In my First affirmative I showed that the promise of the Holy Spirit was made to the apostles
alone. They were the ones to whom Jesus was speaking, and the ones who had been with Him
from the beginning (John 14:25-26; 15:26-27). The Holy Spirit would be in them and would
enable them to teach all the truth concerning the will of God (John 16:12-14; Matt. 10:20). The
apostles were to wait in Jerusalem to receive the Holy Spirit as was promised (Luke 24:49; Acts
1:4-5). On the day of Pentecost they received the Holy Spirit and began to deliver the New
Testament of Jesus Christ. Later, by the laying on of the apostles hands, New Testament
prophets were made (Acts 8:17-19; 19:6). They, too, could work miracles and speak by the
inspiration of God (Acts 6:5-8; 8:5-6).
The possession of the Holy Spirit is the factor which determined the authority of the apostles and
prophets. They had the authority to deliver God's law because God was speaking through them.
Paul said, "...According to revelation the mystery has been made known to me, as I have written
above in few words; as you reading may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ,
which in other generations was not known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy
apostles and prophets in the Spirit." (Eph. 3:3-5).
In that early age, the revelation of the gospel was given orally--by the word of mouth of the
inspired apostles and prophets. Later, there was a time when the word of God was given both
orally and written. Peter said, "This, beloved, is now the second epistle that I am writing to you
wherein I stir up your pure mind to remembrance, that you may be mindful of what I formerly
preached of the words of the holy prophets and of your apostles, which are the precepts of the
Lord and Savior." (2 Pet. 3:1-2). Thus, both the verbal teaching and the writings of the inspired
men had equal authority because both were the product of the Holy Spirit.
When the apostles and prophets passed from the earth, their inspired writings became the only
means for receiving God's word. The apostle Paul said, "...The things I am writing to you are the
Lord's commandments." (1 Cor. 14:37). There is no passage anywhere in the Scriptures which
states that unwritten traditions, teachings of the Pope, or legislations of the church are the laws of
the Lord. John the apostle said, "...These are written that you may believe..." (John 20:31),
"...These things write we unto you, that our joy may be full" (1 John 1:4), "...These things I write
to you in order that you may not sin" (1 John 2:1), "These things I am writing to you that you
may know that you have eternal life..." (1 John 5:13). Again, not one time did John, or any
inspired writer, declare that the ex-cathedra pronouncements of the Pope, legislations of the
church, etc., are given that you may believe, might not sin, or may know that you have eternal life.
Thus, the Scriptures claim for themselves that they alone are the standard of authority in religion.
Now, let's examine the comments of my opponent which were made in his First Affirmative last
month. He said in paragraph one, "Not once did Christ command the apostles to write anything,
thus disproving the 'bible only' theory." This is a common Catholic argument against the
Scriptures. One simple verse completely destroys their contention. Christ commanded John,
"Write therefore the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are to
come hereafter." (Rev. 1:19). Furthermore, the prophets of the Old Testament era were not
commanded to write, yet by the inspiration of God they left their writings, and after their deaths,
those writings were the sole authority for the people under that law. If the argument that "the
apostles were not commanded to write" proves anything, it proves that we should not have the
Bible at all. If the New Testament was never intended to have been written, there shouldn't be
one, and definitely, Catholics shouldn't be quoting from it as an authority.
In his second paragraph, he states that leaders of Christ's Church have authority and then he quotes Matt. 18:17 to prove it. We ask our readers to carefully examine Matt. 18:15-17.
One can easily see that the passage deals with correcting personal differences. If the sinner would
still not repent, after personal efforts and after taking witnesses, the matter should be brought
before the local congregation. Other passages in the New Testament teach that local churches
were to discipline sinful members (1 Cor. 5:1-13; 2 Thess. 3:6) There is absolutely nothing in
Matt. 18:15-17 which gives the church legislative authority over the commandments of the Lord.
In paragraph 3, as is often done by Catholics, he uses 2 Thess. 2:15 in order to justify unwritten
traditions along with the Scriptures. The Greek word "tradition" simply means "a handing down"
(Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). In 2 Thess. 2:15 Paul instructs the
Thessalonians to hold fast the things which the inspired writers were handing down to them. It is
abundantly clear that he is not instructing them to hold just any traditions, but "the traditions
which you have been taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." As we have shown,
there was a time when all of the word of God was given orally--by word of mouth of the inspired
apostles and prophets. Then followed a time when people were guided either by having inspired
men in their presence or by epistles written by inspired men. With the passing of the inspired men,
the inspired writings became the only means by which we receive God's word.
We strongly affirm that the unwritten traditions of the Catholic Church are nothing more than
human traditions. As we have already shown, the Bible condemns many of the teachings and
practices of the Catholic Church. To cite only a few: (1) It condemns clerical dress (Matt.
23:4-6); (2) It teaches against the adoration of Mary (Luke 11:27-28); (3) It shows that all
Christians are priests (1 Pet. 2:5,9); (4) It condemns the observance of special days (Gal. 4:9-11);
(5) It teaches that all Christians are saints (1 Cor. 1:2); (6) It teaches that baptism is immersion
instead of pouring (Rom. 6:3-4; Col. 2:12); (7) It forbids us to address religious leaders as
"father" (Matt. 23:9); (8) It opposes unmarried bishops (1 Tim. 3:1-7); (9) It addresses only God
Himself as the "Holy Father" (John 17:11); (10) It shows that the great apostasy would forbid
marriage (1 Tim. 4:1-3); (11) It reveals that the great apostasy would have one who claimed to
take the place of God (2 Thess. 2:3-12).
Jesus Christ repeatedly condemned human traditions. He said, "...In vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrine the precepts of men" (Matt. 15:9) and "Well do you nullify the
commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition!" (Mark 7:9) The apostle Paul
repeatedly warned against human traditions: "See to it that no one deceives you by philosophy
and vain deceit, according to human traditions, according to the elements of the world and not
according to Christ." (Col. 2:8). (See also Titus 1:13-14; 2 John 9-11; 2 Cor. 11:13-15; Eph.
4:14). Remember, too, that the Scriptures thoroughly furnish us to every good work (2 Tim.
3:16-17), and all teachers are to be tested by them (1 Cor. 4:6; Acts 17:11). Thus, any practice
not found in the Scriptures, is of human origin and is therefore false.
In paragraph four, he states, "The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain
everything that Jesus did or taught." He then quotes John 21:25. John is simply saying in John
21:25 that his writings do not contain everything Jesus did. He was emphasizing that his gospel
was only a brief account of what Jesus did. To write every detail of every breath, thought, and
move of the life of Jesus would take a multitude of books. John, through the power of the Holy
Spirit, wrote only those things which are essential. In a parallel verse, John himself said, "Many
other signs also Jesus worked in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But
these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing
you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31).
The assertion that the Bible does not contain all truth reveals the true attitude of the Catholic
Church toward the Bible. The Catholic Church does not have love and respect for the Bible;
otherwise, why raise such false claims? The Catholic Church is not building men's faith in the
Bible as the only standard, but is destroying it. It wants to place on equality with the Bible its
own man-made authorities; namely, Catholic human traditions, a human church, and the Pope.
However, those of us who truly love the Lord will follow only the Bible. It contains the
revelation of the mind of God (Eph. 3:1-5; 1 Cor. 2:6-13), is a perfect and complete guide to
eternal life (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 John 5:13), and is the only standard by which we will be judged in
the last day (Rev. 20:12; Rom. 2:16).
My opponent said in paragraph 5, "Scripture teaches that the Apostles appointed successors to
carry out their work." He then quotes Acts 13:2-3 and Titus 1:5. Again, I plead with our readers
to examine those verses and see if they reveal what he is claiming. How could they teach that the
apostles appointed successors when successors are not mentioned? Acts 13:2-3 simply shows
that Paul and Barnabas were separated by the Holy Spirit from the brethren in Antioch for their
first missionary work. In Titus 1:5, Paul instructs Titus to ordain elders in the churches on the
island of Crete. He then gives instructions on what type of men are to be selected (Titus 1:6-11).
Again, the verse says absolutely nothing about successors to the apostles.
No one is a successor to the apostles and has their authority today because no one is inspired by
the Holy Spirit today. The possession of the Spirit is the factor which determined the apostles'
authority. If the Catholics are to sustain their idea of successors, they must produce the passages
which plainly and openly reveal it. The Catholics cannot produce the passages for their doctrine
of successors because none exist. The Catholic bishops and priests were not promised the power
from on high nor commanded to wait in Jerusalem to receive it (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,8). They
have no authority because they are not inspired of the Holy Spirit nor are they eyewitnesses of
Jesus (John 20:22-23; Acts 1:8, 21-26). They cannot prove their authority by speaking in
tongues, prophesying and working miracles (2 Cor. 12:12). They are not the chosen ambassadors
who were selected to deliver God's message or "the faith" to mankind (Eph. 3:3-5; Jude 3).
Moreover, they cannot be successors to the apostles and prophets because the only infallible
succession from them are the inspired writings (2 Pet. 1:15; 3:1; 2 Tim. 2:14-17). Doesn't it seem
very strange and odd that the successor of a king is a king, the successor of a president is a
president, and the successor of a governor is a governor, but the successor of an apostle is a
Catholic bishop or priest?
My opponent in paragraph 6 claims, "...The Council of Constantinople, through the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, decided upon the cannon of the Bible..." This is another common Catholic
argument - that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible. Please notice that he assumes that the
Council of Constantinople was inspired. To assume something, and then assert it, is no way to
prove anything. I would like for him to prove to us that the Council of Constantinople was
inspired of God.
I affirm that the acceptance of the Bible is not based of the Catholic Church for the following
reasons: (1) The Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so but
because God made it so. (2) Jesus did not teach the people in His day that they could accept the
Old Testament Scriptures only on the basis of those who placed the books into one volume. (3) It
is a mere assumption that the Council of Constantinople was a Council of the church which is
now the Roman Catholic Church. (4) God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred
books, nor does He expect men to receive His books only on the basis of councils. (5) The
Catholic Church is not solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament
books. (6) The Catholic Church has not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time. (7)
Even if it could be proven that the Catholic Church gathered the books into one volume, it still
remains that it is not following the Bible today.
My opponent said in paragraph 8, "The consequences of the teaching of the false dogma of Sola
Scritprua have been embarrassingly clear: there are currently over 5,700 Protestant sects today,
each one claiming to have the bible alone as their guide to the truth, yet each one disagreeing on a
particular Biblical doctrine." It is a mere assumption that all the Protestant churches claim to
follow the Bible alone. I wish it were true, but it's not. Many of them, like Catholicism, have
their own creeds, traditions, revelations, conventions, headquarters, etc., along with the Bible. In
spite of this, Catholic officials would like all to believe that the Catholic Church has unity,
whereas those who hold to the Bible alone, have utter division. However, the truth of the matter
is that the Catholic Church is the mother of division. Every major division that is in Christianity
originated with and came out of the Catholic Church. Approximately 1050 A.D., the Catholic
Church split and there was the great schism between the West and the East. A few hundred years
later, there was a split and the Anglican Church was started. It claimed to honor many of the very
same bishops and trace its lineage back to the apostles over much the same route. A division
occurred in Catholicism when the Lutheran Church broke away; it was another branch or division
within Catholicism. The bulk of Protestant denominations today are branches and sects of groups
which originally broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. Even today those who have
knowledge of the current trends know that the Catholic Church is not united.
The disrespect that the Catholic Church has toward the Bible is the prime cause of division in the
Religious world. Even in this Rebuttal we are answering common charges made by the Catholic
Church against the Bible as the only authority. Such charges lead men away from the Bible and
cause them to distrust it as the only rule of faith. It does this even in so-called Protestantism
because many of the same charges are repeated by Protestants. Very few Protestants today truly
respect the Bible as God's sole authority in religion. In fact, most of their doctrines originated in
the Catholic Church rather than in the Bible, i.e., infant baptism, instrumental music in worship,
observance of Christmas and Easter. The only authority they have for these and many others is
the Catholic Church. Holding to the Bible alone does not cause division, but to the contrary, is
the only true means of unity. The solution for overcoming division among us is to reject all the
unscriptural practices which have been introduced by men and go back to the Bible. We must
completely denounce all the decrees, doctrines, and traditions of men and fully return to the
written word of Christ, the New Testament. This is the only way to please God and to be united
in His name.
In paragraph 9, it was stated, "Contrary to Protestant thought, Scripture implicitly states that it is
not open to private interpretation. '...Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is open to
private interpretation.' (2 Peter 1:20)." What kind of rule is it that says we can make a private
interpretation of a verse which says we can't make a private interpretation! Catholics are always
inconsistent on this point. They quote Scripture to support their doctrine expecting us to
understand and to make a private interpretation. However, when we quote a passage which
refutes their doctrine, they tell us that it is wrong to make private interpretations!
Catholics usually only quote 2 Pet. 1:20, but not the next verse, 2 Pet. 1:21. However, when
viewing the two verses together, it is easy to see that Peter is not saying one cannot have a private
interpretation of Scripture, but is teaching that no prophecy of Scripture ever came by private
interpretation. He said, "This, then, you must understand first of all, that no prophecy of
Scripture is made by private interpretation. For not by will of man was prophecy brought at any
time; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:20-21).
Thus, Peter is saying that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation (i.e.,
not a matter of the prophet's own interpretation) because no prophecy ever came by the impulse
of man, but it came as the prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit. The passage affirms the
inspiration of the Scriptures. They did not originate from the private interpretation or will of men,
but from holy men of God who were moved by the Holy Spirit. Peter certainly wasn't teaching
that one cannot make a private interpretation of Scripture.
The inspired writers taught that people could privately interpret or understand the Scriptures and
they encouraged them to do so. The word "interpret" means "1: to explain or tell the meaning of:
present in understandable terms 2: to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or
circumstance." (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary). Paul said, "...According to revelation the
mystery has been made known to me, as I have written above in few words; as you reading may
understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." (Eph. 3:3-4). "For we write you nothing but
what you can read and understand..." (2 Cor. 1:13). "Therefore do not be foolish, but
understand what the will of the Lord is." (Eph. 5:17). The Eternal God, who made our minds,
through His holy Scriptures addresses us as intelligent beings and He requires and expects us to
interpret and understand.
In as much as each respondent is limited to no more than five pages, I will continue my Rebuttal in my next essay. All Scriptural quotes in the above essay are from the Catholic Translations - Confraternity-Douay Version, Douay-Rheims Version, and Catholic Edition-Revised Standard Version.