Hi Randy; another GREAT queston!=Randy Carson;7623658]When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?
How about the Bread of Life Discourse. John 6:25-71.When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?
That is One of MOST favorite parts in the Bible; however, to the unchurched; or transfueres from other Faiths; it MAY BE??? To sublime and sutle for a beganing dialog.RosaryFan, post:23, topic:231468"]
How about the Bread of Life Discourse. John 6:25-71.
I like to begin with Sola Scriptura, the absolutely man-made, biblically unsupported doctrine that claims Scripture alone is the final and single infallible authority on faith and morals.When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?
Agreed. But once you understand the literalness (is that even a word?) of Jesus in this passage, BOY OH BOY, is it ever obvious!!That is One of MOST favorite parts in the Bible; however, to the unchurched; or transfueres from other Faiths; it MAY BE??? To sublime and sutle for a beganing dialog.
God Bless,
Pat
Unfortunately, in order to do this you are going to need to convince the other person that the Catholic Church is the final authority and is indefectible and not simply because it claims to be. The Bible claims to be God’s word and has fulfilled prophecies to back up its claim. It is therefore easy enough to believe in its authority and infallibility for a Christian. It is a bit harder to swallow the claims of the Catholic Church since they are based solely on the arrogations and “traditions of men.” Even the biblical references offered in support of this claim are predicated upon the eisegetical interpretation of the Catholic Church.I like to begin with Sola Scriptura, the absolutely man-made, biblically unsupported doctrine that claims Scripture alone is the final and single infallible authority on faith and morals.
Unfortunately, in order to substantiate this claim you must prove that these so-called oral traditions that have supposedly been preserved by the Catholic Church do not simply amount to hearsay. We have confidence in the written word because it has been excellently preserved. There is no way to definitively determine the same for this oral tradition.This tradition of men has no support in the Bible. In fact, the Bible contradicts it in its countless passages commanding Christians to accept Apostolic Tradition and affirming it as the “Word of God” and “Word of Truth” that all Christians must accept.
Talk about arrogation!!! The word of God is based solely on the authority of men? This is a joke, right? If God could speak and move men to write, apart from any hierarchy, then He can define and preserve the same without (or in spite of, as the case may be), that same hierarchy. Just because a church council agreed upon something that was generally already evident does not make that council or its organizational offspring henceforth and forevermore indefectible. It is quite a leap from one to the other. It is the same as saying that since the Jewish religious leaders correctly identified and preserved the Torah they were therefore indefectible. I think Jesus showed us otherwise. These giant leaps in logic must make the life of the Catholic apologist very difficult (unless, of course, he is preaching to the choir).While conversing with people about Sola Scriptura, I like to dialogue with them about the canon of the Scripture, which is based solely on the authority of the Apostolic Tradition and the Magesterium. If there’s no infallible canon, the entire infallibility of the Bible rests on human uncertainty.
My friend, you are presented with a most difficult predicament indeed. The Catholic Church tells you, after all, that it does not need the Bible to substantiate its claims because much of what they teach comes only from tradition (a very nebulous idea if ever there was one). Therefore, if you wish to base your dialogue on Scripture, you are at a disadvantage right from the start. Moreover, the Scriptural support that is provided by the Catholic Church itself depends upon an interpretation that is not at all obvious from the plain meaning of the text. In other words, it will be necessary for you to convince the person you are talking to, to accept the Catholic Church’s interpretation and ignore any and all inconsistencies brought about by that interpretation.When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?
My dear frind in Christ,in order to do this you are going to need to convince the other person that the Catholic Church is the final authority and is indefectible and not simply because it claims to be. The Bible claims to be God’s word and has fulfilled prophecies to back up its claim. It is therefore easy enough to believe in its authority and infallibility for a Christian. It is a bit harder to swallow the claims of the Catholic Church since they are based solely on the arrogations and “traditions of men.” Even the biblical references offered in support of this claim are predicated upon the eisegetical interpretation of the Catholic Church.
Let’s ROLE-PLAY…Talk about arrogation!!! The word of God is based solely on the authority of men? This is a joke, right?
Good point! On the essentials, none. All of the churches that truly subscribe to the idea of Sola Sciptura are in agreement on the content of the gospel message. As we like to say, “Unity on the Essentials, Liberty on the Non-essentials, Charity in All Things.”How many Thousands of diferent understandings through seperate churches are there today?
Actually, it was the Christian Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church only became a distinct entity when it split from the Eastern Church. You make such boastful declarations. Please, show how logic and history affirm that these words pertain to, and only to, what would someday become the Roman Catholic Church. How do we know, for example, they do not merely pertain to all who believe on Christ?friend because the CC was the ONLY church in existence when these words were spoken and later pened; they MUST be addressed to the CC. Logic and history affirm this.
Interesting scenario…Okay, I’ll role play with you. Well, if I were God and the RCC as it exists today was my master plan, I’ll tell you exactly what I would do: First, I’d tell Paul to make sure and include the title “Pope” in at least one of his lists of church offices (Ephesians 4:11, 1 Corinthians 12:28). Next, when Paul was giving his litany of spiritual gifts (Romans 12:6ff, 1 Corinthians 12:8ff, etc.), I would make sure he included “infallibility” for the role of Pope. Next, I would not wait until after the Protestant Reformation (some 1500 years later) to make this whole deal a settled matter, and I definitely would have made the vote unanimous and it would have happened on the first vote. And whatever else happened, I certainly would have prevented the Western Schism from taking place, because it just looks bad when there are three popes at the same time (selected by the same group of men, no less). Wouldn’t it seem logical for God to do these things?Let’s ROLE-PLAY…
I guess those were “oral scrolls” Hilkiah found and gave to King Josiah (2 Kings 22)? Sorry, not buying it.As to Oral Traditions: The OT is based entirely on them. The New Chruch, Faith and Covenent of Christ relied on them and those in the making until hundreds of years after Christ death.
Plain meaning??? You mean of such verses as:My friend, you are presented with a most difficult predicament indeed. The Catholic Church tells you, after all, that it does not need the Bible to substantiate its claims because much of what they teach comes only from tradition (a very nebulous idea if ever there was one). Therefore, if you wish to base your dialogue on Scripture, you are at a disadvantage right from the start. Moreover, the Scriptural support that is provided by the Catholic Church itself depends upon an interpretation that is not at all obvious from the plain meaning of the text. In other words, it will be necessary for you to convince the person you are talking to, to accept the Catholic Church’s interpretation and ignore any and all inconsistencies brought about by that interpretation.
Gee, who gets to decide which doctrines are essential and which are optional?Good point! On the essentials, none. All of the churches that truly subscribe to the idea of Sola Sciptura are in agreement on the content of the gospel message. As we like to say, “Unity on the Essentials, Liberty on the Non-essentials, Charity in All Things.”
Uh, no…PJM’s statements were based upon KNOWLEDGE…in this case, the knowledge that the early Christian Church was already calling itself the “Catholic Church” as early as the end of the FIRST century.Actually, it was the Christian Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church only became a distinct entity when it split from the Eastern Church. You make such boastful declarations.
If you want to force the Catholic interpretation of this passage you will need to account for the difference in the Greek words used for stone and rock. If you want to arrive at the significance placed on this passage by the Catholic Church then you will need to pile on an extra helping of tradition (read eisegesis).“You are Peter Kepha], and upon this kepha] I will build my church”
Here is a good example of an inconsistency. If you insist on the Catholic interpretation and the Mass is therefore a “true sacrifice,” then it becomes necessary to explain why Christ’s sacrifice is described as “once for all time” in the book of Hebrews (for example chapter 10 verse 14 “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”)“This is my body…this is the cup of my blood”?
The word, “pope” is simply a derviation of the word, “papa” or “father”, and I think there is ample evidence that Paul did use such terminology.Interesting scenario…Okay, I’ll role play with you. Well, if I were God and the RCC as it exists today was my master plan, I’ll tell you exactly what I would do: First, I’d tell Paul to make sure and include the title “Pope” in at least one of his lists of church offices (Ephesians 4:11, 1 Corinthians 12:28).
Is that an exhaustive list of the spiritual gifts? Is your opinion about that infallible? But all kidding aside, Jesus had already made the matter of Peter’s infallibility clear:Next, when Paul was giving his litany of spiritual gifts (Romans 12:6ff, 1 Corinthians 12:8ff, etc.), I would make sure he included “infallibility” for the role of Pope.
There was never more than one pope. At the time you reference, there was ONE legitimate pope and two claimants.Next, I would not wait until after the Protestant Reformation (some 1500 years later) to make this whole deal a settled matter, and I definitely would have made the vote unanimous and it would have happened on the first vote. And whatever else happened, I certainly would have prevented the Western Schism from taking place, because it just looks bad when there are three popes at the same time (selected by the same group of men, no less).
Let me give you PROTESTANT scholars on this matter, okay? It will make the bitterness of the pill easier for you to swallow.If you want to force the Catholic interpretation of this passage you will need to account for the difference in the Greek words used for stone and rock. If you want to arrive at the significance placed on this passage by the Catholic Church then you will need to pile on an extra helping of tradition (read eisegesis).
Not a problem as there is no inconsistency. I’ll provide a lengthy explanation in full because this is an important topic.Here is a good example of an inconsistency. If you insist on the Catholic interpretation and the Mass is therefore a “true sacrifice,” then it becomes necessary to explain why Christ’s sacrifice is described as “once for all time” in the book of Hebrews (for example chapter 10 verse 14 “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”)
You’re viewing the world through “Protestant-colored” glasses.If you want to force the Catholic interpretation of this passage you will need to account for the difference in the Greek words used for stone and rock. If you want to arrive at the significance placed on this passage by the Catholic Church then you will need to pile on an extra helping of tradition (read eisegesis).
I don’t initiate these kinds of conversations at all, but when offered the opportunity, I do provide a reasonable defense of whatever the topic at hand may be; for example, someone might ask me why I go to Confession, and I give a very simple explanation of that where I talk about the benefit of hearing the words of the Absolution with my human ears, or someone might ask about the Saints, and I have quite a long-winded speech that I do about the Saints, discussing how they are role models for us, and how they are given the grace to help us in various different ways - or they might ask why we don’t allow non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion, and I mention that, since Martin Luther and the early Protestants broke away from the Church for the specific purpose of not being under the Church’s authority any more, this is the reason that, even until now, Catholic priests have no authority to give Holy Communion, or indeed any Sacrament, to non-Catholic Christians - even if they desire it - except under very exceptional circumstances.When you are dialoguing with a non-Catholic Christian and you want to argue for the truth of Catholicism (as opposed to Mere Christianity), what verse(s) do you like to begin with, and how do you build your argument?