Need some help please

  • Thread starter Thread starter psychiatrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

psychiatrist

Guest
This “Bible-believing Christian” I know sent me the following to “prove” to me that the Catholic Church is not Biblical. Of couse he is in error, but I could use some help debunking his email. Much appreciated. Here’s what he sent me:

If the Bible is Catholic - as you say- how come none of these Catholic beliefs and practices are mentioned in the Bible? How come some of the beliefs and practices in the Bible are actually contrary to what Catholics believe?
  1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
  2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
  3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
  4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
  5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
  6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
  7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
  8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).
  9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
  10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
  11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
  12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
  13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
  14. 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?
 
This “Bible-believing Christian” I know sent me the following to “prove” to me that the Catholic Church is not Biblical. Of couse he is in error, but I could use some help debunking his email. Much appreciated. Here’s what he sent me:

If the Bible is Catholic - as you say- how come none of these Catholic beliefs and practices are mentioned in the Bible? How come some of the beliefs and practices in the Bible are actually contrary to what Catholics believe?
  1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
  2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
  3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
  4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
  5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
  6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
  7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
  8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).
  9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
  10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
  11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
  12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
  13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
  14. 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?
I see you friend prefers the scattergun approach of throwing out scripture verses unattached to any context. Doing a search through the “ThisRock” section of the website would bring you to articles addressing most if not all of these subjects. Have a look at these for starters:

(Ministerial Priesthood)
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea4.asp

catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

(Priestly celibacy)
catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

(Images - not adored, of course :))
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/commandments/page3

And this, also regarding images:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5167140&postcount=5

If your friend truly wants to have a serious discussion with you he should be willing to discuss his objections one at a time. You might also invite him to CAF. 🙂
 
I had this conversation with a protestant:
The Bible says that Jesus paid all our debts.
um, no, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t. Can you cite the verse?
I could cite LOTS of verses!
Well, I don’t want LOTS - I’ll settle for just one.
Any time someone bombards you (or threatens to bombard you) with objections and verses, ask him to pick the ONE objection or verse that he thinks is the most sensible and justifiable.

Tell this guy that you aren’t gonna slog through twenty verses - pick the one that he is most confident in, and we’ll discuss that. If you can show that his BEST verse doesn’t mean what he thinks it means then it casts doubt on all the others.

I scanned the list - most are trivial to demolish. If I was the guy, I would pick #13, “Why does [the Bible] oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).” That’s because Purgatory is probably the least Biblically defensible positions for Catholics.

But, if he picks that one, remember that you are only dealing with his claim. You don’t need to prove that Purgatory is clearly Biblical - only that Luke 16:26 does opposes it. Of course, it’s a bad choice of verses (for him) - this passage is often used by Catholic apologists to show that the Bible supports the idea that there are spiritual places other than heaven and hell (in this case, the “Bosom of Abraham,” a place where righteous Jews awaited the opening of the Gates of Heaven). It’s possible that the Bosom of Abraham IS purgatory (after all, everyone in purgatory has died in a state of friendship with God). But, whatever it is, it is neither heaven nor hell.

These are all easy claims to refute, but you shouldn’t be expected to refute them all.
 
  1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
This passage does not condemn clerical dress. It condemns the false piety of the scribes and Pharisees. They cared more about how they were seen by men than they did about pleasing God. They widened their phylacteries and lengthened their tassels to be more noticeable. They didn’t practice what they preached. They were hypocrites.

Remember, it was Mosaic Law that established this dress - the phylacteries and tassels.

Exodus 13:9
Deut 6:8
Deut 11:18
Numbers 15:37-39
Deut 22:12
 
  1. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
Why would we not honor the mother of Jesus? Out of all of creation, Mary was selected by God as part of his plan for our salvation. She not only heard and observed the word of God, she carried the word of God in her womb. In Luke 1:48, Mary says that “…all generations will call me blessed.” Jesus honors his mother in the most perfect way. Shouldn’t we honor her also?

Mary is blessed. The scriptures say so. In Luke 11:27-28, Jesus is saying that those who are faithful, who hear and observe the word of God, can also be blessed. In this effort, we should follow Mary’s example, as she completely submitted to the will of God.
 
  1. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
In Exodus 19:6, Israel was called a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. However, the Levites were set aside as priests in a special way. As Christians, we share in Christ’s priesthood. Indeed, we are his and made holy. But, as in the Old Testament, we also have a special priesthood.

Christ set aside men for a special role when he chose his Apostles. He commissioned them in Matthew 28 to make disciples of all nations, to baptize, and to teach. In John 20, Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to forgive or retain sins. At the Last Supper, Jesus instructed the Apostles to perform Holy Communion. Later, the Apostles ordained others to help them carry on the ministry. The New Testament mentions these roles (priests (elders), deacons, bishops).
 
This “Bible-believing Christian” I know sent me the following to “prove” to me that the Catholic Church is not Biblical. Of couse he is in error, but I could use some help debunking his email. Much appreciated. Here’s what he sent me:

If the Bible is Catholic - as you say- how come none of these Catholic beliefs and practices are mentioned in the Bible? How come some of the beliefs and practices in the Bible are actually contrary to what Catholics believe?
  1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
  2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
  3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
  4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
  5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
  6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
  7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
  8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).
  9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
  10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
  11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
  12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
  13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
  14. 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?
If we are to have an intelligent discussion we will have to approach one issue at a time. Let’s start with number one.
Mat 23:5-6 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
****And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues

The clerical class did not sit in the congregation during the Temple worship, they worked at the alter during the temple liturgy.
 
This “Bible-believing Christian” I know sent me the following to “prove” to me that the Catholic Church is not Biblical. Of couse he is in error, but I could use some help debunking his email. Much appreciated. Here’s what he sent me:

If the Bible is Catholic - as you say- how come none of these Catholic beliefs and practices are mentioned in the Bible?..
Always keep in mind that Catholic beliefs are grounded in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Moreover, we believe that official Church teachings on matters pertaining to faith and morals are formulated by the Magisterium with a guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit. Simply put, Catholics believe that God’s revelation is not limited to what is in the Bible.

On the other hand, people who do believe that the Bible is supposed to be the only source of authentic Christian teaching follow the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura (“Scripture Alone”).

Having said this, take a moment to examine the implications of this person’s criticisms against Catholicism and how he worded the challenge he sent you. Basically he is challenging you to prove the validity of Catholic teachings within the confines of the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura (in other words, “Use Scripture Alone to validate Catholic beliefs and practices”). I call this sort of thing an attempt to drag Catholics onto the “Sola Scriptura playing field.” I personally do not play along, and instead ask them to use the Bible alone to prove that all Christian beliefs and practices must be found in the Bible. I have debated this extensively in CAF (for example,here and here) and no one has successfully proven the validity of Sola Scriptura, at least not to my satisfaction.
How come some of the beliefs and practices in the Bible are actually contrary to what Catholics believe?..
Catholic beliefs and practices do not contradict biblical teachings, they only contradict certain people’s personal interpretations of biblical teachings.
 
This “Bible-believing Christian” I know sent me the following to “prove” to me that the Catholic Church is not Biblical. Of couse he is in error, but I could use some help debunking his email. Much appreciated. Here’s what he sent me:

If the Bible is Catholic - as you say- how come none of these Catholic beliefs and practices are mentioned in the Bible? How come some of the beliefs and practices in the Bible are actually contrary to what Catholics believe?
  1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
  2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
  3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
  4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
  5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
  6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
  7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
  8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).
  9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
  10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
  11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
  12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
  13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
  14. 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?
The one I would start with Is we do not Give adoration to the BVM. We do venerate her. there is a difference.
 
This “Bible-believing Christian” I know sent me the following to “prove” to me that the Catholic Church is not Biblical. Of couse he is in error, but I could use some help debunking his email. Much appreciated. Here’s what he sent me:
A couple of ways to go about this…

Ask him to not be belligerent, and to pick one item to focus on. Do so and follow it out to a conclusion, then proceed to other points if both of you wish. Of course he make take this as a concession of the other points, but constructive dialogue can only happen on one topic at a time.
 
  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?
This particular question of his stood out to me and I have thoughts but first, an observation: all his scripture references are New Testament. If he is truly a “Bible-believing” Christian as he claims, he ought to be able to reference Old Testament verses to back up his claims as well. Granted, I know he’ll likely say that the OT is all history and the “Old Covenant” and that the NT includes the life of Christ in whom we are a part of the “New Covenant.” In that, he would be partially right but not totally. Christ is not an instigator of a “new covenant” but the fulfillment of the old one. This doesn’t mean we ought to discount the OT though. There is much to be learned from it. For instance (and this brings me to question 14 above):

Infant baptism – baptism is the fulfillment of the old requirement of circumcision. I have no doubt that when God commanded that the Israelite men all be circumsised that it was done not only to the grown men but also the young boys and infant boys as well. There is plenty of OT evidence for circumcision. To the question of baptism though, in Acts 16 (haha! a NT reference!) we find the story of the jailer who Paul witnessed to who believed. Verse 33 says: “then he and ALL his family were baptized at once” (emphasis mine). Note that Luke (the writer of Acts) says that ALL his family were baptized. Not just the jailer or the jailer and his wife – ALL the family. Back in that day, that was likely a number of people of varying ages too – from geriatric grandparents to aunts and uncles to cousins to siblings and yes, Virginia, even to infants. There is another reference to an entire household believing and being baptised in Acts 18:8.

Instrumental music in worship – I don’t know of any NT verses to support this but there are SEVERAL in the book of Psalms that support the use of musical instruments in worship. Harp, lyre, drums, and timbrel are all mentioned specifically and perhaps a few other instruments. Clearly your friend hasn’t visited the Psalms recently. There are a number of Psalms that even direct the singer to be accompanied on a particular instrument. An example is Psalm 54 which directs one to use “stringed instruments.” So if we don’t discount the OT, then it is clear that instruments are both permissible and encouraged.
**
Confession to priests** – Ask your friend how he interprets John 20:23 if he thinks it does not refer to confession – “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” I don’t see how anyone could logically (and with Scripture alone) say that that verse means anything else. I’m sure someone out there has an interpretation for it that is different but I doubt it makes much sense.

As to indulgences, the rosary, the Mass and the “many other things” he is referring to, in my humble opinion, he is sadly misinformed. I can’t speak to indulgences as I know little about them myself, but I can say that the Rosary is very scriptural in its nature. No, the Rosary isn’t “in the Bible” in the sense that the word or practice is mentioned there but its origins (the 150 Psalms) are there and the basis for our meditations is there as well as the words of the prayers we pray while meditating. As for the Mass, well, it is nothing if not scriptural. The prayers that we pray during the Mass come, in large part, from Holy Scripture in addition to the readings that are read directly from scripture. Again, the Bible is silent on the Mass in that there is no mention of it directly (in other words, nowhere does it say, “And thus, they celebrated the Holy Mass…”) but there are examples of the rites and rituals throughout scripture – both OT and NT.

All of the above said, I agree with several other posters who have advised you to make this guy pick one of the list of things to have a conversation with you about or debate. Having a gigantic list of stuff and throwing ninety hundred scripture references at you along with it is a tactic used to overwhelm the person you’re trying to debate with and frankly, it’s weak. If this guy can’t pick one thing (and stick to it) then I wouldn’t engage with him in any kind of debate because it will be fruitless at best and increase your blood pressure at worst. At any rate, good luck and God bless you!
 
Here is the killer explanation and rebuttal for “call no man father:”

At the time of Christ there were various sects within Judaism. The most recognizable were the Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, and Zealots

These sects had houses of teaching within them .

Within the Pharisees there were two famous rival houses. They were the House of Shammai(Beit Shammai) and the House of Hillel (founder of the Beit Hillel school). The individuals that these houses were named after were considered the “father” of the house.

Jesus warns the apostles not to be fathers to “separate” houses for there is but one house of the Lord. Jesus also says to call no man “teacher” or “master.”

Paul was taught by Gamaliel[Acts22:3], a pharisee from the house of Hillel. Gamaliel was, in fact, the grandson of Hillel. Gamaliel was known as an elder and had the title of “Rabban” which means “Our Master.” This title explains why Jesus also said call no one “master”, for there is but one house and one master of all.

Again, Jesus wanted unity see John 17], and does not want the apostles to set up separate houses or schools of thought. The corollary of this is clearly expressed in Paul’s complaint in 1 Cor 1:10-15 where some are arguing their superiority by being baptized by, and belonging to, Paul vs. Apollos, or Cephas, etc. Paul goes on elsewhere to further warn against factions and divisions, and stresses the importance of one mind and unity of doctrine.

The meaning of “call no man father, teacher, or master” concerns unity and consistency of doctrine and has nothing to do with the commonly used references that are seen elsewhere in scripture or everyday use. By the way, have your friend count the number of times “father” is used in the gospel of Matthew where it does not refer to God the Father. Furthermore, he can also look at Philemon 1:10 and see where Paul refers to himself as a father to Onesimus. Also have him read 1 Cor 4:15, Rom 4:1, and Rom 4:11 just to mention a few.

Good luck with your efforts and God bless.

I hope this helps.
 
This “Bible-believing Christian” I know sent me the following to “prove” to me that the Catholic Church is not Biblical. Of couse he is in error, but I could use some help debunking his email. Much appreciated. Here’s what he sent me:

If the Bible is Catholic - as you say- how come none of these Catholic beliefs and practices are mentioned in the Bible? How come some of the beliefs and practices in the Bible are actually contrary to what Catholics believe?
  1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
  2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
  3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
  4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
  5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
  6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
  7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
  8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matt. 23:9).
  9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
  10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
  11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
  12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
  13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
  14. 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?
Reframe the conversation by asking this…

Which version of the Bible do you use…then ask…were the deuterocanonicals added or removed…if they say removed…then ask by what autority and go to the bottom of this post…if thye yes added then start at the following sentence…

Ask them first…do you believe that the Bible is the sole authority…YES

Do you believe that there is no authority higher than the Bible and the Bible must be consulted on any decision to know wha to do, even as it concerns the Bible…YES

Do you agree that no church on earth has any authority to do anything without consulting the Bible…YES

Do you believe that the Book of Revelation is inspired and should be in the Bible…YES
18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Ask if this passage relates to the whole of the Bible or the Book of Revalation alone…it does not matter what answer they give…just gloss over it and then ask

Why is it that the Original King James had the Deuterocanonicals as did many English versions of the Bible…I have a list somewhere and I cannot find it.

Ask them, on whose authority, were the Deuterocanonicals taken out of the Bible…was it a church…was it a person…who did it?

The answer Bible printing presses…but don’t tell them until they have tried and failed a few times…

Then ask if no church has authority, no person has authority then why did a printing press remove books of the Bible…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top