Several weeks ago, I had a discussion with a Roman Catholic by the codename Milesawayman on Sola Scriptura (read the comments section here). This article is an evaluation of how Milesawayman detracts the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. How does he do that? Well, by showing his extreme loyalty to the church of Rome.
You know, an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Church (the Apostles and their disciples) wrote the New Testament and the successors of the Apostles, the bishops of the Church, decided on the canon. If Scripture (the effect) is infallible, the Church (its cause) must also be infallible. Therefore, her (church) interpretation of her own writings is infallible.
And why do we have the book of Revelations today in our bible? Despite of the fact that it was disputed? The answer is simply because the Catholic Church says so.
For those who already have experience discussing Sola Scriptura with Roman Catholics, the above argument is quite common. They believe that the church is infallible and the church tells them what is scripture. As opposed to Sola Scriptura, this is what Evangelicals consider as Sola Ecclessia or the church alone is the authority. Many Roman Catholics will immediately deny that they observe Sola Ecclessia but their actions show the opposite; most especially when they say the catch phrase, "the church says so".
They will argue that their system of authority is a tripod (Bible, Tradition, and Magisterium) but in reality is a unicycle (Magisterium only). While they claim that the Magisterium is subservient to Scripture and Tradition, it is so ironic that their Magisterium gets to define what is Scripture and Tradition.
Moving on, when I asked Milesawayman how did he know that the church is infallible, he answered:
Because the New Testament says so, and the Catholic Church teaches that the NT is the Word of God, so I believe it. St. Paul wrote that the Church is "the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" 1 Tm 3:15. You don't believe that, even though you claim to be a "Bible-believer," but I do. St. Paul also said that the Church is the Bride of Christ and the very Body of Christ. I believe the NT. But you, sadly, do not. Christ said He would be with the Church ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE WORLD (Mt 28:20), and that He would send the Spirit to be with the Church ALWAYS, to guide her to all truth ALWAYS (Jn 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15, Acts 1:1, 15:28, and more).
Earlier we quoted Milesawayman saying that they have the book of Revelation in the Bible because the church says so. Now from the above Milesawayman is telling us that the church is infallible because the Bible says so. Folks, I have been writing this in my previous articles (see a sample here) time and time again, telling that such argument is circular. And sadly, many Roman Catholics like Milesawayman fail to see this circularity.
And I know the Church is infallible because of the principle of causality: I've already written this on my previous post but you didn't seem to understand it. An effect cannot be greater than its cause. If the Scriptures (the effect) are infallible, the Catholic Church (the cause) must also be infallible. Get it? Either the Scriptures are not infallible and the Church is not infallible -- or -- the Church and her Scriptures are both infallible. That means she is preserved from teaching error in either doctrine or morals.
The above argument commits the non-sequitir fallacy (or it does not follow). But due to Milesawayman's loyalty to the church, he argues this on the guise that it is a principle of cause and effect. It makes me wonder if he were to argue the Bible's infallibility to skeptics, would he actually use that argument?
When asked what is his basis of saying the Church of Rome is the true church among the other churches, he responds:
Yes, I have identified the True Church. And I don't need to be infallible to recognize her. The Catholic Church is 2,000 years old and can trace her history back in an unbroken continuum to Jesus and the Apostles. She is the Church written about in the NT.
Christ founded only one Church -- the Catholic Church. "Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Church at Smyrna, A.D. 107. Ignatius' teacher and mentor, the Apostle John, died c. 100. This was written only 7 years after the death of the last Apostle.
And another:
What other Church was around at the time of Christ? Only the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old. There were no Protestants until the 16th century.
Christ fixed the premise. The Orthodox Churches were once part of the undivided Catholic Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. They have a validly ordained clergy, are in Apostolic Succession, and have valid Sacraments (they call them Mysteries). The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox to be sister Churches and works toward reconciliation with them so the Church may again be one. Protestant churches, sadly, are in heresy, but their current members didn't participate in the 16th century rebellion so are not considered formal heretics.
When I was reading the above arguments I found to be both funny and annoying. Funny in a sense that we are being shown a lack of objectivity and annoying in a sense that the person is too stubborn to notice that he lacks objectivity.
Yes, Christ indeed found only one church over 2,000 years ago. Unfortunately, there are churches who are claiming to be the successor of that one true church. All we are asking is for an objective basis of saying the Church of Rome is indeed that one true church. But how does Milesawayman answer? He simply describes the church the way he believes it to be and connects it to the Church of Rome. It is another way of saying, "Well, the Church of Rome says she is the one founded by Christ and I believed her so all other churches must be false."
In the present period where there are so many Christian churches claiming to be true, it is objective enough to test each one. But here, Milesawayman just picked the claimes of the Church of Rome as the standard.
Here is the funniest and most annoying of Milesawayman's argument when asked if he analyzed the teachings of Rome:
The teaching of the Church is the teaching of the Apostles. The doctrines the Apostles taught the Church are the ones they learned from Christ who ordered them to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE WORLD" Mt 28:20 KJV. So Christ is still present in His Church. Do the teachings of Christ need to be analyzed?
If you think that there is objectivity in the above then consider yourself to be gullible. In Milesawayman's mind, the Church of Rome is the true church and that is it. He takes away the Church of Rome from among the churches to be examined and use her as her own basis of judgment. No matter what objective measures you suggest to him the battle has ended even before it has begun.
For those of you who will refer to Milesawayman's comment,
I scrutinized the history of Christianity and found the Catholic Church.
to say he was objective, ask him further how did he scrutinize. Based on our discussion, you will find one important quality missing: objectivity.
In conclusion, let's quote Milesawayman about the making of Scriptures:
The Catholic Church did not come out of the Bible like Protestant organizations do; rather, the Bible came out of the Catholic Church. The Church is the mother of the Bible.
If she is the mother of the Bible it makes me wonder why the Bible was ever written. Roman Catholics could have just relied on their systematic and organized Catechisms of the Catholic Church as their rule of faith since this is the expressed teachings of Rome. Making things worse is that they teach that only the Magisterium can rightfully interpret Scripture and Tradition. So why bother providing Roman Catholics with Bibles? Furthermore, we are faced with a circular argument that the Church of Rome derives her authority from the Bible which Milesawayman claimed to be a product of the church.
With all these dilemmas, no Roman Catholic can honestly say that they were objective in studying their church. They simply accepted Rome's teachings with no analysis and no questions asked.
You know, an effect cannot be greater than its cause. The Church (the Apostles and their disciples) wrote the New Testament and the successors of the Apostles, the bishops of the Church, decided on the canon. If Scripture (the effect) is infallible, the Church (its cause) must also be infallible. Therefore, her (church) interpretation of her own writings is infallible.
And why do we have the book of Revelations today in our bible? Despite of the fact that it was disputed? The answer is simply because the Catholic Church says so.
For those who already have experience discussing Sola Scriptura with Roman Catholics, the above argument is quite common. They believe that the church is infallible and the church tells them what is scripture. As opposed to Sola Scriptura, this is what Evangelicals consider as Sola Ecclessia or the church alone is the authority. Many Roman Catholics will immediately deny that they observe Sola Ecclessia but their actions show the opposite; most especially when they say the catch phrase, "the church says so".
They will argue that their system of authority is a tripod (Bible, Tradition, and Magisterium) but in reality is a unicycle (Magisterium only). While they claim that the Magisterium is subservient to Scripture and Tradition, it is so ironic that their Magisterium gets to define what is Scripture and Tradition.
Moving on, when I asked Milesawayman how did he know that the church is infallible, he answered:
Because the New Testament says so, and the Catholic Church teaches that the NT is the Word of God, so I believe it. St. Paul wrote that the Church is "the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth" 1 Tm 3:15. You don't believe that, even though you claim to be a "Bible-believer," but I do. St. Paul also said that the Church is the Bride of Christ and the very Body of Christ. I believe the NT. But you, sadly, do not. Christ said He would be with the Church ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE WORLD (Mt 28:20), and that He would send the Spirit to be with the Church ALWAYS, to guide her to all truth ALWAYS (Jn 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-15, Acts 1:1, 15:28, and more).
Earlier we quoted Milesawayman saying that they have the book of Revelation in the Bible because the church says so. Now from the above Milesawayman is telling us that the church is infallible because the Bible says so. Folks, I have been writing this in my previous articles (see a sample here) time and time again, telling that such argument is circular. And sadly, many Roman Catholics like Milesawayman fail to see this circularity.
And I know the Church is infallible because of the principle of causality: I've already written this on my previous post but you didn't seem to understand it. An effect cannot be greater than its cause. If the Scriptures (the effect) are infallible, the Catholic Church (the cause) must also be infallible. Get it? Either the Scriptures are not infallible and the Church is not infallible -- or -- the Church and her Scriptures are both infallible. That means she is preserved from teaching error in either doctrine or morals.
The above argument commits the non-sequitir fallacy (or it does not follow). But due to Milesawayman's loyalty to the church, he argues this on the guise that it is a principle of cause and effect. It makes me wonder if he were to argue the Bible's infallibility to skeptics, would he actually use that argument?
When asked what is his basis of saying the Church of Rome is the true church among the other churches, he responds:
Yes, I have identified the True Church. And I don't need to be infallible to recognize her. The Catholic Church is 2,000 years old and can trace her history back in an unbroken continuum to Jesus and the Apostles. She is the Church written about in the NT.
Christ founded only one Church -- the Catholic Church. "Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Church at Smyrna, A.D. 107. Ignatius' teacher and mentor, the Apostle John, died c. 100. This was written only 7 years after the death of the last Apostle.
And another:
What other Church was around at the time of Christ? Only the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old. There were no Protestants until the 16th century.
Christ fixed the premise. The Orthodox Churches were once part of the undivided Catholic Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. They have a validly ordained clergy, are in Apostolic Succession, and have valid Sacraments (they call them Mysteries). The Catholic Church considers the Orthodox to be sister Churches and works toward reconciliation with them so the Church may again be one. Protestant churches, sadly, are in heresy, but their current members didn't participate in the 16th century rebellion so are not considered formal heretics.
When I was reading the above arguments I found to be both funny and annoying. Funny in a sense that we are being shown a lack of objectivity and annoying in a sense that the person is too stubborn to notice that he lacks objectivity.
Yes, Christ indeed found only one church over 2,000 years ago. Unfortunately, there are churches who are claiming to be the successor of that one true church. All we are asking is for an objective basis of saying the Church of Rome is indeed that one true church. But how does Milesawayman answer? He simply describes the church the way he believes it to be and connects it to the Church of Rome. It is another way of saying, "Well, the Church of Rome says she is the one founded by Christ and I believed her so all other churches must be false."
In the present period where there are so many Christian churches claiming to be true, it is objective enough to test each one. But here, Milesawayman just picked the claimes of the Church of Rome as the standard.
Here is the funniest and most annoying of Milesawayman's argument when asked if he analyzed the teachings of Rome:
The teaching of the Church is the teaching of the Apostles. The doctrines the Apostles taught the Church are the ones they learned from Christ who ordered them to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you ALWAYS, TO THE END OF THE WORLD" Mt 28:20 KJV. So Christ is still present in His Church. Do the teachings of Christ need to be analyzed?
If you think that there is objectivity in the above then consider yourself to be gullible. In Milesawayman's mind, the Church of Rome is the true church and that is it. He takes away the Church of Rome from among the churches to be examined and use her as her own basis of judgment. No matter what objective measures you suggest to him the battle has ended even before it has begun.
For those of you who will refer to Milesawayman's comment,
I scrutinized the history of Christianity and found the Catholic Church.
to say he was objective, ask him further how did he scrutinize. Based on our discussion, you will find one important quality missing: objectivity.
In conclusion, let's quote Milesawayman about the making of Scriptures:
The Catholic Church did not come out of the Bible like Protestant organizations do; rather, the Bible came out of the Catholic Church. The Church is the mother of the Bible.
If she is the mother of the Bible it makes me wonder why the Bible was ever written. Roman Catholics could have just relied on their systematic and organized Catechisms of the Catholic Church as their rule of faith since this is the expressed teachings of Rome. Making things worse is that they teach that only the Magisterium can rightfully interpret Scripture and Tradition. So why bother providing Roman Catholics with Bibles? Furthermore, we are faced with a circular argument that the Church of Rome derives her authority from the Bible which Milesawayman claimed to be a product of the church.
With all these dilemmas, no Roman Catholic can honestly say that they were objective in studying their church. They simply accepted Rome's teachings with no analysis and no questions asked.
0 comments:
Post a Comment