1. Roman Catholics & Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences

2. Outline: I. What We Have in CommonI. What We Have in Common II. How We DifferII. How We Differ III. In Defense of Evangelicalism?III. In Defense of Evangelicalism?

3. I. What We Have in Common A. Bible: The Bible is the Word of God. B. Canon: It is closed. There are no new public revelations from God. C. The Trinity: There are three persons in one eternal God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. D. Christ: He is both God and Man, two natures united in one person.

4. I. What We Have in Common E. Virgin Birth: Jesus was miraculously conceived in Mary’s womb, without a biological father. F. Atonement: Jesus alone paid the full price for our salvation from the guilt and eternal consequences of our sins. G. Resurrection: Jesus arose from the dead in the same body in which He died.

5. I. What We Have in Common H. Ascension: Jesus ascended physically into heaven in the same body in which He was raised immortal. I. Church: There is a spiritual body of Christ to which all the saved belong. J. Second Coming: Jesus will return to earth physically to judge the wicked (hell) and reward the righteous (heaven).

6. I. What We Have in Common K.Heaven and Hell: There is a place of eternal conscious bliss for the saved and another place of eternal conscious woe for the unsaved. L. The Early Confessions and Creeds –One Bible –Two Testaments –Three Creeds (Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedon) –Four Councils (Nicea (326), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) –Five Centuries

7. I. What We Have in Common Note: These include most of the great fundamentals of the Christian Faith. –There are others things on which we agree: Two ordinances: Baptism and Communion Moral absolutes Absolute truth Pro Family and Pro Life Issues

8. Outline: I. What We Have in Common II. How We Differ

9. A. Distinctive Doctrines of Evangelicals 1. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) 2. Christ alone (sola Christa) 3. Grace alone (sola gratia)* 4. Faith alone (sola fidei) Summary: Evangelicals, in contrast to Catholics, believe we are saved by grace alone, based on the work of Christ alone, received through faith alone, and grounded on the authority of Scripture alone. *Roman Catholics believe in the necessity of grace but not the exclusivity of grace (since they believe good works are also necessary for salvation).

10. B. Distinctive Doctrines of Roman Catholics What they added in doctrine: 1. The Apocrypha to the Bible. 2. An infallible Pope to the Infallible Bible. 3. Works to grace as a condition for salvation. 4. Works to faith as means of receiving salvation. 5. Mary to Christ as means of mediating salvation. 6. Transubstantiation to communion. 7. Purgatory to the Cross for completing salvation. 8. Institutional Church to Christ as means of dispensing grace that brings salvation.

11. B. Distinguishing Doctrines of Roman Catholics What they added in practice: 1. Venerating of Mary to the worship of God. 2. Veneration of images to the worship of God. 3. Worship of the host to the worship of God. 4. Prayers to dead saints to prayers to living God. 5. Priests to laity as means of approaching God. 6. Penance to grace to gain the favor of God. 7. Confession of sin to a priest instead of to God. Note: These are serious errors in doctrine and deed.

13. B. Distinguishing Doctrines of Roman Catholics What they added in authority: I. New Testament Church: Elders (=Bishops) In Independent Self-Governing Churches II. Subapostolic Church: Same as NT Church III. Early Post-Apostolic Church: One Bishop Over Elders in Each Self-Governing Church IV. Pre-Medieval Church: Regional Bishops Over a Whole Area of Churches V. Medieval Church: One Bishop of Rome Over All Churches VI. Modern Church: One Infallible Bishop of Rome Over All Churches (1870)

14. Outline: I. What We Have in Common II. How We Differ III. In Defense of Evangelicalism

15. A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) B. Christ alone (sola Christa) C. Grace alone (sola gratia) D. Faith alone (sola fidei)

16. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura): The Foundational Issue

17. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope too because: a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20).

18. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope too because: a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18).

19. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope too because: a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18). c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14).

20. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope too because: a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18). c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14). d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18).

21. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope too because: a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18). c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14). d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18). e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14).

22. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope too because: a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18). c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14). d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18). e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14). f. Peter never passed it on to another (Acts 14:23).

23. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope too because: a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18). c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14). d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18). e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14). f. Peter never passed it on to another (Acts 14:23). g. Some Roman Catholic Popes taught heresy.

24. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope too because: a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18). c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14). d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18). e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14). f. Peter never passed it on to another (Acts 14:23). g. Some Roman Catholic Popes taught heresy. h. Others made grave errors (e.g., Galileo case).

25. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope too because: a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18). c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14). d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18). e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14). f. Peter never passed it on to another (Acts 14:23). g. Some Roman Catholic Popes taught heresy. h. Others made grave errors (e.g., Galileo case). i. Sometimes there were two or more Popes.

26. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope too because: a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18). c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14). d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18). e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14). f. Peter never passed it on to another (Acts 14:23). g. Some Roman Catholic Popes taught heresy. h. Others made grave errors (e.g., Galileo case). i. Sometimes there were two or more Popes. j. There is no infallible list of infallible statements.

27. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope too because: a. Peter was only part of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). b. Peter did not have greater power (Mt. 18:18). c. Peter was sent out by others (Acts 8:14). d. He was held to account by the church (Acts 11:1-18). e. He was rebuked for His error (Gal. 2:11-14). f. Peter never passed it on to another (Acts 14:23). g. Some Roman Catholic Popes taught heresy. h. Others made grave errors (e.g., Galileo case). i. Sometimes there were two or more Popes. J. One Pope Sixtus (1590) published “inspired” versions of Bible with thousands of errors in it. k. There is no infallible list of infallible statements. l. Some infallible statements are contradictory.

28. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope –2. Not an Infallible Apocrypha

29. “Apocrypha” means hidden or doubtful. Eleven of the these books were added to the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church.

30. 1) The Wisdom of Solomon (c. 30 B.C.) 2) Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) (c. 132 B.C.) 3) Tobit (c. 200 B.C.) 4) Judith (c. 150 B.C.) 5)1 Esdras (c. 150-100 B.C.) [3 Esdras in Catholic Bible] 6)2 Esdras (c. 100 A.D.) [4 Esdras in Catholic Bible] 7) 1 Maccabees (c. 110 B.C.) 8) 2 Maccabees (c. 110-70 B.C.) 9) Baruch (c. 150-50 B.C.)---Baruch 1-5 (Letter of Jeremiah [c. 300-100 B.C.])--Baruch 6 10) Addition to Esther (140-130 B.C.) 11) Prayer of Azariah (2nd or 1st cent B.C.)--Daniel 3:24-90 12) Susanna (2nd or 1st cent B.C.)--Daniel 13 13) Bel and the Dragon (c. 100 B.C.)--Daniel 14 14) Prayer of Manasseh (2nd or 1st cent B.C.) There Were 14 Apocryphal Books

31. –1) The Wisdom of Solomon (c. 30 B.C.) –2) Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) (c. 132 B.C.) –3) Tobit (c. 200 B.C.) –4) Judith (c. 150 B.C.) –5) 1 Maccabees (c. 110 B.C.) –6) 2 Maccabees (c. 110-70 B.C.) –7) Baruch (c. 150-50 B.C.)---Baruch 1-5 (Letter of Jeremiah [c. 300-100 B.C.])--Baruch 6 Eleven Books Accepted by Roman Catholics Seven are in the table of contents:

32. –1) The Wisdom of Solomon (c. 30 B.C.) –2) Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) (c. 132 B.C.) –3) Tobit (c. 200 B.C.) –4) Judith (c. 150 B.C.) –5) 1 Maccabees (c. 110 B.C.) –6) 2 Maccabees (c. 110-70 B.C.) –7) Baruch (c. 150-50 B.C.)---Baruch 1-5 (Letter of Jeremiah [c. 300-100 B.C.])--Baruch 6 –Four are added to other books: –8) Addition to Esther (140-130 B.C.)--Esther 10:4-16:24 –9) Prayer of Azariah (2nd or 1st cent B.C.)--Daniel 3:24-90 –10) Susanna (2nd or 1st cent B.C.)--Daniel 13 –11) Bel and the Dragon (c. 100 B.C.)--Daniel 14 Eleven Books Accepted by Roman Catholics Seven are in the table of contents:

33. Why Evangelicals Reject It 1) It does not claim to be inspired by God. 2) It was not written by prophets of God (1 Mac. 9:27). 3) It was not confirmed by supernatural acts of God (Heb. 2:3-4). 4) It does not always tell the truth of God: On praying for the dead (2 Mac. 12:46); On working for salvation (Tobit 12:9). 5) It was not accepted by the people of God (to whom it was given). 6) It was not accepted by Jesus the Son of God (Lk. 24:27). 7) It was not accepted as inspired by the Apostles of God. 8) It as not accepted by the Early Church of God. 9) It was not accepted by the Catholic translator of Word of God. 10) It was not written during the period of prophets of God.

34. –The Jewish Historian Josephus: – “From Artaxerxes [4th cent B.C.] until our time everything has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased” (Contra Apion 1.8). 10) It was not written during the period of prophets of God (according to Jewish Teaching):

35. –The Jewish Talmud: “With the death of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi the latter prophets, the Holy Spirit ceased out of Israel” (Tos. Sotah 13:2).

36. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope –2. Not an Infallible Apocrypha –3. Not an Authoritative Tradition

37. 3. Not an Authoritative Tradition Good Tradition Bad Tradition Apostolic Not Apostolic Became Written Didn’t Become Written In Accord with Bible Not in Accord with Bible Doesn’t Add to Bible Adds to Bible Consistent Inconsistent Not Errant Errant

38. III. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) –1. Not an Infallible Pope –2. Not an Infallible Apocrypha –3. Not an Authoritative Tradition –4. Verses Misused to Prove Infallibility

39. 4. Verses Misused to Prove Infallibility Matthew 16:18-19: “You are Peter and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

40. Response to Matthew 16: 1. There are three views on this verse (the “rock” is Christ, Peter, Peter’s faith). No dogma should be built on any one view. 2. Christ is the “rock” foundation of the church (1Cor. 3:11; 1Pet. 2:7; Rev. 21:4). 3. All apostles were part of the foundation of the Church, not just Peter (Eph. 2:20). 4. Before the Reformation this verse was only rarely used to support Peter’s primacy and infallibility.

41. Response to Matthew 16: 5. Other apostles were given the same authority to bind and loose (Mt. 18:18). 6. Peter’s use of the “keys” was historical, not ecclesiastical (Acts 2, 10). 7. Even if it does refer to Peter (Petros), it does not support his infallibility, succession, or exclusive authority. 8. Other verses show Peter had no primacy (Acts 8:14; 11:1-18; 15:13-21; Gal. 2:11-14).

42. 4. Verses Misused to Prove Infallibility Luke 22:31-32: “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan as asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

43. Response to Luke 22: 1. Jesus only prayed for Peter because only Peter said, “Even if all are made to stumble, yet I will not be” (Mk. 14:29). 2. It is granted that Peter was the leader of the 12 and would be strengthened by the experience and better able to help others. 3. But there is nothing in the text about infallibility or successors of Peter.

44. 4. Verses Misused to Prove Infallibility John 16:13: ”When, He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority….” Response: 1. It was not limited to Peter (Jn. 13:5, 23). 2. There is nothing about infallibility here. 3. All Jesus taught the apostles was put in writing in the NT (Lk. 1:1-4).

45. A. In Defense of Evangelicalism A. The Bible alone (sola Scriptura) B. Answering Objections

46. Sola Scriptura is Meaningless Stated: It is meaningless because it cannot even be stated without a defining authority, but it rejects all defining authority of the Church. Response: Not so. One can accept a defining authority of the early church without accepting Rome’s authority. Further, one can formulate a true doctrine without giving any authority to any church or tradition.

47. Sola Scriptura is Unbiblical Stated: Nowhere in the Bible does the Bible claim that the Bible alone is infallible. Response: Strictly speaking, this claim is as impossible as saying “At no time in my life can I speak of my whole life.” Of course not, since I would have to be dead to do so.

48. Response (cont.) All the Bible can explicitly claim is that the whole Bible to the present is the only infallible writing we have which it does in many places (Mt. 5:17-18; 15:1- 5; Lk. 24:27; 2Tim. 3:16-17). However, implicitly a doctrine can be stated in the Bible which in principle applies also to the rest of the Bible yet to be written which sola Scriptura does.

49. Sola Scriptura is Unworkable Stated: At no time in the history of the Church has this doctrine ever brought about a unity in the Church. Response: Yes it did in the early Church for four hundred years. An infallible Roman hierarchy has not achieved this unity since then. Evangelicals who use a proper method of interpretation achieve it better than the Catholic hierarchy does.

50. Sola Scriptura is Illogical Stated: It claims we should believe only Scripture, but Scripture never says this. Hence, it is self-defeating. Response: First, Scripture does teach it (see above). Further, it can be true even if Scripture does not teach it explicitly, but only implicitly.

51. Sola Scriptura Does Not define the Limits of the Canon Stated: There is no inspired table of contents in the Bible. There must be an infallible external source to define the canon. Response: At best this only shows there is a role for the Church, not that it must be an infallible role. Fallible sources can make true statements with high probability. People do it all the time. Even Rome admits the OT Judaism was fallible, yet they were custodians of the canon. The Church is not judge of the canon but jury.

52. Catholic View Evangelical View The Church and the Canon DeterminerDiscoverer CreatorCustodian ProducerPreserver MotherChild MasterServant MagistrateMinister ShepherdSheep RegulatorRecognizer JudgeJury

53. Sola Scriptura is not Clear Stated: It assumes the essential teachings of the Bible are sufficiently clear for all. But they are not, since there has never been agreement on them. Response: Yes there has been agreement in the first four centuries. There is also agreement among evangelicals today who use the proper method of interpretation.

54. Sola Scriptura was not the Practice of the NT Church Stated: The NT Church did not have all of Scripture, since it was not all written. Response: The growing size of the canon does not affect the doctrine that only the canon is infallible and binding. New revelation became binding when it was written and became part of the canon (cf. Dan. 9:2; 2Pet. 3:15-16).

55. Sola Scriptura Resulted from Extrabiblical Sources Stated: Many extrabiblical sources gave rise to it, e.g., political (desire for freedom from Rome), cultural (the printing press), intellectual (rise of nominalism), and social (rise of individualism). Response: These were not true of early church that held to sola Scriptura. Further, it arose in response to Rome’s rejection of the biblical and early church view. Finally, the real question is whether it is biblical, not what influenced its acceptance.

56. Sola Scriptura Results in Mistranslation Errors Stated: The doctrine of sola Scripture leads to mistranslation errors since the translators have no authoritative guide. Response: The presence of an alleged infallible guide did not solve the problem. St. Jerome mistranslated “repent” as “do penance.” Pope Sixtus V’s 1590 version has thousands of errors and was revised only two years later. There are good Protestant translations without any infallible guide (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASV, NIV, etc).

57. Sola Scriptura Needs an Interpretive Framework Stated: The Bible does not stand alone; it needs interpretation. Only an infallible church provides this. Response: Not so, a reliable source will do (e.g., early Church provided it). Further, use of proper method by later church provides it too.

58. Sola Scriptura Leads to Misunderstanding of Scripture Stated: Belief in Bible alone leads to a distortion of historical facts since it does not use tradition to guide it. Response: This is an assumption disguised as an argument. Exactly the opposite is true of Rome (cf. Infallibility of Pope and Mariolatry). Sola Scriptura need not reject early traditions. Indeed, they support it.

59. Sola Scriptura Misunderstands the Church Fathers Stated: The Church Fathers affirmed the unique authority of Scripture but not its interpretation apart from tradition. Response: This assumes that Rome’s interpretation of the Fathers is correct. Further, even if tradition is needed, it does not support the Catholic view. Finally, Bible can be interpreted correctly apart from an authoritative tradition.

60. Sola Scriptura Leads to Hermeneutical Anarchy Stated: Hundreds of denominations that profess it do not even agree on fundamental teachings. Response: This condition is over stated: 1) There are other influences, such as modernism, naturalism, rationalism, paganism, popularism, individualism, etc. 2) The issue here is interpretation, not inspiration. 3) Those with the proper means of interpretation have wide agreement on essential doctrines.

61. Sola Scriptura not Taught by Any Council or Church Fathers Stated: Eastern Orthodox claim that no Father or Council affirmed sola Scriptura. Response: This is untrue and insufficient. Many Fathers did teach sola Scripture. Even if some didn’t, the Bible does. Church Councils never explicitl taught the inspiration of the Bible either. But they everywhere assume it.

62. Sola Scriptura is Insufficient Since the Bible is not Self-Interpreting Stated: The Bible is not self-explanatory. It does not preach itself or impose its meaning on anyone. Response: True, the Bible needs to be interpreted, but it does not follow that it must be viewed through R.C. tradition which is often wrong. It can be interpreted by the the normal, historical-grammatical method like any other piece of literature, seeking the meaning of the author in the context in which he said it.

63. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament

64. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26).

65. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26).

66. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25). Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25).

67. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25). Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11). Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25). Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11).

68. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25). Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11). Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12) Later books cite earlier ones: Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25). Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11). Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12) Later books cite earlier ones:

69. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25). Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11). Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12) Later books cite earlier ones: Joshua refers to Moses (Josh. 1:8) Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25). Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11). Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12) Later books cite earlier ones: Joshua refers to Moses (Josh. 1:8)

70. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25). Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11). Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12) Later books cite earlier ones: Joshua refers to Moses (Josh. 1:8) Ezekiel refers to Job (Eze. 14:14, 20) Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25). Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11). Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12) Later books cite earlier ones: Joshua refers to Moses (Josh. 1:8) Ezekiel refers to Job (Eze. 14:14, 20)

71. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25). Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11). Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12) Later books cite earlier ones: Joshua refers to Moses (Josh. 1:8) Ezekiel refers to Job (Eze. 14:14, 20) Isaiah is cited by Micah (Micah 4:1-3 cf. Isa. 2:2-4) Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25). Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11). Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12) Later books cite earlier ones: Joshua refers to Moses (Josh. 1:8) Ezekiel refers to Job (Eze. 14:14, 20) Isaiah is cited by Micah (Micah 4:1-3 cf. Isa. 2:2-4)

72. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: In the Old Testament Moses’ Book was stored in the ark (Deut. 31:26). Joshua’s book was added to Moses’ book (Josh. 24:26). Samuel’s book was added to the canon (1Sam. 10:25). Daniel had the Law and Prophets (including Jeremiah his contemporary (Dan. 9:2, 10-11). Zechariah refers to “the law” & “former prophets” (7:12) Later books cite earlier ones: Joshua refers to Moses (Josh. 1:8) Ezekiel refers to Job (Eze. 14:14, 20) Isaiah is cited by Micah (Micah 4:1-3 cf. Isa. 2:2-4) Micah is cited by Jeremiah (Jer. 26:18 cf. Micah 3:12)

73. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament: Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament:

74. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament: Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7). Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament: Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7).

75. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament: Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7). Paul encourages Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16). Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament: Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7). Paul encourages Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16).

76. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament: Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7). Paul encouraged Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16). Peter had a collection of Paul’s “Epistles” (2Pet. 3:16). Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament: Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7). Paul encouraged Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16). Peter had a collection of Paul’s “Epistles” (2Pet. 3:16).

77. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament: Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7). Paul encouraged Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16). Peter has a collection of Paul’s “Epistles” (2Pet. 3:16). John sent his Epistle to all the churches of Asia Minor (Rev. 1:4) Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament: Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7). Paul encouraged Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16). Peter has a collection of Paul’s “Epistles” (2Pet. 3:16). John sent his Epistle to all the churches of Asia Minor (Rev. 1:4)

78. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament: Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7). Paul encouraged Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16). Peter has a collection of Paul’s “Epistles” (2Pet. 3:16). John sent his Epistle to all the churches of Asia Minor Rev. 1:4) Paul charged that his epistle to the Thessalonicans to “be read to all the holy brethren” (1Thes. 5:27). Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament: Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7). Paul encouraged Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16). Peter has a collection of Paul’s “Epistles” (2Pet. 3:16). John sent his Epistle to all the churches of Asia Minor Rev. 1:4) Paul charged that his epistle to the Thessalonicans to “be read to all the holy brethren” (1Thes. 5:27).

79. Initial Acceptance vs. Later Debate Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament: Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7). Paul encouraged Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16). Peter has a collection of Paul’s “Epistles” (2Pet. 3:16). John sent his Epistle to all the churches of Asia Minor Rev. 1:4) Paul charged that his epistle to the Thessalonicans to read to all the brethren (1Thes. 5:27). Early Fathers cited virtually the whole NT. Evidence books were accepted when written: –In the New Testament: Paul cites the Gospels (1Tim. 5:18 cf. Luke 10:7). Paul encouraged Colossians to read the Epistle coming from Laodicea (probably Ephesians) (Col. 4:16). Peter has a collection of Paul’s “Epistles” (2Pet. 3:16). John sent his Epistle to all the churches of Asia Minor Rev. 1:4) Paul charged that his epistle to the Thessalonicans to read to all the brethren (1Thes. 5:27). Early Fathers cited virtually the whole NT.

80. A Brief Summary of Church History I. New Testament Church: Plurality of Elders in –Each Independent Self-Governing Church II. Subapostolic Church: Same as NT Church III. Early Post-Apostolic Church: One Bishop Over Elders in Each Church IV. Pre-Medieval Church: Regional Bishops Over Area Churches V. Medieval Church: One Bishop of Rome Over All Churches VI. Modern Church: One Infallible Bishop of Rome Over All Churches. I. New Testament Church: Plurality of Elders in –Each Independent Self-Governing Church II. Subapostolic Church: Same as NT Church III. Early Post-Apostolic Church: One Bishop Over Elders in Each Church IV. Pre-Medieval Church: Regional Bishops Over Area Churches V. Medieval Church: One Bishop of Rome Over All Churches VI. Modern Church: One Infallible Bishop of Rome Over All Churches.

81. The Gradual Development of the Roman Catholic Church 325--Bishops have authority over a whole region 381-- Emperor Theodosius founded a Christian State 451--Pronounce an Archbishop over other Bishops 553--Affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary 680--Council claimed to be “illuminated by the Holy Spirit” and “clean from all error, certain, and infallible” – Mary called “Our holy Lady, the holy, immaculate, ever-virgin and glorious Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God” 787--It ruled in favor of icons and venerating images –It pronounced anathama on all who do not venerated icons –It forbid secular appointment of Bishops (thus solidifying the authority of Religion over the State). –It affirmed the Primacy of Peter and apostolic succession –It claimed “the holy Roman Church which has prior rank, –which is the head of all the Churches of God” 325--Bishops have authority over a whole region 381-- Emperor Theodosius founded a Christian State 451--Pronounce an Archbishop over other Bishops 553--Affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary 680--Council claimed to be “illuminated by the Holy Spirit” and “clean from all error, certain, and infallible” – Mary called “Our holy Lady, the holy, immaculate, ever-virgin and glorious Mary, truly and properly the Mother of God” 787--It ruled in favor of icons and venerating images –It pronounced anathama on all who do not venerated icons –It forbid secular appointment of Bishops (thus solidifying the authority of Religion over the State). –It affirmed the Primacy of Peter and apostolic succession –It claimed “the holy Roman Church which has prior rank, –which is the head of all the Churches of God”

82. The Gradual Development of the Roman Catholic Church 869--It condemned the schism of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople who challenged the filioque clause. 1123--First Council called by a Pope (Callistus)It affirmed the “Concordat of Worms” (1122) that the Pope, not the Emperor, the right to invest a Bishop with ring and staff and and receive homage 1139--Convoked by Pope Innocent II to reform the Church Condemned the schism of Arnold of Bresia who spoke against confession to a priest rather than another laymen 1179--Convened by Pope Alexander III to counter anti-Pope Callistus III – It affirmed that the right to elect a Pope was restricted to the college of Cardinals by 2/3 majority 1215--Affirmed Transsubstantiation, primacy of Bishop of Rome, and Seven Sacraments – Set up Office of the Inquisitors to investigate heresy and turned them over to the State for punishment 869--It condemned the schism of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople who challenged the filioque clause. 1123--First Council called by a Pope (Callistus)It affirmed the “Concordat of Worms” (1122) that the Pope, not the Emperor, the right to invest a Bishop with ring and staff and and receive homage 1139--Convoked by Pope Innocent II to reform the Church Condemned the schism of Arnold of Bresia who spoke against confession to a priest rather than another laymen 1179--Convened by Pope Alexander III to counter anti-Pope Callistus III – It affirmed that the right to elect a Pope was restricted to the college of Cardinals by 2/3 majority 1215--Affirmed Transsubstantiation, primacy of Bishop of Rome, and Seven Sacraments – Set up Office of the Inquisitors to investigate heresy and turned them over to the State for punishment

83. The Gradual Development of the Roman Catholic Church 1245--Frederick II was condemned for imprisoning Cardinals and Bishop on their way to the Council. 1274--Aquinas affirmed authority of Pope to form a creed 1312--Affirmed decrees concerning Inquisition (which Frederick II made in 1232) 1415 --It condemned John Wycliffe after his death (in 1384) (His follower John Huss was burned at the stake) –Claimed Ecumenical Council has authority over the Pope –“This Council holds its power direct from Christ; everyone, no matter his rank of office, even if it is papal, is bound to obey it in whatever pertains to faith.” 1431-1437--Affirmed Purgatory, and Primacy of the Pope –Immaculate Conception of Mary declared biblical and Catholic [Later declared dogma by Pope Pius IX, 1854]

84. The Gradual Development of the Roman Catholic Church 1512-1517--Called by Pope Julius II to invalidate anti-papal Council of Pisa convened by Louis XII of France –A Few minor reforms were instituted. –The main issues of reform were not treated by the Council. –[Luther treated the issues in his Reformation by posting his 95 Thesis posted October 31, 1517] 1545-1563--Convoked to counter the Reformation –It infallibly pronounced Purgatory, indulgences, veneration of saints and images, prayers for the dead, the canonicity of the Apocrypha, the necessity of good works for salvation, seven sacraments, transsubstantiation, and tradition as a second source of revelation. 1869-1870--It pronounced the Pope is infallible on faith and practice: The Pope’s “definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. ” 1512-1517--Called by Pope Julius II to invalidate anti-papal Council of Pisa convened by Louis XII of France –A Few minor reforms were instituted. –The main issues of reform were not treated by the Council. –[Luther treated the issues in his Reformation by posting his 95 Thesis posted October 31, 1517] 1545-1563--Convoked to counter the Reformation –It infallibly pronounced Purgatory, indulgences, veneration of saints and images, prayers for the dead, the canonicity of the Apocrypha, the necessity of good works for salvation, seven sacraments, transsubstantiation, and tradition as a second source of revelation. 1869-1870--It pronounced the Pope is infallible on faith and practice: The Pope’s “definitions are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. ”

85. The Gradual Development of the Roman Catholic Church 1950--The Bodily Assumption of Mary proclaimed dogma by Pope Pius XII 1962-1963--Failed in attempt at union with Eastern Church –Called Protestants “separated brethren” –Instituted minor changes in ritual (e.g., Mass in local languages) –Claimed sincere non-Christians can be saved [This conflicts with earlier teaching of Rome that there is no salvation outside the Church.] Note: No real change of objectionable doctrines was made! 1950--The Bodily Assumption of Mary proclaimed dogma by Pope Pius XII 1962-1963--Failed in attempt at union with Eastern Church –Called Protestants “separated brethren” –Instituted minor changes in ritual (e.g., Mass in local languages) –Claimed sincere non-Christians can be saved [This conflicts with earlier teaching of Rome that there is no salvation outside the Church.] Note: No real change of objectionable doctrines was made!