Trying to evangelize

[Harpazo]

On a Protestant Christian forum for teens, there is a little debate going on between me and another guy. I have been defending Catholic Doctrines and Dogma using Scripture and reason, yet he is still protesting…typical I know. He relentlessly attacks the Blessed Mother, the Communion of Saints and other beliefs.

One thing he tried to point out was by using a Psalm. I’ll post his full reply here and see what weaknesses you can pick out from it. And then I’ll post my reply after his.

Luther did not take any books out of the bible. By your own math you’re saying that 73 books - 14 books (7 from the old test. and 7 from the new test.) = the 66 books of the Protestant bible? 73 - 14 =59. Seven books were added to the bible by the Catholic Church in 1563 at the Council of Trent, some 1200 years after the bible was put together. Do your research. Seven books that you claimed were not in our New Testament are actually in it.

You still have NOT given me a verse in the bible that says purgatory is real. Why? Is it because it is false? I think so.

Psalms 69:8 “I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own MOTHER’S SONS” This verse is a verse that clearly, 100% shows that Jesus had siblings. Sons can not mean cousins, nephews, or other relations. No way are we talking about cousins. Yes those other verse about Abramham and Jacob might have meant cousin or nephew; but mother’s sons can only mean mother’s sons.

Nowhere in the bible does it say Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. No where does it say that she or the saints can listen to our prayers and pray for us. Another thing, where does it say that the Pope speaks on behalf the Holy spirit? Also there is no historical or biblical proof that says that Peter even was the first bishop of Rome. One last thing. Jesus was humble, lowly in appearance, preach and lived with the people, and wore rags. Shouldn’t the priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes be like that instead of dressing in expensive robes and hats, which to me is like the opposite of Jesus. They should just dress like everyone else because they are like everyone else. We have all sinned, including the popes, bishops, cardinals, and priests; and also protestant pastors and ministers too. We are all the same, so we shouldn’t have some heirarchy of priests when we are all the same.

Con’t

 

[Rolltide]

Well, I could give you an angle on one point. As far as Mary being bodily assumed into Heaven. IF Mary was completely free from sin for her entire life (which we believe, but Protestants usually don’t), you can prove the Assumption by logic. It doesn’t have to be in the Bible. Death is a consequence of sin. If Mary never sinned, then she would have never died a natural death. She would either have to have been bodily assumed into heaven while alive, or made to die a completely painless death, and still bodily assumed. Either way, if the Immaculate Conception is true, then the Assumption must be true. Further, there is precedent for bodily assumption into heaven (Elijah).

Now all you have to do is prove the Immaculate Conception. (LOL Oh, is that all?!) That’s going to involve a discussion of Luke 1:28 and “highly favored” vs. “full of grace”.

 

[Harpazo]

My reply is as follows. If you could offer any suggestions, or criticisms, it would help tremendously. I’m not even officially in the Church (yet), but I feel now is as good a time as any to defend the Faith.

It’s obvious his perception with the Pslam is clearly out of context.

Yes, it is indeed true that Luther took those 7 books out of the Old Testament, which are included in the Catholic Bible. He also took out those 7 from the New Testament, however at the pleading of his colleagues he added them back in. He took out James, because it speaks of NOT being saved by Faith alone. He also took out Revelation because it tells us that we will be judged according to our works: good or lack thereof. You my friend, need to follow up on historical research. Luther did, however add them in. He would have kept them out. I’m a bit puzzled though. In respect to your belief in Sola Scriptura, you believe anyone can interpret the Bible however they so choose. How come my interpretation isn’t valid? It’s my own interpretation. Who are you to say mine isn’t valid?

I want you to give me the exact book, chapter and verse which says every Christian doctrine must be from Scripture itself.

In regards to the Communion of Saints:

Heb. 12:1 - the “cloud of witnesses” (νεφος μαρτύρον) that we are surrounded by is a great amphitheatre of witnesses to the earthly race, and they actively participate and cheer us (the runners) on, in our race to salvation.

James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 - the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects. This is why we ask for their prayers. How much more powerful are the saints’ prayers in heaven, in whom righteousness has been perfected.

Rev. 5:8 - the prayers of the saints (on heaven and earth) are presented to God by the angels and saints in heaven. This shows that the saints intercede on our behalf before God, and it also demonstrates that our prayers on earth are united with their prayers in heaven. (The “24 elders” are said to refer to the people of God – perhaps the 12 tribes and 12 apostles - and the “four living creatures” are said to refer to the angels.)

Rev. 6:9-11 – the martyred saints in heaven cry out in a loud voice to God to avenge their blood “on those who dwell upon the earth.” These are “imprecatory prayers,” which are pleas for God’s judgment (see similar prayers in Psalm 35:1; 59:1-17; 139:19; Jer. 11:20; 15:15; 18:19; Zech.1:12-13). This means that the saints in heaven are praying for those on earth, and God answers their prayers (Rev. 8:1-5). We, therefore, ask for their intercession and protection.

Rev. 8:3-4 – in heaven an angel mingles incense with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne of God, and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. These prayers “rise up” before God and elicit various kinds of earthly activity. God responds to his children’s requests, whether made by his children on earth or in heaven.

“Ignorance of Scriptures, is ignorance of Christ” --St. Jerome

You pose too many questions at one time to be answered. You answer my question about every single doctrine being found in the bible. It will be a fruitless argument of verse-slinging, if we bombard each other with countless questions.

One last remark. How come your Protestant ministers don’t live like Jesus: celibate? Many are married with Children. Priests commit their entire lives to Christ. Granted, priests are still humans and some have made grave mistakes. But it would be a horrible generalization to place a label on all priests. Just as it would be idiotic to say all Germans are Nazis, or all Southerners are White Supremicists that drink sweet tea, live in trailer parks and watch Nascar. (Note: I’m pointing out stereotypes in my area. I in no way think any of the aforementioned things).

In Pax Christi
Andrew
*Verses from www.scripturecatholic.com

Again, comments or anything would be appreciated. It’s hard to address all of his issues

 

[Rolltide]

As far as priestly celibacy, remember, it wasn’t mandatory in the Latin branch of the Catholic Church until the 11th century. Married priests are STILL allowed in many of the Eastern branches of the Catholic Church. Further, some ministers that convert from Anglicanism and Lutheranism that are married are allowed to remain married and become priests (although this is highly rare). So, the Catholic Church does NOT practice mandatory celibacy across the board.

 

[Nita]

Harpazo,

I think you did really good.

Here are some resources for the areas you haven’t yet responded to.

Also there is no historical or biblical proof that says that Peter even was the first bishop of Rome.

One of the earliest historical records is St. Irenaeus (120-202AD). Here is the website that gives the pertinent information written by him; importance of Rome and list of popes.
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
Eusebius is another early historian who gives a list of the early bishops of Rome.

If you’re not already familiar with it, www.newadvent.org is a great website. Can access the Catholic Encyclopedia and the writings of the early Church fathers.

Another thing, where does it say that the Pope speaks on behalf the Holy spirit?

Let him know we don’t use that expression… What we say is that God insures the pope will not speak error when he teaches something is to be infallibly believed in regards to faith and morals. The Scripture passage that tells us of this great gift Our Lord gave His Church is:
Matthew 16: 18 & 19 - And I tell you, you are Peter (Rock) and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now, I’m sure he would agree that God would never allow anything false, wicked, or contrary to His will to be bound or loosed in heaven. Your friend may object to the “rock” being a reference to Peter. But, the binding and loosing occurs in verse 19, and I’m sure he’d have to agree that the “you” is referring to Peter.

You still have NOT given me a verse in the bible that says purgatory is real.

1 Cor 3:12-15 … If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Matt 12:32 …but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
(Interpreting “age to come” as after death, the passage implies that some forgiveness/cleansing can take place for offenses other than the sin against the Holy Spirit.)

Matt 18:34-35 And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.
(Implies release from punishment after debt atoned for; cannot be a reference to hell, because there is no release from hell.)

Rev 21:27 But nothing unclean shall enter it, …
Hebrews 12:14 …and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
(Speak of the holiness and lack of uncleanness {sin} which is the state we must be in before we can enter God’s presence. Does he think only people who die in that state of perfection get into heaven? If not, it implies some cleansing must take place for those who accept Our Lord but are not yet free from all sin.)

An OT passage that I see as applying to purgatory as well as to the historical situation (since we will all experience His coming after death) is Malachi 3:2. However, your friend may not.
"But who can endure the day of His coming, and who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner’s fire and like fuller’s soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, till they present right offerings to the Lord.

I don’t know if you’ve shared any of these verses with him or not. Maybe you have and he won’t accept them.

Nowhere in the bible does it say Mary was bodily assumed into heaven.

As antagonistic as your correspondent seems to be, I don’t even know if it’s a good time to start with him about Mary. For some reason that seems to be a particularly difficult area for Protestants. However, for possible future use, there is -
Rev 12:1 And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;

He will no doubt say it does not refer to Mary, but to the Jewish people and/or the Church. Of course, it is one of the many verses in Scripture that have more than one application. But it is pretty hard to deny that it applies to Mary also when one reads verse 5: “she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations…”

Hope some of this will help.

And, welcome home.

Nita

 

[JaneFrances]

Seven books were added to the bible by the Catholic Church in 1563 at the Council of Trent, some 1200 years after the bible was put together. Do your research. Seven books that you claimed were not in our New Testament are actually in it.

I will reiterate that your friend needs to do some serious research himself, especially if he truly believes that the Council of Trent added books to the canon.

Here’s some research for you:
envoymagazine.com/backissues/1.2/marapril_story2.html

You still have NOT given me a verse in the bible that says purgatory is real.

This, indeed, may be his fatal flaw. For a Christian to demand that every teaching and doctrine be explicit “in the Bible” would discard one of our most central doctrines–the Trinity. Nowhere in Sacred Scripture is there a verse that says the Trinity is real. Yet we believe it. Why is that?

Psalms 69:8 “I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own MOTHER’S SONS” This verse is a verse that clearly, 100% shows that Jesus had siblings. Sons can not mean cousins, nephews, or other relations. No way are we talking about cousins. Yes those other verse about Abramham and Jacob might have meant cousin or nephew; but mother’s sons can only mean mother’s sons.

My question to this logic, in spite of the obvious contextual flaws, would be: Are all mother’s sons biological? Scripture would hold otherwise. See John 19:26.

Nowhere in the bible does it say Mary was bodily assumed into heaven.

Once again, it is impossible to “prove” from Sacred Scripture much of our Christian faith, however it is equally impossible to prove from Sacred Scripture that everything we believe must be “in the Bible.”

No where does it say that she or the saints can listen to our prayers and pray for us.

He needs to read Revelation.

Another thing, where does it say that the Pope speaks on behalf the Holy spirit?

You are dealing with a fundamental misconception regarding the doctrine of infallibility. He needs a lesson on the basics. Start from the beginning. Establish a common language before you attempt to answer these questions.

Also there is no historical or biblical proof that says that Peter even was the first bishop of Rome.

Then who was? How about you turn this one around? First, YES there is historical proof. It just hasn’t been provided to him. But, a better place to begin addressing questions like this is to reverse them. Okay, well IF Peter wasn’t the first bishop of Rome, who was?

And see:
catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp

One last thing. Jesus was humble, lowly in appearance, preach and lived with the people, and wore rags. Shouldn’t the priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes be like that instead of dressing in expensive robes and hats, which to me is like the opposite of Jesus.

For the record, many of our saints were priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes who DID actually live quite humbly. AND for the record, aren’t we ALL supposed to be humble and Christlike? So, why aren’t we all walking around in rags? Because I’m sitting here typing on my laptop, in my nice heated home, wearing my designer jeans, does that mean that I’m the opposite of Jesus? The clothes don’t make the man, or so the saying goes.

They should just dress like everyone else because they are like everyone else.

Does this kid even KNOW any priests or bishops? News flash. . .they do dress like everyone else! Last time I checked my pastor was wearing pants and button up shirt just like the next guy. Sure, he’s got on a Roman collar, too, but why’s that any worse than the guy who wears a tie to the office? This is actually a silly discussion to have, because if taken to its logical end, your friend would have to eventually either admit that his arguement is hollow or demand that everyone wear the same clothes because, hey, we’re all “like everyone else.” And I don’t think he’s likely to show up for his wedding in jeans, right? In reality, we aren’t all just the same. The things we wear and the times at which we wear them are mandated by a number of variables. The ritual “robes and hats” are no different than prom dresses, costumes, and even the starched white shirt one puts on for a special occasion.

We have all sinned, including the popes, bishops, cardinals, and priests; and also protestant pastors and ministers too.

Amen! Whew, glad we can agree on SOMETHING!

We are all the same, so we shouldn’t have some heirarchy of priests when we are all the same.

And where, in the Bible specifically, does he get this doctrinal stance? Last I checked, Christ actually did create a heirarchy of Church authority. Who does he think the Apostles were? I don’t remember our Lord’s words saying that since we’ve all sinned, we have no more need for authority.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Ok, I have a couple of responses. First of all, whenever someone asks you to give “a verse” to prove anything is true, more than likely their concept of Biblical study is askew. Purgatory, for example, is revealed through a series of passages and an overall theme in salvation. It is not as simple as one verse. Go to this site which gives a lot of scriptural back up on a variety of Catholic doctrine.

About the Council of Trent. Here is where your friend shows an enormous lack of scholarship. Here is a nice summary of Bible history. You’ll see that our canon was in place by 382. Additional tidbit here–look at this summary of deuterocanonical history. Notice that Tobit was removed by the Jews because it was not written in Hebrew. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, they contained fragments of Tobit (and Baruch and Sirach) all written in Hebrew. The scrolls predate the Jewish decision to remove them from their Canon. It is reasonable to conclude that Tobit, since it did indeed exist in Hebrew, should not have been excluded. What other mistakes were made?

But the bottom line for me is why should the early Christians have submitted to the authority of the Jews that had rejected Jesus? After all, the Catholic belief is that the Church now had the authority…you know the keys to the Kingdom, etc. The answer is that they should not have and did not submit to the Jewish decision to exclude those 7 books.

 

[Verita]

You still have NOT given me a verse in the bible that says purgatory is real. Why? Is it because it is false? I think so.

Ask him to provide you with a verse that explains the Trinity. There is NO verse in the Bible which says the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one god in three persons. Why? Is it because it is false?

He also took out those 7 from the New Testament, however at the pleading of his colleagues he added them back in.

Make sure you have unbiased documentation of this. I have seen a lot of people make this claim and as yet I haven’t seen anyone show proper documentation (by that I don’t mean some website). Hold yourself to the same standards that you want him to uphold. If you can’t find reliable documentation then don’t mention it. Stick with the removal of the deuterocanonicals.

 

[vince2paul]

Actually, it’s not whether you can explain it to him or not.
But it’s whether he is open-minded and wants to know the TRUTH.

It’s difficult to talk to people who are close-minded, because no matter what you say, they will find ways to say that you are wrong. Sola Scriptura makes it difficult as they could have their own interpretation of their faith and no one controls it. Therefore, they can interpret as they like it. There’s a church here (about few years old now) that supports homosexual, the founders are 2 gay people who were rejected by the church they went. And they can prove that it is biblical that Jesus approve homosexual acts.

The problem here is if people do not read the bible with an open mind and seek the Truth, they will never know where to find TRUTH. Only those who truly read the bible and understand it correctly will be able to find TRUTH.​

As a poster mentioned above, there is nowhere in the bible does it say that everything must be in the bible, in fact, John 21:25 says “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

Even Trinity is a tradition. There’s no way in the bible it says Trinity, but through the tradition, we understand that Father, Son and Holy Spirit as Trinity.

 

[mom2three]

It sounds like you’ve got a good handle on things…

Luther did not take any books out of the bible. By your own math you’re saying that 73 books - 14 books (7 from the old test. and 7 from the new test.) = the 66 books of the Protestant bible? 73 - 14 =59. Seven books were added to the bible by the Catholic Church in 1563 at the Council of Trent, some 1200 years after the bible was put together. Do your research. Seven books that you claimed were not in our New Testament are actually in it.

The Council only declared that those book should REMAIN because of what Luther was doing. Many try to say that this is when they were added, when in reality, we were just keeping them IN.

You still have NOT given me a verse in the bible that says purgatory is real. Why? Is it because it is false? I think so.

Ask him if he believes that one can enter heaven with the stain of sin on his soul or if we must be “purified” first. Purgatory by Protestant understanding is what causes the problem…

1 Corinthians 3:14–15
“If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

Nothing impure can enter heaven (Rev. 21:27) so it is necessary that we be purified before we enter. This is all purgatory is… a period/place of purification. It may be as short as the blink of an eye or it may take a bit longer. We don’t know for sure… but the Bible also mentions a waiting place other than heaven for souls already heaven-bound (1 Peter 3:19–20). This may not be referring directly to purgatory but it does indicate the possibility of a place other than heaven or hell.

Psalms 69:8 “I am a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my own MOTHER’S SONS” This verse is a verse that clearly, 100% shows that Jesus had siblings. Sons can not mean cousins, nephews, or other relations. No way are we talking about cousins. Yes those other verse about Abramham and Jacob might have meant cousin or nephew; but mother’s sons can only mean mother’s sons.

Does it really make sense that the womb who carried the Son of God would be permitted to carried those full of sin? He’s simply throwing out the meaning of the words at the time… and blantantly dismissing it to fit his own interpretation.

Nowhere in the bible does it say Mary was bodily assumed into heaven. No where does it say that she or the saints can listen to our prayers and pray for us. Another thing, where does it say that the Pope speaks on behalf the Holy spirit?

Nowhere does it say the word Trinity or Bible… nor is there a list of what books should be included in the Bible… nor is sola scriptura, sola fide… Ask him to show you ONE verse that states we are saved by faith ALONE. Ask him to show you one verse where the Bible claims to be the sole rule of faith.

Ask him what the pillar and foundation of truth is… the Bible? His pastor?

1 Timothy 3:14-15
Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Christ has given the Church authority to interpret scripture.

And he’s wrong when he says there is no historical evidence that Peter was the first pope. True history reveals otherwise.

May God give you the words and the wisdom to reach your friend.

 

[Harpazo]

I truly appreciate all the help here. I’ll soon post his latest reply, and then mine. In regards to what Verita mentioned about New Testament books being “deleted.” I’m very aware that it was done, yet I need to find documentation for it. I appreciate the advice.

I am a person who believes that the word of God rests in the bible alone. No other place. Yes people can interpret what they can from the bible. It is one of the greatest reasons why there are thousands of Protestant denominations. I say that you have invalid beliefs not because I’m spiteful or hate you, but because I care about your salvation. Seriously. The saints in Rev 6: 9-11 are wanting revenge for the their blood, not praying for the souls on Earth. I never said that all priest were child molesters if that is what you are refering to (if not my bad). I’m saying that all of us have sinned. Ministers marry because the ancient priests also married; how do you think the descendants of the High Priest Aaron came to be or the tribe of Levi who were all priests? God does not forbid minister/priests marrying; and if your priests did marry maybe there wouldn’t be as many problems.

I ask these questions because I want to show you the truth. Nobody has yet given me any scriptural proof that purgatory is real, that Mary was assumed into heaven or disproof pslam 69:8 is talking about Jesus. And I think you forgot to quote this:
Have you ever played the telephone game? Its this game when you have a line of kids and the first kid tells a message to the second kid in the line. The second kid tells the third kid the message as he remembered it. That kid tells the next until the very last kid tells what he has heard and it is different from the original message. So let’s say that one of the apostles (the first kid) tells his successor (the second kid) what to teach the early christians. He then tells his own succesor (third kid) what he remembers from the apostle in order to teach the people. As the years pass the message becomes distorted and corrupt with false doctrines so by the time the Catholic Church is founded in the 4th century, the message is different from what the bible teaches. Luckily for us the bible kept the message pure and was, is, and always will be the rock for our faith, not tradition that has been founded by men who are fallible and sinners.

Please just find a verse that exactly says that purgatory is real. Or that Mary was assumed into heaven. Or that Mary was a virgin her whole life. Just find a verse.

As for the exact verse that says that the word of God is sole authority; read Matthew 4:4 “Jesus answered, 'It is written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God”. The word of God is the BIBLE! God spoke through the prophets, men of God, and Jesus. He was the last; “it is finished”. No other prophets came after Jesus. No more words of God. The BIBLE is the only source of Faith, period.

My reply is in the next post

con’t

 

[Harpazo]

I must agree with Spence. Christianity is not limited to a “one verse” scenario. Where in the Bible are altar calls? Where is the sinner’s prayer? Or for that matter, sunday worship? You cannot limit every Christian doctrine to the Bible.

Now, for priests. It seems that you don’t have an understanding for it. These men are following Jesus’ example. Just for your information, celibacy isn’t mandatory throughout all of Catholicism. Priests cannot marry, but if they are married before entering Seminary, then it’s allowed. However, it’s extremely rare in Roman Catholicism. It’s more common in Eastern Catholicism than Roman, yet celibacy is still common.

You still have failed to show me where in the Bible it says explicitly that every Doctrine must be found in it. The answer is clear: you cannot limit Christianity to Scripture. Where is the passage explaining that the Trinity is three divine persons, yet only one God? Where does Jesus claim the hypostatic union: meaning he is 100% God and 100% man? This is a huge problem, assuming you limit yourself to Scripture alone.

Let’s recall Our Lord’s glorious Ascension. When he ascended into Heaven, did he toss down a book? No certainly not. Our Lord left his Apostles the Holy Spirit, from whence they spread the Gospel by a book? No. Orally. The Bible was compiled after several councils and synods and finally approved by Pope St. Damasus I. Thus, in theory, the Bible is a Catholic book. I can refute every single claim you make and we can argue for days, but if you stay as close minded as you have been and limit yourself only to Sacred Scripture, there is nothing to discuss.

For some logic. Jesus is the Savior of the world, there is no doubt about that right? He is the New Covanent. In the Old, the Holy of Holies was carried in an Ark. Jesus himself was carried in an Ark, Mary. For Jesus to be completely free from sin, Mary must have been too. Holy Spirit+Mary=Jesus. If Mary were tainted with sin, then Jesus would inherit that trait. Is it so farfetched for God to save a woman from sin? No. He saved Adam and Eve from sin. We all know that “the wages of sin is death.” If Mary never commited a sin, then why would God allow Mary to die and corrupt in the grave? Elijah was assumed into Heaven, yet he still inherited Original Sin. Someone must be extremely Holy to be able to carry Our Lord. Don’t you agree? God chose Mary.

Now you may scream a verse from Romans that I heard when I was a Protestant: “All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.” Yes. But it says “all.” So according to your logic, that must include Jesus as well. Does the verse say “all except Jesus?” No. It says “all.” Notice, I am in no way claiming the Our Lord sinned. He did not. Nor did his mother.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

Alright that’s it for now. Again, you all have no idea how much it means to me to know that I have your support. God Bless you all.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

 

[mom2three]

I truly appreciate all the help here. I’ll soon post his latest reply, and then mine. In regards to what Verita mentioned about New Testament books being “deleted.” I’m very aware that it was done, yet I need to find documentation for it. I appreciate the advice.

My reply is in the next post

con’t

Perhaps this article will help some:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503sbs.asp

 

[mom2three]

Alright that’s it for now. Again, you all have no idea how much it means to me to know that I have your support. God Bless you all.

In Pax Christi
Andrew

Some great verses for Tradition:

1 Cor 11:2
2 Thess 2:15
2 Thess 3:6
John 21:25
Acts 20:35
2 Peter 1:20
Romans 10:17
1 Cor 15:1-2
Mark 16:15 (it doesn’t say give them a Bible!)

That verse he quoted re: the word of God… Ask him what Christians were to believe before they had a Bible in their hands…What was the “word of God” before the Bible existed? If he’s going to hold to that, I believe he should only follow the OT.

 

[JaneFrances]

Hey Andrew. . .I think you are doing a great job in this discussion. Here are my first impressions from this recent response:

I am a person who believes that the word of God rests in the bible alone.

By what authority does your friend claim this doctrine?

No other place.

Okay, except this is entirely contrary to Scripture as we know very well that Jesus Christ himself IS the WORD of God. So, your friend must either deny this fact, present in Sacred Scripture OR he must fabricate some quasi-doctrinal stance which equates the written Word to the Word made flesh. In any event, the case for “the Word” resting outside of “the Bible” is strong and Biblical.

The saints in Rev 6: 9-11 are wanting revenge for the their blood, not praying for the souls on Earth.

The point of citing Rev 6: 9-11 is not to suggest that the martyrs are “praying for the souls on Earth”, but rather to point to an instance within Revelation whereby heavenly souls are knowledgable about the happenings on earth and capable of reacting to this knowledge.

A better citation to discuss intercession might be Rev 5:6-8.

Ministers marry because the ancient priests also married; how do you think the descendants of the High Priest Aaron came to be or the tribe of Levi who were all priests? God does not forbid minister/priests marrying; and if your priests did marry maybe there wouldn’t be as many problems.

For the record, neither does the Catholic Church forbid ministers from marrying. In fact, most deacons that I’ve ever known have been married. The celibate priesthood isn’t about forbidding marriage. Instead, it is an old and holy discipline within the Latin Rite which holds men called to the priesthood to the same Biblical standards of St. Paul and Jesus Christ, our Lord. The promise of celibacy is one made out of love for God and His Church, not one made opposing marriage. One sacrifices a wonderful gift in order to offer himself in total service to Christ and His Bride. It is in this way that a celibate priest acts in immitation of Christ by taking the Church as his spouse and subject of his dedicated service and attention.

Nobody has yet given me any scriptural proof that purgatory is real

There are a number of very good Scriptures which point to a purging fire which prepares one’s soul for eternal glory in the presence of God. This is purgatory. Does your friend deny this?

, that Mary was assumed into heaven

This topic will be a bit more of a chore to discuss. First, you must work through the Immaculate Conception in order to properly understand the Assumption. I suggest you refrain from delving into the Assumption until other, more basic ground is covered.

or disproof pslam 69:8 is talking about Jesus.

Your friend is interjecting into Scripture his own presupposition that Jesus had biological siblings through Mary. It is just as plausible that Psalm 69:8 is referencing the message of Christ on the cross as He put His Blessed Mother in the care of St. John. By doing so, He claimed St. John for a brother and thus does He call all of us into His family as brother and sisters.

As the years pass the message becomes distorted and corrupt with false doctrines so by the time the Catholic Church is founded in the 4th century, the message is different from what the bible teaches.

EEEEEK! This is the most absurd statement he has made thus far. Fortunately, it can be treated easily. Do you need historical proofs for this, Andrew? From reading your responses thus far, I’d say you are quite capable, but if you need some historical backing, I’d be glad to supply it. This is also one of those opportunities for you to allow your friend to school you. Ask him for documentation and go with it. . .

Luckily for us the bible kept the message pure

No, blessed we are that our loving and providential God gave us the “pillar and bullwark of truth,” the Church to guard us from error through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

and was, is, and always will be the rock for our faith,

I would challenge this statement immediately. Biblically speaking, what exactly would your friend say is “the rock of our faith”? Is it really the Bible? I think you know where this is going. . .

not tradition that has been founded by men who are fallible and sinners

Speaking of tradition. . .What would he call his doctrine of the Bible alone as “the rock of our faith”? Of course, we know it isn’t Biblical, so what is it exactly? Is it tradition? Whose tradition is it?

Please just find a verse that **exactly says **that purgatory is real. Or that Mary was assumed into heaven. Or that Mary was a virgin her whole life. Just find a verse.

Absolutely. You absolutely should do this just as soon as your friend provides the verse that **exactly says **that the Bible alone is the rock of our faith and is the sole authority for truth.

continued. . .

 

[JaneFrances]

As for the exact verse that says that the word of God is sole authority; read Matthew 4:4 “Jesus answered, 'It is written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God”. The word of God is the BIBLE!

Oh, I hope this isn’t his smoking gun.

Of course, he is interpreting this passage to fit into his doctrinal tradition, but in doing so, he has added to this Scripture something it does not say. Jesus does not say, “It is written, Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that is written alone.” Does he really believe that everything that has come from the mouth of God has been written into a book? YES, Scripture is the word of God, but nowhere does Scripture claim for itself a monopoly on the WORD. This is the deification of Scripture. This is idolatry in a way. Scripture is not God. The WORD of God is not confined to a book.

God spoke through the prophets, men of God, and Jesus. He was the last; “it is finished”. No other prophets came after Jesus. No more words of God. The BIBLE is the only source of Faith, period.

I don’t think your friend’s pastor would agree. . .I could be wrong. . .but it seems your friend is grasping here and in doing so, he is floundering and misrepresenting the whole message of Christianity. The BIBLE is not, of course, the only source of Faith. God is the source of our faith. Faith is a gift of God, not the product of a book. Faith is given us through grace.

 

[Verita]

Does he really believe that everything that has come from the mouth of God has been written into a book? YES, Scripture is the word of God, but nowhere does Scripture claim for itself a monopoly on the WORD.

Actually, you can prove to him from scripture that this isn’t so.

John 21:25

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

You need to strongly challenge his assertion that the Bible is the Word of God. This is blantantly anti-biblical. I just did a quick search for “word of god” in the NIV bible and came up with some interesting things:

1Kings 12
22 But this word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God: 23 "Say to Rehoboam son of Solomon king of Judah, to the whole house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the rest of the people, 24 ‘This is what the LORD says: Do not go up to fight against your brothers, the Israelites. Go home, every one of you, for this is my doing.’ " So they obeyed the word of the LORD and went home again, as the LORD had ordered.

1 Chronicles 17
3 That night the word of God came to Nathan, saying:
4 "Go and tell my servant David, 'This is what the LORD says: You are not the one to build me a house to dwell in.

Proverbs 30
5 "Every word of God is flawless;
he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

Luke 3
2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert. 3He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 5
1One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret,with the people crowding around him and listening to the word of God,

Acts 4
31After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.

Acts 13
46Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.

Acts 18
11So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.

Philippians 1
14Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.

1 Thessalonians 2
13And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

Hebrews 13
7Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Revelation 19
11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

 

[Verita]

All of those verses (some of which were written centuries before the Bible existed) clearly show that the word of God is not contained in some book. The word of God is divine revelation, it is a “he”, it is spoken and heard, but most importantly it IS Jesus.

Jesus, THE Word of God, never wrote a word down. He always spoke his teaching and he entrusted it to people who did the same. The Gospel was spread orally. The letters and gospels that are in the Bible today were written to communities of established Christians. They had already heard the word of God from the mouths of the Apostles.

Have you ever played the telephone game? Its this game when you have a line of kids and the first kid tells a message to the second kid in the line. The second kid tells the third kid the message as he remembered it. That kid tells the next until the very last kid tells what he has heard and it is different from the original message.

I found this laughable. Is he really saying that the men Jesus himself chose to pass on this teachings, and the men they chose to uphold the teachings, are like a group of kids sitting around playing a stupid game? First of all, we’re talking kids here. Second, the game isn’t funny unless the message does get distorted and you can bet that there are always at least a couple kids in the group purposely changing to create that effect. It’s a GAME. Whereas, oral tradition has been in use amonst humanity for thousands of years. How do you think Moses knew the story of Adam through Joseph to record in Genesis? Oral tradition. Oral tradition is real and it works.

 

[VociMike]

I’ll just focus on the false assertion that the 7 deuterocanonical books were added at Trent. It is true that those books were first declared as scripture in a General Council at Trent. But it is also true that all the other 66 books of the bible were also first declared as scriptue in a General Council at Trent. That is to say, there was never a General Council before Trent which declared the 66 Protestant books as scripture, but not the deuterocanonicals. So if a person uses Trent to say that the deuterocanonicals were only added to the bible in the 16th century, then by their own logic, the 4 gospels were only added at Trent, and the epistles were only added at Trent, and all the rest of the books were only added at Trent. Before Trent, by that logic, the Catholic Church did not have any bible at all.

Challenge this person to provide any Council or other authoritative statement by the Church which pronounced the 66 Protestant books as scripture but excluded the deuterocanonicals. It cannot be done, for no such statement exists. The deuterocanonicals were always as much a part of the Catholic bible as the rest of the books.

Oh, and since Trent came 500 years after the Catholic-Orthodox split, how is it that the Orthodox have the deuterocanonicals in their canon as well? Did they just decide if Trent was good enough for the Catholics it was good enough for the Orthodox too? I don’t think so…

 

[JaneFrances]

Actually, you can prove to him from scripture that this isn’t so.

John 21:25

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

You need to strongly challenge his assertion that the Bible is the Word of God. This is blantantly anti-biblical. I just did a quick search for “word of god” in the NIV bible and came up with some interesting things

Right on and strong work on the Scripture references, Verita. BUT, I think Andrew should be very careful NOT to challenge that Sacred Scripture is the Word of God. I think this would be confusing as such, for as Catholics, we, too (and first, by the way) believe that Sacred Scripture is the written Word of God. HOWEVER, we do not believe that it is the ONLY Word of God. We believe that the written Word is truly God-breathed, holy, true, profitable for teaching, reproof and correction and training in holiness. We should not attempt to challenge this person’s faulty assertion that Scripture is the ONLY source for truth by making a statement that is contrary to what we believe and the Church teaches.