Debate with Catholic Response

(What you are about read is shocking. The Catholic Church is now saying that a Jew who rejects Jesus as the son of God can nevertheless have an informal connection with the Catholic Church and be saved. This makes the cross of no effect-it tramples Christ underfoot and the blood of the covenant wherewith men are sanctified becomes an unholy thing. More shocking is the fact that our own brothers are saying essentially the same thing in their current attempts to restructure the church. Change agents in the body of Jesus are no different-and no better-than Catholic liberals. They will ultimately accept Jews, Hindus, Moslems and other unbelievers as saved members of the church. The liberal position necessarily leads to universalism - H. A. (Buster) Dobbs .)

On May 4-7, 1996, I debated three representatives of Catholic Response, an apologetics organization from San Antonio, Texas. Brother Jerry Moffitt, director of the Gulf Coast Lectures in Portland, Texas, arranged for the discussion to be conducted in connection with their fourth annual lectureship. Since few have had opportunity to debate the Catholics, the following reflections should be of interest.

First Proposition

In the first two sessions I affirmed: "The New Testament is the sole, complete, and final authority for the Christian religion." This proposition entails that the New Testament Scriptures are the Christian's only rule of faith and practice in religion. While all the Bible is inspired (2 Tim 3:16), and whereas the Old Testament contains lessons for God's children today (Rom 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11), it is the New Testament specifically that provides mankind with the needed information to equip himself in knowledge and obedience as a Christian. The "all truth" that Jesus revealed to his apostles by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), as an expression of his will for the Christian religion, is found in written form only upon the pages of the New Testament. It is the sole, complete, and final authority for the Christian religion.

Catholics deny this because their position is that the revelation of the gospel is contained in both the written books of the New Testament and in the unwritten, apostolic traditions which allegedly have been passed down orally from generation to generation since the first century. Thus, while Catholics acknowledge the New Testament as God's inspired Word, they maintain this is not the totality of God's revelation for the Christian religion. Rather, one must give equal authority to "The living voice of the living Church," that is, the Oral Traditions of which the Catholic Church claims to have been sole stewards since apostolic times.

Any debate with Catholics on "Scripture alone" as the sole rule of faith, is really a controversy pertaining to the identity and sufficiency of God's Word. Where has God's special revelation been deposited for mankind today? Is that standard of authority contained solely upon the written pages of the Bible? And, is this written revelation sufficient in providing all essential information for the faithful Christian? Or, as Catholics maintain, is the completed Word of God found within Oral Tradition and the Bible? These questions gain center attention when it comes to controversy with Catholics as to the standard of authority for the Christian religion.

Argumentation

I offered two arguments in the affirmative. The first pertains to what is called the material and formal sufficiency of the Scriptures. That the Scriptures are "materially" sufficient is to affirm they contain all essential information necessary for a person to become and remain a faithful child of God. There is not a single doctrine of truth pertaining to the Christian religion that one must know, practice, or obey to become and remain a faithful Christian that is not found within the Bible; and more specifically the New Testament as it contains in written form that which was revealed through the apostles.

The New Testament Scriptures clearly teach they are materially sufficient. In 2 Tim. 3:16­17 Paul writes: "All scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instructions which are in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work." The apostle says "all scripture" is God inspired, embracing both Old and New Testaments. He further asserts their sufficiency by pointing out that by the Scriptures man is made "complete" as he is furnished with adequate information pertaining to truth and instructions for righteousness.

That the Scriptures are "formally sufficient is to affirm that they may be understood without the need of an infallible interpreter, such as the pope. Herein lies the heart of the controversy. For, if one can demonstrate by valid argument that the Scriptures may be correctly comprehended without the aid of papal infallibility, then one may dispense with Catholicism as a whole. In view of this fact it is more than a passing interest that in 1837, in his debate with Alexander Campbell, Bishop John B. Purcell stated that, "No enlightened Catholic holds the pope's infallibility to be an article of faith. I do not; and none of my brethren, that I know of, do... no man is infallible, either in doctrine or morals" (Campbell­Purcell Debate, p. 23). Not until thirty­three years later, at Vatican Council I in 1870, would papal infallibility be defined as Catholic dogma. Before this "no enlightened Catholic" ever entertained the idea.

The New Testament Scriptures clearly teach they are formally sufficient and thus may be understood without an infallible interpreter. This is taught in Ephesians 3:3-5. Paul affirms that when the revelation of the gospel was made known he "wrote" in "words" so when brethren "read" they could perceive his understanding in the mystery of Christ. Just as first century listeners could understand the gospel when it was proclaimed orally, they, as original readers of Scripture, could understand that same message when it was committed to written form. If an infallible interpreter was not needed to understand the oral message why should one be needed to understand the written? If one today cannot understand the epistles of Peter without an infallible interpreter, which were allegedly written by the first pope, what compels the Catholics to suppose one can read and understand an ex cathedra encyclical written by Pope John Paul II? Rest assured that the very words of the Master go against the Catholic grain at this point. For, it was he who said of anyone reading Scripture, "let him that readeth understand" (Matt. 24:15).

One final point might help as it pertains to "material" and "formal" sufficiency of the Scriptures. When debating Catholics one should be careful to distinguish between the two kinds of sufficiency. The reason is because some Catholics will say they allow for the sufficiency of Scriptures. But they are speaking of material sufficiency, not formal sufficiency. The Catholic Church Magisterium, which is the authoritative teaching office comprised of pope and bishops, is indispensable to Catholicism as an infallible interpreter. Their insistence on the necessity of this interpretive authority is an outright denial of the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Do not allow an opponent to confuse the audience in this regard.

The Test

My second argument consisted of a challenge. I asked my opponents to cite a moral, religious, or spiritual truth from their Oral Traditions that (1 ) is essential to our salvation, but (2) not already taught within the Bible. I insisted that whatever is cited must be essential to our salvation or it cannot rightly be said to be a part of the gospel which is God's power to salvation (Rom. 1:16). I further demanded that whatever is cited could not already be taught within the Bible or else it would not be oral but written apostolic tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). No reply was attempted. With dead silence emanating from the other side, it was then impressed upon the audience the absolute futility of Catholic claims that God's Word is composed of Oral Tradition in addition to the Scriptures.

There is not one solitary thing within the so­called Catholic "Oral Apostolic Tradition" that reveals anything about any aspect of New Testament Christianity that one may not already learn from the written Word of God. One is completely "justified in maintaining that God's full and final covenant embodies all moral and spiritual truth" (lames Bales, The Finality Of The Faith, p. 40). This is a most effective argument. It works well when debating anyone claiming additional revelation to the Scriptures; Mormons, Pentecostals, and Catholics.

Second Proposition

In the last two sessions I negated: The Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ, identical in origin, organization, name, worship, and doctrine with the New Testament church, and in it alone is salvation from sin received." The proposition summons for scriptural proof that the Roman Catholic Church is identical in all the identifying traits of the New Testament church; a task, I might add, impossible to accomplish. Is it any wonder, then, that aside from the initial reading of the proposition in their introductory remarks, my opponents never again referred to the proposition throughout the remainder of the debate? No, not even so much as an allusion to the terms passed from their lips. It was a deafening silence, a most telling admission which I turned to my advantage. While space fails to allow for detailed evaluation of all that was said on both sides, I here present two matters I think of interest.

Doctrine Of Development

Although a shock to the Church of England, Catholics everywhere were elated when, in 1845, prominent author and priest, John Henry Newman, converted to Roman Catholicism. Immediately afterwards he published his Essay on the Development of Doctrine wherein he set forth the novel view that "the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are legitimate developments of the teachings of the Church of the apostles" (The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 607). This "development of doctrine," accepted and promoted by Catholics since the publication of Newman's book, is defined as "the notion that the Church's understanding of divinely revealed truths grows and evolves throughout the centuries" (Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 303). The idea is that doctrines peculiar to Catholicism need not be found explicitly within the Bible as they admittedly are unrecognizable upon the pages of the New Testament. Rather, these dogmas developed gradually over the centuries to form the more mature and complete doctrines currently within Catholicism.

In fact, it has sometimes taken the Church centuries to recognize officially that specific doctrines are authentic developments of the definitive revelation given by Christ. Moreover, in officially accepting such developments, the Church implicitly acknowledges that further developments are possible in the future (The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 247).

The following quotes supply the reader with further documentation from Catholic sources wherein the authors lavishly apply this developmental procedure to major dogmas. These excerpts are all the more revealing when one realizes that Newman postulated his "doctrine of development" long before any of these major articles of confession were ever defined as Catholic doctrine. In short, the way in which these newfangled dogmas gained acceptance was by means of Newman's developmental theory.

The primacy of the pope, the quality of being first, which according to Catholic teaching belongs to the Bishop of Rome, developed over many centuries (ibid., p. 693).

But the idea of purgatory as a particular place in the other world seems to be a creation of Western Christianity and is dated in the late twelfth century. Once this idea arrived on the scene, it was possible for medieval theologians to develop the theology of purgatory in terms that would remain familiar to the twentieth century (ibid., p. 704).

The idea that Mary enjoyed a bodily assumption is not affirmed in any direct way by the New Testament, or in the most primitive tradition, but rather developed gradually out of the Church's life of prayer, biblical reflection, and sacrament (ibid., p. 56).

The fact is that no one person can take credit for it, the Rosary having developed over centuries... (Catholic Answers Tract).

When debating Catholics one must be prepared to refute this idea that doctrinal truths develop to form more mature and completed dogmas which comprise modern day Catholicism. Prior to my debate with representatives of Catholic Response they had publicly stated:

The Church grows. It does not remain exactly the same in the sense that it must always look exactly like it did in the New Testament times; in the sense that there will be all of the characteristics within the church as seen in their fully developed form ... (Mike Luther in a San Antonio debate with brother Darrell Conley).

Acceptance of doctrinal development, as promulgated by Newman and universally adopted by Catholicism, forfeits any identification with the church of the New Testament. For, one cannot maintain that the doctrines and identifying characteristics of the church have changed through developmental procedure and then simultaneously argue from the Scriptures that the Catholic Church is identical with the first century church. Yet this is exactly what my opponents sought to do. It was for me to show, then, that the only possible way one can identify the Lord's church today is by pointing to those identifying marks within the New Testament pertaining to name, organization, worship, doctrine, practice, and terms of entrance. The Roman Catholic Church falls woefully short of meeting this criterion.

Not only do Catholics cut themselves off from any appeal to the New Testament for scriptural authority by their doctrine of development but with the same stroke they sever any legitimate appeal to their so­called Oral Tradition. The very idea of a tradition is something that has been passed down from ancient times. But, if admittedly the church has progressed through doctrinal development, why appeal to that which is ancient? Why appeal to the old when the new is supposedly better? Whereas Newman's book has been touted by Catholics as the tour de force against fundamentalism, as early as 1888, Anglican Professor George Salmon authored a devastating reply of 500 pages in his Infallibility Of The Church. One will read with profit this brilliant and unanswerable volume.

Catholic Compromise

No one person, or even group of persons, of any religious body should be held responsible for the ecumenical compromises fostered by their own liberal­minded brethren. It is a different matter altogether, however, when the one initiating and leading the compromise is universally recognized by that religious body as the infallible head of the church, the vicar of Christ on earth. Whereas my opponents were obligated to affirm that in the Roman Catholic Church "and in it alone is salvation from sin received," the very one they acknowledge as "Holy Father," Pope John Paul II, continues the same ecumenical agenda initiated at Vatican Council II (1962­1965).

The Second Vatican Council has provided a remarkable clarification of this issue. It teaches unambiguously that grace and salvation operate beyond the visible limits of the [Catholic] Church (The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 786).

As is always the case, when the floodgates of liberalism are flung open to accommodate the ecumenical spirit of compromise there is no stopping place. And so it is with Catholicism. Catholic authorities now take the position that a person "may achieve eternal salvation" in the absence of any knowledge of Christ and total ignorance of the gospel. From their best­seller, Catechism of the Catholic Church, one reads:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation (p. 224).

Catholics attempt to explain how one may receive forgiveness of sins and thus possess eternal salvation in ignorance of the Savior by what they call a "baptism of desire." This is based on the naive supposition that one would have obeyed the Lord had he not remained in ignorance of the gospel.

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (ibid., p. 321).

One need not suppose that Catholic authorities are merely saying that one may be saved in innocent ignorance of the gospel, as if this were not unscriptural enough. No. Their ecumenical spirit moves them further to declare that one may attain and maintain a right relationship with God while consciously denying Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the world. In their revolutionary document, Nostra Aetate, Vatican II bishops affirm their convictions pertaining to "the ongoing validity of God's covenant with the Jews." This is all gleefully reported in a recent issue of a popular Israeli magazine under the title, "The Church Repents: Christianity Makes Its Peace with the Jews." Jewish writer, Vince Beiser, further states:

If God's covenant with the Jews remains valid- as the pope himself has repeatedly reaffirmed- then the inevitable conclusion is that they can achieve salvation even without accepting Jesus as the messiah. And, despite widespread Jewish assumptions to the contrary, that is precisely what post­Vatican II Catholic theology teaches (The Jerusalem Report, 1/11/96, p 35)

I have not the slightest notion as to just how Pope John Paul eludes the unequivocal statements uttered by the Lord concerning himself, "for except ye believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8 :24). And again, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6). How is it that the Jew in the first century was lost when he rejected Christ but the Jew in the twentieth century may "achieve salvation even without accepting Jesus as the messiah?" The fact is God's inspired Word teaches that the gospel of Christ is "the power of God unto salvation; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1 :16); and that those who "know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power" (2 Thess. 1:8-9). Whereas many old­line Catholics continue to maintain that in the Roman Catholic Church "and in it alone is salvation from sin received," Pope John Paul, as their alleged infallible head, renounces this claim.

(Video or audio tapes of this debate with Catholic Response may be purchased from Tullstar Tape Ministry, 504 Cosgrove, San Antonio, TX 78210; phone (210) 533-1855).