"You Evangelicals are divided! You have so many denominations: Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Full Gospel etc. Each of you have your own interpretation of the Bible that you can't agree with one another; and so you keep on dividing in to more denominations. Some of you practice tithing, while others don't. Some of you don't believe in eternal security, while others do. Did God intend the church to be divided? No! Jesus prayed for unity. It seems that prayer is not working on you and therefore you are not really the true church. We have an infallible magisterium that keeps us united in the faith, interpreting Scripture and tradition infallibly so that we won't go astray."
Have you ever encountered the above comment from Roman Catholics? Yup, it sure is difficult to answer things like that. Let's give it to them, each of us really do have contradicting beliefs such as tithing, eternal security, speaking in tongues, etc. We all claim that our teachings are Bible-based, yet we have these conflicting interpretations. We don't have an infallible body to settle the doctrinal disputes between those who receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
We have reasoned out that the contradicting doctrines among Evangelicals are non-essentials. Meaning, no matter what you believe it has no effect on your salvation. So if Evangelicals disagree on tithing, it doesn't matter because tithing is not a requirement for salvation. We all agree on the essential doctrines like the trinity, salvation by faith alone, sufficiency and inerrancy of Scriptures as anything contradicting these have the wrong faith. However, despite of this response the Roman Catholics are quick to dismiss it:
"The point is, you're still disunited. You even had debates with fellow Evangelicals on doctrinal disputes. Come on, Christ never wanted the church divided. Look at what we have. We have an infallible pope leading a body of infallible bishops to interpret Scripture and tradition for us and that's why we don't have conflicts. We know we are in the right due to this."
Having hearing this boasting of unity over and over again, it makes us want to find out if Roman Catholics are united or not. Are they really united?
Recently, Roman Catholics celebrated the feast of the Assumption. In this dogma, Mary was assumed in Heaven while having a physical body (just like Enoch and Elijah). Since this is a dogma, it is presumed to be infallible and Roman Catholics must believe it otherwise, they will be excommunicated. If you think they are united, think again. Ask them this, was Mary assumed to Heaven while she was alive or after her death? In the case of Christ, we must believe that He died for our sins, resurrected, and ascended to Heaven. That's the belief for the new Adam. Now, having been given the title as the new Eve, we ask every Roman Catholics if Mary really died or not.
There is no infallible pronouncement as of this writing if Mary died or not. There are Roman Catholics who believe she died, while others don't. So what do we have here? An unresolved conflict.
"It doesn't matter if one believes Mary died while another does not. We are not required to even entertain such thing. For as long as we believe her assumption, we are doing fine."
Whoa there! Is that it, an easy dismissal? One Catholic says she died while another doesn't think so and it still doesn't matter? How come you can get to give that as a reason but not so for Evangelicals? Aren't we playing a double standard here? Where is an infallible bishop when you need one?
If you think that is troublesome for Roman Catholics, you should ask them these:
1. Who did God use to write the book of Hebrews? Roman Catholics have always been challenging Sola Scriptura by asking where in the Bible that states the author of each book. Yet up to now, the Church of Rome has no official position on who wrote the book of Hebrews (same goes for the book of Esther, Job etc).
2. Was Jonah really swallowed by a great fish? According to a comment in the Jerusalem Bible:
"This late date [after the Exile] is warning enough against any interpretation of the book as historical. This is excluded by other arguments as well. There is no trace in Assyrian or biblical documents of a conversion of the king of Nineveh with all his people to the God of Israel. And, though God is indeed master of nature, the successive prodigies here narrated read like a succession of practical jokes played by God on his prophet: the sudden storm, the choice of Jonah by lot, the great fish, the plant growing in a night and withering in a hour; while the whole story is told with undisguised irony quite alien to the writing of history." (New Jerusalem Bible [Doubleday, 1985], Introduction to Jonah, page 1188-9)
3. What is the actual relationship to Jesus of the alleged brothers in Matthew 13:55? To defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, the "alleged" brothers of Jesus can either be cousins, children of Joseph from a former marriage, or some other relationship (as long as not biological siblings).
And many more. What is common among the questions? There are no infallible pronouncements from the pope to answer such questions. So when there is no infallible pronouncement and Roman Catholics are believing in things differently from one another, can we also conclude that they are not united? It seems so!
"Oh were not worried about those. Unlike you Evangelicals, we have an infallible magisterium who can settle things for us. All we have to do is to get there attention on these matters."
Really now. Our next question would be, how long? Yes, it appears that it takes a while before a settlement can be made by Rome. Proof? Let's take a look at the belief of Limbo. From the time of Augustine in the 4th century it has taken centuries before a stand can be made in 2007. So, can we conclude that the Roman Catholics between those period are not united on Limbo since there was no settlement yet?
"We are united on official teachings! You cannot expect us to defend unofficial teachings like Limbo."
Well now, aren't they being hypocritical here? Roman Catholics cannot ignore the disunity of Evangelicals in their non-essential doctrines but Evangelicals should not consider the "unofficial" doctrines as basis of Catholic disunity.
And if you think that their infallible magisterium interprets the Bible for them so that they are united in understanding, here is what will blow you away: the magisterium in Rome has not made an interpretation for all verses in the Bible ever since. So if you ask them what's the official interpretation of a certain verse, expect a theologian's interpretation than an infallible interpretation.
"Okay, but Christ prayed for unity in John 17."
Yes, He did. But the unity being spoken of there is not necessarily in doctrinal matters but the belief in Christ and love. Is it possible that even during the New Testament period there are legitimate Christians have conflicting beliefs? Read Romans 14:1-6:
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
So there are Christians who has different beliefs about food and days, yet they are still part of the church. Paul instructed them to accept each other. Of course, there are times when the apostles warn about false prophets and teachings. So a line is drawn between the doctrines affecting an Christian's salvation and those which do not affect salvation. Thus, essential and non-essential doctrines. To put in the actual scenario, an Evangelical is expected to believe that salvation is by faith alone but it is not required whether or not to believe that salvation can be lost for as long as they live by faith.
In conclusion, Roman Catholics are really not united as they claim. They say they have an infallible magisterium, but up to now not all of their beliefs and biblical interpretations have an infallible settlement.
Have you ever encountered the above comment from Roman Catholics? Yup, it sure is difficult to answer things like that. Let's give it to them, each of us really do have contradicting beliefs such as tithing, eternal security, speaking in tongues, etc. We all claim that our teachings are Bible-based, yet we have these conflicting interpretations. We don't have an infallible body to settle the doctrinal disputes between those who receive Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
We have reasoned out that the contradicting doctrines among Evangelicals are non-essentials. Meaning, no matter what you believe it has no effect on your salvation. So if Evangelicals disagree on tithing, it doesn't matter because tithing is not a requirement for salvation. We all agree on the essential doctrines like the trinity, salvation by faith alone, sufficiency and inerrancy of Scriptures as anything contradicting these have the wrong faith. However, despite of this response the Roman Catholics are quick to dismiss it:
"The point is, you're still disunited. You even had debates with fellow Evangelicals on doctrinal disputes. Come on, Christ never wanted the church divided. Look at what we have. We have an infallible pope leading a body of infallible bishops to interpret Scripture and tradition for us and that's why we don't have conflicts. We know we are in the right due to this."
Having hearing this boasting of unity over and over again, it makes us want to find out if Roman Catholics are united or not. Are they really united?
Recently, Roman Catholics celebrated the feast of the Assumption. In this dogma, Mary was assumed in Heaven while having a physical body (just like Enoch and Elijah). Since this is a dogma, it is presumed to be infallible and Roman Catholics must believe it otherwise, they will be excommunicated. If you think they are united, think again. Ask them this, was Mary assumed to Heaven while she was alive or after her death? In the case of Christ, we must believe that He died for our sins, resurrected, and ascended to Heaven. That's the belief for the new Adam. Now, having been given the title as the new Eve, we ask every Roman Catholics if Mary really died or not.
There is no infallible pronouncement as of this writing if Mary died or not. There are Roman Catholics who believe she died, while others don't. So what do we have here? An unresolved conflict.
"It doesn't matter if one believes Mary died while another does not. We are not required to even entertain such thing. For as long as we believe her assumption, we are doing fine."
Whoa there! Is that it, an easy dismissal? One Catholic says she died while another doesn't think so and it still doesn't matter? How come you can get to give that as a reason but not so for Evangelicals? Aren't we playing a double standard here? Where is an infallible bishop when you need one?
If you think that is troublesome for Roman Catholics, you should ask them these:
1. Who did God use to write the book of Hebrews? Roman Catholics have always been challenging Sola Scriptura by asking where in the Bible that states the author of each book. Yet up to now, the Church of Rome has no official position on who wrote the book of Hebrews (same goes for the book of Esther, Job etc).
2. Was Jonah really swallowed by a great fish? According to a comment in the Jerusalem Bible:
"This late date [after the Exile] is warning enough against any interpretation of the book as historical. This is excluded by other arguments as well. There is no trace in Assyrian or biblical documents of a conversion of the king of Nineveh with all his people to the God of Israel. And, though God is indeed master of nature, the successive prodigies here narrated read like a succession of practical jokes played by God on his prophet: the sudden storm, the choice of Jonah by lot, the great fish, the plant growing in a night and withering in a hour; while the whole story is told with undisguised irony quite alien to the writing of history." (New Jerusalem Bible [Doubleday, 1985], Introduction to Jonah, page 1188-9)
3. What is the actual relationship to Jesus of the alleged brothers in Matthew 13:55? To defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, the "alleged" brothers of Jesus can either be cousins, children of Joseph from a former marriage, or some other relationship (as long as not biological siblings).
And many more. What is common among the questions? There are no infallible pronouncements from the pope to answer such questions. So when there is no infallible pronouncement and Roman Catholics are believing in things differently from one another, can we also conclude that they are not united? It seems so!
"Oh were not worried about those. Unlike you Evangelicals, we have an infallible magisterium who can settle things for us. All we have to do is to get there attention on these matters."
Really now. Our next question would be, how long? Yes, it appears that it takes a while before a settlement can be made by Rome. Proof? Let's take a look at the belief of Limbo. From the time of Augustine in the 4th century it has taken centuries before a stand can be made in 2007. So, can we conclude that the Roman Catholics between those period are not united on Limbo since there was no settlement yet?
"We are united on official teachings! You cannot expect us to defend unofficial teachings like Limbo."
Well now, aren't they being hypocritical here? Roman Catholics cannot ignore the disunity of Evangelicals in their non-essential doctrines but Evangelicals should not consider the "unofficial" doctrines as basis of Catholic disunity.
And if you think that their infallible magisterium interprets the Bible for them so that they are united in understanding, here is what will blow you away: the magisterium in Rome has not made an interpretation for all verses in the Bible ever since. So if you ask them what's the official interpretation of a certain verse, expect a theologian's interpretation than an infallible interpretation.
"Okay, but Christ prayed for unity in John 17."
Yes, He did. But the unity being spoken of there is not necessarily in doctrinal matters but the belief in Christ and love. Is it possible that even during the New Testament period there are legitimate Christians have conflicting beliefs? Read Romans 14:1-6:
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
So there are Christians who has different beliefs about food and days, yet they are still part of the church. Paul instructed them to accept each other. Of course, there are times when the apostles warn about false prophets and teachings. So a line is drawn between the doctrines affecting an Christian's salvation and those which do not affect salvation. Thus, essential and non-essential doctrines. To put in the actual scenario, an Evangelical is expected to believe that salvation is by faith alone but it is not required whether or not to believe that salvation can be lost for as long as they live by faith.
In conclusion, Roman Catholics are really not united as they claim. They say they have an infallible magisterium, but up to now not all of their beliefs and biblical interpretations have an infallible settlement.
0 comments:
Post a Comment