"What's Your Authority?"

This is nothing fancy, just a little script you might learn from. In Catholic Answers’ seminars we try to emphasize the point that you should always demand that a missionary who comes to your door first establish his authority for what he is going to tell you, and only then proceed to discuss the particular issues he has in mind.

By "authority," we don’t mean his personal or academic credentials. We mean his authority to claim he can rightly interpret the Bible. The missionary (unless he is a Mormon, of course, in which case his authority is the Book of Mormon) will always claim to fall back on the authority of Scripture. "Scripture says this" or "Scripture proves that," he will tell you.

So before you turn to the verses he brings up, and thus to the topic he brings up, demand that he demonstrate a few things.

First, ask him to prove from the Bible that the Bible is the only rule of faith (if he’s an Evangelical or Fundamentalist Protestant he holds to the Reformation theory of sola scriptura—the Bible alone).

Second, have him tell you how he knows which books belong in the Bible in the first place.

And third, require that he prove to you both that he has the authority to interpret the Bible for you (remember that his doctrines will almost always be drawn from interpretations of the sacred text rather than the words themselves) and that his interpretations will always be accurate.

Imagine the conversation goes something like this:

"Good afternoon, neighbor. May I share a few words of Christian truth with you?"

"Sure," you say. "Where do you get this truth?"

"From the Bible, of course."

"That’s your authority? The Bible?"

"Yes, it’s the only authority for Christians."

"Can you prove that from the Bible?"

"What do you mean?"

"I mean I don’t believe the Bible claims to be the sole rule of faith. I mean the doctrine of sola scriptura is itself unbiblical. Please show me where the Bible claims such a status for itself."



A Sufficient Rule of Faith?

At this point the missionary probably will bring up one of several verses. The passage most commonly brought up by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists is 2 Timothy 3:16–17. In the King James Version, the verse reads this way: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteous- ness; That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Many claim that 2 Timothy 3:16–17 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context shows that it doesn’t claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is "profitable" (Greek: ophelimos) that is, helpful. Many things can be profitable for moving one toward a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is "sufficient"—which is, of course, exactly what Protestants think the passage means.

Point out that the context of 2 Timothy 3:16–17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. Paul says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Greek: theopneustos = "God-breathed"), and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:14–17). In verse 14, Timothy is initially exhorted to hold to the oral teachings—the traditions—that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul’s reminder of the value of oral tradition in 1:13–14, "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you haveheard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (RSV), and ". . . what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2:2). Here Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry.

The few other verses that might be brought up to "prove" the sufficiency of Scripture can be handled the same way. Not one uses the word "sufficient"—each one implies profitability or usefulness, and many are given at the same time as an exhortation to hold fast to the oral teaching of our Lord and the apostles. The thing to keep in mind is that nowhere does the Bible say, "Scripture alone is sufficient," and nowhere does the Bible imply it.



Understanding the Bible’s Role

After you have demonstrated that the verses the missionary brings up simply don’t prove this point, continue the discussion this way:

"If you recognize Scripture for what it is, you’ll see it wasn’t intended to be an instructional tool for converts. In fact, not one book of the Bible was written for non-believers. The Old Testament books were written for Jews, the New Testament books for people who already were Christians.

"The Bible is not a catechism or a full-scale theological treatise. Just look at the 27 books of the New Testament. You won’t find one that spells out the elements of the faith the way catechisms do or even the way the ancient creeds did. Those 27 books were written for the most part (excepting, for example, the Gospels and the general epistles such as James and, 1 and 2 Peter) as provisional documents addressed to particular audiences for particular purposes.

"Most of the epistles," you continue, "were written to local churches that were experiencing moral and/or doctrinal problems. Paul and most of the other New Testament writers sent letters to these local churches (e.g., 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians) in order to rectify these problems. There was no attempt on the part of the writers to impart a vast body of basic doctrinal instruction to non-believers nor even to simply summarize everything for the believers who received the letters."

"I don’t agree with any of that," replies the missionary. "The New Testament is the basis of the Christian faith."

"But how can it be," you respond, "since the Christian faith existed and flourished for years before the first book of the New Testament was written? The books of the New Testament were composed decades after Christ ascended into heaven, and it took centuries for there to be general agreement among Christians as to which books comprised the New Testament.

"And that brings up another point. How do you know what constitutes the New Testament canon? How do you know for certain that these 27 books here in your New Testament are in fact inspired and should be in the New Testament? And how do you know for certain that maybe some inspired books haven’t been left out of the canon?"



Who Decided?

"Well, the early Christians agreed on the 27 books," answers the missionary. "The Holy Spirit led them to this agreement."

"Sure the Holy Spirit did, but only over a pretty long period of time, and a study of early Christian history shows that there was a considerable disagreement among Christians until the issue of the canon was finally settled. Some early Christians said the book of Revelation didn’t belong in the canon. Others said Pope Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians (written circa A.D. 80) and The Shepherd, an early second-century allegory written by a Christian writer named Hermas did belong in the New Testament. How do you handle that?"

"We know by examining the contents of the books. Some books—like 1 Corinthians and Revelation—obviously belong. Others—like Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians—obviously don’t."

"But is it really so obvious? Tell me, what is so obvious in Philemon to indicate that it is inspired? And what is so obviously unorthodox in The Shepherd or the Didache or Clement’s letter or any of the other first- and second-century Christian writings? You’ve never even seen the autographs (originals) of the 27 books in the New Testament. Nobody today has. The earliest copies of those books we possess are centuries newer than the originals. Like it or not, you have to take the say-so of the Catholic Church that in fact those copies are accurate, as well as her decision that those 27 books are the inspired canonical New Testament Scriptures. You do accept her testimony as trustworthy, or else your Protestant Bible would not have those 27 books. See what I mean?"



Look to the Fathers

If you happen to have the writings of the early Church Fathers, this would be a good time to read from them. The writings are, at least in the case of the apostolic Fathers, rather short, and you can demonstrate that many of these writings seem every bit as orthodox and inspiring (not to confuse the term with "inspired") as the New Testament writings themselves. Then read aloud the book of Philemon or 3 John or some other short canonical book.

"Tell me, what’s in these books that so obviously makes them inspired? If you didn’t know that Philemon was written by Paul or that 3 John was written by John, would you give either a second reading? Would you automatically assume they belong in the Bible as canonical Scripture? It’s not disrespectful to say they don’t have much doctrinal content in them—and that’s not surprising, since they’re too short to contain substantial doctrinal discussions. One can imagine the Christian Church surviving well enough without either.

"Neither book claims inspiration for itself. If there is, as a matter of fact, more solid Christian doctrine in other, non-canonical writings (that is—if they contain more Christian truths and no religious errors) then how can you say it’s obvious which books are inspired and which aren’t?"

Here the missionary will fumble around awhile, perhaps repeating his earlier statements. Then you say:

"Look, the fact is, the only reason you and I have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.

"The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). You, my friend, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others.

"Furthermore, the reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!

"The question you have to ask yourself is this: ‘Where did we get the Bible?’ Until you can give a satisfactory answer, you aren’t in much of a position to rely on the authority of Scripture or to claim that you can be certain that you know how to accurately interpret it.

"After you answer that question—and there’s really only one answer that can be given—you have some other important questions to ask: ‘If the Bible, which we received from the Catholic Church, is our sole rule of faith, who’s to do the interpreting?’ And ‘Why are there so many conflicting understandings among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists even on central doctrines that pertain to salvation?’"



"We Agree on the Essentials"
"Well, that I can answer easily enough," responds the missionary. "Evangelicals and Fundamentalists agree on the essentials, but we disagree on secondary matters."

"Is that so? Where in Scripture do we find some doctrines listed as essential, others as ‘secondary’? The answer is: ‘nowhere’. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists disagree on central issues such as baptismal regeneration and the necessity of baptism (is it merely a sign to other Christians, or does it have a real role in the process of justification?), whether or not one can forfeit salvation (some Protestants say that’s impossible to do, others say it is possible). You all claim to be ‘Bible-only Christians,’ but which group is right?"

pfffttt!! i dun believe in purgatory 

no where in my King James Bible mentions that it exist! 

u guys are just a bunch of idolators who pray to statues & the Bible clearly warns against that!

And no where does the KJV says bible alone....so you are just a book idolater...now run along unless you have something more intelligent to say....

Wrong and I think you are trying to be disingenuous here. It means you only believe in YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING of the Book rather than what the Apostles and Early Church Fathers teaches and believes.

14Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace. 15And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 17You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. 18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity. Amen. -- 2 Peter 3:14-18

It is proven that due to the false interpretations causes the mushrooming of different heresies and  sects after the Protestant revolt which is why the Catholic Church discourages personal dogmatic interpretations of the Bible by each layman as education for the masses was yet to be widespread at that time. And mind you, the proliferation of schools for educating the masses was also due to Catholic institutions such as the Christian Brothers (La Salle), and various other Catholic religious orders. During the Early Middle Ages, the monasteries of the Roman Catholic Church were the centres of education and literacy, preserving the Church's selection from Latin learning and maintaining the art of writing. Prior to their formal establishment, many medieval universities were run for hundreds of years as Christian monastic schools (Scholae monasticae), in which monks taught classes, and later as cathedral schools; evidence of these immediate forerunners of the later university at many places dates back to the early 6th century. The first medieval institutions generally considered to be universities were established in Italy, France, and England in the late 11th and the 12th centuries for the study of arts, law, medicine, and theology.

The severity against heresy by the Church shows how much she believes that heresy kills the soul of the believer and is more dangerous than what a bodily murderer can do to a person's body. "And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. " -- Matt 10:28

So by your logic, one could probably deduce that there are different Holy Spirits involved since each Protestant sect have their own 'truths'. Show me what do you mean by within RCC having many sects. No one can be called Catholic if they do not hold on to the dogmas of the Church.

You say: Protestant may have thousands of denominations but the Gospel is, "We believe in God the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit and the Lord's Great Commission, Mark 16:16-18, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

Unfortunately I can easily find another Protestant who will disagree with you as they might hold to a longer creed, Apostles' Creed or Nicene Creed. Go and handle snakes and drink poison then? Ever heard of the sin of presumption?

Definitely politics. Do you even know what 'denomination' stands for? A classic Lutheran believes in faith alone, a Baptist denies baptism for infants and any other form of baptism besides immersion, an Anglican believes in the 39 Articles and the supremacy of the monarch of England as head of the Church, and the list goes on and on.

The Pope may be appointed by a group of men, but it is God Himself in the flesh who guarantees that the Church will not fail even with the weakness of men. In the past there have even been horrible popes, yet the Church survived such folks. During a discussion with Cardinal Consalvi, the Secretary of State of Pope Pius VII, Napoleon got angry and threatened he would crush the Church. The cardinal sighed and shook his head over the emperor’s naiveté and answered: “If in 1,800 years we clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you'll be able to do it?”

You said there are different teachings within Catholicism, can you give some examples? I will reply based on your examples.

The pope is elected by a group of men, but it is God who ensures that the Church remains regardless of whom they elected as Christ promised in Matt 16:18. Get it?

Even if he is the devil incarnate. It's either what He said is true that the gates of Hell will not overcome the Church, or otherwise....

13 And Jesus came into the quarters of Caesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is?
14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Don't forget that this same Peter is the one who denied Christ thrice. So if God can choose such weak men to be His Apostle, what is so difficult for Him to preserve the Church He founded from the gates of Hell?

I have had my bible study classes before I got baptised. Sad to say, I have been a devout follower.

Well, life is so fragile. Anyone of us can go anytime. We won't even know what will happen to us after death.

A friend told me that if we have the faith, we are to be with God after our time on Earth is over. It's that simple. But for some reasons, I'm having doubts

why so?

You are again confused between individual sins and the official organisation as a whole. You said Peter was not even based in Rome at any phase of his life? What is your source for that? If you can ask 'what if the Catholic Church is a synagogue of Satan', similarly anyone can ask what if your church is a synagogue of Satan? I'll repeat again, allege whatever you want, but at least show some proof.

Ignore that troll, what he means is his Protestant religion taught him to only lay back, say he has faith, and nothing else needed.