Listen

Add to Collection

Help

A REFUTATION OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM

By Dr. Robert Morey
Part II

The Reformers did NOT say that the Bible was the ONLY authority. this is why they appealed to logic, history, science, the Church fathers, tradition, councils, creeds, confessions, commentators, Greek and Hebrew scholars, etc.

But what they did say was that when it came to DOCTRINE, there can be ONLY ONE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY - the Bible.

The "buck" has to stop somewhere. Thus the "final court of appeal" is the Bible and not the Pope, councils, creeds, tradition, etc.

The other authorities (logic, history, etc.) are as good as far as they go. But they are not THE ULTIMATE DECIDING FACTOR IN DOCTRINE.

Just like the prophets, apostles, Jesus and the N.T. Church, Protestants appeal to the scriptures as the "final court of appeal" i.e., the ultimate authority in matters of faith.

Question: When deciding doctrine, to what did the prophets, Jesus, the apostles and the N.T. Church appeal as their ultimate authority, i.e., what was their "final court of appeals" when seeking to establish doctrine?

     Answer: They always appealed to the scriptures as the determin-
     ing authority in matters of faith.

2. Question: How do we know this?

     Answer: Throughout the Bible, the prophets, Jesus, the apostles
     and the N.T. Church used key literary phrases which indicated
     an appeal to authority (Isa. 8:20; Matt. 22:23-46; I Cor. 15:3-4;
     Acts 15:12-18).

I. "as it is written" used 46 times:

O.T.: 13 times (ex. II Kings 23:21).
N.T.: 33 times (ex. Romans 1:17).

II. "Scripture says" used 7 times:

ex. Rom. 4:3; 9:17; 10:11; 11:2.

III. "according to the Scriptures"

used 3 times: ex. 1 Cor. 15:3-4.

IV. "the law and the prophets" used

38 times: ex. Luke 24:44-47

4. Question: Did the prophets, Jesus, the apostles or the N.T.

     Church ever appeal to "tradition" as the authority for their
     doctrines?

     Answer: Not once did the prophets, Jesus, the apostles or N.T.
     Church appeal to tradition as the authority of their doctrines.

As a matter of fact, the idea of people appealing to "tradition" instead of Scripture is condemned by the prophets (Isa. 29:13), Jesus (Matt. 15:1-9) and the apostles (Col. 2:8).

The ONLY Biblical author to use the word "tradition" in a positive way is the Apostle Paul who clearly used it to refer to the handing down of scriptural doctrines such as the Gospel.

Since the Church had just begun, it would be logically impossible for him to be referring to "historical traditions" when the history of the Church had only just begun! How could it have any "historical traditions" when it did not have any history yet?

THE ROMANIST VIEW OF AUTHORITY

I. Romanism's view of religious authority is usually based on the

fallacy of circular reasoning.

      They appeal to their church's authority to prove their church's
      authority! This is like rowing with one oar. All you do is go
      around in circles.

      Romanist: The "Church" is the ultimate authority.

      Protestant: Who says so?

      Romanist: The "Church" says so.

      Protestant: By what authority?

      Romanist: The "Church" is the ultimate authority.

II. Romanist are guilty of setting up a false dichotomy between

      Scripture and tradition. This is the fundamental logical error
      underlying their entire argument.

The moment it is admitted that there is such a thing as a scriptural tradition," the dichotomy falls apart. For example, in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, the Apostle Paul clearly appeals to the authority of the Scripture as the basis for the Gospel. Then this is scriptural teaching on the atonement is called a "tradition" to hand down to others in 1 Cor. 11:2.

III. Romanist use the logical fallacy of appealing to human

      authority. Some papist argue, "since there are so many
      denominations and interpretations of Scripture, we need
      someone to decide what is true. Thus we need the Pope!"

         Of course we can point out that Hitler, Joseph Smith,
      Rev. Moon and many other people have all made that same
      exact argument! We have no more reason to let the Pope
      do our thinking for us than to let all the other cult
      leaders!

                        Romanist Objection #1
                        *********************

      Note: Karl Keating is a Roman Catholic apologist and author

of "Catholicism and Fundamentalism." Nowhere does the Bible say, 'Scripture alone is sufficient'" (Karl Keating, "What's Your Authority For That?").

Protestant Response:

First, this is a logical fallacy. The fact that the Bible does not contain the exact words "Scripture alone is sufficient" does not logically imply that the concept which underlies those words cannot be found in the Bible.

For example, where does the word "Trinity" appear in the Bible? where does it explicitly say "God in three persons?" Yet, the concept which underlies the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the Bible even though the terminology was developed later on in Church history.

Second, this argument is self-refuting. Where does the Bible say "immaculate conception," "papal infallibility," "the mass," etc.? If this argument were valid, it would do far more damage to Romanism than to us.

Third, the Reformation doctrine simply states that the prophets, Jesus, the Apostles, and the N.T. Church always appealed to whatever written Scriptures existed in their day as basis for their doctrines (for example, see 1 Cor. 15:3-4). They never appealed to "tradition," "the Church," "the pope," etc.

Fourth, logically, since they only appealed to Scripture as the basis for their doctrine, then the burden of proof falls on the Romanist to demonstrate why we should appeal to anything else.

lastly, in 1 Cor. 4:6 we are told "not to go beyond what is written" in Scripture. This statement of Paul is the sum and substance of "sola scriptura."

Catholic Bibles:

Jerusalem Bible: "Keep to what is written." New American Bible: "do not go beyond what is set down."

Romanist Objection #2:

"The Bible actually denies that it is the complete rule of faith" (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalsim, p. 136).

Protestant Response:

First, this negative argument claims, without substantiation, that the authors of Scripture explicitly knew of and then clearly denied the doctrine of "sola scriptura."

Second, please show us passages in the Bible where the authors deny that Scripture is the complete rule of faith. Protestants have been waiting several centuries for Romanist to "put up or shut up." Yet, they have never found a single text to support their argument.

Romanist Objection #3:

"The Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church's word for it precisely because the Church is infallible" (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, p. 125).

Protestant Response:

This argumant is based on circular reasoning: He "proves" the Bible by the Church and then "proves" the Church by the Bible! This is irrational to say the least!

Romanist Objection #4:

"The Church existed BEFORE the Bible. The Church MADE the Bible therefore: a)The Church is OVER the Bible. b)The Church has GREATER authority than the Bible" (see Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, pgs. 121-133 and also "How to Talk To Fundamentalist" tract).

Protestant Response:

There are major problems with this typical Romanist argument.

In Logic, chronology does not determine authority. This is the fallacy of irrelevance. For example, the Buddha came several centuries BEFORE Jesus. Is Buddha therefore OVER Jesus and does he have GREATER authority than Jesus? NO!

Second, historically, Romanism did not exist in the first century. So, how couldit have anything to do with the canon of Scripture ? The truth is that popery did not exist did not exist until many centuries AFTER the canon was closed.

Romanist Objection #5:

"But didn't the Church decide doctrine in Acts 15 on the basis of its own authority instead of Scripture" (Dr. Robert Festiggi, The Classic Debate, VT-53 (R.E.F. video))?

Protestant Response:

In Acts 15:13-22, James appealed to the Scriptures to settle the Gentile issue. Once he quoted the Scriptures which applied to the issue, the discussion was concluded. No Further words needed to be said. The Scriptures had solved the issue.

Editor's note: Dr. Morey's article has been shortened due to lack of space in the original "Researcher" newsletter. Those of you wishing to receive the entire "Biblical Doctrine of Authority" article please send a $1.00 donation to:

                    The Research and Education Foundation
                    P.O. Box 141455
                    Austin, Tx 78714

Dr. Robert A. Morey, is the Executive Director of The Research & Education Foundation. Dr. Morey has earned degrees in theology, philosophy, and apologetics and has received personal training from Dr. Walter Martin, Francis Schaeffer, Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til. He has authored over 20 books. Some of which have been listed in Christianity Today's annual "best Books of the Year" and the Christian Booksellers Association's "The Best of the Good Books."

For a free catalogue of our books, tapes, videos and tracts write to:

                 The Research & Education Foundation
                 P.O. Box 141455
                 Austin, Tx 78714

This article was originally published in "The Researcher," a quarterly newsletter published by the R.E.F.. For a free sample issue of the Researcher please write to the address above.

Copyright 1993 The Research & Education Foundation Copyright and Reproduction Limitations: This text file may be downloaded or uploaded freely. It may not be sold for gain or profit and must remain unedited. For further information about reproductions please contact the R.E.F.

Comments On This Page:

church tradition and God's Word posted by robin lorms on 04/25/2003 at 14:26:43 from IP# 24.123.128.1
The arguments for church doctrine having as one of it's sources "tradition" is contrary to the teachings of the prophets, apostles and Jesus. All of these referenced God's Word when establishing a primary source for Truth. As a matter of fact the apostle Peter references Paul's letters and Paul himself refers to his own writings as the source for new churches to rely upon for guidance. So we see that the N.T. is the written Word of God and is in play during the lives of the apostles. So where is "tradition" when Peter and Paul are actually writing and referencing the gospels during their efforts at conversion?

Response posted by Joseph L'Abbate on 04/13/2001 at 22:28:14 from IP# 205.188.193.22
"Strange, but my Bible tells me that the Church is the pillar of the Truth. Seems to me that St. Paul wrote to the Church in Thessalonica to pay heed to what had been told to them by word of mouth as well as in writing. And, ignoring the fact that Martin Luther *INVENTED* sola scriptura (had *anybody* prior to him taught this damnable, anti-scriptural heresy? No), it was a council of CATHOLIC bishops who finally codified what the New Testament Canon would be."
RESPONSE: The Christian Church is the supporter and defender of the truth but IT itself isn't that truth. The Church just defends it! As Dr. Morey stated above, Romanist's tend to build a false dichotomy between scripture and tradition. They are the same thing. It's just that one is written and the other is oral. Paul, in Acts 17:11 says that it's a good thing to examine Scriptures. An Apostle's teachings was examined by Scripture. If that isn't Sola Scriptura I don't know what is. The concept of SS is taught in the Bible. The concepts of the immaculate conception, Popery, purgatory, and papal infallability, on the other hand is not. My question is, if there is a religious doctrine that's not found in the Bible then why believe it?
"Of course, Luther's heresy in this matter is compounded by the fact that he altered Romans in his translation (nowhere does scripture say that the just will live by faith alone, but the Heretic of Wittemburg did!), he wanted to discard James because it clearly conflicted with his heretical Sola Fide teaching (I believe the phrase he used was "as worthless as straw"). So, for Luther and his ilk, Sola Scriptura becomes a case of proving your point in scripture, and then rejecting those parts of scripture you don't like. Classic Protestantism, classic Heresy."
RESPONSE: And thats a classic straw man argumentation. I suggest you study Sola Fide before you attack it.
"Look into the actual meaning of the concept of binding and loosing, first given by Christ to Peter, and then to the Apostles (i.e. the first bishops) corporately. In the first century context, it connotes the idea of having the authority to declare something to be fact, in a binding way. One can certainly try to argue against the Papacy in this matter (but a careful reading of Clement's letter to the Corinthians, popularly called his first letter to the Corinthians, would show the argument false), but cannot honestly accept the Bible for what it says and still reject that binding authority of a council of Bishops. Remember the Council of Jerusalem? Peter, Christ's prime-minister of the Kingdom (cf Isa 22) made the decision as to the principle involved, and James made the pastoral application."
RESPONSE: Dang it! The Greek says something that the "binding and loosing" was already there before Jesus spoked to Peter. It's just that some English Bibles have mistranslated that verse. Peter didn't bind or loose anything. Besides, you assume that Peter was the first Bishop or Pope in Rome despite the fact that there is no evidence that Peter even ESTABLISHED a church in Rome.

Real Stupid Refutation of Roman Catholicism posted by Louis Pizzuti on 03/01/2001 at 22:51:33 from IP# 63.178.89.84
Strange, but my Bible tells me that the Church is the pillar of the Truth. Seems to me that St. Paul wrote to the Church in Thessalonica to pay heed to what had been told to them by word of mouth as well as in writing. And, ignoring the fact that Martin Luther *INVENTED* sola scriptura (had *anybody* prior to him taught this damnable, anti-scriptural heresy? No), it was a council of CATHOLIC bishops who finally codified what the New Testament Canon would be. Of course, Luther's heresy in this matter is compounded by the fact that he altered Romans in his translation (nowhere does scripture say that the just will live by faith alone, but the Heretic of Wittemburg did!), he wanted to discard James because it clearly conflicted with his heretical Sola Fide teaching (I believe the phrase he used was "as worthless as straw"). So, for Luther and his ilk, Sola Scriptura becomes a case of proving your point in scripture, and then rejecting those parts of scripture you don't like. Classic Protestantism, classic Heresy.
Look into the actual meaning of the concept of binding and loosing, first given by Christ to Peter, and then to the Apostles (i.e. the first bishops) corporately. In the first century context, it connotes the idea of having the authority to declare something to be fact, in a binding way. One can certainly try to argue against the Papacy in this matter (but a careful reading of Clement's letter to the Corinthians, popularly called his first letter to the Corinthians, would show the argument false), but cannot honestly accept the Bible for what it says and still reject that binding authority of a council of Bishops. Remember the Council of Jerusalem? Peter, Christ's prime-minister of the Kingdom (cf Isa 22) made the decision as to the principle involved, and James made the pastoral application.

Post Your Comment:
(All fields except email are required) [ Comment Policy ]