|
|
|
A CATHOLIC DEBATE BY RYAN HICKS © 1996-1999 Ryan Hicks |
The following URL was sent to me from a Catholic Pope and Mary worshiper: http://pweb.netcom.com/~darcyj/files/authorit.htm. Now not all Catholics worship the Pope and Mary, but this one did.
When I went to this site I was amazed at the ignorance of both the Catholic (Scott Hahn) and the Protestant (Robert Knudson). (WHY DO THEY NEVER GET A KJB-ONLY, HOLINESS LIVING BELIEVER??? Probably because they are afraid of that type person and because the believer would not waste his time with wilful rebels like these Catholics.)
Below are quotes from this page and my comments followed in bold and brackets "[]." (All the grammar errors and spacing error in the quotes of this debate are that of the transcriber and not myself.)
[Moderator:] Thank you, Fr. Romano. I'd like to say first of all, as some of you who were here last night may have heard my colleague Mark say, we at Catholic Answers have become somewhat adept at looking over an audience like this and being able to tell who's Catholic and who's not. Those of you who are here for the first time can try this experiment for yourselves. Just look around you, look at your neighbor, and if you see someone without a Bible, he's probably a Catholic (laughter). The emphasis tonight will not be on quarreling or bickering, but on focusing on the serious differences that exist between Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics with regard to the questions of authority and justification. Tonight we are privileged to have two eminent speakers.
[Brother Hicks: I find no humor in this. It is the sad reality that the Bible means nothing at all to most Catholics, and the Catholics are not afraid to admit it.]
[Catholic Scott Hahn:] I was a Presbyterian minister for a few years, a graduate of an Evangelical seminary, and a very great respecter of the Westminster Theological Seminary tradition, and I still am, but I have one question today as I have for several years since I left the ministry and I gave up teaching at a Presbyterian seminary. It was a question raised to me by a former Catholic in the seminary in the middle of a seminar on creeds and confessions in the church. He asked me, where does scripture teach sola scriptura? And I panicked, I played around, I even said "That's a dumb question." and I never heard myself say that before in a classroom. And I realized going home that evening why I'd said it: it was because I wasn't prepared to answer it.
[Brother Hicks: Notice all the occurrences of "I." He is focused on one main thing, "I." Do note that the Greek word "ego" from which we get our English word "ego" is translated "I" in English.
[Catholic Scott Hahn:] It [Sola scriptura or believing the Bible alone] hasn't brought greater unity into the Church, it's brought a very tragic disunity to impose the Bible as the sole authority so that every individual is left up to himself or herself to decide what doctrines are true. Can every believer be expected to understand and articulate the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ?
[Brother Hicks: After rambling on about how as a Protestant he could not defend the use of the Bible alone from the Bible he says this. This is typical. The Catholic Church thinks that the saints are stupid and totally dependant on them. They are fearful that you might read the Bible and think for yourself and flee from their apostate religion. Thus, they seek to oppress people's thinking to keep people in submission to them. This is what all the cults love to do.]
[Catholic Scott Hahn]: The Council of Calcedon passed on to us a legacy that we need to hold fast to, but very few lay people dare say very few seminarians could give a very articulate, detailed defense of that doctrine, which everybody at Westminster Seminary upholds, but very few people have actually generated on their own by interpreting the Bible by themselves. It's anarchistic. It would be like writing the U.S. Constitution only not establishing a judiciary or an executive or a legislative branch to apply that with authority. I would be like constitutionally investing individual citizens with the right to disagree with and rebel against judicial decisions handed down from any level of the court system. It would be up to them to interpret the Constitution with regard to any legislative decisions and executive enactments. You would have no nation; every man and woman would be a nation unto himself or unto herself.
Is that what Jesus Christ intended for the family of God that he died and was raised to build upon the Holy Spirit? I don't think so. I don't think so. I also think it encourages a subtle and unconscious and unintentional presumption, or tyranny. As we enforce church discipline in Protestant churches, I recall the very funny feeling that I had as I would argue and articulate my views and then face the prospect of disciplining members in the church just because I was able to get a consensus among my elders, or among the congregational members.
[Brother Hicks: What the believer needs to recognize here is that the Catholics leaders are setting themselves up for authority. They absolutely refuse to have people think for themselves and try to supercede the place of Almighty God. The general tradition, although never stated honestly like I am about to put it, is that they believe God is stupid and cannot rule His Universe by just giving His word. No, they think He needs them to take money from the poor and line their grubby pockets with cash in the name of the true church. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit will lead a believer into ALL TRUTH (John 16:13; 1 John 2:21, 27)! Catholics reject this outright, and depend upon the Catholic Church to lead them into truth, thus superseding the Holy Spirit's work and blaspheming Him all the way.]
[Catholic Scott Hahn:] The doctrine of sola scriptura is inconsistent. Everybody has some tradition. They might be Americans, or Westerners. They might think in an individualistic thought world. They might be Methodists; they might have come up in the Episcopal tradition or the Presbyterian tradition, but all of us have categories that we receive from our spiritual fathers and mothers, those who have nurtured us in the faith. They have transmitted to us thought categories about which we know little, and yet they influence our interpretation so much. The question is not whether or not an interpretation will be authoritative, the question is whether it's the tradition that Christ instituted through the apostles and maintains through the apostolic tradition in one holy Roman Catholic Church
[Brother Hicks: This shows the deceptiveness that the Catholics try to pull on people. The Protestant in this debate said in opening, "We can have, then, a profound appreciation for tradition, but we maintain that any tradition of the church must be subject to the Word of God as contained in the scriptures. Now, Calvin himselfof course, you know Calvin was one of the major reformershe said in his Reply to Sadalito, 'Although we hold that the Word of God alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgment and that fathers and councils are of authority only insofar as they accord with the rule of the Word we still give to councils and fathers such rank and honor as is meet for them to hold under Christ.'" Thus, the Catholic is simply setting up a straw-man and knocking it down, that is to say he is making a pretend argument as if the Protestant disagrees with respecting tradition (which he does not) and then he knocks it down (rebukes that pretend argument).]
[Catholic Scott Hahn:] We say, well, the Bible alone is our sole and exclusive authority, but we will listen to and respect tradition. Well, what do you think of somebody who says, "I will accept with respect the words of Jesus and follow them whenever I agree with them". That isn't lordship, and that isnt servanthood. If we submit to the living Word of Jesus Christ I believe that it will cause us to see the Apostolic Tradition that Jesus Christ handed down to his family through his apostles, his spiritual sons and through their successors, the grandsons and greatgrandsons. A binding, a divine, an authoritative tradition found in the liturgy of the Church, found in the Creeds, found in the writings of the Fathers, and exhibited in statements such as St. Paul makes in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2 and other places as well. My reasons, then, for accepting Tradition are mainly biblical. I don't believe that Scripture teaches sola scriptura; I believe it's unhistorical; I believe its illogical; I believe the Protestant doctrine is impractical, inconsistent, improbable and incoherent, whereas I feel and I believe and Ive come to see that Scripture teaches the authority of Sacred Tradition, that it is the context in which the Church came to recognize the gospels and the New Testament. As St. Augustine said, "I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church." That authority is not tyrannical, it is not human, it's the life of Jesus Christ transmitted by the Holy Spirit through those successors that he has graciously overseen and guaranteed because of his love and his power manifested in his living Body, the Church of Christ. Thank you very much.
[Brother Hicks: Here he goes again. He makes a pretend argument that we all disagree with, thus trying to get you to assume if you reject his theories and doctrines of devils you are thinking like someone who picks and chooses what they will accept from what Jesus said. Where in the Bible is apostolic tradition taught? It certainly is not in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or 1 Corinthians 11:2, which please read, for these teach nothing about tradition being equal with the word of the Living God. He said, "That authority is not tyrannical...." Then it can have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic church, for it has murdered and slaughtered its way into a world religion and would force conversion on everyone if it could. This is desperate and wicked and proves that the Catholic Church is no more of Christ than all the Satanists put together.]
[The Protestant Robert Knudson:] It is illustrated for one thing as Martin Luther stood before the Diet of Worms and he said, "If you can convince me by Scripture that I am wrong, then I will recant, but unless you can convince me by Scripture, then here I stand. I can do no other." I think that is the crux of the matter. It does not come from an anarchistic spirit, it does not come from a wild and woolly lack of tradition, but it comes from an idea that it is in the Word of God written that there is the key, that there is, then, the final standard.
[Brother Hicks: This is what it all boils down to. The Catholic Church can never PROVE its position, thus it must consult tradition which is no more reliable than any other man's tradition and is all rebuked by the Bible as making the word of God of none effect (Matthew 15:1-9; Mark 7:6-13; Colossians 2:8; 1 Peter 1:18).]
[The Catholic Scott Hahn:] I certainly dont mean to be taken in any way to suggest that Westminster Seminary or the orthodox Presbyterian Church and Reverend Knudson are anarchistic in intention. I happen to have awesome respect for his particular denomination and especially the seminary. I do wish to point out, however, that the Presbyterian tradition as it has developed is quite, perhaps, otherwise. The orthodox Presbyterian Church probably constitute less than two percent of the Presbyterians in this country. Most of the Presbyterians in this country belong to a church that has already gone on record as endorsing abortion in some instances as an act of Christian stewardship. The mainstream Presbyterian denomination in which I was born and raised also has a task force consisting of homosexual members who are advocating not only the ordination of homosexuals, but many other things too. I only point this out to highlight the fact that despite this small Presbyterian seminary and this very respectable denomination, there is, nevertheless, not only among individual Presbyterian members and pastors, but within the official documents of the denomination itself, as well as many other Protestant denominations, a kind of wild spirit. I don't believe that Luther intended it. I don't believe that Calvin intended it. Their intentions notwithstanding, the effects are before us.
[Brother Hicks: Here you have it. Link abortion advocacy and sodomites with believing sola scriptura! This is the ultimate blasphemy and no doubt Mr. Hahn will regret it when he is cast into hell by the Lord, that is except he repent. Anyone that has ever read the Bible knows that abortion and the sin of the sodomites are thoroughly rebuked by the Bible and no one who practices or supports them will have any place in the kingdom of God. Thus, he is trying to blame Bible-believing Christians for those that refuse to believe the Bible. It is not the Bible's fault nor the Bible believer's fault that people choose to follow the traditions of abortion and sodomy rather than have the Bible as their sole source of authority. The way he is advocating tradition, these traditions (abortion and sodomy) could eventually be of God, because only the Catholic Church thinks they can determine truth by tradition, and they could change and allow them.]
[The Catholic Scott Hahn:] As he says, "I will build my church..." And he also gives the keys of the kingdom to Peter and he says, "Whatever you bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven." It;s not Peter and it isn't the popes, it's Jesus Christ himself whose living presence through the Holy Spirit underwrites and guarantees fallible men who hold the office of St. Peter and his chair and hold the keys that symbolize succession. Its the living power and life and love of Christ that upholds the family of God, the pillar and foundation of truth which is not Scripture by itself, but the Church. The Church has also said in Vatican II and elsewhere as well, that the Church finds herself under the Word, not over the Word. Under the Word written and also under the Word orally transmitted through its worship and through the life of the community.
[Brother Hicks: Notice how the church is only the Roman Catholic church. The love of power is always stressed by Catholic leaders. They love their power and authority given by man, but reject that given by God alone. If Catholics believe what he said then why do they not believe the word of God and come out of the Roman Catholic Church (Revelation 18:4-5)? No, they refuse to obey this. Why? Because they have made the word of God of none effect through their traditions (Mark 7:6-13). Also, the faulty theory that Peter has some type of succession is absurd. This is simply a twisting of Scripture from its context in order to keep the Catholic Church's man given money and power. As a matter of fact, my dear Catholic friend, ask your priest to prove historically that Peter ever stepped foot in Rome, much less was a bishop there. If you do this you will see the Roman Catholic religion crumble before your very eyes. (See Also Was Peter A Bishop In Rome?)]
[The Catholic Scott Hahn:] Id like to raise the question again that I referred to, and that is: Where does the bible teach that it alone is the Word of God and that it alone is above the Church, when the Church is called the pillar and foundation of truth? Where does the Bible teach that it is taken by itself it is sufficient, clear and understandable, but especially sufficient and exclusive in its authority.
[Brother Hicks: The Protestant gave a descent response, but did not answer the question. I will answer it for him. The Bible is clear that God's word ALONE is truth (Psalms 119; John 17:11). It is also clear that any addition to it or taking away from it, whatever shape or form (i.e. even traditions), is wicked and done by people void of salvation (Revelation 22:18-19). That the Bible, as the word of God, is above the Church is seen in Psalms 138:2 because the true Church is called by the name of the Lord, for it is His body. These are all simple truths anyone can find if they choose to believe the Bible rather than fight it. The Bible is clear to anyone that will read it, it is only the power-hungry Catholic leaders that want you to feel too dumb to understand the Bible. Thus, they know you will not read it, and if you did happen to, you will accept whatever they say because they have you believing the Bible is confusing when it is not.]
[The Catholic Scott Hahn:] My point is that these denominations have changed because all they had to go on was Scripture and the shifting sand of human opinions and cultural fad.
[Brother Hicks: He cleverly words this attack on the Scripture. Yet, if he was honest with himself and his church he would realize that they were the ones that only had Scripture plus "the shifting sand of human opinions" plus "cultural fad." All the Protestants have is Scripture alone! Praise God!
[The Catholic Scott Hahn:] Were all hypocrites to some extent.
