Why the Catholic Faith Requires Immense Discernment

Firstly, Catholics who worship God and have a regenerate heart, confess their sins before God, and accept the gift of salvation from Jesus Christ are saved, according to the word of our God.

This is intended to dissect and analyze a specific post by Karin, from this website. It's her Blog. http://wifeandmomoftwo.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-church-and-divine-revelation. I only bring her up because I know she buys into this lock, stock and barrel. Feel free to check out her other resources. On this specific link, she has a rather lengthy eisegetical analysis of Jesus' intentions with regard to the Bible and it's use. I am posting it here and responding inline to her post. By the way, the formatting on wordpress.com is outstanding...blogger.com isn't as cool. By the way, my words are in "red" hers are in "blue".

-- Begin Post --

Did Christ intend the Gospel to be proclaimed by the circulation of the Bible? — No; it was mainly by preaching that He intended to convert the nations.

Our Lord said: “Go, make disciples of all nations.” “Preach the Gospel to every creature.” “He that heareth you heareth me.” Christ did not say: “Go and make all nations read the Bible.”

This statement is flawed at its very premise, for it robs God of his deity. The God of Abraham is a God that is omniscient, and of course with this power he is also sovereign. With that level of capability, one would think that God certainly had the ability if not the desire to predict and even craft the method by which his word would be spread. This pragmatic viewpoint is cleverly designed \to dethrone the Bible from its authoritative position in the hierarchy of God’s kingdom. The Bible itself is a book, rather a collection of books, whose words are the living, and in some cases inspired word of God. Anyone who seeks to debase that fact in whole or in part is guilty of heresy. Now, as far as Christ’s intentions…hmm Let us review a few things in the Bible. Corinthians 7

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

In verse 6, he steps outside of what is approved by God for him to say, and then, in verse 10, he steps back into what God has approved him to say. So one cannot can accurately state the God’s intention was to use preaching alone for anything other than what’s its capability offers to mankind; verbal teaching. It is clear that God did in fact intend for his word to be heard, and understood by way of his book. One might say that this book is meant soley to be the “teachers” guide. As in the catholic faith, where only the pope is allowed to interpret scripture. Well, clearly Paul wasn’t a catholic. His letters to the Corinthians, ephesis, timothy, Galatia, and Rome would have all fallen on deaf ears, since they would not have been able to interpret his message for themselves. And since Paul was feared because of his days as a killer, none would have listened to him, unless the words he wrote we’re self evident. We clearly see that today, they were and remain so.

1. The Apostles never circulated a single volume of the Bible, but “they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them” (Mark 16:20). The New Testament was not written till Christianity was already established. Christ bade His Apostles teach all men “to observe all commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). He commanded them to preach, not necessarily to write.

This is a brutal attack on the kingdom of God. First, where is the proof of this statement? It’s quite irresponsible to not cite your source and the Bible is full of God speaking to and through prophets to record his word. I guess if the argument is based on the new testament, I believe that is a weak argument. Not always a credible source, but Wikipedia says this;

Fourteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, though in some cases the authorship is disputed. Paul had often employed an amanuensis, only occasionally writing himself.^[7][8] As a sign of authenticity, the writers of these epistles^[9] sometimes employ a passage presented as being in Paul's own handwriting. These epistles were circulated within the Christian community. They were prominent in the first New Testament canon ever proposed (by Marcion), and they were eventually included in the orthodox Christian canon. They are believed to be the earliest-written books of the New Testament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

This is proof that the new testament was in circulation while the apostles were still yet alive. Some of the earliest recorded works were by Paul and they would have been distributed immediately. In many cases the scriptures were letters to various churches, which they read, and shared. This is fool hardy to believe and it further supports the CC desire to remove God from the throne and put themselves there, by eradicating the authority of the Bible.

2. God did not intend Holy Scripture to be our rule of faith independently of a Living Voice. Even under the Old Law, the Jews, in spite of their great veneration for Holy Scripture, never dreamed of a private appeal to the Word of God. When a religious dispute arose, it was decided by the high-priest and the Council. Their decision was to be obeyed under penalty of death. Thus the Jews did not appeal to the dead letter of the law, but to the living voice of the tribunal that God had established.

I agree with this point, but not for the reasons that the author intends. God did not intend the Bible to be our sole anything, except living word of God. The words are empty unless you have a relationship with God, just as a volume of water requires a container, so too does the word of God act as water, to the containment of a relationship with him.

3. When Christ came on earth, He did not change this order of things. On the contrary He commanded the Jews to obey their constituted teachers, however disedifying their private lives might be. Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The Scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses. All things, therefore, that they command you, observe and do” (Matt. 23:2-3).

Wait a second – did Jesus not come into Jews and say – ye have heard that it is a sin to commit adultery, but I tell you that even if you look on a woman with lust in your heart you’ve committed a sin already. This was RADICAL. The Pharisees rejected Christ, because they were the lawmen experts no longer. Who was this Christ to interpret scripture better than they? They were holy and followed the law completely. Tell me how the CC is any different? When Jesus drove out the money changers, he was certainly upsetting some people…when Christ worked on the Sabbath, he was certainly upsetting some people. When Christ called himself God and told others he could forgive sins, he was certainly upsetting others… I don’t agree with this – a minor distinction has been drawn that Jesus came into the world not to condemn it but rather to redeem it. He did say to continue to obey your masters, but that has nothing to do with the point that is trying to be made by this blogger.

4. Until the Protestant outbreak in the sixteenth century (1517), no attempt had ever been made to have any people governed by the dead letter of the law in either civil or religious affairs. No one certainly pretends to live in society according to his own private interpretation of the civil laws. When cases come up, they are always decided by a competent tribunal.

Outbreak? The CC was oppressive and corrupt. It is WHY we today in America enjoy a freedom to choose our faith and not have our government tell us what faith to believe in. Outbreak is a odd choice of words, it makes me think that the CC church sees Protestants as a virus. And if you ever talk to a CC member, they will tell you that you’re either Catholic or Protestant, because the CC is the one true Church of God established by Christ. As an example of how this “outbreak” theology is flawed consider this; we didn’t invent the polio vaccine until the early 19^th century, so I guess we should really question the need and usefulness of it today. That kind of logic is crushed under it’s own weight. This is also an extremist point of view. The catholic faith would have you believe that there is no hierarchy in any other church but the “capital C” Catholic Church (CC). And this is simply not true. God laid out church hierarchy and every church I’ve ever been a member with, required membership and submission to its authority. So the Catholic faith has again assumed a baseless elitist position.

Why cannot the Bible be the sole guide to salvation? — It cannot, because:

Speaking of cannot in terms of the Bible just seems heretical, but I’ll entertain it for the sake of this post. The Bible may or may not have been intended to be the sole guide to salvation. But if I must and I should take the author at the words they have used and try not to infer a meaning I have to say they are wrong. The only words of God we have are in the Bible. The Bible comes from God, who authors salvation. Where else would I find what God has to say about salvation but in his word? The answer is nowhere, and certainly if you could, it could not be relied upon. If I want to work out, I go to where workout equipment is; the gym!

1. It [the Bible] is not within the reach of every one.

Romans 1:20 - The things that have been made by God clearly reveal, not just His power, but also His Godhead. They prove that He is God, and those who fail to recognize Him as God are without excuse. Those who reject these truths will fall deeper and deeper into error and will absolutely be rejected by God (see vv 18-32). Again this is mindless conjecture to debase the authority of the Bible and it’s so cleverly written that it almost seems right. To the trained eye though, it’s an obvious fake, a heretical saying by men who seek to honor themselves and their traditions more than God.

2. The Bible is difficult to understand, frequently full of obscurities and difficulties, even for the learned. St. Peter himself said of the Epistles of St. Paul, that they have “certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable distort, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures also, to their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16). The Fathers of the Church, who spent their whole lives in the study of the Bible, all pronounce it full of difficulties, needing careful interpretation.

True. And to be clear, let me reiterate. The Bible need not be the sole guide for salvation, but it does happen to be the sole source of God’s word. The evidence, which is transcended to all of the books of the Bible, since whatever is in part in the Bible is true and consistent with all of the Bible, is – Revelation 22:18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Even without this verse, it’s clear that the people who knew God directly, wrote the Books of the Bible. If they did not include something, God did not influence it, therefore it is rather unnecessary to the charter given to us by Jesus. Honor the God with all the mind, body, soul and spirit and love thy neighbor as thyself. The additions of the catechisms and 7 holy sacraments, just happen to be vain repetition steeped in cultic tradtion.

3. The Bible does not contain all the truths necessary for eternal salvation. For example, every Christian is obliged to sanctify Sunday. But nowhere in the whole Bible, from Genesis to the Apocalypse, is there one word authorizing the sanctification of Sunday.

This is a wooden literal interpretation of the tradition of keeping the Sabbath. God demonstrated setting one day aside, but no specific day was named. In America, we celebrate on Sunday as it is the beginning of the week, but really for no other purpose. Practicing Jews still oblige Saturday as do Catholics – but frankly the day of the week does not matter. It could be Tuesday. God doesn’t care, what he wants is a relationship, not someone who is really good at manipulating a calendar. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). In context, the Pharisees were overestimating the importance of Sabbath restrictions. Jesus responded to them not by expanding the Sabbath, but by reducing it. As were they, so are you, overestimating it.

On whose authority do we accept the Bible as the Word of God? — We accept the Bible as the Word of God on the authority of the Catholic Church. WRONG. Why not on the AUTHORITY OF GOD????? The catholic church is an establishment by man. Nowhere in the Bible, USING YOUR LOGIC, is the word Catholic or Church mentioned, much less in the same sentence. So it’s establishment clearly cannot be honored over that of anything else.You’re blasphemous and arrogantly denying God his due honor.

There is not enough scriptural evidence to support this point [the unfettered authority of the CC] and all that has to date been produced is quite easily refuted or at very least brought into heavy speculation. God never makes us guess, and from all I can determine, it’s a pretty big leap to believe that the CC has the corner on God’s market.

Did God intend Holy Scripture to be our rule of faith? — No, God intended our rule of faith to be the Living Voice of the teaching Church.

This point, as are most in this entire post, flawed and veiled in ambiguity, while at the same time very weakly supported. Did God intend Holy Scripture to be our rule of faith?

What does that mean? When speaking of what God’s intentions are, you better be pretty darn sure of yourself. Bearing false witness is a top 10 most wanted crime in God’s book. Second, rule of faith, what does that mean? It is again, yet another attack on the word of God, meant to dethrone the Bible from its right position as the authoritative, complete, unadulterated, inerrant word of God. Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; What else need we but the scriptures whose purposes we’re clearly understood by the apostles as being complete and lacking in nothing.

The Apostles and their successors have always taught mankind, especially by preaching.

This is true and has continued, but clearly at some point, Peter, John, Mathew, Mark, Luke, Paul and Timothy all sat down and wrote too. Clearly as evidenced by the sheer number of authenticated copies of mark (numbering in the thousands) that it was their intent for people to READ the word of God. Not accepting that fact is to be intellectually bankrupt, devoid of reason, and blinded by the dogma that has ensnared your soul.

In conclusion, everything I see about the catholic faith seeks to add to God’s word or intention as though God in his perfection is perfectly in need of his mortal counterparts to carry out the work he clearly wasn’t able or did not feel he needed to do. The CC is dogmatic, overly dramatized, elitist and heretical by way of supplanting God through their intervention, so that Christians would pray to priests, and saints, and then Jesus, if they had time after all the hail-marys are handed out. The CC calls it divine tradition, I think it's false doctrine and bad theology.