Did I do well?

[PiousTemplar]

I’m new to trying to defend the faith, but I’m slowly getting better (I think).

I was on facebook in a discussion with 20 or so people, and this is what, lets call him ‘Richard’, said:

Because of recent debates on fb like this one, I have been re-reading all my books about the history of Christianity and the church. It is well documented by credible sources, Christian and secular, that almost all Roman Catholic traditions have their basis in paganism and not Biblical scriptures. As a result of much unbiased study over many tears, I am convinced that the Beast and the Anti-Christ that Revelation (and other prophetic books in the OT) talks about are the RCC and the seat of Pope. This is not to say that the Catholic people are bad, no, not at all. There are many faithful, spirit filled, loving people within the RCC who love the Lord and do good in his name. I am talking about the Vatican, the cardinals and high bishops, etc, who make all the rules and orders from Rome. It is fact that throughout the last two millenium, the church has been responsible for some horrific and tragic atrocities throughout the world. If you are wise, re-read the New Testiment and see how Catholic traditions match up with the words of Jesus and the apostles. Pray and ask God, through the Holy Spirit, to give you the gift of discenment and truth and read with an open mind and spirit.
I am sure that you will find that traditions like praying to ‘Saints’ and the adoration of Mary and religious relics, and many other things, are NOT scriptural. I could write pages and pages about this, but I will instead encourage you to seek and find for yourselves. God has promised us that if we seek the truth, we WILL find it. God bless you all, Shalom.

.

To this, I responded:

Richard, you need to pick some more sources. Just because it was ‘Christian and secular’ does not mean anything. They could be seventh day adventist for all we know. First, I would like to ask you to state which traditions of the Catholic Church are supposedly ‘pagan’, and give credible reasons. When I say credible, I mean backed with historical fact and reason, not just personal interpretations of scripture. Myself, with most Catholics here, care less what your interpretation of Revelation is. It just shows that you do not understand scripture.

When you say ‘It is fact that the Church did… so and so…’ We expect you to state your sources, not just blurt out accusations. I can also say ‘It is a fact that you are wearing a pumpkin hat’, but that means nothing if I don’t have proof from a credible source to back it up. It is at this point where we discern wether to continue in a constructive discussion or to brush it off as another ‘Catholicism on trial’ approach, which is common among fundamentalists.

What most protestants will not understand is that Catholicism is different from protestantism. We do not believe in ‘Scripture alone’, because that was unheard of before the 16th century (Martin Luther and John Calvin). Instead we believe in Sacred Scripture (The Bible, 73 books: Protestants removed 7 books during the 16th century) and Sacred Tradition (The living transmission of the Church’s gospel message found in the Church’s teaching, life, and worship. It is faithfully preserved, handed on, and interpreted by the Church’s Magisterium). We must remember that the Bible is a product of the Catholic Church, who wrote it (The Apostles) and discerned the true scriptures from the false and compiled them (Council of Hippo, 4th Century). Therefore, as we view it, a protestant trying to use scripture against the Church is silly. It’s like a reader taking the book from the Author and condemning the Author for knowing the scriptures ‘incorrectly’ (in his opinion of course). Protestants will use their interpretation of scripture against us Catholics, whereas Catholics will use faith, reason, history, Tradition and Scripture to prove a point. There is a limited amount a Catholic can do to prove his position using Scripture alone, especially when protestants have their own interpretations.

The ball is in your court, Richard. It is now your job to gather your sources, put down some examples of your accusations, and put evidence for your position. Accusations are just that, accusations.

God Bless.

.

Did I cover most of it? Any hints or pointers?

Thanks all and God Bless.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Pious Templar,

It sounds like you did well. I probably would not have given it much time like it is obvious that you did.

I always request sources myself. Also if they expect you do something like provide sources or go look up information, then I expect them to do what they expect me to do.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[Crumpy]

I’ve heard a quote recently that goes: Education changes an empty mind into an open mind.

I have been a Catholic since I was baptized as an infant. But, when I got to high school- and especially college years, I became much more open-minded about examining my faith.

Elsewhere on these forums, I previewed a book I read recently titled “Tradition and the Church” by Msgr George Agius. It’s about 315 pages, but the first 160 pages tells in systematic, logical basis the concept of tradition in the Catholic Church.

Tradition refers to what has been “handed down” from Jesus to the apostles and then down to our time. Agius notes the roots of tradition shown right in the scripture.

Anybody who restricts their faith to what is in the Bible is plainly denying Jesus Christ. Jesus said that he would not tell the apostles all truth, but that he would send the Spirit who WOULD teach them all truth.

The words of Jesus, the testimony of the New Testament, and the writings of the early Church fathers show a consistent reliance NOT on scripture, but on the assurance of tradition in the Church.

Two people can hold their Bibles and argue what the Bible says. But, it is the Church and its traditions that resolves the dispute – logically, if not actually.

Agius goes on to show, without any doubt, that Tradition is – as the Church has always maintained – a source of divine revelation.

If that’s what you said, then you did well.

It sounds like this fellow was shooting at ten targets in quick succession. You only need to dispel the one underlying flaw in his thinking, for the whole thing to topple over.

After you read Agius’ book, I suggest that in the future you use the phrase “you haven’t read your Bible” as often as you can, because that’s the flaw of ALL Protestants.

Another good phrase might be “Catholics didn’t invent Tradition – it’s in the Bible.”

 

[pablope]

I’m new to trying to defend the faith, but I’m slowly getting better (I think).

I was on facebook in a discussion with 20 or so people, and this is what, lets call him ‘Richard’, said:

To this, I responded:

Did I cover most of it? Any hints or pointers?

Thanks all and God Bless.

I think you did good…ask him to back up his statements with sources, books, where he got the info…and ask for specifics. Your friend Richard seems to be making a generalized statement, and your request put him on the spot.

When the right opportunity comes, ask him this question: Where is the chapter and verse where St. Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark? And when you locate this, answer this question…“How does he know the Gospel of Mark belongs in the Scripture? Why do you accept the Gospel of Mark as Scripture?..since there is nowhere in Scripture that states the Gospel of Mark should be in the Scripture?”

Of course, the answer is Church Tradition, so if all Catholic Tradition is pagan, so why does he accept the Gospel of Mark, and all of Scripture? He is accepting something pagan too, isn’t it. Such contradiction, isn’t it.

.

 

[Nate13]

I would ask more importantly what his sources are. If he lists “Roman Catholicism” by Loraine Boettner you will know he stepped off the deep end haha.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Ask him to name modern historians who holds his view, you will find they are trained historians, just polemics. In fact, one of their own Ralph Woodrow I think even changed his mind on the likes of Two Babylons.

 

[pablope]

Ask him to name modern historians who holds his view, ** you will find they are trained historians, just polemics. ** In fact, one of their own Ralph Woodrow I think even changed his mind on the likes of Two Babylons.

Hi, Big D…you may have missed a word or two on the bolded part.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

I would ask more importantly what his sources are. If he lists “Roman Catholicism” by Loraine Boettner you will know he stepped off the deep end haha.

Greetings Nate13,

I agree with you on this one. I read “that” book and was pretty dumbfounded at what I was reading. I think you have to seriously have some screws loose to think that is an authentic book.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit

 

[ctkrcia]

In my opinion, you did very well! Try to pick one topic at a time and keep him on point until all that can be said has been said. My experience has been that when someone is painted into a corner, the response is something like, “Oh yeah? Well what about THIS?”

At this point, tell them you would be happy to discuss that once this discussion is completed. Keep making your point until it becomes obvious they cannot add anything more to the discussion. Given his remarks, it is doubtful he will cede your point with a, “Wow! I never thought of it that way!” Remember, your job is to slightly open the door, throw in some seeds, and GET OUT OF THE WAY! The Holy Spirit will then take over.

One last thing. Your response was very charitable. You obviously are keeping in mind 1 Peter 3:15-16,
“Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.”

Well done. Well done indeed.

 

[PiousTemplar]

Thankyou very much for your tips/advice guys, much appreciated!

 

[StrawberryJam]

I think you completely ignored the opportunity to talk about the first 3 objections he raised. Saints, Mary, and Relics.

Frankly, I am dissapointed you decided to blow all 3 opportunities to clearly explain these basic things the way you did.

 

[PiousTemplar]

I think you completely ignored the opportunity to talk about the first 3 objections he raised. Saints, Mary, and Relics.

Frankly, I am dissapointed you decided to blow all 3 opportunities to clearly explain these basic things the way you did.

Thanks for your response. I know, I missed 3 points which I could of confronted, but I was hoping that he could re-state those points when we formally started arguing. I didn’t take his first post as the starting argument, rather I let him re-state his position as his first argument. I’ll get better over time hopefully.

God Bless.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

There are no credible sources that he could give you because any historian/archeologist that is well educated on the history of Christianity will tell you that early Christians did the same things the Catholic Church, the Lutherans, Anglicans, and Eastern Orthodox Churches does to this day as far as most of the rites are concerned such as Holy Communion. They will also tell you that the Lutherans, Anglicans,a nd Easter Orthodox Church all came from the Catholic Church. In fact, it is well documented that the Roman pagans (saw it also in a documentary on the History Channel) called Christians cannibals because of their beliefs about the True Presence in the Eucharist. It was Pagans that persecuted and killed the Christians along side of the Jews. Paganism has always been opposed to Christianity, and Christianity never borrowed any beliefs from Paganism. In fact, all of Catholicism is rooted firmly in Judaism, and every single one of our traditions comes from that.

The majority of biblical scholars well educated in the historical context of Revelation will also tell you that the whore of the Babylon is apostate Jerusalem, the dragon (which is found in Daniel) represents Rome, because Jerusalem sided with Rome in exterminating the Christian movement. Furthermore, common sense dictates the antichrist cannot or never will be the pope for the following reasons:

1. The only Christian denomination that listens to the Pope is the Catholic Church.
2. A large number of Catholics don’t even pay attention to the Pope or what he says.
3. The Jews will never follow the pope, neither will the Muslims, or the Hindu’s, because the Catholic Church professes that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Christ stated that the Jews would believe in the antichrist, because they did not believe in him.
4. The pope has no real political power, and I would bet that no country in modern times would ever give the pope such power.
5. The pope has no infantry, tanks, navy, or air force to use to enforce anything.
6. If you consider the fact that the Muslims, the Jews, the Hindus, the anti-catholic Christian denominations (which are growing daily), and secular society are all against the church, you can clearly see the majority of the world is against it and would never believe in an anti-Christ pope.

Sadly, though I think you wasted your time. People that are so deluded like this individual seems to be, will never see reason even if you talk to them as if they were a first grader.