Catholic & Evangelical Protestant debates over coffee

  • Thread starter Thread starter emme13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

emme13

Guest
My boyfriend is an Evangelical Protestant, while I am a Catholic. Once in a while, we would get into debates regarding each other’s faith. We usually discuss matters on Mary, Intercession of saints, Sola fide & Sola Scriptura. We are both considering marriage but our difference in beliefs seem to be an “obstacle”. His father is a pastor and his parents run a Protestant school. It is significantly harder for me and I am usually the underdog when it comes to these discussions because he would usually just give his father a call and ask while I do not have any direct contact of a priest, apologist, or anyone who knows the faith really well. I have read a lot in order to build my faith and in order for me to defend it but I think it is not enough.

The last time we got into this discussion, we talked about how the Roman Catholic Church valued both Sacred Scripture and Oral Tradition. After giving him some biblical basis of the importance of oral tradition, he would refute saying that the teachings passed on to another person is not the exact same thing. Some changes would have happened that would change the whole meaning entirely.

I have also raised the fact that it wasn’t until around three hundred years later that the Bible was compiled. Because he believed that only those who followed the Bible could be saved, I posed the question “what about the Christians during the time when the Bible wasn’t compiled? They relied very much on Oral tradition. Does this mean that they are not saved?”

What he immediately did was give his father, who is a pastor, a call and asked. His answer to my question is that that time was called the “silent years”. The early Christians before the Bible was compiled already had a written book (He did not specify whether it was the Old Testament). If it were the Old Testament, then why follow that when Christ’s teachings are not there (since He was not born during that time)?

Can someone please tell me if anything I said is flawed and if there is a truth in the “silent years” his father says?

Thank you and Good Day!
 
From the title of this thread I thought you guys were debating about the Catholic vs. Protestant teachings about coffee! 😛

Seems to me like your arguments were pretty darn good. I use the same argument about the early Christians who had no Bible quite often.

This is the first time I ever heard of “the silent years”… Sounds pretty “convenient.”
 
Before the Bible was compiled, various communities had their own Gospels, epistles, etc that they would read, learn from, and refer to. Maybe your boyfriend is referring to these written books, though that’s something he’ll have to clarify.

I think it speaks well of both of you that you can repeatedly have these kinds of discussions, and it speaks well of your boyfriend that he respects his father enough to repeatedly ask for his advice. However, as you said, faith can be an obstacle for couples. I don’t think there’s anything you’re doing wrong, necessarily, but there is something that your boyfriend may be a bit inconsiderate about: the fact that he keeps calling his dad, which is essentially putting you in a position of ‘2 against 1’, and may be driving a bit of a wedge between you (I’m not sure if that’s the case, I couldn’t infer from your post). And it’s not ‘wrong’, per se, to go to someone wiser than you for guidance and wisdom, but if it’s always the same person, and a dad no less, that can possibly, possibly make for a awkward family relationship.
 
sorry for what you are going through.
You did very well in explaining the truth. A fact will remain a fact even if the whole world is against it
But tell us,are you living together in an intimate relationship or are you just friends? Are you living sacramental life?You see God calls you to holiness. He can and always defends Himself.
Without being insensitive, ccc is part of tradition and it clearly discourages interfaith marriages@If you can’t agree on matters of faith now,what about when married? Remember sanctifying grace (faith, hope and charity )are infused not acquired. Only God can convert your bf,
Do not make a mistake like I did and wasted eight good years.
I will remember you in my prayers
 
emme13 said:
My boyfriend is an Evangelical Protestant, while I am a Catholic. Once in a while, we would get into debates regarding each other’s faith. We usually discuss matters on Mary, Intercession of saints, Sola fide & Sola Scriptura. We are both considering marriage but our difference in beliefs seem to be an “obstacle”. His father is a pastor and his parents run a Protestant school. It is significantly harder for me and I am usually the underdog when it comes to these discussions because he would usually just give his father a call and ask while I do not have any direct contact of a priest, apologist, or anyone who knows the faith really well. I have read a lot in order to build my faith and in order for me to defend it but I think it is not enough.

The last time we got into this discussion, we talked about how the Roman Catholic Church valued both Sacred Scripture and Oral Tradition. After giving him some biblical basis of the importance of oral tradition, he would refute saying that the teachings passed on to another person is not the exact same thing. Some changes would have happened that would change the whole meaning entirely.

I have also raised the fact that it wasn’t until around three hundred years later that the Bible was compiled. Because he believed that only those who followed the Bible could be saved, I posed the question “what about the Christians during the time when the Bible wasn’t compiled? They relied very much on Oral tradition. Does this mean that they are not saved?”

What he immediately did was give his father, who is a pastor, a call and asked. His answer to my question is that that time was called the “silent years”. The early Christians before the Bible was compiled already had a written book (He did not specify whether it was the Old Testament). If it were the Old Testament, then why follow that when Christ’s teachings are not there (since He was not born during that time)?

Can someone please tell me if anything I said is flawed and if there is a truth in the “silent years” his father says?

Thank you and Good Day!
Click to expand...
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0039.html < This should be interesting for you both to ponder. Keep things charitable and collegial. And your eyes on Jesus. You may get closer.

This is a Catholic’s Apologetics Cheat Sheet referencing scriptures that speak to the most asked questions Catholics get. 🙂
 
Sounds like you’ve pretty much got it covered. A few more points you may find helpful:

As to corruption of oral teachings - first, Jesus did promise to send the “Spirit of Truth” who (being God) is more than capable of safeguarding oral teachings, and second if we deny that God can or does safeguard oral teachings, we have to ask why it is that we know that He does so for a specific collection of written ones. There was no voice from heaven saying that the bible was inspired, and even if there had been, no original texts exist today - so how do we know that the whole thing hasn’t just been mucked up? Scholarship provides some help there, but not certainty and it does the same for non-biblical teachings.

Both the contents of scripture and that scripture is scripture are passed down to us by men. And men are just as capable of mucking up books, even if the originals were inspired, as they are oral teachings. Especially since we tend to write down the oral teachings too. So as far as corruptibility goes, there’s nothing we could mess up with oral teachings that we couldn’t with the bible, if God allowed that to happen. So his argument would in fact refute the ability to know that biblical truth is true as well. (You’ll probably get the"read and pray about it and you’ll know it’s true"argument, to which I usually respond “does that mean that the prayers of Muslims prove the Quran inspired?”)

**As to the silent years thing - **he essentially just ignored your question. Whether he has a spiffy name for the time period or not, the fact remains that the earliest Christians did not have the bible, and were nevertheless Christians. Arguing that they had other things instead actually proves your point - whatever these other things were, they weren’t the bible, and were part of tradition, and they sufficed for that time. Though clearly having a well defined collection of scriptures was an amazing development, it is nevertheless true that truth is unchanging, and so the extra biblical truth they had before there was a bible remains true - including the truth of how to arrive at truth which was in fact used to determine what was scripture in the first place (I.e. there is no reason to assume the Holy Spirit stopped guiding Church councils and such as soon as He led them to recognize the special nature of those writings we now call Scripture.)
 
Ask them if their bible has the Acts of the Apostles. There is oral preaching from start to finish. From Pentecost to the end, it was all oral. Not a single thing written there, except for a letter at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) overruling the OT scriptures which required circumcision. That was not done by “the bible”, it was done by Church authority (Matthew 18:15-18).

There was not a single jot of Christian writing for 20-30 years after the ascension. That is an entire generation. The NT was not even completed until about AD 90. Don’t even ask bf, I would call dad directly and ask him just how the faith was perpetuated in those years - especially since the vast majority of early believers were illiterate. Ask them where the bible was at Pentecost. No bible. Peter and the others spoke by the Holy Spirit.

In addition to common sense, the prologue to Luke (Luke 1:1-4) destroys bible alone and stands as -]infallible/-] (Oops, can’t say that word) , inerrant, biblical evidence of the oral Apostolic Tradition. We see from those four short sentences that “Theophilus” learned nothing - zip, zero, nada - from Luke’s Gospel (written about AD 64 - 31 years after Christ ascended). Luke wrote his Gospel only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theophilus had already received. Jesus told the Apostles “He who hears you hears Me” (Luke 10:16). He did not say “He who reads you reads Me.” Jesus made no mention of any writing, neither did he write anything to be passed on. He sent Apostles.

As well, bf is playing dirty by always running to daddy. Tell him to stand on his own two feet - like his fiance!
 
Peter12rb said:
Before the Bible was compiled, various communities had their own Gospels, epistles, etc that they would read, learn from, and refer to.
Click to expand...
Not for 20-30 years or more, they didn’t. None of that - none - had been written yet! Now what? Read the prologue to Luke, noticing how it was written only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theophilus had already received.
 
Thank you every one for your replies. I will take these points and advice to heart. 🙂 Thank you for your prayers.
 
jawain said:
sorry for what you are going through.
You did very well in explaining the truth. A fact will remain a fact even if the whole world is against it
But tell us,are you living together in an intimate relationship or are you just friends? Are you living sacramental life?You see God calls you to holiness. He can and always defends Himself.
Without being insensitive, ccc is part of tradition and it clearly discourages interfaith marriages@If you can’t agree on matters of faith now,what about when married? Remember sanctifying grace (faith, hope and charity )are infused not acquired. Only God can convert your bf,
Do not make a mistake like I did and wasted eight good years.
I will remember you in my prayers
Click to expand...
Hi Jawain 🙂

No, we do not live together. We both are trying to be good Christians.

About the CCC, yes I have read that section where in interfaith marriage is discourage. I thought that I should share my Catholic faith as best as I could before really considering to not continue the relationship (because I really pray every thing will work out).
Thank you for your prayers 🙂
 
po18guy said:
Not for 20-30 years or more, they didn’t. None of that - none - had been written yet! Now what? Read the prologue to Luke, noticing how it was written only to confirm the oral Apostolic teaching that Theophilus had already received.
Click to expand...
Also in Acts 18:24-26? Priscilla and Aquila explained the way of God…they did not read the way of God.

Oops…just saw your larger post about Acts!👍
 
Here are also some things boyfriend had raised regarding the faith:

The Pope
  1. Origins of Peter as the first Pope - He asks how Catholics got this idea that St. Peter is the first Pope when is was never written in the Bible. (Huhu, how literal can he get?)
    “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This was my answer to his question. Jesus appoints Peter to be the “rock” of His Church, therefore making Peter the first Pope of the RCC. Though it doesn’t “literally” answer his question (He is looking for more of literal answer showing that Jesus really appointed Peter to be the Pope) , I further explained to him that the Bible should not be taken literally. This eventually led to his second question:
  2. “Jesus only appointed Peter to be the ‘rock’. He never told him to look for a successor. If that is the case, why is there a need for Papal succession?”
    With great frustration with myself, I didn’t know how to answer this question. I haven’t read a lot about the Pope and Papal Succession. The only answer I could give was that the people of the Church needed a visible head.
And his last question(s) (oops):
3. “If God sees everyone as equal, then why do you think so highly of the Pope? Why can’t you treat him the same as everyone else? Why is there a “heirarchy” in your Church?”
When he asked me this question, I couldn’t help but feel frustrated with myself because its one of those things you know the answer to, but just can’t explain it. It really made me think a lot. Aghh!!
 
emme13 said:
Can someone please tell me if anything I said is flawed and if there is a truth in the “silent years” his father says?
Click to expand...
I was curious, and did some more searching on what was meant by the ‘silent years of the Bible’. Apparently, it’s the period between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. If that’s the same thing that your boyfriend is referring to, then I’m not sure if he really understands the terms he’s talking about. Once the New Testament starts talking about the early Christian Church, it’s not considered the ‘silent years’ any longer.

Anyways, best of luck in your relationship with him. Even if things don’t work out between you, I think you’d be doing him a favor to explain why always bringing in his girlfriend’s potential future father-in-law into debates like this is not a good idea for a healthy relationship.
 
emme13 said:
Here are also some things boyfriend had raised regarding the faith:

The Pope
  1. Origins of Peter as the first Pope - He asks how Catholics got this idea that St. Peter is the first Pope when is was never written in the Bible. (Huhu, how literal can he get?)
    “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This was my answer to his question. Jesus appoints Peter to be the “rock” of His Church, therefore making Peter the first Pope of the RCC. Though it doesn’t “literally” answer his question (He is looking for more of literal answer showing that Jesus really appointed Peter to be the Pope) , I further explained to him that the Bible should not be taken literally. This eventually led to his second question:
Click to expand...
Yeah, unless he thinks Jesus literally turned Peter into a rock, I think he’d have to recognize that something special is going on here. May be worth pointing out the symbolism of the keys and stewardship and such in the OT.
  1. “Jesus only appointed Peter to be the ‘rock’. He never told him to look for a successor. If that is the case, why is there a need for Papal succession?”
    With great frustration with myself, I didn’t know how to answer this question. I haven’t read a lot about the Pope and Papal Succession. The only answer I could give was that the people of the Church needed a visible head.
Click to expand...
Whether or not the bible records Jesus telling Peter to have a successor, Peter did so. And he was an apostle, who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the power of the keys, the instruction to feed the sheep, etc. That is, he (they, the apostles) would be the ones who would know if they could or should choose successors, and he (they) did, in the Pope (bishops).
And his last question(s) (oops):
3. “If God sees everyone as equal, then why do you think so highly of the Pope? Why can’t you treat him the same as everyone else? Why is there a “heirarchy” in your Church?”
When he asked me this question, I couldn’t help but feel frustrated with myself because its one of those things you know the answer to, but just can’t explain it. It really made me think a lot. Aghh!!
Click to expand...
All citizens of the U.S. are equal, but only one is the Commander in Chief of the military. That office is important. The man, depending on if he does it well, may or may not earn our respect. But regardless, his worth as a person is the same as the worth of everyone else. That doesn’t take away from or conflict with the facts that the office is important, that the man has an authority and importance that most of us lack by virtue of this office, or that we should honour those who do good.
 
emme13 said:
Here are also some things boyfriend had raised regarding the faith:

The Pope
  1. Origins of Peter as the first Pope - You did pretty well … although SOME things can and should be taken literally (which you probably know, but that could be misunderstood from what you wrote).
Click to expand...
It is interesting for all Christians to consider Jesus’ “I AM” claims about Himself and then considering His relationship with Peter (and how it relates to other “God selected” leaders of the Bible like Moses, David etc.).

Jesus says "I am the good Shepherd". He tells Peter directly “Feed my sheep, lambs”.

He repeats that in case anyone should get the idea that it’s not important or one of those things that did NOT deserve to be written down (and eventually become part of the New Testament Gospel).

It is certainly a commissioning with a delegation of authority. And punctuated later by the fact that Peter works miracles, speaks to controversies and settles them, receives instruction in dreams directly from God that dramatically changed the Jewish dietary laws - despite Peter’s own feelings to the contrary he obeys and convinces others of the truth of that. And many other scriptures.

Peter at first didn’t live in Rome and guide the Church from offices on Vatican Hill. But He did go to Rome, lead the Church there, and according to tradition and extra-biblical facts, was crucified upside down on Vatican Hill by the Emperor Nero and buried there.

A number of Peter’s successors as Bishop of Rome are buried nearby him in the same catacombs area.

After the Church stopped being officially persecuted in the Fourth Century and Church structures were built above ground, a Church was built directly over the site where Peter’s body was buried (well known and revered by the Christians). That burial site remains the same today, and is located directly beneath the high altar at St. Peter’s in Rome!

Since Christ had said he’d build His Church upon “this rock” (the newly renamed Cephas or Peter), the Christians built their headquarters for the new Bishop of Rome, successor of Peter’s office, “on that rock” as well!

The conversion of a “Christian killing ground” into a monument of victory over the pagan Emperor worshipping cult of the hostile Roman Empire … and more directly “evil” should be a cause of joy for all who proclaim Christ and believe in His victory over evil and death itself!

There is “biblical precedent” for the apostles appointing Bishops and successors; though the initial apostles acted without Biblical precedent in appointing the same.

The canon of the Bible decided upon in the Fourth Century
 
I think it is great that you two can have these discussions, but keep in mind that if you move toward considering marriage even more, you may run into more issues. There are wonderful and amazing people in this world that aren’t necessarily the one to marry - and that is okay.

You both should ask yourselves this question. If something happened to me, would the other person raise the kids right? Would he feel that you would raise the kids in line with his beliefs? Would you feel that he would raise the kids in line with your beliefs? Would there be issues if the kids are Catholic and the grandparents run a protestant school?
 
emme13 said:
Here are also some things boyfriend had raised regarding the faith:

The Pope
  1. Origins of Peter as the first Pope - He asks how Catholics got this idea that St. Peter is the first Pope when is was never written in the Bible. (Huhu, how literal can he get?)
    “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This was my answer to his question. Jesus appoints Peter to be the “rock” of His Church, therefore making Peter the first Pope of the RCC. Though it doesn’t “literally” answer his question (He is looking for more of literal answer showing that Jesus really appointed Peter to be the Pope) , I further explained to him that the Bible should not be taken literally. This eventually led to his second question:
  2. “Jesus only appointed Peter to be the ‘rock’. He never told him to look for a successor. If that is the case, why is there a need for Papal succession?”
    With great frustration with myself, I didn’t know how to answer this question. I haven’t read a lot about the Pope and Papal Succession. The only answer I could give was that the people of the Church needed a visible head.
And his last question(s) (oops):
3. “If God sees everyone as equal, then why do you think so highly of the Pope? Why can’t you treat him the same as everyone else? Why is there a “heirarchy” in your Church?”
When he asked me this question, I couldn’t help but feel frustrated with myself because its one of those things you know the answer to, but just can’t explain it. It really made me think a lot. Aghh!!
Click to expand...
  1. Classic. There is no pope since the bible never uses the word pope. Nice. He just proved that there is no Trinity either since THAT word never appears. Or he just proved that he has poor reasoning skills.
  2. Acts of the Apostles ends before Peter’s martyrdom. One can hardly expect it to contain an account of his successor, can one? However, Acts DOES establish the clear biblical precedent that apostolic offices are permanent and that successors are to be named when one dies. That’s precisely what they do when Judas Iscariot kills himself. Even Judas’s office had to be refilled! That’s not just an interesting story, it’s a precedent. We can trace the papacy back directly all the way to St. Peter.
  3. The papacy is an office, not a cult of personality. There have been some real scoundrels in history to hold that office. It’s not the holiness of the man who holds it that makes it important. What IS important is that Christ established the office and grants it certain divine protections. Why? Because we humans are a fractious, sinful and hard hearted bunch. God’s no rube! He knows this, so when He established his Church, He also established an office to protect it’s integrity of teaching. Catholics are as fractious as protestants, but we have a visible and knowable source of unity and resolution of conflict that innately cannot exist in protestantism. There, every man decides for himself what the bible means and nobody objectively has any authority to tell him he’s wrong. That’s madness!
Granted, it would be madness for humans to establish a permanent office in which the holder has absolute power to arbitrate disputes as well. If humans had established it, this would be a good argument against the papacy. But since Christ established it, we don’t argue. It’s really that simple.

You need Karl Keating’s book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism.” Feel free to skim over many of the early chapters that discuss certain specific anti-catholic people, but read closely when you get to the chapters that discuss principles. It’s really good stuff.

I don’t know your age, but if you’re late teens or better, it’s best to discuss big picture issues BEFORE you’re hopelessly in love. Marriage is innately tied up with having kids and raising them right (a concept our foolish culture is determined to ignore). I foresee BIG conflicts in that arena! He’ll likely not want infants baptised and will not respect your conviction that the sacrament imparts Grace. He’ll want the kids to go to protestant schools (his parents have devoted their lives to it!) where they’ll be taught that the papacy is imaginary, that Sacraments are nothing more than symbols and that liturgy is empty ritual. Can you really live with that? That’s the REAL day to day of marriage, not the gushy feelings of coffee house infatuation. Plan ahead.

Mixed marriages can work. But you can theoretically swim the English channel with handcuffs on too. Doesn’t make it a smart idea.
 
SMA_12 said:
From the title of this thread I thought you guys were debating about the Catholic vs. Protestant teachings about coffee! 😛

Seems to me like your arguments were pretty darn good. I use the same argument about the early Christians who had no Bible quite often.

This is the first time I ever heard of “the silent years”… Sounds pretty “convenient.”
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top