The Narrow Path Ministries

Does anyone know where I can get a hold of Steve's 5 day debate with the Catholic answer guy?

Right here: http://www.theos.org/media/category/89/

Tim Staples is pretty good for a Catholic apologist, but I thought you easily won this debate Steve (as unbiased as I can say this). Come to think of it, I've never listened to one of your debates I didn't think you won! Catholic apologetics in general seem very weak to me, since the foundation of almost all of the arguments are built on the assumption that the Catholic church is the true church.

People on my side of the debate often conclude that I have won.

Steve easily won, but the format was in my opinion counter-productive. It would have been more fruitful to have a conversation where both sides could just talk and interact, interjecting questions as appropriate. The rigidly timed format allowed one side to throw out lists of unexegeted verses, as I recall, which led to a much less helpful conversation. It would have been great and much more productive if Steve could have said, "Okay, wait, let's just take these one at a time."

CThomas

I listened to this series and unfortunately there was no clear winner.

Did either convince the other of the error in their position? No. They both walked away with the same understanding of the Bible on either side, sadly.

It was 5 days of "I interpret the Bible this way, and you interpret it differently". Tim sides with the way The Church interprets the Bible, and Steve sides with the way that he himself interprets the Bible. I say Tim is right because I am also Roman Catholic and side with the Church. Steve says the Church's interpretation is more unbelievable than his own and that the Bible is much more straightforward than that. If that were true, then how can it be explained that so many different men through history have interpreted it so differently, if they were all earnestly seeing the Truth? Why are there so many denominations with different theologies if all that is required is to ignore the Catholic Church and read the Bible for yourself? In Steve's model there should be only two "churches", the Roman Catholics, and everyone else. That's not now it is.

The answer is this - when you interpret the Bible on your own without guidance you are likely, through no fault of your own, to get parts of it wrong, and create your own theology. This is what happened with the Protestant Church and all her denominations, which were started by individuals with incorrect interpretations, and this is unfortunately what happens when Steve reads and interprets the Bible independently. Tim tired to drive this point home but Steve never saw it Tim's way.

Please don't claim Steve is the "winner" of this debate if all he has done is convinced you that HIS interpretation is more correct. That does not make him correct or the winner, just a more convincing talker. He has no way to really say that his interpretation of scripture is authoritatively correct.

Jon

Hi Jon,

Thanks for sharing these thoughts.

I listened to this series and unfortunately there was no clear winner.

You are the first Catholic that I have heard from who expressed this opinion. All the other Catholics who have written to me about that debate have suggested that Tim was the clear winner. However, every one of them (except you) thanked me for conducting a charitable and respectful conversation. That is what I was aiming at—not a decisive "win."

Did either convince the other of the error in their position? No. They both walked away with the same understanding of the Bible on either side, sadly.

Rome (like the Roman Catholic Church) was not built in a day. Have patience!

It was 5 days of "I interpret the Bible this way, and you interpret it differently". Tim sides with the way The Church interprets the Bible, and Steve sides with the way that he himself interprets the Bible. I say Tim is right because I am also Roman Catholic and side with the Church.

Not quite. I don't "side with" my interpretation of the Bible. Whatever is merely my interpretation carries no innate authority, and should command no one's loyalty—including my own. I side with Jesus. My "interpretation" is just my best attempt to discern His mind from what He said. It is not necessarily my "final answer." I may see more clearly in the future. So might all Christians hope to do, so long as they have not decided in advance to think nothing new without permission from some human authorities.

Steve says the Church's interpretation is more unbelievable than his own and that the Bible is much more straightforward than that.

Just out of curiosity, can you direct me to a passage in the Bible that addresses some important duty, which you find to be unclear, even after consulting the whole range of passages on the same subject? Where do you find the scriptures speaking other than "straightforwardly"?

If that were true, then how can it be explained that so many different men through history have interpreted it so differently, if they were all earnestly seeing the Truth?

Is this a rhetorical question, or are you interested in honest answers? It takes no expert student of human nature to know that most people use religion for some self-serving purpose. To this end, they are motivated either to toe the line with a system that affords them status, fellowship, an income, comfort, or fire insurance, or to go out and blaze a religious trail by starting a cult and profiting from that. These motivations are not conducive to seeing the scriptures objectively.

I do not claim to see scriptures entirely objectively, but that is my goal, and I am more likely to get closer to that ideal by aiming there than by giving up the quest and surrendering to the tyranny of other people's opinions.

Also, when people today begin to read the Bible for themselves, it takes time—maybe a lifetime—to become disabused of traditional lenses, standardized explanations and foregone conclusions. This would not be so difficult if we had not been handed the whole package wrapped in layer after layer of accumulated human traditions. The Bible actually was not written to bishops, but to Christian tradesmen, slaves, peasants, merchants, etc. They were expected to understand it. If we can put ourselves, as much as possible, in their position and hear the scriptures as they naturally would have heard them, we will be hearing them aright. This is a difficult mental task, but it is our assignment, and one not lacking in enjoyable moments.

One thing I have had occasion to observe, simply as a consequence of my travels and my association with Christians of every stripe, is that, when a Christian determines to study the scriptures humbly on his own, not giving deference to the pet theories of any teacher (including me), he usually ends up, with respect to points of importance, not very far from the place I have come to, via the same policy. Perhaps the Holy Spirit does indeed lead those who wish to be led.

Why are there so many denominations with different theologies if all that is required is to ignore the Catholic Church and read the Bible for yourself? In Steve's model there should be only two "churches", the Roman Catholics, and everyone else.

The reason there are denominations is not that people are reading and thinking about the Bible for themselves, but because there is carnality and immaturity (see 1 Cor.3:1-4). Love covers a multitude of wrong opinions.

According to my model, there should not be two churches, but one. Everyone who loves and follows Jesus belongs to the one church. Luther should never have been excommunicated. If church leaders weren't jealous over their personal authority, he could have stayed in fellowship with any other Christians who wished to discuss the truths of scripture. If everyone would have come to the table humbly, and with mutual love, there would still be only one church in the west—who can say how far we might, by now, have progressed in our understanding?

The answer is this - when you interpret the Bible on your own without guidance you are likely, through no fault of your own, to get parts of it wrong, and create your own theology.

History has tragically shown that this result usually comes about, no less, from committees interpreting the scripture. Most denominations, no matter how far from the truth, are not comprised of one man thinking for himself, but of many people thinking alike. Men remain fallible, no matter how many of them you bring to the table. In fact, the more fallible men you bring into the room, the greater the number of fallacies can potentially arise. At least, by my method, I end up with no more fallacies than my own. What would I profit myself or others by adding to these the fallacies of a bunch of other men?

This is what happened with the Protestant Church and all her denominations, which were started by individuals with incorrect interpretations, and this is unfortunately what happens when Steve reads and interprets the Bible independently.

This is indeed true of denominations, including yours. However, this is not "what happens when the Bible independently." My practice does not result in a new denomination. My understanding of scripture condemns the forming of denominations.

Please don't claim Steve is the "winner" of this debate if all he has done is convinced you that HIS interpretation is more correct. That does not make him correct or the winner, just a more convincing talker. He has no way to really say that his interpretation of scripture is authoritatively correct.

As I said, I do not make such a claim. However, I do claim that the scriptures are correct. If you agree with this, then we can set about to understand what it is that they say.

Jon -- what a strange message. Apart from Steve's detailed response, I have a much simpler, big-picture point. Tim Staples rests on his personal, subjective understanding just as much as Steve Gregg does, or I do, or anyone else does. Tim can't rely on the teaching magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church without first persuading himself through his own fallible and subjective reasoning that Rome's authority claims are valid. So even if it were true (and it is not) that the Catholic Church had the interpretive authority she claims to possess, it would in no way mean that Rome's followers are less dependent on their own fallible and subjective views than anyone else. That's because in order to be a Catholic, you have to be persuaded of the threshold issue of veracity of Rome's authority claims. Obviously, in accepting Rome's claims to be the only legitimate interpreter of scripture, you cannot, on pain of circularity, rely on Rome's own claims to that effect, so there need to be predicate arguments based on scripture or some other sources (putative tradition or whatever) leading a fallible individual to conclude based upon his own private judgment that Rome's claims are correct. So this dichotomy you set up between Steve (who is following his private judgment) and Tim (who you think is not) is simply erroneous. It's a very simple error, but I really believe that it is a common one among Catholics in my experience.

CThomas

Greetings in Christ,
This is, ultimately, a question about authority (i.e., who has the authority to teach the truths about God) and faith (i.e., whom one believes has this authority).

Now, there is no authority except that which comes from God (Romans 13:1). Now, according to the Catholic understanding of faith (at least as I understand it), a believer in Christ is moved, by grace, to make an act of faith in Jesus Christ, as God’s Son, and, as such, He has the authority to speak for God (for He, in fact, IS God). By grace, one is also moved to believe and recognize that Jesus gave authority to His Church to pass on His teachings (as is recorded in the writings of Scripture); so, Christ’s Church has the authority from Christ to teach what God has revealed about Himself. By grace, one is also moved to believe and recognize that Christ established a teaching authority in His Church, to teach His truth in His Name (as is recorded in the writings of Scripture); so, the teaching authority in Christ’s Church has the authority to teach what God has revealed about Himself. By grace, one is moved to believe and recognize that this teaching authority was, originally, in the persons of the Apostles, and especially in the person of Peter, the head of the Apostles (as is recorded in the writings of Scripture); so, the Apostles, especially Peter , had the authority to teach what God has revealed about Himself. By grace, one is moved to believe and recognize that this teaching authority, first given to Peter and the Apostles, by necessity was also given to the successors of Peter and the Apostles; therefore, the successors of Peter and the Apostles also have the authority to teach what God has revealed about Himself. Now, the successor of Peter and the Apostles are the Pope (the bishop of Rome) and other validly ordained bishops. Therefore, the Pope, and all bishops in union with the Pope, also have received, from Christ, the authority to teach what God has revealed about Himself.

This is, I believe, the basics of a Catholic understanding of Faith. A Catholic makes an act of faith in God and in Christ (to believe that He is the Messiah, the Incarnate Son of God, and God Himself); and, because of that faith in Christ, to also believe the teachings of Christ’s Church (as these teachings are given by the teaching authority of this Church). This means, among other things, believing the teachings of Christ’s Church with regard to the authentic meaning and interpretation of the Scriptures (as well as believing the more fundamental teaching on what exactly are the Scriptures, i.e., the Canon of Scripture, which cannot certainly be known without a teaching authority in the Church to declare what actually belongs in this Canon).

Obviously, this act of faith that a Catholic makes is a personal, individual act (but, it is also an act which is done under the influence of God’s grace). So, Catholics do not condemn any and all personal acts of faith (that would be absurd). But, what Catholics do condemn is this notion that any Christian can assume for himself the authority to make a personal interpretation of the Scriptures which is contrary to the interpretation given by the teaching authority of Christ’s Church. For, since that teaching authority in Christ’s Church has the authority, from Christ, to declare what God has revealed about Himself, and since God has revealed Himself through the Scriptures, it ultimately belongs to the teaching authority in this Church to declare the true and authentic meaning of these Scriptures (and, again, it also belongs to this teaching authority to declare what these Scriptures are, i.e., which Books actually are inspired by God and, as such, belong in the Bible). But, when one makes a personal interpretation of these Scriptures which is contrary to that given by the teaching authority in Christ’s Church, one arrogates to himself this authority. And, in so doing, in a sense, one makes himself his own teaching authority, rather than acknowledging, and (humbly) relying upon, the true teaching authority that Christ established in His own Church (And, thus, it seems to me that it is not the case that Protestants do not believe in a Pope; rather, it seems to me to be the case that Protestants believe that each person is his own Pope!). So, this notion of private interpretation (of the Scriptures) is that which is condemned by Catholics, for it is not right, as it fails to acknowledge the true authority, given by God through Christ, that exists in Christ’s Church.

In Christ,
BrotherAlan

“Jesus Christ is Lord!” (Phil. 2:11)

BrotherAlan,

You wrote:

By grace, one is moved to believe and recognize that this teaching authority was, originally, in the persons of the Apostles, and especially in the person of Peter, the head of the Apostles (as is recorded in the writings of Scripture); so, the Apostles, especially Peter , had the authority to teach what God has revealed about Himself. By grace, one is moved to believe and recognize that this teaching authority, first given to Peter and the Apostles, by necessity was also given to the successors of Peter and the Apostles; therefore, the successors of Peter and the Apostles also have the authority to teach what God has revealed about Himself. Now, the successor of Peter and the Apostles are the Pope (the bishop of Rome) and other validly ordained bishops. Therefore, the Pope, and all bishops in union with the Pope, also have received, from Christ, the authority to teach what God has revealed about Himself.

Was the Apostle Paul ignorant of the pretensions of Rome and the pope? Where is Peter in the scheme of things in Paul's mind? Did not Paul rebuke Peter? When Paul mentioned the foundation of the Church, if Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built, why does Paul not even mention Peter in his illustration:

Ephesians 2:19-21
New King James Version (NKJV)

19. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20. having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21. in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,

We have a chief cornerstone. And other foundation stones, none of them mentioned as more imporant than the others. Paul even mentioned the prophets, but no mention of Peter.

Where do we find any mention of Peter as Pope in the first 200 years or so of church history? Surely one of the early church fathers would have made mention of this if it were so. What positive statement is there in their writings that Peter was ever bishop of Rome (or ever in Rome, for that matter)? Please show us evidence from this early period.

The Church has one head: Christ.