One True Church? 1 Tim 3:15 - Protestant Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter cjaubert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cjaubert

Guest
I am in an email debate with a fallen-away Catholic who, like many similarly situated people, is rather grossly anti-catholic, and also quite ignorant of history and Catholic theology and teaching. I can’t get him off one topic, despite all my best efforts. I wish with this post to get your views on the best answer to the following question(s) he has given me:

“You use 1 Tim 3:15 to claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the TRUE Church – would you please write out the whole verse or even passage and show me where in that passage it says that God has chosen the Roman Catholic Church to be the one and only True Church in the world? I need the words that say, “I God have instructed Paul to tell you all that as of now Rome, and especially the Vatican, is my chosen organization to lead you in the world (or words to the effect that show like the OT shows that Israel is God’s chosen Son and that Hebrews will always be His chosen People).”

Now, we all know that the exact words he wants to find are not anywhere - it’s actually therefore a silly question. The real question is, if we get past the sillyness of the question and get to the real question, what is the best, most persuasive answer to his question? I re-write the real question as, “Please explain how you make the jump from 1 Tim 3:15, which certainly says what it says, to your claim that this passage refers to the Roman Catholic Church being the fullness of truth, as you claim it is the case today.” (I would have said, “as you claim it has been for 2000 years,” but he would say that the Roman Catholic Church began in 1220 AD (nutty…), so I prefer to use the question restated as I have.)

Thank you, and God bless you all.
 
Ask him how many churches can trace there roots all the way back to the apostles. If he’s honest, he’ll say “one”. If he doesn’t know, you can explain that the Catholic Church is the only one that can.

After (and only after) establishing that, you can explain that:
a) If the Church in 1 Tim 3:15 is the true church.
and
b) The Catholic Church is the only church that can trace its roots to that same church in 1 Tim 3:15.
then
c) The Catholic Church is the one true Church!

You’ve got to take him in steps, though. Get him to agree to your first point before continuing to the next, and DON’T LET HIM CHANGE THE SUBJECT WHEN YOU GET HIM TRAPPED IN A CORNER! This is a classic tactic.

NotWorthy
 
Tell him that if he rejects that implicit teaching of the scriptures then he also has to drop his belief in the implicit teachings of the trinity and incarnation because he refuses to accept anything not spelled out literally in the Word of God.

Also point out that his personal denom isn’t listed either…but the truth is that historically he cannot trace his church or their beliefs back farther than 1517, unless he espouses some other older heresy…)

Read This letter from Ignatius of Antioch written between 107 & 110 by a close friend, & disciple of St. John, The Bishop of the church at Antioch. Note and quote chapters 7 & 8 particularly though the whole thing is loaded with insights.

The point of the passage (which he is seeking to dodge) is that it plainly says that the church is the pillar & ground of the truth and nowhere says that about the Bible.

His argument is a dodge and nothing more and in effect says that he really doesn’t want the truth…he’s already got his mind made up.
Pax tecum,
 
ask him who is the better interpreter of the bible, him, or the ones that gave him the bible. (the catholic church)
 
NotWorthy, I like your logic well. It seems, though, that he will not agree with the line of direct and unbroken apostolic succession to Peter, since he has claimed already that the Roman Catholic church started in 1220. I’m not sure how to shake him of this rather crazy belief. (Frankly, debating with him is like debating with someone who claims the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. His mind is made up and also, at the same time, closed - a dangerous combination.)
 
can somone post timothy 3:15 for me, because i really don’t see how it ordains anyone as the true church. (sorry i’m a noob on catholic history and such.) also i have a king james bible, so it’s in old english and a little hard to decipher. i could probably understand it in latin better lol
 
40.png
claydoc33:
can somone post timothy 3:15 for me, because i really don’t see how it ordains anyone as the true church. (sorry i’m a noob on catholic history and such.) also i have a king james bible, so it’s in old english and a little hard to decipher. i could probably understand it in latin better lol
Click to expand...
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The importance of this verse is that it is saying that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, not the scriptures. We are supposed to follow the teachings of the apostles, whether they were written in the new testament or not. The apostles were given authority by Christ and they handed that authority on to successors.
 
40.png
cjaubert:
NotWorthy, I like your logic well. It seems, though, that he will not agree with the line of direct and unbroken apostolic succession to Peter, since he has claimed already that the Roman Catholic church started in 1220. I’m not sure how to shake him of this rather crazy belief. (Frankly, debating with him is like debating with someone who claims the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. His mind is made up and also, at the same time, closed - a dangerous combination.)
Click to expand...
Ask him if he knows how the Bible came about, as this issue is quite a blow to Protestantism’s claim. If he’s one of those who believe the Bible just fell from the sky, or had been complete since the first century…well, he’s got a lot of learning to do. We’ve heard and/or read quite a number of converts surprised by the fact that the Bible as we know it now was not completed until 410 AD.
 
40.png
cjaubert:
NotWorthy, I like your logic well. It seems, though, that he will not agree with the line of direct and unbroken apostolic succession to Peter, since he has claimed already that the Roman Catholic church started in 1220. I’m not sure how to shake him of this rather crazy belief. (Frankly, debating with him is like debating with someone who claims the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. His mind is made up and also, at the same time, closed - a dangerous combination.)
Click to expand...
Let’s see, 1220, he says?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

It starts with:
The List of Popes
Code: 
*See also* [POPE](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), [PAPAL ELECTIONS](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11456a.htm), [ELECTION OF THE POPE](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12270a.htm).

  1. *]St. Peter (32-67)
    *]St. Linus (67-76)
    *]St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
    *]St. Clement I (88-97)
    *]St. Evaristus (97-105)
    *]St. Alexander I (105-115)
    *]St. Sixtus I (115-125) – also called Xystus I
    *]St. Telesphorus (125-136)
    *]St. Hyginus (136-140)
    *]St. Pius I (140-155)
    *]St. Anicetus (155-166)
    *]St. Soter (166-175)
    *]St. Eleutherius (175-189)
    *]St. Victor I (189-199)
    *]St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
    *]St. Callistus I (217-22)

    And continues on, and on, and on…
    At this point, it’s up to him to disprove this. If the rules of his little game are “I only want to believe what I want to believe”, then show him the truth and that’s all you can do.

    NotWorthy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top