Would like some help answering this Protestant Arguments against Roman Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter thunderbolt94
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thunderbolt94

Guest
This here a brief summary of a powerpoint that was presented by a protestant ministry that I know of. If anyone can help me answer this powerpoint, that would be awesome.

Here is the powerpoint:

"A ridiculously brief history of Catholicism:
The history of the Christian church can be summarized as the gradual corruption of primitive Christianity into a paganized, hierarchical, Roman Catholic Church.
Interestingly, Catholics can legitimately claim that their church traces back to the original church established by the apostles. Most “Christians” cannot legitimately make that claim.
  1. Source of authority: Church, tradition (which is known as the “rule of faith” and
    Scripture but in the final analysis, church
    and tradition. Mark 7:1-13 “You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you
    have handed down.”
  2. Apostolic (papal) authority. Matthew 16:17-19. You are Peter (rock, stone, petros) and
    on this rock (bedrock, large rock, petra) The “rock” that the church will be built on is
    not Peter. It is the confession and the fact that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God.
  3. False teachings:
    a. Prayer to God through Mary and the saints. 1 Tomothy 2:5
    b. Original Sin. → Infant Baptism Ezekiel 18:19-20
    c. Transsubstantiation. (The elements in the Lord’s Supper literally become flesh and
    blood)
    d. Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice. Luke 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of me.”
    e. Immaculate Conception. (Mary was born from a virgin as well)
    f. Sacramentalism. Power in the act rather than in faith and repentance.
    g. Not all Christians are priests 1 Peter 2:9 2 Corinthians 5:17-20.
    h. Purgatory. Works salvation.
    i. Salvation is found, not “in Christ” but in the church. Irenaeus: She [ie. the church] is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers.
  4. Traditions taught which cause Catholics to nullify the word of God.
    a. Church calendar
    b. Statues, icons, vestments
    c. Celibacy of priests
    d. Monks, nuns
    e. Popes, cardinals, archbishops, etc."
If anyone can help me answer these claims, I would be most grateful. I am actually planning on converting to Catholicism in the summer, so I don’t know how to respond these yet. Again, if you can help me, it would be most appreciated.
 
This here a brief summary of a powerpoint that was presented by a protestant ministry that I know of. If anyone can help me answer this powerpoint, that would be awesome.

Here is the powerpoint:

"A ridiculously brief history of Catholicism:
The history of the Christian church can be summarized as the gradual corruption of primitive Christianity into a paganized, hierarchical, Roman Catholic Church.
Interestingly, Catholics can legitimately claim that their church traces back to the original church established by the apostles. Most “Christians” cannot legitimately make that claim.
  1. Source of authority: Church, tradition (which is known as the “rule of faith” and
    Scripture but in the final analysis, church
    and tradition. Mark 7:1-13 “You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you
    have handed down.”
  2. Apostolic (papal) authority. Matthew 16:17-19. You are Peter (rock, stone, petros) and
    on this rock (bedrock, large rock, petra) The “rock” that the church will be built on is
    not Peter. It is the confession and the fact that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God.
  3. False teachings:
    a. Prayer to God through Mary and the saints. 1 Tomothy 2:5
    b. Original Sin. → Infant Baptism Ezekiel 18:19-20
    c. Transsubstantiation. (The elements in the Lord’s Supper literally become flesh and
    blood)
    d. Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice. Luke 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of me.”
    e. Immaculate Conception. (Mary was born from a virgin as well)
    f. Sacramentalism. Power in the act rather than in faith and repentance.
    g. Not all Christians are priests 1 Peter 2:9 2 Corinthians 5:17-20.
    h. Purgatory. Works salvation.
    i. Salvation is found, not “in Christ” but in the church. Irenaeus: She [ie. the church] is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers.
  4. Traditions taught which cause Catholics to nullify the word of God.
    a. Church calendar
    b. Statues, icons, vestments
    c. Celibacy of priests
    d. Monks, nuns
    e. Popes, cardinals, archbishops, etc."
If anyone can help me answer these claims, I would be most grateful. I am actually planning on converting to Catholicism in the summer, so I don’t know how to respond these yet. Again, if you can help me, it would be most appreciated.
God bless you on your decision.

Check this site, hope it can help you in most of your answers

home.inreach.com/bstanley/index.htm
 
As we say around my house, I’ve seen that movie before. As a former fundamentalist, I have seen those arguments more than I can begin to remember. They take a gram of truth along with tons of misconceptions, mix them together and it is hard to sort unless you are really well informed about the Church founded by Christ. For the most part, the people making these erroneous statements about the Church mean well, but they are sadly misinformed.

My suggestion is that you begin where I did, with Karl Keating’s book “Catholicism and Fundamentalism.” New copies are only $11.53 on Amazon. Used copies start under five bucks. Oh, his other books are great too, but nothing reaches the heights of this one.

After that, I would suggest other Keating books, anything by Jimmy Akin, and doing searches on this site. You will find more than enough to refute the errors.

A last thing I have to warn you about is that it will be very hard to put down the Catholicism and Fundamentalism book. I think I read it the first time in two nights.
 
you could start by pointing out that the origin of the very Bible he uses for justification of his point is Catholic based. lol.

Its easy to put a list of complaints on a powerpoint but its goin to be easier for you if you are serious to check if many of the questions have already been dealt with in previous threads and research each one. 😃
 
This here a brief summary of a powerpoint that was presented by a protestant ministry that I know of. If anyone can help me answer this powerpoint, that would be awesome.
You will get many good responses here. There is nothing original in this powerpoint. I am no scholar but will offer such counterpoints as I am able.
Here is the powerpoint:
"A ridiculously brief history of Catholicism:
The history of the Christian church can be summarized as the gradual corruption of primitive Christianity into a paganized, hierarchical, Roman Catholic Church.
Interestingly, Catholics can legitimately claim that their church traces back to the original church established by the apostles. Most “Christians” cannot legitimately make that claim.
Obviously thre is little of real substance here…Just a way to clearly state that this person is not fond of the Catholic Church…
  1. Source of authority: Church, tradition (which is known as the “rule of faith” and
    Scripture but in the final analysis, church
    and tradition. Mark 7:1-13 “You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you
    have handed down.”
Notice that in this quote Christ does not specifically say tradition is bad, but only the way in which the Pharisees used it. This is definitely NOT an indictment of Tradition per-se.
In Mt 23:2-3 Jesus even upholds the Pharisee’s authority to teach and the obligation of the Jews (icluding his own disciples) to obey…
“all that they tell you, do and observe” because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”. (Matthew 23:2-3)
  1. Apostolic (papal) authority. Matthew 16:17-19. You are Peter (rock, stone, petros) and
    on this rock (bedrock, large rock, petra) The “rock” that the church will be built on is
    not Peter. It is the confession and the fact that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God.
Classic failure to understand the native langauge. The intent here is to show how Peter is a stone, while the confession is the bedrock…The problem is that Jesus did not Speak Greek, he spoke aramaic. Therefore He did not name Simon 'Peter" but rather he named him “Kephas” from the Aramaic word “Kepha” for Rock.
The confusion comes from a gramatical issue in the Greek translation (petra/petros). In Aramaic this distinction does not occur.
Look at how the passage reads if we use the Aramaic instead of the Greek…
Matthew 16: 17-19
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church (Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Finally notice in the verse immediately following, tha tjesus give the keys to the kingdom…Did he give these keys to a profession of faith? Of course not He gave them to Kepha…Petros…Peter
  1. False teachings:
    a. Prayer to God through Mary and the saints. 1 Tomothy 2:5
I wonder if this protestant minister ever prays for others, or asks others to pray for him??
b. Original Sin. → Infant Baptism Ezekiel 18:19-20
No comment on this one
c. Transsubstantiation. (The elements in the Lord’s Supper literally become flesh and blood)
Since Jesus said they do, why should we doubt him? If God can enter “flesh and blood” through the incarnation, why can’t he enter the bread and wine, thus making them his flesh and blood?
d. Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice. Luke 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of me.”
I don’t see where he ses a problem with this. The Lords supper IS a remeberance, as well as a “making present” of the one sacrafice. There is not conflict here.
e. Immaculate Conception. (Mary was born from a virgin as well)
Staight up misunderstanding of the teaching…This is actually kind of funny and demonstrates how little this person knows of the faith. The IC merely means that Mary was preserved from the stain of Original sin from conception. She was physically conceived in the usual manner (not vergin birth)
f. Sacramentalism. Power in the act rather than in faith and repentance.
Wrong. Power in the the Acts always stems from faith and repentance without which no work is sufficent.
g. Not all Christians are priests 1 Peter 2:9 2 Corinthians 5:17-20.
Within the very mass itself we are called “A royal priesthood. a people set apart”. We are all priests in this very real sense. However we are not all called to the minsterial priesthood, just as not all protestants are called to be ministers.
h. Purgatory. Works salvation.
The Church does not now, nor has she ever taught a “works salvation”. St James in his Epistle says “Faith without Works is dead”…Can a dead faith save? Therefore neither faith alone or works alone can save, but only both working together,
As to Purgatory, the bible speaks of a final purgation…Purgatory is simply a name used to illustrate the place or state set aside for such purgation.
i. Salvation is found, not “in Christ” but in the church. Irenaeus: She [ie. the church] is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers.
Irenaeus was talking of heretics and those twisting the word of God.
(cont)
 
(Cont)
  1. Traditions taught which cause Catholics to nullify the word of God.
    a. Church calendar
Why? Too vague to even address…
b. Statues, icons, vestments
Statues I can understand an objection to, the other things…🤷
c. Celibacy of priests
d. Monks, nuns
e. Popes, cardinals, archbishops, etc."
Since he offers no reason why these things “nullify the word of God”, I have nothing to comment on.
If anyone can help me answer these claims, I would be most grateful. I am actually planning on converting to Catholicism in the summer, so I don’t know how to respond these yet. Again, if you can help me, it would be most appreciated.
I’m sure you will get many more wise answers than mine. But I hope that perhaps these will be of some small help to you.

The bottom line is that this person has no idea of what the Church actually teaches and is just parroting things others have told him.
Take the idea of a “works salvation”. A common charge from some protestants…but what they are really talking about is NOT what we teach, but what we DON’T teach. What we don’t teach is a “Faith Alone” salvation…
Challenge such a person to show you where it says in documented Catholic teaching that you can get to heaven based soley on your works (works alone). That is, without faith. I had a long drawn out conversation with some non-catholics on another board over this very issue and every peice they brought up (mainly from Trent) could be shown to have faith as the underlying requirement.
Therefore, since the Church teaches faith is necessary, it follows that the Church does not teach “works salvation” but rather teaches “faith salvation”…

Peace
James
 
40.png
Janet_Cardin:
I would like to make an issue of point 3 (a) and (e).
3(a) Prayer to the saints and Mary. Because Mary can dash in and out of the world she can hear prayers. And she can and does responds to prayer. If She is not sure of the response that Jesus would have, she does send the prayer to Jesus for Him to respond. Why is not Jesus responding rapidly to prayers of Christians? Because He and David are very busy still trying to clean the fallen out of Heaven, which is a simple answer and in realithy is much more complicated. Praying to the saints-unless they were given Godly power for use in answering prayer-if the saint’s flesh is dead there is nothing the saint can do. However, because of the compassion of Mary (after all She is a Woman) She will also answer these prayers if applicable to the heart of the person praying.

3(e). Mary, the young Blessed Woman, the Mother of Jesus Christ, was actually made by a God within a cloud long before this world was ever made. And she does have long, long, wavy blonde hair in Her original version. She was not born by or of the flesh of an immculate conception or born of a virgin. Jesus’s Father, David, did design both her heart and her vocal cords. The rest was done by this God in a cloud. Her original name is COURAGE BORN. But in this world it would be really, really weird to be called Courage or Cour.

Thanks for this question so that some of these questions can be answered.
You’re entitled to believe what you want, but this isn’t even remotely a Catholic viewpoint.
 
  1. Apostolic (papal) authority. Matthew 16:17-19. You are Peter (rock, stone, petros) and on this rock (bedrock, large rock, petra) The “rock” that the church will be built on is not Peter. It is the confession and the fact that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God.
This is the most important point of all those you listed. If Peter is the Rock, then the Catholic Church is the one, true Church established by Jesus. Period. End of Story.

Therefore, let’s see what PROTESTANT scholars say about Peter, the Rock.

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

Here are five of the more than two dozen quotes I have from heavyweight Protestant scholars regarding the identity of “the rock” in Matthew 16:18.

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…**one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. **“To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)

“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)
 
  1. Source of authority: Church, tradition (which is known as the “rule of faith” and Scripture but in the final analysis, church
    and tradition. Mark 7:1-13 “You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you
    have handed down.”
I’ll also address this point briefly:

1 Timothy 3:14-15
 
Ask the Fundamentalist to examine his own denomination’s use of tradition. All Protestant churches use tradition, even though they claim to be “by Scripture alone”. Some of their tradition may be unique to their own denomination, to show that their interpretation of Scripture is better than other denominations that supposedly rely equally on Scripture. Other aspects of their tradition, such as the doctrine of the Trinity, they really are borrowing partly from the authority of Catholic tradition, since the Trinity is only partially presented in Scripture.
The area they depend totally on Catholic tradition is the New Testament Canon. God created the Canon, but the Church was the visible means by which God’s will was and still is communicated. The Church’s role in publicly defining the Canon is not something only in ancient time, it exists today. Since the 1800’s the biggest challenge to the Catholic Canon was the Book of Mormon, but today many Christians are accepting Thomas, or other books, as the Fifth Gospel, and many others are dropping epistles from the Bible that they disagree with. Nothing in the Bible tells you what books ought to be IN the Bible, so Protestants and Catholics depend on the Magisterium for the Canon. If he can see the Magisterium as sometimes reliable, you are halfway there.
 
This here a brief summary of a powerpoint that was presented by a protestant ministry that I know of. If anyone can help me answer this powerpoint, that would be awesome.

Here is the powerpoint:

"A ridiculously brief history of Catholicism:
The history of the Christian church can be summarized as the gradual corruption of primitive Christianity into a paganized, hierarchical, Roman Catholic Church.
Interestingly, Catholics can legitimately claim that their church traces back to the original church established by the apostles. Most “Christians” cannot legitimately make that claim.
  1. Source of authority: Church, tradition (which is known as the “rule of faith” and
    Scripture but in the final analysis, church
    and tradition. Mark 7:1-13 “You nullify the word of God by your tradition that you
    have handed down.”
  2. Apostolic (papal) authority. Matthew 16:17-19. You are Peter (rock, stone, petros) and
    on this rock (bedrock, large rock, petra) The “rock” that the church will be built on is
    not Peter. It is the confession and the fact that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God.
  3. False teachings:
    a. Prayer to God through Mary and the saints. 1 Tomothy 2:5
    b. Original Sin. → Infant Baptism Ezekiel 18:19-20
    c. Transsubstantiation. (The elements in the Lord’s Supper literally become flesh and
    blood)
    d. Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice. Luke 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of me.”
    e. Immaculate Conception. (Mary was born from a virgin as well)
    f. Sacramentalism. Power in the act rather than in faith and repentance.
    g. Not all Christians are priests 1 Peter 2:9 2 Corinthians 5:17-20.
    h. Purgatory. Works salvation.
    i. Salvation is found, not “in Christ” but in the church. Irenaeus: She [ie. the church] is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers.
  4. Traditions taught which cause Catholics to nullify the word of God.
    a. Church calendar
    b. Statues, icons, vestments
    c. Celibacy of priests
    d. Monks, nuns
    e. Popes, cardinals, archbishops, etc."
If anyone can help me answer these claims, I would be most grateful. I am actually planning on converting to Catholicism in the summer, so I don’t know how to respond these yet. Again, if you can help me, it would be most appreciated.
You should get a copy of “Catechism of the Catholic Church”. All of these topics are adressed, and more. If that is too intimidating, you can try “Catholicism for Dummies”, it is just as informative, but less technical. Welcome Home!
 
for statues and icons:
Exodus 25.
1 kings 6
1 Kings 9.
they have been used as commanded by God in the OT, why not in the NT and now?

Peace,
Phil
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top