Roman catholics evangelicals agreements and differences
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 119

Roman Catholics & Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 88 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Roman Catholics & Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. Outline:. I. What We Have in Common II. How We Differ III. In Defense of Evangelicalism? IV. How to Win Catholics to Christ. I. What We Have in Common. A. Bible: The Bible is the Word of God.

Download Presentation

Roman Catholics & Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Roman catholics evangelicals agreements and differences

Roman Catholics & Evangelicals:Agreements and Differences


Outline

Outline:

  • I. What We Have in Common

  • II. How We Differ

  • III. In Defense of Evangelicalism?

  • IV. How to Win Catholics to Christ


I what we have in common

I. What We Have in Common

  • A. Bible: The Bible is the Word of God.

  • B. Canon: It is closed. There are no new revelations from God.

  • C. The Trinity: There are three persons in one eternal God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

  • D. Christ: He is both God and Man, two natures united in one person.


I what we have in common1

I. What We Have in Common

  • E. Virgin Birth:Jesus was miraculously conceived in Mary’s womb, without a biological father.

  • F. Atonement: Jesus alone paid the full price for our salvation from the guilt and eternal consequences of our sins.

  • G. Resurrection: Jesus arose from the dead in the same body in which He died.


I what we have in common2

I. What We Have in Common

  • H. Ascension: Jesus ascended physically into heaven in the same body in which He was raised immortal.

  • I. Church:There is a spiritual body of Christ to which all the saved belong.

  • J. Second Coming:Jesus will return to earth physically to judge the wicked

    and reward the righteous.


I what we have in common3

I. What We Have in Common

  • K.Heaven and Hell: There is a place of eternal conscious bliss for the saved and another place of eternal conscious woe for the unsaved.

  • L. The Early Confessions and Creeds

    • One Bible

    • Two Testaments

    • Three Creeds (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian)

    • Four Councils (Nicea (326), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451)

    • Five Centuries


I what we have in common4

I. What We Have in Common

  • Note: These include most of the great fundamentals of the Christian Faith.

    • There are others things on which we agree:

      • Two ordinances: Baptism and Communion

      • Moral absolutes

      • Absolute truth

      • Pro Family and Pro LifeIssues


Outline1

Outline:

  • I. What We Have in Common

  • II. How We Differ


A distinctive doctrines of evangelicals

A. Distinctive Doctrines of Evangelicals

  • 1. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

  • 2. Christ alone (sola Christa)

  • 3. Grace alone (sola gratia)*

  • 4. Faith alone (sola fidei)

  • Summary: Evangelicals, in contrast to Catholics, believe we are saved by grace alone, based on the work of Christ alone, received through faith alone, and grounded on the authority of Scripture alone.

  • *Roman Catholics believe in the necessity of grace but not the exclusivity of grace (since they believe good works are also necessary for salvation).


B distinctive doctrines of roman catholics

B. Distinctive Doctrines of Roman Catholics

  • What they addedin doctrine:

  • 1. The the Apocrypha to the Bible.

  • 2. An infallible Pope to the Infallible Bible.

  • 3. Works to grace as a condition for salvation.

  • 4. Works to faith as means of receiving salvation.

  • 5. Mary to Christ as means of mediating salvation.

  • 6. Purgatory to the Cross for completing salvation.

  • 7. Institutional Church to Christ as means of dispensing grace that brings salvation.


B distinguishing doctrines of roman catholics

B. Distinguishing Doctrines of Roman Catholics

  • What they added in practice:

  • 1. Venerating of Mary to the worship of God.

  • 2. Veneration of images to the worship of God.

  • 3. Worship of the host to the worship of God.

  • 4. Prayers to dead saints to prayers to living God.

  • 5. Priests to laity as means of approaching God.

  • 6. Penance to grace to gain the favor of God.

  • 7. Confession of sin to a priest instead of to God.

    Note:These are serious errors in doctrine and deed.


B distinguishing doctrines of roman catholics1

B. Distinguishing Doctrines of Roman Catholics

  • What they added in authority:

  • I. New Testament Church: Elders (=Bishops)

  • In Independent Self-Governing Churches

  • II. Subapostolic Church: Same as NT Church

  • III. Early Post-Apostolic Church: One Bishop Over Elders in Each Self-Governing Church

  • IV. Pre-Medieval Church: Regional Bishops Over a Whole Area of Churches

  • V. Medieval Church: One Bishop of Rome Over All Churches

  • VI. Modern Church: One Infallible Bishop of Rome Over All Churches (1870)


Outline2

Outline:

  • I. What We Have in Common

  • II. How We Differ

  • III. In Defense of Evangelicalism


Iii in defense of evangelicalism

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

  • B. Christ alone (sola Christa)

  • C. Grace alone (sola gratia)

  • D. Faith alone (sola fidei)


Iii in defense of evangelicalism1

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)


Iii in defense of evangelicalism2

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope too because:

      • a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20).


Iii in defense of evangelicalism3

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope too because:

      • a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20).

      • b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18).


Iii in defense of evangelicalism4

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope too because:

      • a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20).

      • b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18).

      • c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14).


Iii in defense of evangelicalism5

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope too because:

      • a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20).

      • b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18).

      • c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14).

      • d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18).


Iii in defense of evangelicalism6

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope too because:

      • a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20).

      • b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18).

      • c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14).

      • d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18).

      • e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14).


Iii in defense of evangelicalism7

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope too because:

      • a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20).

      • b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18).

      • c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14).

      • d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18).

      • e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14).

      • f. Peter never passed it on to another (Acts 14:23).


Iii in defense of evangelicalism8

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope too because:

      • a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20).

      • b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18).

      • c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14).

      • d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18).

      • e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14).

      • f. Peter never passed it on to another (Acts 14:23).

      • g. Some Roman Catholic Popes taught heresy.


Iii in defense of evangelicalism9

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope too because:

      • a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20).

      • b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18).

      • c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14).

      • d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18).

      • e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14).

      • f. Peter never passed it on to another (Acts 14:23).

      • g. Some Roman Catholic Popes taught heresy.

      • h. Others made grave errors (e.g., Galileo case).


Iii in defense of evangelicalism10

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope too because:

      • a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20).

      • b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18).

      • c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14).

      • d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18).

      • e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14).

      • f. Peter never passed it on to another (Acts 14:23).

      • g. Some Roman Catholic Popes taught heresy.

      • h. Others made grave errors (e.g., Galileo case).

      • i. Sometimes there were two or more Popes.


Iii in defense of evangelicalism11

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope too because:

      • a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20).

      • b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18).

      • c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14).

      • d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18).

      • e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14).

      • f. Peter never passed it on to another (Acts 14:23).

      • g. Some Roman Catholic Popes taught heresy.

      • h. Others made grave errors (e.g., Galileo case).

      • i. Sometimes there were two or more Popes.

      • j. There is no infallible list of infallible statements.


Iii in defense of evangelicalism12

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope too because:

      • a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20).

      • b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18).

      • c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14).

      • d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18).

      • e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14).

      • f. Peter never passed it on to another (Acts 14:23).

      • g. Some Roman Catholic Popes taught heresy.

      • h. Others made grave errors (e.g., Galileo case).

      • i. Sometimes there were two or more Popes.

      • J. One Pope Sixtus (1590)published “inspired” versions

        of Bible with thousands of errors in it.

      • k. There is no infallible list of infallible statements.

      • l. Some alleged infallible statements are unbiblical.


Iii in defense of evangelicalism13

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope

    • 2. Not an Infallible Apocrypha


Roman catholics evangelicals agreements and differences

“Apocrypha” means hidden or doubtful. Eleven of the these books were added to the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church.


There were 14 apocryphal books

There Were 14 Apocryphal Books

1) The Wisdom of Solomon (c. 30 B.C.)

2) Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) (c. 132 B.C.)

3) Tobit (c. 200 B.C.)

4) Judith (c. 150 B.C.)

1 Esdras (c. 150-100 B.C.) [3 Esdras in Catholic Bible]

2 Esdras (c. 100 A.D.) [4 Esdras in Catholic Bible]

7) 1 Maccabees (c. 110 B.C.)

8) 2 Maccabees (c. 110-70 B.C.)

9) Baruch (c. 150-50 B.C.)---Baruch 1-5

(Letter of Jeremiah [c. 300-100 B.C.])--Baruch 6

10) Addition to Esther (140-130 B.C.)

11) Prayer of Azariah (2nd or 1st cent B.C.)--Daniel 3:24-90

12) Susanna (2nd or 1st cent B.C.)--Daniel 13

13) Bel and the Dragon (c. 100 B.C.)--Daniel 14

14) Prayer of Manasseh (2nd or 1st cent B.C.)


Eleven books accepted by roman catholics seven are in the table of contents

Eleven Books Accepted by Roman CatholicsSeven are in the table of contents:

  • 1) The Wisdom of Solomon (c. 30 B.C.)

  • 2) Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) (c. 132 B.C.)

  • 3) Tobit (c. 200 B.C.)

  • 4) Judith (c. 150 B.C.)

  • 5) 1 Maccabees (c. 110 B.C.)

  • 6) 2 Maccabees (c. 110-70 B.C.)

  • 7) Baruch (c. 150-50 B.C.)---Baruch 1-5

    (Letter of Jeremiah [c. 300-100 B.C.])--Baruch 6


Eleven books accepted by roman catholics seven are in the table of contents1

Eleven Books Accepted by Roman CatholicsSeven are in the table of contents:

  • 1) The Wisdom of Solomon (c. 30 B.C.)

  • 2) Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) (c. 132 B.C.)

  • 3) Tobit (c. 200 B.C.)

  • 4) Judith (c. 150 B.C.)

  • 5) 1 Maccabees (c. 110 B.C.)

  • 6) 2 Maccabees (c. 110-70 B.C.)

  • 7) Baruch (c. 150-50 B.C.)---Baruch 1-5

    (Letter of Jeremiah [c. 300-100 B.C.])--Baruch 6

  • Four are added to other books:

  • 8) Addition to Esther (140-130 B.C.)--Esther 10:4-16:24

  • 9) Prayer of Azariah (2nd or 1st cent B.C.)--Daniel 3:24-90

  • 10) Susanna (2nd or 1st cent B.C.)--Daniel 13

  • 11) Bel and the Dragon (c. 100 B.C.)--Daniel 14


Why catholics accept the apocrypha

Why Catholics Accept the Apocrypha

1) The NT cites the Apocrypha.

2) The Greek OT (LXX) contained them.

3) Some early Fathers cited them.

4) Early Catacombs pictured scenes from them.

5) Some Greek Mss. of 4th cent (Aleph, A, and B)

have them.

6) St. Augustine accepted them in 4th cent.

7) Eastern Church accepts them.

8) Many Protestant Bibles had them up to 19th cent.

9) Some were found in Dead Sea Scrolls.

10) Some local church councils accepted them.

11) Roman Catholic Church canonized them in 1546.


Protestant response

Protestant Response:

1) NT never cites them as Scripture.

a) At best it only alludes to events in them (cf. Heb. 11:35).

b) It never cites them as inspired (“God said” etc.).

c) It also quotes uninspired pagan poets (Acts 17:28).

2) Greek OT of 4th cent. A.D. had them, but--

a) It is not known that the original Greek OThad them

b) No Hebrew Bible ever had them.

c) Palestine, not Egypt, was place of their origin.

3) Some early Fathers cited them, but--

a) Many early Fathers clearly rejected them (Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and Jerome).

b) Almost no early Father clearly accepted them.

c) Many alleged citations are not from the Apocrypha.

d) Those that are cited are not clearly cited as Scripture.


Why evangelicals reject it

Why Evangelicals Reject It

1) It does not claim to be inspired by God.

2) It was not written by prophets of God (1 Mac. 9:27).

3) It was not confirmed by supernatural acts of God (Heb. 2:3-4).

4) It does not always tell the truth of God:

On praying for the dead (2 Mac. 12:46);

On working for salvation (Tobit 12:9).

5) It was not accepted by the people of God (to whom it was given).

6) It was not accepted by Jesus the Son of God (Lk. 24:27).

7) It was not accepted as inspired by the Apostles of God.

8) It as not accepted by the Early Church of God.

9) It was not accepted by the Catholic translator of Word of God.

10) It was not written during the period of prophets of God.


10 it was not written during the period of prophets of god according to jewish teaching

10) It was not written during the period of prophets of God (according to Jewish Teaching):

  • The Jewish Historian Josephus:

  • “From Artaxerxes [4th cent B.C.] until our time everything has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased” (Contra Apion 1.8).


10 it was not written during the period of prophets of god according to jewish teaching1

10) It was not written during the period of prophets of God (according to Jewish Teaching):

  • The Jewish Talmud: “With the death of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi the latter prophets, the Holy Spirit ceased out of Israel” (Tos. Sotah 13:2).


Iii in defense of evangelicalism14

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope

    • 2. Not an Infallible Apocrypha

    • 3. Not an Authoritative Tradition


3 not an authoritative tradition

3. Not an Authoritative Tradition

Good Tradition Bad Tradition

Apostolic Not Apostolic

Became Written Didn’t Become Written

In Accord with Bible Not in Accord with Bible

Doesn’t Add to Bible Adds to Bible

Consistent Inconsistent

Not Errant Errant


Iii in defense of evangelicalism15

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

    • 1. Not an Infallible Pope

    • 2. Not an Infallible Apocrypha

    • 3. Not an Authoritative Tradition

    • 4. Verses Misused to Prove Infallibility


4 verses misused to prove infallibility

4. Verses Misused to Prove Infallibility

  • Matthew 16:18-19:“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”


Response to matthew 16

Response to Matthew 16:

  • 1. There are three views on this verse (the “rock” is Christ, Peter, Peter’s faith). No dogma should be built on any one view.

  • 2. Christ is the “rock” foundation of the church (1Cor. 3:11; 1Pet. 2:7; Rev. 21:4).

  • 3. All apostles were part of the foundation of the Church, not just Peter (Eph. 2:20).

  • 4. Before the Reformation this verse was only rarely used to support Peter’s primacy and infallibility.


Response to matthew 161

Response to Matthew 16:

  • 5. Other apostles were given the same authority to bind and loose (Mt. 18:18).

  • 6. Peter’s use of the “keys” was historical, not ecclesiastical (Acts 2, 10).

  • 7. Even if it does refer to Peter (Petros), it does not support infallibility, succession, or exclusive authority.

  • 8. Other verses show Peter had no primacy (Acts 8:14; 11:1-18; 15:13-21; Gal. 2:11-14).


4 verses misused to prove infallibility1

4. Verses Misused to Prove Infallibility

  • Luke 22:31-32:“Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan as asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”


Response to luke 22

Response to Luke 22:

  • 1. Jesus only prayed for Peter because only Peter said, “Even if all are made to stumble, yet I will not be” (Mk. 14:29).

  • 2. It is granted that Peter was the leader of the 12 and would be strengthened by the experience and better able to help others.

  • 3. But there is nothing in the text about infallibility or successors of Peter.


4 verses misused to prove infallibility2

4. Verses Misused to Prove Infallibility

  • John 16:13:”When, He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority….”

  • Response:

  • 1. It was not limited to Peter (Jn. 13:5, 23).

  • 2. There is nothing about infallibility here.

  • 3. All Jesus taught the apostles was putin writing in the NT (Lk. 1:1-4).


Iii in defense of evangelicalism16

III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

  • B. Christ alone (sola Christa)


B christ alone sola christa

B. Christ alone (sola Christa)

  • 1. Not Christ plus Purgatory

    • Christ purged all our sins on the Cross (Heb. 1:3; Jn. 19:30; Isa. 53:4-6).

    • There is no Purgatory (Lk. 16:19-26; Heb. 9:27; Rom. 8:1).


B christ alone sola christa1

B. Christ alone (sola Christa)

  • 1. Not Christ plus Purgatory

    • Christ purged all our sins on the Cross (Heb. 1:3; Jn. 19:30; Isa. 53:4-6).

    • There is no Purgatory (Lk. 16:19-26; Heb. 9:27; Rom. 8:1).

  • 2. Not Christ plus Mary called:

    • “Queen of Heaven” (see Jer. 7:18).

    • “Mother of God” (see Mt. 1:20-21: Lk. 1:43, 46).

    • “Co-Mediatrix” (see 1Tim. 2:5).

    • “Co-Redemptress” (Heb. 1:3; 7:25; 10:12-14)


A in defense of evangelicalism

A. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

  • B. Christ alone (sola Christa)

  • C. Grace alone (sola gratia)


C grace alone sola gratia

C. Grace alone (sola gratia)

  • 1. Not God’s Grace plus our Works.

  • 2. But by God’s grace alone.

    • Titus 3:5:“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us….”

    • Rom. 11:6:“And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; other wise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.”


A in defense of evangelicalism1

A. In Defense of Evangelicalism

  • A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura)

  • B. Christ alone (sola Christa)

  • C. Grace alone (sola gratia)

  • D. Faith alone (sola fidei)


D faith alone sola fidei

D. Faith alone (sola fidei)

  • 1. Not by Faith Plus Works

  • 2. But by faith alone

    • a. We are justified by faith alone

      • Rom. 4:5:“But to him who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.”

      • 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 of works, lest anyone should boast.”

      • Jn. 3:16, 36; Jn. 5:24; Acts 16:31


B verses misused by catholics

b. Verses Misused by Catholics

  • Jas. 2:24:“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”


B verses misused by catholics1

b. Verses Misused by Catholics

  • Jas. 2:24:“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”

  • Note: This is justification before men; Paul is speaking of justification before God.


B verses misused by catholics2

b. Verses Misused by Catholics

  • Jas. 2:24:“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”

  • Note: This is justification before men; Paul is speaking of justification before God.

  • Key thought: We are justified by faith alone (Paul). But the faith that justifies us is not alone; it is the kind of faith that produces good works.


B verses misused by catholics3

b. Verses Misused by Catholics

  • Jas. 2:24:“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”

  • Note: This is justification before men; Paul is speaking of justification before God.

  • Key thought: We are justified by faith alone (Paul). But the faith that justifies us is not alone; it is the kind of faith that produces good works.

  • Context:“Faith without works is dead” (v. 20).

  • “I will show you my faith by my works” (v. 18).


B verses misused by catholics4

b. Verses Misused by Catholics

  • Phil. 2:12:“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

  • Note:

  • 1) He did not say work for your salvation, but work it out.

  • 2) It was God that worked it in us (v. 13).


B verses misused by catholics5

b. Verses Misused by Catholics

  • Col. 1:24:“I now rejoice in my suffering for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body.”

  • Note:

  • 1) He did not speak of what is lacking in the sacrifice of Christ for us.

  • 2) He is speaking of service, not salvation. There is nothing lacking in our salvation from Him but only in our suffering for Him.


Iv how to win catholics to christ

IV. How to Win Catholics to Christ

  • A. Pray for them. Only the Holy Spirit can save.

  • B. Try to win them within the the church before trying to win them fromthe church.

  • C. Use the Catholic New American Bible.

  • D. Good verses to use:


John 5 24

John 5:24:

  • “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death unto life.”


Romans 4 4 5

Romans 4:4-5:

  • “Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as a debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.”


Romans 8 1

Romans 8:1:

  • “There is therefore nowno condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus….”


Romans 11 6

Romans 11:6:

  • “And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.”


Ephesians 2 8 9

Ephesians 2:8-9:

  • “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”


Hebrews 10 11 14

Hebrews 10:11-14:

  • “And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right had of God. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.”


Sola scriptura leads to denominational splintering

Sola Scriptura Leads to Denominational Splintering

  • Stated: Protestant rejection of infallibility of the Church led to denominational splintering.

  • Response:The first major split with Eastern Orthodoxy was 500 years before Protestants and not over sola Scriptura.

  • There are many sects inside Catholicism.

  • Uniformity of organization does not equal unity of spirit and truth.

  • More true unity exists among those who hold sola Scripture properly than among Catholics.


Sola scriptura is meaningless

Sola Scriptura is Meaningless

  • Stated:It is meaningless because it cannot even be stated without a defining authority, but it rejects all defining authority of the Church.

  • Response: Not so. One can accept a defining authority of the early church without accepting Rome’s authority.

  • Further, one can formulate a true doctrine without giving any authority to any church or tradition.


Sola scriptura is unbiblical

Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical

  • Stated:Nowhere in the Bible does the Bible claim that the Bible alone is infallible.

  • Response: Yes it does in many places: Mt. 5:17-18; 15:1-5; Lk. 24:27; 2Tim. 3:16-17.

  • Further, a doctrine can be stated about the Bible that is based on the Bible alone (e.g., the Trinity).


Sola scriptura is unworkable

Sola Scriptura is Unworkable

  • Stated:At no time in the history of the Church has this doctrine ever brought about a unity in the Church.

  • Response:Yes it did in the early Church for four hundred years.

  • An infallible Roman hierarchy has not achieved this unity.

  • Evangelicals who use a proper method of interpretation achieve it better than the Catholic hierarchy does.


Sola scriptura is illogical

Sola Scriptura is Illogical

  • Stated:It claims we should believe only Scripture, but Scripture never says this. Hence, it is self-defeating.

  • Response:

  • First,Scripture does teach it (see above).

  • Further, it can be true even if Scripture does not teach it explicitly, but only implicitly.


Sola scriptura does not define the limits of the canon

Sola Scriptura Does Not define the Limits of the Canon

  • Stated:There is no inspired table of contents in the Bible. There must be an infallible external source to define the canon.

  • Response:At best this only shows there is a role for the Church, not that it must be an infallible role. Fallible sources can make true statements. People do it all the time.

  • Even Rome admits the OT Church was fallible, yet they were custodians of the canon.

  • The Church is not judge of the canon but jury.


Catholic view evangelical view

Catholic View Evangelical View

The Church and the Canon

DeterminerDiscoverer

CreatorCustodian

ProducerPreserver

MotherChild

MasterServant

MagistrateMinister

ShepherdSheep

RegulatorRecognizer

JudgeJury


Sola scriptura violates causality

Sola Scriptura Violates Causality

  • Stated:The principle of causality affirms that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. Hence, an infallible Bible must have an infallible Church to cause it.

  • Response: The cause of Scripture is not the Church but the Holy Spirit.

  • By the same logic, Israel must have been infallible since they produced the Old Testament.


Sola scriptura is not clear

Sola Scriptura is not Clear

  • Stated:It assumes the essential teachings of the Bible are sufficiently clear for all. But they are not, since there has never been agreement on them.

  • Response: Yes there has been agreement in the first four centuries.

  • There is also agreement among evangelicals today who use the proper method of interpretation.


Sola scriptura was not the practice of the nt church

Sola Scriptura was not the Practice of the NT Church

  • Stated:The NT Church did not have all of Scripture, since it was not all written.

  • Response:The growing size of the canon does not affect the doctrine that only the canon is infallible and binding. New revelation became binding when it was written and became part of the canon (cf. Dan. 9:2; 2Pet. 3:15-16).


Sola scriptura resulted from extrabiblical sources

Sola Scriptura Resulted from Extrabiblical Sources

  • Stated:Many extrabiblical sources gave rise to it, e.g., political (desire for freedom from Rome), cultural (the printing press), intellectual (rise of nominalism), and social (rise of individualism).

  • Response:These were not true of early church that held to sola Scriptura.

  • Further, it arose in response to Rome’s rejection of the biblical and early church view.

  • Finally, the real question is whether it is biblical, not what influenced its acceptance.


Sola scriptura results in mistranslation errors

Sola Scriptura Results in Mistranslation Errors

  • Stated:The doctrine of sola Scripture leads to mistranslation errors since the translators have no authoritative guide.

  • Response:The presence of an alleged infallible guide did not solve the problem.

  • St. Jerome mistranslated “repent” as “do penance.” Pope Sixtus V’s 1590 version has thousands of errors and was revised only two years later.

  • There are good Protestant translations without any infallible guide.


Sola scriptura needs an interpretive framework

Sola Scriptura Needs an Interpretive Framework

  • Stated:The Bible does not stand alone; it needs interpretation. Only an infallible church provides this.

  • Response:Not so, a fallible source will do (e.g., early US Courts on the Constitution).

  • Further, use of proper method of interpretation provides it too.

  • Finally, the early Fathers interpreted it correctly.


Sola scriptura leads to misunderstanding of scripture

Sola Scriptura Leads to Misunderstanding of Scripture

  • Stated:Belief in Bible alone leads to a distortion of historical facts since it does not use tradition to guide it.

  • Response:This is an assumption disguised as an argument.

  • Exactly the opposite is true of Rome (cf. Infallibility of Pope and Mariolatry).

  • Sola Scriptura need not reject early traditions. Indeed, they support it.


Sola scriptura misunderstands the church fathers

Sola Scriptura Misunderstands the Church Fathers

  • Stated:The Church Fathers affirmed the unique authority of Scripture but not its interpretation apart from tradition.

  • Response:This assumes that Rome’s interpretation of theFathers is correct.

  • Further, even if tradition is needed, it

  • does not support the Catholic view.

  • Finally, Bible can be interpreted correctly apart from an authoritative tradition.


Sola scriptura leads to hermeneutical anarchy

Sola Scriptura Leads to Hermeneutical Anarchy

  • Stated:Hundreds of denominations that profess it do not even agree on fundamental teachings.

  • Response: This condition is over stated:

  • 1) There are other influences, such as modernism, naturalism, rationalism, paganism, popularism,

  • individualism, etc.

  • 2) The issue here is interpretation, not inspiration.

  • 3) Those with the proper means of interpretation have wide agreement on essential doctrines.


Sola scriptura not taught by any council or church fathers

Sola Scriptura not Taught by Any Council or Church Fathers

  • Stated:Eastern Orthodox claim that no Father or Council affirmed sola Scriptura.

  • Response:This is untrue and insufficient.

  • Many Fathers did teach sola Scripture.

  • Even if some didn’t, the Bible does.

  • Church Councils never taught the inspiration of the Bible either. But they everywhere assume it.


Sola scriptura is insufficient since the bible is not self interpreting

Sola Scriptura is Insufficient Since the Bible is not Self-Interpreting

  • Stated: The Bible is not self-explanatory. It does not preach itself or impose its meaning on anyone.

  • Response: True, the Bible needs to be interpreted, but it does not follow that it must be viewed through tradition which is often wrong.

  • It can be interpreted by the the normal, historical-grammatical method like any other piece of literature, seeking the meaning of the author in the context in which he said it.


Two views compared the church is

Two Views ComparedThe Church is:

DeterminerDiscoverer


Two views compared the church is1

Two Views ComparedThe Church is:

DeterminerDiscoverer

MotherChild


Two views compared the church is2

Two Views ComparedThe Church is:

DeterminerDiscoverer

MotherChild

MasterServant


Two views compared the church is3

Two Views ComparedThe Church is:

DeterminerDiscoverer

MotherChild

MasterServant

MagistrateMinister


Two views compared the church is4

Two Views ComparedThe Church is:

DeterminerDiscoverer

MotherChild

MasterServant

MagistrateMinister

RegulatorRecognizer


Two views compared the church is5

Two Views ComparedThe Church is:

DeterminerDiscoverer

MotherChild

MasterServant

MagistrateMinister

RegulatorRecognizer

JudgeJury


Two views compared the church is6

Two Views ComparedThe Church is:

DeterminerDiscoverer

MotherChild

MasterServant

MagistrateMinister

RegulatorRecognizer

JudgeJury

of the Canon


Initial acceptance vs later debate

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

Evidence books were accepted when written:

In the Old Testament


Initial acceptance vs later debate1

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

Evidence books were accepted when written:

In the Old Testament

Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26).


Initial acceptance vs later debate2

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

Evidence books were accepted when written:

In the Old Testament

Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26).

Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26).


Initial acceptance vs later debate3

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

Evidence books were accepted when written:

In the Old Testament

Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26).

Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26).

Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25).


Initial acceptance vs later debate4

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

Evidence books were accepted when written:

In the Old Testament

Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26).

Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26).

Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25).

Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11).


Initial acceptance vs later debate5

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

Evidence books were accepted when written:

In the Old Testament

Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26).

Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26).

Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25).

Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11).

Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12)

Later books cite earlier ones:


Initial acceptance vs later debate6

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

Evidence books were accepted when written:

In the Old Testament

Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26).

Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26).

Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25).

Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11).

Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12)

Later books cite earlier ones:

Joshua refers to Moses (Josh. 1:8)


Initial acceptance vs later debate7

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

Evidence books were accepted when written:

In the Old Testament

Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26).

Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26).

Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25).

Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11).

Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12)

Later books cite earlier ones:

Joshua refers to Moses (Josh. 1:8)

Ezekiel refers to Job (Eze. 14:14, 20)


Initial acceptance vs later debate8

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

Evidence books were accepted when written:

In the Old Testament

Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26).

Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26).

Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25).

Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11).

Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12)

Later books cite earlier ones:

Joshua refers to Moses (Josh. 1:8)

Ezekiel refers to Job (Eze. 14:14, 20)

Isaiah is cited by Micah (Micah 4:1-3 cf. Isa. 2:2-4)


Initial acceptance vs later debate9

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

Evidence books were accepted when written:

In the Old Testament

Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26).

Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26).

Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25).

Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11).

Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12)

Later books cite earlier ones:

Joshua refers to Moses (Josh. 1:8)

Ezekiel refers to Job (Eze. 14:14, 20)

Isaiah is cited by Micah (Micah 4:1-3 cf. Isa. 2:2-4)

Micah is cited by Jeremiah (Jer. 26:18 cf. Micah 3:12)


Initial acceptance vs later debate10

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

  • Evidence books were accepted when written:

    • In the New Testament:


Initial acceptance vs later debate11

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

  • Evidence books were accepted when written:

    • In the New Testament:

      • Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7).


Initial acceptance vs later debate12

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

  • Evidence books were accepted when written:

    • In the New Testament:

      • Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7).

      • Paul encourages Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16).


Initial acceptance vs later debate13

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

  • Evidence books were accepted when written:

    • In the New Testament:

      • Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7).

      • Paul encouraged Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16).

      • Peter had a collection of Paul’s “Epistles” (2Pet. 3:16).


Initial acceptance vs later debate14

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

  • Evidence books were accepted when written:

    • In the New Testament:

      • Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7).

      • Paul encouraged Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16).

      • Peter has a collection of Paul’s “Epistles” (2Pet. 3:16).

      • John sent his Epistle to all the churches of Asia Minor

        (Rev. 1:4)


Initial acceptance vs later debate15

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

  • Evidence books were accepted when written:

    • In the New Testament:

      • Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7).

      • Paul encouraged Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16).

      • Peter has a collection of Paul’s “Epistles” (2Pet. 3:16).

      • John sent his Epistle to all the churches of Asia Minor

        Rev. 1:4)

      • Paul charged that his epistle to the Thessalonicans to

        “be read to all the holy brethren” (1Thes. 5:27).


Initial acceptance vs later debate16

Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate

  • Evidence books were accepted when written:

    • In the New Testament:

      • Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7).

      • Paul encouraged Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16).

      • Peter has a collection of Paul’s “Epistles” (2Pet. 3:16).

      • John sent his Epistle to all the churches of Asia Minor

        Rev. 1:4)

      • Paul charged that his epistle to the Thessalonicans to

        read to all the brethren (1Thes. 5:27).

      • Early Fathers cited virtually the whole NT.


A brief summary of church history

A Brief Summary of Church History

  • I. New Testament Church: Plurality of Elders in

    • Each Independent Self-Governing Church

  • II. Subapostolic Church: Same as NT Church

  • III. Early Post-Apostolic Church: One Bishop Over Elders in Each Church

  • IV. Pre-Medieval Church: Regional Bishops Over Area Churches

  • V. Medieval Church: One Bishop of Rome Over All Churches

  • VI. Modern Church: One Infallible Bishop of Rome Over All Churches.


The gradual development of the roman catholic church

The Gradual Development of the Roman Catholic Church

  • 325--Bishops have authority over a whole region

  • 381-- Emperor Theodosius founded a Christian State

  • 451--Pronounce an Archbishop over other Bishops

  • 553--Affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary

  • 680--Council claimed to be “illuminated by the Holy Spirit” and “clean from all error, certain, and infallible”

    • Mary called “Our holy Lady, the holy, immaculate, ever-virgin and glorious Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God”

  • 787--It ruled in favor of icons and venerating images

    • It pronounced anathama on all who do not venerated icons

    • It forbid secular appointment of Bishops (thus solidifying the authority of Religion over the State).

    • It affirmed the Primacy of Peter and apostolic succession

    • It claimed “the holy Roman Church which has prior rank,

    • which is the head of all the Churches of God”


The gradual development of the roman catholic church1

The Gradual Development of the Roman Catholic Church

  • 869--It condemned the schism of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople who challenged the filioque clause.

  • 1123--First Council called by a Pope (Callistus)It affirmed the “Concordat of Worms” (1122) that the Pope, not the Emperor, the right to invest a Bishop with ring and staff and and receive homage

  • 1139--Convoked by Pope Innocent II to reform the Church Condemned the schism of Arnold of Bresia who spoke against confession to a priest rather than another laymen

  • 1179--Convened by Pope Alexander III to counter anti-Pope Callistus III

    • It affirmed that the right to elect a Pope was restricted to the college of Cardinals by 2/3 majority

  • 1215--Affirmed Transsubstantiation, primacy of Bishop of Rome, and Seven Sacraments

    • Set up Office of the Inquisitors to investigate heresy and turned them over to the State for punishment


The gradual development of the roman catholic church2

The Gradual Development of the Roman Catholic Church

  • 1245--Frederick II was condemned for imprisoning Cardinals and Bishop on their way to the Council.

  • 1274--Aquinas affirmed authority of Pope to form a creed

  • 1312--Affirmed decrees concerning Inquisition (which Frederick II made in 1232)

  • 1415--It condemned John Wycliffe after his death (in 1384) (His follower John Huss was burned at the stake)

    • Claimed Ecumenical Council has authority over the Pope

    • “This Council holds its power direct from Christ; everyone, no matter his rank of office, even if it is papal, is bound to obey it in whatever pertains to faith.”

  • 1431-1437--AffirmedPurgatory, and Primacy of the Pope

    • Immaculate Conception of Mary declared biblical and Catholic [Later declared dogma by Pope Pius IX, 1854]


The gradual development of the roman catholic church3

The Gradual Development of the Roman Catholic Church

  • 1512-1517--Called by Pope Julius II to invalidate anti-papal Council of Pisa convened by Louis XII of France

    • A Few minor reforms were instituted.

    • The main issues of reform were not treated by the Council.

    • [Luther treated the issues in his Reformation by posting his 95 Thesis posted October 31, 1517]

  • 1545-1563--Convoked to counter the Reformation

    • It infallibly pronounced Purgatory, indulgences, veneration of saints and images, prayers for the dead, the canonicity of the Apocrypha, the necessity of good works for salvation, seven sacraments, transsubstantiation, and tradition as a second source of revelation.

  • 1869-1870--It pronounced the Pope is infallible on faith and practice: The Pope’s “definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.”


The gradual development of the roman catholic church4

The Gradual Development of the Roman Catholic Church

  • 1950--The Bodily Assumption of Mary proclaimed dogma by Pope Pius XII

  • 1962-1963--Failed in attempt at union with Eastern Church

    • Called Protestants “separated brethren”

    • Instituted minor changes in ritual (e.g., Mass in local languages)

    • Claimed sincere non-Christians can be saved

      [This conflicts with earlier teaching of Rome that there is no salvation outside the Church.]

  • Note: No real change of objectionable doctrines was made!


  • Login