Confronted by Baptist Friends

[Church_Militant]

Get used to that stuff though because those are pretty common assaults made upon the Catholic faith. One absolutely terrific resources that I would suggest that you invest in is Radio Replies which is a great compilation of answers to all manner of such challenges. The Preface is written by (then) monsignor Fulton Sheen and opens with the following insight.

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church - which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”; because the Pope “is a Fascist”; because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

You might also get a copy of The Protestant’s Dilemma by Devin Rose

I have them both and they are excellent resources that will really help you learn good answers to things like this.

I’ll be praying for you as you make this journey of faith in RCIA. Stick around and keep us posted.

 

[Duane1966]

.
I myself find it difficult to make light of the Peter-rock issue.
The meaning of that one sentence is something so many people base their lives and beliefs on that the struggle to interpret it is very real, difficult, and serious.

Many great minds have debated, researched, and analyzed this one sentence fragment for many, many centuries and still, these great minds disagree on what it means.

.

Actually, only the last five centuries. The previous fifteen centuries, it was universally held that Peter is the rock.

Can you show me the great minds who held that Peter was not the rock from the first fifteen centuries?

 

[Randy_Carson]

.
I myself find it difficult to make light of the Peter-rock issue.
The meaning of that one sentence is something so many people base their lives and beliefs on that the struggle to interpret it is very real, difficult, and serious.

Many great minds have debated, researched, and analyzed this one sentence fragment for many, many centuries and still, these great minds disagree on what it means.

.

“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

 

[Alex_H]

I wouldn’t be too hard on your friends. Most people of most religions would do the same.
If the situation was reversed, and you and your friends were Catholic and you told them you wanted to convert to being a Baptist, they’d sit you down and tell you why being a Baptist isn’t “the full truth” etc and try to convince you to stay Catholic.
As you know, each group thinks they are the correct one. And if they think a loved one is about to make a big mistake, they’d try to stop him/her from doing it.

Why has it bothered you so much that some Protestant bibles don’t have all the books as the Catholic bible?
(I think that some *do *include them, but they note that the books were considered non-canonical)

When a new branch of a religion evolves, it’s pretty natural to make amendments in that way. After all, there are many books of Christian scripture from the first 3-4 centuries that were not included when the canon was being put together…so even the Catholic bible did not include books that some christian groups considered holy scripture.

I trust you have read the reasons why some Protestant bibles don’t include the extra 7 books…and do not agree with those reasons?

These are the 7 Apocrypha books of Jewish writings, yes?
They are Jewish writings not accepted in the Jewish bible, right?

So…it might be more correct to say that the Catholic bible *added *these books…rather than saying the Protestants “removed” them?

From what I understand, Pope Damasus commissioned the Catholic canon to be gathered together in 382 A.D. He entrusted the bishops of North Africa to compile all of the books that they believed were canonical, that is, worthy of reading in mass. The Eastern Church had nothing to do with it because there was a heresy at the time, Arianism, that plagued the Eastern church. Anyways, the African Bishops took over 11 years to compile the canon of books that were considered worthy of reading in liturgy. To be considered canonical, the books had to have been written by an apostle. Anyways, in 393 A.D., the council submitted their canon for approval by the pope. In 397 A.D., the issue was once again reviewed and affirmed by the bishop of Carthage, Saint Augustine.

For over a thousand years, the canon of the church remained the same. That is until a monk named Luther decided he wanted to edit the bible in the 16th century. He didn’t remove the deutorocanonical books, he just moved them to the back of the old testament and called them “Apocrypha” which means “hidden.” He also wanted to remove Hebrews from the new Testament because he did not like Jewish people. Also, he wanted to remove the epistle of James because it explicitly says that faith alone is not enough for salvation. He eventually decided to leave those two books in but followed through in rearranging the old testament. This new version was called the Luther Bible.

I learned this in RCIA.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

From what I understand, Pope Damasus commissioned the Catholic canon to be gathered together in 382 A.D. He entrusted the bishops of North Africa to compile all of the books that they believed were canonical, that is, worthy of reading in mass. The Eastern Church had nothing to do with it because there was a heresy at the time, Arianism, that plagued the Eastern church. Anyways, the African Bishops took over 11 years to compile the canon of books that were considered worthy of reading in liturgy. To be considered canonical, the books had to have been written by an apostle. Anyways, in 393 A.D., the council submitted their canon for approval by the pope. In 397 A.D., the issue was once again reviewed and affirmed by the bishop of Carthage, Saint Augustine.

For over a thousand years, the canon of the church remained the same. That is until a monk named Luther decided he wanted to edit the bible in the 16th century. He didn’t remove the deutorocanonical books, he just moved them to the back of the old testament and called them “Apocrypha” which means “hidden.” He also wanted to remove Hebrews from the new Testament because he did not like Jewish people. Also, he wanted to remove the epistle of James because it explicitly says that faith alone is not enough for salvation. He eventually decided to leave those two books in but followed through in rearranging the old testament. This new version was called the Luther Bible.

I learned this in RCIA.

You have a good RCIA class at your parish then. When I went through RCIA it was so elementary, I rarely heard anything new that I had not already read up on, on my own. One of the RCIA instructors acknowledged that fact to me too. He was very knowledgeable but had to keep the class elementary because so many of the people hardly knew anything about The Faith at all. If your class goes into historic facts like those you posted, that is a blessing.

 

[Spelf]

From what I understand, Pope Damasus commissioned the Catholic canon to be gathered together in 382 A.D. He entrusted the bishops of North Africa to compile all of the books that they believed were canonical, that is, worthy of reading in mass. The Eastern Church had nothing to do with it because there was a heresy at the time, Arianism, that plagued the Eastern church. Anyways, the African Bishops took over 11 years to compile the canon of books that were considered worthy of reading in liturgy. To be considered canonical, the books had to have been written by an apostle. Anyways, in 393 A.D., the council submitted their canon for approval by the pope. In 397 A.D., the issue was once again reviewed and affirmed by the bishop of Carthage, Saint Augustine.

For over a thousand years, the canon of the church remained the same. That is until a monk named Luther decided he wanted to edit the bible in the 16th century. He didn’t remove the deutorocanonical books, he just moved them to the back of the old testament and called them “Apocrypha” which means “hidden.” He also wanted to remove Hebrews from the new Testament because he did not like Jewish people. Also, he wanted to remove the epistle of James because it explicitly says that faith alone is not enough for salvation. He eventually decided to leave those two books in but followed through in rearranging the old testament. This new version was called the Luther Bible.

I learned this in RCIA.

Correct. Protestants contest that we added these books to the Bible, citing some bogus council of Jews in 95 AD that met to compile the Jewish canon, and that they left the seven books out. One must not strain oneself too much to see the flaws: 1. This council’s historicity is highly suspect, and 2. The traditional Sanhedrin had no authority following the life of Christ and certainly not after Pentecost

 

[steve_b]

Hi all,

So a few weeks ago I told some friends of mine who are leaders in the Baptist church that I was thinking about becoming Catholic. They invited me over for dinner.

I’m not suprised
A:

Now remember, these are people that I highly respect. They went on about how there’s a difference between petra and petros in Matthew 16

And their point? Who / what, do they think Jesus is referring to with petra?

After all,

• We know who specifically received a new name “Rock”
• We know who specifically received the keys to the kingdom of God
• We know who specifically received the power to bind and loose on earth as in heaven

A:

and how Jesus is the only mediator between God and man, not a priest.

Jesus made His apostles mediators for HIM.

when Jesus said

Lk 22:19 “Do ποιεῖτε ] this in memory of me.”

definition

• do, make, construct, cause.

Jesus ordained His apostles when He said this to them at the Last Supper after He instituted the Eucharist

Jesus also gave His apostles the authority and power to forgive sins. In Context

That is passed on to those they ordain
A:

They also said that Jesus is the high priest, not a priest in the church.

Who are they to make such a statement?

Yes Jesus is High priest… in His Church. And that doesn’t negate the fact priests are under the high priest… in HIS Church
A:

This guy has his Doctorate in Divinity from a Baptist Seminary so I was outwitted.

Don’t let THAT rattle you. We know who started the Baptist religion and when they were started. It wasn’t by Jesus, it wasn’t by the Holy Spirit, it was by John Smyth in the 17th century. Who gave him any auithority to do what he did? It sure wasn’t Jesus nor the Holy Spirit. Why do I say that? Jesus wants perfect unity in what He established. Not just among the apostles but also those who come to faith through their effort. “they are to be perfectly one” as Jesus and His Father are perfectly one. John 17:20-23 . And the HS only teaches what He hears from Jesus John 14:25-26 , & John 16:12-15. Therefore neither Jesus nor the HS is behind all the division on steroids we call Protestantism, no matter the stripe.
Division ( διχοστασίας ) from Our Lord’s Church, (The Catholic Church #34 ) has no legitimacy and is condemned. Any and all division ( διχοστασίας ) from Our Lord’s Church is condemned.

That same Greek word διχοστασίας appears in Romans 16:17-20 , & Galatians 5:19-21 . And notice the consequence for one who does it and remains in division? (Gal 5:21)

“they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God”.

BTW, that’s where the phrase “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation”, comes from
A:

Anyways, I have been attending their church for the past week but I constantly feel something calling me back to the Catholic Faith. Maybe it is the holy spirit? I don’t know.

Listen to the call.
A:

I feel so guilty. I told the deacon at a local Catholic church that I would attend RCIA soon but I never showed up. I feel like I was duped and brainwashed. Do you think the Holy Spirit calls some people to be Catholic? I mean everything I read here on Catholic answers makes sense to me…and it has always bothered me that protestants removed books from the bible. Anyways, just thought I could rant here and maybe get different opinions.

I love you all. Peace.

Go back and talk to the deacon. Tell him what happened. See if you can get into RCIA

 

[steve_b]

I completely agree with that sentiment. I always felt better whenever a priest would absolve me of my sins. I know that praying to God for forgiveness is enough but something about hearing it from a man of God really restores my faith.

If you are wondering, I used to be Episcopalian and the priest would absolve us during the liturgy. Like I said, something about hearing it…made me feel closer to God.

1 Jn 5:13 I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 And this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him. 16If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God**(“1 jn 5 RSVCE - Faith Conquers the World - Every one - Bible Gateway”)] will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Protestants have no gurantee they are forgiven when it comes to mortal sin. That’s why Jesus established the sacrament of reconciliation In Context

Protestants can’t just walk off the street and go to confession to a Catholic priest.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...ed-on-the-lord-may-i-confess-my-sins-to-a-pri

 

[zz912]

One phrase that should help you considerably in your future discussions with them:

“Hmm, you seem to have a logical argument and I’m not sure of the Catholic answer to that argument. But I will look it up and get back to you on that.”

Don’t feel pressured to know EVERYTHING about the faith, or that you need to be able to have a PhD-level debate on the intricacies of Greek. The Church has the fullness of the Faith, and the fullness of the Truth. So if you don’t know the answer right away, simply say that you will look up the answer and get back to them. Truth isn’t determined by who has the better debate skills.

 

[Alex_H]

1 Jn 5:13 I write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. 14 And this is the confidence which we have in him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have obtained the requests made of him. 16If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God**(“1 jn 5 RSVCE - Faith Conquers the World - Every one - Bible Gateway”)] will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Protestants have no gurantee they are forgiven when it comes to mortal sin. That’s why Jesus established the sacrament of reconciliation In Context

Protestants can’t just walk off the street and go to confession to a Catholic priest.
http://www.catholic.com/quickquesti...ed-on-the-lord-may-i-confess-my-sins-to-a-pri

I’m not sure that I understand your point.

 

[steve_b]

I’m not sure that I understand your point.

John is making a distinction between mortal and non mortal (venial) sin for forgiveness.
Venial sin (non mortal sin) he says one can pray about that, and God forgives that sin. But he then says he doesn’t recommend that for mortal sin.

Of course for a Catholic, Jesus established sacramental confession. Protestants don’t have that sacrament, and they can’t just walk off the street and go to a Catholic priest to confession. So the point is, how can they be confident their mortal sins are forgiven?

 

[Alex_H]

John is making a distinction between mortal and non mortal (venial) sin for forgiveness.
Venial sin (non mortal sin) he says one can pray about that, and God forgives that sin. But he then says he doesn’t recommend that for mortal sin.

Of course for a Catholic, Jesus established sacramental confession. Protestants don’t have that sacrament, and they can’t just walk off the street and go to a Catholic priest to confession. So the point is, how can they be confident their mortal sins are forgiven?

Lutherans and Episcopalians have the sacrament of reconciliation.

 

[steve_b]

Lutherans and Episcopalians have the sacrament of reconciliation.

Ya gotta have a valid priesthood. They don’t

 

[I_am_learning]

Well, yes…that’s what I’m saying. There were many books of scriptures to choose from and many–including gospels supposedly written by apostles and disciples–were not included. That’s what happens when a religion is in it’s formative stages and is deciding what books and ideas to keep and which ones not to keep.
So it makes sense for the Protestant religions to do this, too.
Some early Christian groups like the Marcionites, the Ebonites and the Gnostics relied on scriptures in those first several centuries that were not chosen to be in the canon we have today.

Wait a sec, you’re acting as if the Church just did some random picking and choosing of books. If they did this, THEN it would be okay for Protestants to do this, however that is not the case.
The books had to have Canonicity, which meant the books were evaluated to see if they conformed to the teachings of Jesus, originated with the oral tradition of the Apostles, and recognized by the Universal Church. This then became the Canon, which refers to the correct number of books in the Bible. The Canon was approved at multiple Councils as well.
A brief connection with Protestants, by the time of the Reformation, they had used this Canon for about 1100 years (therefore considering them inspired) before Martin Luther decided to drop the deuterocanonical books.
There is more about this here: catholic.com/quickquestions/didnt-the-catholic-church-add-to-the-bible

 

[I_am_learning]

Random?
No…in no way was it random, not sure how I gave that impression. I know that it took decades and decades.

Yes, of course they were evaluated, etc.

All I am saying is…the Protestants and Jews evaluated them differently. And that’s why the difference in the books.

Those who decide to be Protestants, obviously, agree with the Protestant evaluation of them.

When a religion branches off, they make changes or amendments. The Eastern Orthodox made changes in their faith to make it their own…and so do the Protestants.

Obviously, if each group all agreed on everything…there would be only one religion, one bible, one set of customs and rituals, etc, etc…

.

Ah, in that case, I fully agree. That is basically how that works, and why they today have different books/teachings.

 

[Alex_H]

Well, yes…that’s what I’m saying. There were many books of scriptures to choose from and many–including gospels supposedly written by apostles and disciples–were not included. That’s what happens when a religion is in it’s formative stages and is deciding what books and ideas to keep and which ones not to keep.
So it makes sense for the Protestant religions to do this, too.
Some early Christian groups like the Marcionites, the Ebonites and the Gnostics relied on scriptures in those first several centuries that were not chosen to be in the canon we have today.

Mark and Luke were not apostles.

And, as we know today, many of the books in the bible were written anonymously. And some of the authors listed are incorrect (for example, half of the 14 Pauline Epistles are thought to have been written by someone else).

Right. When you said in your original post that “it has always bothered me that protestants removed books from the bible…” it was confusing, because the books are there–as you say here.
He placed the Apocrypha books in-between the Old Testament and New Testaments.
It does make chronological sense to put them there, since that’s when they were written.

So…they explained to you in RCIA the reasons why Luther felt the the Apocrypha books should be moved?
And I assume you disagree with those reasons?

That’s my main question…since you mentioned in your original post that it bothered you.

Right, it wasn’t Luther who removed them – I concede that I was factually wrong on that one. But my point still stands that the vast majority of protestants don’t include the deutorocanonicals. Is there a reason for this? Who decided this? By what authority did they decide?

 

[WT1]

I grew up Baptist and converted two years ago and there is zero doubt in my mind that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded:

1. The Eucarist - My guess is the real presence of Christ is what is pulling you.
2. Authority - No other Church has the authority through Apostolic succession.
3. There are 1.2 Billion Catholics and only 15 million Southern Baptist and 75 million if you lump the different types of Baptist together. God isn’t going to make that kind of mathematical error.

Go to RCIA it will be a fantastic experience and you can join even if it is in progress.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hello again Alex H.

I am going to focus upon the “one mediator” issue in this post.

Here are the three other objections:

• Jesus is the only mediator between God and man, not a priest
• They also said that Jesus is the high priest, not a priest in the church.
• They also said that the catholic church would kill people if they didn’t agree with their ways, like they would kill protestants in Europe in the 1500’s.

There IS only one mediator between God and man.

1st TIMOTHY 2:5 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

There IS only one mediator between God and man. The Bible says so and we as Catholics affirm this.

But the issue is, HOW does Jesus “mediate”?

Does Jesus mediate . . . .

• EXCLUSIVELY by Himself in ALL instances? . . . . OR . . . .
• Does Jesus mediate exclusively in some instances (such as His work on Calvary), AND CONTINUES to mediate in and through men in other instances?

The correct answer is the second choice. Jesus mediates on His own, and Jesus mediates WITH us too. (We do NOT mediate on our own)

The answers to why this is, is twofold . . . .

The answer is found in the Greek word for “one” or “heis” (as in “one mediator” or “heis mediator”), which allows for secondary mediation.

And also the answer is found in the context (which allows for secondary mediation too).

• Greek word in 1st Timothy 2:5 = Heis (allows secondary mediation)
• Context in 1st Timothy 2:5 (allows secondary mediation)

The Greek Word Heis and 1st Timothy 2:5

1st TIMOTHY 2:5 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

The Greek word for “one” as in “one mediator” is transliterated heis (“hay-eese”).
“Heis” allows for secondary mediation.

Now the same with the Greek word for “one” parenthetically added . . .

1st TIMOTHY 2:5 5 For there is one God, and there is one (heis) mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

The Greek word “monos” could have been used which would be more exclusive. But “monos” WASN’T used here in 1st Timothy 2:5.

“Heis” WAS used, which ALLOWS for secondary mediation.

The Context and 1st Timothy 2:5

1st Timothy 2:5 allows for secondary mediation contextually.

That’s WHY in the immediate verses earlier; we are NOT told we cannot pray on behalf of other people.

NOT 1st TIMOTHY 2:1-5 (Phantom Verse) 1 First of all, then, you people cannot make supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. 3 Because if you try to do this, you will be trying to mediate between God and men. It is a terrible thing to try to do this mediation between God and men and totally unacceptable in the sight of God. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. So don’t you dare even think to try mediating in any sense.

No! That would be non-sense.

The issue isn’t CAN WE “mediate between God and men”.
The issue is HOW does Jesus “mediate between God and men”.

That’s part of what “grace” is.
That’s also WHY St. Peter can say we are “partakers” of the Divine nature.
That’s WHY St. Paul tells us we have a “participation” or a “koinonia” in Christ.

So the issue is HOW does Jesus mediate between God and men, NOT “can we please mediate APART from Jesus Christ just a little bit??” (We cannot “mediate” apart from Christ in any sense.)

That’s WHY several verses earlier you and I ARE implored or entreated to mediate and pray on behalf of other people.

We CAN do this mediation that we are TOLD by St. Paul to do (in 1st Timothy 2) precisely because Jesus is the “one mediator” and Jesus works within us!

This is WHY we CAN mediate in some sense. And this mediation of ours (with Christ) is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior

1st TIMOTHY 2:1-5 1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. 3 This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

Incidentally. Some examples of this concept of Christ at work IN US include Philippians 2:12-13, Philippians 4:13, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 3:20-21, and Hebrews 13:20a, 21. Other verses that at least hint at the same thing include, Romans 8:8-11, 1st Thessalonians 2:13, Philippians 1:6, 1st Corinthians 9:1, 2nd Corinthians 6:1, 2nd Corinthians 9:8, John 9:4, and many others.

 

[steve_b]

Right. When you said in your original post that “it has always bothered me that protestants removed books from the bible…” it was confusing, because the books are there–as you say here.
He placed the Apocrypha books in-between the Old Testament and New Testaments.
It does make chronological sense to put them there, since that’s when they were written.

Actually by Luther reclassifying 7 canonical books to apocrypha, his action, removed 7 books from scripture.

 

[chero23]

Hi all,

So a few weeks ago I told some friends of mine who are leaders in the Baptist church that I was thinking about becoming Catholic. They invited me over for dinner. Now remember, these are people that I highly respect. They went on about how there’s a difference between petra and petros in Matthew 16 and how Jesus is the only mediator between God and man, not a priest. They also said that Jesus is the high priest, not a priest in the church. They also said that the catholic church would kill people if they didn’t agree with their ways, like they would kill protestants in Europe in the 1500’s. This guy has his Doctorate in Divinity from a Baptist Seminary so I was outwitted. Anyways, I have been attending their church for the past week but I constantly feel something calling me back to the Catholic Faith. Maybe it is the holy spirit? I don’t know.

I feel so guilty. I told the deacon at a local Catholic church that I would attend RCIA soon but I never showed up. I feel like I was duped and brainwashed. Do you think the Holy Spirit calls some people to be Catholic? I mean everything I read here on Catholic answers makes sense to me…and it has always bothered me that protestants removed books from the bible. Anyways, just thought I could rant here and maybe get different opinions.

I love you all. Peace.

I have a book which I made, it’s at the bottom of my post. Click on it. It goes through different things which you will hear Protestants question Catholics about. It gives you bible verses.

I wouldn’t debate the guy, but I would look at apologetics so you can be secure with the catholic faith and not be told a lie.