St. Paul Blinded by Jesus so he could see!

Comment: My peeps, open your eyes and stop following blindly the misleading teachings of the Catholic Church. Should you pray for wisdom and  from God, you will surely understand what the Bible has directed us to do.

Reply: How do you KNOW that the Catholic Church is not the director of what the Bible says to do? Which of the thousands of Protestant denominations has the true truth? Don’t they all read and use the Bible? If it was as simple as you say wouldn’t all the Protestants believe exactly the same thing? After all Jesus said in Jn 17:11:21 – 23 :

“Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one…..21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

Comment:As far as the Bible states, Jesus gave a template for prayer as contained in the LORD’S PRAYER. Thank you.

Reply: Where in Scripture does it say that the Lord’s Praryer is merely a template for prayer….???

Why NOT Just Rely on Scripture?


JIML: Based on your explanations for Catholic traditions that are not based in Scripture, one may say that everything that is not spoken in Scripture is OK to do.

BFHU:
You have misunderstood. One must listen to Scripture and the Doctrine taught by the Catholic Church. Why do Protestant practice contraception when God killed Onan when he did it?

JIML:I believe it is safer follow what Scripture explicitly says to do, and not to do. Ambiguity is where the devil sneaks in – so if the Bible is silent on stuff, why do something that may be sinful (or may lead someone to sin)? We can only know if we’re living according to God’s will when we can hear God speaking about it in His Word.

BFHU: There is nothing in the Catholic Faith that contradicts the Scripture. Nothing that is taught by the Catholic Church that is a sin. But of course, Catholics sin. But not in obedience to our Faith but by disobedience.

JIML:I’ve been reading throughout this website, and see that many of questions asked are not answered; the answer seems to be: since the Scripture does not prohibit it explicitly (although some practices come very closely to idolatry – and seem that way to many), then it must be OK to practice them.

BFHU:
That is because if I can’t give Protestants chapter and verse in Scripture to answer the questions they do not consider it answered. Until a Protestant can PROVE Sola Scriptura from Scripture I am not under any Scriptural obligation to obey it. I only provide the best scripture I can to answer questions. But even when Scripture CLEARLY SUPPORTS Catholic Theology Protestants still wiggle out of it by INTERPRETING IT DIFFERENTLY. Such as,
Savation is NOT BY FAITH ALONE>

JIML:From a logical point of view, it seems kind of unorthodox – since we know that God’s Word is true, we use it as the plum line for our lives in faith.

BFHU: Catholics do also.

JIML:It seems logical not to practice things that Bible does not speak of.

BFHU: Why? If Sola Scriptura was Scriptural then it would be logical. But since the Christian Faith of 2000 years had believed and practiced what the Catholic Church teaches, then it seems a lot MORE logical to practice the Faith of the Church founded by Jesus and His Apostles than a denomination founded by men.

JIML:Traditon, spoken of in the Bible, speaks of REVELATION OF CHRIST spoken and written about by Apostles. Everything that Christ taught the apostles is considered apostolic tradition.

BFHU: I agree.

JIML: Human tradition – rituals, rules, regulations are generally criticized, even condemned by Jesus Himself (the Pharisees, who by wanting to observe the law perfectly, made up many unnecessary rules, that made them miss God and His intentions).

BFHU: Only the traditions that nullified the word of God and examples are given. But St. Paul exhorts us to cling to the traditions he taught by word (Oral Tradition) or writing (Scripture)

JIML:Finally, I just wonder why you would speak so harshly about Protestants, who read the Bible and see that it does not speak about Mary being taken into heaven, and nowhere it says that she was without sin.

BFHU:
I don’t speak harshly about Protestants. I used to be a zealous Protestant. You can read my conversion story above on a tab. But Scripture does not say Mary Sinned so why are Protestants so sure she did? It doesn’t say in Scripture that Mary died and was buried. So How can Protestants know this is what happened. Protestants forget about Sola Scriptura when it is not helpful to make their case.

JIML:Why is it wrong to take Jesus at His Word, when He says that He Himself intercedes for us before the Father?

BFHU: It is not wrong. We do this. Show me one place where the Catholic Church does not take Jesus at his word.

JIML:Why is it so wrong (based on what you say) to rely solely on Scripture?

BFHU: Because Protestants criticize the Catholic Church for beliefs not found in Scripture and yet Protestants also hold beliefs not found in scripture. And because Protestants have a limited Faith since it rejects the Fullness of the Faith found in the Church founded by Jesus and ALL of His teachings.

JIML:Isn’t Christ and only Christ enough for our salvation? Isn’t only God who can forgive, justify, sanctify and glorify? No protestant will tell you we do not need the Church, but only Christ is the foundation of the Church. No man, but Jesus. Peter – yes the first church member, the church planter ordained by God, but still a mere man. Only Christ will remain after the judgment. All else – all human tradition – Protestant or Catholic will burn in the fire. What is truly of God will remain – and that is the Word of God given to the Church.

BFHU:
I agree but that Word is NOT only what got written down. Jesus is the WORD. and there were other teachings that were passed down orally.

JIML:
Just as you say that some Catholic rituals are OK because they aren’t spoken of in Scripture, why would you say that Protestant belief of ‘sola scriptura’ is against Scripture?

BFHU: We do not say that Sola Scriptura is against Scripture. What I say over and over is that Protestants object to Catholic beliefs by saying, “Where is that in Scripture?” Protestants do this b/c they believe the doctrine of Sola Scriptura conceived of by Martin Luther 500 years ago.( But the Catholic Faith and beliefs have been around for 2000 years as evidenced by reading the Early Church Fathers.

But the problem with the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it cannot be found in Scripture! So Protestants criticize Catholics for beliefs that cannot be found in Scripture and yet the very foundation of why they criticize Catholics, Sola Scriptura, is not in Scripture any more than the assumption or immaculate Conception of Mary!!!

JIML: Is it because Protestants do not follow human traditions, which are ambiguous? Is that why you think they are wrong?

BFHU: But that is the point. Protestants DO FOLLOW CATHOLIC TRADITION! The New Testament Canon is a Catholic TRADITION. The NT table of contents is not contained in scripture.
The Doctrine of the Trinity is Catholic Teaching that is not found explicitly in the NT. That is why Jehovahs Witnesses exist.
The word Trinity and Incarnation are NOT found in Scripture just like Purgatory is not found in Scripture.These are all Catholic Traditions.

JIML: Why is it wrong to stray from traditions and doctrines that do not have strong Biblical foundation?

BFHU: Because Jesus founded a Church 2000 years ago. Christianity evangelized the known world 1500 years until Protestantism was born, claiming to know better than the Church founded by Christ. Protestantism dropped by the wayside things that Christians had always and every where believed. Everything Jesus did and taught did not get written in the books of the NT. They are precious but there also existed along side the NT Oral teachings and explanations of Scripture that Protestantism lost touch with.

JIML:One more thing – how can we ever know if a human is right or wrong? How can we know if someone is telling the truth? I would love to hear your thoughts.

BFHU: Regarding what exactly? In general everyday stuff….beats me. Regarding Christianity….If what a teacher or Christian says aligns with the Cathechism I would accept it. But if it contradicts any teaching of the Church, and I mean CHURCH, not some whacko priest or catholic layman, then I reject it.

Why Do You Use So Much Scripture?


Constantine: First of all, don’t you find it ironic that you rely so heavily on Scripture to make your case while at the same time decrying Sola Scriptura? I don’t find one instance in this article where you cite a pope, a cardinal or even a council and yet you seem to rely solely on Scripture to make your case. BFHU: I use so much Scripture on purpose. I am trying to explain the Catholic Faith to Protestants and Catholics who have questions based on questions or accusations raised by their Protestant friends. Since Protestants will accept nothing except Scripture I try to explain the Catholic Faith using the best Scripture support there is. Quotes from Popes, councils or Cardinals would fall on deaf Protestant ears. The Catholic Faith has very much surprising support in scripture which Protestant do not see because they are taught to interpret them differently, they just don’t ever notice them or they just ignore them. Constantine:Secondly, can you please show us where, in any official, dogmatic Roman Catholic document, the official “infallbile” interpretation for any of the bible verses you cite? No? I didn’t think so. So you are really just doing what you rail against Protestants for doing. That is, you are just using your own “private interpretation” and holding it out as though it were a Magisterial teaching. So you really are no different than a Protestant. BFHU: There is no official infallible commentary on the scriptures. But there is all kinds of writings all the way back to the first centuries in which the scriptures were interpreted and commented upon. These are not at all remotely similar to Protestant interpretations. Plus, if you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church you will find thousands of scripture used in conjunction with doctrine and teachings. I did not just make this up. These interpretations are as old as the Church. Constantine:My dear bfhu, that is not even remotely true. St. Cyprian called a council to purposefully contradict the bishop of Rome; St. Augustine and the bishops of North Africa purposefully contradicted the bishop of Rome; the Inquisitors of the 16th century contradicted the bishop of Rome and the entire Gallican Church refused to allow papal bulls to be circulated until the local bishops approved them – and this up until 1800! So the history of Christianity is that nobody – until this most recent century – thought the bishop of Rome was a final authority. I am happy to provide you with numerous sources if you’d like. BFHU: Rebellion and heresy does not constitute proof that the bishop of Rome is not the final authority. There have always been, are today, and always will be rebels and heretics. Martin Luther was one. Calvin was another. But for the faithful, when voices of men are contradicting each other we are always safe to go with the Bishop of Rome when he teaches on faith and moral to the whole church. This has been the case for 2000 years.

Sola Scriptura is NOT Scriptural


What follows is an excellent comment submitted elsewhere on this site by Demetrios.

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a cornerstone of Protestant doctrine. Sola Scriptura is the teaching that only those things which are explicitly written in Scripture can be believed or practiced by a Christian. There is really only a single test that one needs to apply to determine if Sola Scripture is true. One must ask the following question:

Is Sola Scripture taught in Scripture?

Think about this. If you claim that only those beliefs which are explicitly stated in Scripture are true, then Sola Scriptura must be stated explicitly in Scripture…..somewhere. If not, it can’t possibly be true according to the docrine of Sola Scriptura.

The fact is that there is not a single passage of the Holy Bible which explicitly teaches us that the Bible alone is the only source of all teaching. You simply will not find this in Scripture. Therefore, by definition, Sola Scriptura cannot be true because it doesn’t even support its own basic premise – it isn’t in the Bible!

None of the Apostles taught it. Furthermore, nothing in the writings of the early Fathers – the first generation who were taught at the feet of the original 12 – says anything to support Sola Scriptura.

Many Protestants will offer II Timothy 3:16-17 as a proof text for Sola Scripture.

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Not a word of this passage teaches Sola Scriptura. Notice that Saint Paul says to Saint Timothy that Scripture is “useful”; that is quite an understatement if he believed in Sola Scripture.

Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have no problem with any part of this passage. But we recognize that while everything that this passage says about the Scriptures is true, it never says that the Bible alone is our only source of teaching and practice. No scriptural passage says such a thing. It just isn’t there. And not only that, but the Scriptures St. Paul was talking about would have been the Old Testament.

What does the Holy Bible say is the “ground and pillar of truth” in I Timothy 3:14-15? The Scriptures? No. The individual believer? No. Martin Luther or John Calvin? No. THE CHURCH.

15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I believe that what lies at the heart of Sola Scritura is pride and rebelliousness. It places the individual reader above the apostolic church. It appeals to something inside all of us – the prideful passions. It claims that as individuals, we are more authoritative than the “ground and pillar of truth” at interpreting proper belief.

What is the result of Sola Scripture? 23,000 different Protestant denominations, all claiming to be right yet all in dissension with each other. That is what happens when any “Tom, Dick, or Harry” can interpret Scripture for himself. This state of affairs is sinful because our Lord prayed to the father that his followers be one, as he is one with the Father (John 17:21). Furthermore, there is no confusion with God (I Corinthians 14:33), but confusion is exactly what you get when the Bible is interpreted outside the Church. Again, all you need to do to see this is look up CHURCH in your yellow pages. Anything that leads us to this rebellious state of 23,000 different denominations within Christendom (namely, Sola Scripture) cannot be of God.

As an Orthodox Christian, I believe that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God. It is our highest and most authoritative source of doctrine and practice. Anything that goes against the teachings of Scripture is wrong. In fact, Saint John Chrysostom, a Patriarch of Constantinople, said that an ignorance of Holy Scripture on the part of the common people is the greatest source of evil within the Church. However, I also know that the Bible was given to the Church through the Church and is interpreted within the Church.

Finally, a poster on this site, stated rather bluntly that our Lord condemned adherence to all tradition.

Mark 7:7)BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’8“Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the (J)tradition of men.”9He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your (K)tradition.

However, this is false, and another unfortunate side-effect of Sola Scripture becomes obvious here – twisting Scripture to say what you want it to say. Jesus condemns reliance on traditions of men – not all tradition. For example, Sola Scripture, which was championed by a man (Martin Luther), would be a good example of a tradition of men.

Tradition, developed from the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church has its rightful place, and to argue otherwise is to go against what the Scriptures teach us. For example, consider some of these passages that I never highlighted in my Bible when I was a Protestant:

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
II Thessalonians 2:15

In this passage, we see two sources of teaching and practice – word (oral tradition) and epistle (written tradition). It clearly shows that Apostolic tradition was fully established. Protestants will argue that this teaching only applied before the Bible was fully assembled. However, this is just another tradition of men – not stated anywhere in Scripture. By making that claim, they violate their own core belief – Sola Scriptura. The verse doesn’t say, hold to tradition and epistle until the Canon is fully assembled, and then just hold to written epistle. When they state otherwise, they are adding their own extra-Biblical tradition.

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
II Thessalonians 3:6

2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
I Corinthians 11:2

Not everything our Lord did or taught is in Scripture.

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”
John 21:25

Whose Interpretation is Authoritative????



Reblogged with permission from protestanterrors.com

To those who claim they can interpret and understand the Scriptures themselves:
The Protestant reformers claim that we simply need to refer to Scripture for our salvation. We agree, but when two people disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, who shall be the judge as to the correct interpretation? Disagreements arise in nearly every verse of Scripture of which could easily lead one of the parties to damnation. It is illogical to think that Our Lord would expect us all to interpret Scripture on our own with no judge to turn to since this will always lead to endless disagreements. There can be countless wrong answers to a question, but only one right answer. All of those interpreting Scripture incorrectly will be lead down the wrong road. It is illogical for us to think God left us in anarchy with respect to interpretation of Scripture, at the mercy of the winds and the tide, with no pilot to help steer the way, as this would mean he wishes our destruction. As with a ship at sea, if everyone attempts to steer in the direction they think is right, we will inevitably wind up lost.
Consider the Constitution of the United States if there were no U.S. Government to rule over it and make decisions over conflicts and offenses that arise with it. The result would be anarchy. Where have you ever seen any great province or organization which has governed itself? Consider any governed country, state, or any organized group throughout the history of the world. All were governed by an earthly leader of some sort or else they would wind up in chaos and confusion. If there were not a king in a kingdom, a foreman in a shop, or a captain of a ship, there would be no order. Why then do the Protestant reformers claim that all of their members do not need an earthly ruler to help guide them? What has this gotten them but thousands of opposing denominations (and growing) which is nothing better than anarchy? Never can a province be well governed by itself, especially when it is large.
If it is true that the Scriptures are so easy to understand, what is the use of the commentaries made by countless Protestant ministers, and what good are so many schools of Theology?
Also consider the verse, “As 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” (2 Peter 3:16). How else can we interpret this than to say Scripture is difficult to understand, and to interpret it incorrectly can lead to our destruction?
And to those who say they must read and understand Scripture themselves, consider the large number of poor ignorant people who cannot read the Scriptures. What is to happen of them? Obviously they can find and seek their salvation through the mouth of a pastor. “How shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?” Romans 10:14.
Consider the verse, “And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.” Acts 8:30-31. Obviously interpretation of Scripture is needed!

Scripture Support For Sola Scriptura



MK:It is a lie from the pit of Hell that we can take man’s word (oral tradition) over the word of God.

BFHU: I agree with you that we cannot take man’s word over the word of God. And I can assure you as a former, zealous, sola scriptura Protestant that the Catholic Church does not do this.You mistakenly confuse an INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE that you, or your pastor, or some other explanation of a passage is the same thing as Scripture but it is not. That is why Protestantism, unhinged from the historic roots of Christianity has given birth to thousands of different denominations. Each denomination, split off due to a disagreement of how certain scriptures should be INTERPRETED. They all had the same scriptures and the same desire to follow Christ. But they came up with a lot of differences and confusion.

If Scripture was truly self-interpreting then all would interpret it the same. Then there are some who wonder why there are so many different denominations and interpretations. They end up coming to the conclusion  that anyone who interprets it differently than they and their church does, doesn’t truly have the Holy Spirit guiding them.

But how do they KNOW? How do they KNOW that THEY are not the ones who think they are being guided by the Holy Spirit but are actually NOT being guided by the Holy Spirit? How does any Protestant KNOW the Catholic Church isn’t exactly what she claims to be: The ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC CHURCH: Founded by Jesus Christ Himself upon Peter and the Apostles?

You err when you say:  oral tradition = { elevating man’s words above the word of God. }

All oral tradition cannot be defined this way. You contradict no lesser person than the Apostle Paul when he told the Thessalonians and Corinthians to hold fast to the traditions that he had taught them whether oral or written.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

MK:Scripture even tells us that we should not take the word of angels over the word of God. Anyone–it doesn’t matter who you are or what denomination you come from–who perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ is accursed!

BFHU: I agree.

MK: Just a few scriptures that support what man calls Sola Scriptura are:

Psalms 12:6-7: The words of the LORD are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
7You, O LORD, will keep them;
You will preserve him from this generation forever.

BFHU: Agreed. The word of God is extolled but nothing here says that ONLY the written word of God  is to be adhered to.

MK: Isaiah 28:9-14: 12He who said to them, “Here is rest, give rest to the weary,”
And, “Here is repose,” but they would not listen.
13So the word of the LORD to them will be,
“Order on order, order on order,
Line on line, line on line,
A little here, a little there,”
That they may go and stumble backward, be broken, snared and taken captive.14Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers,
Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem,

BFHU: Amen. But, again,  nothing here says that ONLY the written word of God  is to be adhered to.

MK: Matthew 16:18: 18“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

BFHU: Absolutely. And that Church, the Catholic Church, has not been overpowered.

MK: John 15:1-11: 1“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser….3“You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you….7“If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you….

BFHU: I love the parable of Christ the Vine. But again, nothing here says that ONLY the written word of God  is to abide in us.

MK: 1 Cor 1:10-13-Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you.12Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

BFHU: I totally agree with this.From this passage we see that Jesus did not want a bunch of denominations. He only founded ONE Church. The Catholic Church is the only Church that has been in existence since Jesus founded her.

Not clear why you have used this verse to support sola scriptura because nothing  says anything about the idea that ONLY the written word of God  is to be adhered to.

MK: 1 Cor 3:5-17-

BFHU:That is a great passage but nothing in it says anything about scripture, let alone that ONLY the written word of God  is to be adhered to.

MK: 1 Cor 4:6-6Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

BFHU: Agreed. This is an excellent verse to portray that we must not let anything  nullify or contradict the word of God in Sacred Scripture. We, the Catholic Church believe this. But I think you are reading “not to exceed what is written” in the verse to mean that only what is written is to be adhered to, believed, followed, etc. Therefore, all oral teaching not explicitly contained in the written scripture is to be shunned as heresy…or something along this line.

This is a good example of differences in interpretation.

But Catholics read this scripture to mean that nothing may contradict anything in scripture according to the interpretation that has always and everywhere been believed.

MK: Gal. 1:6-9-I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

BFHU: Absolutely. If you notice St. Paul refers to what they learned from him by his preaching not by what was written. Again there is nothing here about adhering only to what has been written in Scripture.

Here is another example of a different interpretation. You read or interpret this to say that the Bible is the only sure reservoir of what Paul taught. Therefore, only it must be accepted because it is the earliest document of what the apostles taught, orally.

The Sacred Scriptures were not canonized to be Sacred Scripture until about 400 AD. Of course the epistles and books were written very early but so were a lot of other documents written at the same time and before 400 AD. These contain a lot of information about the Christian Faith. Some trustworthy and some not trustworthy. So Christians, for 400 years were exposed to all of these writings and the leaders in the church had to protect them from what was in error.

When Scripture was canonized it was for the purpose of separating the wheat from the chaff. But it also limited inclusion to those writings by people who knew Jesus.  But between the resurrection and the time scripture was canonized there were many excellent writings that were faithful and true.

If however, the Protestant idea was correct, that what was canonized by the Church in 400 AD was the only teachings about Christian Faith that were to be believed and that all else must be rejected, then we would expect to see the Catholic Church do an about face on all the uniquely Catholic doctrines.

If the canonization of scripture was supposed to present to the world all of the information necessary for salvation and growth in holiness and condemn every other teaching not explicitly contained in scripture then ancient writings should abound with teachings about sola scriptura.

But there are none of these. The Catholic Faith continued to teach the same doctrine regarding Purgatory, Mary and Prayers for the dead. So, historically the canonization of scripture clarified what writings could be relied on to be infallible. This does not, therefore, mean that every other writing positively contained error. Some did and some didn’t.

MK: Revelation 22:18-19-I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

BFHU:But according to Deuteronomy the book of Revelation itself is  added contrary to Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy 4:2:“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

MK: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NASB)

BFHU:This is the classic verse used to support Sola Scriptura. But where does it say that ONLY Scripture is inspired by God and profiable for teaching….etc.?????? There is nothing in this verse that contradicts Catholic Church teaching.

If Catholics Knew the Bible They Would NOT Be Catholic



MK: The Bible (Holy Scripture) is replete with warnings against adding to it and taking away from it.

Deuteronomy 4:1-2: “Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform, so that you may live and go in and take possession of the land which the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.

2“You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

BFHU: OK.  You have cited scripture from the OLD TESTAMENT that warns against adding to or taking away from Scripture. Let’s think about that.

The citation is from Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy is the fifth book of the OT.

And yet another 34 books were added after Deuteronomy!!!

And after that,  Christians added another 27 books called the New Testament.

And then, one thousand years after the canon of the Bible was finalized by Catholic Popes and councils, Martin Luther removed seven books from the Old Testament and seven books from the New Testament that contradicted his personal theology. He later added the New Testament books back in to his translation of the Bible but Protestants today still have an Old Testament that is missing seven books.

Therefore, perhaps something is a little wrong with the way you are interpreting this scripture. No?

Generally what Protestants accuse Catholics of adding  to the Bible is  “Tradition”. But you have not been well taught. Protestants have an oral tradition of teaching their people that Catholics have added the “traditions of men” to the written Word of God. But that is misinformation. Don’t you think it is just a bit arrogant to think that Catholic theologians, priests, bishops, popes, everyone else for 2000 years completely missed those verses about  the “traditions of men”?

Mark 7:8Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.

Mark 7:9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

Mark 7:13 invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down;

Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

No. The Catholic Church did not miss those verses. The Catholic Church wholeheartedly agrees with not only these verses but all of Sacred Scripture.

What we call “Tradition” DOES NOT MEAN “traditions of men”. Protestants confuse the issue in order to maintain their grip on a concept with which to beat up the Catholic Church and accuse her  corrupting the Christian Faith.

What we mean by TRADITION with a capital “T” is simply the oral teachings of the APOSTLES OF JESUS CHRIST. What we call Tradition is short for APOSTOLIC TRADITION. This is none other than what JESUS taught His Apostles. Some of His teachings got written down. These we call the Written Tradition or Scripture. The teaching that did not get written down is called Oral Tradition, Tradition, Apostolic Tradition. One thing it is NOT is the mere “traditions of men”. Those were condemned by Jesus and the apostles and we too condemn them.

Here are two Scriptures that clearly support the holding firmly to Oral Traditions/ Oral Teachings.


2 Thessalonians 2:15

15So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.

So we know that the Thessalonians had the benefit of Oral Tradition, taught by word of mouth. And Paul told them to HOLD TO THEM.

Add to this the fact that the Apostle John clearly tells us in Scripture that all that Jesus did had not been written down because the whole world could not contain the books if they were.  (John 21:25) The evidence for a body of teaching that was oral for a long time is certainly in Scripture. You can interpret these verses in ways that support your biases but unless you maintain infallibility I certainly have the freedom to interpret them to support the Catholic Faith. And the Catholic Church DOES assert infallibility in all Her teachings regarding Faith and Morals.