PROF. RAMON GITAMONDOC, CFD National President EXCHANGES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA part 2

Pope Benedict XVI with the Book of the Gospels

September 6, 2008

Dear Benjie,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the time and effort you have spent in this dialogue. I have broken up some of your paragraph to be specific on the point in your argument I am addressing. I have quoted your statements in bold letters and my new responses are marked R4 and in blue. To save space I have deleted some of my previous post and those which I retained are marked R3 and in red.

Thank you for your response once again and for continuing our exchange. I have to explain at the outset that I tend to ask questions in order to prove a point or to clarify something from you. I apologize if they will seem too much at times. I also have to explain that I will be mentioning Roman Catholic doctrines in order to prove a point and mean no personal offense.

R4. Although I wanted to focus our discussion on the role of Scriptures, Tradition and Church authority I will try my best to address your questions on Catholic doctrines. I also have a lot of questions of my own which I hope you would address in your next post. At the outset, I would like to clarify that although the Church in general refers to the body of the faithful but in this exchange when I use the word Church I am referring to the teaching authority within the Church, the Magisterium (Peter and the apostles during apostolic times, Pope and bishops united with him during post-apostolic times).

I agree that the Bible is not always explicit. Some important doctrines need careful study, and are sometimes likened to finding a treasure in a field.

R4. Let us not forget though that we in the 21st century are not the only Christians who have read and reflected upon the word of God. We have the writings of the early Church Fathers some of whom were direct disciples of the apostles and are therefore in a better position to know what the apostles orally taught and practiced. Even if these fathers individually were not infallible yet they are unanimous on a lot of issues regarding the faith. Most of them died for what they believed and is therefore less likely to distort those truths which they have received from the apostles. It would be quite foolish for us to disregard their testimony under the pretext that we have the Bible and can reinvent early Christianity from the Bible alone. They, who were men of renowned brilliance and sanctity, have unearthed the hidden treasures you speak of and we can greatly benefit from their works.

But in matters of salvation, we are told that the Bible is clear enough to lead us to salvation as Paul tells Timothy, "and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim 3:15).

R4. I think the contrast you made using the word “but” between what you think are important doctrines which are not explicit and those doctrines pertaining to salvation which you say is clear enough is quite vague. How important could those doctrines be if they do not pertain to salvation? Who is to decide which doctrines are important and which are not since the Bible does not give us a list of important doctrines not pertaining to salvation and those on matters of salvation? Each particular denomination holds to be necessary for salvation what some other denominations hold to be non-essential. On the contrary, St. Peter warns us: “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 Pet. 3:16). Those things which are hard to understand must include matters of salvation since according to Peter distorting them leads to destruction. The fact that the Bible gives us wisdom that leads us to salvation does not necessarily mean that it is “clear enough.” Scriptures correctly understood gives wisdom but if one has a distorted interpretation it could lead to destruction.

I think it is needless to point to you the numerous conflicting denominations that use the Bible as their only guide but can hardly agree among themselves as to the sense of Scriptures to show the fallacy of your statement regarding the Bible being “clear enough.” Each bible-believing church teaches something differently from the others. So while Pentecostal preachers are busy casting demons other preachers are just as busy railing against Pentecostals for speaking in tongues, which was, they warned, a sign they were in cahoots with the Devil. While Lutheran missionaries are busy baptizing infants, Baptists preached that infant baptism is invalid and that those who practice it aren’t Christians. While the Unitarians believe that God is one person, Trinitarians hold that the trinity is a central doctrine of Christianity belief on which is necessary for salvation. An argument that is contrary to facts is not valid. This is a basic principle in logic. If somebody denies the presence of the sun and all the while is perspiring from the sun’s heat is evidently not to be given attention. If as you say that in matters of salvation the Bible is clear enough then there should be a unanimous agreement to those who use the Bible for doctrine. But the fact is that those who use the Bible for doctrine actually comes up with varied conflicting interpretation as to what they think is necessary for salvation. Therefore the proposition that in matters of salvation the Bible is clear enough is proven to be false.

The Bible says that God has given His church pastors and teachers for the work of equipping the saints and preaching and teaching the Word of God.

R4. I think this a good admission. The Bible equips the man of God for every good work and yet the Bible says that God has given His Church pastors and teachers for the work of equipping the saints. So it is not the Bible alone right? Even if you say that these pastors and teachers are to teach only from Scriptures it would still come out that they are necessary for preaching and teaching the word of God. So the Bible alone is not all sufficient for if it is then there would be no need for pastors and teachers, just the individual Christian and his Bible right?

The Bible never mentions "Tradition" as a source of authoritative teachings to help explain the meaning of difficult passages.

R4. On the contrary, St. Paul wrote: “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). “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor 11:2). St Peter warns us that false prophets have distorted Paul’s letters and the rest of Scriptures using their private interpretation (2 Ped 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20). What did the apostles instruct their followers so as not to be deceived by false teachers who distorted Scriptures? They were commanded to stand firm and hold fast, to conduct oneself according to, and to maintain the traditions which the apostles taught. Thus Tradition puts us in the right direction in understanding the difficult passages in Scriptures.

The Bereans for example did not refer to "Tradition" but to Scripture when they wanted to see if Paul's teaching was really so.

R4. The Bereans were new converts to the faith that is why Paul refers them to the Old Testament scriptures and not to apostolic traditions for the simple reason that they still has to be instructed about it. Once they are adequately instructed on the teachings and practices of the Apostles then the command of Paul to abide by their traditions (2 Thes 2:15, 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2,16) must apply necessarily to them so that they will not be deceived by false prophets as well.

The early church teachings were to be received in so far as it taught and expounded in Scripture.

R4. This argument is contrary to the facts and therefore is not valid. The apostles settled the controversy on whether the Gentile converts were to be circumcised and be subject to the other requirements of the Mosaic Law not by appeal to Scriptures but by exercising the authority of binding and loosing which Jesus gave them (Act 15, Mat 18:17). Had they abide by Scriptures alone they would have decided in favor of the Judaizers since in the Old Testament it says the circumcision was to be a perpetual covenant between God and his people. Circumcision was no longer binding in the Christian church not because it is written in the Book of Acts but because the apostles said so. The written account of what occurred during the Jerusalem Council came much later.

But nowhere are we taught in the Bible that they are to be taken with equal sentiment as Scripture.

R4. On the contrary, tradition is to be held as Scripture as St Paul clearly says (2 Thes 2:15, 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2). Both the written and the unwritten word of God must necessarily be accepted with equal devotion and reverence.

So with your points on material and formal sufficiency and the inclusion of Tradition, are you asserting then that since Paul did not talk about the immaculate conception, assumption and papal infallibility to the Thessalonians when he wrote to them, that he instead orally taught them about these doctrines? Please enlighten me.

R4. Allow me to deal with a doctrine which I think we hold in common. Catholics and most Christian denominations profess belief in the Trinity. Today, we take it for granted when we say that in one God there are three divine persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; that the three divine persons subsist in one divine nature; that we profess plurality of persons but unity in essence. Yet this profession of faith is not contained in the letter of Scriptures. Scriptures does not use the word Trinity to describe God. It took the Church centuries before she officially defined the doctrine of the Trinity through the Council of Nicea 325 AD and the Council of Constantinople 381 AD. In defining the doctrine of the Trinity, the Church did not invent the doctrine. Her definition was occasioned by Trinitarian heresies which surfaced during those times. The heretics based their teachings on certain passages in Scriptures. The Church drawing from Scriptures and from her Living Faith Tradition and exercising her God-given authority and mandate from Jesus to teach all men (Mat 28:19) set forth the true doctrine. Thus for Catholics the case is closed. This is a similar case regarding the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, assumption, and papal infallibility although the official definition of these doctrines came centuries later. These Catholic doctrines you mentioned can be implicitly drawn from the Bible (just as the Church in defining the doctrine of the Trinity also used Scriptures) and is well attested in the writings of the early Church fathers as to their essential meaning. Furthermore, no passage in Scriptures rightly understood would contradict these doctrines.

R3. I think an explanation on what we mean by Tradition is in order. When the Catholic Church says that Scripture and Tradition are both sources of God’s revelation, we are speaking about the living Sacred Faith Tradition of Apostles that existed long before any New Testament book was written and centuries before the New Testament canon was decided upon. CCC par 83 explains: The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

I appreciate the explanation. I have read your explanation over and over, but your explanation still does not explain what Tradition really is.

R4. Let me try to simplify the definition of Tradition. By Tradition (which simply means something handed over, passed on, transmitted from one person or group to another) we understand all the truths of the entire Divine Revelation entrusted by Christ to the Apostles, and through them, to the Church to be transmitted from generation to generation. Thus in its broader meaning Tradition includes Scriptures but is not limited to it. In its narrower meaning this pertains to the teachings and practices of the apostles which are not written or which are not explicit in Scriptures.

If I take your word that "the Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching", then we can find this inerrant Tradition only in the pages of Scripture today.

R4. Your assertion that we can find this inerrant Tradition only in the pages of Scripture is not taught in Scripture. I have cited to you verses from Scriptures where the sacred writers explicitly declared that they did not intend to put everything they teach in writing. “Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 1:12). “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face (3 John 1:13). The apostles, either individually or collectively, never intended to write a compendium of Christian doctrine. Again when dealing with these passages you are not taking them at face value but you are trying to interpret them to fit Sola Scriptura.

I do not deny that the teaching of the Apostles and the word of God came in written and spoken form. The problem is that the only reliable form we can trust today is the written form -- the Bible. The spoken form will have died away or will have been transmitted erroneously already.

R4. Not if those oral teachings are also part of God’s revelation to man and therefore divinely guaranteed as to their preservation. “My spirit which is upon you and my words that I have put into your mouth shall never leave your mouth, nor the mouths of your children Nor the mouths of your children's children from now on and forever, says the LORD” (Isaiah 59:21). The canon of Bible cannot be found within the Bible but rest of the testimony of the Living Faith Tradition of the Church. Also, before the Scripture (both Old and New Testament) was written they were handed down orally within the community of God’s people and it is because these writings reflect the faith of the community that they were accepted as part of the canon. If those oral traditions were reliable prior to and were used as the basis for writing Scripture why would they suddenly be unreliable after writing Scripture?

They were very careful to write their teachings down in letters to various churches and Christians. These letters were circulated in the early church and have found their final resting place in the pages of our Bibles today. It is not accurate to say that the early Christians did not have the New Testament. The early church already had the New Testament Scripture, just not in the bound Bible form that we have today.

R4. Christ ascended to heaven in 33 AD. The first book of the NT was written around the year 54 AD. Thus it is quite accurate to say that the early Christians did not have the NT. The last book of the NT was written around 100 AD. Thus the entire Christian community did not possess a complete set of NT writings until 100 AD. Due to difficulty in reproducing copies of the original writings the apostolic epistles were usually confined to those local churches to which the letters were addressed. Thus many Christians died and became saints even without being able to read most of the NT writings. From the time of the completion of the NT writings up to the fourth century various Christian churches did not have a uniform listing of inspired books. It is true that there were writings like the 4 Gospel accounts which were accepted universally but there were also writings whose inspiration were questioned such as James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, Hebrews, and the Apocalypse. Prior to the invention of the printing press in 1456 AD very few people would have recourse to a copy of Scriptures. From this historical perspective, it is unthinkable for the early Christians to hold on to Sola Scriptura. If it was not valid before then it would not be valid now since we should have the same rule of faith. In fact, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was a thing unheard of in the early centuries of Christianity. The early Fathers vouched for the inspiration of certain books but never the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Can you please tell me what Rome's infallible definition of Tradition is? And can you please show me where I can find them and if you have actually seen them.

R4. The Church’s official definition of what Tradition is and what it is not is given in CCC par 83 which I have already quoted in my previous response. Tradition is reflected in the writings of the early Church fathers, in the Church’s liturgical life, in her book of prayers, and finally in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is a compendium of what the Church teaches. Through her Tradition, the Church hands to us not only what she has received from Jesus through the Apostles but also her understanding on the truths that has been received thus there is a growth in understanding under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Considering this, Catholic Tradition is not something static but is dynamic.

I would agree with you on the concern of how to fulfill this commission if the apostles were all already dead. God, in His infinite wisdom and power, has already made provisions for this. That is why we have today with us the writings of Jesus and the Apostles in the pages of Scripture, to be preserved for all time even though Heaven and Earth will pass away (Mat 24:35).

R4. I can partly agree with you that God has preserved to us His revelation in the pages of Scripture in a more permanent way. God, in His infinite wisdom and power, has also established a living teaching authority in order to guide us to the sure knowledge of the truth so that we will not be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine devised by men (Eph 4:14) and so that we will not be like them who are always seeking but never attaining to the knowledge of truth. Jesus established His Church not only to teach us (Mat 28:19) but also to govern His flock and feed them with the purity of the gospel (John 21:15-17) untainted by fallible human interpretations and to convey to us spiritual life in her sacraments: baptism, confirmation, confession, Eucharist, etc. (Mark 16:15-16, Acts 8:15-17, John 20:22-23, John 6:54-58, etc).

You are a teacher in USC. You teach CE using a reference book. You teach your students and they in turn teach others if they become teachers. Does that mean the succeeding generations become your successors? Successor means somebody who takes the place of someone else when that person has left. I suspect that those coming after you would still be teachers like you, not your successors, for they and you are doing your jobs. The problem with looking for successors to the apostle is that the Bible never mentions any. The apostles never appointed any. Yes, you have your logical reasoning, but still, the Bible does not mention any. I would ask that you at least present some Scriptures directly supporting your claim of succession.

R4. I do appreciate your analogy but let me share some insights. Anybody reading books in civil engineering does not make him outrightly a civil engineer. The State has prescribed by law that anybody who wants to become a civil engineer has to undergo a five-year training program to be given by institutions authorized by law. After that the candidate is required to pass the licensure exam and solemnly profess (take oath) before the professional organization. The candidate desiring to become a civil engineer is evaluated and commissioned by those who are ahead of him in the profession. My point is that no individual can claim for himself the rights of the profession. He is authorized or “sent” by a visible institution through a visible “transmission” of authority. In professional practice we call those who came before us as our “predecessors” and of course those who would come after us as our “successors.” The term “successor” is especially applicable when we are speaking of an “office.” The office is usually a permanent institution i.e., in government the office of mayor, governor, commissioner, or president. When the one holding the office in no longer capable of exercising the duties of his office (i.e., through departure, sickness, death) another authorized person will take his place. Furthermore, the one who assumes the office is clothed with the same authority proper to the office. Through this the succession is continued. In a similar manner, in the Church of Christ, the teaching office of the apostles were carried on by their successors i.e., bishops. As the Apostles entrusted their teaching office to others they also empowered them with their own teaching authority. Just as the Apostles transmitted what they received directly from Christ, their successors were to transmit in its entirety what they have received from the apostles without addition or subtraction. The fact that the Apostles appointed men to succeed them in their teaching office is well attested in Scriptures as I have cited in my previous response.

I think you need to understand apostolic teaching and authority. Christ taught the apostles. The church today teaches from what the apostles were taught.

R4. Right. But not all of what Jesus and the apostles did and taught were written down in the NT writings (John 21:25, 2 John 1:12, 3 John 1:13). That is why St Paul instructed the early Christians to hold fast not only to their letters but also to those that they transmitted orally (2 Thes 2:15).

The church today does not have any teaching authority and authenticity apart from Scriptures.

R4. The Church did not derive her teaching authority from Scriptures but from Jesus himself who founded His Church (Mat 16:18-19) and who commissioned her to teach all nations (Mat 28:19-20). Since the Church has authority from Christ to teach all that He has revealed then all men should submit to her judgment including her authentic interpretation of Scripture. Apart from the testimony of Catholic Tradition, how do you know which books belong to the canon of the Bible using the Bible alone? Could you point to me which Church today teaches all that the Apostles taught? But please don’t tell me to just pick any Church that teaches the Bible for numerous bible-based churches are teaching contradictory doctrines. We often hear bible preachers say to their congregation and in front of television cameras one of the most abused phrase “The Bible says…” when in fact they are only teaching based on their own peculiar interpretation of Scripture.

We are His disciples only so far as we continue in His word (John 8:31).

R4. I would agree to your quotation of John 8:31 that we are His disciples only so far as we continue in His word. But God’s word even in Scripture has to be authentically interpreted to us before we can abide in it. A Protestant pastor was once asked this question on authentic interpretation. After some thought, he replied that we should just swallow the fish (right doctrine) but spit the bones (erroneous doctrine). In the meantime, a lot of people are suffocating from the bones. If the pastors themselves are not infallibly sure that they are giving their flock the right interpretation of Scripture, what right do they have in teaching their flock?

The church can only teach Scripture.

R4. There is no Bible verse that says this and therefore is self-refuting. If there is such a verse I will be glad if it is brought to my attention. The early Christians remained steadfast in the doctrine of the Apostles (Acts 2:42) prior to the writing of any NT book. When did the principle of Sola Scriptura become operative? And please cite a verse to support your answer since you say that any teaching should be based in Scripture.

Paul describes the church of God as being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Himself being the cornerstone (Eph 2:20).

R4. This is a strong statement about the nature of the Church. Being thus, the Church can never depart from the apostles’ teachings. It can never crumble into heresy or apostasy because Christ himself is its cornerstone.

Yes, Jesus knew the apostles were mortal and would die. That is why His teaching had to be written down in Scripture.

R4. Yes, Jesus knew the apostles were mortal and would die. And Jesus knew that men would appear who would pervert the word of God using their own private judgment. That is why God not only cause His word to be written down but He also established an authoritative guardian and interpreter of His word. This is what St Paul in Scripture affirms: “The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

But however both of us understand the term "successor", I would like to point out there is already Someone whom the Lord Jesus Christ has explicitly mentioned would succeed Him, and that person is the Holy Spirit. “Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you” (John 16:7). "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me” (John 15:26). "These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (John 14:25-26). Anybody who lays claim to this function is usurping the Holy Spirit's function, as the Roman Pope is doing today.

R4. The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Comforter, Advocate, Paraclete, and Helper. I still have to find an English translation that uses the word “successor” in the verses you cited. If however by referring to the Holy Spirit as “successor” you mean that he will continue the work which Jesus has started then I think it is all right. The teaching authority of the Church does not supplant the Holy Spirit but is actually the visible manifestation of the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the causal principle of the Church’s infallibility. The Church is infallible because Jesus has promised the Holy Spirit to abide with His Church forever and guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13).

R3. In the Acts of the Apostles we see them ordaining men for the ministry: “Then, completing their fasting and prayer, they laid hands on them and sent them off” (Acts 13:3). St. Paul instructs Timothy: “And what you (2nd generation) heard from me (1st generation) through many witnesses entrust to faithful people (3rd generation) who will have the ability to teach others (4th generation) as well” (2 Timothy 2:2). We see that Paul made provisions for at least 4 generations of teachers. This they did through the imposition of the hands: “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate” (1 Tim 4:14). “Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching… Do not lay hands too readily on anyone” (1 Tim 5:17, 22). He also told Titus: “For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you” (Titus 1:5). He also told Timothy to appoint Bishops: “This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task” (1 Tim 3:1). “Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers” (Acts 20:28). “Paul and Timothy, slaves of Christ Jesus, to all the holy ones in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the overseers and ministers” (Philippians 1:1). “For a bishop as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain” (Titus 1:7). The New American Bible Commentary says: Overseers: the Greek term episkopos literally means "one who oversees" or "one who supervises," but since the second century it has come to designate the "bishop," the official who heads a local church. I think I have given enough bible passages which demonstrate that the apostles appointed successors who will carry on their apostolic mission and this they did by a visible sign of imposition of the hands.

I appreciate the verses you have cited but I have to tell you that they do not demonstrate that the apostles appointed successors, or people who would take their place. These are real offices or functions which God has instructed as part of the building up of His church. He has given us pastors and teachers. He has given us presbyters or elders to oversee the local churches, also bishops and deacons. But I think you will have to see the difference between these offices and that of a successor. These verses do not refer to successors. As I have cited earlier, the Lord Jesus Christ has already assigned this position to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is Christ's successor or Christ's Vicar on Earth. In the Roman Catholic Church, this position is usurped by the Pope, the position that Christ gave to the Holy Spirit.

R4. These men whom the apostles appointed by the imposition of hands were also bestowed the power to ordain others (1 Tim 4:14, 5:22, Titus 1:5), they were given the authority to teach others (2 Tim 2:2) and continue what the apostles had started (Titus 1:5), they have the power to instruct, rebuke and command obedience (1 Tim 4:11, Heb 13:17). These prerogatives reside primarily in the bishop as God’s steward and shepherd of the flock (1 Tim 3:1, Acts 20:28, Titus 1:7). Because of these grave responsibilities a very high moral qualification is set for those who will be appointed to this office (1 Tim 5:22, 1 Tim 3:1, Titus 1:7). Now it is quite clear that the apostles appointed men who would continue their apostolic ministry of teaching and governing the flock. All these are contained in the word successor. If you have a different connotation for the word “successor” it certainly is not limited as to exclude the ones I have mentioned.

I noticed your attempt to equate offices with functions thereby stripping it with any connotation of authority. Offices are by their nature more permanent and given a certain amount of authority whereas functions do not necessarily imply authority and are more or less transitory in nature. This is clear when we consider that in our civil society our constitution provides for the offices of mayor, governor, and President of the Republic. As long as the constitution is not amended these offices are permanent. Furthermore, these offices are given the commensurate authority for it to discharge its functions. If this is true of human institutions how much more for the Church which is a divine institution. However, the difference is that since our Constitution and Charter were drafted by mere men they can be changed and amended. On the other hand, the Church is a divine institution and therefore its Constitution cannot be subject to change. Jesus himself instituted certain offices which are essential to the unity and existence of the Church. Now offices are occupied by mortal men that is why when they are gone others would succeed in their place. Thus, the existence of an office would naturally imply a successor. In the early Church, the office of the apostle was equivalent to that of a bishop. In Acts 125: Peter says: “Regarding the bishopric of Judas, let another take (KJV).”

The fact of “apostolic succession,” seen clearly in Scripture and in the early Church, shows that although later generation of bishops were not “Apostles” in the sense that we use the term to refer exclusively to the original Twelve, nonetheless they have received through their Episcopal ordination apostolic authority. Although you might not give so much weight to the testimony of the early Church Fathers on apostolic succession allow me to quote from their writings. St Ireneaus, a student of St. Polycarp, who himself knew the Apostle John wrote in 180 AD, “Those who wish to discern the truth may observe the apostolic tradition manifest in every church throughout the world. We can enumerate those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the Apostles and their successors down to our day… to whom they handed over their own office of authority” (Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church, 96-97). St. Clement, himself a successor of St. Peter, wrote as early as the year 90 AD, “The Apostles received the gospel from the Lord Jesus Christ… Christ, then, is from God, and the Apostles from Christ… [The Apostles] appointed their first fruits (having proved them by the Spirit) to be bishops and deacons… Our Apostles knew also, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the dignity of the bishop’s office. For this reason… they appointed the aforesaid, and after a time made provision that, on their death, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Ibid, 89).

I apologize for the barrage of questions. I got carried away. :-) I understand that during the time of the Apostles, their disciples received both written and oral instructions. They had the benefit of having the living Apostles among them to teach them. But that is something we do not have today.

R4. If the Church while She was yet in her infancy stage needed living Apostles with the teaching authority from Jesus, ought it not then consistent with divine wisdom to provide the Church with the same living teaching authority today considering the fact the Jesus knew that many false prophets will come to subvert the Gospel? Do we not need also to arrive at the same certitude of faith as the early Christians about the true import of the apostolic writings? It is true that we do not have the Apostles today but before they left this world they have appointed men to succeed them in their teaching ministry and handed to them their own teaching authority. I would encourage you to read carefully the passages I have quoted above and the witness from early Christian writers.

That is why I tried to ask you, where can you find this oral tradition that you speak of today and if so, how can you verify that anyone who claims to have this oral tradition today is true?

R4. This is a good question. Just as the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit was able to discern which books belong to the canon of Scripture She will also be able to discern authentic apostolic traditions from man-made traditions. Church Tradition is reflected in the writings of the early Church fathers, in the official pronouncement of various Popes and Ecumenical Councils, in the Church’s liturgical life, in her book of prayers, and in her official catechism.

There is also no mention that these other modes of transmission that existed during the apostolic era were to be complementary to Scripture. Yes, they existed. But there is no mention that they were to complement Scripture. You could at least cite a verse stating such teaching.

R4. On the contrary St Paul wrote “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). The fact that St Paul exhorts the early Christians to hold fast to tradition both written and oral shows that they complement one another. St John wrote: “Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 1:12). “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face (3 John 1:13). The fact the John desired to speak and to talk face to face shows that he wanted to complement orally what he wrote in brief.

R3. I would like to respond to your question on the reliability of Tradition. The New Testament Canon was not finally settled until about 300 years after the last apostle died. Certain books of the NT, such as the synoptic gospels, we can show to be reliable historical accounts of Jesus’ life, but there were a number of NT books (e.g., Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation) whose authorship and canonical status were debated in their favor and included in the canon of inspired books. It was the Living Tradition of the Church which guided her in discerning the inspired writings. There is no way to show from within Scripture itself exactly what the books of the Bible should be. The reliability of transmission of Sacred Tradition rests in the authority of Jesus who promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Mat 16:18). In other words, the teachings of the Church are protected from error by Christ. The Bible points to us that Christ founded a Church (not churches) which he commissioned to teach all man in his name. If you think that the Catholic Church is not that Church but still you are under obligation to seek out which among the conflicting denominations that exist today is the true church of Christ.

This is not true. The early church already had the books of the NT in circulation and it was with the consensus of many early local churches that the canonical books were recognized. They were later collected into one NT book. Therefore no single church can claim to be the one to do this as you are now claiming. An "infallible" declaration of the canon of Scripture some 1500 after the apostolic era did not determine the canon of the New Testament Scripture.

R4. You are speaking about consensus of many early local churches. For sure these local churches are not one of the conflicting protestant denominations that exist today. If you examine your historical roots you will find that it is not even 500 years deep. If there ever was historical Christianity it never was Protestantism. That being the case you can either pick the Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox churches (which does not profess sola scriptura either) or the heretical sects which the Church condemned and are no longer in existence today.

Let me provide additional information on the formation of the NT canon. First, it should be admitted that there is no “inspired” Table of Contents of Scriptures. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles left the early Christians a list of the canonical writings. Thus the canon of Scriptures cannot be the product of applying the principle of Sola Scriptura for it is the Bible itself that is in question. There has to be an outside authority that would testify to the fact of inspiration and apostolic origin. The earliest list we have is that of the Muratorian fragment which gives books that were accepted in Rome about the year 200 AD. No mention is made of Hebrews, 1 & 2 Peter, 3 John, and James. It may be seen that James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Jude were not accepted immediately, while Hebrews and Apocalypse encountered some opposition in the West and East respectively. We find a complete listing during the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, and in Italy by the letter of Innocent I to Exsuperius. Although the Latin Church canon was fixed in the fifth century we find that doubts were raised in some quarters respecting apostolic origin of many NT writings. In the 16th century the question was raised once more by Erasmus (1538) and Cajetan (1534). Luther doubted the inspiration of James and the Apocalypse and wanted them removed from the Bible. In reaction to the Protestant reformation headed by Luther et. al. who questioned centuries old doctrines of Christianity including the NT canon, the Catholic Church through the Council of Trent in 1546 defined both Old and New Testament canons thereby settling once and for all the issue about the canon, at least for Catholics. Thus it was under the light of the Living Faith Tradition of the Catholic Church and under the guidance of the Magisterium that we have infallible certainty to the fact of inspiration. The official declaration made by the Church did not make the writings inspired but it was necessary so that the people of God would know with infallible certainty which books were inspired. For your part, since you reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, by whose authority do you accept the canonicity of the 27 books of the New Testament? Appealing to consensus of early local churches does not save you from your dilemma for by then you would be relying on extra-biblical testimony. And what if I show to you that there was a consensus of early local churches to many catholic doctrines that you reject, would you reconsider your position? On the other hand, could you show me that there was indeed a consensus of early local churches on Sola Scriptura?

I presented you with verses commanding us to go to Scripture.

R4. The verses you cited about Scripture speaks about its inspiration but never in support of Sola Scriptura.

Could you at least show me a few verses commanding the people of God to seek out this church as our source for infallible teaching and interpretation and that it was granted infallible teaching authority.

R4. Jesus founded a Church (not churches) regarding which He solemnly promised that even the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it (Mat 16:18) endowed with authority to bind and to loose (Mat 16:19, Mat 18:17) whom He commissioned to teach all men (Mat 28:19-20) and whom St Paul refer to as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim 3:15). Jesus commanded us to listen and obey his Church (Luke 10:16) at the same time warning those who would not believe with extreme penalty (Mar 16:16). From these verses it is clear that the Church of Christ cannot teach error and it behooves every person who knows that Jesus founded a Church to seek it out and embrace it.

So Ramon, are you then claiming that that the Roman Catholic Church has never made a single error in the history of its existence?

R4. The Church herself has defined the conditions for infallible pronouncement and these are: 1) It is the Pope in exercise of his authority as the supreme shepherd of the whole Church or the Pope and the bishops in communion with him who teaches, 2) The teaching is regarding the content of divine revelation: on matter of faith and morals, and 3) The teaching is to be accepted by all the faithful spread throughout the world. Under the above conditions it is impossible for the Church to teach error. If the Catholic Church at one time has formally taught heresy either through her popes or an Ecumenical Council with all the conditions above for an infallible pronouncement met then she would not be the Church of Christ but a counterfeit church.

To those who directly heard his oral teaching and had tested them from Scripture as the Bereans did, they would have no reason to stop adhering to Paul's oral teachings. But we today do not have Paul's oral teachings anymore with us and we do not have anyone who directly heard his oral teachings.

R4. Using the same line of reasoning, since we do not have Matthew to testify today that he actually wrote a gospel and that the gospel which we attribute to him is exactly the same gospel without alterations as it left his hands, how would you know that what you are reading is really his writings? It is true that we do not have Paul today but that does not mean we do not have anyone who can testify to apostolic traditions. If fact, we do. We have the early Church fathers and they are a living witness to the faith of the early Church in their writings. They testified that the early Christians in obedience to the exhortation of St Paul to “hold fast to the traditions” did in fact faithfully preserve and abide by those same traditions.

Pope Clement I in AD 80 wrote: “Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults” (Letter to the Corinthians 11). A famous Church historian Eusebius wrote: “Papias (AD 120), who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]… [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39 AD 312). I could cite to you more quotations from the early Church fathers like Irenaus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Salamis, Augustine, John Chrysostom, etc. These men of outstanding stature in early Christianity all attest to the fact of apostolic tradition and apostolic succession.

Bercot, an Evangelical Protestant, argued convincingly that it’s arrogance to reject interpretations of the Fathers in favor of our own present-day conjecturing. Men willing to give their lives for the teachings of the apostles weren’t likely to corrupt them knowingly. Bercot offers this challenge: “Your quest is to find out how the primitive Church in general understood the New Testament. In other words, what was the ‘course of performance’ of the first generations of Christians? After you have read enough of their works to have a good feel for their culture, mindset, and overall Christian beliefs, go back and re-read the New Testament. Read it through their pattern of thinking. See what new things you will discover. When you’re through, you’re free to go back and pick up all your former beliefs, if you like. But perhaps you never will” (Bercot, Common Sense, 165-166).

We have however his teaching written down for our benefit and for which Paul teaches is sufficient to fully equip the man of God for every good work. What reason would there be to find something else such as an oral tradition that is not tested according to Scripture?

R4. Granted that any teaching should be in harmony and be tested from Scripture. But who is to say that this interpretation is wrong and that one is correct? Who is the final judge? With no infallible teaching authority to decide Christian doctrine needs always to be redefined according to one’s interpretation of the Bible.

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit when He was gone. That we can count on.

R4. I am sure that we can count on the promised of Jesus to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truths and to abide with her forever (John 14:16, 26, 16:13). This is precisely the fundamental premise on the Church’s infallibility. You suppose the Holy Spirit from time to time abandons the Church and allows her to wallow in error. Is that what you are counting on?

He designated the Holy Spirit as his Successor and Vicar on Earth.

R4. Every Christian denomination claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of the Bible. In Acts 8:27-31 we read of a Eunuch who was reading Isaiah. The Holy Spirit (Invisible teacher) brought Philip (visible teacher) to instruct the Eunuch. Thus, the Holy Spirit was promised by Jesus to the Church not that each member might interpret the Bible for himself using private judgment but to the leaders (Bishops) that they will be able to expound correctly God’s word to their hearers. The Holy Spirit is also operative among the hearers by giving them the grace to assent to the divine truths presented for their belief.

Jesus, however, did not designate infallible teachers and interpreters. Neither did the apostles designate successors. Neither does the Bible say that His church needed infallible guidance from any person. The Bible does not teach this and you will need to present direct biblical support if you want to assert this.

R4. I have already responded to these in the previous paragraphs.

What Jesus Christ and the Apostles gave us is the infallible Word of God as revealed to us in the pages of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17), and the Holy Spirit to guide us (John 16:7).

R4. To this we may also add that Jesus gave us the Church the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

He also gave the church pastors and teachers to help teach and expound Scripture (Eph 4:11).

R4. If what you have are only fallible pastors and teachers then they might actually be counter productive in attaining truth for they might influence their hearers with their erroneous interpretations or confuse their hearers because of their varying interpretations. Eph 4:11 would imply at least two things both of which are fatal to sola scriptura. 1) That the Bible is not clear enough in matters of salvation and therefore the need for church pastors and teachers to help teach and expound Scripture, 2) Since according to your premise these “pastors and teachers” either individually or collectively are fallible in their official pronouncements it would be a case of the blind leading the blind.

The only source of infallible guidance you can find today is from the pages of Scripture.

R4. The Bible does not teach this. On the contrary, the Bible mentions, “the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). In theory, Protestants deny infallibility but in practice they seem to be absolutely certain of their interpretation of Scripture. I know of very few protestant pastors who admitted that what they at one time hold to be certain was actually erroneous and these few converted to Catholicism.

No man can claim this. No apostle even claimed to be an infallible teacher and interpreter. Please pause and think for a moment --- not even Paul the apostle claimed to be an infallible teacher and interpreter. Not John. Certainly not Peter. Dare we today designate some pope and some council to be infallible interpreters and teachers?

R4. Jesus himself never categorically claimed, “I am infallible.” So did Peter, Paul and the rest of the apostles. But in teaching and expounding the truth of revelation they were in fact infallible. Actually, the apostles received something more than the gift of infallibility (which works negatively i.e., being preserved from teaching formal heresy). They received from the Holy Spirit the gift of inspiration (to teach positively the content of divine revelation). The apostles were sure about their roles as heralds of truth and they preached the Gospel with authority as from God. In the first Council of Jerusalem they resolve the controversy which plagued the early church with divine authority, “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us” (Acts 15:28). St Paul wrote: “And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God” (1 Thes 2:13). The apostles may not always be in accord with the spirit of the Gospel in their conduct but in their mission of preaching the truth of divine revelation they were always given special assistance by the Holy Spirit so that what they convey either orally or in their writings was preserved from error. How could St Paul urge the early Christians to “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) if he was not infallibly certain that what they were teaching was nothing but the truth?

The writer to the Hebrews tells how to treat these men who delivered to us the word of God. "Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith (emphasis mine) (Heb 13:7). We are not told to run to them as the infallible teachers and interpreters of God's word.

R4. The fact that in Heb 13:7 we are told to imitate the faith of those who delivered to us the word of God does mean that we cannot believe them to be infallible teachers and interpreter of God’s word. The very passage you quoted mentions those who “led you” and “spoke the word of God to you” thus the need for a living teacher of God’s word. In Heb 13:17 we are commanded: “Obey your leaders and defer to them.” Had Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII, et al. followed this explicit command in Scripture we would have been free of the many dissension and division which plagued Christianity today.

R3. By the way, I did not say that John’s writings already contained all that was necessary for our salvation. What I said is that IF John meant according to your interpretation (which I disagree) then this will prove too much (thus proves nothing): That only John’s writings are necessary for salvation (which I think you and I will disagree). The apostle John in his Epistle wrote: “Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 1:12). “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face (3 John 1:13). Considering this statement of St. John, I am inclined to believe that the Bible does not contain everything that the Apostles intended to teach. If you argue that John 20:31 as ultimately God’s word, then using the same line of reasoning 2 John 1:12, 3 John 1:13 are not only John’s word but ultimately God’s word as well and God is telling us that clearly that He did not intend to put everything in writing. How is that?

I agree with you that the Bible does not contain everything that the Apostles taught.

R4. By this admission, I think we are coming to the best part. Remember that Jesus intended all his teachings to be passed down to all nations at all times (Mat 28:19-20).

This is what John said. John and the rest of the New Testament writers obviously could not and did not try to put everything into writing,

R4. Now we have finally come to the best part. Finally, you are reading the passage in their plain and simple meaning. You certainly have a way of expressing in a more forceful language that which I have tried hammering in this lengthy discussion. Actually based on the clarity of the texts (2 John 1:12, 3 John 1:13, John 21:25) there would be no other way. If indeed the NT writers could not and did not try to put everything into writing then the next step would be to inquire as to what mode of transmission did they chose to convey what they did not put into writing. Of course, the answer to this is the unwritten form. In fact, this is the mode of transmission chosen by the majority of the apostles. Now could the majority of the apostles, and even those who chose to write a portion of what they taught and orally conveyed most others, have lacked the foresight to see that the unwritten tradition would be changed and be forgotten in the course of time as you supposed? The fact that they chose to convey a host of other teachings in unwritten form shows that the apostles trust the reliability of unwritten tradition. Of course, they did not think that this was to be carried out in a humanly ordinary way but by the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus who will put to remembrance everything which Jesus taught and who will guide the Church into all truths (John 14:16,26, 16:13). Most of the apostles were not busy writing pages of inspired writings but they went about preaching the word of God, establishing local churches, and ordaining men who will take their place after they are gone as the Lord commanded. On the other hand, if we grant your premise that only the written form was preserved for us today then that would mean that not everything which Jesus taught, and not everything which the apostles taught and practiced was handed down to the next generation of Christians. This would mean that the apostles have failed miserably in their mission to teach everything to all nations at all times as the Lord himself has commanded them (Mat 28:19-20). The failure could even be blamed on Jesus himself for in the Gospel accounts he never did instruct his apostles to write anything. Can any true believer in good faith hold to sola scriptura if it leads to such absurdities?

but what they did put into writing is sufficiently clear for our salvation and to thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work. There is no conflict.

R4. The fact that 2 Tim 3:15-17 says 1) that all scriptures is inspired, 2) that it is useful or profitable, 3) that it equips the man of God for every good work does not mean that it is sufficiently clear in matters of salvation or that it should be our only guide for salvation. When even bible scholars disagree on the interpretation of a lot of biblical passages that should be enough reason to abandon the premise that the Bible is clear enough. Once again, an argument that is contrary to the facts is not valid.

It is true that the word of God came to the early church both in written and oral form, for they had the apostles with them. But today, we can only have the written form as the reliable inerrant form.

R4. Actually, the Muslims went a step farther to deny even the reliability of the written form. They alleged that the early Christians have forged and plagiarized the Gospels and other NT writings. I think the Muslims are far more consistent in their reasoning than most Protestants. The Muslims subscribe to the total apostasy theory and with no Church to guard the written word of God they consistently advocate the corruption by the heretics of the written word as well. On the other hand, Protestants who subscribe to the total apostasy theory (the same as the Muslims) and with no visible church responsible for preserving the written word inconsistently advocate the miraculous preservation and compilation of the sacred text. For Catholics, the Church founded by Christ could not and did not apostasize and it was because of her watchful eyes and vigilance that we today have the Bible untouched by the hands of the infidels and heretics. This position meets both the Muslim and Protestant objections

Only Scripture was to be the authority and infallible rule of faith, nothing else.

R4. This is a very bold assertion that lacks Scriptural proof. Sola Scriptura was not valid during those times prior to the writing of the New Testament. It was not valid during the time of the Apostles when the word of God was still in the process of being written down. It is a self-refuting proposition as no Bible verse says so. It is inconsistent due to the fact that it denies the reliability of tradition and the authority of the Church that defined the canon. It is illogical since using sola scriptura one can never be infallibly certain that he has already arrived at the correct interpretation. It is contradictory since while it says that the Bible is clear enough yet it has resulted into several conflicting interpretations and denominations. In fact Sola Scriptura was a thing unheard of in the earliest days of Christianity until Protestantism has dogmatized it in the 15th century.

Why then go off and (fallibly) search for these oral teachings when you have their infallible written teachings preserved infallibly by the Holy Spirit in the pages of the Bible?

R4. Because the Bible teaches us that Christ founded a Church (Mat 16:18) whom he commanded all men to hear and obey (Mat 18:17, Luke 10:16) which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). The Church and the Bible teaches us to accept not only those which are written but also those which the apostles handed orally (2 Thes 2:15, 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2, 11:16). Also, if tradition is reliable enough in its testimony on the biblical canon then there is no reason why it would be unreliable on other things to which it testifies.

R3. I’m glad that you agree that there are areas where the Bible is not clear. And I fully appreciate your advice that we ought to spend more time studying it ourselves or with the help of more knowledgeable teachers of the Bible. But how do we know with certainty that we have arrived at the correct interpretation of a difficult passage considering that those ‘teachers of the Bible’ are fallible? If your Church and her ministers are not infallible when they interpret Scriptures then they are liable to error for there is no middle ground between being infallible and being liable to error. If they are liable to error then you cannot be sure that what they teach you is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. For all you know their interpretation is a mixture of truth and error.

Logical assumptions, but there is one problem. Jesus and the apostles never commanded us to go and find infallible teachers and interpreters of the Bible. We are commanded however, plainly and simply, to read and obey the word of God.

R4. Jesus in establishing a Church (Mat 16:18) has given to each man the task to hear and obey his Church (Mat 18:17, Luke 10:16, Mark 16:15-16) according to the degree that such knowledge is known to him. If you plainly and simply read and obey the Bible then it will at least lead you to the Church Jesus founded. In rejecting the teaching authority of the Church either you submit to your own private interpretation of Scripture or to someone else’s interpretation. The danger here is when you are deceived into believing that it is what the Bible says when in fact it is actually someone’s fallible interpretation of what the he thinks the Bible says. All the more dangerous here is when that authority is unknown or does not disclose itself and is hiding behind the cloak of God’s word. Remember that Jesus has warned us of wolves in sheep’s clothing and St Paul warns that Satan can turn himself into an angel of light (2 Cor 11:13-15).

This is true for all churches regardless of denomination. No person or church can ever claim to be the infallible interpreter of Scripture, for this claim was not even made by any of the great Apostles.

R4. No apostle categorically claimed: “I am infallible.” Nevertheless, in teaching and expounding the truth of revelation, they were in fact infallible. They did not merely advise the faithful but they taught with divine authority. “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us” (Acts 15:28). St Paul wrote: “And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, that, in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word but, as it truly is, the word of God” (1 Thes 2:13).

Paul even said "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed [Gal 1:8]".

The very passage you cited does not negate but speaks very clearly of their infallible teaching authority. Any teaching has to be in accord with what they teach (Gal 1:8). That is why the early Christians “devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles” (Acts 2:42). However, I think you have a valid point here that needs to be addressed. Why did Paul say “But even if we… should preach to you a gospel contrary to one we preached to you, let him be accursed?” Are we to understand this as Paul considering the possibility of teaching error (contradicting his previous teaching) and thereby a disclaimer to infallibility? If he admits the possibility of teaching heresy then it also opens up the possibility that what he taught previously (and also in other times) could also be in error. Remember that there is no middle ground between being infallible and being liable to error. How could he attach his teaching with anathema if he is not infallibly certain of its divine truth? I think to hold to this notion would be absurd. Is there another possible explanation to Paul’s words without destroying his credibility? I think there is.

Let’s first consider the historical context of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. He had already preached to the Galatians and many of them believed in his oral teachings. However, some Jewish converts insisted that a person must obey the Mosaic Law in order to be a true Christians and thereby sowed disunity among the faithful. His letter was written in order to bring back to the true faith and practice those people who were misled by false teaching. Paul begins by defending his right to be called an apostle of Jesus Christ insisting that this call was not from any human authority but from God. Then he sums up is argument as to what is important for salvation: “what matters is faith that works through love” (Gal 5:6). Thus, we see that in settling the dispute and curving heresy Paul in this instance did not appeal to Scripture but to his authority as an apostle of Christ and his interpretation of the revelation of Christ. The Galatians had already believed in the oral preaching of Paul and in his letter he was reminding them of what he had preached to them. Thus in this strong statement Paul was emphatic that even they did not have the authority to change the content of the gospel against the seducers who wanted to change and distort the gospel. Understood in this light, the passage does actually support the notion of an infallible teaching authority.

He considered it a noble deed when the Bereans tested his teachings and did not accept his teachings simply because he was God's infallible designate. Not even Paul claimed to be an infallible authority.

R4. The Bereans were commended not only because they search Scriptures daily (being Jews, they would have already been doing this all the time) but because they were open minded and listened to the oral preaching of Paul. Nowhere did Paul insinuate that his teachings were to be judged by the Bereans’ private interpretation of Scripture. You are simply reading what is not there in order to accommodate to the notion of Sola Scriptura.

We can only do what the New Testament shows us what we should do -- examine the teachings if they are really according to Scripture. The Bereans went straight to Scripture and did not go off finding an infallible interpreter.

R4. On the contrary, they have already met one in the person of Paul. In the preceding phrase, it says; “They listened to the message with great eagerness.” Paul must have pointed to them the biblical prophecies concerning the Messiah and explained how they were fulfilled in Jesus. It was quite natural for Paul to quote the Old Testament since the Bereans being Jews were conversant with it. They have studied Scripture since childhood but it never occurred to them that the prophecies they were reading find their fulfillment in Jesus. Only after listening to the oral teaching of Paul did they went to Scripture (Old Testament) to verify if what Paul said was true.

If what you are looking for is an infallible teacher and interpreter, you will never find what you are looking for. I would even venture so far as to say that such search is unbiblical.

R4. On the contrary, I have already found the divine institution founded by Christ whom he commissioned to teach all men. By the grace of God, I was born in the bosom of the Church. Through the sacrament of baptism I received the grace of regeneration. By the sacrament of confirmation I received the seal of the Holy Spirit as soldiers of Christ to fight the spiritual battle. In the sacrament of reconciliation I received Jesus forgiveness through his duly authorized representative and by the sacrament of the Eucharist I am constantly nourished by spiritual food. The Church has constantly urged me to imitate the lives of the Saints and have consoled me with the thought that although they are bodily separated from us they can help me in their prayers. She has constantly nourished my soul with the word of God under her constant guidance and powerful intercession. With her divine authority I can attain to the sure knowledge of truth unlike those people who reject her divine authority and set up their right of private interpretation instead who are constantly in doubt and always learning but never attaining to the knowledge of truth. Many Protestants have overlooked the fact that the Church of the Bible had a visible, knowable structure. In those times, if you wanted to join the Church, there was no question about where to find it. Look for the apostles, and the Bishops, presbyters and deacon appointed and ordained by them: there you’d find the Church. On your part, can you trace your current pastor through the line of ordination to the ministry to the Apostles? Why not apply this test of apostolicity to your current church leaders and see where it all started?

R3. I think this dilemma was expressed very well by a former Protestant Minister Marcus Grodi when he wrote: “Every Sunday I would stand in my pulpit and interpret Scripture for my flock, knowing that within a fifteen mile radius of my church there were dozens of other Protestant pastors—all of whom believed that the Bible alone is the sole authority for doctrine and practice—but each was teaching something different from what I was teaching. ‘Is my interpretation of Scripture the right one or not?’ I’d wonder. ‘Maybe one of those other pastor is right, and I’m misleading these people who trust me.” (Surprised by Truth p 38).

That is why it is the responsibility of each believer to go back to Scripture and see if the teachings are according to Scripture (Act 17:11).

R4. What if your interpretation of Scripture is different from your pastor? Are you going to start your own church or are you going to find another church whose pastor happen to have the same interpretation as you have? On the contrary Jesus likened his Church to “one fold under one shepherd” (John 10:16). St Paul speaks about the unity of among believers: “There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5). In his letter to the Corinthians: “I appeal to all of you, my friends, to agree in what you say, so that there will be no divisions among you. Be completely united, with only one thought and only one purpose” (1 Cor 1:10). This mark of unity is sorely lacking within Protestantism.

That is why Paul instructs the Thessalonians to test everything (1 Thess 5:21). That is why John instructs the believers "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1Jn 4:1)" John then gives specific tests, but nowhere do we read that we are to refer to infallible teachers and interpreters. Nowhere do we even read of Paul or John directing us to Peter as the infallible interpreter and teacher of God's word.

R4. On the contrary, the apostle Paul gives us a sure way of testing truth from heresy. “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). “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor 11:2). "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed (Gal 1:8)". “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well” (2 Timothy 2:2). Thus before men invented Sola Scriptura the sure test to orthodoxy has always been the apostolic traditions (both written and oral) as expounded by the apostles and their successors.

Irenaeus, who is a disciple of Polycarp, who himself is a disciple of John wrote: “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 AD 189). Another prolific writer Tertullian wrote: “The apostles founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving from them, that they may become churches… Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, founded by the apostles, from which they all spring. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are proved to be one in unity” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20, AD 200).

Are you saying then that all Roman Catholic priests agree with each other and have the same stand on all issues concerning faith, morals and Christian living? I don't think so. You should not use double standards on Protestant and Roman Catholic preachers.

R4. There is only one Catholic Church spread throughout the world, one Catholic Faith and one Catechism of the Catholic Church for all. Any person claiming to be catholic but rejects one tenet of the faith or teaches something which is contrary to her official teachings ceases to be a catholic. On the practical level the Church exercises maximum tolerance and offers these people a chance to recant their heresy and return to the fold. Under extreme situations when the heresy jeopardizes the salvation of souls, the Church exercises the power of excommunication as she did in the case of Luther, Henry VIII, et al. By this, the unity of the Church is preserved. Just as if one branch is cut off from a tree, the tree does not loose its essential unity but remains to be one. Meanwhile the branch which is severed from the vine withers and dies. Jesus said: “Finally, if he will not listen to the Church, treat him as though he were a pagan or a tax collector” (Mat 18:17). The Catholic Church is one in government: the faithful are subject to their priests, the priests and people to their bishops, and all are subject to the Pope, the center of authority, the bond of apostolic unity. The Catholic Church is one in faith: All her members hear the same doctrine and profess the same faith on penalty of exclusion from her fold. Every member must accept with assent to her teachings on the trinity, incarnation, redemption, and all the profound mysteries of her creed. Here lies the miracle of her unity, that she, while teaching what is hard to believe, while prescribing what is hard to practice, while rejecting all compromise in faith and morals, yet holds her vast following together in humble submission. The Catholic Church is one in worship: Her sacraments and her sacrifice are everywhere the same; she tolerates difference in language and ceremonial, but nothing that affects essentials. The Catholic Church is not only one today but she has been one and the same since time immemorial from the foundation of Christianity. What she teaches and believes today is the same as to what she teaches and believes throughout the centuries. In contrast to her admirable unity, Protestantism has constantly been shifting in their doctrines on faith and morals like a house built on sand.

On the contrary, are we to limit God's power in giving us His written word and presuming that God somehow left some things out and needs orally handed down teaching to complement His written word? He has specifically commanded that we are not to add or subtract from it in Rev 22:19 and Deut 4:2. He has said that it is sufficient to make the man of God completely equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16-17).

R4. God’s power and wisdom is shown by the fact that He not only preserve his written word but also the very institution which Jesus Christ founded here on earth as Jesus promise “even the gates of hell cannot prevail against it” (Mat 16:18). It is true that God has given to us His revealed word in Scriptures. But are we not also bound to show our gratitude to the divine institution that Jesus founded which is the instrument by which God has transmitted to us His written word? The Church has been the guardian and custodian of the Bible for centuries long before Protestantism saw the light of day. It was her children, dedicated solely in the service of the Church and under the vow of celibacy, who painstakingly reproduced copies of the sacred writings within the walls of the monastery centuries before the invention of the printing press. The Catholic Church was responsible for preserving the word of God during those times when barbarians invaded Europe and tried to destroy civilization and consigned the pages of the sacred book to the flames. It was through the various Church councils where the great doctrines, the fundamentals of our Christian faith (Trinity, Incarnation, Divinity of Christ, Redemption, Inspiration of the Bible, Sacraments, etc) had been hammered out in those formative first thousand years of Christian history. In the first centuries after Christ, there had been one faith, and Christianity swept the world like wildfire. Although Protestantism had never converted even one entire pagan nation to Christ, Catholicism had converted whole races; the Slavs, the Irish, the Gauls, the Saxons, the Nordic races, Indians of South America, Africans and I would not fail to mention the Filipinos. While a lot of protestant churches have caved in to the pressures of modernism (divorce, abortion, contraception, same sex marriage, ordination of women, etc) the Catholic Church has remained steadfast in her teachings. She doesn’t bow to shifting human opinion but bids us to subject our human opinions under the obedience of the Gospel.

Let me quote Rev 22:18-19 in full: “I, John, solemnly warn everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: if any add anything to them, God will add to their punishment the plagues described in this book. And if any take anything away from the prophetic words of this book, God will take away from them their share of the fruit of the tree of life and of the Holy City, which are described in this book.” It quite clear that what John referred to as “this book” is the book of revelation and what he warned not to be added or taken away are the prophecies contained in the book of revelation. If by “this book” you intended to mean the Bible then you are not reading John according to what he meant. This is again another example that you are not actually taking the verses at face value, in their plain and simple meaning, but is reinterpreting these verses in an attempt to support the unbiblical doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

How about Deut 4:2, will it support Sola Scriptura? Let me quote starting from verse 1. “Then Moses said to the people, obey all the laws that I am teaching you, and you will live and occupy the land which the Lord, the God of your ancestors, is giving you. Do not add anything to what I command you, and do not take anything away. Obey the commands of the Lord your God that I have given you” (Deut 4:1-2). Evidently, what we have here is Moses speaking and he was addressing the Israelites to obey the Mosaic Law and not to add or take anything away. Since you have quoted this verse are you trying to say that the prescriptions of the Mosaic are still binding on Christians? If by the phrase “not to add… do not take anything away” you mean the Bible apart from Tradition then it very clear that you are not listening to what Moses is saying and are putting words into Moses’ mouth. How many times will you try to avoid the plain and simple meaning of the verse and reinterpret them to support Sola Scriptura?

With regards to 2 Tim 3:15-17 as not supporting Sola Scriptura I think I have already responded to that at length in my previous post and there is no need for further explanation unless you buttress your argument.

How about you Ramon, do you believe all that the Roman Catholic Church has taught all through the centuries and are you in complete submission to all of them?

R4. Since Jesus commanded us to hear his church and I am convinced that the Church Jesus founded is the Catholic Church then I submit to all her teachings. By submitting to the authority of the Catholic Church, I allow Jesus to speak to me through the teaching authority He himself had established. This does not mean that the Catholic Church does our thinking for us, but it does mean that the Church gives us the Truth according to which we can think rightly.

R3. I fully agree with all that you said in the above paragraph about the Bible. But we should also consider the fact that in giving us the Bible, God uses human instruments for conveying to us his word in writing (the apostles and their immediate disciples), for preserving its integrity through the various stages of copying (the scribes), and discerning which books are inspired and for its proper interpretation (the infallible teaching authority of the Church Jesus founded).

I would agree with and certainly appreciate your statements above, except for the part on infallible teaching authority.

R4. When the early church through the Council of Carthage and Hippo finally decided on the New Testament Canon to include only the 27 books, was the church preserved from error or not?

The Bible never mentions anything about an infallible teaching authority.

R4. Jesus taught as one with authority: “He wasn’t like the teachers of the Law; instead, he taught with authority (Mat 7:29). Jesus sent his apostles with the same authority as he was sent by the Father, “As the Father sent me, so I send you” (John 20:21). He gave his apostles the power to bind and to loose, “whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loose in heaven” (Mat 18:18). The apostles exercised this God-given authority in settling disputes in the early Church: “The Holy Spirit and we have agreed not to put any other burden on you besides these necessary rules” (Acts 15:28). Their teaching was to be accepted under pain of anathema: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel that is different from the one we preached to you, may he be condemned to hell” (Gal 1:8). Their teaching office was to continue after they are gone that is why they appointed men to assume their apostolic mission. St. Paul instructs Timothy: “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well” (2 Timothy 2:2). This they did through the imposition of the hands: “Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate” (1 Tim 4:14). The Bishops and priests of the Catholic Church can prove their pedigree that they belong to this society of teachers which can be traced back to the time of the Apostles in the long line of ordination. Can you do the same to your pastors?

Jesus promised the Holy Spirit, but not infallibility.

R4. On the contrary, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit in order to guide the Church in all truths: “When, however, the Spirit comes, who reveals the truth about God, he will lead you into all the truth” (John 16:13). The Church cannot contradict her own teachings otherwise she would loose her credibility as witness of Jesus to the world. Thus the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth naturally implies infallibility for the contrary position would be unthinkable, absurd, and if I may say an impious thought propagated by those people who wanted to set up their own private judgment above this divinely constituted authority and by those who wanted to be the judge of the Church instead of being subject to her judgment.

Certainly not to a few persons in the Roman Catholic Church.

R4. God did not give the gift of inspiration to everybody but to a few whom He has chosen for the purpose. These men he chose certainly have their own personal human weakness. Peter denied Jesus thrice and Paul persecuted the Church prior to his conversion. Nevertheless, God chose them. God’s power is made manifest in human weakness. The church is not a democratic society wherein her doctrines and her leaders are decided by a consensus of the majority. The Church by its very constitution has a hierarchical structure composed of deacons, priests, and bishops and a visible head. Jesus did not promise the Holy Spirit to his Church so that every reader of the Bible might figure out for himself the essential doctrines of Christianity much less the correct interpretation of every verse but to the teaching authority within the Church so that they will always be able to faithfully hand on to the faithful the content and interpretation of divine revelation. Just imagine what would happen if you are able to convince everyone that they can interpret the Bible for themselves. It’s just a matter of time that there will be as many interpretations are there are readers. The history of Protestantism clearly proves this to be true.

The apostles never directed the churches to go to an infallible interpreter.

R4. Precisely because in the early Church the apostles constituted this teaching authority. There is no higher authority by which the faithful could appeal to in settling disputes on matters of faith and morals. The official pronouncements of the Apostles were final and executory. Those who disobeyed do so under extreme penalty of being anathemized. If you were in the apostolic age, would you dare to contradict the apostles’ decisions based on your private interpretation of Scripture and their apostolic letters?

Paul never directed anybody to run to Peter as the source of infallible teaching and interpretation. Please present examples in the writings of Peter and Paul where they directed the church to recognize an infallible teaching society, or that directed the church to recognize Peter as the infallible and supreme interpreter and teacher.

R4. On the contrary Jesus appointed Peter to be the visible head of the Church. “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and even the gates of Hell cannot prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” (Mat 16:18-19). “Take care of my lambs… Take care of my sheep” (John 21:15-17). It was Peter who preached the word of God infallibly on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-39). He also infallibly expounded the prophesies in Scripture concerning the Messiah to his hearers. Although Peter did not explicitly claim inspiration but he was in fact inspired and therefore also infallible when he proclaimed the Gospel for the first time. It was to Peter that the angel of the Lord directed Cornelius on the eve of his conversion and Cornelius said to Peter: “Now we are all here in the presence of God, waiting to hear anything that the Lord has instructed you to say” (Acts 10:33). It was Peter who pronounced that the gentiles be accepted into the Church (Acts 11:1-18) thereby exercising the power to bind and to loose which Jesus gave him (Mat 16:19). During the first church council which was held at Jerusalem it was Peter who authoritatively stood up after which the crowd held their peace (Acts 15:7-11). James, being the head of the Church in Jerusalem consented to the decision of Peter (Acts 15:14-21). Circumcision is no longer binding within the Christian community not because it is written in the book of Acts but because the apostles declared it so.

R3. The fact that Jesus and the apostles frequently referred to Scriptures (Old Testament writings) proves their divine inspiration but not that they contained all that God wanted to reveal to man.

Let's be fair in our judgment. They also certainly do not prove the position you are trying to set forth for the need for tradition and orally handed down teachings to complement Scripture, as well as the infallibility of a few designated successors.

R4. I never argued that since Jesus quoted Scriptures then it proves the existence of Tradition and Church authority. There is no sense to that. I have stated this because you argued that since Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Old Testament Scriptures then we should go to Scriptures alone. This does not make any sense either.

If Scripture did not contain all that God wanted to reveal to man, why don't we see Jesus and the apostles referring to anything outside of Scripture?

R4. On the contrary, we see Jesus teach with his own divine authority. He constantly used the formula: “You have heard that it was said (referring to the teachings of the Old Testament)… But now I tell you…” (Mat 5:21-48). Jesus used his own authority to explain the true meaning of Scripture that is why the crowd were amazed for, “he taught with authority” (Mat 7:29). The apostles settled the controversy in the early Church regarding circumcision not by appeal to Scriptures alone but by the authority they received from Jesus (Acts 15:7-21). Again, circumcision is no longer binding within the Christian community not because it is written in the book of Acts as there was no book of Acts to refer to in the first place during that time but because the apostles declared it so.

When Jesus was tempted by Satan, he repeatedly said "It is written". He did not appeal to any other writing.

R4. I have repeatedly pointed out that the fact the Jesus quoted from Scripture proves its inspiration but not Sola Scriptura. You still have not cited one single verse wherein Jesus or the apostles commanded the people to go to Scripture alone. Yes there are passages wherein Jesus and the apostles pointed the people to Scriptures but never to Scriptures alone. Your statement that “He did not appeal to any other writing” when followed to its’ final conclusion would be devastating to your position. Since Jesus appealed only to the Old Testament and no other writings, does it follow then that the New Testament writings are not necessary or authoritative?

He did not appeal to Peter's infallible teaching authority. He did not even appeal to his own divinity and power. He appealed only to Scripture, "It is written".

R4. Jesus authority was higher than that of Peter. Jesus’ authority is his by natural right being God and Messiah whereas Peter’s authority is a delegated power from Jesus. Jesus appealed to Scripture because the Devil in tempting Jesus quoted Scripture but twisted its’ meaning using his right of private interpretation. As St Peter himself warned “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20).

R3. I really appreciate your honest acceptance of the preceding statement. I think we have a common ground. If you believe that the Holy Spirit will always guide the Church Jesus founded into all truths, are we not bound to listen to her teachings with the docility of a child?

For this I will once again point you to apostolic teaching and example. Paul tells us in Acts 17:11 that the Bereans accepted Paul's teaching, but that it is a noble deed to examine Scriptures to see if what he preached was really so.

R4. First it should be noted that the Bereans believed upon hearing the oral teachings of Paul: “They listened to the message with great eagerness” (Acts 17:11). “And how can they believe if they have not heard the message” (Rom 10:17). Jesus has instructed the apostles to “Go and preach the gospel to all people… He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:15-16). It was only with the light of faith which came when they listened to the oral teaching of Paul that the Bereans in reading the Scriptures were able to see that indeed the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus. This is indeed true with Catholics. Once we believe the teachings of the Church everything including the Bible will fall into their proper place. So the Bereans’ noble deed is more Catholic than Protestant.

He also tells us in 1 Thess 5:21 to test everything and hold on to what is good (filter out the bad). John tells the church to not believe every spirit, but to test the spirits for false prophets will arise in the church (1 Joh 4:1). There is no exception to their commands. Their commands apply even to, and especially to, all church teachers.

R4. That we should “Put all things to the test: keep what is good and avoid every kind of evil” (1 Thes 5:21) is well accepted. But what should be our criteria for testing? For you it is the Bible using your own private interpretation. But Paul tells us that we should interpret Scripture in the light of Tradition i.e, what has been always believed and taught by the Church since the beginning. “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). “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor 11:2). Thus, indeed the apostles in Scripture have shown us the way to test truth from heresy and that is if a teaching or scriptural interpretation is according to the living faith tradition of the Church.

St Athanasius combated the Arian heresy by appeal to sacred tradition as evident in his letter: "Therefore let them [the Arians] tell us, from what teacher or by what tradition they derived these notions concerning the Savior? "We have read," they will say, "in the Proverbs, 'The Lord created me a beginning of His ways unto His works;'" this Eusebius and his fellows used to insist on, and you write me word, that the present men also, though overthrown and confuted by an abundance of arguments, still were putting about in every quarter this passage, and saying that the Son was one of the creatures, and reckoning Him with things originated. But they seem to me to have a wrong understanding of this passage also; for it has a religious and very orthodox sense, which had they understood, they would not have blasphemed the Lord of glory." (De Decretis 13). From this excerpt we get the following important points: 1) The Arians where using scripture to deny the divinity of Christ, 2) The passage they quoted is from Proverbs 8:22 which speaks about Wisdom as created, 3) I would interpolate that the Arians would relate this passage to 1 Cor 1:24 wherein it says that Christ is power and wisdom of God, 4) That using this argument the Arians conclude that Christ is a created being and therefore not God, 5) To refute this damnable heresy, Athanasius questioned their authority to teach and their interpretation “from what teacher or by what tradition,” 6) That according to Athanasius the verse in question has a religious and very orthodox sense i.e., as always understood and believed by the Church. Athanasius was very conversant with Scripture and no doubt that in the ensuing struggle against the Arians he also showed them scriptural passages indicating Christ’s divinity. But in this instance He used an argument which is formidable to his adversary: an argument based from Tradition and Church authority. The Arians had scriptural passages to support their arguments but they did not have the Church teaching authority and Tradition behind them.

R3. Do you believe that the Church whom Paul referred to as the “Pillar and foundation of truth” when she interprets Scriptures cannot teach error? If not, I would like to ask, How can a church which is the pillar and foundation of truth possibly teach error?

The Bible never said that the church cannot teach error. Peter and Paul never claimed infallibility in their interpretation of Scripture. The church as the pillar and foundation of the truth does not equate with the church being an infallible teacher of the truth.

R4. In expressing a certain reality one can state what a thing is (positively) or what a thing is not (negatively). The proposition that the Church cannot teach error is expressing the reality negatively i.e, what it cannot do. On the other hand the proposition that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth is expressing the reality positively i.e., what the Church is. Now since truth and error are opposites then when it says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth it excludes the possibility of teaching error or untruth. Actually what you did was simply to deny but you failed to respond to my question on the how. Again, HOW can a church which is the pillar and foundation of truth possibly teach error?

It equates to the church continuing in teaching and preaching the inerrant word of God as found in Scripture. This is the truth that the church is to guard, not present itself as the infallible teaching authority.

R4. 1 Tim 3:15 does not say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth as long as or only if she continues in teaching and preaching the inerrant word of God as found in Scriptures. In trying to fit the passage into Sola Scriptura you are reversing the plain and simple meaning of the passage. It is due to the fact that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth that she will always be able to interpret Scriptures rightly. In 1 Tim 3:15 St Paul was speaking about the nature of the Church, what it is, not what it would be IF.

On the contrary, we are warned by the apostles that error will creep in. John warns us in his letter "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)" Peter warned the believers "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (2 Pet 2:1)" Paul warns Timothy that "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. (1 Tim 4:1-3)"

R4. The fact that there were false prophets during the time of the apostles did in no way make the apostles heretics themselves. The Church being the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) will always be there to condemn false prophets and their heretical doctrines. Being a civil engineer myself, I understand very well the importance of the pillars and foundations. When other structural members fail they do not necessarily result into collapse of the entire building but when it the pillar or foundation which will fail, it would bring the whole edifice down as what Samson did (Judges 16:29). Jesus is the wise builder who built his house upon the rock. The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock (Mat 7:24-25). Indeed false prophets will come, and they will come in numbers and perform signs and wonders and deceive many as Jesus predicted (Mat 24:5, 24). They will come about with every wind of doctrine (Eph 4:14) and flood the world with all sorts of deception invented by human cunning and trickery, they will cloak themselves with the word of God (Mat 7:22), and present themselves as angels of light and as ministers of righteousness (2 Cor 11:13-15). They will cause endless divisions and factions (1 Tim 6:4, Gal 5:20). The gates of hell will always assail the Church of Christ but to be overcome never for our Lord himself has solemnly promised: “Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Mat 16:18). There were times in Church history that it seems that Satan would have almost succeeded in leading the Church to the brink of error but each time he has always come out short and empty handed. When the ship captain has abandoned the ship it is time for lesser men to take over to steer the ship where they wanted it to go. But Jesus will never abandon the Church, “Behold I am with you always until the consummation of the world” (Mat 28:20). It is high time that we trust on the promise of our Savior.

The church is never taught by Jesus and the Apostles as being infallible. Only the Bible is taught as being infallible and God-breathed. It is the Bible that we are instructed to turn to as our source of infallible teachings. The church's role is to guard this truth and to preach it, not to act as another infallible source of truth.

R4. On the contrary, without the testimony of the Church you will not even know which books are inspired. James Akin a former minister of the Presbyterian Church in America has this to say ("A triumph and a tragedy," THIS ROCK, April 1995, pp 17-18): "The Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura also began to trouble me as I wondered how it is that we can know for certain which books belong in the Bible. Certain books of the New Testament, such as the synoptic gospels, we can show to be reliable historical accounts of Jesus' life, but there were a number of New Testament books (e.g., Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation) whose authorship and canonical status were debated in the early Church. Eventually the Church decided in their favor and included them in the canon of inspired books, but I saw that I, a person two thousand years removed from their writing, had no possibility of proving these works were genuinely apostolic. I simply had to take the Church's word on it. This meant that for one very foundational doctrine--the doctrine of what Scripture is--I had to trust the Church since there was no way to show from within Scripture itself exactly what the books of the Bible should be. But I realized that by looking to the Church as an authentic and reliable witness to the canon, I was violating the principle of sola scriptura. The "Bible only" theory turned out to be self-refuting, since it cannot tell us which books belong in the Bible and which don't! What was more, my studies in Church history showed that the canon of the Bible was not finally fixed until about three hundred years after the last apostle died. If I was going to claim that the Church had done it's job and picked exactly the right books for the Bible, this meant that the Church had made an infallible decision three hundred years after the apostolic age, a realization which made it believable that the Church could make even later infallible decisions, and that the Church could make such decisions even today."

R3. If Christ commissioned his Church with his own divine authority to teach the gospel in his name, shouldn’t our own interpretation of Scriptures be judged by the Church and not we judging the Church’s interpretation of Scriptures?

Your proposition is never taught in the Bible.

R4. In the same way that in the Old Testament the people of God were commanded to go the High priest to settle controversy in religious matters (Deut 17:9) in the New Testament we are commanded to go the Church authorities (Mat 18:17) as the last and final court of appeals. In Hebrews 13:17 we are commanded to obey and to defer to Church leaders i.e., the Bishops. Nowhere can we find in scriptures wherein it is remotely insinuated that the subjects are to judge their rulers or that the faithful are given the right to judge Church leaders.

In addition to the Berean example, we are taught by the writer to the Hebrews that "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Heb 4:12)"

R4. The word of God has all its power whether it is written in Scripture or handed down by tradition. I have the suspicion that every time you quote from the Bible that speaks about the word of God you automatically confine it to the written word. Since you claim that the apostolic teachings that were not written in Scripture have been forgotten or have not been transmitted faithfully, can you cite scriptural proof that such would be the case? Can you cite a verse in Scripture where the apostles stated that when they are gone that their command to uphold to tradition (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Thes 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2) will be rescinded and that Christians will then abide by Scripture alone? If you cannot show a single verse to support your contentions, then by whose authority and by what tradition do you say that these explicit commands are no longer valid?

There is only one divine authority that the Bible instructs us to go to and be our judge, and that is the Bible itself which is God Himself judging us through his living words.

R4. On the contrary, Jesus said: “Whatsoever you declare loose on earth is loosed in heaven, and whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven” (Mat 16:19, 18:18). The Church does not presume to know what lies in the human heart for this is known only to God. That is why the Church does not judge whether a certain person goes to hell or not. But doctrines whether it is on matters of faith and morals are based on definite propositions which are knowable. It is in these areas wherein the Church has the competence to render judgment.

God in the Bible does instruct us to judge the church's teaching and anybody else's teaching for that matter according to the standard of Scripture.

R4. I think that you have contradicted yourself here. You said that there is only one divine authority (the Bible) who will judge us but now you also assert that the Bible does instruct us to judge the Church’s teaching. Which is it? I won’t hold you for this. You are free to explain or to retract one of your statements.

We are never to accept any church's teaching blindly since they are supposedly infallible.

R4. I think you have wrong notion on how the Church infallible guidance works. Many Protestants imagine the Pope to be a doctrinal despot who can pronounce a dogma out of his head and Catholics to be simple-minded individual who just accept whatever the Pope says. This is far from the truth. The truth is that future Popes will have a much lesser room for defining a doctrine. In her almost 2000 years of history, most of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity have been defined by previous Popes and Church Councils. Any official pronouncement by a future pope must be consistent with the teachings of the previous popes and Church Councils. On the other hand, a protestant minister who bases his preaching by private interpretation of Scripture using the Bible alone without regard to Tradition can almost promulgate a new interpretation at will. Catholic biblical scholarship is well underway. The Catholic exegete is not, and ought not to be, hampered by the teaching office of the Church. The labor of the exegete will help to speed the surer judgment of the Church in scriptural matters. This can be seen in the consistent scriptural orientation and flavor of the decree and constitutions of Vatican II. The teaching office of the Church has thus acknowledged its indebtedness to Scripture scholars and other theologians who are fully in touch with biblical studies. Thus in almost all cases, an issue on doctrine will have already passed through a rigorous scholarly discussion and debate among theologians before it is raised to the level of the Magisterium for her official judgment. Thus the Pope uses all available help afforded by the Holy Spirit before he renders his official decision. Ultimately the guarantee from teaching error rest not on human wisdom but on the Holy Spirit and on Jesus who promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church (Mat 16:18).

The Bible clearly states that it is complete for matters of faith and morals [2 Tim 3:16-17, John 20:31] and that nothing should be added to it [Rev 22:19, Deut 4:2]. This is not a man-made tradition. On the contrary, I have not seen direct biblical proof for your claims of infallibility and the need for oral traditions today to complement Scripture. These are the man-made traditions.

R4. If Sola Scriptura is not a man-made tradition, could you cite from the writings of the Church fathers wherein they asserted that Scripture alone apart from Tradition and the Church’s teaching authority is all-sufficient guide for salvation? For the biblical verses that you have quoted to support your position, I have already dealt with them at length in my previous posts and in the preceding paragraphs. Since you have not advanced any further explanation about these passages then I do not have to repeat my refutations.

The word of God was delivered in written and spoken form during the apostolic era, but today, what we have preserved infallibly is only the Bible.

R4. If as you say we are to test everything then how do you infallibly know that books of the NT were written by the apostles or their immediate disciples if not by Tradition? To deny the reliability of Tradition and Church authority will be to undercut the very doctrine of what consists Scriptures.

Those orally handed down teachings have long died away or were changed through the years.

R4. Change can be understood in two ways. It can be understood as a mutation or alteration wherein what was before is transformed into something that does not belong to its nature. This type of change cannot possibly be true regarding the truth of divine revelation that has been handed down from generation to generation. On the other hand, change can be understood as a legitimate growth or development as the seed grows and changes into a huge tree. Outwardly we can no longer identify the tree from the seed but essentially the tree today is the same seed before since what has grown into the huge tree was contained potentially within the seed. This kind of change or development is to be expected and certainly on the largest scale. The doctrines of the Church have become firmer over the years. Whatever the apostles has planted in seminal form in those early days of Christianity must have developed, flourished and ripened. A perfect example to this is the development of the Church’s understanding on the nature of God which resulted into the definition of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Your oral instructions to your students do not even last one generation!

R4. I hope you are not trying to equate the word of God with my oral instructions. You agreed that the word of God was handed down in two distinct modes of transmission during the apostolic age: written and oral. As Peter said: “the word of the Lord remains forever” (1 Pet 1:25). Where can you find in the Bible that says that only the written word will remain forever?

I'd like to go back to something I asked you -- where can you find these orally handed down teachings and how can you authenticate its apostolic history and its divine origin?

R4. Those things which are either not written or implicit in Scriptures but are expressions of the Church’s faith and life can be found in the writings of the early Church fathers, in the official pronouncements of various Popes and Ecumenical Councils, in the Church’s liturgical life, in her book of prayers, and finally in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is a compendium of what the Church teaches. Through her Tradition, the Church hands to us not only what she has received from Jesus through the Apostles but also her understanding on the truths that has been received thus there is a growth in understanding under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For example, the social doctrine of the Church is a product of her reflection on the content of divine revelation and its relation to the modern world. Tradition is not something static but is dynamic. Just as the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26, 16:13) was able to discern the canonical writings from the rest, she will also be able to determine which Tradition are part of the deposit of faith and which are authentic development of doctrine from those which are not.

R3. I fully appreciate the above comments. The apostles being personally chosen by Jesus and who witnessed Jesus resurrection cannot be repeated or duplicated. This reminds me of some denominations who still maintain a set of twelve apostles. We can say that the apostles were one of a kind. They were inspired by the Holy Spirit so that they could understand the teachings of Jesus and teach them to others. In fact, the Catholic Church teaches that Public Revelation was closed with the death of the last apostle. The Catechism explains: “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries” (CCC par 66). What the apostles transmitted to their successors was not the gift of divine inspiration so that they could teach a new doctrine but their office of infallible teaching authority so that they may faithfully preserve and expound what they received from the apostles.

Well, you may not claim to have apostles, but you are claiming a different version, that of apostolic succession. There is no record of the apostles ever appointing successors or transmitting to their "successors" their office of infallible teaching. Such "office" did not exist in the first place. Such "succession" is not commanded.

R4. The fact that the apostles passed on to the next generation their teaching office is well attested in Scriptures. Near the close of his earthly life St Paul reminded Timothy on how the preaching of the gospel is to be continued after he is gone: “And what you (2nd generation) heard from me (1st generation) through many witnesses entrust to faithful people (3rd generation) who will have the ability to teach others (4th generation) as well” (2 Timothy 2:2). This they did through the imposition of the hands (1 Tim 4:14; 5:17, 22; Titus 1:5, 1 Tim 3:1; Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:7). There is no indication anywhere in Scriptures that the teaching office of the apostles was to die with them. We can also deduce this from the words of Jesus himself, “and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age” (Mat 28:20). Jesus promise was to be with “them” until the end of time so naturally this promise would apply to the succeeding generations of appointed bishops in the line of the apostles. Take note that Jesus did not say that he will be with them as long as they teach the truth. But on the other hand the fact that Jesus promised to be with them always is the reason for their being prevented from teaching error.

The Holy Spirit promising divine guidance into all truth does not equate to infallibility, especially to those living in the present age.

R4. The promise was that the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth (John 16:13) not “some truth” or “half-truth.” If it is into all truth that is truth in its entirety then that would preclude the possibility of error for truth and error are mutually exclusive. This promise was not confined only during the apostolic age but in every age for Jesus said “I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, who will abide with you forever” (John 14:16). The Holy Spirit cannot possibly falter in his task.

Paul considered it noble that his teachings were not accepted blindly as infallible and was tested by the Bereans [Acts 17:11].

R4. The Catholic Church is opposed to fideism that is the exaltation of faith coupled with the denial of reason. In his encyclical “Fides et Ratio” Pope John Paul II explained at length the importance of both. He likened faith and reason to the two wings of a bird. We cannot mature in the faith without one or the other. Faith should be informed by reason and reason enlightened by faith. So in the Catholic Church you can be assured that we don’t accept things blindly as some Protestants would like to imagine. “Be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope you have in you” (1 Pet 3:15). In this dialogue I think I have given you adequate reasons for my faith.

That the Bereans studied Scriptures to see if what Paul said was really true is not a negation of the infallible teaching authority of the apostles. The Bereans were not privately interpreting Scriptures for themselves as you perhaps would like to imagine. As I have explained before, Paul in preaching to the Bereans who were Jews could have mentioned to them Old Testament prophesies which were fulfilled in Jesus just like what Peter did on the day of Pentecost. The Bereans upon hearing Paul’s oral preaching would naturally study the Old Testament scriptures to see if what Paul said what actually there. Here we see Paul not only leading the Bereans to the Old Testament prophesies but also their correct interpretation as well. Thus the case of the Bereans does not in anyway support Sola Scriptura.

Peter was sharply rebuked by Paul in Gal 2:11 and Jesus in Matt 16:23.

R4. Before I address the other verses you cited (Gal 2:11, Mat 16:23) let me enumerate first the requisite conditions for the Pope to be infallible: 1) He must invoke his authority as the successor of Peter, 2) He is defining a doctrine of faith or morals, and 3) the teaching is to be believed by all Catholics throughout the world. Thus the pope is not infallible when he speaks merely as a private theologian, the Bishop of Rome, and other local offices he holds. The sphere of infallibility does not cover the area of science, politics, or economics, etc and even in the area of Church discipline. The pope is not impeccable (not liable to sin). Impeccability (immunity from sin) is not the same as infallibility (immunity from error). Interestingly enough, the Pope is greater in believing what he has defined than in defining. For the grace of infallibility does not make the Pope any holier.

With the above conditions for papal infallibility in mind, it would not be difficult to see how Gal 2:11 cannot be used against papal infallibility. In our analysis of the case the following points should be considered: 1) It was through Peter that the gentile converts were accepted into the Church (Acts 10:44-48). 2) As Paul narrates Peter had been eating with the gentile converts but when his fellow Jews arrived he momentarily withdrew from them for fear of offending his fellow Jews. Here we see that Paul rebuked Peter not for his teachings but for his conduct. When this is considered the supposed objection to papal infallibility vanishes. St Paul saw it fitting to rebuke Peter since considering the position that Peter holds within the Christian community his actions would have strong influence among the faithful. If you read Church history, St Catherine of Sienna confronted the Pope and rebuked him for his conduct but she never questioned his authority.

In answering the objection based from Mat 16:23 the following points need to be considered: 1) A few verses prior, Jesus had promised Peter the primacy (Mat 16:18-19). 2) Upon hearing Jesus speak about his impending suffering and death Peter took him aside and said “God forbid it, Lord” then this was followed by Jesus rebuke of Peter. I don’t see how this is an argument against the doctrine of papal infallibility on at least two points: 1) Peter did not assume the primacy until after Jesus ascension, 2) The rebuke has something to do with Peter’s natural reaction which was not in accord with God’s plan. The conditions for papal infallibility are simply not met.

Paul said in Gal 1:8 that if he would at anytime in the future come back and preach another gospel contrary to what he already preached from divine inspiration, he would be accursed. He never considered himself infallible. He never taught the disciples that he was infallible. He never pointed anybody to Peter as a source of infallible dogmas.

R4. I have already answered your contentions based in Gal 1:8 some paragraphs up ahead but allow me to add some more insight. Paul’s word in Gal 1:8 “But even if we…” could be understood in the language of hyperbole similar to Jesus statement: “No one knows, however, when that day and hour will come—neither the angels in heaven nor the Son; the Father alone knows” (Mat 24:36). This passage when taken at face value would seem to deny the divinity of Christ for after all if he does not know he is not God since God knows all things. However, this passage can be understood in the orthodox sense thereby not contrary to the doctrine of Christ’s divinity. In this passage, Jesus was speaking in the language of hyperbole in order to drive home the point that men should not inquire into this specific knowledge and it is not God’s intention to reveal it to man. Likewise, Paul in Gal 1:8 stated “Even if we…” not thereby insinuating that he considers for himself the possibility of teaching otherwise but in order to emphasize the importance of adhering to what they have already preached.

You say that the Roman church is not teaching new doctrines, but merely expounding what they received from the apostles? Then please show me where in the Bible do the apostles teach about purgatory, indulgences, praying to Mary and other "saints", assumption, immaculate conception, and papal infallibility.

R4. I would gladly respond to this challenge on a separate exchange.

I hope you see the deliberate ambiguity of the catechism's statement you just quoted. It claims no new public revelation, but says that revelation has not been made completely explicit. These are contradictory thoughts.

R4. Not necessarily so. The Catechisms’ statement is more or less the same to your statement (which I agree) that some important doctrines need careful study, and is sometimes likened to finding a treasure in a field. Why should it need careful study if everything has been made explicit in Scriptures? The fact that there are several conflicting interpretations proves that the Bible is not explicit in many matters concerning faith and morals. So rather than suspect a “deliberate ambiguity” I hope you can see the truth of the above statement.

Let me try to give you an example that I think is relevant to us both. Let' say you're making an inquiry and ask your daughter to reveal something to you. She does so and says that she has nothing more to reveal to you. She tells you something to the effect of "Dad, my revelation is complete. I have told you everything". Later on, you find out something new and she says "Sorry Dad. I was not completely explicit the last time I said I told you everything. I was only being implicit in my revelation!" Would that be acceptable to you and would you not feel deceived?

R4. I remember a television commercial that says, “Listening is the beginning of understanding.” If the second time around my daughter says something which is contradictory to what she said earlier then I would suspect that she is not telling the truth. But if her second statement is a clarification and is wholly consistent with her previous statement then I will be very happy for that. In Catholic theology there is what we call as the development of doctrine and some Protestants adhere to this that is why they have also confessions of faith and creeds. For example the Baptist confession of faith of 1689 regarding the trinity (Chapter 2 par 3) and the person of Christ (Chapter 8 par 2) are worded in a definite and precise manner which cannot be found in the letters of Scriptures. Regarding the trinity and the person of Christ the official definition pronounced by the Catholic Church came centuries before the Baptist Confession was formulated. Thus, we see that although the Baptist Confession repudiates the Catholic Church it has actually adopted part of her Tradition. It is acting on borrowed power.

God is not like that. Far from it. What He has revealed is true and complete and without deception. Moses tells us "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deut 29:29)"

R4. I fully agree with the above quote. It has pleased the Lord to convey to us his revelation both in oral and written form during apostolic times. And since “the things that are revealed belong to us and our children forever” then God would surely see to it that this is done. You still have not come up with a single verse that says that oral traditions are to cease with the death of the last apostle. You still have not come up with a single verse that says that the command in 2 Thes 2:15 to hold fast to both written and oral tradition of the apostles has been rescinded.

I would like to point out further that this church in Jerusalem had a plurality of elders. It did not have one overruling leader such as the RCC does today with the pope.

R4. The fact that during the Council in Jerusalem there were many elders who were around does not deny that they have one universal leader any more that the fact that during the Second Vatican Council there were hundreds of bishops from all over the world deny that they have one universal leader in the person of the pope. There were many elders in the Council of Jerusalem precisely because they have agreed to meet there for a common purpose (Acts 15:25). During this gathering of the pillars of the Church, after a long debate Peter stood up and addressed the multitude (Acts 15:7-11) and expressed his decision after which the crowd held their peace. James, who is the Bishop of Jerusalem, then consented to the decision of Peter (Acts 15:13-21).

Peter was not even recognized as the leader of this group.

Peter comes out to be preeminent among the apostles both in the Gospels and in the book of Acts that the unbiased reader of the Bible cannot fail to recognize his outstanding role during those times. The Orthodox churches together with some protestants even admits that indeed Peter had the primacy but they limit this to primacy of honor and deny that Peter had primacy of jurisdiction as well. The primacy of Peter and of the popes, both in honor and jurisdiction, is well attested in the writings of the early church fathers and can be subject of another discussion.

They comprised members who were married and had families, unlike the Roman Catholic Church today with priests who cannot marry.

R4. The Catholic Church exact celibacy, not because she believes marriage to be evil. The Catholic Church has always taught marriage to be a sacrament and have constantly upheld the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage. It is because she wants her ministers to devote themselves more completely to the work of Christ, and the welfare of souls. Christ himself did not marry, and He said clearly that it was good to renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Mat 19:11-12). St Paul also taught that one who remains single for the sake of complete consecration to God makes a better choice than one who chooses marriage (1 Cor 7:7-8,32-38). On the contrary, the Protestant reformers threw away the ideal of celibacy based on a wrong interpretation of 1 Tim 4:3, and lost all understanding of the supreme invitation of Christ to renounce all things, even the consolation of wife and children in order to follow Him. It is quite true that Peter was a married man when our Lord called him to the apostolate. But he left his wife, with her consent of course, to follow Christ (Mat 19:27-29). Again, celibacy could well be a subject for a separate discussion.

The RCC does not present the picture of a church that follows from the church in Jerusalem.

That the Catholic Church today is not exactly the same as when it was yet during its infancy should not surprise us. If you show your friends your photo while you were still an infant they would probably smile and say “Is this you, Benjie?” Yet although we have changed a lot since our infancy we are the very same person. Jesus likened the kingdom of God here on earth to a mustard seed. “It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it grows up, it is the biggest of all plants” (Mat 13:32). We can no longer identify the huge tree from the seed from whence it grew but it is essentially the same tree which has grown but already potentially present within the seed. In many ways the Church in Jerusalem resemble the Catholic Church today: 1) It was a Church with authority and commanded obedience from the flock, 2) In arriving at its decision it did not use Scriptures alone but its God-given authority to teach, 3) It had the unity of faith centered around the teachings of the apostles. All the present Catholic doctrines could find its roots in the Bible and Tradition much as the Catholic Church herself could be traced back historically to that early church gathered in Jerusalem.

I would like to add on to your comments and say that this council in Jerusalem comprised members who were inspired by the Holy Spirit and heard directly from God. They were authorized by God to come up with teachings that were binding. Their teaching about the controversy became part of Scripture.

R4. Is this an admission that the Council of Jerusalem headed by the apostles in its official pronouncement was in fact infallible? Notice that the decision of the Council was binding not because it was written in Scriptures (the written account of what transpired during the Council came very much later) but because it was taught by the Apostles. The decision of the Council was part dogmatic i.e., circumcision is not necessary for salvation and part disciplinary “eat no food that has been offered to idols; eat no blood; eat no animal that has been strangled” (Act 15:29). The dogmatic pronouncement remains binding for us today whereas the disciplinary injunctions were amended in the later period as evident in Paul’s letter to the Romans (Rom 14:3,17). So we see that the Apostles exercised their God-given authority to bind and to loose (Mat 18:18).

If you make this a precedence to set up infallible and authoritative church councils today, that would be like setting up apostles again which I gather you disagree with.

R4. What happened during the Council in Jerusalem became a precedence to the succeeding generation of Christians on how to resolve controversy within the Church and that is through the decrees of her duly authorized leaders. It was never by privately interpreting Scriptures back then and it has never been in Church history until the advent of the reformation when Luther stripped the Church with all authority to interpret the content of revelation and instead arrogated to himself and to every reader of the Bible the task of interpreting the infallible word of God. As I said the apostles were unique in that they were given the gift of inspiration. We do not claim inspiration for the Pope and Church councils so that they will be able to reveal a new doctrine but that with the gift of infallibility they will always be able to faithfully preserve, expound, and interpret the content of God’s revelation and its application to problems confronting the modern man.

The only precedence that can be biblically gleaned from this council is that we abide by their teachings which are again preserved for us in the pages of the Bible. It is not a warrant today to set up councils to come up with teachings that are binding to the faithful. Such action would be unbiblical since such councils cannot claim direct guidance from the Holy Spirit. Such councils could never come up with infallible teachings or claim them as God-breathed.

R4. On the contrary Jesus promised the Holy Spirit not only to the apostles but to the Church in order to guide her into all truths (John 16:13) for how can the Church be the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) without the Holy Spirit. The mandate from Jesus to teach and make disciples of all nations did not end with the apostles but was to continue until the Lord returns (Mat 28:19-20). The Church as a teaching society is promised by our Lord special divine assistance “behold I am with you all days until the end of time” (Mat 28:20). A church with no authority to bind the faithful is not the church intended by Christ. It would be like a government with no visible authority that naturally leads to anarchy. If the constitution of our Republic is left to the interpretation of each citizen you can just imagine the chaos it would make. Again I would like to point out a distinction between inspiration and infallibility. Church Councils approved by the Pope can make infallible decisions but not inspired “God-breathed” pronouncement i.e, they cannot teach new revelations.

I don't think it is surprising that Peter was the one who stood up first since it was he back in Acts 10 to whom God gave a vision about the Gentiles. He was not making an infallible pronouncement as pope or supreme authority.

R4. Peter, during the Council of Jerusalem, was not merely acting as a member of an advisory panel but spoke with authority by whose pronouncement the other apostles and elders abided. Before Peter stood up there was much debate (Acts 15:7). After he spoke the debate on circumcision has been put to a close as far as the Christian church is concerned. Had Peter’s pronouncement been accepted merely on the same level as other fallible human judgment it would not have ended the long debate. Peter appealed to his apostolic authority to render such judgment “My friends, you know that a long time ago God chose me from among you to preach the Good news to the Gentiles” (Act 15:7). It was Peter who preached on the day of Pentecost while the apostolic college stood around him (Acts 2:14). For the record, the first of six discourses in Acts (along with Acts 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 5:29-32; 10:34-43; 13:16-41) dealing with the resurrection of Jesus and its messianic import, five of these are attributed to Peter, the final one to Paul. Modern scholars term these discourses in Acts the "kerygma," the Greek word for proclamation (1 Cor 15:11).

Let me again ask you a few questions. (My apologies if I tend to ask too many question too many times). Does Rome infallibly interpret and determine the extent or canon of Scripture?

R4. The Catholic Church through the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo back in the fourth century and finally in the Council of Trent has definitively decided on the extent or canon of Scriptures to include 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament. So as far as Catholics are concerned the issue is closed.

Does Rome infallibly interpret and dictate the content of Tradition?

R4. The Catholic Church being the custodian of divine revelation has the competence to interpret and discern the content of Tradition. The word “dictate” seems to connote that the Church invents Tradition and forces them upon the believers which is entirely false. In fact, prior to the formal definition of the Immaculate Conception, Vatican was flooded by petitions from bishops, priests, and lay people all over the world requesting the Pope to officially define the doctrine as a matter of faith. When the official definition came out it was universally accepted by all Catholics and devotion to the Blessed Virgin flourished all the more for the greater glory of God.

I gather from your preceding arguments that the answer to these questions is yes.

R4. With the added comments I mentioned.

Therefore, Rome is your final and ultimate authority.

R4. In arriving at the authentic interpretation of what is contained in Scriptures and Tradition, yes the Church is the final authority. I recognized that the Church has the divine authority to teach (Mat 28:19-20) and that Jesus has commanded us to obey and hear his Church (Luke 10:16, Mark 16:15-16). In listening to the Church I am submitting to the word of God. On the contrary those who oppose her divine authority should heed the warning of Gamaliel, “But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God” (Acts 5:39).

It has placed itself above Scripture and Tradition.

R4. Had the Church claimed the right to teach new revelations such as the Mormons do then she would be guilty of placing herself above Scripture and Tradition. On the contrary, the Church is the servant of the word of God. Her role is to mediate or minister to the faithful God’s word. In doing this she constantly listens and meditate on the divine truths entrusted to her as contained both in Scriptures and in her living faith tradition.

You believe things because Rome tells you so. You even believe that Rome is the successor of the Apostolic authority ultimately because it tells you so.

R4. In yielding to the Church’s authority I am not acting blindly. I have examined the claims of the Catholic Church as the true Church founded by Christ from Scriptures, from History, from the writings of the early Church fathers. I have weighed the arguments for and against Catholicism. To many Protestant converts to Catholicism it has been an intellectual journey. Reason has finally led them to the Church of Christ and it behooves to reason that they make act of divine faith. What the Church does is not to curtail our freedom but in giving us the truth we will be free (John 8:32). The Church dogmas are like lighthouses which guide the ship captain from dangerous waters so that we will not make a shipwreck of our faith or are like signposts and warning signals on our highways which guide us to safe paths so that we will not fall into heresy. All the while the ship captain is free to stir the ship where he wants it to go and the drivers are free to turn the car as they please but it would be foolish for the captain to ignore the lighthouse and the drivers to ignore safety traffic signs.

You would appeal to the teaching authority of Rome rather than on the clear teaching of Scripture. So you see, whether you want to admit it or not, Rome is your final and ultimate authority.

R4. I am shown you scriptural passages that points to the clear teaching of Scripture about the nature of the Church founded by Christ and you have constantly rejected them and reinterpreted them to fit sola scriptura. You claim to have the Bible as your final and ultimate authority but in reality it is actually your interpretation of the Bible (or maybe someone else’s interpretation) that you follow. Private interpretation lies at the heart of Sola Scriptura which is condemned by St Peter (2 Pet 1:20).

So in reality, you are proposing Sola Ecclesia in order to disprove Sola Scriptura.

R4. I am not proposing Sola Ecclesia in order to disprove Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is self-refuting since this very doctrine is unscriptural and it could not even tell us which books are canonical. Scripture, Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church are closely bound together that it is quite foolish to just accept one and reject the others.

You are actually making another proposition. Therefore, both our propositions will need to be tested using the same standard. But I see that you have been holding to a double standard. To give you one example of this double standard, you have still not presented to me one verse proving that Rome is the appointed successor of the Apostles or that apostolic succession was commanded and practiced in the New Testament church.

R4. I have given you a host of solid Biblical evidence that Jesus and the apostles have intended that the teaching office of the apostles was to be a permanent institution within the Church (Mat 28:19-20, 2 Timothy 2:2, 1 Tim 4:14; 5:17, 22; Titus 1:5, 1 Tim 3:1; Acts 13:2, Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:7). Instead of explaining away these verses it is high time that you deal with them and explain to me how these passages will not destroy your assertion that “the apostles did not appoint any successors.”

You have not presented to me a single verse stating the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church.

R4. What I have tried to do so far is to point to you the following: 1) That Sola Scriptura is a self-refuting proposition since this doctrine is not taught in the Bible and cannot even tell us a very foundational doctrine of what constitute the canon. 2) The Bible itself attests to the reality of oral tradition to which we are commanded to hold fast and maintain (2 Thes 2:15, 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2). 3) That Jesus founded a Church against which the gates of hell will never prevail (Mat 16:18). 4) That Jesus commissioned to teach the Church to teach all nations (Mat 28:19-20). 5) That Jesus promised the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truths (John 16:13). 6) That the Church Jesus founded is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). From premise 3 we deduce the attribute of indestructibility of the Church. From premise 4, 5, and 6 we infer the attribute of infallibility.

You are requiring Scriptural proof for Sola Scriptura and you should also present Scriptural proof for Sola Ecclesia to hold to a single standard. All you have presented so far are arguments and assumptions.

R4. Again I am not proposing Sola Ecclesia. My position is that Scripture, Tradition, and the Church teaching authority should be the rule of faith for Christians. I hope you are not trying to build a straw man here by forcing me to defend a proposition that is foreign to my convictions.

I would like to ask you again -- do you believe and are 100% certain that the teachings of the Magisterium are without error?

R4. The Church Magisterium (teaching authority) resides in the Pope and in the bishops in communion with the pope. This teaching authority is exercised whenever the Pope or the bishops in communion with the Pope make a solemn pronouncement on matters of faith and morals that must be accepted by all Catholics throughout the world. By virtue of the promise of Jesus that the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church (Mat 16:18), to be with his Church always (Mat 28:20), to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truths (John 16:13), and the fact that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) I would answer in the affirmative to your question.

(Sorry, barrage of questions again) Do you 100% submit to the Roman Catholic church's teachings on contraceptives, female priests, homosexual priests, homosexual acceptance, salvation of the Muslims outside the Roman Catholic church, forbidding marriage, forbidding certain foods on certain days, their actions regarding the convicted priest-sexual offenders? Do you agree that Bantayan Island should be exempt from the Roman Catholic Church's forbidding of eating meat on Good Friday?

R4. Contraception is contrary to the unitive and procreative meaning of the conjugal act. In the conjugal union of spouses they give to each other the gift of themselves wholly and without reservation. In using contraceptives one is withholding from the other an essential part of oneself namely his manhood or her womanhood. God has ordained to create a new human being in the context of the conjugal union between husband and wife that is why every conjugal act must always be open to the transmission of life. Contraception does not respect the right of the Creator.

On the question of ordaining women to the priesthood, the Church has a 2000 years of tradition derived from apostles to ordain only men to the ministry. The priest acts in the person of Christ who is portrayed as the groom wedded to his Church as the bride. The prohibition of ordaining women to the priesthood is in no way to downgrade the dignity of the woman but to respect the will of the Savior and the apostles who ordained only men to the priestly ministry and to recognize that in the Church of God man and woman have different yet complimentary roles.

On the question of homosexual priests and homosexual acceptance, the Church has always taught that homosexuality is unnatural and a vice. On the other hand, like our Lord, the Church has taught us to hate sin but love the sinner therefore she has always urged her children having homosexual tendencies to resort to prayer and the sacraments to overcome this human weakness.

On the question of salvation, the Church has constantly taught that those who are invincibly ignorant of the true gospel of Christ and of his Church can still attain to salvation if they follow the dictates of their conscience according to the light of truth that is shown to them and aided by grace (Titus 2:11). They will be judged according to the natural moral law which God has implanted in the hearts of all men (Rom 2:14-15). On the other hand she has admonished her children to live up to the demands of the Gospel for if not they will be more severely judge (Luke 12:48).

On forbidding marriage, the Church has always taught that marriage is not merely a human institution but a divine institution which our Lord has raised to the level of a sacrament. She has constantly taught the indissolubility of a validly contracted marriage. If by forbidding marriage what you have in mind is celibacy, first it should be noted that celibacy is not a matter of doctrine (which cannot be changed) but a matter of discipline (which can be lifted). In the early centuries there were married men who were ordained to the priesthood and even today there are some parts of the world wherein the Church has permitted married men to join the priestly ministry. But in the Latin rite the Church has enacted by her laws that those who will enter the priesthood will also vow to remain celibate. This development finds its roots to the words of Jesus (Mat 19:11-12) and of St Paul (1 Cor 7:32-38).

On forbidding certain foods on certain days, again this is a matter of discipline that can be changed by Church legislation over the years. The spirit of enacting these laws also finds its roots in Scriptures where the people of God practiced fasting and abstinence of certain days in order to mortify the flesh and as a sign of repentance and penance. The Church has the authority to enact laws for the faithful to follow (Acts 16:4).

Regarding the Church actions on convicted sexual offenders, again this is matter of discipline. The Church may not always act in the most prudent way in her disciplinary actions towards her erring members. But again we have to have the mind of Christ who “came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” The Church has also sympathized and had given the necessary support to the offended party in order to redress the injustice committed.

On Bantayan Island’s exemption from not eating meat on Good Friday, the command to abstain from eating meat on certain days of obligation is a matter of discipline that the Church may lift depending on the local situation. Bantayan island residents are mostly engaged in fishing and as such their ordinary meal usually comprise of fish and other sea foods. It is only during their annual fiesta which happens to coincide with good Friday wherein they will be preparing meat and I think it is for this reason that the Church has dispensed them from the obligation of abstaining from eating meat for all the while most of them are not eating meat all year long. There also other people who are exempted from this law like athletes joining athletic competition, those sick people in the hospital when their doctors prescribe that their diet should include meat, and the elderly when needed. However, the Church prescribes certain acts of mortification for them to perform as a substitute for being exempt from not eating meat.

I can go on, but personally, I have this suspicion that deep in your heart, you don't really accept as infallible all the Roman Catholic Church's teachings and agree to them 100%. If I am wrong, then I will humbly stand corrected.

R4. Allow me to explain further that the disciplinary laws of the Church are morally binding (under ordinary circumstance) but not absolutely so (under extraordinary circumstance). They are not propositions dealing with truth or falsehood, right or wrong. They are commands- do this or that. Consequently, they cannot be absolute, since there could arise occasions when it would be impossible, or even detrimental to faith, to obey a given command, even from a pope. Take the Church’s Code of Canon Law, which are its official laws of government, bringing (in normal circumstances) the needed order to the visible kingdom of God on earth. Canon Law is not infallible, precisely because it presents norms of action, not belief. When the Church commands us to attend Mass on the Lord’s day, would one call such a command infallible? Of course not! One cannot reply true or false to a command. But, if I say that in one God there are three divine persons, I state a proposition that is either true or false. And when defined by the Pope, it becomes infallible. Given this distinction in mind, I would say that I agree 100% to all that the Church proposes for belief on matters of faith and morals and that I am morally bound (under ordinary circumstances) to obey her laws as embodied in the Code of Canon Law.

R3. If you don’t believe that this Church is the Catholic Church then could you point to me which among the various Christian denominations is it? I fall back on Tradition because it compliments Scriptures and on the Church teaching authority because Jesus willed that it be the sole custodian and interpreter of the God’s word.

I would not want to point to one particular denomination because this is not taught by Paul, Peter, John and the rest of the New Testament writers. They kept on pointing the people of God to Scripture, not to a particular church or teaching society.

R4. That Jesus founded a visible Church is well founded in Scriptures (Mat 16:18-19, 18:17, 28:19-20, Acts 2:41-47). The Church Jesus established has the attribute of indestructibility and perpetuity (Mat 16:18, Mat 28:20, Acts 5:38-39) and therefore it must exist throughout the centuries and should be identifiable today. It is quite strange that for one who believes in Sola Scriptura you cannot (or refuse to) identify which among the various Christian denominations is the true Church of Christ.

When Paul spoke of Tradition, he never said it complemented Scripture. He never said that it supplemented Scripture like Rome is doing today with the added dogmas.

R5. When the Church defined the doctrine of divinity of Christ against the Arians in the Council of Nicea 325 AD she was not adding dogmas. When the Church defined the doctrine of the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the Pneumatochians and Macedonians in the Council of Constantinople 381 AD she was not adding dogmas. When the Church through the Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and finally Trent defined the Canon of Scriptures she was not adding dogmas. She was merely affirming was she has constantly believed in order to settle doctrinal issues. If the Church can define the doctrine on the Trinity and the canon of Scriptures in the fourth century there is no reason why she could not define certain doctrines in the later centuries.

Are you asserting that since Paul did not specifically teach some things in writing, that he instead taught them orally to the Thessalonians, such as papal infallibility, immaculate conception, assumption, purgatory and praying to Mary, to name a few?

R4. The doctrines you mentioned above are contained in Scriptures and no scriptural passage rightly understood will contradict them. Like the doctrine of the Trinity they may not be stated in the Bible in exactly the same words as we state them today. Regarding the assumption of Mary we should not expect Paul to write about it since the event occurred after the death of Paul. The above doctrines have to be examined in the light of the economy of divine revelation as a whole and not only in the writings of Paul.

R3. To me, God’s word is the final and ultimate authority be it in written or unwritten form. There is no single passage in Scriptures that even remotely hints that for God’s word to be binding it should be in written form.

I agree with you that God's word as the final and ultimate revelation came to the people of God in written and unwritten form. What I am trying to point out is that for us today, what we have as the reliable form is only the written form.

R4. Archaeology which is the study of the past does not rely only on the written documents in order to know ancient cultures. If the archaeologist were to limit their sources to written documents alone they would know very little. Thus even from the secular stand point your view is unreasonable. Your last statement cannot be deduced from a cursory reading of Scriptures but is a necessary but not the only assumption for Sola Scriptura to be a viable position. You still have to cite a single verse to support this assertion. But even if we grant your assertion that the only reliable form which we have today is the written form it will still not support Sola Scriptura since you still have the problem of demonstrating using the Bible alone which books belong to the canon and the problem of determining the authentic interpretation of difficult passages. For this you have to rely on an outside source but in doing that you will be violating Sola Scriptura.

It is certified by God Himself as God-breathed. The unwritten form is nowhere to be found today and will have died away after the apostles died.

R4. On the contrary the Catholic Church has preserved faithfully the sacred traditions which the apostles commanded the early Christians to “stand firm and hold fast.” To mention a few are the following: sign of the cross, infant baptism, baptism by sprinkling or pouring, Sunday worship instead of the Jewish Sabbath, seven sacraments, proper way of administering the sacraments, sacred liturgy, apostolic succession through the visible rite of ordination, ordaining only men to the priestly ministry, and canon of the Bible.

It is never taught in Scripture to complement Scripture.

R4. Let me give you a few examples on the role of Tradition in arriving at the correct interpretation of Scriptures. Let us take the case of infant baptism. Is it necessary to baptize infants or not? Those in favor would quote the words of Jesus in John 3:5 “I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” Those against would quote Mar 10:14 wherein Jesus said, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” More biblical passages could be quoted to support each side of the theological fence and it can go on and on without ever coming to a final verdict. How do we know for sure which interpretation of Scripture is correct? How are we to understand the words of Jesus “This is my body” (Luc 22:19-20). Did Jesus mean what he said in the literal sense or was he speaking in the language of a metaphor? I am very much aware of the seriousness of a wrong interpretation here. If Jesus meant only a symbolic presence then Catholics would be guilty of idolatry in adoring the real presence of Jesus under the form of bread. On the other hand, if as the Catholic Church teaches Jesus is speaking in the literal sense, then those who ridicule the real presence of Jesus would be guilty of blasphemy. Most Christians celebrate Sunday not Saturday as the day of worship but where in the Bible is Sunday worship explicitly commanded? To resolve these questions the Church will point us to what has been always believed and practiced since the earliest days of Christianity. The practice of baptizing infants, the belief in the real presence and observance of Sunday as the day of worship has been part of the Church Tradition as evident in the writings of the early Church fathers and in the Church liturgy. It was only in the 15th century that the validity of baptizing infants was denied by the Anabaptists and only in the 10th century when the first serious wave of opposition to the doctrine of the real presence was taught by Berengarius. But I think most important to our discussion is regarding the canon of Scriptures. Without the help of Church Tradition there is no way of determining which books are canonical and which are not.

Have you ever seen this unwritten form in any form whatsoever, or do you simply believe it because Rome tells you so?

R4. How did you know that the 27 books of the New Testament were written by apostles or their disciples? How do you know that the Gospel according to Matthew was written by Matthew and not somebody pretending to be Matthew? What is your reason for rejecting the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Peter since this writings also claim apostolic authorship? You and I who live in the 21st century have no way of knowing this aside from the testimony of the Catholic Church. Thus whether you admit it or not you accept the NT writings to be apostolic in origin on Church’s living testimony. Again we see that Protestantism is running on borrowed power.

Applying your standard to your claim, do you have Bible verses that instructs us that the oral teachings are to be preserved as infallible and God-breathed for our use today to complement Scripture?

R4. St Paul instructs 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). Remember that in Paul’s understanding the tradition he is talking about is both written and oral. Both written and oral traditions taught by the apostles were definitely infallible and God-breath and as such 1 Pet 1:25 and Mat 24:25 which says that the word of the Lord stands forever should equally apply to both written and oral. According to your interpretation of these verses today we are only bound to abide by their written tradition. When did Paul rescind or revoked the command to abide also by their oral tradition as well? There is a maxim in law which says that what is commanded explicitly should be revoked explicitly so until you can present to me an explicit revocation by Paul in his writings the default is that the command remains valid and that would destroy Sola Scriptura.

I have presented to you Bible verses regarding the written form and in order for us not have double standards in this exchange, I believe you should also present to me the same Biblical support for the oral form which you hold on to so dearly. If you cannot, then your position will just dangerously be an assumption.

R4. So far the scriptural citations you have presented proves that the Bible is the word of God to which I agree but not that the Bible alone using the individual’s private judgment is all-sufficient guide for salvation. By your own admission that during apostolic times the word of God was transmitted both in written and oral form and your lack of biblical support on the corruption of the oral form coupled with your lack of biblical support that the command to hold fast to oral traditions was rescinded seriously weakens your position and would lend credence to my objections on Sola Scriptura.

R3. If you bring up the issue on the Catholic devotion to Mary and the saints of course I will tell you that there is no real conflict between the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Bible. The conflict arises either from misunderstanding the teaching of the Catholic Church or misunderstanding the meaning of a biblical passage or both. That certain passages when understood properly would support the Catholic devotion towards Mary and the Saints while those passages which are used to attack these doctrines can be refuted by appeal to Scriptures.

Ok then. Please point me to Scriptures that command praying to Mary and the saints, Scriptures that show the apostles teaching the people of God about the assumption and immaculate conception, and the apostles teaching the people of God that Mary is the co-mediator with Christ. You will not be able to show me Bible verses inspite of your claim because there is none.

R4. Based on your last statement it seems that you have already made up your mind. The reason why I did not cite scriptural support on the doctrines you mentioned is because I wanted to focus our discussion on Scriptures, Tradition and Church authority.

The Roman teaching on Mary is in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches. For example, Paul tells us that "For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1Tim 2:5)" and yet Rome teaches that Mary is co-mediator.

R4. On the question of Christ being the sole mediator between God and men (1 Tim 2:5), this is in regards the act of redemption as Paul clarifies in v.6 “who gave himself to redeem the whole human race.” The Bible does not however preclude other mediatorial roles. “Wherefore then serveth the law… and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator” (Gal 3:19). Now if Moses who received the Law in behalf of the Israelites was rightly called a mediator, can we not also call Mary who received the Law-Giver in behalf of mankind into her womb a mediator?

Paul teaches that "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Rom 3:23)" and Mary herself calls on God as her Savior "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. (Luk 1:47)", and yet Rome teaches that she is sinless.

R4. On the question of Mary acknowledging God as her savior, no doubt! Mary would have contacted original sin like every other descendant of Adam had not God intervened to save her in a preventive way in view of the merits of her son Jesus Christ. Mary is prophesied in the Old Testament as the spouse of the Holy Spirit who is pure and undefiled and that women would look up to her and call her blessed (Songs 4:7, 4:12, 6:9). We find the fulfillment of this prophesy in the New Testament in the person of Mary (Luke 1:28, 35, 42, 48).

Rome also teaches in the Hail Mary that Mary is full of grace, but the Bible teaches us that it is Jesus who if full of grace, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (Joh 1:14)"

R4. On the question of Mary being full of grace, Jesus is full of grace (John 1:14) by nature because He is God. Mary is full of grace by privilege because she was chosen to be the Mother of God Incarnate. The angel salute Mary by saying: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “full of grace” is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. This word represents the proper name of the person being addressed by the angel, and it therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

R3. But since you don’t believe in a living infallible teaching authority, how do you know for sure that you are interpreting correctly the verses that you use to attack catholic doctrines?

By the same token and standard, how do you know that what the Roman church is teaching you is really true, except that it tells you that it is infallible? Paul did not even claim such infallibility in the Berean and Thessalonian examples (Acts 17:11, 1 Thes 5:21).

R4. By the manner in which you answered my question, I would take it as an admission on your part that you do not know for sure that you are interpreting correctly the verses you use to attack catholic doctrines. I know that what the Church teaches is true because the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Christ. It is the teaching authority of the Church that guarantees the truth of a proposition concerning divine revelation as St Paul says “the Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). It is true that in 1 Thes 5:21 we are commanded to test everything and that includes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In his letter to the Thessalonians Paul warns the believers not to fall into deception (2 Thes 2:3-13). What is to prevent them from being deceived? Paul commands the Thessalonians to hold to the oral tradition alongside that which was written, on the same level (2 Thes 2:15). This command from Paul has been faithfully adhered to by the early Christians. “When we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser…” (St Ireneaus “Against All Heresies” 180 AD). “Therefore, it is within the power of all in every church who may wish to see the Truth to examine clearly the Tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the Apostles, and the succession of these men to our own times…” (St Ireneaus “Against All Heresies” 180 AD). I challenge you if Sola Scriptura has been the norm for the early Christians to cite at least one Church father holding such view.

R3. In appealing to Scripture, Tradition, and the Church I am not making God’s word subservient to a higher authority but I am making my interpretation of the Bible subservient to the teaching authority of the Church founded by Christ whom he commands all men to listen and obey (Luke 10:16).

There it is again. Ultimately, your supreme authority is the Roman church, not Scripture, not Tradition.

R4. The authority of the Church is not above that of Scripture; but it is above that of the individual judgment as to what a person thinks Scripture means. You might have missed it but you are not dealing with the scriptural passage I cited wherein Jesus commands us to listen and obey his Church (Luc 10:16).

Many of the essential doctrines of the faith do not really need infallible interpreters, in my humble opinion.

R4. If you refuse to submit yourself to the teaching authority of the church founded by Christ, then your humility is sad to say false humility. Nay, I would even say it is the arrogance and pride that lurks in the hearts of men that was planted by devil that makes one rebel against the divinely established authority. Man wants autonomy and does not want to be subject to no other authority except himself and his private interpretation of the Bible. By the way could you give me a list of what you think are essential doctrines of the faith and where in the Bible does it say that this and that doctrines are essential while the others are not. Some denominations holds as non-essential what other denominations maintains as essential. Who decides what are essential doctrines and what are not?

For example, when Paul teaches in 1 Tim 2:5 that there is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, this pretty much rules out anybody else, does it? Including the Roman Catholic teaching on Mary as co-mediatrix.

R4. Then you have to amend if not delete from Scriptures this verse that says “Wherefore then serveth the law… and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (Moses)” (Gal 3:19). Jesus says “Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven” (Mat 23:9). Now how do you call your mother’s husband? Does St Paul contradict Jesus when he says, “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor 4:15)? Jesus is our supreme mediator and intercessor (1 Tim 2:5). Does St Paul contradict himself for earlier he says, “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men” (1 Tim 2:1)? What I am trying to point out here is that some biblical verses have to be understood in their proper context and we should never quote them as one liner stand-alone verse.

When Mary prays and calls God her Savior in Luk 1:47, this pretty much rules out the Roman Catholic teaching the immaculate and sinless conception of Mary, for why would she need a Savior if she was sinless and immaculately conceived?

R4. Consider this verse, “In the days when he was in the flesh, he offered prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears to the one (God) who was able to save him (Jesus) from death” (Heb 5:7). Now death as St Paul say is a consequence of sin (Rom 5:12). Does this passage imply that Jesus is a sinner like us just because it says that God is able to save him from death and considering the fact that he too died? By no means! Catholics believe that Mary being a descendant of Adam would have contacted original sin if not for God’s intervention to preserve her from sin. Indeed she was saved in a more sublime manner by way of prevention unlike the rest of humanity which was saved by way of restoration. In medical practice doctors would normally recommend immunization to “save” people from serious diseases. What doctors do to their patients in the natural order, God did to Mary in the supernatural order. There is a serious reason why God would preserve Mary for she was to bear the Son of God in her womb (Luke 1:35). The more we contemplate on the holiness of Christ the more we understand the holiness of the woman whom he has chosen to be his mother. God created Eve immaculate but by her disobedience resulted into the fall. Mary was also created by God immaculate and by her complete obedience and submission to God’s will (Luke 1:38) resulted into our redemption. Do you think it is a pious thought to think that the mother of Cain (Eve) is greater than the mother of Jesus (Mary)?

When the writer of Hebrews says in Heb 9:27 that it is appointed for man to die once and after that comes judgment, that pretty much rules out the Roman Catholic teaching on purgatory and indulgences for the dead.

R4. Not quite. We will be judge according to our works (2 Cor 5:10). Those who die in the state of mortal sin their punishment would be eternal damnation (Rev 21:8). But what about those who die with a slight blemish on their soul, a sin of impatience or some attachment to worldly things perhaps? Are they fit to enter heaven? No, the holiness of God forbids it for “nothing defiled can enter heaven” (Rev 21:27). Is God going to consign them to hell together with adulterers and murderers? No, the justice and mercy of God forbid it for God is a just judge (Psalms 7:11). Thus reason and revelation demand that there should be place where souls who are neither fit for condemnation nor immediate entry to eternal bliss will be purged of the remaining impurities (1 Cor 3:13-15) so that they will be worthy of the company of God and the Saints (Heb 12:23). Only the damned are separated from the mystical body, from the communion of saints (1 Cor 12:25-26, Rom 12:4-5). The souls in purgatory are holy members of the mystical body of Christ but they have not yet arrived at the final destination of their journey and therefore they can still be aided by the prayers of the faithful (2 Mac 12:43-45, Col 1:24) which is the essence of indulgences for the dead.

I think you don't realize that in assigning an infallible and authoritative interpreter of the Bible and making yourself subservient to that authority's interpretation of the Bible, you have made the Bible subservient to that authority, for you will now ultimately believe the "infallible" interpretation and not the words of Scripture itself which has been relegated to a difficult-to-understand or not-explicit-enough passage.

R4. In submitting to the judgment of the Church I am making myself subservient to Jesus who commands us in Scriptures to hear and obey the Church (Luke 10:16, Mat 18:17). On the other hand, in exercising private judgment in bible interpretation you have made the infallible Bible subservient to your fallible interpretation, for you will now ultimately believe your “fallible” interpretation and not the words of Scripture itself which you have relegated to a do-it-yourself manual in religion.

Look at the millions of Roman Catholics today. How many of them bring Bibles to the Mass?

R4. When we attend mass it not the appointed time to read the Bible individually. We do that in our homes, during Bible study classes and in our prayer meetings. In the mass we are there to participate in the Liturgy, to listen to the oral proclamation of His word, and to nourish our souls with the spiritual food from the Table of the Lord. If it is a requirement to bring our Bible during mass how about those people who are blind and illiterate? Are they not entitled to participate in the divine worship as much as the others?

From what I have seen so far, your whole faith rests on the Roman church. You have assumed that this church is composed of successors to the Apostles. You have assumed that it teaches infallibly. You have assumed that it holds the oral teachings somewhere and that they are as binding as Scripture. You have accepted its teachings just because it has told you so. I call them assumptions because you have not presented direct Biblical proofs. Your position is much more fragile than the solid position of Sola Scriptura.

R4. Actually I have not assumed these things but have demonstrated them via Scriptures. It is all too easy to explain away the biblical arguments I have presented and pretend that they do not match up. On the contrary sola scriptura is an “a priori” assumption which is not taught in the Bible and verses are cited and interpreted in order to fit into this man-made doctrine. Historically, sola scriptura was a convenient tool in the hands of those who rebelled against the divine authority of the Church founded by Christ.

The verses that you have presented so far only point to the obvious fact that the Apostles also taught verbally.

R4. You are actually missing the obvious fact that in the verses I cited (2 John 1:12, 3 John 1:13, John 21:25) John is clearly telling us that he did not intend to put everything that he wants to say in writing. He did not say “since I have written to you all I have to say then all you have to do is to abide only by what is written in our absence.”

This should not come as a surprise since their oral discourses are well documented in the New Testament.

R4. The very fact that John said the he has much to say which he did not intend to put into writing does not support your assertion that their oral discourses are well documented in the New Testament. Even if the New Testament contains either implicitly or explicitly all that the apostles wanted to teach (which is material sufficiency) it still does not prove that the Bible alone is sufficient guide to salvation (formal sufficiency) since we still have to contend with the correct interpretation and of course of what consists the New Testament.

What I have not seen presented so far is the biblical sanction that God's word through these teachings was to be transmitted throughout history in another form outside the Bible.

R4. Jesus in the four Gospels never wrote a single line of Scriptures nor did he command any of his apostles to write. Instead, he commanded them to “go and preach the Gospel.” Of the twelve apostles only three decided to write. Of those who wrote, not one ever hinted to write everything on the contrary they expressly wrote that there are other things evidently of no lesser importance that they would prefer to transmit orally. The other 9 apostles chose to convey their message in oral form. Catholics respect both mode of communication that the apostles choose. Both written and oral teachings of the Apostles are the word of God and therefore both are to last forever (1 Pet 1:25, Mat 24:35). Jesus intended that everything which he entrusted to the apostles was to be handed down to all subsequent generations (Mat 28:19-20).

I have not seen any biblical warrant presented for the preservation of these oral doctrines throughout history as infallible and binding.

R4. The Biblical warrant is the power of God’s word “the word of God endures forever” (1 Pet 1:25). Jesus says, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Mat 24:35). There is no hint in Scriptures that only the written word will endure forever. Everything that God has revealed either by word of mouth or letter endures forever and is infallible and binding. I would like to bring to your attention that 1 Pet 1:25 and Mat 24:25 does not say “only the written word of God endures forever.” You have cited to me verses warning us not to add or subtract anything from what is written (Rev 22:19, Deut 4:2) and yet you keep on adding the word ONLY and subtracting the unwritten word from the word of God.

So if you hear a teaching from someone claiming that it is from God, how do you really know that it is so? Do you rely solely on the claims of infallibility of the one bringing you the teaching?

R4. Of course we should not believe someone simply because he claims to be infallible. He has to prove that he is in fact infallible. Among all the institutions that exists in the world today, only the Catholic will be able to demonstrate that she is the true Church founded by Christ and whom Paul describes as the Pillar and Foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Whereas all the other Christian denominations are relatively of recent origin her history stretches back to the time of the apostles. She can prove her divine authority through the unbroken line of ordination that can be traced back to those men whom the apostles appointed themselves. She can show to the world her indestructibility as Christ had promised (Mat 16:18). Long before Protestantism with its man-made doctrine of Sola Scriptura ever existed She has brought people from all walks of life into heights of sanctity that is admired even by those outside her fold. She is always the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church established by our Lord himself. These and more are the credentials of the Catholic Church proving her divine origin.

I have to warn you off hand that this is the mark of most if not all cults. They have a leader who claims to directly hear from God and who does not allow his members to question his infallible teachings. For how can he be questioned if he hears directly from God or has received his instructions directly from God, whether directly or handed down.

R4. Cults can easily be falsified to be the true Church of Christ. Cults come and go with the vitality and death of their human founders. The leaders of cults usually ascribed to themselves direct communication from God and therefore do not respect tradition. Cultic leaders usually have their own peculiar interpretation of Scriptures. Of course there are resemblance of the cults with the Catholic Church but this should not surprise us for the devil is an ape of God. None of the cults that exist today or ever existed has the credentials of the Catholic Church.

R3. I think the basic fallacy in the last statement is limiting God’s word to Scriptures alone. God’s word is our final authority be it in written or unwritten form.

God's word came to us in written and unwritten form. Paul, Peter, John and the other apostles also taught orally the word of God. I never said God's word was delivered through Scriptures alone.

R4. If God conveyed to us his word in written and unwritten form when did God declare that we are only to abide by his written word? When did the unwritten word of God loose its power and became obsolete and thrown to oblivion?

The question is, what do we have for the people of God today?

R4. We have the Church Jesus founded whom he promised that even the gates of hell cannot prevail (Mat 16:18) and whom he commissioned to baptize and teach all nations (Mat 28:19-20) and to whom he promised the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truths (John 16:13) and whom Paul refers to as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). It is actually the Church which has preserved for us both the written (Bible) and the oral form (Tradition). No other institution is responsible for this preservation.

The unwritten form was only available during the apostolic era and was even then not taught to complement Scripture.

R4. On the contrary St. John wrote: “Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 1:12). In this telling verse John tells his readers that he has much to write. This means that what he actually wrote is but a small portion of what he actually would like to teach. Now did he say for them to wait for his next mail? No! He said that he does not intend to use paper and ink but instead hope to visit them so as to convey orally those things that he did not write. Thus their oral preaching complemented what they wrote. Your failure to see this is due to the fact that you are not reading the plain and simple meaning of the text but has again tried to interpret this passage using your sola scriptura lens. The assertion that the unwritten form was only available during the apostolic era is entirely unscriptural and unhistorical. If it is then show me in scriptures where it is remotely hinted that Christians are no longer bound to hold fast and maintain to the oral traditions of the apostles. Show me even a single verse that remotely hints that only the unwritten word will endure forever. For one claiming to live by the Bible alone it is surprising to note that you have not cited even a single verse to support these assertions. Show me historical proof that after the apostles died the early Christians dropped all that the apostles taught orally and stuck only to what they wrote.

I believe the fallacy is in your claim that God's inerrant word is available today in unwritten form, for you have presented no proof yet, only the "infallible" pronouncement of the Roman church.

R4. I have not argued based on the “infallible” pronouncement of the Roman Church. I would have done this if I were discussing with a fellow Catholic. I have argued based on reason, scriptures and history. You may accuse me of simply repeating the same old arguments from Rome but at least you have to consider that some Protestant pastors in their objective study of scriptures, history and the writings of the early fathers have arrived at the same conclusion as I have. The fact that I appeal to these “Roman” arguments is because the Protestant response to these arguments are always evasive. It seems that you have been made to believe that Catholics do not think for themselves and that Catholics knows very little about the Bible and that Catholic arguments are weak and easily demolished by one-line quotes from Scriptures. This is why even when I have presented to you biblical arguments for the truth of the Catholicism you simply dismiss them as based on “infallible” pronouncement of the Roman Church. I argued that both the written and unwritten form is available for us today because 1) it pertains to the nature of God’s word that it endures forever be it in written or unwritten form (1 Pet 1:25, Mat 24:35), and 2) from the fact that Jesus intended all his teachings be transmitted to all nations for all times (Mat 28:19-20). In order for you to salvage your position you should cite a verse where it says that only the written word will last forever.

You have not presented any Biblical proof that the unwritten form is to be preserved somewhere somehow and remain binding today, inerrant and untampered, complementing Scriptures.

R4. The apostle Paul commands the early Christians to “hold fast to the traditions which we have handed down to you by word of mouth or by word of letter” (2 Thes 2:15). Paul intentionally used the word tradition not merely “teachings” to indicate that they were to be handed down. The early Christians many of whom died for the faith and zealously combated heresies could not have easily neglected this command of Paul. The early church fathers combated heresies by appeal to the traditions which they have received from the apostles and to the teaching authority of those who succeeded the apostles in their teaching ministry. Even Protestants have their own traditions as reflected in their creeds, confessions of faith, and manuals of instruction. By these carefully formulated creeds, confessions, and manuals the next generations will know what the previous generations believe, their method of worship, how to administer the sacraments, and how they understand certain scriptural texts. But contrary to Catholic Tradition, most Protestant traditions cannot be traced back to antiquity (i.e, sola scriptura) and those traditions which can be traced back to antiquity are merely borrowed from the Catholic Tradition. Some of the main line protestant denominations in leaving the Catholic Church still brought with them some of the Catholic doctrines and practices (including the Bible).

You have also not answered my question asking you how you will know that an unwritten word of God today is really from God Himself. You only have the infallible pronouncement of the Roman church which has said it is the true church of God. It is authenticating itself and presenting you with a circular argument.

R4. How do you know what the New Testament is? How do you know that the Bible in all its parts comes from God? You will not know this by the Bible alone. You cannot answer the question by appeal to a verse that claims inspiration. Authenticating the Bible by the Bible is a circular argument. On the other hand the Catholic argument goes like this: 1) First, we do not presume that the NT writings are inspired but that nevertheless they are reliable historical record, 2) By reading the NT writings we will be informed about Jesus, what he did and what he taught, 3) That in the NT Jesus claims to be God and has proven his claim by the miracles which he wrought and finally by his resurrection, 4) Since Jesus is God then He is able to fulfill what he promise, 5) That based on NT records one of the things that Jesus did while he was on earth was that He founded a Church (Mat 16:18-19) whom he commissioned to baptize and teach all nations (Mat 28:19-20), 6) That based on NT record Jesus promised that his Church will never fall into error (John 14:16, 16:13, 1 Tim 3:15) and therefore has the attribute of infallibility. Here comes the final step in our reasoning. 7) The Church founded by Christ declared that the NT writings are not only reliable historical documents but conveys the very word of God and therefore is inspired. Since the Church is infallible then we can accept her pronouncement as true. This is not a circular reasoning but a spiral reasoning. In this way inspiration is not only “felt” in a subjective way but is demonstrated. The authority of the Church does not come from the Bible (for again that would be circular reasoning i.e., proving the Church by the Bible and the Bible by the Church) but comes directly from Christ who is true God.

You keep leaning on this "church that Jesus founded" as the sole source and authority for your teachings,

R4. The rule of faith for Catholics is the Word of God as contained in the Bible and Tradition. We may say that the remote rule of faith is Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Traditions. The correct interpretation of Scriptures and Tradition is entrusted to the teaching authority of the Church. Thus, the Church’s teaching authority is the immediate rule of faith. I hope you understand this distinction.

and yet you have not shown me what I originally asked you -- proof that the Roman Catholic church is this church today. From what I have observed from your arguments, your faith lies on the pillars of the Roman Catholic Church. Again I ask, can you present just one -- just one -- direct proof from the Bible and from history (sorry, that would make it two), that the Roman Catholic Church is this church today?

R4. Just for starters, let me begin with proof from history. Through historical record we know of the responsible founder of practically every human institution that exists today. This is true for every Christian denomination. For example: the Iglesia ni Cristo was founded by Felix Manalo in 1914, Jehovah’s witnesses by Charles Russel in 1872, Church of Christ of the Latter Day Saints by Joseph Smith in 1830, Methodist Church by John Wesley in 1732, Baptist Church by John Smyth in 1609, Lutheran Church by Martin Luther in 1534, etc. The history of these denominations cannot be traced to a time prior to their founder. Now we may ask the all important question: Who founded the Catholic Church? It is impossible to imagine that the Catholic Church which is largest and the oldest organized institution that exists today will appear on the surface of the earth without a founder. History testifies that the person responsible for founding the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. Here are sample references: “The Catholic Church is the divine society founded by Jesus Christ, bestowed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Specifically this is the society of believers united under the bishop of Rome and hence is often called Roman Catholic Church” (Grolier’s Encyc Vol 5, p 106). “The Catholic Church has two natures, human and divine, the same as her founder Jesus Christ” (International Encyc Vol 15, p 520). I could cite more standard references but this will suffice for now. If you deny this historical witness, then I challenge you to answer these questions: If it was not Christ who founded the Catholic Church, who founded the Catholic Church? When was she founded? Where was she founded? From what standard reference of history d0 you base such information?

R3. If you say that this living teaching society is to teach Scriptures alone, let me ask you this question: How do you know which books belong to the NT canon using the Bible alone? How do you know which among the myriad of conflicting interpretations is the correct one using the Bible alone?

I know that the books in the NT canon today are true because history can prove that they are the books and letters that were being circulated in the early churches and acknowledged as Scripture even before they were collected into one New Testament book.

R4. Let me point out to you that in the early centuries James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, Hebrews, and the book of Revelation were not universally accepted as inspired writings. It only in the Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo 393 AD and Council of Carthage 397 AD that we first find a complete list of NT writings. Prior to this time different local churches have different list of canonical writings. Another historical fact is that there were also writings which were held in high esteem and in fact read in some local churches but did not make its way into the canon. So who was responsible for separating the chaff from the wheat? Somebody has to and did actually make the decision. It should be someone with divine authority. Actually what you call history is none other than the writings of the early church fathers and the decision of the early Church councils. But in accepting their testimony regarding the canon of the NT you are in a flat inconsistency and contradiction. To demonstrate Sola Scriptura you have to rely on an outside source, the tradition of the canon. There is no way out of this. Also what’s your reason for accepting the testimony of the church fathers on the NT canon but reject their testimony on tradition, apostolic succession, primacy of the Pope, the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the mass as their form of worship, confession, purgatory, and a host of other Catholic doctrines that are reflected in their writings. Alex Jones, a revered pastor of the Maranatha Christian Church observed that “Great saints such as Polycarp, Ireneaus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Anthony, Basil, and the two Gregory’s are unknown to most Protestant readers. The great thinkers of the Church-Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, to name a few-are totally ignored by the mass of Protestants.”

Contrary to Roman doctrine, the Roman Catholic Church did not determine the canon of Scripture more that 1,500 after the New Testament church was formed.

R4. The Catholic Church in the Council of Trent in 1545 AD only affirmed the decision of previous church councils approved by the Pope namely the Council of Rome 382 AD, Hippo 393 AD, Carthage 397 AD. The Council of Trent did this in reaction to the Protestant reformation wherein the reformers denied the canonicity of some books. Luther himself doubted the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. He called the Epistle of James “an epistle of straw” and also has harsh words for the book of Revelation saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” In his edition of the Bible, Luther relegated some books that were held for centuries to be inspired to the appendix without page numbers. In order to justify his rebellion against the Church and her Tradition Luther invented Sola Scriptura. The Church as the guardian of Scriptures reaffirmed what was held before (Tradition) and pronounced through the Council of Trent that the 27 books of the NT are to be accepted without question.

The Canon was already accepted and determined by the early churches.

R4. This statement is inaccurate as I have already noted. The list of canonical NT writings did not just come out of the blue. Somebody has to and actually made the decision, the Catholic Church. She did this only under careful discernment by the bishops setting certain criteria for a book to be regarded as canonical. Ultimately her final and binding decision is protected by the Holy Spirit who will guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13) and that includes the determination of the inspired writings.

As a side note, do you know that the Mormons also claim the same authority to determine the canon of Scripture and that all Mormons are as thoroughly convinced as you are of the claims of your respective churches?

R4. The similarity holds no water. The Catholic Church defined the NT canon and teaches that public revelation was closed with the death of the last apostle and condemns those who teach to the contrary. The mormons in adding the book of mormons and believing in ongoing revelation falls under the Church’s anathema. Mormons doctrines are based on their private interpretation of certain passages in Scriptures like baptism for the dead (1 Cor 15:29). The book of mormon also claims divine inspiration and mormons are as convinced that it is inspired as the Protestants are with the Bible. Also the Mormon Church is seen to be relatively of recent origin. It was founded by Joseph Smith in 1830 AD in America. Together with most Protestants they rewrite church history and subscribe to the total apostasy theory that after the death of the last apostle the Church Jesus founded crumbled and completely disappeared from the face of the earth only to restored during a very late age thus making a liar out of Jesus who promised that the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church (Mat 16:18).

I can only know which of the conflicting interpretations is true by careful study of the Bible as the Bible itself commands me to. The Bereans went directly to Scripture in Acts 17:11. Paul never pointed them to himself or to Peter as the source of infallible teachings.

R4. Your suggestion seems fine but in theory it does not work. Each of the protestant churches and denomination claims support from one Bible. Each of them claims “truthful and correct” interpretation of Scripture. From Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, and Pentecostal churches to Mormons and Jehovah’s witnesses, every last one of them interprets the Bible differently. If 500 years of Protestantism has not even come up with the correct interpretation of difficult passages in Scriptures what chance do you and your church have in your lifetime? Using sola scriptura people will always be searching but never attaining to the knowledge of truth. By the way, I have met a lot of people who love the “search for truth” more than the truth itself. Using sola scriptura one cannot be infallibly certain whether he has finally arrived at an infallible interpretation. This is none other than practical agnosticism.

Personally, you may call it a "private interpretation". But that is what God commands in the Bible and He is infinitely wiser than I am. I will obey.

R4. It could not be otherwise. Without an outside authority to interpret the Bible it is only the Bible and the individual reader who will ultimately decide. The Catholic Church encourages the faithful to read the Bible and like Peter she also warns us that “there many parts of the Scriptures which are difficult to understand that the unwise and the unlearned twist to their destruction” (2 Pet 3:16). In rightly interpreting these difficult passages the Church bids us to subject our interpretation to her judgment with the docility of a child. God through his son Jesus Christ has founded a church and commands us to hear and obey the Church through her duly constituted leaders (Luke 10:16, Mat 18:17, Heb 13:17). Truly God is infinitely wiser than we are. Luther invented sola scriptura coupled with private interpretation and has led to multiplicity of denominations. Jesus founded one church of which all are called to this unity (John 10:16, 1 Cor 1:10, Col 3:16, Ephesians 4:4-5). While the Catholic Church has for centuries gathered people to her fold, Protestantism on the other hand has constantly divided God’s people with utter confusion on which denomination to belong.

Will I make a mistake? Oh yes, many times. But still the same, God commands, I obey.

R4. The attainment of truth is one of the most priceless treasures we can have. Jesus says: “Know the truth and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32); “I am the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6); “I came here for only one purpose and that is to bear witness to the truth” (John 18:37). Now Jesus in his visible presence has ascended to heaven. Did he leave us with no visible and living teacher to guide us? St Paul says: “The church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). God never intended us to engage in a trial and error process in knowing the entire content of His revelation for man.

And I will also seek help in God's appointed offices of pastors and teachers.

R4. How do you know that they are truly God’s appointed pastors and teachers? Many of these so-called pastors and teachers although referring to the same verse give you entirely different interpretations? The Bible however guides us on how to recognize God’s duly appointed pastors and teachers. The apostles mindful that the mission of spreading the gospel to all nations was to continue long after they were gone ordained bishops who in turn have the power to ordain others. This they did through the visible rite of ordination (Acts 13:3, 2 Timothy 2:2, 1 Tim 4:14, 1 Tim 5:17, 22, Titus 1:5, 1 Tim 3:1, Acts 20:28, Philippians 1:1, Titus 1:7). No man can claim association with this sacred office unless he is ordained by those who preceded him. This is one of the sacred traditions that the Church has faithfully preserved even to our present age. Every catholic bishop today can trace his lineage in this unbroken line of succession to the apostles and through the apostles to Jesus himself.

In addition to the Berean example, we are commanded in 2 Tim 2:15 to "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth."

R4. These words were addressed by Paul to Timothy whom he has ordained to the sacred ministry. It can be inferred that Timothy was ordained as bishop since he himself has the authority to ordain others (1 Tim 4:14, 5:17, 22). The reason why Paul reminded Timothy to “be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth" was because of his exalted position as teacher, shepherd, and overseer. The question can be asked regarding protestant pastors: Are they rightly handling the truth when they teach people conflicting interpretation of Scriptures?” Can they trace their lineage to the apostles through the unbroken line of sacred ordination?

I apologize if I have not been clear regarding living teachers, for they are God's gift to His church. Eph 4:11 tells us that God gave the church pastors and teachers. Living teachers are a necessary part of the church in the building up of the saints.

R4. Thank you for admitting that living teachers are a necessary part of the church for building up the saints. By this you are already refuting sola scriptura. If the Bible is an all-sufficient guide for salvation, why would there be a necessity for living teachers anyway? Why don’t we just leave the individual with his Bible to figure out for himself the essential doctrines of the Christian faith? Why would living teachers stand between the Bible and the people? If these living teachers are not infallible as you suppose, why risk contaminating the purity of God’s word when it passes the medium of their interpretation?

This is not my main supporting passage for Sola Scriptura, but the ones I pointed out earlier from 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelations 22:19.

R4. I have already answered the above quotes and there is no need for repetition unless you present additional counter-arguments.

R3. The Pharisees were in possession of Scriptures but they needed Jesus to point out to them its true meaning (John 5:39). The disciples had Scriptures but they needed Jesus to point out to them its true meaning (Luc 24:27). The Jews had Scriptures but they needed Peter to point out to them that the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies was Jesus (Acts 2:14-36). The eunuch was reading Scriptures but he needed Philip to instruct him (Acts 8:26-35).

I agree with your observation here. God has given the church pastors and teachers as His gift to the church. What I don't agree with, and which is found nowhere in the Bible, is when you claim that this teaching authority has been given only to a specific group of people or successors (the Roman Catholic Pope and Magisterium), and that these teachers were infallible. You have presented no direct Biblical proof for this claim of infallibility and succession.

R4. I would ask you to contend with the passages I cited in support of the Church’s infallibility and apostolic succession as I have done with the passages you cited in support of sola scriptura rather than simply dismiss them as irrelevant.

R3. These people who had Scriptures could not have figured out by themselves the true import of God’s word. I think we can learn from the example of God’s chosen people in the Old Testament. They were the first custodian of God’s word yet the Jews never dreamt of interpreting Scriptures by their own private judgment. In the book of Deuteronomy we read: “If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates… thou shalt come unto the priests and Levites… And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel” (Deut 17:8-12). “So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading” (Nehemiah 8:8). “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they (God’s people) should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7).

I must say that I am very surprised by this argument. From this exchange and our other exchange on images and how you so passionately explained your supporting Scriptures, I could have sworn you studied the Bible yourself and so have come up with those well-organized discourses. Do you mean to tell me now that all your words came from, I would presume, a Roman Catholic priest? Or cut and paste from a Roman Catholic publication?

R4. I have read a lot of material written by Catholic priests, theologians, and apologists. Some of their arguments have been deeply assimilated in my mind that I could almost quote them verbatim from memory just like I quote many Bible verses. In the history of the Catholic Church she has produced intellectual giants who are known for their sanctity as well. I think it would be unwise and arrogant not to learn from them. Thus if you are expecting originality of thought in all of my discourses I am sorry to disappoint you. Nevertheless let me assure you that I can expound to you all the arguments I have presented had we talked face to face.

Did you not at any time, even one time, try to read and understand for yourself even a single Bible verse? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have a very hard time believing so.

R4. Instead of trying to accuse me of not reading and understanding the Bible verses I quoted, I hope you will start dealing with them.

In Deut 31:9, Moses wrote down the law and in Deut 32:46-47, Moses tells the people to take to heart all these words that they may be careful to do all the words of the law. He did not refer the people to a separate institution or group of people. They were to directly read and obey the words of the law.

R4. Yes, but don’t forget they had Moses as their supreme teacher and interpreter of the law. Jesus in the New Testament recognized the authority of Moses’ seat: "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you” (Mat 23:2-3). To explain Moses’ seat, David Palm writes: “The Jews understood that God’s revelation, received by Moses, had been handed down from him in uninterrupted succession, through Joshua, the elders, the prophets, and the great Sanhedrin.” Although Jesus condemned the Pharisees and the teachers of the law for their hypocrisy he considers their teaching as binding to the Jews.

Let me deal with the passages you cited in their context. Here is the full quote: “When Moses had written down this law, he entrusted it to the levitical priests who carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel, giving them this order: "On the feast of Booths, at the prescribed time in the year of relaxation which comes at the end of every seven-year period, when all Israel goes to appear before the LORD, your God, in the place which he chooses, you shall read this law aloud in the presence of all Israel. Assemble the people--men, women and children, as well as the aliens who live in your communities--that they may hear it and learn it, and so fear the LORD, your God, and carefully observe all the words of this law” (Deut 31:9-12). Notice that is says “this law” several times and not “the law.” What Moses wrote down in Deut 31:9 is not the entire law but the law which is to be read every seventh year. He entrusted it not to every Israelite so that they will interpret the law for themselves but to the levitical priests not only for safekeeping of the copy but most importantly for its proper interpretation.

In Deut 32:46-47 what Moses was telling the people to take heart was the words which he has just spoken “When Moses had finished speaking all these words to all Israel” (Deut 32:45). I would not suppose and I think neither would you that Moses was reading his speech during this time. This speech of Moses was first handed down orally among the people and was later on put into writing by the scribes. Thus your conclusion that the people were “to directly read” is I think way off the mark for it was impossible for people to read that which was not yet written.

Taking the context of your example in Deut 17:8-12, Moses is talking about civil and criminal cases, not the reading and obeying of Scripture.

R4. Notice that the verses I quoted mentions of the priest which is none other than the high priest and the judge which is ordinarily a layman. The former presided over the court in cases that directly concerned religion, the latter in cases of a more secular nature. There is an example to this in 2 Chron 19:8-11: “In Jerusalem also, Jehoshaphat appointed some Levites and priests (clergy) and some of the family heads of Israel (lay persons) to judge in the name of the LORD and to settle quarrels among the inhabitants of Jerusalem… See now, Amariah is high priest over you in everything that pertains to the LORD (Religious matters) , and Zebadiah, son of Ishmael, is leader of the house of Judah in all that pertains to the king (civil matters); and the Levites will be your officials. Act firmly, and the LORD will be with the good." Thus your contention that it’s all about civil and criminal cases and not about religion is inaccurate.

Your example in Neh 8:8 only strengthens the position of directly reading and understanding Scripture. Ezra helped them understand and apply Scripture as teachers do today. But Ezra never claimed what the Roman church is claiming today as the sole interpreting and teaching authority of Scripture. The Old Testament priests, prophets and scribes had their function in ministering to the people of God. But Scripture was sufficient for them. Nobody claimed infallible teaching authority.

R4. The Catholic Church encourages us to directly read and understand Scriptures as St. Jerome puts it: “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” Furthermore, the Church also tells us to interpret Scriptures in the light of the living faith Tradition of the Christian community which followed the apostles. After all who would know better what the Apostles mean in their writings than the early Christians who immediately followed them. This understanding of what the apostles taught and instituted are reflected in the writings of the early Church fathers, in the ancient liturgy, and in the pronouncement of early church councils. If our interpretation of Scriptures is contrary to how the early Christians understood it then we give the benefit of the doubt to them.

In quoting Neh 8:8, I was pointing out to you that the Jews who were the first to receive the written word of God did not believe in sola scriptura and private interpretation. They had priests of the Levitical race who stand in authority to expound to them the word of God. “So they (the priests) read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them (people) to understand the reading” (Neh 8:8). The fact that the priests have to explain the law to the people (v. 7) shows that there are things contained in the law that can be subject to misinterpretation. Although I do not assert that the Levites who stand in authority during Old Testament times were granted the gift of infallibility nevertheless they were given by God the binding authority to interpret the Law of Moses as Jesus himself affirmed in the New Testament (Mat 23:2-3).

Your example in Mal 2:7 shows the tremendous responsibility of the Old Testament priest in teaching the law. The previous verse will tell us that the priest was to teach the law. The succeeding verse shows God rebuking the priest for departing from this duty of preserving and upholding the law. The Roman doctrine of infallibility is still nowhere to be found.

R4. The tremendous responsibility of the priest in teaching the law “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge” is coupled with the obligation on the part of the people to “seek the law at his mouth for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 2:7). Again this disproves sola scriptura and private interpretation. God never commanded his people to interpret for themselves scriptures but he has appointed priests to do that for them. They (the people) are to seek the law at his (the priest) mouth. The people were commanded by God to listen to the priests who were in turn accountable to God. The subsequent rebuke from God was because they tolerated intermarriage with foreigners (Mal 2:10) which was forbidden according to Deut 7:1-4. These intermarriages were all the more reprehensible when accompanied by divorce of Israelite wives (Mal 2:14-16). But even Moses tolerated divorce in the Old Testament because of the hardness of people hearts as Jesus mentioned (Mat 19:8). I hope you will learn to appraise the verses I cited on their own merits. You seem to be asking too much to find the doctrine of infallibility from every passage that disproves sola scriptura. I cited this verse as evidence against sola scriptura and it does just that.

I think I will digress for a moment and point out to you that in the New Testament, all of God's people are considered priests as Peter tells is in 1 Peter 2:5,9

R4. In the Old Testament the entire people of God were also called a priestly nation, “You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation” (Exo 19:6). This is what theology calls the common priesthood that is the priesthood shared by all of God’s people. But within God’s people God chose certain men to serve as priests in a unique way (Isa 61:6). They alone were given the authority to offer sacrifices in the behalf of the people (Lev 9:6-7). They were given the authority to judge (Deut 17:8-12, Sir 45:15-17). They have the authority to teach the people (Lev 10:10-11, Mal 2:7) and to interpret the law for them (Neh 8:8, Mat 23:2-3). They were chosen to the ministerial priesthood by the visible rite of sacred ordination (Lev 16:32, Num 27:23). Likewise, in the New Testament, all of God’s people share in common priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5,9) but this does not preclude that certain men were chosen to participate in a unique way the one priesthood of Christ.

and all of God's people are called saints (Act 9:32, Eph 1:1, Col 1:2) .

R4. I fully agree with this. CCC par 825 says: “The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect. In her members, perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired: Strengthened by so many and such great means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever their condition or state—though each in his own way—are called by the Lord to that perfection of sanctity by which the Father himself is perfect” (Mat 5:48). In CCC par 828 the Church teaches and I quote in part: “By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.”

The Old Testament priest brought the people's sacrifices to God. They needed someone to intervene for them for they were too sinful to approach the Holy God. They needed a priest to bring their prayers, thanksgiving and sacrifices to God.

R4. I agree.

The priest was the Old Testament's representative to God. But the function of the Old Testament priest has been made obsolete in the New Testament with the Lord Jesus Christ being our High Priest (Hebrews 8) who intercedes for the people of God daily (not Mary).

R4. I agree except on that bit of the last part which shows how poorly you understand the Catholic teaching about Mary. The fact that Jesus lives forever to make intercession for us (Heb 7:25) does not deny that there are other intercessors whose roles are subsidiary and subordinate to that of Christ. In 1 Tim 2:1-3 Paul writes, “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men… this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior.” So, when we Christians pray for one another we are acting as intercessors but we can only do so because we are united with Christ as our head. And why should we deny to Mary what we ascribe to all believers? I would have wanted to explain further but I don’t want to digress from our topic on Scripture, tradition, and Church teaching authority.

The New Testament teaches that we do not need to go to the Old Testament priest

R4. That is quite correct since the Old Testament priesthood has been revoked. Since the sacrifices of the Old Covenant of the blood of bulls and goats (Heb 10:4) is to cease so is the priesthood instituted to offer those sacrifices. “When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well” (Heb 7:12).

or a Roman Catholic priest to approach God.

R4. Heb 7:12 says that there is a change of priesthood. The priesthood of the order of Aaron is now replaced by the priesthood of Christ according to the order of Melchizedek, “You will be a priest forever, in the priestly order of Melchizedek” (Heb 7:17). Jesus is the high priest of the New Covenant (Heb 4:14). If we read in the Old Testament Melchizedek was a high priest who offered bread and wine (Gen 14:18). But what Melchizedek did in the Old Testament as a foreshadow by offering ordinary bread and wine, Jesus in the New Testament did the fulfillment in substance by offering not mere bread and wine but his body and blood (Luc 22:19-20). And Jesus commanded his apostles to do what he did during the last supper i.e., to consecrate bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ and offer it as a sacrifice and as food and nourishment for our souls. This command of the Lord has been faithfully carried on over the centuries by the priests of the Catholic Church until the Lord comes in glory (1 Cor 11:26). St Paul himself claims to perform the priestly service of Christ, “But I have written to you rather boldly in some respects to remind you, because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in performing the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering up of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the holy Spirit” (Rom 15:15-16). The Old Testament foretell about a new kind of sacrifice which is pleasing to God, “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; And everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering; For great is my name among the nations, says the LORD of hosts” (Mal 1:11).

We are told in Heb 4:16 to draw near to the throne of grace with confidence. Jesus Christ repeatedly commands us to come to HIM.

R4. The fact that the Jesus commands us to come to him (Mat 11:28) does not preclude the possibility of others whom Jesus has appointed as ambassadors. St Paul wrote: “Here we are, then, speaking for Christ, as though God himself were making his appeal through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf…” (2 Cor 5:20). Jesus is our perfect model, “Let us keep our eyes fixed on Jesus, on whom our faith depends” (Heb 12:2) yet St Paul also said, “Imitate me, then, just as I imitate Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). I have seen a lot of television show wherein Protestant pastors would heal the sick in the name of Jesus and they would invite their audience to come and join their prayer rallies so that people could be healed through the prayer of evangelist so and so. Since Jesus is everywhere and he can hear our prayers what’s the use of attending prayer rallies and being prayed over?

It may seem awkward to you, but all of God's people in the New Testament are priests and saints.

R4. It is not awkward at all when these are understood properly. The people of God share the common priesthood of all the believers but it does not preclude that there are men chosen by God to share in a unique way the one priesthood of Christ. All of God’s people are called saints since called by God into the one body (Col 3:15) they are endowed with a sanctity that is real although imperfect. The canonized saints are members of the same body who have lived heroic lives of virtue and the Church presents them as models and intercessors for us.

R3. Tradition does not contradict anything in Scriptures.

I have to emphatically say that I don't agree with this statement. Roman Catholic "Tradition" contradicts many things in Scripture and has added to Scripture, not only explained and interpreted Scripture as you claim. Please point me then to where I can find in the Bible the Roman Catholic Traditions of assumption, immaculate conception, praying to (dead) saints and to Mary, purgatory and indulgences, Mary as co-mediator and papal infallibility.

R4. Once again, I will respond just in brief so as not to digress from our main topic on Scripture, Tradition and the Church.

On the assumption of Mary this has been prophesied in the Old Testament. “Arise, O Lord into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy strength” (Psalms 132:8). The ark of covenant in the Old Testament has also been understood as a type (biblical typology) of Mary. We can find several parallels here. The ark of covenant in the Old Testament contained the manna, rod of Aaron, and the tablets of the law. In the New Testament, Mary contained in her womb Jesus who is the bread of life, our High Priest, and our Law-giver. When the ark of covenant was brought to David, he exclaimed, “How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?” (2 Sam 6:9). In the New Testament when Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth she exclaimed, “whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43). Based on the prophecy it is not only the Lord (Jesus) who will rise but also the ark (Mary) will share in his resurrection. Furthermore, this testimony from John is an allusion to Mary. “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars… And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations…” (Rev 12:1-5).

On the immaculate conception of Mary, we read in Genesis that right after the fall God promise a redeemer to be born of a woman. “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15). The seed of the woman who will crush the serpent’s head is Jesus and it is not remote to infer that the woman is Mary. God says that He himself will put enmity between the devil and the woman. This enmity would not admit of a momentary reconciliation which would happen had Mary sinned for all those who have sinned are under the dominion of Satan. In this enmity, the woman will always emerge victorious over the serpent and this is only possible if God will give sufficient grace to the woman for her to resist all the wiles of the devil.

On the questions on praying to (dead) saints, first of all I would like to respond that those who die in the Lord are very much alive in the spirit. Almost 2000 years after the death of the Patriarchs Jesus quoted scriptures saying, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living” (Mar 12:26-27). St John himself testified, “I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice…” (Rev 6:9-10). If the Saints while they were with us on earth when their love was still imperfect were solicitous with our spiritual welfare, can we suppose that now that they are with God in heaven and their love made perfect that they will care less for their brethren here on earth? Far be it! Why would God who encourages us to ask their intercession while they were still sojourning here on earth bar us from asking the same, nay more powerful intercession from them now that they are perfectly united with him in heaven? On the contrary the writer of the book of Hebrews says “Wherefore seeing we also are surrounded with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us” (Heb 12:1).

On the doctrine of Purgatory, we should note that it is was prevailing practice among the people of God in the Old Testament as they still do even today to pray for their departed dead. This is recorded in the book of Macabees. “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins” (2 Mac 12:45). Jesus in his time reprimanded the Jews for those man-made teachings that have crept into the Jewish religion that made void the word of God. But never in one instance did Jesus rebuke the Jews for the practice of praying for the dead. Now praying for the dead does not make sense if in the next life we only have heaven and hell. Those in hell cannot be aided by our prayers since the punishment of hell is eternal. Those who are in heaven have no need of our prayers for they are already enjoying eternal bliss. Thus prayers for dead are intended for those souls who died in the state of venial sin who not yet arrived at their final destination and needs final purification through the blood of our Lord before they are worthy to enter heaven.

On the other points which you raised at this juncture, I have already replied previously although quite briefly. If you want a dialogue on any of the above catholic doctrines I will be glad to engage them. Just take your pick and we can do that on a separate exchange just like we did on sacred images.

R3. They are two distinct yet complimentary modes of transmission. The fact that in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 he urged the faithful to hold fast to tradition both written and oral proves that he transmitted God’s word in two complimentary modes of transmission. I think that the assertion that “Paul was referring to his teachings which we can now find in the Bible” is unbiblical and therefore defeats what it wants to assert.

I agree that Paul taught in writing and orally. I agree that these oral teachings were to be handed down by whoever received them as we are to responsibly teach and share whatever good teachings we have received. That is what the Bible says. But the Bible never mentions these oral teachings as complementary to Scripture. You have been claiming this but have not presented any direct Biblical proof. This is your assumption. Will this assumption stand test? Let me apply one test.

R4. Scriptures and Tradition compliment each other in the sense that those that are implicit in the Bible are made explicit in Tradition and Tradition guides us on the proper interpretation of Scriptures. On the other hand Scriptures can be used to verify authentic apostolic tradition. However, the correct interpretation of both Scripture and Tradition is not left to individual readers since that would produce mass confusion (1 Cor 14:33), but to the teaching authority of the Church founded by Christ (Mat 16:18-19). The word of God was first handed down orally. Then there was a time that it was handed down both in oral and written form. To this we could both agree. Where we disagree is in your contention that only the written word will survive and the unwritten form does not. I have shown you that the word of God stands forever (Mat 24:25, 1 Pet 1:25, Isa 59:21). Every single verse in Scriptures which says that the word of the Lord remains forever does not limit that word to the written word alone. So once again let me throw the bucket to your side. Since you claim that only the written word will stand forever, show me a verse in Scriptures that says so. If you cannot prove this using Scriptures alone then why do you continue to hold on to the shaky premise of sola scriptura?

Since Paul did not write about the immaculate conception and papal infallibility to the Thessalonians, are you asserting that Paul instead taught them these doctrines orally as part of the tradition that he handed down to them?

R4. These doctrines are implicitly contained in the Bible and are reflected in the writings of the early Church fathers then most definitely they are part of the Tradition which they have received from the apostles. However, these doctrines along with some essential doctrines such as the Trinity may not have been articulated in those early years with the same clarity and precision of language as we have them today.

Let me give sample quotes from the early fathers: “And thus, as the human race fell into bondage to death by means of a virgin (Eve), so it is rescued by virgin (Mary). Virginal disobedience has been balanced in the opposite scale by virginal obedience. For in the same way, the sin of the first created man received amendment by the correction of the First-Begotten” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, AD189). “Mary’s life should be for you a pictorial image of virginity. Her life is like a mirror reflecting the face of chastity and the form of virtue” (Ambrose of Milan, The Virgins, AD 377). “Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?” (Augustine, Nature and Grace, AD 415).

On the authority of the Pope here are some quotes: Pope Clement I writing to the Corinthians exercised his authority as successor of Peter as bishop of Rome: “If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him (God) through us (i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders), let them know that they involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, AD 80). Take note that the controversy in Corinth was referred to Church in Rome but not to Ephesus where St John the apostle was residing. “Ignatius… to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, AD 110). Note that this letter was written during apostolic times decades after the death of Peter and Paul but before the death of St John.

I want you to take note that what the Bible certifies in 2 Tim 3:16 as God-breathed is Scripture.

R4. On the contrary it is St. Paul through his letter that certifies the Old Testament Scriptures as God-breath. The Old Testament does not certify itself but is certified through the authority of Jesus and the apostles. Since Jesus and the apostles frequently quoted the Old Testament then this will vouch for their divine inspiration, at least in those books that were quoted by them. Regarding the NT writings it was the divine authority of the Church founded by Christ that certified for us that they were in fact inspired.

The oral traditions which you refer to today are not certified as infallible and God-breathed and you have presented no proof otherwise.

R4. The same divine authority of the Church founded by Christ that certified the canon of Scriptures has also certified that the Tradition she maintains comes from the apostles. We cannot not pick and choose on what we want to accept. We today who are 2000 years distant from the time of the apostles have no way of ascertaining which books were actually authored by them or their immediate disciple. We have to rely on tradition and the Church’s decision. There is no escaping this and it is fatal to sola scriptura. If we have to rely on an outside source in knowing the content of the canon then it is not scriptures alone.

Therefore, only Scripture can be our sole source of the infallible word of God if we are to obey God and submit to His commands. All others are not certified as God-breathed.

R4. Before you can say that only Scriptures can be our sole source of infallible word of God, you must first ascertain which are scriptures and you cannot do this by scriptures alone. Thus the very assertion defeats itself. On the contrary even Scriptures attest to the fact of divinely revealed oral traditions (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Thes 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2) and it attests to the Church as guided by the Holy Spirit into all truths (John 16:13) and the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

They are useful maybe for historical and what other purpose they may serve.

R4. On the contrary, St Paul did not say “Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which we have taught you because they maybe useful for historical and what other purpose they may serve.” If we read the all-important passage in 2 Thes 2:15 in its context we will find out the oral tradition does exactly what their written teachings do as well. Prior to this (vv. 1-12) Paul writes how people must not be deceive by false teachings. He tells them that in order not to be deceived, they must hold to both traditions, oral and written. Nowhere does he say that the oral, is the exact thing as the written. Nor does he tell them that after he dies, the only thing that they must maintain is the written word. What does this tradition (oral and written) do? Tradition teaches the gospel (v. 14) that leads to salvation (v. 13). When one holds to these traditions the Lord establishes them in every good work (v. 17). It is important to note that Paul here uses the word tradition which means that which is handed down. Thus Paul’s command to maintain the oral traditions as well is not only for the first generation Christians but for all generations.

But they can never be placed at par with Scripture, or be made to complement Scripture. You will only err if you go against this command of God.

R4. On the contrary the command of Paul written in Scriptures is to hold fast to both oral and written word. They are evidently in error who presumes that they are to hold fast only to the written and not the oral as well.

R3. Since you uphold Sola Scriptura, let me ask you: where can you find in any of Paul’s letter wherein he made the above assertion? I think that the above assertion flies in the face of the explicit statement of John in his epistles (2 John 1:12, 3 John 1:13) that he did not intend to put everything which he intended to teach in writing. What is true of John should be also true with Paul.

You are making the glaring assumption that these things which were not written down are necessary for us today as a complementary source of God's inerrant word.

R4. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to hold fast to both oral and written word (2 Thes 2:15). How could Paul bind the Thessalonians to the oral tradition if this was not necessary? What was necessary for the early Christians should also be necessary for us today. You have been complaining of double standard. Why would you violate your own principle in this regard? I have shown you some examples on how oral tradition complements scriptures. The content of the canon is nowhere found in scriptures but is derived from tradition. There is no way for you to escape the tradition of the canon. On the other hand, your assertion that those that were not written were not necessary for us as a complimentary source of God’s inerrant word has no biblical basis whatsoever. It flows from the false premise that since the Bible is clear enough on matters of salvation then those that are not written are not therefore necessary.

The fact that not everything was (obviously) not written down does not prove that Scripture needs to be complemented and is therefore, not sufficient. John and Paul never taught that the things that they did not write down were to complement Scripture.

R4. The fact is that no sacred writer claimed that what they wrote is all that we need to know regarding the faith. On the contrary they explicitly stated in their writings that they did not intend to put everything in writing and that there are other things not less important that they would rather convey face to face (2 John 1:12, 3 John 1:13). No sacred writer claimed that what they wrote is exactly the same thing as what they wish to convey orally. That would make John ridiculous when he wrote: “I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face” (3 John 1:13). St Paul instructed the early Christians to hold fast to both written and oral instructions (2 Thes 2:15). Yet you continue to assert that their oral instructions did not complement their writing. I think no reader of the Bible except those who are following blindly the man-made dogma of sola scriptura will ever arrive at this conclusion based on a cursory reading of the above verses.

On the other hand, Paul explicitly teaches that Scripture is sufficient (2 Tim 3:15-17) and John explicitly commands that nothing is to be added to it or taken away from it (Rev 22:18-19).

R4. I have already refuted these two verses in my previous responses. Since you have not forwarded at this juncture new arguments in your favor I would just like to refer you to my previous responses.

Paul said in 2 Tim 3:16-17 that all Scripture is God-breathed and is sufficient to make the man of God complete, lacking in nothing. Let me ask you instead, where do you find in the Bible where other sources aside from Scripture are certified as God-breathed and are to be preserved as a source of infallible teaching for God's people today. We should apply the same standard to both our claims. You should present direct Bible verses to prove your claims, not just arguments regarding complementary traditions and papal infallibility.

R4. I have cited to you verses wherein we are commanded to hold fast and maintain not only the written word but also the oral traditions of the apostles (2 Thes 2:15, 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2). I have argued from scriptures that the word of God (both written and oral) will stand forever (Mat 24:25, 1 Pet 1:25, Isa 59:21). The Bible also mentions the Church as a living teacher of God’s word whom the Holy Spirit will guide into all truths (John 16:13) and is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). So far I have presented to you biblical arguments to which you have not directly responded.

R3. Let me get this straight. 2 Tim 3:15-17 does not say that Scripture ALONE makes us complete and fully equipped.

In my opinion, the word "alone" was really not necessary anymore since the passage clearly proved that there is no need for any other. Thoroughly equipped. Every good work. I think good logical reasoning can allow us to arrive at this conclusion.

R4. The fact the above verse does not specifically mention any other does not proved that there is no need for any other. We have to gather more data from other parts of Scriptures if indeed it does not mention of any other authority besides scriptures. Once this is done it immediately becomes clear that we are commanded to hold fast not only to the written word but also to oral tradition (2 Thes 2:15) and that we are commanded to listen and obey the Church (Luke 10:16, Mat 18:17). Had the above passage used the word alone then it would eliminate beyond all doubt of the need of any other but again it does not say that.

Couple this with Moses' and John's teachings not to add or take away from Scripture and you have the Bible as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church.

R4. In Deut 4:1-2 what Moses meant not to be added to or taken away were the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law. In Rev 22:18-19 what John meant not to be added to or taken away were the prophecies contained in the book of Revelation. Thus your application of these passages to support sola scriptura is entirely out of context.

I have not seen presented any Scriptural proof that the oral traditions are necessary today to complement Scripture

R4. To stand firm and hold fast to oral tradition was necessary during apostolic times as Paul himself commands (2 Thes 2:15) so that the people would not fall into false teachings and there is no reason why it would not be necessary for us today. I would even say considering the fact that in our days false teachings based on private interpretation of the Bible are being proliferated in numbers as never before in history that it is much more necessary that we cling to what the early fathers taught and believe as reflected in their writings.

and that they have been taught in the Bible as being infallibly preserved for God's people today. We should not hold a double standard for both our claims.

R4. The oral tradition of the apostles were most definitely preserved as Jesus himself promised: “But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26). “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). This promise was not given to the apostles individually but collectively and through them to the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). The Church could not falter in her mission as custodian and depository of the truth (both written and oral) that was once and for all revealed to the saints (Jude 1:3).

R3. It is when we insert the word ALONE that the above verse will tend to support Sola Scriptura much like the way Luther inserted the word ALONE in Romans 3:28 to support his doctrine on Sola Fide. Let me recap my argument. In James 1:4 it says: “And let perseverance be perfect, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” In 2 Tim 3:16-17 it says: “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." (emphasis mine). What I was trying to point out is that the use of the word “complete” does not necessarily mean that the thing that makes one complete is the only thing that one needs in order to be complete. If it is said in James 1:4 that perseverance makes one perfect and complete, lacking in nothing and it does not necessarily mean that perseverance alone is all we need to be complete (which you agree) in a similar manner if it is said in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that Scriptures makes one complete that it does not necessarily mean that Scriptures alone is all we need to make the man of God complete. During our ROTC days we were required to wear complete uniform. Suppose I lost my combat shoes and a friend of mine lets me borrow his second pair of shoes. The pair of combat shoes makes me complete, fully equipped, and lacking in nothing for the uniform inspection but it does not mean that it is the only thing I need to make me complete.

You have a perfectly valid point and I would like to address them using 2 arguments - context and original Greek usage. We agreed that context is essential in coming up with the correct interpretation and understanding of a passage. I would now like to include the importance of going back to the original Greek or Hebrew texts especially that there is a concern on the usage of terms.

R4. I am glad you mentioned that context is essential. Now the immediate context of 2 Tim 3:15-17 is that what St Paul was referring to as “All Scripture” are the scriptures of the Old Testament which Timothy has known since childhood (v.15). Of course there is no doubt that the scriptures of the Old Testament are God-breath, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. However, this does not mean that the OT writings are all we need to guide for salvation. If this verse proves what you what to prove then it proves too much i.e., that the OT writings are all-sufficient and that the NT writings are not necessary.

James 1:4 is not the only verse that uses the translation "complete". The translation "complete" can also be found in Matt 19:21, Col 1:28, Col 4:12 and Jam 1:4. If you go back to the original Greek text used, all these other references use a different Greek word "teleios" than 2 Tim 3:17 which uses "artios". "Teleios" also translates to "perfect" and more accurately refers to maturity or reaching a desired end. "Artios" on the other hand translates to being "fit for a task". So you see, you really cannot compare the texts because they use different Greek words.

R4. I don’t want to engage you in a battle of quoting scholarly sources but I beg to disagree your limiting the meaning of “artios” to being “fit for a task.” If you pick your English dictionary or better a Thesaurus you will easily find that some words can have overlapping meanings. The greek ‘artios’ could mean: suited, qualified, ready, complete, to perfection. This becomes clear since most translation translate it as “complete” and not “fit for a task.” Paul says that Scripture is "profitable for doctrine" not that it is "sufficient for doctrine." Paul knew the word "sufficient" or "enough" (hikanos or arketos in Greek) for example in 2 Cor 9:8 which teaches that grace is sufficient, that we may have an abundance "for every good work" (also 2 Tim 2:21; Col 4:12, James 1:4; Heb 13:20-21 which uses similar language to 2 Tim 3:17). But St. Paul did not use that word. He says it is profitable (ophelimos in Greek) for doctrine, not sufficient.

Context will also show and confirm the original Greek usage pertaining to being fit for a task, for 2Tim 3:16-17 refers to equipping the man of God for every good work, doing what is necessary for faith and morals. James 1:2-4 on the other hand, talks about patience or endurance.

R4. If 2 Tim 3:17 is rendered as “fit for a task” and not “complete” then it would weaken further your argument. Let’s see how the verse would read if we put “fit for a task” instead of “complete”: 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 fit for a task, fully equipped for every good work. This narrows down substantially what scriptures can do. What can be said of that which makes one complete can also be said on that which makes one fully equipped that is that which makes one fully equipped need not necessarily mean that it is the only thing that makes one fully equipped. Suppose I wanted to go on scuba diving. While I am putting on my diving gear my diving instructor puts on my back my oxygen tank and says: “With that thing on you are now fully equipped for your dive.” Does this mean that the oxygen tank is the only thing I need for deep sea diving? No. I also need my diving suit, my flippers, my face mask, my flashlight, and of course I need my diving instructor to accompany me.

Paul in 2 Tim 3:16-17 is not referring to the canon of Scripture but to the nature of Scripture as being God-breathed and sufficient.

R4. Granting that Paul was referring also to the nature of Scripture as being God-breath but you cannot also ignore the immediate context that He was referring to the Old Testament Scripture, which Timothy was familiar with since childhood. Remember you have categorically stated that context is important and I invoke this principle. A fundamental in biblical interpretation is to consider first the literal and contextual meaning before we can proceed to apply some metaphorical, typological or spiritual meaning. To apply this St Paul was telling Timothy about the nature of the Old Testament writings i.e, that they are inspired, useful for teaching, and is able to equip the man of God for every good work. To conclude from this verse what you wanted to assert that it teaches sola scriptura then by necessity it would imply that the OT scriptures is all-sufficient and its corollary that the NT may be useful but not necessary. Evidently you won’t agree with this conclusion. Therefore you cannot force sufficiency in the text.

And if you go back to catch the context in verse 10, you will see that Timothy had very good teachers, yet Paul points Timothy to nothing else but Scripture as his sole infallible authority.

R4. On the contrary, Paul wrote: “Hold firmly to the true words that I taught you” (2 Tim 1:13). “Through the power of the Holy Spirit, who lives in us, keep the good things that have been entrusted to you” (v. 14). “Take the teachings that you heard me proclaim in the presence of many witnesses, and entrust them to reliable people, who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim 2:2). In this verse, Paul referred Timothy to his oral preaching and not only that gave instructions on how this oral preaching is to be handed down to the next generations. Prior to pointing Timothy to Scriptures he reminded him, “But as for you, continue in the truths that you were taught and firmly believe (2 Tim 3:14). Thus, Paul pointed Timothy not only to Scriptures as the authority but also to his oral preaching as well.

Paul could have pointed him to another institution or to Peter as his teaching authority as you do today with the Pope, but no, Paul points Timothy to Scripture.

R4. Of course, Paul did not point Timothy to another institution for there was no other except the one Church founded by Christ of which the apostles were the leaders during those times. Regarding your contention that Paul referred to scriptures alone on doctrinal matters I think you are mistaken. Just observe how the early Church resolved the controversy about circumcision. We read in the Acts of the Apostles, “Paul and Barnabas got into a fierce argument with them about this, (My comment: Did they say: come let us search the scriptures and exchange bible verses? No! That did not happen.) so it was decided that Paul and Barnabas and some of the others in Antioch should go to Jerusalem and see the apostles and elders about this matter” (Acts 15:2). The apostles and the elders who were gathered during this historic council resolved the controversy not by citing biblical verses but by exercising their God-given authority, “The Holy Spirit and us” (Acts 15:28).

In spite of the rich oral teaching that Timothy received, Paul tells him to preach the Scriptures. Scripture is able to make him wise unto salvation (3:15). It is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (3:16). Scripture thoroughly equips the man of God for every good work (3:17). Paul tells Timothy he must preach the Word even though a time will come when people will not want to hear it but will find teachers who will suit their fancy (4:1-4).

R4. On the contrary, notwithstanding the usefulness of Scriptures (vv. 15-17), Paul did not instruct Timothy to abide by Scriptures alone or that Scriptures alone was to be the source of his teachings. To teach Scriptures yes but never Scriptures alone. He instructs Timothy to adhere and to teach others his oral preaching as well (2 Tim 1:13, 14, 2 Tim 2:2, 2 Tim 3:14). Thus, when Paul exhorts Timothy to preach the word this is not limited to Scriptures alone but also to the oral teachings which Timothy had heard from Paul.

These verses do not only teach sufficiency of Scriptures. They teach also clarity of Scriptures in matters pertaining to salvation, for it is able to make him wise unto salvation.

R4. The verses in question do not say that every person handling the bible by private interpretation will be wise unto salvation. It pertains to the man of God who is ordained to the ministry. Timothy was ordained by Paul and he also has the power to ordain others (1 Tim 4:14, 5:22). Therefore, Timothy is actually a bishop and can properly be called a man of God. Being taught personally by Paul himself, Timothy is able to handle the word of truth rightly (2 Tim 2:15). On the other hand, Peter is quite clear that no prophesy in Scripture can be understood by private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20) and that there are parts of the Scriptures which are difficult to understand which the unwise twist to their destruction (2 Pet 3:16).

On the other hand, we see no references where Paul points to Peter as the infallible teacher. You have not given me a single verse that supports this claim and yet you keep on asserting it as though it were itself God-breathed and proven true, when it is not.

R4. On the contrary, Jesus said to Peter: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and even the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mat 16:18-19). Although the other apostles also share the authority to bind and to loose (Mat 18:18), it was to Peter alone and to no other apostle did Jesus promised the keys. Further Jesus promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter in the context of the establishment of the Church. In a parallel verse in Isa 22:21-22 Eliakim was given the key of the house of David by which he acted a vice regent subject only to the king himself. In the New Testament Jesus is the King himself and in giving Peter the keys of the kingdom he made Peter the visible ruler of his kingdom. Now since Jesus cannot ratify in heaven a false doctrine, He would naturally protect Peter from falling into heresy when he teaches on matters pertaining to salvation. This is the foundation of Peter’s and consequently papal infallibility. If you would like this to be the subject of a separate discussion, I will be glad to.

R3. It might not be your intention to take the one verse containing “profitable” to support your argument but you still have to deal with it since it is included in the above quote from 2 Tim 3:16-17 and it will shed some light on the meaning of the entire quote. I think 2 Peter 1:5-7 only serves to strengthen my contention that although it is said in James 1:4 that perseverance makes a man perfect and complete lacking in nothing it does not necessarily mean that it is all we need to be perfect, complete and lacking in nothing

As I have pointed out, going back to the original Greek text will show you that James 1:4 uses the Greek word that means perfect or mature while 2 Tim 3:17 use the word that means fit for a task. 1 Pet 1:5-7 will support this translation to perfect or mature, not fit for a task. I hope you see the difference in thought and context.

R4. I really appreciate the extra effort on your part in going to the original Greek. As I have pointed to you that “artios” does not mean exclusively “fit for a task” but could also mean: suited, qualified, ready, complete, to perfection. Again you still have to deal with the use of the word profitable and not the word sufficient. If it was Paul’s intention to present scripture as all-sufficient he could have easily use that word but he did not. By the way, your appeal to bible scholars on the original Greek contradicts in practice what you advance in theory: that the Bible is all-sufficient and clear in matters of salvation. If we have to rely on bible scholars notwithstanding their theological differences on the sense of scriptures in the original languages, are we not appealing to an authority outside of scriptures? On what grounds do we accept some while rejecting the others? If we are to decide on our own, then we have to study the original languages. How very few people are apt to this task? Even then, there is no assurance that we will arrive the correct interpretation.

Let's put things in its proper perspective. The Bible never says that tradition complements Scripture. This is your assumption based on your interpretation that the Bible is not sufficient. You have not presented a single verse directly supporting this claim while I have presented a number of supporting texts.

R4. Since we are explicitly told that the apostles did not intend to put everything they receive from Jesus into writing (2 John 1:12, 3 John 1:13) and we are explicitly commanded to hold fast to both oral and written tradition (2 Thes 2:15) therefore, both written and unwritten words are complimentary modes of transmission. I did not assume this but have demonstrated it via scriptures. That the Bible alone is not sufficient is not a premise but a valid conclusion which is drawn from the fact that: 1) this is not taught in the Bible, 2) the Bible cannot tell us which books are canonical, 3) the Bible cannot decide for us which interpretation is right, 4) sola scriptura leads to doctrinal anarchy and endless division, 5) the Bible instructs us to hold fast to oral traditions, 6) the sacred writers mentioned that they did not put everything into writing, 7) the Bible tells us that Jesus founded a church with authority.

You cite 2 Thes 3:15 regarding apostolic tradition, but have not shown that the apostles actually taught the Thessalonians about papal infallibility, immaculate conception, purgatory and indulgences and assumption as part of this tradition.

R4. I have already shown to you that these doctrines are at least implicitly contained in Scriptures and no passage in Scriptures rightly understood will contradict these doctrines. This is made more explicit in Tradition as reflected in the writings of the early church fathers. I have also demonstrated to you that the Church founded by Christ has the competence to discern true apostolic tradition as she is able to discern the canon of scriptures. I have responded to your question regarding the above doctrines in part. However, I would be very glad to engage in a separate discussions these specific catholic doctrines.

You cite 1 Tim 3:15 to show that the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and yet you keep on promoting the (Roman) church instead of the truth which it is based upon.

R4. I cited the above verse to demonstrate that indeed the Bible teaches us that the Church founded by Christ is infallible for she is the pillar and foundation of truth. It does not say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth “only when it teaches scriptures” or “as long as the apostles are alive.” I did not expect you to accept that the Church referred to in 1 Tim 3:15 is indeed the Catholic Church but at least I wanted you to see that there is biblical support to the argument that one of the charism which Jesus gave his church is infallibility. Once you accept this premise then I can give some solid arguments to demonstrate that the Church founded by Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.

R3. Again let me pose the perennial problem of your position. If you are fallible and all your pastors whether acting individually or collectively are fallible then how could you be certain that you have arrived at an infallible interpretation of the difficult passages? An effect cannot be higher than its’ cause. A fallible source cannot produce an infallible effect. Unless you admit of an infallible living interpreter of the Bible you cannot arrive at the certitude you wish to claim in your interpretation on certain doctrinal and moral issues.

Do you realize that your whole argument here is based on the assumption of the existence of an infallible teaching authority and on Roman Catholic infallibility?

R4. The question, which I raised above, is very important. In matters of salvation, we have to attain to the certitude of faith, which comes from the assurance that what we are taught is infallibly true. Therefore, instead of evading my question I hope you will answer it or honestly admit that without an infallible interpreter you can never be infallibly certain on the truth of your interpretation on difficult passages. Your refusal to deal with my question only points to the weakness of your position. One does not have to be catholic to ask the above question. One only needs to be reasonable.

Infallible interpretation and finding infallible interpreters is never commanded by the New Testament writers. No New Testament writer claimed to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture.

R4. Seeking an infallible interpretation of Scripture is inherent in the command of Jesus to seek the truth (John 8:32). Are we to suppose that Jesus intended us to be constantly seeking the truth but never attaining certitude that we are already in possession of the truth? Far be it! On the contrary the Bible points to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Although no New Testament writer explicitly claimed infallibility but they were in fact infallible. Nay, more than that they received the gift of inspiration. They were guided by the Holy Spirit so that what they wrote is infallibly that which God wished to be conveyed in writing. If God has given us those inspired writer in order to convey to us his word, must we not also suppose that the all-wise God will not give us infallible interpreters for the preservation of his word so that it reaches every individual soul untainted by fallible human interpretations? The apostles spoke with authority binding the consciences of those who hear them while threatening those who do not hear or distort their message with the severest condemnations. Such authority can only be exercised by infallible teachers.

Peter was fallible and directly opposed God's plan and was sharply rebuked by Jesus in Matt 16:21-23.

R4. In this instance Jesus was still around and therefore Peter has not yet assumed the primacy. We don’t assert that the pope is infallible prior to assuming the office of papacy. You are not really objecting here to the real doctrine of papal infallibility but your mistaken notion of what it is.

Paul did not consider himself infallible.

R4. On the contrary, when Paul preached the word of God and bind peoples consciences to hear and obey under pain of condemnation he was in fact infallible otherwise we cannot be infallibly certain that what he preached orally and what he wrote is the truth and this includes the very passage you quote to support sola scriptura (2 Tim 3:15-17). Are you entertaining the possibility of error or formal heresy in Paul’s writings?

No New Testament writer points the people of God to Peter or another infallible teacher.

R4. On the contrary, when there was doctrinal dispute in the early church, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to consult with Peter and the other apostles on the matter. The decision of the council was authoritative and binding to the faithful and it put the case to a close. Peter was certainly infallible when he pronounced his judgment during that council to which James and the other elders concurred. It is unthinkable to suppose that Peter together with the apostles and the elders could have erred regarding the doctrinal issue at hand.

This doctrine of infallibility is found nowhere in Scripture.

R4. Just for an eye opener let me ask this question. How can the church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth, teach formal heresy?

We are told again and again to go back to infallible Scriptures, not go search for infallible teachers.

R4. Just when exactly has sola scriptura become binding upon Christians? The Holy Spirit brought Philip so that he could explain to the Eunuch what was written in the book of prophet Isaiah (Acts 8:29-30). Cornelius went to Peter so that he could listen to what Peter has to say (Act 10). The Bereans listened earnestly to the oral preaching of Paul and his explaining scriptures to them (Acts 17:11). The apostles settled the controversy in the early Church by exercising their apostolic authority (Acts 15).

You have a nice fallible argument for infallible teachers, but it has no biblical basis.

R4. I will await your refutation of the verses I have put forward as evidence of the Church’s infallibility. It is not enough simply to say that they do not point to an infallible church but you have to explain why.

I cannot be certain, as the Bereans were, that a particular teaching is correct and really according to Scripture.

R4. This somewhat confirms my suspicion that Protestantism is nothing but practical agnosticism (which teach that truth is unknowable) or subjectivism (truth depends on one’s subjective dispositions). In saying thus, you are really saying that the only truth we can be certain about is that we cannot be certain if we have arrived at the truth. This is a self-contradictory proposition just like sola scriptura. By the way don’t get the Bereans into the same boat as you are. They actually had Paul who taught them which is something you say you don’t have.

That is why I need to diligently study and examine Scripture, again as the Bereans did, directly and through pastors and teachers. That is why the Bereans went back to Scripture, which is our only infallible guide.

R4. The Bereans have St Paul to guide them in rightly interpreting Scriptures. They did not interpret scriptures for themselves. St. Paul did not only give them bible verses for home bible study but the right interpretation as well. By the way, why do you still go through pastors and teachers when you have the infallible Bible with you which you say is all-sufficient to guide you and fully equip you in all good works?

Did you notice that Paul did not tell them to simply listen to him and not try to interpret Scripture themselves, and that Paul even commended their noble act? Paul could have told them that there was no need to verify his teaching for he was the great Apostle, God's infallible interpreter and teacher.

R4. The Bereans were commended for their noble act (Acts 17:11) not only because they searched the scriptures daily (a thing which any devout Jew would always do) but also because “they received the word with all readiness of mind.” The word which they received was none other that the oral preaching of St Paul (v. 13). The Bereans already had Scriptures but they need Paul to preach to them the word: “And how shall they believed in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent?... So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 10:14-15, 17). This passage instructs on a lot of things: 1) the power of the oral word, 2) faith comes not only by reading scriptures (John 20:31) but also by hearing, 3) the necessity of a preacher not bible publishers, 4) the preachers are sent not self-appointed bible preachers. This sending is done through the visible rite of sacred ordination (Acts 13:2, 1 Tim 4:14, 5:22).

Peter tells us to long for the pure milk of the word (1 Pet 2:2) so that we may grow in respect to salvation. He does not tell us to seek out some institution of infallible teachers. Or he could have told them to just listen to him being the infallible first pope.

R4. The word here does not refer only to the written word but to the word that is preached, “But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” (1 Pet 1:25). In this very Epistle, Peter instructed and admonished both the faithful and elders as one who is in authority (1 Pet 5:1-10). It quite surprising for you to quote 1 Peter as an infallible source while denying to Peter the gift of infallibility. Again, infallibility does not mean that Peter or the pope will always be able to live according to the demands of the gospel (which is impeccability). It does mean that when they teach on matters of salvation to be accepted by all the faithful (in the case of Peter when he wrote 1 and 2 Peter), the Holy Spirit will provide them special assistance so that they will be preserved from teaching error. Since Peter as quoted (1 Pet 2:2) tells us to long for the pure milk of the word then all the more that there is a need for an infallible interpreter. Otherwise, what use is the pure milk of word when it is mixed with the poison of fallible human interpretations?

Taking your claim for infallibility, are your 100% certain, that the Roman Catholic Church has never preached a single error in the history of its existence?

R4. By virtue of the promises of Jesus (Mat 16:18-19, 28:19-20, John 14:16, 26, 16:13, 1 Tim 3:15), yes I believe so with the certitude of faith. The necessary conditions for infallible definition must of course be present that is 1) The teaching is promulgated by the Pope or an ecumenical council approved by the pope, 2) the teaching is to be accepted by all the faithful throughout the world, 3) the teaching concerns faith and morals.

R3. I appreciate your citations on the issue on abortion. We happen to hold the same view on this issue. But deeper questions can be asked like at what moment does God infuse the soul? Suppose pregnancy and delivery will endanger the life of the mother will the right of self-preservation justify if not mitigate the gravity of the offense of aborting the child? You said that I have raised are deep and important issues which deserves their own chapter or book. I am glad that you are able to appreciate the complexities involved. Mind you that these issues have been debated for years, and some of them for centuries within Christendom. I am not pessimistic but I think for those who hold that the Bible alone is their only guide and with no infallible teaching authority to tell them doctrinal unity would not be forthcoming.

So Ramon, would you care to share with me what your infallible teachers have to say about the issues you just raised.

R4. Concerning abortion, the Church has constantly taught that directly willed abortion is intrinsically a grave evil and goes against the commandment “Thou shall not kill.” If you want to know better on the Church teachings on moral issues, I would encourage you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I could send you a free copy if you like. I think it would not be wise to render our judgment on these issues without examining the teachings of the Church. Even considering the Church merely as a human institution, ought we not to give a hearing to an institution which has gathered to her fold men from all walks of life, men from every places, and men from every age, and men of renowned sanctity? I hope you are not like those people who oppose anything that is Catholic.

And my next point will be, are you agreeable and in 100% submission to such teachings, being infallible.

R4. Jesus did not give us the liberty to pick and choose on the things which we want to believe. His command is “teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mat 28:20). Thus, we see that on one hand Jesus commissioned the apostles and through them the Church to teach all things and on the other hand those who hear their message to accept all with the assent of faith. Some of the teachings of the Church might seem too hard if not impossible as many of the followers of Jesus complained saying, “This teaching is too hard. Who can listen to it?” (John 6:60). And like Peter when asked by our Lord, “And you—would you also like to leave?” (v. 67) I, and I’m sure millions of Catholics all over the world, would reply in humble submission “Lord to whom would we go? You have the words that give eternal life” (v. 68).

Doctrinal unity within the Roman church is highly debatable.

R4. Then could you show me “another” Catechism of the Catholic Church as evidence for your alleged doctrinal disunity. I suspect that you have been used to doctrinal anarchy within Protestantism that is why you find it difficult to imagine much less accept the doctrinal unity within the Catholic Church.

What you have is organizational unity.

R4. The unity, which Jesus intended for his fold (John 17:11, 21), can be seen in three aspects: 1) Unity in faith (Eph 4:4-5, Gal 1:6-8), 2) Unity in worship (Acts 2:42, 1 Cor 10:16-17), and 3) Unity in government (John 10:16, John 21:15-17). Only the Catholic Church manifests this kind of unity. She unites all her members in professing the same creed, brings all her faithful members to worship at the same altar in the mass, and subject all her members to one visible head, the pope. The apostles has repeatedly condemned division within the body of Christ and this is due to 1) schism – rejection of the authority of church leaders (Heb 13:17), 2) heresy – teaching false doctrines (1 Tim 6:3-5), 3) apostasy – complete rejection of the faith (1 John 2:19).

Do you mean to say that all groups and sub-groups within the Roman church agree with all its doctrines?

R4. Just as in times past there were men who though professing to be members of the Church but through their pride and arrogance wanted to improve on the work of the Savior, men who wanted to place their private opinion above the teaching authority of the Church, men who are burdened by the yoke of the gospel we also have such men in the Church today. When these men openly express their opposition and disobedience to Church teachings she deals with them as a mother deals with her wayward children and bid them to repent and recant their evil ways. When they persist in their heresy the Church exacts unto them the severest penalty of excommunication and separates them from her life-giving unity much as the farmer will prune unproductive branches from the vine or like the doctor who amputates a limb lest its disease will spread throughout the entire body. When the branch is cut from the vine, the tree remains one and the same tree. When the limb is cut from the body, the body remains to be one and the same body. Meanwhile the branch and the limb which are cut from the center of unity whither and die. And is it reasonable to concentrate on a small group of disaffected subjects, ignoring the unity of hundreds of millions of loyal Catholics?

Do even your infallible popes agree on their doctrines throughout the centuries? (my apologies again for all these responses that end with a question mark)

R4. Within the conditions for infallibility no succeeding pope has ever contradicted the official pronouncement of a previous pope. If you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that this has actually happened in Church history then that indeed would be a fatal blow to her claim of infallibility.

I'm not sure you are aware of the implications of your statement. Your statement actually serves to negate your claim of Roman infallibility and that you are actually giving me support for fallibility. For you see -- if they are truly infallible, why have they not infallibly spoken once and for all and settled the issues you speak of?

R4. On the issues on indissolubility of marriage, divorce, abortion, contraception, masturbation, euthanasia, etc the Church has always given one and the same answer. In fact the Catholic Church has already spoken in a lot of issues concerning faith and morals. Once again, I would encourage you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Papal Encyclicals, the documents of the Second Vatican Council and previous Church councils. I remember a TV advertisement wherein a Chinese mountain folk said: “It’s all in the web.” Most of these teachings have been generally accepted by Catholics and there is no need for an official definition. Definitions are not given unnecessarily. If no discussion arises on a given point, and no one disputes it, there is no need for a definition. The definition of the divinity of Christ (325 AD) was occasioned by the Arian Heresy. The definition the divinity of the Holy Spirit (393 AD) was occasioned by pneumatochian heresy. The definition of Mary as Mother of God (430 AD) was occasioned by the Nestorian heresy. The definition of the purgatory and the redefinition of the canon of Scriptures (1545 AD) was occasioned by the Protestant reformation to mention few examples.

Why have the issues remained "debated for years and centuries within Christendom" and so leaving you at best, optimistic, all these years? Optimistic and not really infallibly certain when you have had infallible teaching at your disposal all these years.

R4. If you read carefully what I said was “within Christendom.” Just because Christianity is divided does mean that the Catholic Church is divided. As I have mentioned the Church’s stand on these moral issues has always been consistently the same. What the Church does today was to apply the same principles of morality in the light of the new findings in science and the allied fields (i.e., genetics, medicine, psychology, etc). In contrast, before 1950 most Protestant churches were against divorce and contraception but today very few of them hold the same view. Majority have succumbed to the pressures of materialism. When I said of not being pessimistic what I meant is that I still hope that Protestants will be able to appreciate the wisdom of the judgment of the Catholic Church in these matters. With this in mind I hope you will understand what I meant when I said and I quote: “I am not pessimistic but I think for those who hold that the Bible alone is their only guide and with no infallible teaching authority to tell them doctrinal unity would not be forthcoming.”

I beg to differ about your statement about the Trinity being infallibly defined. I am also struck at the magnanimity of your claim. I don't even think the Council of Nicea would call it an infallible definition since the doctrine of infallibility was not invented until 1870. The Council of Nicea did not infallibly define anything. They merely affirmed what the Bible already teaches.

R4. If the Council of Nicea merely affirmed what the Bible already teaches then could you show me where in the Bible can you read the word Trinity. What passage in the Bible can we read where it says that in one God there are three divine persons. The Council of Nicea did not merely affirm what the Bible teaches but the Council fathers actually affirmed what the Church has always believed and by explicitly stating the doctrine in such precise and no uncertain philosophical terms like substance, nature, and person they properly defined the doctrine. In defining the true doctrine they upheld the truth and condemned the heresy of Arius. In defining the doctrine the Church has guided us how to think rightly about God. The Council of Nicea 325 AD also attached condemnation and anathemas to those who teach and believe contrary to what they have decreed a proof that it was an exercise of the Church infallible teaching authority. To say that the Council of Nicea did not believe in the infallibility of the Pope since the doctrine was not defined until 1870 AD is the same as saying that the Church did not believe in the Trinity before the Council of Nicea defined it in 325 AD. Of course, such statements are absurd. It was because those doctrines were firmly held and believed prior to the official definitions that they were subsequently defined.

Interestingly, the Council of Nicea in 325 AD did not recognize papal infallibility and primacy. They did not practice this Roman Catholic doctrine then and back in the Apostolic era.

R4. In AD 96, Pope Clement of Rome, wrote to the Corinthians. In his letter he gave not only advice but definite commands. After his instructions he wrote: “If you obey what we have written by the Holy Spirit, you will be our joy and consolation. But if some do not obey what God has said by us, let them know that they will be involved in no small sin and danger.” Harnack, the German Protestant scholar, admitted that this letter of Clement proves that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was an accepted fact even in the first century. St Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch from 69-107 AD writes that the Church at Rome “presides over the whole assembly united in charity.” This testimony of St Ignatius has particular value, for St Peter had been Bishop of Antioch. If St Peter had remained and died at Antioch, the Bishop of Antioch would have obtained the supremacy. Thirdly, St Irenaeus, 130-202 AD, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, wrote as follows of the Roman See: “On account of its supremacy it is necessary that every Church in which is tradition of the Apostles should be in harmony or unity with this Church.” Fourthly, St Cyprian, 210-258 AD, an African Bishop, writing of certain heretics, says, “They even dare to invade the See of Peter and the principal Church whence the unity of the priesthood has its source.” Again he writes, “We exhort all to acknowledge and hold that Rome is the mother and root-source of the Catholic Church.” The pronouncements of the Council of Nicea were subsequently ratified by the Pope after which it became binding throughout the entire catholic world. Do you have any proof that the Council Fathers who were gathered in Nicea did not recognize papal authority and primacy?

Paul told Timothy in 2 Tim 3:15 that it was Scripture that gave him wisdom that leads to salvation, not the infallible teaching of Peter or Paul or John. Here again we have a Roman Catholic claim that is unsupported by Scripture and does not even complement Scripture, but contradicts it.

R4. It seems that you have the tendency to see sola scriptura in every passage that speaks of scriptures. It is clear to me that you are reading every verse thru the lens of this man-made tradition. It is true that scriptures gives us wisdom but it does not say that scriptures alone gives us wisdom or that scriptures is absolutely necessary in order for a person to believe in Jesus so that he will be saved as I pointed out in Rom 10:14-15. Jesus in the Gospels never commanded the apostles to write a book but he commanded them to go and preach the gospel. It was by their oral preaching that they made early Christian converts. Of the twelve apostles only 3 of them decided to write while the rest went about preaching the word. That the apostles’ oral teachings were authoritative and binding among the early Christians could not be doubted by the unbiased reader of the Bible. That the apostles in preaching the word were preserved from teaching error therefore infallible is admitted even by respected protestant scholars. What these scholars assert though is that the gift of infallible teaching authority died with the apostles and that what we have now are only their infallible writings. On the other hand, I think you have gone a bit too far by denying even to the apostles this divine assistance.

Applying the same standard to those who do not hold to Sola Scriptura but to Sola Ecclesia, please tell me why you still have issues and disagreements within the Roman Catholic Church if the disagreements are because of Sola Scriptura and the Roman church actually does not hold to Sola Scriptura.

R4. Once again, I am not defending sola ecclesia. The rule of faith for Catholics is the word of God as contained in Scriptures and Tradition which is entrusted to the Church for its correct discernment and interpretation. It does not mean that Catholics are not allowed to think for themselves. Neither are we prohibited from reading and understanding scriptures. But when there are disagreements as to the sense of scriptures and as to authentic apostolic tradition the Church Magisterium is the final arbiter. Yet the Church Magisterium does not decide arbitrarily. She listens attentively to the voice of God in scriptures and to the available help given by the Holy Spirit as manifested in the writings of the early fathers and the result of theological and biblical reflection of scholars. Within the Catholic Church we have a final court of appeal, the Magisterium, which is totally absent in divided Protestantism. The Church’s Magisterium has a somewhat similar function to what the Supreme Court does in civil affairs. It is true that we have our Constitution (a written document) which embodies our ideals and aspirations as a people. But guided by human wisdom, our founding fathers did not leave the constitution to be privately interpreted by individual citizens and even individual lawyers but to a duly constituted authority, the Supreme Court. Yet the Supreme Court in deciding does not do so arbitrarily. It draws from vast resources of human wisdom, it consults the opinion of experts, it listens to the testimony of witnesses, it weighs the arguments of lawyers, and also from past decision on similar cases (tradition of court rulings). By this the unity of our nation is preserved. Without this anarchy would naturally follow. Now the Church is a visible society. Her members are visible. That is why she is called the mystical body. Although animated by the Holy Spirit as the vital principle of unity she is nevertheless composed of members who are visible. In every visible society there is always a living and visible authority to decide on matters of dispute otherwise there would be no end to it and it would hamper progress. Are we to suppose that divine wisdom has left his church her on earth without such living and visible authority? But the analogy stops there. The Supreme Court being a man-made institution can possibly err in its judgment, although on very few occasions. But in instances wherein the Supreme Court could have erred, it is answerable to no one except itself. On the other hand, the Church is not a man-made institution. She is the work of our Redeemer, the God-man, Jesus Christ. Her mission is about proclaiming divine truth and the salvation of souls. Her authority, exercised in the name of Christ, is not just for one nation (as did the authority in the Old Testament) but for all nations. Considering that the seriousness of her mission far exceeds that of any other human institutions then she could admit of no less than infallible authority.

R3. As you have pointed out that man because of our fallen state whether consciously or unconsciously have the tendency to distort God’s word. With this in mind, ought it not more necessary to have an infallible living teacher? Are we to suppose that God has transmitted to us an infallible book without providing an infallible teacher and interpreter? Above the tumultuous voice of human uproar and conflicting interpretations, is there not a voice who will stand out with divine authority: Thus saith the Lord?

The problem with your reasoning is that it is not based on sound biblical teaching but on the assumption for a need for an infallible teaching authority. It may sound nice and logical, but it is not supported by Scripture and you have in turn presented none. The Bible nowhere teaches the need for an infallible teaching authority to go with the infallible book. We are throughout the Bible commanded to read, study and obey Scriptures. But nowhere are we instructed to go find infallible teachers.

R4. On the contrary Jesus tells us to hear and obey his Church (Mat 18:17, Luke 10:16, Mat 28:19-20). Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide his church into all truth (John 14:16, 26, 16:13). St Paul points to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Do these passages have any meaning to you at all?

You are trying to refute Sola Scriptura with your own fallible logic that an infallible book requires an infallible teaching society to go with it. You have not even presented a single verse to support this claim. I ask you not to hold double standards for you and me. I have presented to you several supporting Scriptures for Sola Scriptura, but you have not presented a single verse directly supporting the claim for an infallible teaching society. (I apologize if this sounds offensive. I mean no personal offense).

R4. Actually I have done that. You simply chose to ignore the passages I have cited without bothering to explain why. In short you simply chose to dodge most of the evidence I have forwarded and went on attacking Catholic doctrines each of which could have been a topic for a separate discussion. Once again, I urge you to interact with the verses I cited. I have refuted every verse and every explanation you forwarded in support of sola scriptura. It is time you do the same.

As a side note, cults start this way. A leader claiming infallibility or to hear directly from God claims teaching authority. People need only listen to this leader and get their teachings from him. When they have questions, they run to their leader. When their leader speaks, it is as if God is speaking "thus saith the Lord". I'm sure you have read about these cults all over the world. When your Roman Catholic leaders say "Thus saith the Lord", how will you know for sure that it is really the Lord?

R4. Cult leaders just like most protestant would-be reformers reject tradition and Church authority. Finding nothing to support their peculiar teachings from the Church and from Tradition they turn to the Bible as a weapon to advance their heresy. They try to persuade the world that for centuries the Church founded by Christ disappeared from the face of the earth. That after the death of the last apostle the Church did actually crumble into error. That they are commissioned by God himself via the Bible to restore the Church to its pristine state. These men wanted to improve on the work of the God-man as if the Church was merely a human institution. In reality, the Church has never disappeared, she has never fallen into error therefore all claims at restoration is proven to be false. Christ has been true to his word, “even the gates of hell cannot prevail against it” (Mat 16:18), “behold I am with all days until the end of time” (Mat 28:20). Thus the existence of false prophets should not cloud your vision of seeing the Church whom St Paul describes as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

We are both engineers. I present to you 2 variables - the Bible and man. Which of the two variables do you think varies the most and is most prone to error? Well, God never changes (Mal 3:6). He is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb 13:8). His word never changes and will remain though everything else will pass away (Mark 13:31). So we must focus on the other ever-changing variable - man. When man cannot find the answers, when men quarrel and argue over doctrines, when men find it hard to understand -- it is not the Bible that is at fault, it is man.

R4. I am not blaming the Bible for the strife and division within Protestantism. It is the man-made doctrine of sola scriptura and its corollary which is the right of private judgment of every believer that has caused all the confusions on your side. It is man’s rejection of sacred apostolic tradition and the teaching authority of the Church founded by Christ that has caused doctrinal anarchy and endless division within Protestantism. At the heart of every rebellion against divinely established authority is pride and conceit.

R3. I think I can relate to that. It is true that man left on his own is prone to error. But since God is omnipotent he can use imperfect men to convey his perfect message. Jesus commissioned his apostles who were men like us to transmit his message in its entirety without error. God inspired the sacred writers who were men like us to write down his message without error.

Agree! Thank you for this breath of fresh air.

R4. I hope you are reading carefully. In my last statement I was affirming two things 1) That the inspired writings are without error, 2) That the sacred writers in writing the sacred text were preserved from error i.e, they were given the special divine assistance of inspiration and naturally infallibility.

R3. And for us Catholics, we believed that God in the person of Jesus Christ did something more. He established a teaching society who will unfailingly preserved and proclaim the content of God’s revelation to all men at all times until His glorious appearance at the end of the world (Mat 28:19-20). That they will be able to carry out this seemingly impossible task is not because of human ingenuity, and we may say despite personal failings, but because of the special guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 26). The saying is true: God can write a straight line with a crooked stick.

I appreciate the thoughts and I think I can partly agree if you do not limit this "teaching society" to a particular set of "successors" or "sees" or councils, and as long as you don't add in "infallible". It is true that God gave His church (composed of all God's people) the authority to teach and interpret His word. But he did not limit this authority to a few "successors" and did not appoint infallible teachers. There is no Scriptural warrant for this and you have presented none.

R4. Are you suggesting that in the Church of Christ every body have equal teaching authority? Looking at all the conflicting interpretations of the Bible are you proposing to reduce the Christian religion into a bundle of contradictions. The apostles did not merely advice the congregation but admonished, commanded, and imposed disciplinary sanctions on those who do not obey them. There is once instance though which is recorded in Scriptures wherein somebody made the same assertion as you and it was meted out with severe punishment. In Numbers 16 Korah questioned the right of Moses and Aaron to lead the people of God. He gathered around himself some of the leaders of the community and confronted Moses and Aaron saying: “You have gone too far! All the members of the community belong to the Lord, and the Lord is with us. Why, then, Moses do you set yourself above the Lord’s community?” (Num 16:3). Protestant Pastor Cornwall in his book uses this to emphasize God’s displeasure with members of Protestant Churches who rebel against those in authority: “Korah’s rebellion seemed to be against Moses and Aaron, but it was in fact against God… Korah united the people with the rallying cry of ‘equality’ and the truth of this cry made it almost impossible for Moses to answer, for had not God…. Said, ‘You shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’? (Exo 19:6). Korah grabbed that statement as his text and preached it… Korah said in effect, ‘God said that we are equal, and yet we are submitted to Moses and Aaron, and they’re lording it over us.’” (Incense and Insurrection p. 17). Cornwall goes on to answer those who assert that challenges to leadership are made because of vital issues that the leaders are mishandling: “Generally, the small measure of principle that is claimed as an issue is little more than a smokescreen to cover action… In seeking to dethrone the earthly leaders of the Church, we risk rising up against God and sharing Korah’s fate… Is there any issue large enough to justify splitting the Church over?” (p. 55-56). If you study Church history and the writings of the early fathers you will soon realize that those who originally hold the office of leadership are the Bishops of the Catholic Church.

R3. Your point is well taken. Although it seems to me that there is an inconsistency here in your statements but I would like to follow on your new explanations. So are you saying that on the issue of contraception using the Bible alone we cannot bind people’s conscience? But contraception is a moral issue nevertheless. Man’s action that is carried out using the exercise of his intellect and free will are never amoral. It is either according to or against God’s commandment. It is either meritorious or sinful. There is no middle ground here. Where can we find in the Bible the principle that says: if a certain issue is not directly addressed in Scripture… if there is no general or specific command or principle in the Bible that we cannot bind people’s conscience? If we cannot bind people’s conscience then by default we left it to each man’s conscience to be the supreme arbiter of truth in this regard. And as you pointed out in the above quotes (Jer 17:9, Prov 3:5-6, 1 Tim 4:2) that man’s conscience is an all too fallible guide.

I would like to point you to Paul's example in 1 Cor 7:25 and I quote: “Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy. I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you” (1Co 7:25-28).

R4. Thank you for responding to the above arguments but I think you actually missed my point. In 1 Cor 7:25 St. Paul was speaking about two possible course of action both of which are good and not sinful. He summarizes this by saying: “So the man who marries does well, but the one who doesn’t marry does even better” (1 Cor 7:38). Is marrying sinful? Of course not! Is staying celibate for the sake of the kingdom sinful? According to St Paul it is even better. However, the question at hand is: Is the use of artificial contraception sinful or not? I repeat that with regard to the morality of human acts done in the exercise of his intellect and free will there is no middle ground. I think you are in some sort of a dilemma here. On one hand, you assert that the Bible is all-sufficient guide in matters of faith and morals. On the other hand, you admit that there are areas of morality where we have to leave it to the conscience of each believer to decide.

We see Paul here rendering his opinion, as opposed to his command. Choosing one or the other action does not cause one to sin, but he had much wisdom to share so that the people of God would know which choice is wiser and will not lead to difficulty because of wrong (albeit not sinful) choices made. Paul again gives his opinion in 2 Cor 8:10 regarding charity and is careful to point out that it is not a command.

R4. In the above quote Paul was dealing with two morally acceptable options. However, it is totally different when one option is morally evil for we are always bound (commanded) to do good and avoid evil no matter what the cost. Before one can present the use of contraception as an option one has to be sure that it is not sinful to do so. If you are in doubt as to its moral evaluation, the basic principle in moral theology is to follow the safe side i.e., not to advocate its use until one is better informed about the issue. If you are sure that it is morally acceptable on what grounds are you certain that the use of contraception is not morally sinful? Since based on your interpretation this is not explicitly commanded or prohibited in the Bible then I believe that you would say that it is now a matter of one’s personal conviction. I think this kind of reasoning will further weaken your case for sola scriptura: 1) For one who upholds sola scriptura, this assertion is entirely unbiblical, 2) It shows that the Bible is not all-sufficient, 3) It would naturally lead to moral relativism.

So the Bible does tell us that there are things which are neither commanded nor prohibited. You will not sin if you either do them or not do them. Other examples are eating red meat, social drinking, going to the movies, eating junk food. Going so far as to prohibit what God has not prohibited in the Bible will lead to legalism.

R4. Let me bring to your attention that the things you listed as not sinful are considered sinful by others who read the same Bible. Some bible-based denominations teach that eating pork is sinful. Others would totally ban any form of drinking of hard liquor. Some pastors would tell their congregation that watching movies are a waste of time and that they better read the Bible. Others would promote that eating junk food is an unhealthy habit just like smoking and is detrimental to the body. You can accuse them of legalism but given the premise of private interpretation of scriptures and with no outside authority to decide then one’s opinion can only be as good as the other. Using your own premise, one may reply to the charge of legalism that since the Bible does not explicitly say that these are perfectly all right either then why don’t you mind your own business and just keep quiet.

I'm curious. Do you agree with the Roman church's stand on contraception?

R4. Yes most definitely.

Do you agree with its actions of denying the Eucharist to the proponents of the bill on family planning which encourage the use of non-abortive contraception?

R4. The Church can impose disciplinary sanctions to those people who while claiming to be Catholics are openly opposed to the Church’s teaching (Mat 18:17). On what disciplinary sanctions to impose is a matter which is better left to the judgment of the local Bishop. On the use of so-called non-abortive contraception even experts do not unanimously agree on this. Some say they could cause abortions while those who advocate their use would naturally say they don’t. But even if they don’t result into abortion the fact that they are used as artificial contraception makes them illicit.

What really makes contraception a mortal sin?

R4. This is a good question.

Contraception is intrinsically evil because it is contrary to the natural moral law. In the course of nature, God has ordained that certain ends are achieved through certain means. In creating both sexes, God has ordained to create a new life through their union. We can see this universally true in the animal kingdom. New siblings are produced from the union of the parent animals. Although not all such union necessarily will result in the production of new offsprings nevertheless it is true that it is through this natural act that new offsprings are born. While the animals never put any obstacle to the accomplishment of this end, man on the other hand by his own device is able to put an obstacle which can frustrate the natural end in view. Using contraceptives people indulge in actions obviously intended by God to result in children, yet they deliberately block that result, and nullify God’s purpose.

Within the light of Divine Revelation, God has elevated the natural union of man and wife into the dignity of a sacrament i.e., a participation in God’s own life. St Paul has likened the union of husband and wife to the union of Christ and his Church. In the sacrament of matrimony, God has promised the couple the necessary grace they need for them to grow in love and holiness and in bringing forth new persons created in the image and likeness of God destined for heaven. Viewed in this light, children whom God in his good pleasure has entrusted to human parents must always be regarded as a blessing and never as an additional burden. The exclusive right of the couple to the marital union should always be carried out with utmost respect to the rights of the Creator. That is why every conjugal union should always be open to the transmission of life. Life itself belongs to God, together with man’s right use of those functions ordained of their very nature to life. And as I have already explained a few pages up ahead, contraception runs contrary to both the unitive and procreative meaning of the conjugal act.

That contraception is against God’s will is hinted at in the case of Onan: “And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled [it] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also” (Gen 38:9-10). We also read in the book of Deuteronomy: “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord” (Deut 23:1). This can also be drawn from the fact that the begetting of children is considered as a blessing in Scriptures (Psalms 127:3) whereas contraceptive mentality considers children as a burden. While some mothers consider childbearing as inconvenient, Scriptures says that it actually saves her if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety (1 Tim 2:15). Tubal ligation and vasectomy can very well be condemned in the fact that Scriptures tells us that we do not own our body and that we are bought for a price and our body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19-20). It is not sinful to cut our nails or our hair because they do not involve functions essentially connected with life itself. But we are not allowed to cut our throats much less those body organs vital to life and its transmission. However, it would not matter in the least if there were no concrete reference to contraception in Scriptures. Scriptures gives us the general principle of morality, and lays down clearly the obligations of marriage. No sane person would deny the immorality of the use of cocaine. Yet that is not mentioned in Scriptures. The natural moral law existed before a line of Scripture was written, and still exists, being in no way abolished by Scriptures.

R3. That Jesus empowered his Church to bind and to loose is clearly stated in the above quote. It is true that in Mat 18:15 Jesus was talking about church discipline to an erring member. But sinful conduct also includes the sin of heresy which in the early church is a ground for excommunication. The New American Bible in its commentary on Binding and loosing has this to say: “Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication.” How can the Church excommunicate someone for heresy if it does not have the divine authority to teach the right doctrine? I agree that Jesus was addressing the apostles but he addressed them in the context of the Church. When the apostles died are we to suppose that the Church ended with their death? Or are we to suppose that when the apostles died the power of binding and loosing died with their death? If that is the case how can any Church today bind anybody’s conscience? I think that Mat 18:18 is telling us that Jesus founded a Church with authority to bind people’s conscience. You might disagree that this Church is the Catholic Church but such is a power given by Christ to his Church nevertheless.

I agree with your statement that Christ empowered His church and I hope you will see the truth in your statements that this authority was given to His church (all of God's people) and not only to a limited group of persons or successors or sees.

R4. Even in a democratic society by which the authority of the government emanates from the people, yet not everyone exercises the same authority. Men are elected to office who exercise authority over the people. Consider that you and Madam Arroyo are both citizens of the republic. But how is it that she can commute the death penalty to life sentence and you cannot? But the Church of God is not a democratic institution. The Church is hierarchical in structure. Her doctrines are not decided by popular vote. It was not to every believer but to the apostles as the original leaders of the Church that Jesus said: “Whatsoever you bound on earth is bound in heaven and whatsoever you loose on earth is loose in heaven” (Mat 18:18). The divine injunction to obey and submit to Church leaders (1 Thes 5:12-13, 1 Tim 5:17, Heb 13:17, etc) would be meaningless if every member have equal authority and can decided for themselves.

To be more specific -- not only to a pope or a magisterium or councils. I also agree that the church has the power to bind people's conscience, but only according to what the Scripture teaches, not according to what the church complements and supplements to Scripture.

R4. Scripture has shown us the pattern in Church leadership. Church leaders were not elected by popular vote. They are ordained to the ministry of leadership (Acts 13:2, 1 Tim 4:14, 5:22, Titus 1:5, etc). They are properly identified in Scriptures as deacons, presbyters, and bishops. The authority given by Jesus to the apostles to bind and to loose says nothing about limiting this authority to what is contained in Scriptures alone. The apostles together with the Church elders in Jerusalem settled the first Christian controversy not by appeal to a certain passage in Scriptures. In fact those who insist to impose that Gentiles be circumcised have a very valid reason to do so for it is written in the Old Testament that this was to be an everlasting covenant (Gen 17:13).

If the Bereans were hearing an infallible teaching from an infallible preacher, why would they bother examining Scriptures daily to see if what Paul taught was really so?

R4. For the simple reason that St Paul used the Old Testament Scriptures concerning the messianic prophesy in his oral preaching. In teaching infallibly the truth about Jesus the apostles would naturally use the available help afforded by the Holy Spirit and one of this is the OT writings. I repeat that in this instance, Paul did not only give them memory verses but gave the correct interpretations as well. When we listen to the living teaching authority commissioned by God as the Bereans did the correct understanding of Scriptures would naturally fall in their proper place.

And why would Paul even commend their act as noble and not rebuke them for an unnecessary action since he supposedly an infallible teacher, unlike the Roman Catholic Church who will tell you today to listen to their interpretation instead and not try to examine Scriptures as you have pointed out a few paragraphs back?

R4. As I said previously St Paul commend the Bereans not only for examining the scriptures but also for receiving the word with all readiness of mind (Acts 17:11). The word referred to in this passage does not refer to the writings of Paul but to his oral preaching (v. 13). The Catholic Church actually encourages Catholics to read and reflect on the Bible. In fact, the average catholic will have heard the entire Bible read before him if he attends mass daily for three years. The allegation that Catholic are forbidden to read the Bible is simply a myth. What the Church however warns us just like Peter did that there are many parts of the Scriptures difficult to understand (2 Pet 3:16) and that no prophecy of scriptures can be understood by private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20). In navigating through these dangerous waters the Church official teachings will serve as a beacon to guide the believer so that he will not make a shipwreck of the faith. The Church simply tells us that we who lived in the 21st century are not the only ones who have read and reflected upon the word of God and that we have to consider how the early Christians understood certain passages. Cardinal James Gibbons has aptly put it when he wrote that people who spent their lives studying the Bible are unanimous in pointing out that the Bible is a book full of knotty difficulties. But here in our days we find pedants with a mere smattering of Biblical knowledge who find no obscurity at all in the word of God and who claim to be able to interpret the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Indeed fools rush in where angels fear to thread!

Why did Paul commend their examining Scriptures and not tell them to go to Peter as their infallible and supreme pope?

R4. I hope that there is no deliberate attempt on your part to exclude that what Paul commends is not only the Bereans’ interest in Scriptures but firstly because they receive his oral preaching with all readiness of mind. Paul himself chosen by Jesus also share in the authority possessed by the other apostles. In this instance he did not refer the matter to Peter for the Bereans accepted whole-heartedly what he preached. But in matters of controversy affecting the entire Church, he in fact did refer the matter to Peter and the other apostles. “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question” (Acts 15:2). In the Council of Jerusalem the other apostles and the elders acceded to the judgment of Peter (Acts 15:7-11).

I think I see your point that we need people to teach us about Scriptures and I agree. God gave the church pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11). But the Bible never says we should see them as infallible teachers. The Bible never teaches us about an infallible teaching society founded by Christ.

R4. The Bible nowhere entertains the notion that the apostles in teaching divine truth could possibly fall into error. The early Christians accepted the apostles oral preaching and writings as though it came from God: “When we brought to you God’s message, you heard it and accepted it, not as a message from human beings but as God’s message, which indeed it is. For God is at work in you who believe” (1 Thes 2:13). This passage shows that Christians are able to accept the message delivered by God’s messengers as infallibly true because of divine assistance. Neither did the apostles have any doubt as to the truth of their teachings: “For we brought the Good News to you, not with words only, but also with power and the Holy Spirit, and with complete conviction of its truth” (1 Thes 1:5). And again, St Paul says: “the Church of the Living God is the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15). By the way, since you mentioned about pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11) ought we not to add that these pastors and teachers must teach the same truths of faith everywhere and in every age (Eph 4:4-5)? Surely thousands of pastors each with his own denomination teaching different doctrines is not the kind of teachers which Jesus intended for his Church.

The apostle Paul tells us in 1 Cor 12:28 and in Eph 4:11 that God has given to His church apostles, prophets and teachers.

R4. Again, what is the use of giving apostles, prophets and teachers if the Bible alone is all-sufficient guide? If living teachers are necessary guide for salvation then it disproves sola scriptura for you have now expanded your equation into: sufficient guide = scriptures plus living teachers. This is interestingly close to the Catholic position.

Moses wrote down the law and instructed the people of God to listen to the word of God as it was read to them in Deut 31:9,12, Ezra read from the book so that the people of God could hear and obey. Again and again, the Bible points us to Scripture, which is the infallible word of God.

R4. That the Bible is the infallible word of God and that we should go to scripture I fully agree. But nowhere does the Bible say that we are to go to scriptures alone. The very passage you quoted from 1 Cor 12:28, Eph 4:11 betrays your own premise since it speaks about the need for apostles, prophets, and teachers. The fact that the people of God in Old Testament used scriptures does not prove that they abide by scriptures alone. As I pointed out to you they had priests who exercised authority in judging religious matters (Deut 17:8-12, Neh 8:8, Mal 2:7).

Nowhere does the Bible mention infallible interpreters and teachers with infallible authority to teach.

R4. Actually, the New Testament abounds with references to infallible teaching authority. I hope you are not implying that we have to read the word “infallible” or “infallibility” to prove this. Neither can we read the word Trinity, Incarnation, Hypostatic Union, etc., which are precise terminologies we use today to describe certain truths of the faith. The case for the Church’s infallibility is based upon the very mission and constitution of the Church itself.

1) Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Mat 16:18). Now, one of the weapons of Satan who is the father of lies (John 8:44) is heresy. Heresy is opposed to the truth. If granting that there be an instance in history that the Church formally taught heresy then truly the gates of hell has prevailed against it and Jesus is a liar for he was not able to fulfill his promise.

2) When Jesus commissioned his Church to teach all nations, he guaranteed them his abiding presence until the end of time (Mat 28:20). The mission field of the Church is the entire world. The Church is to be the herald of divine truth for all people and for all time (Acts 13:47). The apostles and those who came after them knew that being men they are fallible. However, Jesus has assured them that in carrying out their mission in proclaiming the truth they will receive divine assistance.

3) Jesus also promised the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth (John 14:16, 26, 16:13). By all truth this means the entirety of God’s revelation to man untainted by error. The Holy Spirit is the invisible teacher, the Church his visible instrument. Since the Holy Spirit can never fail then he must have constantly preserved the Church from teaching error. This guidance is manifested not only when the Holy Spirit guided certain men to write the sacred books but also in the assistance to the Church’s duly constituted leaders by preserving them from error in interpreting the content of God’s revelation and in the entire body of the faithful who believe their teaching.

4) St Paul identifies and points us to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). The notion of the Church being the pillar and foundation of truth and the notion that the Church is not infallible and therefore can actually teach formal heresy are contradictory and therefore mutually exclusive. St Paul does not say that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth only if she teaches the truth. It is because the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth that she teaches the truth. The former proposition with the “only if” condition makes the Church’s teaching authority subject to private interpretation while the latter proposition makes private interpretation subject to the Church’s teaching authority. The former position leads to subjectivism and doctrinal anarchy while the latter proposition leads to attaining objective truth and one faith.

R3. The above quotes from Galatians 1:8, Deut 12:32 and Rev 22:18-19 appears to me like three infallible pronouncements by living teachers commissioned by God. If there is such an infallible teaching authority founded by Christ and your interpretation of Scriptures happens to contradict with its interpretation then you find yourself fighting God not men.

I think I am beginning to see where you are coming from. I think you are confusing God's word with God's messengers.

R4. Most assuredly, I know the distinction. God’s messengers are fallible being men. However, God in transmitting his word to us through them gives them special assistance so that what they convey either orally or in writing is what God intended to convey while leaving them free to use their natural abilities.

The 3 passages I quoted all refer to the word of God. They are infallible to the extent that they are God-breathed or inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16). The quotes refer to the nature of the word of God and not to the nature of the persons delivering them to make them infallible teachers or grant them infallible teaching authority.

R4. As I explained above infallibility has nothing to do with the nature of the human agent i.e, human beings are by nature fallible. It is only because of divine assistance that they are able to teach God’s truth infallibly. Relating this to the doctrine of papal infallibility, the pope is not infallible every time he speaks because infallibility has nothing to do with his nature. If the pope were to write a treatise on theology or teach theology in a University he could be wrong in certain things. The opinions he writes in his treatise can be criticized by other theologians. The words he utters within his theology class can be questioned by his students. However, when the Pope speaks in his official capacity as the supreme head of the universal church on matters of faith and morals and he intends his teaching to be accepted by all Catholics then he is given the divine assistance promised by our Lord in the person of Peter (Mat 16:18-19, John 21:15-17, Luke 21:31-32). Thus infallibility has nothing to do with the nature of the person but with the nature of the office.

This is true also of the Old Testament prophets. They were infallible insofar as they were delivering the words as inspired by God.

R4. Honestly, the words “they were infallible” are the most encouraging so far in this whole discussion. However, let me add more insights. How do we know that the words they conveyed were in fact the word of God? Put yourself in the shoes of an Old Testament Israelite. Why should you follow what Moses wrote in the first place? There were no prior scriptures to authenticate what Moses wrote. It is because Moses has established his credentials as a true messenger sent by God (i.e., by the miracles which he wrought) that Israelites accepted the words of Moses as coming from God. Thus although an infallible teaching authority does not make the word of God infallible (because by their very nature they are infallible) it does guarantee for us that indeed what we have received is the word of God. In this way, the fact of inspiration is not merely felt subjectively but is actually demonstrated or shown to be such objectively.

But that did not make themselves infallible teachers or interpreters or grant them infallible teaching authority.

R4. We accept what Jesus taught not because he quoted scriptures for even Satan and the false prophets could quote scriptures but because we believe that Jesus is infallible. We believe that Jesus is infallible not because he quoted scriptures for again even Satan can do that but because he has established his claim as a divine messenger sent by God through 1) the testimony of John the Baptist, 2) the testimony of the Father himself, 3) the miracles which he wrought, 4) the testimony of scriptures (John 5:31-39). Now Jesus who said to the apostles and through them to the Church “As the Father has sent me so I send you” (John 20:21) promised divine assistance so that in carrying out their teaching office to teach all men they will be preserve from teaching error (Mat 28:20, John 16:13).

Up until now, you have only assumed that there is such an infallible teaching society founded by Christ. You have not presented on Bible verse directly supporting such claim. It is striking because practically your whole letter rests on this unproven assumption.

R4. Actually, I have presented scriptural, historical and rational support, which for the most part you simply choose to ignore. Now that I have repeated them with more explanations, I hope that you will contend with them.

R3. The late apologist and evangelist, Francis Schaeffer, used to say that “the Reformation showed us the importance of the man of God alone (2 Tim 3:17), with the Bible alone, guided by the Spirit alone. But as I studied Scripture that’s not what I saw. The man of God is never depicted as (nor expected to be) using the Bible alone; he is called by Christ to function with authority in his teaching ministry, but only within the larger context of the doctrinal unity of the magisterium of the teaching Church. Christians are never depicted in Scripture as being ‘lone rangers,’ left to decide for themselves what they think Scripture means (cf. 1 Pet 1:20-21).

It is my error if I have depicted to you the man of God as standing alone. God has given the church pastors and teachers to help expound the word of God and to explain the more difficult portions of it. I attend church services every Sunday where the word of God is preached morning and evening and learn a lot from this preaching and teaching ministry.

R4. However, since you admit that your pastors even when teaching collectively is liable to error how do you know that they are not actually misleading you? If your church is the only Christian denomination in the whole world then maybe you have good reasons to trust them. But considering the host of other Christian denominations who while using the same Bible gives an entirely different interpretation from that of your pastors should give you a second thought. I am sure that you would reply that you need to examine the scriptures for yourself as the Bereans did. If protestant pastors, bible scholars, and bible teachers can hardly among themselves as to the right interpretation what chances do you have at arriving at one? Once you think you have come up with the correct interpretation remember that it is only one among the many different interpretations. Without an infallible teaching authority to tell you, either you suspend to pass judgment (inaction) or you decide which interpretation for you is the right one. Thus although in theory you claim that the Bible is your ultimate authority in practice it is actually your own private judgment which is the final authority. You love to compare yourself to the Bereans who examine scriptures but unlike the Bereans who listened and obeyed to the oral teaching of Paul you would not subject yourself to those men whose lineage in sacred ordination can be traced back to the apostles.

But I would like to point out that the Bible is clear that it is sufficient to thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work that he may be tasked to do (2 Tim 3:16-17). Paul never pointed the Bereans to himself or even to Peter as their infallible teaching authorities, but commended their act of examining Scriptures themselves as noble.

R4. I have already responded to the verses you are referring to (2 Tim 3:15-17 and Acts 17:11) and it is needless to repeat them here.

Paul never once pointed anybody to Peter (or any Roman Catholic pope or council) as their infallible teaching authority. You will not find a single instance in the New Testament, implicit or explicit.

R4. In matters of controversy affecting the entire Church Paul did not resolve the issue by scriptures alone but he consulted Peter and the other apostles in the historic council in Jerusalem (Act 15) to decide on this matter.

Furthermore, Paul told Timothy in 2 Tim 3:15 that the sacred writings were able to make him wise unto salvation and later in his letter that he was to preach from it.

R4. True enough, but never did Paul teach Timothy that he was to teach from scriptures alone or that scriptures alone makes one wise unto salvation or even that scriptures was absolutely necessary to make one wise unto salvation. Let’s face the historical facts. Jesus ascended to heaven in 33 AD. After Jesus’ ascension, the apostles did not go about writing scriptures right away. Obedient to the command of Jesus they went about preaching the Gospel and establishing local churches, ordaining church leaders whom they instructed to continue their work after their departure always reminding them to hold fast to the traditions (words, actions, institutions) which they learned from the apostles. The first book of the New Testament was written around 50-55 AD. So we have an interval of about 20 years during which the early Christians had no NT writings to guide them. The last book of the NT was written around the year 100 AD. The early Christians became wise unto salvation while most of them were not even able to read a single line of the NT writings. Thus it is illogical to suppose that during the first 100 years the early Christians adhered to sola scriptura. Shandon Guthrie, a protestant apologist and defender of sola scriptura, even admits that sola scriptura is a post-apostolic doctrine. James White, a protestant pastor of the Calvinist persuasion, also admitted that sola scriptura could not have been the rule of faith during those times of inscripturation.

This not only tells us that the Scriptures are sufficient, but that it was also clear enough to make him wise unto salvation. I would personally appeal to you Ramon to read the Bible through the eyes of faith knowing that Scripture is able to make you wise unto salvation. Yes, there are the more difficult portions, but in matters pertaining to salvation, Scripture is plain and clear. It is after all the word of the perfect Communicator.

R4. 2 Tim 3:15 does not say sufficient but rather useful or profitable. To say that scriptures is profitable is not the same as saying that it is sufficient. It is quite correct to say that some things are quite clear in Scriptures for example that it points to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). As scriptures is also clear not to use private judgment in interpreting scriptures (2 Pet 1:20) those things which are difficult to understand (2 Pet 3:16) but to submit to the judgment of the Church (Mat 18:17). Scriptures when rightly used can make us wise unto salvation but when twisted it can lead to our destruction that is why the Bible has to interpreted within the context of the faith which the Church has received from the apostles.

If ever you do not recognize the word of God and the message of salvation is not clear at all, then maybe you are not his sheep. Jesus said in John 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they follow me."

R4. Under the guidance of Church’s teaching the word of God written in the Bible fall into their proper place. Separated from her guidance, the Bible becomes a book of contradictions. In fact, the average catholic in believing what the Church teaches knows more biblical doctrine than the protestant with his Bible alone. It is good that you brought to my attention the verse in John 10:27. I think a reading of this passage should be complemented by what Jesus said in John 10:16 that there is only one fold under one shepherd. The conflicting protestant churches can hardly fit this picture of one fold under one shepherd and can hardly be said to be listening to the one voice of the shepherd since they are in reality listening to their own understanding on what they think the Bible say. Before Jesus ascended into heaven he chose one among the twelve to be the visible head of his flock in the person of Peter (John 21:15-17).

It may need to be preached to you. It may need to be taught to you. But ultimately, you will see the clarity of Scripture if you are Christ's sheep.

R4. It seems to me that the history of Protestantism clearly demonstrate that not one among them is seeing the clarity of Scriptures and therefore not one of them is Christ’s sheep. Each of them claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit in reading the same Bible but each coming up with their own brand of Christianity.

The church as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) is to guard the truth, the word of God.

R4. Thank you for interacting with this verse. Precisely, the Church is to guard the truth. But according to your assertion it has not been able to do this job all the time; that the Church constantly needs doctrinal overhauling as men sees fit. Every protestant church is in some way an attempt at restoring the Church of Christ. When did Jesus gave men the authority to overhaul and restore his Church? How has it come for men to think that they can improve on the work of the Savior?

The Bible does not say that it is to complement and supplement Scripture with its traditions and man-made teachings and to present itself as the sole infallible interpreter of the truth it is to guard.

R4. The Church never taught that the Bible is to be complemented by man-made teachings. I have presented to you what the Church understands by Tradition and this is what I am defending. It was through her Living Faith Tradition that the Church recognized which NT writings were inspired. I have cited to you Bible verses wherein we are commanded to hold fast to Tradition (2 Thes 2:15, 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2). The Church is the sole custodian and interpreter of divine revelation because it is the will of her founder. Jesus founded only one Church not many conflicting churches (Mat 16:18). There is only one fold under one shepherd not several folds under self-appointed shepherds (John 10:16). There is only one faith and only one body not many faiths and separate bodies (Eph 4:4-5). The Church is to be the teacher to all the nations (Mat 28:19) not several conflicting Christian denominations.

I assume that by "church" you mean the Roman Catholic pope and various councils.

R4. As I said in my previous responses that you don’t have to consider for the time being that the Church founded by Church is the Catholic Church. However, what I wanted to point out to you is that the Bible tells us that Jesus founded a visible Church, which he gave the gift of infallibility in her official teachings on faith and morals. This conclusion can be drawn from the verses I cited (Mat 16:18-19, Mat 28:19-20, John 14:16, 26, 16:13, 1 Tim 3:15, etc). Once this is accepted then we can proceed to identify which of the churches that exist today is the true church of Christ.

I'll stick to one example - contraception. I choose it because I think it is fairly recent and relevant that we can both relate to it. I'm interested to know what correct interpretation of Scripture has the Roman Catholic church gone through in order to come up with its teaching on contraception and its consequence of mortal sin if disobeyed.

R4. The Church may use the Bible in her teaching but she does not draw all certainty of revealed truth from the Bible alone. Contraception is evil because it is contrary to the natural moral law. Since the natural moral law is given to every person then one does not have to be a catholic to be convinced that contraception is immoral. The Church also reasons based on the light on divine revelation on the purpose of marriage, on the sacredness of the human body, and on Christian teaching on continence. Some of these I have already explained in the preceding paragraphs.

I've come across these 2 websites when I did a quick search using Google for contraception and eucharist. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/CONTRCPT.HTM and http://www.domusdei.org/ 2006/11/15the-eucharist-and-contraception/. I believe they are authentic Roman Catholic views and I am gathering from reading them that within the Roman Catholic church, there is division in respect to this teaching, even between the pope and the magisterium.

R4. The pope and the Bishops in communion with him comprise the Magisterium. Thus your statement that there is division even between the pope and the magisterium does not make sense to me. If you want to know the official teachings of the Church I have already pointed to you where to find it: In the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I am aware that there are dissenting voices within the Church just like some government officials who claim they are Catholics but openly oppose the teachings of the Church in certain moral issues. I am also aware that there are even some priests and bishops, influenced by modernism and under false pretext of human respect, who expressed some reservations on the Church’s stand on contraception. Needless to say they are not “authentic Roman Catholic views.” Just as in the past there were men most of them among the ranks of the clergy who taught heresy (Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Apolinarius, Pelagius, Luther, Jansen, etc) but the Church Magisterium (the Pope and the bishops united with him) has always stood and condemned these heresies in order to preserve the unity of the Church. After the Magisterium has spoken, some of these men recanted while others persisted. Those who recanted were received back into the bosom of the Church. Those who persisted were excommunicated (Mat 18:17).

R3. That’s why Paul admonished the early Christians to always hold fast to the unity of doctrine (cf 1 Cor 1:10)… Reformation Protestantism claimed the Bible alone is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. But, ironically, it was the emphasis on the Bible alone that caused all the confusion and division within Protestantism. (Surprised by Truth p 265, 268).

Let us go back to the Corinthian church. In 1 Cor 1:10, Paul exhorted the Corinthian church to be of the same mind and that there be no division among them. Yet in 1 Cor 11:18, we see that even during the time of the Apostles, there was already division in the church! This should tell us that division or unity by themselves do not indicate if a certain church or denomination is true of false.

R4. Unity is surely a mark of the true church. Jesus prayed for this and the prayer of Jesus is always answered. “I pray not only for them, but also for those who believe in me because of their message. I pray that they may all be one. Father! May they be in us, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they be one, so that the world will believe that you sent me” (John 17:20-21). The New Testament knows nothing of a system of separated churches professing to be Christian. As the Anglican Dr. Goudge has remarked, “The relation of the churches to the Church is like the relation of local post offices to the General Post Office; there is only one Post Office, private enterprise not being permitted. But the G.P.O. has its local representatives in the towns and villages, and in dealing with them we are dealing with the Department itself. Everywhere in the New Testament the Church is one, and only one” (Radio Replies Vol 2 p.59). In the light of other NT passages where the apostles speak strongly about the need for unity, the above quote in 1 Cor 11:18-19 cannot be interpreted as Paul admitting that division among believers is lawful. According to Paul’s own words divisions into separate groups are the workings of the flesh which he vehemently condemns (Gal 5:20).

The apostles were still alive. The church had living apostles teaching them. The crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ was still very fresh. And yet, there were already divisions in the church. Paul then tells us that such division is useful: “No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval” (1 Cor 11:19).

R4. An elementary rule in biblical interpretation advocated by most Protestants is that we should interpret obscure passages in light of clearer ones. That Jesus and the apostles taught the absolute necessity of unity within the Church is clearly established (John 10:16, John 17:20-21, Mat 12:25,-26, Eph 4:4-5, 1 Cor 1:10, Col 3:15). We also find abundant testimony that divisions are instigated by ambitious men and false prophets seduced by the devil (Mat 24:5, 24, 2 Cor 11:13-15, 1 Tim 6:3-4, 2 Tim 4:3-4, 2 Thes 2:3-12, 2 Pet 2:1-3, Gal 5:20, 1 John 2:19, Jude 1:4). In light of the above passages it would become quite unthinkable to suppose 1 Cor 11:19 as a sanction for division. In 1 Cor 11:19 Paul is trying to say that divisions within the church in Corinth made it possible for them to know who are the true disciples i.e., those who stood firm to the traditions of the apostles (2 Thes 2:15) from those who were teaching novelty. Rather than these false prophets remaining inside the Church unidentified thereby spreading their errors it is better that they had come out in the open so that they (the apostles) will be able to warn the faithful of their false doctrine. The apostle Paul first desired to reconcile with them if they turn from their evil ways but if they persisted Paul also warned them with extreme sanctions: “After all, it is none of my business to judge outsiders. God will judge them. But should you not judge the members of your own fellowship? As the scripture says: ‘Remove the evil person from your group’” (1 Cor 5:12-13); “That is why I write this letter while I am away from you; it is so that when I arrive I will not have to deal harshly with you in using the authority that the Lord has given me” (2 Cor 13:10).

Emphasis on the Bible will cause division and expose those that are not the real people of God.

R4. The Roman Catholic Church has always emphasized the Bible and has maintained her admirable unity. It is the emphasis on sola scriptura and private interpretation which causes endless divisions within Protestantism. This constitutes a proof that not one of these protestant churches is the Church of Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church is only united organizationally and in theory. But in actual practice, it is as divided as the Protestant denominations.

R4. In the above statement, you asserted two things: 1) that Protestant denominations are divided (to which I agree) and 2) the Catholic Church is also divided (to which I disagree). If I concede to the second premise then no church today has the mark of unity which Jesus endowed his church. If the Church of Christ has completely disappeared then the gates of hell would have prevailed against it. This would make Jesus a false prophet for he predicted falsehood. Are you willing to follow through the consequence of your assertion?

It is not only divided today.

R4. The Catholic Church today has only one visible head, one creed and confession of faith, only one form of worship, same set of sacraments, and has the same set of doctrines for all. This kind of unity is sorely lacking in Protestantism. If there is one thing in which Protestants are united it is in their opposition to the Catholic Church and in their decision to remain separated from one another.

It has been divided over the centuries with what the various popes have taught.

R4. If you can cite that two popes in their official capacity as the supreme head of the Church has contradicted in their teachings on faith and morals then you have a case against unity and infallibility of the Church.

To cite two examples that I think are relevant to this exchange, Pope Pius IV banned the Bible in 1559 and included it in the Index of Forbidden Books, while the Vatican II encouraged easy access to it.

R4. It is true that the Catholic Church has an index of forbidden books. The books forbidden are those which are written in order to attack the Christian religion and the Catholic Church, and which are therefore opposed to the faith of a Catholic; and all books which are obscene, filthy, and immoral. Would you recommend to your children the New World Translation by the Watchtower Society to your children? Or would you consider recommending the King James Version as published by the Mormon Church with all the footnotes referring to the final restoration of the Church of Christ in America by Joseph Smith? Would you encourage your children reading Engersoll the Magnificient with all its attack against the Bible? Or would you allow your children to read the book written by Dan Brown or see the movie The Last Temptation of Christ? Wise parents regulate the reading of their children. The Bibles which were included in the list of forbidden books were Protestant Versions of the Bible. Sacred Scripture is so important, and is entitled to such reverence that the Catholic Church permits to her subjects only such translations as she herself is able to guarantee to be substantially correct. English-speaking Catholics have their own Douay-Rheims version provided for their use. The Protestant scholar Scrivener said of the Douay Version, “Its scrupulous fidelity and exactness are it best recommendation. It is an act of justice to recognize that none of us has ever been able to reproach its translators with any willful alteration of the Scriptures.” On the other hand, in Luther’s translation of the Bible he added the word “alone” in Rom 3:28 in an attempt to support his doctrine of sola fide and he relegated some NT writings to the appendix with no page numbers. Pope Pius IV banned dubious Bible translations and Vatican II encouraged free access to faithful translations. Once the smoke is cleared up we see no contradiction.

The Roman Catholic church also, ironically, cannot even agree and infallibly define what Tradition really is with Pope Pius IX arrogantly declaring in 1870, "I am Tradition".

R4. The Church’s understanding on the nature of Tradition is set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically on par 83. If what you mean is a listing of the content of such Tradition there is no need for a solemn pronouncement to this effect. Tradition embodies all that the Church believes and professes. This is reflected in her creed, in her liturgy, in her book of prayers, and in a more compact form in her official Catechism. Regarding Pope Pius IX arrogantly declaring in 1879 “I am Tradition” I would be happy if you can cite what papal document did he say those words. In the mean time, I would not want to give any comments.

R3. Yes it is not the Bible which is at fault. It is the man-made tradition of Sola Scriptura which nullifies the Word of God. Sola Scriptura reduces the Bible into a book of confusion.

Interestingly, I think it is Sola Ecclesia that nullifies the Word of God, as evidenced by your promotion of the Roman church instead of Scripture.

R4. Instead of trying to knock down a caricature of the Catholic position that exists only in your mind I hope you will contend with what the Church teaches. I have never promoted the Church in opposition to the Bible. What I have promoted so far is the Church and the Bible against sola scriptura and private interpretation. The Bible was given within the context of the Living Faith Tradition of the community of believers and it should within that context that the Bible should be interpreted. I am just trying to put the Bible in its rightful place in the life of a Christian.

As you have not presented any biblical support for your claims against Sola Scriptura and your counter proposition of Sola Ecclesia, I will let the Bible speak for itself:

R4. I have never advocated Sola Ecclesia as if the Church has the authority to promulgated ongoing revelations. For us Catholics, the rule of faith is the word of God as contained in Scriptures and Tradition and as interpreted by the infallible teaching authority of the Church founded by Christ. It is quite surprising for you to contend that I have not presented any biblical support for the Catholic position. It is either you simply have decided to close your eyes to all the Biblical arguments I have put forward or the doctrine of sola scriptura has blinded you to see the merits of my case.

The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. (Psa 19:7-8)

O how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day. Your commandments make me wiser than my enemies, For they are ever mine. I have more insight than all my teachers, For Your testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the aged, Because I have observed Your precepts. I have restrained my feet from every evil way, That I may keep Your word. I have not turned aside from Your ordinances, For You Yourself have taught me. How sweet are Your words to my taste! sweeter than honey to my mouth! From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way. Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path. (Psa 119:97-105)

R4. Thank you for citing the above verses. Surely, they are words worthy of our reflection. But again I suspect that in the above verses you are constricting the word of God to the written word only which is entirely unbiblical.

Contrary to your claim, the Bible authenticates itself as clear if we only stick to it. Let us both bow to its authority.

R4. The verses you quoted do not say that the Bible authenticates itself. If it does that then show me using the Bible alone how you know which books are inspired and which are not. It does not suffice to say that you “feel” or “is convinced” after reading the Bible that the Bible is truly inspired. The Mormons also claim to have the same conviction and “burning in the bosom” in reading the book of Mormons. The Muslims will likewise claim to have the same conviction in reading the Quran. Just because a book claims to be the word of God does not mean that it is in reality the word of God.

R3. The fact that there were dissensions and apostasy from the early Church does not negates its’ divine authority.

I see that you are using a double standard. When there are differences among Protestant denominations, you hold it against Sola Scriptura. But when the same differences occur within the Roman Church, you say it is ok and does not negate its divine authority (and I would presume, infallibility). I believe you will need to hold the Roman Church to a higher standard for the mere fact that it claims infallibility and sole authority. The more the authority the more the responsiblity. To me, infallible means no error, now and forever.

R4. There is no double standard here. Back in the apostolic times it is true that there were controversies like for example on the issue on whether the gentile converts are required to follow the Mosaic laws. How did the early Church resolve this controversy? It was through the decision of the Church leaders who were gathered in Jerusalem that they resolve the controversy. It is true that after that there were still who persisted but as far as the Apostles and their faithful followers are concerned the case is close. Those who accepted the decision of the church leaders remained within the bond of unity while those who were obstinate in their heresy were condemned and severed from the Church (Mat 18:17, 1 Cor 5:12-13, Gal 1:6-8). Controversies within the Church have never resulted into a separate church within Catholicism whereas controversies within Protestantism have resulted into several conflicting churches within Protestantism. Whereas the Catholic Church has an internal authority to resolve conflicts and impose sanctions on dissenters, Protestantism on the other hand has no such authority.

R3. True there is a lot of error, controversy and disagreement but these are initiated by men who in their pride arrogated for themselves to teach the Church rather than be taught by her.

I'm now confused, for earlier, you claimed unity with the Roman church and spoke against division among the Protestant denominations.

R4. The church can never lose her inherent unity for this is the will of her founder (John 17:20-21). In teaching us regarding the reality of the Church Jesus uses the imagery of the vine and the branches (John 15:1-5). Jesus also likens the Church to a huge tree which grew from the smallest of seeds (Mat 13:31-32). Using this imagery, false teachers and their followers are like branches which bear bad fruit (Mat 7:15-20) and are cut from the vine (John 15:6) after which they wither and die and are thrown into the fire. Meanwhile those, which remain with the vine, are united in the bond of unity of the one tree. On the contrary, Protestant churches are more like separate trees sown by the devil who is the author of rebellion against divinely established authority.

R3. When these men through their obstinacy persisted in their heresy, the Church sadly severed them from the mystical body as she did with Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII et al for She would rather lose some of her members than her entire fold be poisoned by the heretical teachings of self-proclaimed reformers. When we look at the Catholic Church with almost a billion followers spread throughout the world professing the same faith, receiving the same sacraments, worshipping at the same altar, and submitting to the same teaching authority we cannot deny its admirable doctrinal unity.

I will have to ask you to do a fair comparison. You are trying to compare the Roman church's doctrinal unity with Protestant practice. You need to compare Protestant practice with Roman practice. If you do, you will see that your admitted statement holds true. That "there is a lot of error, controversy and disagreement" in actual practice.

R4. I am comparing the Roman Catholic Church doctrinal unity with the Protestant churches’ doctrinal anarchy. Baptists and the Churches of Christ forbid infant baptism. Lutherans say it is valid. Presbyterians hold to what is called the Westminster Confession. Methodism has no formal confession of faith, holding that creed is not essential. Lutherans hold that creed is essential, and support the Augsburg Confession by faith, believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist by consubstantiation as opposed to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Congregationalists say that it is not essential to have organized unity at all. Christian scientists together with the Unitarians deny the divinity of Christ and the plurality of persons in the Godhead. The Pentecostal church thinks that others have missed the essential thing which is the immediate and personal influence of the Holy Spirit.

R3. In contrast we have those people who hold to the Bible alone doctrine, numbering not even one-third in size compared to their catholic brethren, being splintered into numerous denominations who hardly can agree among themselves which doctrines are essential to Christianity, men who appeared centuries after the birth of Christianity and who proclaimed among themselves: “We are the only true Christians.”

That is what I am precisely trying to do here - bring us back to the apostolic teachings. What they taught and was preserved in Scripture is what I have been trying to bring us back to. Yes, many men came centuries after the early church including the Roman pope and infallible councils.

R4. Actually, you are not the first one to try to do this. The preachers of the restoration movement led by Campbell adopted a radical version based on sola scriptura. They threw away all man-made creed and confessions and thought that Scripture would stand alone and would not be filtered by any external authoritative source. Campbell wanted to end denominationalism and to bring all Christians of every name back to apostolic teachings but ended up forming another denomination, the Church of Christ in 1836. Later their preachers began to teach their church is the apostolic church. To support that teaching, a new history was created. It says that after the death of the last apostle, the Church Jesus founded fell into apostasy and came to be supplanted by the Catholic Church with its man-made traditions. When men finally renounced human traditions and returned to the Bible alone the restoration was done. In 1830, Joseph Smith also forwarded his own version of restoration and taught that since all protestant churches came from the Catholic Church then all are corrupt. He founded the Church of Christ of the Latter-Day Saints and presented it to the world as the complete restoration of the original Church Jesus founded. In 1872, Charles Taze Russel followed suit. He though that Christianity has been deceived by the Catholic Church in believing the doctrine of the Trinity and founded the Jehovah’s Witnesses. In 1914, Felix Manalo using the same twisted version of church history declared that all churches before his time were apostate and founded the Iglesia ni Cristo as the only church which teach what the apostles taught in the Bible. However, these men forgot one thing. They forgot that Jesus promised that even the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church (Mat 16:18). They forgot that Jesus promised his abiding presence (Mat 28:20) and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into all truth forever (John 16:13). In their vain attempt to bring people back to apostolic teachings via the Bible they ended up teaching people their own brand of Christianity.

I would ask you again to hold one standard. For example, the doctrine of the Assumption Mary was only declared by Pope Pius XII in 1950. This doctrine was not taught by the Apostles but was brought about by "men who appeared centuries after the birth of Christianity and who proclaimed among themselves".

R4. Doctrines are defined formally only when: 1) there is a controversy that needs to be cleared up or 2) when the Magisterium thinks the faithful can be helped by particular emphasis being drawn to some already existing belief. For example the Trinity was formally defined through the Council of Nicea 325 AD and Council of Constantinople 381 AD. The canon of Scriptures was formally defined through the Council of Hippo 393 AD and the Council of Carthage 397 AD. The doctrine that Mary is Mother of God was defined through the Council of Ephesus 430 AD. These formal definitions were occasioned by controversies and in defining the Church set forth what she has always believed. The Immaculate Conception was officially defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854 and the Assumption was officially defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950. The official definition of these Marian doctrines did not come about because there were widespread doubts about the doctrine. In fact, the Vatican was deluged with requests from bishops, priests, and lay people desiring the doctrine to be officially proclaimed. The Church hoped that the definition would inspire others in their devotion to Mary.

You are appealing to numbers and doctrinal unity as a sign of a true church. Buddhists and Muslims also number a lot and I think they also have doctrinal unity.

R4. Doctrinal unity is definitely one of the marks of the true Church (John 10:16, John 17:20-21, Mat 12:25,-26, Eph 4:4-5, 1 Cor 1:10, Col 3:15). The marvelous spread of the Catholic Church despite the many crisis she has encountered in her 2000 years history is a cause for consideration. Christ, the Son of God, founded His Church for all men; He bound all men to become members of it. Therefore, all non-christian religions must be rejected as false, and must be abandoned. The propagation of Buddhism can be accounted due to natural causes: 1) By the obscurity of the older religion it supplanted, 2) by the fragments of truth found even it its central doctrine, 3) by its implicit denial of the existence of a personal God, the Lawgiver who will punish the wicked, 4) by its toleration of sin, for it taught that those who indulged their passions did not lose, but merely delayed, their final happiness, 5) it did not met terrible persecutions as the Christian church did. Likewise the rapid propagation of Islam can also be attributed to natural causes: 1) the clearness and consistency of its monotheistic doctrine in contrast with the confused and contradictory teaching of polytheism, 2) to its pandering to base passions i.e, polygamy, 3) It contains merely natural truths, but above all 4) to the might of the sword. In neither Buddhism nor Islam do we find unity of government. In both however, we find a close approximation to unity of belief, but this can be easily explained by the fact that their creeds consist of but a few simple articles which, quite unlike the great Mysteries of the Catholic Faith (Trinity, incarnation, redemption, real presence in the Eucharist, sacramental confession, etc) issue no preemptory challenge to human arrogance. Furthermore, their propagation has been due to non-miraculous or merely natural causes; neither of them has had to suffer a fierce, thoroughly organized, persecution; both of them have constantly enjoyed the support of civil rulers, and during their long history they have never received the divine testimony of manifest and well authenticated miracles.

Jesus teaches us that his true disciples are those who will continue in His word (Joh 8:31). These are the true Christians. I do not make any claims. I only try to bring to your attention the words of Jesus Christ and His apostles as preserved for us in the pages of the Bible.

R4. I am in full agreement with the above statement. Thank God you did not add the word “alone.”

R3. You mentioned that the Galileo case is one of the more popular documented events in Church history. Having said that, I am still quite surprised how a lot of people are still ignorant on the facts surrounding this event. I cannot partly blame most of them considering the amount of anti-Catholic literature in the market, some are even distributed for free or inserted into the pews for the unwary catholic to read. Believe me, I have read such books as Babylon Mystery Religion by Ralph Woodrow, Book of Martyrs by Fox, Truth Encounter by Anthony Pezzota and what is probably the anti-catholic source book Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner. Oftentimes, the Galileo case is a handy instrument at the hands of those who think that they have an argument against Catholicism. I think its time that you hear the story from a Catholic although I am not inclined to believe that you will take my word for it but I hope that you can get down to the facts.

I have read some of the books you mentioned. That was quite a while back. You have actually read more than I have and I sincerely respect you for that. I stopped reading when it only bred in me anger and bitterness. I must admit that I get the same feelings sometimes when I do our exchanges. That is why it takes me a while to complete one for I have to stop every now and then when my emotions start getting in the way. :-)

R4. I think that is what these anti-Catholic literatures have been most successful in doing that is to breed anger and bitterness towards the Catholic Religion. Many unwary Catholics have read these books but few of them have read their refutations by Catholic writers. Often the cure comes too late and the disease has already spread. Had I read these books and not given myself the chance to study and hear what the Church has to say about all the accusations hurled against her no doubt I would have long ago abandoned the Catholic Church as many of her children had done.

R3. Here are the facts. 1) Galileo was a brilliant physicist and astronomer, but he didn’t discover heliocentricity—the ancient Greeks and Romans postulated the theory at least 2000 years before him. We know this because both Aristotle (322 BC) and Ptolemy (150 AD), attempted to refute the idea. Aristarchus of Samos (160 BC), Cicero (43 BC), Seneca (65 AD) and Eusebius (died 339 AD) all discussed the idea in their writings. This is why the Polish scientist Copernicus (1543 AD), who happened to be a Catholic priest, didn’t fancy himself the “discoverer” of the theory named after him. 2) The Catholic Church has never defined (nor could it ever define) any theory of physical science as a matter of faith. There never was any “dogma” which said the earth was the center of the solar system. 3) Although Galileo’s heliocentric theories were contrary to the understanding of the Church of his day, it wasn’t just with the Church that he found himself at odds. His ideas were contrary to the Ptolemaic school of thought, which was accepted by virtually all contemporary scientists and notable thinkers like Michel de Montaigne (d. 1592), Blaise pascal (d. 1662) and Alessandro Tassoni (d. 1635). 4) Galileo’s astronomical theories were based as much on hunches as on facts. His “proofs” did not convince the scientists of his time nor will it convince the scientists of our times. There were many things that Galileo still couldn’t explain. Johannes Kepler successfully refuted the evidence presented by Galileo. 5) Galileo was held in high regard by many Roman hierarchs and was one of the most celebrated members of the scientific academy of Lincei. His work in astronomy garnered him high honors from three successive popes: Paul V, Gregory XV and Urban VIII. 6) The Church of the seventeenth century was not hostile to the Copernican system, and that so many churchmen were favorable to Galileo.

So with this as a hind sight, how did it happen that Galileo found himself cited before an ecclesiastical tribunal? The fault of Galileo consisted in his confusing revealed truths with physical discoveries, and in teaching what sense Scripture passages were to be taken, explaining them by demonstration of calculation and experience. Galileo said that in Scriptures “are found propositions which, taken literally, are false; that Holy Writ out of regard for the incapacity of the people, expresses itself inexactly, even when treating of solemn dogmas; that in questions concerning natural things, philosophical argument should avail more that sacred.” Galileo began to question Biblical passages like Joshua 10:13 where it is written: “So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” Thus we see that had Galileo confined his findings in the realm of scientific inquiry and not delved into the area of philosophy and theology which is not his competence he would not have been censured by the Church. If we cannot condone the condemnation of heliocentrism and the punishment of Galileo, the reasoning of the ecclesiastics is nonetheless understandable. Essentially the “tragic misunderstanding,” as Pope John Paul II called it, was due to the conflict between theologians who thought that “our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture” and a scientist whose brilliant intuition had outpaced his data.

Protestant critics of Catholicism points triumphantly to the Galileo case, but conveniently forget that ten years before Galileo landed in the ecclesiastical hot seat, his scientific peer, Johannes Kepler (d. 1630), a Protestant, was vehemently condemned by the Protestant faculty at the University of Tubingen for espousing the very same theory. If the Church was not hostile to purely scientific innovations, Luther and Melancthon were not so liberal. In his “Table Talk” Luther says: “Men pay heed to an astrologer who contends that it is the earth that moves, and not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. If a man yearns for a reputation as a profound scientist, he should invent some new system. This madman would subvert the whole science of astronomy; but Scripture tells us that Joshua bade the sun, not the earth, to stand still.” In his “Principles of the Science of Physics,” Melancthon says: “The eyes testify that the heavens revolve every twenty-four hours; and nevertheless some men, either from love of novelty or to parade their genius, insist that the earth moves, and that the eighth sphere and the sun do not revolve. Every true believer is obliged to accept the truth as revealed by God, and be contented with it.”

I hope you now have a wider historical context of the Galileo case.

I appreciate the huge and wholehearted effort that went into this section and I have learned a few things from it, thank you. But what you have apparently missed in your analysis is that the statement I quoted was made by a teaching society that claims infallibility and unity.

R4. Thank you for bringing me back to this main point.

I don't care if Protestants were wrong for they did not claim infallibility.

R4. Luther and Melancthon were not ordinary Protestants. They are regarded as the forerunners of Protestantism. I included their position in my response in order to help set the historical perspective to the Galileo case. Luther and Melancthon were not as tolerant as the Church on the Copernican theory based on their literal interpretation of Scriptures.

I quote in whole this time the words of the holy tribunal in Galileo's case: "The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically, and theologically considered, at least erroneous in faith." This is a sweeping statement "philosophically, theologically and formally" from an infallible and doctrinally united teaching society only to be proven wrong almost 400 years later by the same infallible teaching society.

R4. Let me address your main point. Firstly, the ecclesiastical tribunal was not entirely wrong in its condemnation of Galileo’s theory. Galileo was wrong in theorizing on the immovableness of the sun. Modern science contrary to Galileo’s findings has proven that the sun indeed moves. Galileo’s proposition that the earth moves around the sun in circular orbit is also false. So had the tribunal embraced the findings of Galileo- and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them--it would have endorsed what modern science has disproved. Secondly, the tribunal was right in condemning Galileo for supposing that the Holy Writ was wrong since it contradicted his findings. Thirdly, the Church has never taught that a local ecclesiastical tribunal is infallible i.e., the findings and recommendation of a local ecclesiastical tribunal does not have binding teaching authority for the whole church. No Ecumenical Council met concerning Galileo, and Pope Urban VIII although he ratified its verdict, did not attempt to engage infallibility. Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: 1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter, 2) he must speak on a matter of faith and morals, 3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful. In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first for catholic theology has maintained that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is not an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false.

It has gradually become clear to me that your faith truly rests on the Roman Catholic Church and not really on the Bible and not even on Tradition. Sola Ecclesia as opposed to Sola Scriptura.

R4. In my case it is not the Church OR the Bible but the Church AND the Bible. Jesus has given us both to be our guide, He did not leave it an option for us to accept one and disregard the other.

You would believe anything everything that the Roman church says while I would believe everything that the Bible says.

R4. In reality you are actually obeying your own private interpretation of what you think the Bible says. Where the Bible says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) you think that the Church could fall into error thereby denying the truth of which it is to be pillar and foundation. Where the Bible says that no prophecy in Scriptures can be understood by private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20) you would submit to no other external authority in matters of interpretation except your own private judgment. Where the Bible says that there are many things in Scriptures which are difficult and hard to understand (2 Pet 3:16) you claim that the Bible is clear in all matters pertaining to salvation.

You claim Church, Tradition and Scripture. But your ultimate and final authority is what the Roman Church says.

R4. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God as contained in Scripture and Tradition. The proximate rule of faith is the infallible teaching authority of the Church founded by Christ. In your case the remote rule of faith is the Bible but the proximate rule of faith is your private interpretation of the Bible.

I would like to respectfully remind you that you have not even shown one proof of the biblical and historical authenticity of this Roman church that you have let all your faith rest on. What I have seen you provide is the Roman church saying that it is the church that God authorized. It is authenticating itself using circular reasoning.

R4. It is the argument that the Bible is self-authenticating which is a circular argument. On what grounds do you consider Hebrews and Revelation canonical in contrast to the Didache, Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Thomas? Could you cite the criteria for determining canonicity from the Bible alone?

Yes, we will never attain perfect knowledge in this world. But still the Bible commands us to study the word, search the Scriptures and diligently seek to rightly handle the word of truth.

R4. From the way the adherents of sola scriptura has produced myriads of conflicting interpretation is a sure sign that a lot of people are not rightly handling the word of truth. Who is to decide who is rightly handling the word of truth?

On the other hand, your presented alternative to the Bible Alone doctrine, which is the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church and its "sacred traditions", is filled with error and controversy, as well as non-biblical and extra-biblical teachings. We can take this up in another thread and I think we will.

R4. I will give you the privilege to choose from among the Catholic teachings the subject for our next discussion. If you should like to solicit my opinion, I suggest we talk about the primacy of Peter.

But suffice it to say that the alternative you provide is not at all credible. I'm afraid we will be much more in want of true learning and much farther away from the knowledge of the truth.

R4. Almost 500 years of Protestantism have shown the utter fallacy of its basic tenet of sola scriptura. Instead of arriving at the unity of faith (Eph 4:4-5) it has produced endless divisions and fragmentations of various sects. When did Jesus commission men to set up their own separate churches anyway? Is it not rather strange that the visible principle of unity which is the Church as the body of Christ (Col 1:18) should be the cause for disunity within Protestantism?

R3. My study of Scripture thus far has led me to recognize the following truths: 1) Jesus founded a Church whom he promised that even the gates of hell cannot prevail against it (Mat 16:18), 2) He commissioned his Church to teach the gospel in his name and promised his abiding presence (Mat 28:19-20), 3) He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church into all truths (John 14:16,26), 4) Scriptures refers to this Church as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15).

Agree!

R3. Given this Scriptural data, I am led to conclude that 1) the Church founded by Christ has never fallen and could never fall into error otherwise it would make a lie of Christ’s solemn promise,

I have already said this but will repeat it here to show that Bible never promised that Christ's church will never fall into error.

R4. Thus contrary to the above verses you will assert that: 1) The gates of hell will from time to time prevail against the Church, 2) Jesus from time to time allows the Church to teach heresy thereby leading countless souls astray, 3) The Holy Spirit has not led the Church into all truths but into some truth mixed with error, 4) The Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth is in reality a weak pillar and shaky foundation.

The churches in the book of Revelations received severe rebukes by Christ for their error. Paul tell us in 1 Tim 4 that in the latter times some will fall away, John warns us in his first letter and Peter in his second letter that false prophets will arise from within the church.

R4. During apostolic times, we see Peter and the apostles stood up to condemned heresy and false prophets. It is true that there were apostasy from the Church but never apostasy of the Church. Men seduced by the devil will abandon the Church of Christ but the Church can never fail in her mission of guarding the deposit of faith which was entrusted to her by her divine founder. In Post-apostolic times we see the Pope and the Bishops gather together in Ecumenical Councils to resolve controversy and condemn various heresies most of which were instigated by her own children. To this line of heresy condemned by the Catholic Church we have Gnosticism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Arianism, Pneumatochianism, Modalism, Apolinarianism, Monophysitism, Monotheletism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Iconoclasm, Catharism, Albigensians, Protestantism, Jansenism, Modernism, etc. For a time these heresies raged the Christian world and the Church mourned several casualties among her followers. After the smoke has cleared we see the Church emerged victorious and untouched in her doctrines. What she lost from among her followers she in time recovered from a renewed zeal of evangelization in faraway lands. The words of Jesus has constantly been re-enacted throughout Church history that the gates of hell will always assail the Church but as Jesus promised it can never prevail (Mat 16:18).

An infallible church is not taught in Scripture, only an infallible Bible.

R4. You would not have known which books contain the Bible had it not for the authority of the Catholic Church. Without an infallible authority to tell which books belong to the canon of the Bible then what you have is a fallible collection of what you believe to be infallible writings. Luther was honest enough to admit this fact we he said: “We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists—that with them is the word of God, which we received from them; otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it” (Luthers Works, Vol 24, Commentary on the Gospel of John).

2) The true Church must have an unbroken history which can be traced back to the time of the apostles,

I have been asking for your proof for this but thus far you have chosen not to show it to me.

R4. The following are sample references: “The Catholic Church is the divine society founded by Jesus Christ, bewtowed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Specifically this is the society of believers united under the bishop of Rome and hence is often called Roman Catholic Church” (Grolier’s Encyc Vol 5 p 106). “The Catholic Church has two natures comparable to the two natures of her founder Jesus Christ, human and divine” (International Encyc Vol 15, p 520). I could give you more references from the writings of the early church fathers and from standard historical sources. Again, if you deny this historical witness, then I challenge you to answer these questions: If it was not Christ who founded the Catholic Church then, who founded the Catholic Church? When was she founded? Where was she founded? From what standard reference of history d0 you base such information?

3) The true Church must continually proclaimed to teach infallibly the truth, 4) The true Church must possess the attribute of indestructibility, perpetuity, indefectibility, and infallibility for She is the work of Christ.

Jesus Christ and the apostles have never taught that the church will be infallible as evidenced by the error and division in the church during the time of the apostles. On the other hand, Peter tell us in his letter that "there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves." (2 Pet 2:1).

R4. On the contrary it was the exercise of the Church infallible teaching office that she condemned false teachers and their false doctrines both during apostolic (Peter and the apostles) and post-apostolic times (Pope and the bishops).

Infallibility is not an attribute of His church but of His word. Do not confuse the two. One is promised by God while the other is not and the opposite even predicted.

R4. On the contrary the infallible word of God says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Therefore despite your claim to the contrary the Church must always be what God’s word describes it to be.

R3. Considering all these essential attributes of the true Church, I am led to recognize that the only Church existing today that has these credentials is the Catholic Church.

I duly recognize your argument, but still there is no direct biblical and historical proof for the Roman Catholic church's claim. The Mormon church claims the same thing. The Iglesia ni Manalo claims the same thing.

R4. On the contrary it can easily be proven historically that the churches you mentioned (and also of all other protestant churches) are of relatively recent origin. The Mormon church was founded by Joseph Smith in 1830 while the Iglesia ni Cristo was founded by Felix Manalo in 1914. Both of these sects claim that the original Church of Christ crumbled into error and disappeared from the face of the earth for several centuries only to be revived by these would-be restorers. If we go back to the pages of history, say back in 1500, most if not all the protestant churches which exist today will have completely disappeared.

In the end, Christ's disciples will be those who remain true to His word (John 8:31), not those who claim membership to a particular church no matter how huge that church can be. Church is important, and teachers are important. But they do not save you.

R4. By these comments plus your refusal to identify what denomination which exist today is the true Church of Christ leads me to suspect that you subscribe to the idea of an invisible church which is another man-made doctrine invented by those who wish to justify the divisions within Protestantism. It is not just any church which is important but the one true church founded by Christ whom you agreed was commissioned to teach all men (Mat 28:19-20) and which the Holy Spirit will guide into all truths (John 16:13) and which is referred to as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). Again, if you are not convinced that this Church is the Catholic Church it still remains an obligation on your part to seek which among the various conflicting Christian denominations is it. It is true that it is Jesus who saves but he also calls us to his church (Col 3:15) and the Bible says that Jesus will save his church which is his body (Eph 5:23). To refuse to enter into the Church founded by Christ is to refuse to become part of Christ mystical body and in effect is to refuse the grace of salvation offered by our Savior. Jesus does not only save us individually but he has also called us as a people professing one faith, acknowledging one baptism, rendering to God one worship for there is only one body, one Spirit and one Lord of all.

The staggering Roman Catholic claim of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus "Outside the church there can be no salvation" is opposed to Paul's teaching in Eph 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."

R4. This teaching of the Catholic Church is just an elucidation of Christ words: “Go and preach the gospel to all nations. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who believes not will be condemned” (Mark 16:15). It is not a blanket condemnation to all non-catholics nor is it an absolute assurance that all Catholics would go to heaven. This teaching is directed to those who have been given enough evidence of the divine credential of the Catholic Church to be the true church founded by Christ but would refuse to enter it cannot be saved. But those who through no fault of their own or are invincibly ignorant of the true gospel of Christ of his Church, can still attain to salvation if they follow the dictates of their conscience aided by God’s grace according to the light of truth that is shown to them. These men of good will are in some way related to the Church. The verse in Ephesians 2:8-9 does in anyway down play the necessity of good works done in and with grace (Ephesians 2:10, Philippians 2:12-13). What Paul emphasizes in the above verse is the gratuity of grace. Grace, which Catholics understands as the supernatural life in the soul was lost through the disobedience of Adam and it was won back for us through the obedience of Jesus (John 1:17). Thus grace as such is not a result of works, so that one may boasts. Jesus has redeemed us while we were yet sinners so how can anyone say that we have merited grace?

R3. I think what you are referring to is sincerity. Sincerity in one’s belief is not enough. A lot of sincere people are grossly in error. Although I may not agree most of the time with what you say but I do not doubt your sincerity.

I am not presenting my sincerity as much as I was trying to point you to infallible Scripture. True, a lot of people can be sincerely wrong - you, me, my pastors, your Roman priests and pope. I am trying to present you the only way that you can't go wrong, and that is through infallible Scripture.

R4. Are you trying to say that anybody reading and going by the Bible alone can’t go wrong? If five protestant denominations claiming to go by the Bible alone come up with five different interpretations surely not all of them is right don’t you think?

I want to express my sincere gratitude again Ramon for engaging me in this exchange which I hope and pray will bring honor to the Lord Jesus Christ and will bring edification and wisdom from above to us both.

I am sure that you will still have some arguments to present from your side. Even if in this dialogue we mostly discuss our disagreements but I still believe that the things that unite us are far greater that those which divides us. Let us pray and work for Christian unity as our Lord himself prayed (John 17:20-21). I hope that this dialogue will be a step towards attaining a better understanding of both sides.

Yours in Christ,

Ramon