospital for Sinners and not a museum for Right Doers.  God/Jesus chose the Apostles and ONE main one was a deep sinner.  Don't you think he knew what was going to happen?  We agree that we need to refer to Scripture for our Salvation, but disagree on some of the interpretation of Scripture.  Who shall be the judge as to the correct interpretation?  It is illogical to think thatOur Lord would expect us all to interpret Scripture on our own with no judge to turn since this wil always lead to endless disagreements.  All of thos interpretng Scripture incorrectly will be lead down the wrond road. If it is true that Scriptures are so easy to understand, twhat is the use of the commentaries made by countless Protestant ministers, and what good are so many schools of Theology?  Also consider the verse, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things: in which are certain things hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16).  How else can we interpret this than to say Scripture is diddicult to understand, and to interpret it incorrectly can lead to our destruction?  Jesus/God put a head to the church (Priest/Bishops) in order to prevent this destruction.  We note here that Hieronymus Emser, a literary opponent of Luther, points out 1400 inaccuracies in Luther's translation of Scripture, while Bunsen, a Protestant scholar, points out 3000.  If Luther, Calvin and other reformers' translations of a verse in Scripture differ from the original AND from each other, which one is the word of God?  In summary, the Protestant reformers not only made major changes to the ORIGINAL Scripture by poor translations, but also translated Scripture to all the local non-fixed languages of the people where they started their churches, and they use those faulty translations in their church services.  The Bible was not put under one Cover until the Councils of Hippo (393) and 3rd Council of Crthage (397) accepted the official list of books. (Which is the same as used by the Catholic Church today).  Not for over 1000 years after these early Councils was the printing press invented (1450), so Bible manuscripts were quite rare and costly before the printing press came about.  Between 397 and 1450 then, how did most people learn about the contents of Scripture, and who was the authoritative figure for the early Church during these centuries?  The uthority clearly could not have been the Bible, but clearly was the Church Herself who preached it to the faithful.  So how can Sripture have been our only guide for the centuries before copies of the Bible were readily available, and were the people who lived during those centuries all damned because they did not have access to Scripture?  Consider this verse from Scripture:  "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.  But these are written, that you may belive that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name: John 20:30-31.  Are we really to think that anything Jesus did or said that didn't make it into the books of Scripture are false or should not be adhered to?  Consider the verse, "But there are also many other things which Jesus did: which, if they were written everyone, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written:  John 21:25. Clearly there are many things Jesus said and did that were passed on as tradition (by word of mouth) and did not make it into the books of Scripture.  While Scripture is essential, tradition is aldo essential. Nowehere in Scripture does it say Scripture alone should be accepted as revelation, and it certainly does not say we should condemn Apostolic tradition. Nothing is spoken against tradition EXCEPT for Traditions which are human or against Scripture.   Who do the Protestant reformers ad this to Our Lord's words?  It si forbidden to add anything to Scripture, as it is to take anything away from it.  Why do the Protestant reformers also take away the traditions which are expressly authorized?  Consider the verse, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hld the traditions which you have learned, whether by work, or by our epistle.: 2 Thessalonians 2:14.  This tells us the Apostles spread the word of God not only through Epistles, but also by WORD, and that we should hold to the tradtions which we are taught? (Check 2 John 1:12 & 2 Timothy 1:13 & 2 Timothy 2:2 & John 16:12 & Matthew 28:20) Jesus founded the Universal/Catholic Church.  Another word for Catholic is Universal....  

Answer
Lilly,

Please do not take this as being rude, but as I have read over your diatribe, I did not read as to which of the 29 points on the web site you sent me that you wished for me to address. Please be spesific as to which one. As I said befor, this forum is limited and to address each point at once would be impossible.

Now as to your (what I would call) rant. I will respond to two of the issues you brought up.

1. "The Eucharist & Not Preaching the sermon was and IS the CENTER of the Christian Worship from the begining"

You will have to agree that the begining of the Christian church is recorded in the Holy Scriptures. This being true, please show me one instance in the Biblical that communion, and not preaching/teaching was the center of the Christian service? On the contrary, in every account given where people gathered for worship, preaching was the recorded, but not comunion.
Act 5:42, Acts 11:20, Acts 15:35, Acts 18:11, ect...

Did they receive communion at this time? Probably, but the Bibilcal emphisis was, and has always been, the preaching and teaching of God's Holy Word.

Jesus gave the original Apostals commandment to preach the Gospel, not serve communion... Mark 16:15 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

2. You have been misled to believe the typical catholic line conserning the doctrine of "Sola Scriptura". You see, Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. Please allow me to share with you what I have learned about this subject...

The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of “alone,” “ground,” “base,” and the word scriptura meaning “writings”—referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible. This resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority. Martin Luther, the founder of the Lutheran Church and father of the Protestant Reformation, was publicly rebuking the Catholic Church for its unbiblical teachings. The Catholic Church threatened Martin Luther with excommunication (and death) if he did not recant. Martin Luther's reply was, “Unless therefore I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by the clearest reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless they thus render my conscience bound by the Word of God, I cannot and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me! Amen!”

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura. Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While this is true, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message. Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines. The only way to know for sure what God expects of us is to stay true to what we know He has revealed—the Bible. We can know, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that Scripture is true, authoritative, and reliable. The same cannot be said of tradition.

The Word of God is the only authority for the Christian faith. Traditions are valid only when they are based on Scripture and are in full agreement with Scripture. Traditions that contradict the Bible are not of God and are not a valid aspect of the Christian faith. Sola scriptura is the only way to avoid subjectivity and keep personal opinion from taking priority over the teachings of the Bible. The essence of sola scriptura is basing your spiritual life on the Bible alone and rejecting any tradition or teaching that is not in full agreement with the Bible. Second Timothy 2:15 declares, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.”

Sola scriptura does not nullify the concept of church traditions. Rather, sola scriptura gives us a solid foundation on which to base church traditions. There are many practices, in both Catholic and Protestant churches, that are the result of traditions, not the explicit teaching of Scripture. It is good, and even necessary, for the church to have traditions. Traditions play an important role in clarifying and organizing Christian practice. At the same time, in order for these traditions to be valid, they must not be in disagreement with God’s Word. They must be based on the solid foundation of the teaching of Scripture. The problem with the Roman Catholic Church, and many other churches, is that they base traditions on traditions which are based on traditions which are based on traditions, often with the initial tradition not being in full harmony with the Scriptures. That is why Christians must always go back to sola scriptura, the authoritative Word of God, as the only solid basis for faith and practice.

On a practical matter, a frequent objection to the concept of sola scriptura is the fact that the canon of the Bible was not officially agreed upon for at least 250 years after the church was founded. Further, the Scriptures were not available to the masses for over 1500 years after the church was founded. How, then, were early Christians to use sola scriptura, when they did not even have the full Scriptures? And how were Christians who lived before the invention of the printing press supposed to base their faith and practice on Scripture alone if there was no way for them to have a complete copy of the Scriptures? This issue is further compounded by the very high rates of illiteracy throughout history. How does the concept of sola scriptura handle these issues?

The problem with this argument is that it essentially says that Scripture’s authority is based on its availability. This is not the case. Scripture’s authority is universal; because it is God’s Word, it is His authority. The fact that Scripture was not readily available, or that people could not read it, does not change the fact that Scripture is God’s Word. Further, rather than this being an argument against sola scriptura, it is actually an argument for what the church should have done, instead of what it did. The early church should have made producing copies of the Scriptures a high priority. While it was unrealistic for every Christian to possess a complete copy of the Bible, it was possible that every church could have some, most, or all of the Scriptures available to it. Early church leaders should have made studying the Scriptures their highest priority so they could accurately teach it. Even if the Scriptures could not be made available to the masses, at least church leaders could be well-trained in the Word of God. Instead of building traditions upon traditions and passing them on from generation to generation, the church should have copied the Scriptures and taught the Scriptures (2 Timothy 4:2).

Again, traditions are not the problem. Unbiblical traditions are the problem. The availability of the Scriptures throughout the centuries is not the determining factor. The Scriptures themselves are the determining factor. We now have the Scriptures readily available to us. Through the careful study of God’s Word, it is clear that many church traditions which have developed over the centuries are in fact contradictory to the Word of God. This is where sola scriptura applies. Traditions that are based on, and in agreement with, God’s Word can be maintained. Traditions that are not based on, and/or disagree with, God’s Word must be rejected. Sola scriptura points us back to what God has revealed to us in His Word. Sola scriptura ultimately points us back to the God who always speaks the truth, never contradicts Himself, and always proves Himself to be dependable.(gotquestion.com)

Lilly, once again I look forward to your reponce.

Elder Greg Madden