The Bible and the CrossDear Benjie,
Thanks for expressing your beliefs about Scriptures. I also would like to share my thoughts on your comments. I have tried to keep my comments as brief as possible but I think there are times that my comments are longer than I would want them to be and I hope you can bear with me. I will be marking my original statement as R1 and response to your comments as R2.
I would like to continue my response to your letter. I wanted to make this a separate response since it looked to me like a separate thought altogether from the previous thought about images. I would like to separate this thought about Scriptures. (Your words in blue, mine in black.)
R1. In your letter you seem to equate truth with scriptures. We catholics believe that scriptures is a depository of God's word (truth) as it is handed down to us in writing. But we don't believe that everything that God has revealed and taught for our salvation is recorded either implicitly or explicitly in the Bible. I would like to give you some examples: Where can you find in the Bible that deals specifically with slavery, contraception, masturbation, cloning, etc?
R2. I think I need to clarify a few points on the second statement I made. Actually Catholics distinguish between the material sufficiency of Scriptures and its formal sufficiency. By material sufficiency it means that the Bible contains at least implicitly all that God has revealed for the sake of our salvation. By formal sufficiency it means that Scriptures should be our only rule of faith in our Christian life. A Catholic may hold the former (material sufficiency) but not the latter (formal sufficiency). For the Catholic the rule of faith has always been Sacred Scriptures together with Sacred Tradition as interpreted by the Church’s teaching authority (Magisterium). We Catholics believe that God has fully revealed himself to us through his only Son (Hebrews 1:1-2). The things that Jesus did and taught for our salvation he entrusted to his apostles and their successors until the end of time (Mat 28:19-20). God’s word as revealed in the person of His Son has come down to us in two distinct yet complimentary modes of transmission: Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. St Paul exhorts the early Christians: “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2 Thes 2:15). “We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us” (2 Thes 3:6).
The Bible does not claim that it contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail as spoken by the apostle John: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.” (Joh 21:25)
R2. I fully agree with this.
But the apostle John is clear that Scripture is all you need for salvation, contrary to what you claim: “But these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.” (Joh 20:31)
R2. I beg to differ here. John was most likely referring to his writings. If John meant according to your interpretation then this will prove too much: That only John’s writings are necessary for salvation. I think the plain and simple meaning of the verse is that the purpose why John wrote his Gospel was to help his readers come to believe in Jesus Christ and that believing they may have life in his name. To say that this verse proves that the Bible alone is all we need to know God’s word is for me putting too much to the verse which St John never intended. The writings of the Apostles are not the only means by which people came to have faith in Christ but faith can also come by hearing the Word of God being preached. “Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17). The first Christian converts at Pentecost believed and were baptized after they heard the sermon (oral preaching) of Peter (Acts 2:1-42).
The Bible does not need to be exhaustive to function as the sole source of absolute truth for the Christian. We do not have to know the menu of each meal of the Apostles or the color of Thomas' eyes, for example.
R2. I agree with you that the Bible does not need to tell us the menu of each meal of the Apostles or the color of Thomas’ eyes. These are not necessary for our salvation. What I am saying is that the Bible is not always clear and definitive on certain issues concerning faith (what we ought to believe) and morals (what we ought to do).
But the Bible does teach that it is sufficient and in need of no other supplement from man, Church or council. Paul writes about this: All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness, in order that the man of God might be complete, fully equipped for every good work." (2Tim 3:16-17)
R2. That the above passage speaks about the Bible being God-breath I fully agree. The Catholic Church also teaches the same and in fact very forcefully. CCC par 105. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” I think where we differ is when you say that it needs no other supplement from man, Church or council. I am trying to think from your end. I think you are basing this statement on the presupposition that the Church is man-made. If that were the case I can agree with you. But I believe that Christ founded a Church (Mat 16:18-19), whom he commissioned to teach all men in his name (Mat 28:19-20) and whom he promised the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truths (Jn 14:16, 26) and whom Paul referred to as the “Pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15). As of the moment, you don’t have to believed that this Church is the Catholic Church but that based from Biblical evidence it can be demonstrated that Christ founded a Church with the authority to teach all men. How did the Apostles resolve the controversy regarding circumcision and acceptance of gentile converts? They did not do this by appeal to Scriptures. For one, the New Testament was not yet written by then. Second, had they appealed to the Old Testament (the only Scriptures available to them by then) I think they would have decided in favor of circumcision for it is clearly taught in the Old Testament. The gathering of the Church leaders at Jerusalem (Act 15:1-22) to resolve this issue is to me historically the first Church Council.
Let me expound on this verse for a moment. The Bible is God-breathed. It is a very strong term. It is God Himself speaking. It has ultimate authority, for there can be no higher authority than God's very speaking.
R2. Let me take this opportunity to clarify the false notion that in abiding by the Church magisterium we are making it higher than God’s word. CCC Par 86. “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”
That the Bible is God’s word and therefore commands our humble obedience and submission I fully agree. But is the Bible the only mode of transmission by which God intended his revelation to be transmitted to all generations? If there is another mode of transmission designed by God which compliments Sacred Scriptures ought we not to accept it also with the same honor and reverence as we do to Sacred Scriptures? Is the Bible the only authority to which we should submit? If Jesus Christ, true God, instituted a living teaching society which he commands all men to hear are we not bound to submit to this same authority? I think that God through Scriptures is commanding us to accept Sacred Tradition (2 Tes 2:15, 3:6) and to submit to the authority of the church Jesus founded (Mat 18:17, Luc 10:16).
The Bible is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction, for training in righteousness. God's people are not left without the voice of God and God's instructions. This then can make the man of God complete, fully equipped for every good work. I would point you to the compounding thought here that Paul is trying to emphasize his point about Scripture. Scripture is sufficient to make the man of God complete, not only complete but fully equipped, and not just for a single task but for every good work. It is an all-encompassing claim.
R2. In response, allow me to quote St James: “And let perseverance be perfect, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing” (James 1:4). Does this mean that perseverance is all we need in order to be perfect and complete? By no means for in the same Epistles St James also teaches the importance of faith, wisdom, and word of truth. To me the passage simply means that in addition to other Christian virtues which we are required to live by we also need to persevere to the end. Similarly in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, I think St Paul was telling Timothy the importance Scriptures so that we may be fully equipped for every good work not that Scriptures alone makes us fully equipped to practice our Christian faith.
Also, if 2 Tim 3:16-17 proves what you intended it to prove then again it would be proving too much. With all probability St Paul was referring to the Scriptures of the Old Testament which Timothy was well acquainted since his childhood (2 Tim 3:15). Remember that by that time the New Testament was not yet complete. Does this mean that the Old Testament Scriptures are all we need for salvation? I don’t think anybody holding to the Bible alone doctrine would agree to that.
Also, what St. Paul wrote in 2 Tim 3:15-17 is that Scripture is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof…” I think it is one thing to say that Scripture is “profitable” (which I agree) and to say that Scripture is all we need (which I disagree). For example it is profitable to take vitamins to be healthy but this does not mean that vitamins are all we need for physical health. We also need minerals, fats, carbohydrates, water, sunlight, etc. Thus even though the Bible is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof….” we also need Sacred Tradition to compliment what is not very clear in Scriptures and the Church teaching authority to guide us as regards the correct interpretation.
So, the Bible is all you need. And if you search enough, you will find instructions or principles that can address all your questions such as slavery, contraception, masturbation and cloning. For me, slavery is addressed by Paul in Eph 6:5-9. Masturbation is addressed by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matt 5:28.
R2. Granting that the verses you quoted have addressed my questions on slavery and masturbation (although further questions can still be asked like: Does Paul sanction slavery in the above quote or did he tolerate it simply for the time being? Is masturbation intrinsically evil or does it depend on the circumstance? etc) but what about other pressing issues on contraception, invitrofertilization, cloning, divorce and abortion? Beside moral issues we also could find a host of doctrinal issues debated among those who hold the Bible to be the only authority. Are infants to be baptized? In what manner is Jesus present in the Eucharist? Which theory about Christ second coming is correct: premilleniarism or post-milleniarism? Are some men presdestined by God to hell or not? Can we lose our salvation or not? Remember that on each side of the theological fence Bible verses are quoted to support each one’s position. Among the Bible-believing Christians there is hardly any agreement now and I think there would not be any in the future.
Note that there are topics that the Bible does not specifically address, and we must be careful not to bind people's consciences with man-made rules such as the Roman Catholic Church’s instructions on contraception. When the Bible is silent, we must use wisdom and sound judgment and go back to other commands and principles in Scriptures. But we can never be dogmatic about it since there is no biblical warrant.
R2. I think that the above statement clearly shows the weakness and inconsistency in the Bible alone doctrine. On one hand it says that that Bible is all-sufficient guide for every good work. On the other hand it admits that there are moral issues where the Bible is silent. Where in the Bible does it say that on certain areas of morality we will just leave it to people’s conscience to be the supreme arbiter? I think this teaching is strangely unbiblical. I can very well understand your objections against man-made rules made by the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) for you don’t believe that the RCC is the Church founded by Christ. But the Bible binds you to seek out the Church founded by Christ whom he empowered: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mat 18:18).
R1. Among the numerous and conflicting interpretations, how do you know that your interpretation is right?
I agree with your thought regarding interpreting Scriptures and how we can know which of the conflicting interpretations are really true. How do we know which interpretation is correct? How do we know if this Roman priest or that Protestant pastor or that speaker is preaching what is true to the Bible. In our case, how will you know if what I just told you about 2 Tim 3:16-17 is true or not? The Bereans provide us a very good example in Act 17:11 in their response to the Apostle Paul’s preaching: “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” (Act 17:11).
They received Paul's teaching, but they still searched the Scriptures daily in order to see if what Paul was speaking was really true. They did not blindly accept the teachings of even the great Apostle Paul. This is a very good example of our duty and responsibility to test every teaching that we hear if it is true by examining Scriptures ourselves. They did not go to Peter or the other apostles. They themselves searched the Scriptures daily. This is also what we must do.
R1. If we examine what actually happened, the Bereans searched the Scriptures of the Old Testament to verify what St Paul preached about the Messiah having to suffer and rise from the dead (Acts 17:3) because St.Paul has already mentioned and explained the passages concerning the Messiah to them. Thus it is actually St Paul (a living teacher) guiding the Bereans in rightly interpreting Scriptures. This is similar to what Jesus did to the disciples on the road to Emmaus wherein he explained to them the passages in the Old Testament prophesying the suffering, death, and resurrection of the Messiah: “Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures” (Luke 24:27). The disciples could not have figured it out by themselves using Scriptures alone that those passages in the Old Testament actually refer to Jesus. This is the same with the Eunuch in the Book of Acts. He was reading Scriptures but could not understand what it meant and the Holy Spirit brought Philip (a living teacher) to explain to him (Acts 8:26-35).
On the other hand let me pose the question: What about all those learned bible scholars and theologians not to mention self proclaimed preachers of God’s word who hold the Bible alone as their only authority and yet still arrived at diverging and conflicting interpretations of the Word of God? If learned bible scholars and theologians could err in their interpretation, what are the chances of the ordinary lay man of arriving at the correct interpretation? In the Bible alone doctrine, we will be always learning but never attaining to the knowledge of truth. I think the above quotation from St Paul (2 Tim 3:16-17) should be coupled with the warning made by St Peter: “And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures” 2 Peter 3:15-16). “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20).
R1. On the other hand we catholics believe the Jesus entrusted his teachings (that includes scriptures but is not limited to it) to the Church he founded (Mat 16:18-19) which he commissions to teach all men (Mat 28:19-20) and to which all men are bound by Christ under extreme penalty to hear and obey (Luke 10:16). St Paul's says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).
You did not specifically state it, but I believe this last paragraph points to the Roman church's claim to be the church that Christ and the Apostles founded. If I have guessed right, and I would like to end here as I am not sure of this yet, then I would like to know your thoughts and ask for 1 proof from Scripture and even from History, to this claim by the Roman Catholic Church.
R2. Before I go into that I would like to know first your reactions/responses to the arguments I presented above about your position on the Bible alone as the rule of faith for Christians. If you would like to rest the case here then I will be glad to proceed on presenting to you arguments for the truth of the Catholic Church.
I truly thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts and it is my prayer that in all these exchanges, God will be honored and His truth proclaimed.
R2. Thank you Benjie for such a wonderful presentation of your position and for reading through my (lengthy) responses. I will be looking forward to our next exchange.
Truly yours,
Ramon
No comments:
Post a Comment