I am a Protestant who wants an honest answer

[xrc]

The problem I have encountered in dialogue with Catholics is summed up in the following quote from Kugleman:

**“New Testament exegesis for the Roman Catholic interpreter is not an exercise in ascertaining the meaning of the biblical text through examination of the Greek words, the literary context, and the original intent of the writer. Far from it; it consists rather in listening to what the Roman Catholic Magisterium has already said the meaning is, and then looking for ways that that meaning can be defended from Scripture.” **

This is so true!

 

[chb03c]

xrc:

The problem I have encountered in dialogue with Catholics is summed up in the following quote from Kugleman:

**“New Testament exegesis for the Roman Catholic interpreter is not an exercise in ascertaining the meaning of the biblical text through examination of the Greek words, the literary context, and the original intent of the writer. Far from it; it consists rather in listening to what the Roman Catholic Magisterium has already said the meaning is, and then looking for ways that that meaning can be defended from Scripture.” **

This is so true!

No, This is so NOT true the fundamental reason why Catholics believe in the true presents in the Eucharist is because of the Greek translation (because the Greek language was written with a literal sence when is was talking about the breaking of the bread, ‘This is my body’ and not a figurative sence).

Plus The Catholic Church did not just pop out of the ground in the last few hundred years. it has been around for thousands of years and everyone knows that the Bible was translated in Greek long before it was translated in english. So the Catholics were translating the Bible in Greek long before the protastents even came about.

 

[WhatIf]

xrc:

The problem I have encountered in dialogue with Catholics is summed up in the following quote from Kugleman:

**“New Testament exegesis for the Roman Catholic interpreter is not an exercise in ascertaining the meaning of the biblical text through examination of the Greek words, the literary context, and the original intent of the writer. Far from it; it consists rather in listening to what the Roman Catholic Magisterium has already said the meaning is, and then looking for ways that that meaning can be defended from Scripture.” **

This is so true!

The problem I have with talking to Protestants about their beliefs is they are inconsistent and they don’t understand that the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky. The Catholic Church is why you have a Bible to base your faith on, as do we. We just aren’t sola scriptura types. We have the Bible because of the Church. We don’t have the Church because of what the Bible says. Research it, if you haven’t already. What is the history of the Bible? Why do you trust that it has the right books in it, if it was the Magisterium of the Catholic Church that decided which books were inspired. Your New Testament is probably exactly the same as our New Testament in the books that it contains, isn’t it? You yourself are trusting the Magisterium, aren’t you, each time you quote the Bible.

 

[michaelp]

xrc:

The problem I have encountered in dialogue with Catholics is summed up in the following quote from Kugleman:

**“New Testament exegesis for the Roman Catholic interpreter is not an exercise in ascertaining the meaning of the biblical text through examination of the Greek words, the literary context, and the original intent of the writer. Far from it; it consists rather in listening to what the Roman Catholic Magisterium has already said the meaning is, and then looking for ways that that meaning can be defended from Scripture.” **

This is so true!

I would have to agree.Good quote.

Michael

 

[WhatIf]

xrc:

The problem I have encountered in dialogue with Catholics is summed up in the following quote from Kugleman:

**“New Testament exegesis for the Roman Catholic interpreter is not an exercise in ascertaining the meaning of the biblical text through examination of the Greek words, the literary context, and the original intent of the writer. Far from it; it consists rather in listening to what the Roman Catholic Magisterium has already said the meaning is, and then looking for ways that that meaning can be defended from Scripture.” **

This is so true!

It seems to me to be obvious that you haven’t talked to many Catholics about Scripture. Can you give one example of when you have talked to a Catholic about Scripture and they quoted what the Magesterium says about it? We naturally would explain our beliefs, just as you would.

As far as having a Magisterium; it makes perfectly good sense that Jesus would have a Church with authority. It avoids the confusion of having each person setting up its own set of beliefs. Why would Jesus leave us in a state of confusion not knowing who to follow? He left us with a shepherd, don’t you agree? He left us with a guide that would not be confusion to us. He left a clear path to follow. He gave authority to the Church and said that evil will not prevail against the Church, didn’t he? Did evil prevail against the Church in the 1500’s, so Jesus left the Catholic Church and is with the Protestant Churches? Surely not or Jesus would’ve lied.

 

[StSteverino]

xrc:

The problem I have encountered in dialogue with Catholics is summed up in the following quote from Kugleman:

"New Testament exegesis for the Roman Catholic interpreter is not an exercise in ascertaining the meaning of the biblical text through examination of the Greek words,

Catholic Scholarship of Greek and other ancient languages is excellent, and non Catholics, including many rabbi’s will concede that as evidenced by the great number of non-Catholics that seek out scholarly Catholic settings to study.

** the literary context, **

*This of course is a subjective area, so you must be relying on an alternative teaching ‘magisterium’, *

---

**and the original intent of the writer. **

I sure wish I could personally interview the authors to ascertain their original intent, but it does seem to me that the Catholic view is more in line with the early Fathers than the ‘hermeneutic of doubt’ promulgated by liberals like the Jesus Seminar or the bizarre speculations of Darby and Scofield promulgated at Bob Jones U and Fuller Theological.

I trust the Holy Spirit Filled Church that assembled, preserved and promulgated these Sacred Texts throughout the world for 1500 yrs before Reformation to authoritatively interpret those texts.

Indeed, we had a Church with Christ Mandated Teaching Authority for the first 350 yrs after Pentacost.

**Far from it; it consists rather in listening to what the Roman Catholic Magisterium has already said the meaning is, and then looking for ways that that meaning can be defended from Scripture." **

---

**

---

This is so true

We should all be careful not to judge others. True intellectual honesty is a difficult ideal even for the most Socratic and principled among us.

I can not think of anyone who cares about promulgating their views who is not guilty of this flaw to some degree. We are all human.

However, I credit Catholics with not having, even among the most strident and abrasive apologists, nothing to compare with the vile low class slurs found among professional anti-Catholics. Enter Roman Catholic in your search engines and I assure you you will find a plethora sites dedicate to the most despicable and dishohnest of anti-Catholic hate speech.

Enter Protestant, and no such thing will occur.

 

[xrc]

To all my dear Catholic friends who responded to my first post:

Catholic’s claim that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible; you argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the Catholic Church which gathered the books and determined which were inspired. But, surely the Catholic Church cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament came through the Jews (God’s chosen people of old) who had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul said, “What advantage then remains to the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every respect. First, indeed, because the oracles of God were entrusted to them.” (Rom. 3:1-2; see also Rom. 9:4-5; Acts 7:38).
The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth. The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C., and this was the version Christ and His apostles used. Christ did not tell the people, as Catholics do today, that they could accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the authority of those who gathered them and declared them to be inspired. He urged the people of His day to follow the Old Testament Scriptures as the infallible guide, not because man or any group of men has sanctioned them as such, but because they came from God. Furthermore, He understood that God-fearing men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal) which books were of God and which were not; thus, He never raised questions and doubts concerning the gathering of the inspired books.

If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, “A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher…He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?” (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says “he must be married.” Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?

The following list give a summation of what I have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,

• 1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
• 1. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
• 1. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
• 1. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
• 1. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
• 1. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
• 1. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
• 1. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).
• 1. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
• 1. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
• 1. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
• 1. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
• 1. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
• 1. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

May you all have a Blessed Christmas

Mike

 

[All4lifetoo]

xrc:

To all my dear Catholic friends who responded to my first post:

Catholic’s claim that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible; you argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the Catholic Church which gathered the books and determined which were inspired. But, surely the Catholic Church cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament came through the Jews (God’s chosen people of old) who had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul said, “What advantage then remains to the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every respect. First, indeed, because the oracles of God were entrusted to them.” (Rom. 3:1-2; see also Rom. 9:4-5; Acts 7:38).
The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth. The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C., and this was the version Christ and His apostles used. Christ did not tell the people, as Catholics do today, that they could accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the authority of those who gathered them and declared them to be inspired. He urged the people of His day to follow the Old Testament Scriptures as the infallible guide, not because man or any group of men has sanctioned them as such, but because they came from God. Furthermore, He understood that God-fearing men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal) which books were of God and which were not; thus, He never raised questions and doubts concerning the gathering of the inspired books.

. . .][text deleted due to forum limitations]

The following list give a summation of what I have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,

• 1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
• 1. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
• 1. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
• 1. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
• 1. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
• 1. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
• 1. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
• 1. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).
• 1. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
• 1. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
• 1. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
• 1. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
• 1. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
• 1. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

May you all have a Blessed Christmas

Mike

This has to be one of the saddest posts that I have read. The number of false premises herein is amazing. I cannot understand how, after over 1200 posts in this thread and 10’s of thousand posts on this board, how the poster can hold so many false premises. Is it intellectual laziness or intellectual dishonesty? Surely someone who is capable of using the Internet possesses some rudimentary research skills and would be able to discover the flaws of myoptic use of limited Bible verses.

I know that if one does some searching on this forum, one will discover referrals to many excellent resources that address these questions and dispel the many false premises contained above. Resources such as Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism or Henry Graham’s *Where We Got the Bible *to mention just two.

Of course it takes intellectual work to search out and to study, not merely read, such resources. There is so much good Catholic material available that answers such questions that one will not exhaust it in one’s lifetime.

My advise to the OP: Stop posting such laundry lists on bulletin boards and start exercising some of your brain cells. The answers are available to you, if you are willing to expend the effort necessary to find them. Conversion comes from within an individual, not from without. Do your homework and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you in your search. No one minds answering an honest question, but no one wants to reinvent the wheel either. The answers to your questions have already been given. You must do the work to find, read, and understand them.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

michaelp:

I would have to agree.Good quote.

Michael

I disagree strongly now there are just a bunch of little popes trying to do what they weren’t appointed to do God Bless

 

[Vincent]

xrc:

May you all have a Blessed Christmas

Merry Christ Mass, Mike!

 

[ncgolf]

xrc:

If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

There are too many points of discussion here so I will address what I think is the primary one.

Here is the question … is God A. infinite or B. finite. It seems to me you think it is B. By your post you have to think all of what we can understand about God must be contained in the Bible, but strangely I have never heard the Catholic Church make that claim. The Catholic Church says the Bible is without error but never makes the claim it is complete and total in its explanation of God.

If you think God is infinite then please explain to me how any one book could contain all about God. Think about it … do you actually believe that the Bible explains all of what God is. Aquinas after writing the Summa Theologica and having a vision of God was quoted as saying , " compared to what God is my work is straw." The written word gives us the jump start needed to begin to understand Him. The only reason I think God did not reveal more is based on our limits not His. We can’t handle the truth so to speak … God recognizes us for the spiritual infants we are and feeds us accordingly.

Any written word, even the Bible is finite … it cannot explain the infinite … in my humble opinion God gave us a tasty morsel, an appetizer … a glorious revelation of what He is.

Think of it this way … I have not seen in the original Constitution the state of Idaho or any other the other non original colony mentioned. Does it make them invalid. By adding to the original it in no way detracts from it but adds to it. Looking back can you imagine the United States as still just the original 13 colonies … probably not. I cannot imagine the Catholic Church without Mary, the saints, absolution … all these don’t detract from the glory of God … they reveal it.

By the way you can add the Trinity to your list too.

 

[GoodKnight1443]

JesusFreak16:

I am Protestant. How many of you already “know” that I will not be going to heaven, even though you are not omni-present and you cannot see my heart? <>
God’s Peace~ Lisa

Lisa,

The only “group” that might think you and I are both going to hell for our beliefs might be Pentacostal Baptists or at least my coworkers who are Pent. say so.

I am not an apologist or a Catholic scholar, so to me, it is pretty basic. All Protestants while they may be good Christian people, don’t believe one can receive the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ through Holy Communion. I wish that all of our Christian bretheren could share this beautiful sacrament but that is what is missing from the Protestant belief. There you go, no scipture lesson, lecture or treatise.

Have a blessed Christmas.

 

[WhatIf]

xrc:

To all my dear Catholic friends who responded to my first post:

Catholic’s claim that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible; you argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the Catholic Church which gathered the books and determined which were inspired. But, surely the Catholic Church cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament Scriptures.
If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

May you all have a Blessed Christmas

Mike

The Old Testament is not the Bible is it? No, it is part of the Bible. Aren’t you glad the “Old Testament” was included in the Bible? This is why you should give credit to the Catholic Church. Look at it this way. Christians get the credit for putting inspired books together into a “book” which is the Bible and is the Word of God. Can you give Christians credit for the Bible or not? I hope you can. If you do, then you are giving the Catholic Church credit because the way I understand it, it was the only truly Christian group in existence and basically until the 1500’s. So, calm down and just give Christians credit for preserving the Word of God for centuries and know that those Christians were Catholic. I believe I’ve read that it was CATHOLIC monks hand writing copies of the Bible because there was no printing press. Isn’t it amazing that the Bible survived and eventually did get into print? Give glory and honor to God, but it was the Catholic Church that was doing God’s will in canonizing these books and making the Bible. It might make you mad, but it might make you less angry if you realize that you are simply giving credit to Christians. Are you so filled with hatred that you can’t appreciate the good that fellow Christians have done.

As far as your list of items. You’ve been fed some good information for argument, however, there are better sources out there. There is a simple small book called Why do CAtholics Genuflect. It will help with much of this, but I doubt that you really want to learn about what the Catholic Church truly teaches. Instead you want to think you already know that we are wrong about everything. The Catholic Church does have its problems because of the people in it. Protestants have a lot to offer fellow Catholics, but I think the devil works at putting anger between us because it keeps us divided. He can sit back and laugh at how much time Christians spend in fighting each other and get distracted from fighting off evil.

You have very good questions, however, when you are ready, you need to seek the answers from somewhere other than a group that dislikes Catholics. Former Protestants offer very good insight. If you have EWTN, tune in to The Journey Home when a Protestant convert is telling their story. It is interesting how often the same old lies have been taught to many Protestant groups, but then they have to do something to pull people away from the original Christian Church. BTW, if you find out that it isn’t the original Christian Church, let me know, but as I see it every Christian can trace his roots back to the Catholic Church, so be careful not to insult yourself when you criticize the early Church Fathers and the teaching of the Catholic Church. WE grow impatient with the same old misunderstanding that are evident in your list. Get an understanding of what the Church really teaches and then come up with a few good deep questions and we will be happy to discuss them. For now though, it would be best to get a few books. Maybe even Where is that in the Bible? by Patrick Madrid. There is a lot of info. out there. You just have to be sure you don’t hate your fellow Christians and then you will have more understanding.

 

[Glenamyaglen]

Jesus Christ said that the Word of God was Truth, John 17:17, the Word of God says, by Jesus’ own mouth, that no man has gone to heaven except for Him, John 3:13. Remember the meek shall inherit the earth, Matthew 5:5. The Kingdom of God will be set up on the earth, Revelation 21 & 22. The True Saints of God ruling with Him as kings and priests, Revelation 5:9-10; 20:4-6.

Thats as honest an answer as I can give

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

I would have to agree.Good quote.

Michael

Michael,

It surprises me that you supported that quotation from Kugleman. I thought you were much more open minded. This kind of accusation against Catholics is nothing more than a slur without basis in fact. When our doctrines are supported by scripture and the interpretations go all the way back to the early Church Fathers, it seems unlikely that this statement has any kind of merit.

Silly generalizations like this can be made against Protestants just as easily. I’m sure that my Evangelical and Fundamentalist friends would justifiably take offense if I reversed the tables and made a similar remark about them. This kind of thing reveals a certain amount of closed minded religious bigotry that does nothing to increase awareness and understanding.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michael,

It surprises me that you supported that quotation from Kugleman. I thought you were much more open minded. This kind of accusation against Catholics is nothing more than a slur without basis in fact. When our doctrines are supported by scripture and the interpretations go all the way back to the early Church Fathers, it seems unlikely that this statement has any kind of merit.

Silly generalizations like this can be made against Protestants just as easily. I’m sure that my Evangelical and Fundamentalist friends would justifiably take offense if I reversed the tables and made a similar remark about them. This kind of thing reveals a certain amount of closed minded religious bigotry that does nothing to increase awareness and understanding.

You are right. But to tell you the truth, I read the statement more generally. If this would have been said about Protestants, I would also have to agree. I think that all people have the tendency to read their theology back into the text (including me). Some groups (including Protestants) have more of an “obligation” to read their theology into the text than others because their traditions necessarily bind them.

I am sorry. I did not mean to imply (and I know it did) that only Roman Catholics do this. We all do to varying degrees. Thank you for the correction.

Michael

 

[Pax]

Xrc,

You have received some rather negative remarks to your 14 points against the Catholic Church. Knowledgeable Catholics find this kind of attack irritating because these things have been thoroughly refuted over and over again.

I can only assume that you are unaware of the Catholic response to your concerns. I will give you “some” answers to your points. Believe me, much more could be said than what I will present, but time and space do not allow for a full exposition. I only hope to spark your curiosity and whet your appetite for truth.

Point # 1
Matthew 23:5-6 does not condemn clerical dress. This verse says, “They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long,
and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues,…” Jesus merely condemns the Pharisees for their overall hypocrisy, worldliness, and their desires to be seen by others. Their garments, i.e. phylacteries and fringes, were exaggerated for the purpose of self aggrandizement. It is improper to apply this verse to wearing a “clerical collar” or some form of religious habit today. Jesus Himself wore a seamless tunic [John 19:23], a priestly garment that is reminiscent of the Jewish high priest’s garment worn when entering the Holy of Holies in the temple. Jesus is our High Priest [Hebrews 2:17]

Point #2
There are two problems here. The first is that you accuse Catholics of adoring Mary. This is incorrect. We honor Mary we do not honor, worship, or adore her in a manner that is strictly reserved for God. In Catholic teaching the worship that is reserved to God is referred to as “Latria.” This is a Latin word and it describes the constant teaching of the Church in regards to the worship of God. The saints receive honor as our holy Christian examples. They receive a level of honor referred to as “dulia.” Mary as the mother of the Divine Savior, Jesus Christ, is God’s greatest of creatures. She receives honor at a higher level than the saints. This is referred to as “hyper dulia.” Hyper dulia is far below anything offered to God, just as the honor we give to our natural mothers and fathers is far less than what we give to God. The honor we give to our natural parents is, however, greater than what we give to a mere acquaintance. All of this is proper and in keeping with scripture and the Christian way of life.

Point #3
The Catholic Church agrees that as Christians we are a priestly people and would immediately say “Amen” to 1 Peter chapter 2. As Catholics we are participants in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Priests offer sacrifice, so in our participation at Mass and in other ways we are a priestly people. This does not, however, deny a ministerial priesthood, and the NT scripture clearly speaks of bishops, presbyters (i.e. priests), and deacons.

Cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

Cont. from prior post

Point #4
Your reference to Galatians 4:9-11 must be understood in context. Paul is chastising the Galatians because they were falling back into pagan practices including the observance of pagan festivals. This is quite clear in the context set by verses 8 and 9 which say, “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods; but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits, whose slaves you want to be once more?” This is not a condemnation of Christian feast days or the observance of Sunday as the Lord’s Day. Instead it is a condemnation for falling prey to pagan practices and even idolatry.

Point # 5
While Paul does refer to Christians as saints it is worth noting that 1 Cor.1:2 and other similar references in the NT, were pointing out that Christians are in friendship with God and are a holy and sanctified people in the manner of OT Israel, but in a more substantive way through the sacrifice of Jesus. The term is not intended by the sacred author to inhibit the use of the word being applied to the “saints” in heaven. There is nothing wrong with distinguishing between those still running the race and those that enjoy the full glory of God’s immediate presence in heaven. Catholics have no problem with the way Paul applies the term in his letters. Notice that Paul uses other terms to describe Christians as well. None of these terms negate one another or prevent us from properly applying them elsewhere. We are adopted sons and daughters. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses (i.e. heavenly saints)[Hebrews 12:1] the spirits of just men made perfect.[Hebrews 12:23]

Point #6
Scripture condemns the making of images that are idols for worship. Pagans worshipped inanimate objects. The Israelites got in big trouble for making and worshipping the golden calf. They replaced the living God, Yahweh, with a craven image. This does not prohibit the making of any and all images. If you read scripture you will also notice in the book of Exodus a description of the Ark of the Covenant. The design and construction orders were given directly by God and they included two angels at each end of the mercy seat.[Exodus 25:18] The construction of the temple included all kinds of images. Read 1 Kings 7:18-51 for a full accounting of what was included in the temple. There are other passages in scripture that also refute your understanding in this area, but these should suffice.

Point #7
Col 2:12 does not teach that baptism is “only” by immersion. The Catholic Church agrees that this is the fullest sign of baptism but other methods are acceptable. You might find the OT foreshadowing of baptism to be instructive. In Ezk 36:25-28 we read, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of

 

[Pax]

flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. Christian practice has always included methods other than full immersion for baptism. This is easily evidenced by the “Didache” a first century Christian document that describes, among other things, how baptism is to be performed. It points out, for example, that pouring of water is a legitimate and proper method for baptism. All of the historical evidence shows that Christians have always baptized using methods other than but including immersion. Moreover, the Greek word for baptism in scripture has a range of meaning that goes beyond immersion only.

Point #8
Matthew 23:9 does say “call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” This verse, as well as verse 8, needs to be understood in a fuller context. Verse 8 says the following: “But you are not to be called rabbi *, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.” Based on your position and reference point we can draw the following conclusions. As Christians we are not to be called “teacher” and we are to call no man “father.” But what else do we find in scripture concerning these exact terms. In Acts 7:2 we find Stephen addressing the high priest and others saying, "Brethren and fathers, hear me.” In Romans 4:16 Paul says that “Abraham is the father of us all.” In 1 Corinthians 4:15-16, Paul says, “For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I urge you, then, be imitators of me.” Clearly, both Stephen and Paul are aware of the admonition of Jesus to call no man father, but they do so anyway. They understood what Jesus meant and they were not being disobedient. Obviously, Jesus meant something different from that which you believe. I could go into an explanation of this but it is far too lengthy to do so in this post.

The same issues surround the use of the term teacher. 1 Corinthians 12:28 says, “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. Again, in Ephesians 4:11-12 scriptures tells us “And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,…” Once again, Jesus meant something different from what your interpretation would indicate. We call our teachers and our male parents “teachers” and “fathers.” Every Christian by your standard would have violated Jesus admonition in Matthew 23:9 and apparently the apostle Paul did too. This simply doesn’t make sense.

Point #9
Your question about Christ as the only foundation and not Peter as seen in 1 Cor 3:11 is to be answered in the same way as point #8. Please refer to Ephesians 2:19-20 where it says, “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,” Also see Revelation 21:14 which reads, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.” While Jesus is referred to as “the foundation” in 1 Cor 3:11, He is also referred to as the “cornerstone,” and the apostles are*

 

[Pax]

referred to as foundations. To refer to Peter as the rock upon which Jesus, as architect, would build His Church is purely scriptural. To refer to Peter and the other apostles as foundations is also purely scriptural. Catholics do not in any way confuse the position of Jesus with that of the apostles. Catholics simply recognize in a very complete and thorough way what scripture actually has to say.

Point #10
1 Timothy 2:5 reads as follows: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” Catholics say “Amen!” to this verse. Obviously, the relationship between God and man was broken by the fall of Adam and Eve. Man as a mere finite creature cannot offer God, who is infinite, an infinite sacrifice of atonement to restore the relationship. Only God could accomplish for man what man could not do. Jesus became man for the express purposes of redemption and atonement for mankind. He could accomplish this because He was not merely man but He was also God, the word made flesh. No one else’s blood provides expiation, redemption, and atonement. No one else died for our sins. Only Jesus, the God man, provides this incredible act of mediation between God and man. He is therefore the one mediator.

This fact which all Christians recognize does not eliminate other aspects of the divine plan that include “other” forms of mediation. God’s plan includes man’s participation and that participation is a form of mediation. Obviously, any mediation and participation by man is in every way subordinate to that of Jesus and is only made possible by Jesus. So what examples of human participation/mediation can we find in scripture? Paul frequently uses the term co-worker with Christ. This is seen in the following verses:
Rom 16: 99 Greet Urbanus, our co-worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys.
1 Cor 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God’s husbandry, [ye are] God’s building.
2 Cor 6:1 As we work together with him, we urge you also not to accept the grace of God in vain.
3 Jn 1:8 Therefore we ought to support such people, so that we may become co-workers with the truth.

These are but a few examples of scripture clearly pointing out how we cooperate in God’s plan. Another good example is in prayer for one another. Paul says in Ephesians 6:18 “Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints,” Paul reiterates this again in 1 Timothy 2:1 stating, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men” All of these things represent a type of mediation and participation that God invites us to be a part of. Naturally, the participation on the part of God’s creatures in the divine plan extends to evangelizing, preaching, teaching, and prophesying. It even extends to the special place of the Savior’s mother Mary. When she, full of grace, accepted with an open and obedient heart God’s call to be the mother of Jesus Christ she played a special role in the divine plan of salvation. No other human being has ever played such an elevated role in their relationship to Jesus as a co-worker in His vineyard. None of this in anyway denies or lessens the role of Jesus as the one mediator between God and man. If anything, these