Monday, January 28, 2008

Trish, The Way of the Master Radio and Jim McGhee (Catholic Priest)

This is Jim McGhee before he was on the air for The Way of the Master Radio last Thursday. He is a priest at Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic church, the largest Catholic parish in Fort Worth.
This is Jim after he got off of the program (see right photo).

He was not very happy after he got off the phone with Ray Comfort and Todd Friel.

Jim's face was bright red, my phone was filled with sweat, and he didn't like the fact that Ray and Todd wanted to talk about justification by faith alone. He told me that Martin Luther was a rebel and that he (Luther) should have stayed with the Catholic (Mother) church. To Jim, Protestants were not part of the "true" church. This didn't surprise me one bit. I knew what I was getting into.

We went back and forth, for a long time disagreeing on many things. To say the least, we came to the conclusion to agree to disagree on many doctrinal issues. What else could we do!? I wasn't going to compromise on clear doctrinal issues. One point was very clear, the Bible was not Jim's final authority and tradition is huge in the Catholic church.

By the end of the day, he didn't look to unhappy and surprisingly he invited me back. (see photo, right)

I might make a trip their this week with a big basket of fruit as a way of thanking him for being on the program. I think I'll talk with him some more and take my husband with me :-)

Listen to the full segment on The Way of the Master Radio. It starts about 40 minutes into the hour January 24, 2008 - Hour 1

75 comments:

amontoya said...

Father Jim is exactly right. The Bible should not be the final authority on doctrinal issues, because it never claims that authority for itself. That authority was given to the Church, which is, "the pillar and foundation of the truth," 1 Timothy 3:15.

Dennis said...

Please Read 2Timothy 3:16-17, John 21:25, and many other scriptures that God is the Final Authority, not a man-made entity.
I believe you are missing some of the verses leading up to the one you have quoted. The verses before that instruct people how to behave and act in church.
I will not get into a debate here, I just pray you re-read 1 Timothy 3 again.

Jessie said...

Amontoya,

Please do not take this offensively, but 1 Timothy 3:15 does not mean that the church has authority over God or His Word at all... in fact, it means the opposite. The verse reads "...but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living GOd, the pillar and ground of THE truth." The truth is God's Word, and the church is to be a pillar and foundation to UPHOLD GOD'S WORD, not to forsake it and give authority to man.

If you go to the Bible Gateway website and search the word "truth", you will find it is almost always related to God the Father or Jesus Christ.

Again, the church is to uphold and be a foundation for THE TRUTH. Not make their own truth.

When men make church doctrines, you get indulgence fees: money people pay to "get out of pugatory". The Bible makes it clear MANY MANY times that there is ONLY ONE WAY TO HEAVEN. You cannot buy your way there, you cannot buy your way out of purgatory. If this were true, Christ's sacrifice was in vain.

I encourage you to research Scripture, because you will find that what you find that your comment is contrary to God's Word.

Again, please understand I am saying this the most sincere way possible. It's so hard to get that across through typing :/

Fish with Trish said...

Dennis and Jessie,

Thank you for your comments.

Amontoya,

There are several problems with this issue that can only be solved by fabricating a doctrine of the papacy. Once you renounce Scripture as the final authority, you are left to attempt to construct an ecclesiology which supplements that authority. The only way this can be done is by violating Scripture itself. Thus, in order to sustain the position that the church possesses the final authority on doctrinal issues, one must suppress the authority "upon" which the church is built (i.e. the Word of God given through the apostles and prophets). The catholic position decides instead to pit Scripture against Scripture, rather than to accept the testimony of Scripture concerning authority. Secondly, every attempt has been made to make light of the catholic or orthodox traditions which contradict not only Scripture but themselves. Thus, imploding because of the faulty ecclesiastical systems upon which they are built (e.g. ecumenical councils, papacy, and psuedopigraphal writings such as the apocrypha, and the statements of Vatican I, II). Our only hope is an authority outside ourselves, Sola Scriptura, not to be mistaken with Solo Scriptura.

2nd Timothy 3:16-17
• "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness;
• that the man of God may be thoroughly Furnished unto all good works."

Also, take the time to visit monergism.com and type in sola scriptura in the upper left side of the screen. You can find a ton of articles on there. It has been very helpful to me in my research on why I believe as I do. Thank you for reading this!

amontoya said...

Dennis,
The Church is NOT a man-made entity. It is the Body of Christ that was founded by Him, Matt. 16:18, and is preserved by the Holy Spirit, John 14:26. Perhaps you should re-examine John 21:25, because it proves my point. Not everything Jesus did was recorded in sacred Scripture. Scripture is not all sufficient.

Jessie,
I appreciate your sincerity, but I believe you misunderstand Church teaching. I agree that 1 Tim. 3:15 does not mean the Church has authority over God, and I never claimed it did. However, you can't twist that verse to mean anything other than what it says. The Church (not the Bible) is the upholder and defender of the Truth. Jesus said that He is the Truth, John 14:6. Jesus said that all authority was given to Him, Matt. 28:18. Jesus gave authority to His apostles, Matt. 18:17-18. Therefore, it is God Himself who gave the Church authority, not a mere man.

Fish with Trish,
The papacy was established by Christ, Matt. 16:18, and not fabricated. Scripture was never intended to be the final authority. This is evident, because there is no verse that teaches that scripture is the final authority. The authority upon which the Church is built, is that of Christ and His apostles, and not the Bible. I agree that our only hope is an "authority outside ourselves." That authority is Jesus Christ and the Church He established.

I would like to give you two points to consider about 2 Tim. 3:16-17. First, when read in context with verse 15, we can see that Paul is speaking of the scriptures Timothy knew from infancy. Timothy was young when Paul was writing to him, but much of the New Testament probably wasn't written or compiled at that time. Therefore Paul was writing about the Old Testament. I don't believe that you would argue for the sufficiency of the Old Testament concerning Christian doctrine, right? Second, verse 16 says "profitable for," not sufficient for or authoritative. This passage clearly can't be read to "prove" sola scriptura, without twisting its meaning.

I will visit the website you provided, and ask that you will, in turn, visit www.catholic.com. There are many articles and resources to help you better understand Catholic doctrine and teaching. May God bless you all!

David said...

Jesus scolded several wayward Church's in Revelation for straying from the truth of his Word, so we can clearly see that the "Church" can be wrong and stray from truth. As followers of the Truth, we must stick to the Word of God alone for our authoritative source of truth. We can use natural revelation to see Truth also, but only the special revelation of God's word found in the Bible can be ultimately authoritative. Obviously, every possible topic and question isn't directly answered in the Holy Scriptures, but all principles by which we make our decisions for righteous and holy living must have their basis on godly principles laid out in Gods Word. To follow this insane catholic notion that we can add to or change God's truths clearly given us in Scripture, by some edicts of their "organized" form of a church, is simply Idolatry. This breaks the very essence of the first Commandment "You shall have no other gods before me". The "Church" cannot, and never will, have any authority to change or add to the Truths of God, written in the complete and authoritative Holy Bible. The authority given to the Apostles was clearly given to them alone, for the benefit of teaching and growing Christ's newly formed Church... and this is why we accept only the writings of the original Apostles who Christ chose, as inspired writers of Scripture. Any extra or more time distant removed writers of "gospels" or letters to any churches may be beneficial, but cannot be accepted as authoritative any more than a writing by a 10 year old child from Utah. Also it must align with revealed truth which can be seen in the inspired Bible, that God himself ordained and divinely preserved by his followers. To infer that we Christians, via any form of organized church, can alter the complete and adequate Word of God, is not only a loss of touch with reality (insanity) but is also nothing better than what any other cult or self-prophetic false religion does in following their own deception from truth. Clearly the scriptures are complete as they have stood for nearly 20 centuries now.
As a word of warning I'll quote Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God is flawless;he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.Do not add to his words,he will rebuke you and prove you a liar." And we all know where liars end up being punished. ( I'm talking about liars, not redeemed Saints who may stuggle with the sin of lying occassionally)

amontoya said...

The Church is filled with both good and bad, just as Jesus said it would be: Matt. 13:1-9, 24-30, 47-50. God's grace is more powerful than man's sin, and Christ is loving and faithful to His bride, the Church. In spite of the unworthiness of many Catholics, Christ established His Church and endowed it with authority(Luke 10:16) and guidance(John 16:13) and His promise that the Church, which would be comprised of good and bad members, would exist until the end of the world(Matt. 28:20).

Again, there is no verse in Scripture that teaches the Bible alone is "ultimately authoritative." There is, however, a warning in the New Testament to those who would ignore the authority of the priests who are charged by God with the obligation to authentically interpret and transmit the Faith. In the Old Testament, the Lord endowed His priests with the authority to interpret His laws and issue binding decisions based on those interpretations(Deut. 17:8-13). Similarly, the Lord established the priestly Magisterium of His Church with authority to teach(Matt. 28:20, Eph. 3:10), interpret Scripture(Acts 2:14-36, 2 Peter 1:20), bind and loose(Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:18, Acts 15:28-29), and otherwise exercise authority in His name(Luke 10:16). In Jude 10-11 we are warned against those who "perish in Korah's rebellion." That rebellion Jude writes of is found in Numbers 16:1-35. Korah rebelled against the lawful authority of Moses and the priests. Clearly, we should not rebel against the authority God has established in His Church.

The Catholic Church does not change or add to God's Truth. It upholds and defends His Truth(1 Tim. 3:15) as it has been divinely revealed, in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition(2 Thess. 2:15), and transmits that Truth to the faithful. Clearly, the teaching authority and mission of the Apostles was meant to be passed on: Acts 1:20, Acts 14:23, 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Tim. 2:2, Titus 1:5.

Incidentally, if only the writings of Christ's original Apostles are to be accepted as inspired scripture, then by what authority do you accept the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, or the Letter to the Hebrews? None of these were written by Apostles.

I agree that to alter the Word of God would be to follow after deception and lies. So, by what authority did Martin Luther and the Protestants remove books from the Bible that were in there from the beginning? The Sacred Scriptures have been preserved intact for 20 centuries by the Holy Catholic Church.

Please read the Bible, learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and examine history. John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a protestant."

Andrew said...

I believe that many Catholic priests are teaching children inside the catholic education system that the Bible is full of errors. If it is not full of errors then why say it is?

Simply so that they can then proclaim the RCC has the final authority on everything. Good tactics, poor use of the word of life and light.

Alas, they are the biggest cult in the world today. All cults say that the interpretation of scripture rests on their organization.

amontoya said...

What evidence is there that the Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is full of errors? None. Rather, "the Church has always venerated the Scriptures," Catechism of the Catholic Church Para, 103. The Catechism also states, "The inspired books teach the truth. 'Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures," par 107.

The belief that the Church teaches the Bible is full of errors is simply not based on fact. Instead, it is based on opinions formed by misunderstanding and misinformation. It is easier to knock down a strawman than to form a well reasoned arguement against what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches.

David said...

Amontoya,
I can see how deeply you have become imprisoned within your mind. I pray that God’s Holy Spirit is working on your heart to help you see past all the deception you have adopted from Roman Catholic Church. There are so many things wrong with what you said earlier that it’s hard to list them all in a reasonable amount of time and space. But I’ll attempt to give you a response, since I sense you may be a man in search of real truth. If you want to read more about the concept the Bible alone being our only real source of truth look here. http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

To address your first point, when the Bible refers to the church, it in no way is referring to the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) it is referring to the true Church, the Bride of Christ (true believers where ever they may be). Many of your assumptions on the scriptures you quoted are absurd due to that assumption. There are many points to address here. So….back to the basics. The Church is not an organization per say; it is the collective group of born again believers (Matt 18:20) (even though we do and should organize with Elder leadership for practical reasons laid out in scripture). In John 3, Jesus clearly explains that you must be born again of the Spirit of God to enter his kingdom. The Church can also reference a limited group of believers in a local area, but it never is referencing the RCC. If you are a good student of history and truth, you would see that the authority given to the “church” was to the general church as a whole, not as an extension of apostolic succession as some want to believe. This cannot be biblically supported. Also common sense dictates that the Church can never add to or take away from Gods word (as in praying to saints or lifting up Mary the mother of Jesus as someone to bless you, or pray and intercede for you). Christ is the head (Eph 5:23), not any one group who thinks they have a particular grip on Gods truth. Again, I will mention the warnings Jesus gave the Churches in Sardis and Laodicea about straying from his truth in Revelations 3. The Catholic Church is full of so much idolatry and pagan-like practices that it truly entangles men from finding the true gospel of Christ. Even though we are warned about false teachers infiltrating the church, we are exhorted to have nothing to do with them, not just accept they are among us, as explained in Matt 5:19, Romans 16, I Timothy 1, and II Peter 2, and many other scriptures. Allowing them to remain within the church only causes corruption (as history clearly shows us in the evolution of the RCC in the 4th century on). Each local church is charged with having overseers to guide them (sometimes referred to as Elders or Bishops, but the title isn’t important just the role, nor is there any scriptural support to say they are successors of apostles) as illustrated in passages like I Tim 3 and with the assistance of Deacons and others with gifts of the Holy Spirit (I Cor 12), we are to be led by God’s Holy Spirit and his written Word as our authority. We also must test and approve every “spirit” and teaching with the Word of God (I John 4:1), just as the Bereans did.

As far as this notion you presented, “there is no verse in Scripture that teaches the Bible alone is ultimately authoritative”, is true specifically but not in principle. There are many truths and doctrines of Gods word that are not spelled out as much. You and I both believe in God as a triune being we call the “Trinity” The scriptures clearly illustrate this triune nature of God (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit..3 persons in one), but never in scripture is God called the “Holy Trinity” So just likewise there may not be any one passage that says God’s Word is alone authoritative, but in practice it must be. Otherwise any one or group like the Roman Catholic Church or Mohammad or Joseph Smith, etc, could simply claim new authority and make what ever changes they want. Psalm 119:105 “Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.” Jesus was described as the Word of God in John 1 and also the scriptures say that God never changes (one of his attributes) so likewise never does his word change.

So it really comes down to what you accept as the true words of Scripture. You could read here also http://www.gotquestions.org/canonicity-scriptural.html

The Biblical canon of scripture, as we know it now and accepted by the early church fathers in the 3rd century, The Bible, has never included the Gnostic writings of the apocrypha due to their lack of apostolic authority, their of lack universal acceptance, their lack of liturgical use, and their lack of consistent message with the main body of scriptures. These were late arriving imitations many of which had theological separations from the early church accepted four gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and letters from the Apostles. All written in the first century by apostles of Christ or under their direct authority as in the Gospel of Mark (known by the 1st and 2nd century church to be under the Apostle Peters guidance) and the Gospel of Luke( also known by the 1st and 2nd century church to be under the guidance of the Apostle Paul of which Luke interviewed many first hand witnesses). Since the early days of the Christian church these apostolic writings of the New Testament were and still are followed as authoritative and complete by pure followers of Christ. If one wishes to add to the authority of scripture and corrupt the message of the Word, then he will have to face the judgment seat of Christ to give account for leading others astray. (Matt 18:6)

As far as priests are concerned, all born-again believers are priests and can directly approach to the throne of God because of the blood of Christ our true Priest, this is basic New Testament theology (I Peter 2:9, Rev 1:4 , I Tim 2:5, Heb 4:16) We never have, nor never will, need another mediator between God and man. Christ’s blood alone allows us direct access to God. To teach Old Testament priestly authority caries over to us under the new Covenant is just plain wrong. The Church is under a new covenant with each believer as priests before God because of the propitiation made by the blood of Jesus.

“Sola scriptura” is the assertion that the Bible is sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine. Teaching that a “deposit of faith” as an additional authority, as in the “sacred tradition” taught by Catholics is very dangerous and has lead to many false teachings due to years of corruption, lies and distortions of truth. Traditions in of themselves are not necessarily bad and some are quite good, but they have no authority when they contradict the scriptures.

I ask the Lord Jesus to send his Holy Spirit into your heart to “set the captive free” since you have been corrupted by a twisted worldview. If you will just for a few moments let go of all your Catholic Church training and listen to the pure Word of God, as it is clearly given to us in the authoritative words of God, the Bible(less the books of the apocrypha or Deuterocanonicals since they don’t align with true scripture), you will see how deeply you have been deceived. The very reason Jesus Christ was born and entered onto Earth as a human was to set men free from the bondage of the lies of Satan. Jesus said in John 18:37 “for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me”
And as Jesus claimed fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1,2 in Luke 4:18-20
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”
The “prisoners” Christ is talking about, are the ones taken captive to hollow and deceptive philosophy not criminals (Col 2:8). And the blind are those who cannot see the truth. Jesus also said in John 8:32 “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”
Although this may be like speaking to a heart of stone, I’d take heed to what the Scriptures clearly say and not allow twisted doctrine or “Catholic Church tradition” to cloud your view as much as possible. A true follower of Christ will do as the Bereans did and study the scriptures carefully to find the real truth as in Acts 17:11 “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”

Honestly what John Henry Cardinal Newman said about Protestants is meaningless. I never take the words of men over the words of God. Neither should you Amontoya. Christ and Christ alone should be your motto, not Christ plus tradition, not Christ plus Mary, not Christ plus the Pope, not Christ plus some Priest.
Seek Jesus with the faith of a little child, allow your preconceived notions and traditions of your background to not blind you and you will see what I am telling you here is true and the Holy Spirit will open your eyes to the truth of Christ.
Follow Jesus’ words in Matthew 7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.”

May God Give you wisdom

amontoya said...

David,

I will try to be as brief as possible, but that may be difficult.

When the Bible refers to the Church it is in reference, not to "believers wherever they may be," but to a visible organization,(Matt. 5:14, Matt.18:15-17, Luke 8:16, Heb. 10:25). The Church is the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ, images that make it clear it is a visible recognizable entity, and not an invisible collection of all true believers. Scripture also makes it very clear that the Church is hierarchical and organized(Matt. 10:1, 16:19, 18:18, 28:20; Luke 10:16, 22:29; John 20:22-23; Acts 1:20; Acts 14:23, 20:28; 1 Cor. 12:4-12; Eph. 2:20, 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:1, 5:17,22; Titus 1:5; 1 Peter 2:5-10,24-25). There is a priesthood of all believers, but as these verses demonstrate, there is also a seperate priesthood committed to service of the people of God. The only Church to follow this pattern from the time of Christ is the Catholic Church.

You stated that the idea of Apostolic succession is contrary to "history and truth." I have already given you several scripture verses supporting the idea, so I'll focus on history. What follows is a list of quotes from the Early Church Fathers.

-"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" Pope Clement 1(Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
-"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" Hegesippus(Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).
-"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" Irenaeus(Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
-"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).
-"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).
-"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" Tertullian(Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).
-"But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (ibid., 32).
-"Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians" Jerome(Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).
-"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" Augustine(Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

This list is far from exhaustive, but I hope you can see that apostolic succession is indeed founded in truth and proven by history.

In Rev. 3, Jesus tells the church, "Remember therefore what you have received and heard..." which is yet another example that not everything was given by scripture; some things are passed down orally(Tradition). Again, there is no verse in the Bible that teaches or even implies sola scriptura. The doctrine of the Trinity is implied, sola scriptura is not. In practice, it is sola scriptura that allows anyone to come along and claim authority, because each individual is charged with interpreting the Bible for themselves. This has sadly led to thousands of protestant denominations. The Apostles were given authority(Matt. 18:18) and they passed this authority on(Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5).

As to the canon of Scripture, the website you gave states: "Later, as heresy increased and some within the church began clamoring for the acceptance of spurious religious writings, the church wisely held a council to officially confirm their acceptance of the 27 New Testament books. The criteria they used allowed them to objectively distinguish what God had given them from that of human origin. They concluded that they would stay with the books that were universally accepted. In so doing, they determined to continue in "the apostles' teaching" (Acts 2:42)." This council that is refered to is the Council of Rome, and this council not only listed the books of the New Testament, but also the Old Testament with all of the books that are in Catholic Bibles. The Deuterocanonical books, what you refer to as apocrypha, are declared to be universaly accepted as Scripture at this council, and every council after.

It's not hard to find the canon lists from these councils. Just search the internet. You can find a short list of councils here: http://www.lrc.edu/rel/blosser/canon_list.htm

You accept the testimony of this council in regard to the New Testament, but reject it when it comes to the Old Testament. So, I'll ask the question again. What authority did Martin Luther have to remove books from the Bible that were universaly accepted as scripture for 1500 years? The Early Church Fathers accepted these books, but you reject them. Why? Here's what you said, "If one wishes to add to the authority of scripture and corrupt the message of the Word, then he will have to face the judgment seat of Christ to give account for leading others astray. (Matt 18:6)"

Please let go of your predjudice and misconceptions of the Catholic Church and examine the Bible and history with an open, honest, and humble heart.

I have obeyed Jesus's command to ask, seek, and knock, and I have chosen to follow Him wherever He leads me. I have found Christ in His fullness. I am Catholic for a reason.

David said...

Uh huh...I hear you loud and clear Amontoya. Your pagan catholic beliefs have taken you deep into bondage and until you see that you are in chains, Christ can never set you free, my friend. Obviously we will have to agree to disagree here. As long as you insist on your far removed from first century Biblical church's ability to change scripture you will be lost along with it.

amontoya said...

David,
The sad truth is that you may hear me, but you don't listen. You write me off as pagan, and make false claims that the Catholic Church changed Scripture, but where is your proof? You can't argue with the simple scriptural and historical evidence I have given, and yet you persist in your accusations. You are in my prayers.

Dennis Feely said...

Amontoya, when I responded a while ago, you “corrected” my reference to the Church - my reference is the Church as defined by the Bible, the followers of Jesus Christ. Your use of the word “church” is apparently both the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ.
I have 2 daughters who are being led down the path to Hell by the Catholic Church and the false doctrine the Catholic Church preaches. All the points about this doctrine have been addressed, yet you continue to reference man-made doctrinal treatises. Throw all of that out and stick to God’s Word.
There are hundreds of false doctrines taught by the Catholic Church. Many have already been addressed in this blog. 'Mary' worship, redemption through a man (priest)and many more.


1 Peter 5:5 . . . For God resists proud ones, but He gives grace to the humble.

amontoya said...

Dennis,

You are correct! The Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ's followers is one and the same. Jesus said He would build His Church on Peter(Matt. 16:18). He didn't say churches, but one Church. Jesus prayed that His followers would be one(John 17:21-22). We know that Jesus is righteous and the prayer of a righteous man is effective(Jas. 5:16). It is reasonable that because Jesus is perfectly righteous, His prayer would be perfectly effective. His Church is One. I have given numerous other Scripture verses that assert that the One Church of Jesus would be organized, hierarchical, visible, and apostolic. Again, the ONLY Church that fulfills all of these qualities is the Catholic Church.

No one has even attempted to argue with the simple scriptural proofs I have put forth for the Catholic Church. The references I made to the Church Fathers and Councils, were in regard to an argument about the historical nature of Apostolic Succession and the Canon of Scripture. The argument was made from history, so I used historical facts to refute the claim.

Catholics DO NOT worship Mary. We give her the respect and honor due to the Mother of God(Luke 1:48). Adoration(worship) is given to God alone. Mary always points us toward her Son, Jesus(John 2:5).

Redemption does come though a man. The man Jesus Christ. His finished work on the cross is the source of our redemption. He was given all authority(Matt. 28:18). He freely chose to give authority to the Apostles(Matt. 18:18). He could have built His Church any way He wanted, and He chose to build it on men. Again, I have already given many Scriptural supports for this.

You claim there are "hundreds of false doctrines taught by the Catholic Church," but you have no evidence to support this claim. You have been misinformed or have misunderstood what is and is not true Catholic teaching. I implore you to set aside your prejudice, and truly examine what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches. You and your daughters are in my prayers.

Dennis Feely said...

Amontoya:

You are apparently the exception to majority of Catholics I know and have met throughout the years. I was first married in a Catholic Church and saw the non scriptural “requirements” first hand that it was required for me to go through prior to getting married in a Catholic Church. This included signing a document stating I would raise my children as Catholics. I don’t see that in any Bible I’ve read.

Here are just a couple of the false doctrines. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) (obtained from www.vatican.va ) apparently teaches:
In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." (italics in original, CCC, 1374)
In other words, the bread literally becomes Jesus' body and the wine literally becomes his blood.

According to the CCC:
II. DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN
CCC 971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration." The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.

God’s Word: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..." (King James Bible, Exodus 20:4,5).

You state that I am prejudiced. Webster’s Dictionary says that “Prejudice” is preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b: an instance of such judgment or opinion c: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

Sorry – I am not prejudiced but concerned of the people of this world who are going to Hell. I am a Messianic Jew and know what prejudice is.

If you are one who is on his way to heaven by repentance from your sins and confession by your mouth of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and following Him (Romans 10:9), then let’s put away the swords and go out to witness to the world for His Kingdom..

amontoya said...

Dennis,

It is reasonable to ask someone wishing to be married in the Catholic Church to raise the children of that marriage in the Church. It is natural to expect that someone participating in the sacramental life of the Church should bring their children into that same life. "It is in the bosom of the family that parents are "by word and example . . . the first heralds of the faith with regard to their children," Catechism of the Catholic Church(CCC) 1656. There is Biblical evidence that children should be raised in the Church(Deut. 4:9-10, 11:19; Prov. 22:6; Psalm 34:11; Matt. 18:5, 19:14; Mark 10:14-16; Luke 9:48, 10:21, 18:16; Acts 2:39; Eph. 6:4). Jesus wants the children to come to Him, and the Church is His Body. There is no reason that the offspring of a Catholic marriage should not be Catholic.

It is true that in the Eucharist, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It should not be surprising that the Church would teach this, because Jesus Himself taught it(Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; John 6:48-57; 1 Cor. 11:23-29), and The Catholic Church teaches what Jesus taught.

"That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"210," CCC 1381.

"By celebrating the Last Supper with his apostles in the course of the Passover meal, Jesus gave the Jewish Passover its definitive meaning. Jesus' passing over to his father by his death and Resurrection, the new Passover, is anticipated in the Supper and celebrated in the Eucharist, which fulfills the Jewish Passover and anticipates the final Passover of the Church in the glory of the kingdom," CCC 1340. Jesus is "our Passover lamb," 1 Cor. 5:7. What was done with the Passover lamb?

In John 6:51 Jesus said, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
Is the flesh that Jesus gave "for the life of the world," real or symbolic?

Prejudice is a preformed idea based on insufficient knowledge, irrational thought, or inaccurate stereotypes. Your prejudice is revealed in the fact that you quote from the CCC a passage that explicitly states that Mary does not recieve the adoration that is due to God alone, but then procede to quote scripture forbidding idol worship; arguing against an idea of Mary worship that the Catholic Church does not promote. The Catechism specifically states that devotion to Mary "differs essentially" from the worship of God. You would not argue against something that is not taught, unless there was a prejudice based on misunderstanding, faulty reasoning, or belief in false stereotypes. I used to have the same prejudice, until I learned and accepted the truth about what the Catholic Church teaches.

I would like to suggest you check out this website:
www.salvationisfromthejews.com

May God bless you. You and your family are in my prayers.

Steven (manager of a few websites) said...

Hey from FL again. We've been praying for you and wanted to let you know! We are so looking forward to the 'Transformed Conference' scheduled for this Saturday! less than 5 days away! ~ :)

Thank you for serving Christ and this blog was very interesting!

your friend and a fellow servant of Christ, Steven : )

Fish with Trish said...

Thanks Steve for your prayers!

David Davies said...

Hi Trish.

The Bible clearly says that 'faith' includes 'works'. Go re-read James. R.C. Sproul (no Catholic he) says that it is "...faith alone, but not a faith which is alone." Whether he realizes it or not, this formulation entails 'works' as an absolutely necessary component of 'faith'. If a person is not changed by his encounter with Christ, then he really doesn't have 'faith', does he?

Remember the parable of the two sons who were told by their father to go work in his fields? One said he would go, but didn't. One refused to go, but went anyway. Which one did the will of his father? The one who obeyed his father. And notice that he affirmed his obedience by his actions, and NOT by his words.

So, where does this leave us? We Catholics do NOT believe we can work our way to heaven. Our works to do save us. Our works are one of the ways we say 'YES!' to God. Our works are part of the grammar of our assent to His offer of redemption.

May God bless you, and your readers, and may your minds be opened to the truth.

Fish with Trish said...

Hi David Davies,

Thanks you for your comments. However, I think you have misrepresented R.C. Sproul and the Reformed position on the subject of faith/works. When R.C. speaks about faith not being alone, he simply means that true genuine faith will never just remain fruitless. True faith leads to true fruit, nothing else is intended by that statement. I think you fail to realize that R.C. and other like him believe in "the order of salvation", and this is where you need to come to the truth and out of the errors of Rome. Romans 8.29-30 describe the nature and order of salvation, purely monergistic (Reformed) and not synergistic (Romish).

As far as James is concerned, I find James to be saying the same thing that the Reformed position would say, "if someone says" (mere stated faith) is not faith at all. Works are the necessary by-product of a previous work of faith spawned by regeneration (at this point Rome would disagree). Thanks again for your comments and for reading this

David Davies said...

Trish,

I am sure that Sproul understands the words of his formulation as you do, that 'faith' produces the fruit of 'works'. My point is that the words have meaning beyond his understanding, or yours, and in fact show us that 'works' are included within the meaning of 'faith'. Without the 'works' it isn't 'faith'.

Look. When you accept Christ, do you perform a 'work'? Of course you do! Agreement is an 'act', which is a 'work'. So agreeing with the Gospel, and accepting Christ, is something you do. That is a 'work'.

Now, no Catholic I know of argues that our works merit heaven. What I hear and understand is that our 'works' are the non-verbal way we accept Christ.

Accepting Christ is not simply a matter of belief. Even the demons believe, as James says. So faith, if it is truly saving faith, will be comprised of belief, trust, and obedience. Or do you have a different definition of 'faith'?

Fish with Trish said...

Thanks for your response David Davies,

I was not trying to state the obvious. However, it is obvious that you have not considered what Paul says in Romans 4:4-5, "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness". Or at least that you are not seeing Paul's point here.

This sounds like the antithesis of what your statement says here, "When you accept Christ, do you perform a 'work'? Of course you do! Agreement is an 'act', which is a 'work' (and) Without the 'works' it isn't 'faith'".

What??

Paul's point seems to be quite the opposite. 'Faith' is not synonymous with 'works' in Paul. Then again, I don’t expect you to hold to Sola Scriptura so, it may not matter that I’m referencing Paul. I don’t know any Catholic that would say, baptism, participation of the mass, indulgences, and many other "works" are obsolete in the salvation equation. It is also standard RCC doctrine to say that you can do some of these works e.g. indulgences to the benefit of people in purgatory. That to me makes the RCC a works based system, a system we need to reject and that for more reason than just the faith/works issue, there is the issue of authority as I mentioned above, the issue of the Papacy, The Mass, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception, Ascension of Mary, and lastly the many anathemas that Rome has placed upon us as Protestants.

amontoya said...

Trish,

Paul's point in Romans 4 is that we are not justified by works. Catholics don't believe we are justified by works. We believe we are justified by grace. The Council of Trent stressed: "[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace" (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).

"Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life," Catechism of the Catholic Church 1996. It is only because of grace, that we can have faith, or "respond to his call." But we must do something to respond, don't we? We must repent and trust, right? It is in this response that we cooperate with God's grace. If we don't respond(repent, trust) aren't we then rejecting God's grace? That is why the nature and order of salvation can be said to be synergistic. God gives us grace, we must respond to that grace, and God gives us the grace to respond to His grace.

The Catholic Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense—mere man cannot (CCC 2007). The most merit humans can have is when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus God’s grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit (CCC 2008).

Virtually all of this is agreed to by Protestants, who recognize that, under the impetus of God’s grace, Christians do perform acts which are pleasing to God and which God has promised to reward, meaning that they fit the definition of merit.

It may not matter to you that I'm referencing the Catechism, but it should matter that this is taught by Jesus, Paul, James, and Peter(Matt. 25:31-46, Rom. 2:6-11, Gal. 6:6-10, Jas. 2:25, 2 Peter 1:3-11).

By the way, the doctrine you're objecting to is the Assumption of Mary, not the ascension. Jesus ascended, not Mary. Jesus went into heaven by His own power. Mary was taken(assumed) into heaven by the power of God, not under her own power. This should not be so objectionable to Protestants, because there is Biblical evidence that it happened before with Enoch and Elijah. If God could take them into heaven, why could He not take Mary?

May God bless you.

David Davies said...

Trish,

And where does it say in the Bible that the Bible is the only (sola) authority? Or where does the Bible define its own content? Who is your authority for knowing that 'Proverbs' is scripture, but 'Wisdom' is not? Harper's? Zondervan? Who?

Since we agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, given to us, then every doctrine must agree with scripture. If everything must agree with scripture, then scripture has a veto. How does this ignore scripture?

But we digress. Back to Justification. Read more carefully what I am saying. 'Faith' includes 'works'. If you remove the 'works' (your obedient behavior) from your 'faith', then your 'faith' is dead. So says the Bible.

As to your cite from Romans, of course salvation is a gift. As Jesus tells us, "Without Me you can do nothing." Conversion is prompted by God. We can't do anything to earn it. When we respond to God's offer of salvation we receive as a gift our subsequent ability to believe, trust, and obey.

Fish with Trish said...

Thank you again for responding and thanks Amontoya for correcting me. Sorry about that error on my part. I was listing things off rather quickly. However, the problem with the “Assumption of Mary” is that there simply isn’t Scriptural basis for it, whatsoever. Arguing from the fact that it happened to Jesus, Elijah etc., is no argument at all. Should we also expect that because Jesus walked on water we can too? But as you will be bound to admit, Scripture alone is not the final authority for RC doctrine. This is of course something that Trent also accomplished by reinstituting the apocryphal books into the RC canon. At the end of the day, what you have with Catholicism is a collection of self contradicting counsels, popes, and bishops, extra biblical doctrines and practices, religious pluralism, and synergism all of which I believe Scripture to be clearly renouncing. I haven’t met a Catholic that was assured of his or her salvation thus, demonstrating to me that they are hoping to be saved and are "trying" to be saved; making salvation a matter of co-operation i.e. synergism.

I think there is a bit of confusion as to the point being raised here. Grace is the basis of justification; faith is the means of justification (Eph. 2.8). Paul's point in Romans is that faith apart from human works alone results in justification, something the council of Trent was totally apposed to (see Canon, 9, 14 etc.).

This canon is telling why there can be no assurance in Roman Catholicism and why there is no salvation in it at all. The work of Christ on the cross was simply not enough, and by the way, you never responded to the "anathemas" pronounced on all those that differ with Rome. Catholics seem to like to gloss over the language of anathema as utilized by Rome. For example in Canon 30:

"If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema."

David Davies said...

Trish,

Do you think that extra-biblical is the same thing as contra-biblical?

amontoya said...

Trish,

First, regarding the Assumption of Mary, I did not argue that this was something that "happened to Jesus." I agree that would not be an argument at all. Again, Jesus ascended into heaven by His own power, because He is God. Enoch and Elijah were taken, or assumed, into heaven by God. The point I was trying to make is that God can take people into heaven, body and soul, and He has done it before. Your point about Jesus walking on water actually helps my case. Jesus walked on water because He is God and has the power to do it. He called Peter out of the boat, and caused him to walk on water as well. So, I believe that if Jesus wanted, then yes I could walk on water. This doesn't mean I'm going to try to take a stroll across the lake, but it would be possible if Jesus called me to Him. There is a biblical precedent for God calling people out of this world to be with Him in heaven(Enoch, Elijah). Therefore, I believe that God can call me, you, Mary, and anyone else in this world, up to heaven to be with Him. There is scriptural support for the idea that Mary is in heaven. Revelations 12 describes a woman in heaven. It tells us that, "She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter." Who is this child? Jesus. Who gave birth to Jesus? Mary.

Second, I freely admit that Scripture alone is not the final authority for Christian doctrine. In 1 Tim. 3:15, Scripture says that the Church is, "the pillar and foundation of the truth." I believe both Scripture and the Church. They can't contradict each other. Do you believe that the Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself can be in opposition to Scripture?

Third, regarding the canon of Scripture, it was Luther and the reformers who ripped books out of the Bible. You can go back, starting well over a thousand years before the Council of Trent, to the Councils of Laodicea, Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and Florence, and you will find the list of the canon of Scripture exactly the same as at Trent and today. The Catholic Church didn't reinstitute anything. It merely upheld what it had always taught regarding Sacred Scripture.

Fourth, regarding the issue of whether Christians have an "absolute" assurance of salvation, consider this warning Paul gave: "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22). Consider also Matt. 7:22-23, Luke 8:13, Heb. 10:26–29, and 2 Pet. 2:20–21. It is in light of the warnings of Scripture that we must understand the positive statements concerning our ability to know and have confidence in our salvation. Assurance we may have, but infallible certitude, we may not.

Fifth, nowhere in Scripture does it say that we are justified by faith alone. In fact, Scripture specifically states that "a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone," Jas. 2:24. Scripture very clearly teaches we are not saved by faith alone. The Catholic position that we are saved through faith and works is strongly supported by Scripture: Gal. 3:11, Rom. 2:13, Gal. 3:24, Jas. 2:24, Rom. 3:28, Jas. 2:20, Rom. 10:9-10, Matt. 7:21, Acts 13:30-31, Matt. 19:16-17, John 3:16, Heb. 13:14, 1 John 5:13, Phill. 2:12-13, Eph. 2:8-10, Luke 9:23. These passages together teach that we are saved through faith and works. Look carefully at Jas. 2:26, "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." The body is compared to faith, the spirit is compared to works. Aren't both body and spirit necessary for life? Faith and works are necessary for eternal life.

Sixth, the use of the word "anathema" has evolved through the history of the Church and today means the same as excommunication. Since the middle of the 13th century, "...there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema," Catholic Encyclopedia. You can find more here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm Because one must first be Catholic to be excommunicated, the term does not apply to Protestants. By the way, if you truly believe what you say about the Catholic Church, why would it bother you that the Church pronounces anathemas? You stated there is no salvation in the Church. You believe the Church is at best apostate, and at worst pagan, so why would a pronouncement like that bother you so much?

May God bless you.

Fish with Trish said...

David Davies, Sure I can see how you would have difficulty understanding things that refer to Sola Scriptura, when you seem to have a totally faulty understanding of the Reformed doctrine. I did not say, "Solo" Scriptura i.e. "only", but as you correctly read and wrote, "Sola" Scriptura "final" or ultimate authority. Big difference! There are many authoritative sources, but none as ultimate as Scripture.

We simply disagree on the issue of synergism, faith prior to obedience is what Paul is talking about, and obedience though closely connected to faith is not equivalent to faith. If at every turn of Roman's and Paul's mention of faith/works Paul actually meant what you defined as
"'Faith' includes 'works'" you would make mince meat of Paul's thought to the point that Paul would be speaking in contradictory terms, e.g. "it is by faith apart from works, yet with the work of faith"? That is nonsensical.

The Greek word “graphe” is a technical term for God-breathed Scripture, nothing but the bible is given this designation. Not tradition. Not the fathers. Not counsels or popes. Only Scripture is God-breathed. God did not give infallible authority to these lines of authority. Paul reinforces this in Gal. 1.6-9, where Paul says that not even he or an angel had more authority than what they had already revealed i.e. the gospel. I Cor. 15 demonstrate that the gospel is according to Scripture, "it is not man's Gospel". What Catholicism does is put the gospel under the authority of man. This is why Paul said not ot go beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4.6 cf. 2 Pet. 3.16-18).

amontoya said...

1)Sola and solo are both forms of the Latin word solus which means "alone," not "final."

2)The Greek term for "God breathed" is Theopneustos.

3)The Greek word "graphe" means writing.

David Davies said...

Trish,

You didn't answer my question. And my question doesn't have anything to do with 'solo' or 'sola'. I understand 'reformed' doctrine quite well, thank you very much.

In the cite you give from Romans, Paul is speaking of 'works of the law'. He is not speaking of obedience to Christ. You have a basic misunderstanding of Paul's polemic. Obedience to the law cannot save you. Obedience to Christ can and does.

Please give me your definition of faith. Is is simply belief? Is is trust? Is is obedience? Anything else? A combination of one or all of the above? I fail to understand how anyone could claim to have faith in Jesus without obedience to Jesus. I'd say that such a person was a lying hypocrite. Wouldn't you?

You have not, and apparantly cannot answer my question as to who is your authority for knowing what scripture belongs in the Bible. Holding forth something as the ultimate authority which you then cannot authenticate isn't at all convincing.

And Catholicism no more puts scripture under the authority of man than Paul does when he condemns gospels other than that which he preached.

Fish with Trish said...

Hi David Davies,

You asked, "Do you think that extra-biblical is the same thing as contra-biblical?"

Of course not, but neither is something that is extra-biblical necessarily pro-biblical. It all depends on the content and the claims.

Spiffy the Basset said...

Amontoya,

I would encourage you to listen to John Macarthur's messages "Unmasking the pope and the catholic system" as well as his message on mary worship. I can give you the mp3s if you want. It deals pretty much with everything you've presented here. You've nothing to fear from the truth, right?

It's no coincidence the pagan religion with isis, the divine mother of ancient egypt, was made into the worship of mary by the catholic church(both are called "the queen of heaven").

References to Mary as "the mother of God" as opposed to the mother of Christ are just more of the same nuances thrown in to justify the worship of Mary. Having spent time in a massively catholic country and seeing the idols everywhere(mostly to mary), we can see where this leads. The fact is, you cannot separate catholicism from mary worship, and there's this completely unbiblical idea that, if we can misconstrue scripture to say jesus' brothers were not actually brothers(despite the greek word being the same), you then arrive with this idea that someone is more holy and sinless if they were always a virgin. Does that mean if an atheist dies a virgin they go to heaven? Is it any surprise PJP cried out to mary when he was shot during the assassination attempt?("Mary save me, mary save me"). The religion of Isis all over again.

Regarding peter(on this rock), I would encourage you to also look into the greek words used, as the two times rock was said, it was a different word. I wonder why he didn't start any of the churches in revelation if he was "the pope?" Paul clearly had a greater effect on churches, and the bible itself in writing a large part of the new testament.

The catholic church boils down to a massive power grab. If they can create this idea that they alone can determine what scripture means and says, you have to subject yourself to them. This is one of the issues with apostolic succession, because it perpetuates this idea, since the bible is fallible, that you must be dependent on the catholic church.

I think all of us also know that a huge draw of catholicism is the physical attraction of churches, the beauty of the incense, etc. I remember seeing some catholic leaders after September 11 wearing crowns and holding scepters in a church service(nevermind Jesus rode around on a donkey). Worldly temples have always been beautiful(the pyramids, the aztec ruins, many mosques...).


Trish, regarding the issues with Sproul, he adopted a lot of theology, through calvinism, from the catholic church(infant baptism, etc). Calvin himself, "post conversion," encouraged a woman to become a nun. So it's no surprise when conflicting issues come up such as the catholics here have mentioned.

amontoya said...

Spiffy the Basset,

I will listen to John MacArthur, and I ask that you listen to John Martignoni's talks, "Apostolic Authority and the Pope," and "Mary and the Bible." They can be found at
www.biblechristiansociety.com

As I have already made clear, Catholics do not worship Mary. We give her honor and veneration. Adoration and worship is given to God alone.

The fact that there is a false "queen of heaven", does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false goddess when we call Mary the "Queen of Heaven." Just as the fact that there is a false "god", does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false god when we call our Father in Heaven, God. The title Queen of Heaven is appropriate for Mary, because we can read in Revelation 12:1 about a woman wearing a "crown of twelve stars on her head." This woman gave birth to Jesus. We know that Mary gave birth to Jesus, so we know that Mary is wearing a crown. This woman is in heaven. So we now know that Mary is in heaven wearing a crown. Queens wear crowns. It is reasonable to believe that if Mary is wearing a crown in heaven, then she's the Queen of Heaven.

Since Mary is the mother of Jesus, it must be concluded that Mary is the Mother of God. If Mary is the Mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. To say that Mary is not the Mother of God, but of Christ only is to deny the divinity if Jesus. This does not mean that she is older than God or the source of His divinity. She is His mother, because she carried God in the flesh in her womb.

Like many others, you misunderstand Catholic teaching. Mary was not more holy or sinless because she remained a virgin. She is holy and sinless, because God saved her from original sin and gave her all the grace she needed to remain sinless and pure.

The two greek words you refer to are "petra" and "petros." Both words mean rock. One is feminine and the other is masculine. In greek, the same word couldn't be used in both places, because the author couldn't give a man a feminine name. However, the real issue is that Jesus spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word for rock is Kephas. There is ample evidence that Jesus changed Simon's name to Kephas in Aramaic and that was translated as Peter in Greek. Just see John 1:42; 1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5; and Gal. 1:18, 2:9. Peter was obviously given the authority to lead Christ's Church.

Again, as I've already stated, the Catholic Church has never, does not now, and will never teach that the Bible is fallible. The Bible is the written Word of God. It can't be fallible. It does need to be interpreted though. It needs an infallible interpreter, otherwise you have the problem of protestantism, with thousands of different interpretations. The Bible, as the Word of God, can't teach contradicting doctrines, yet that's what you have in Protestantism. Thousands of people, all claiming to go by the Bible alone, teach conflicting doctrines. Not all interpretations can be correct, but there must be a correct interpretation, because the Word of God is true. How do you decide which interpretation is correct? You need a guide. That guide must be infallible. That's what we have in the Catholic Church.

I'm sorry, but I haven't heard of too many cases of people converting to Catholicism because the cathedrals are nice. People, including myself, choose to convert because the fullness of Christ is found only in the Catholic Church. The splendor of the Church just happens to be part of that fullness. Incidentally, does your pastor ride around on a donkey?

God bless you!

Spiffy the Basset said...

david

Spiffy the Basset said...

Praying to mary, building massive statues of mary, sticking idols of her everywhere... exalting her as "the queen of heaven"(particularly when the only biblical reference to a queen of heaven is a pagan god, in the book fo Jeremiah) referenced in sure, they don't worship mary. I remember when the power went out in the catholic country I was in, I walked downstairs as I noticed a lit candle, and someone had made an alter to mary with a picture of her... a candle to be lit through the night.

I would encourage you to read more about the religion that worshipped the goddess isis... you will be amazed at the similarities. You cannot separate catholicism from mary/goddess worship.

Calling her the mother of God is definitely different than the mother of Jesus. The bible is clear that in heaven relations between earthly families are severed, as such, the "mother of Jesus" is no more. Referencing her as "the mother of God" is and has always been based on the idea that she can intercede and basically tell God what to do(as his
mother). Saying she is sinless, based on the idea that because she was considered blessed above all women, is like saying David was sinless because he was a man after God's own heart. There is absolutely no biblical basis for thinking she never sinned.

Actually, they don't both mean "rock." One means "little rock," and the other means "rock ground." Macarthur addresses this in those messages. It's very informative.

Peter was most certainly not given such authority, and there is no biblical basis at all that he passed it on to anyone. As I said, the idea of apostolic succession is and has always been a power grab.

The catholic church most certainly teaches that the old testament can be treated as a myth. I would encourage you also to speak with orthodox and messianic jews who will tell you that the jews of the time of jesus did not use the septuigent, and therefore, did not accept the apocrapha.

You shouldn't assume people that disagree with you don't understand you.

IF you haven't heard of that many cases, I'd encourage you to talk to some more catholics. I've talked to plenty who are completely in love with the idea of the traditions, the incense, the massive cathedrals, etc. It's a physically attractive religion... it's always been.

The catholic church teaches that tradition be on par with scripture, and when scripture is confusing, tradition, or the church, decides what it means. It's ironic that the papacy has contradicted itself so many times throughout history, yet is infallible in catholicism? The problem is, catholicism is largely dependent on human tradition, and since humans are by nature fallen and fallible, it can only be concluded that most of catholicism is as well(or has man made any perfect thing?)

The biggest question is, why would you refer to the mother of christ by the same name that the bible refers to a pagan goddess as?(queen of heaven).

Spiffy the Basset said...

Sorry,

no, but my pastor doesn't wear a crown, have people carry him around(like the pope), have a scepter... in other words, act like some king or royalty to be adored by the common people.

Javier said...

As I have already made clear, Catholics do not worship Mary. We give her honor and veneration. Adoration and worship is given to God alone.

Under the new covenant any man caught bowing, kissing, 'adoring' a statue was threatened by death. As a Roman Catholic if you lived under the old covenant and were caught 'venerating' Mary, would the excuse "Its only dulia and not latria" mean anything to The Jews?

You don't worship Mary, because you redefine everything to suit your pagan theology.

The fact that there is a false "queen of heaven", does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false goddess when we call Mary the "Queen of Heaven." Just as the fact that there is a false "god", does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false god when we call our Father in Heaven, God. The title Queen of Heaven is appropriate for Mary, because we can read in Revelation 12:1 about a woman wearing a "crown of twelve stars on her head." This woman gave birth to Jesus. We know that Mary gave birth to Jesus, so we know that Mary is wearing a crown. This woman is in heaven. So we now know that Mary is in heaven wearing a crown. Queens wear crowns. It is reasonable to believe that if Mary is wearing a crown in heaven, then she's the Queen of Heaven.

Since Mary is the mother of Jesus, it must be concluded that Mary is the Mother of God. If Mary is the Mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. To say that Mary is not the Mother of God, but of Christ only is to deny the divinity if Jesus. This does not mean that she is older than God or the source of His divinity. She is His mother, because she carried God in the flesh in her womb.

Like many others, you misunderstand Catholic teaching. Mary was not more holy or sinless because she remained a virgin. She is holy and sinless, because God saved her from original sin and gave her all the grace she needed to remain sinless and pure.


This is demonstrably false. Firstly, Revelation 12 is a type of writing called apocalyptic, and to interpret it as Mary is far from the truth.

2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3

The woman suffers from pain in birth, this is a curse of original sin given to Eve in Genesis. If Mary was sinless, why is she suffering birth pains?

Secondly, it seems to indicate that the "Woman" is the Church in the wilderness who gave birth to Christ through tribulation, and suffering [see OT] this interpretation is MUCH more plausible than anything the Anti-christ and his Church says.

The two greek words you refer to are "petra" and "petros." Both words mean rock. One is feminine and the other is masculine. In greek, the same word couldn't be used in both places, because the author couldn't give a man a feminine name. However, the real issue is that Jesus spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word for rock is Kephas. There is ample evidence that Jesus changed Simon's name to Kephas in Aramaic and that was translated as Peter in Greek. Just see John 1:42; 1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5; and Gal. 1:18, 2:9. Peter was obviously given the authority to lead Christ's Church.

Perhaps we should avoid this all by quoting the conclusions of a Roman Catholic scholar on the whole "On this rock.." issue in regards to the opinions of the Fathers:

"One study made by the French Roman Catholic Launoy revealed the following facts; FORTY FOUR were of the opinion that it was Peter's faith; sixteen favored the view that the rock was Christ; and eight said it referred to all the apostles"

Papal Power, Henry T. Hudson, pg. 29

It seems that there is no 'unanimous consent' of the Fathers, and the majority opinion seems to indicate the PROTESTANT position.

Secondly, so what if the text establishes Peter as 'the rock' we know later Peter wasn't infallible, didn't preside over any council, instead it was James who seems to in Acts.

Thirdly, where is Papal Infallibility? A Succession of Popes established in this text? I don't see it, its only the illusion of Popery.



Again, as I've already stated, the Catholic Church has never, does not now, and will never teach that the Bible is fallible. The Bible is the written Word of God. It can't be fallible. It does need to be interpreted though. It needs an infallible interpreter, otherwise you have the problem of protestantism, with thousands of different interpretations. The Bible, as the Word of God, can't teach contradicting doctrines, yet that's what you have in Protestantism. Thousands of people, all claiming to go by the Bible alone, teach conflicting doctrines. Not all interpretations can be correct, but there must be a correct interpretation, because the Word of God is true. How do you decide which interpretation is correct? You need a guide. That guide must be infallible. That's what we have in the Catholic Church.

We must establish this;

Nearly all Protestant churches if not all fall under the banner of "Protestant" because they are united by the Five Solas of the Reformation either explicitly or implicitly in that sense there is certainly theological unity.

Secondly, if an argument can be applied to the side that is using it and demonstrate inconsistency, then the argument fails and the user is exposed as a fraud or inconsistent.

Let me quote Robert Sungenis, a Roman Catholic Apologist who has used similar tactics. In answering objections to the Papacy he said;

Objection #56: "The institution of an infallible pope has not created theological unity in the Roman Church."

Answer: First, Jesus himself, the infallible, incarnate word of God, did not create unanimous theological "unity" among his hearers. In fact, Jesus was disheartened that so many people argued with him and rejected his message of truth. At many points, his message divided more than it unified. Paul encountered the same opposition, among both Jews and gentile converts. Hence, it is very short-sighted to suggest that infallibility is the criterion of unity. Unity, at least demographic unity, occurs when the people obey what they hear. If one voice is teaching them, the possibility for practical unity is much greater than if there are thousands of voices all teaching something different.
Second, the unity that the Catholic Church claims to promote in her charism of infallibility is not that every bishop, every priest, and every lay person will automatically believe what she teaches. She claims that truth resides in the decrees and doctrines the Magisterium promulgates, regardless of how the remaining clerics and laity interpret the Magisterium's teachings. One has no more right to deny the charism of infallibility to the Magisterium because of disagreements among its hearers than to deny it to Jesus or the apostles because if disagreements among their hearers. To make one dependant on the other is not only illogical, it has no Scriptural precedent.

Source: Robert Sungenis (ed.), Not By Scripture Alone [Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing company, 1997] pp. 285-286].


So, now that a Roman Catholic apologist admits that the Pope didn't bring uniformity in theology, how can you be consistent and argue that somehow scripture hasn't? If you can apply the argument to your theological position and it contradicts your own position, then your argument fails.

Let me see if I make this clear, as a Catholic if you argue that Protestants keep dividing and that says something about Sola Scriptura then that by logical necessity must mean you are positing a view that eliminates division, and gives us uniform belief, yet your Apologists have claimed that the Pope himself didn't bring unity theology, and there are still diverse opinions, therefore my friend your argument falls flat on its face.


I'm sorry, but I haven't heard of too many cases of people converting to Catholicism because the cathedrals are nice. People, including myself, choose to convert because the fullness of Christ is found only in the Catholic Church. The splendor of the Church just happens to be part of that fullness. Incidentally, does your pastor ride around on a donkey?

God bless you!


I have, I've met a Shia Muslims who converted because Rome is just soo nice. Its the by product of a Post Modern culture. Secondly, there is nothing in us or the church that makes us desirable to God, stop being pagan - become Christian!

Repent and believe, that Jesus alone can save you.

Take Care,

- Javier

amontoya said...

Spiffy the Basset,

After September 11, I saw people set up shrines to remember those who had been killed. Shrines complete with pictures and candles...candles to be lit through the night. So, by your logic, those people must have been worshiping the ones in the pictures. There are statues of famous Americans all over the place, so by your logic Americans must worship them. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between veneration and worship. Showing Mary honor does not equate with worship.

I completely agree with you that calling Mary, Mother of God is different than mother of Jesus. If you deny that Mary is the mother of God, then you are denying the divinity of Christ. This is based on the fact that Jesus is God and Mary is His mother. Mary intercedes and asks her Son to bless us. She does not "tell God what to do."

Mary's sinlessness is based on the idea that she is the new Ark of the Covenant(see Rev. 11:19-12:6). What was in the old Ark? The word of God, manna, and Aaron's priestly staff. What was in Mary's womb? The Word of God made flesh, the Bread of Life, and our High Priest. If the old Ark had to be pure, undefiled, and could not be touched by men, how much more pure must the new Ark be?

The words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" centuries before the time of Christ, but the distinction had disappeared by the time Matthew's Gospel was written. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The real issue though is that Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Aramaic word for rock is Kepha. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church."


I never denied that Catholicism is physically attractive. Of course it is. God gave us bodies to worship Him. Catholics worship God with all five senses, not just our minds.

I do not believe that everyone who disagrees with me misunderstands Catholic teaching, but if a person keeps disagreeing with something that the Catholic Church does not believe or teach, then I have to assume that either that person is not understanding something, or they are being intentionally deceptive in their claims against the Catholic Church. I have already given evidence regarding what the Church teaches about the Bible, Mary, and apostolic succession, and yet that is ignored, and claims are still being made that Catholics believe the Bible is myth, worship Mary, and made up the papacy. That is based either on ignorance or dishonesty. If you want to disagree with the Catholic Church, fine. But at least disagree with what the Church ACTUALLY teaches, and not just what you think the Church teaches.

Javier,

No, that "excuse" would not mean anything to the Jews. However, they would not tolerate giving Jesus worship as the Son of God, either. I would probably be stoned for honoring Mary and for worshipping Jesus. Though the real point is that as a Roman Catholic, I am not living under the Old Covenant. There is a difference between veneration and worship, between honor and adoration. Mary is not worshipped or adored, and that is not just a matter of semantics.

I agree that the woman in Revelation can represent the Church, but she is also Mary.

Please give quotes from the early Church Fathers that state they did not believe that Christ was refering to Peter as the rock.

The argument is not that the Magisterium automatically produces unity among hearers, but that the Magisterium upholds a unity in doctrine. Each Protestant pastor may claim to uphold the "Five Solas," but most teach doctrines that contradict other Protestant pastors. If two Protestant pastors come to opposing conclusions about what a Bible verse means, there exists nothing to determine which one is teaching the truth. The truth can't contradict itself. One must be right and one must be wrong. The point of Mr. Sungenis is that the Magisterium is infallible and teaches uniformly, whether or not those who hear the teaching believe uniformly. The Catholic Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit, upholds and defends the truth.

If you really beleive that God does not desire us then you condemn Scripture, John 3:16. God loved us even when we were sinners.

God bless you!

Javier said...

Javier,

No, that "excuse" would not mean anything to the Jews. However, they would not tolerate giving Jesus worship as the Son of God, either. I would probably be stoned for honoring Mary and for worshipping Jesus. Though the real point is that as a Roman Catholic, I am not living under the Old Covenant. There is a difference between veneration and worship, between honor and adoration. Mary is not worshipped or adored, and that is not just a matter of semantics.


You obviously don't understand the argument. The point is that you sit in front of a statue and pray to or 'adore' or 'venerate' the statue. Again even if the statue was Jesus, Mary, Peter or whatever idol you create, under the old covenant would the Jewish people appreciate the 'dulia' and 'latria' distinction?

Answer the question please.

I agree that the woman in Revelation can represent the Church, but she is also Mary.

Again, if you refer back to my post the woman in the Revelation has birth pains the Roman Catholic Church claims that Mary was preserved from original sin, if that is the case then there should be no birth pain since it is explicitly state in scripture that birth pain is a curse as a result of original sin.

To say "Its also Mary" is insufficient. Thanks in advance.

Please give quotes from the early Church Fathers that state they did not believe that Christ was refering to Peter as the rock.

I provided a quote from a Roman Catholic scholar who surveyed the Fathers and concluded it based on the patristic evidence. Also, that wasn't my point, I pointed out that the Roman pontiff's exclusive claims of Matthew 16 and its 'unanimous consent' per Vatican I was clearly fraudulent, almost 80% of the Fathers disagreed on the matter.

I'm a Protestant, I can let the Fathers be the Fathers you're a Roman Catholic to you they have to be Roman Catholic even when history clearly demonstrates the lies of Rome.

The argument is not that the Magisterium automatically produces unity among hearers, but that the Magisterium upholds a unity in doctrine.

Oh, now the assertion has shifted. Does the magisterium bring unity? I guess we can ask the Jesuits, or Dominicans? Perhaps we can ask the Partim-Partim or Material sufficiency scholars? What the magisterium claims is that there is theological unity... on what doctrines ? The only few that you can understood? Where is the "infallible interpretation"? There as much theological unity in Rome as there is in Reformed faith.

Each Protestant pastor may claim to uphold the "Five Solas," but most teach doctrines that contradict other Protestant pastors. If two Protestant pastors come to opposing conclusions about what a Bible verse means, there exists nothing to determine which one is teaching the truth. The truth can't contradict itself. One must be right and one must be wrong. The point of Mr. Sungenis is that the Magisterium is infallible and teaches uniformly, whether or not those who hear the teaching believe uniformly. The Catholic Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit, upholds and defends the truth.

And the point is that scripture speaks infallibly because God reveals infallibly, fallible men teach fallibly...now please stop embarrassing yourself and asserting that somehow the Pope brings theological unity when Bob Sungenis stated it more than clearly; Men are fallible, and teach fallibly.

Why is it unfair to apply this to the scripture?

Finally, the case is hopeless. If you feel Sola Scriptura is the cause of the many denominations, then you are dead wrong. The many denominations say nothing of the infallibility and perspicuity of scripture, but is evidence on the teaching of scripture; men are vile, wicked and do not seek God, and twist the scripture to their own destruction as much as Rome has, so have the Mormons and Jw's.

If you really believe that God does not desire us then you condemn Scripture, John 3:16. God loved us even when we were sinners.

I believe all that happens is what God desires, my God isn't a weak pitiful God who gave us 'free will' at least not in the libertarian sense.


God bless you!

Take care.

-Javy

Spiffy the Basset said...

Amontoya,

I tell you what. If the people who lit those candles are

1.praying to those people
2.saying they are sinless
3.building condescending statutes with jesus still as a baby with mary much larger(I'm sure you know that's intentional)

Then, yes, they are worshiping. Again, being condescending is not going to help your argument. I'm fully aware of the difference, and I'm also aware that calling a duck something other than a duck doesn't make it less so. These are the word games the catholic church has always played.

You seem to have skipped over the clearly biblical principal of no familial relations nor authority in heaven. Mary can't do any more if you pray for her than if you prayed to joe shmoe christian who died 50 years ago.

Catholics seem to not understand the purpose of the ripping of the curtain in the temple... there is no more a need for an intercessor, particularly a dead one(just as jesus was the last high priest, clearly stated in Hebrews). Mary the mother of jesus does not exist. Her body died, period. The idea of calling her the mother of God, in addition, is to imply she has some sort of maternal authority over the creator.

Err, no idea how you merged revelation 11:19 to 12:6. There's absolutely no indication that 11:19 has anything to do with Mary, and 12:6. Not to mention, that deals in no way with the fact that mary, like all others, sinned.

Regarding your interpretation of the greek, for one thing, this is not accurate(I would encourage you to speak to a new testament scholar) the other thing is, surely you must see the issues with extrapolating an entire belief system such as the papacy from something in no way clearly supporting that.

God gave us bodies to worship him? What does that have to do with the arrogance of the catholic church mimicking pagan religions in terms of physical things(tower of babel, anyone?)

You try to make this a lot more nuanced and complex, but again, you really need to study the religion of isis. This is where the worship of mary and the idea that she was perfect came from. You guys didn't create it yourself, you just took it from a pagan religion along with many of the other things your church does. Catholicism is wholly inseparable from mary worship. You cannot have catholicism without mary.

Newsflash... Mary, like David who was the man described as "after God's own heart" is dead.

amontoya said...

Javier,

Catholics do not pray to, venerate, or adore statues, just as Protestants could not be said to worship the Bible simply because they kneel with it in prayer. Statues or paintings are used to recall to the mind the person or thing depicted. Just as it is easier to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it is easier to recall the lives of the saints by looking at representations of them.

Perhaps I don't understand your argument. If your question is whether or not the Jews would appreciate the use of statues in worship, then my contention is, yes, they would. The use of statues for liturgical purposes had a place in the Old Testament. You can read accounts of God commanding statues to be built in Ex. 25:18-20, 1 Chr. 28:18-19, and 2 Chr. 3:10-14. In Numbers 21:8–9, God told Moses: "‘Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.’ So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live." This shows the actual use of a statue to receive a blessing from God. In John 3:14, Jesus tells us that this serpent was symbolic of Himself. There was nothing wrong with this statue, as long as people did not worship it. When they did, king Hezekiah destroyed it (2 Kgs. 18:4). This illustrates the distinction between the proper use of images and the worship of idols. The Jews certainly understood the difference.

If the question is whether or not the Jews would appreciate the distinction between worship given to God and honor given to saints, then my contention is again, yes. In the Old Testament the term "worship"(shakhah) could be used both for adoration of God and honor paid to human beings. It is used for humans in several passages. Translated literally, Gen. 37:7-9 reads, "‘[B]ehold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and stood upright; and behold, your sheaves gathered round it, and worshiped [shakhah] my sheaf.’ . . . Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, ‘Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were worshiping [shakhah] me.’" Jacob states in Gen. 49:8, "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall worship [shakhah] you." In Ex. 18:7, "Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and worshiped [shakhah] him and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare, and went into the tent." None of these passages are dealing with the worship(adoration) given to God alone.

If the question is simply whether or not the Jews would know the difference in the words "dulia" and "latria," I would say, probably not. In the first century, both words meant service. "Latria" generally was used in reference to service to God. In the early Christian centuries, theologians began to differentiate between different types of honor in order to make more clear which is due to God and which is not. It was St. Augustine who distinguished two kinds of service, "one which is due to men . . . which in Greek is called dulia; the other, latria, which is the service pertaining to the worship of God," De Civ. Dei, X, ii, 1.

However, the real point is that we are not under the Old Covenant; so what the Jews would or would not appreciate, should not be the focus of how Christians are to conduct themselves.

The book of Revelation is a vision that contains fusion imagery in which one symbol is composed of elements from several different things, and also polyvalent symbolism in which symbols have more than one meaning.

"The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary. She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which the patriarch Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel. The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, "the rest of her offspring" are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians. The Woman is Eve because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed—which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus. Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16). Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary’s Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict. Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively (the prophecy that a sword would pierce her heart at the Crucifixion). Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church)."
Source: Akin, J. (May 1997) The Woman of Revelation 12. "This Rock"

You quote Robert Sungenis as saying, "One has no more right to deny the charism of infallibility to the Magisterium because of disagreements among its hearers than to deny it to Jesus or the apostles because of disagreements among their hearers. To make one dependant on the other is not only illogical, it has no Scriptural precedent." You then try to assert that he "stated it more than clearly; Men are fallible, and teach fallibly." What he really said was that infallible men teach infallibly. If you would like to find the unity of doctrine that the Magisterium produces, you can pick up a copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The real issue is not the infalliblity of Scripture, but that God provided an infallible guide for His Church. Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His Apostles(John 20:22) and the Holy Spirit will guide into all truth(John 14:26). I agree that men twist Scripture to their own destruction(2 Peter 3:16), and that is why we need an infallible guide, which is what we have in the Catholic Church.

God bless you!

Spiffy the Basset,

I understand the tearing of the Temple veil. Because he is the only God-man and the Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1–4). In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for "[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16). Just as we can ask people here on earth to pray for us, we can ask people in Heaven(who are united to God) to pray for us. Jesus said that He is the vine and we are the branches, and that if we don't produce fruit then we will be cut off. He did not say that we would be cut off because we die. If the Church is Christ's Body, it does not make sense that a member would be cut off from the Body after death. A person would be more closely united to Christ in Heaven, and therefore more closely united to His Body, the Church.

Jesus told a parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Something to pay attention to is the fact that even after death, the rich man did not suddenly forget his earthly connections. He even interceded for his family, but his intercession was futile because he was "in the fire."

You wrote: "Newsflash... Mary, like David who was the man described as "after God's own heart" is dead." Jesus said, "'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living," Matt. 22:32.

Calling Mary the Mother of God in no way implies that she is above God, or that she has authority over God. It implies that she is the mother of Jesus, who is God; therefore she is the Mother of God.

Again, Catholics don't worship Mary. Maybe you should read the myths of osiris, horus, and mithras. There are similarities to Jesus. That however does not mean that the Gospel writers took from those myths and built the life of Jesus. Just as it does not mean that Catholics looked at the story of isis and built a religion that worships her under the guise of Mary. Claims that Christianity "borrowed" from the mystery religions have recently gained popularity thanks to "The Davinci Code." Historical evidence proves otherwise.

God bless you!

Dennis said...

All:

I have a suggestion, if you are interested. Stop the theological debates, the Greek grammar “one-up-man-ship”, my man-made doctrine really means this, Yes I do – No I don’t, etc. etc. etc.

If you truly are saved by Grace and a born again Christian then get out there and evangelize.

The time spent on these debates could be put to better use by gaining true converts for His Kingdom.

By the way, would you say you are a good person?

Javier said...

Javier,

Catholics do not pray to, venerate, or adore statues, just as Protestants could not be said to worship the Bible simply because they kneel with it in prayer. Statues or paintings are used to recall to the mind the person or thing depicted. Just as it is easier to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it is easier to recall the lives of the saints by looking at representations of them.

Perhaps I don't understand your argument. If your question is whether or not the Jews would appreciate the use of statues in worship, then my contention is, yes, they would. The use of statues for liturgical purposes had a place in the Old Testament. You can read accounts of God commanding statues to be built in Ex. 25:18-20, 1 Chr. 28:18-19, and 2 Chr. 3:10-14. In Numbers 21:8–9, God told Moses: "‘Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.’ So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live." This shows the actual use of a statue to receive a blessing from God. In John 3:14, Jesus tells us that this serpent was symbolic of Himself. There was nothing wrong with this statue, as long as people did not worship it. When they did, king Hezekiah destroyed it (2 Kgs. 18:4). This illustrates the distinction between the proper use of images and the worship of idols. The Jews certainly understood the difference.


Yes, and what we have in the Old Testament are explicit commands by God to consider things holy because what God says is holy is holy. Now where in the New Testament is the command to [insert here whatever nonsense you call bowing before a statue and asking it for things] so that you may gain prayers in heaven?



If the question is whether or not the Jews would appreciate the distinction between worship given to God and honor given to saints, then my contention is again, yes. In the Old Testament the term "worship"(shakhah) could be used both for adoration of God and honor paid to human beings. It is used for humans in several passages. Translated literally, Gen. 37:7-9 reads, "‘[B]ehold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and stood upright; and behold, your sheaves gathered round it, and worshiped [shakhah] my sheaf.’ . . . Then he dreamed another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, ‘Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were worshiping [shakhah] me.’" Jacob states in Gen. 49:8, "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall worship [shakhah] you." In Ex. 18:7, "Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, and worshiped [shakhah] him and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare, and went into the tent." None of these passages are dealing with the worship(adoration) given to God alone.

19 When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? Isaiah 8:19



The book of Revelation is a vision that contains fusion imagery in which one symbol is composed of elements from several different things, and also polyvalent symbolism in which symbols have more than one meaning.

Firstly, that doesn't address the main issue, if you'd like me to quote what I said, I will do it:

This is demonstrably false. Firstly, Revelation 12 is a type of writing called apocalyptic, and to interpret it as Mary is far from the truth.

2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3

The woman suffers from pain in birth, this is a curse of original sin given to Eve in Genesis. If Mary was sinless, why is she suffering birth pains?

Secondly, it seems to indicate that the "Woman" is the Church in the wilderness who gave birth to Christ through tribulation, and suffering [see OT] this interpretation is MUCH more plausible than anything the Anti-Christ and his Church says.

Finally if you see it fit to quote James Akin on this issue, I see it fit to quote James Whites rebuttals of the Revelation 12 nonsense Rome spews:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2322

So, now you answer the questions I asked.

And in the link I provided Madrid[another foot soldier of the Pope] says:

Patrick Madrid: "Mr. White brought up the assumption. He could bring up any doctrine he might like, none of which would be the topic of our debate, tonight, but at some future point perhaps, we could discuss where those doctrines are found. The assumption, for example, since he brought it up, I'll just refer to it. Revelation, chapter 12, Mr. White. It's a very commonly used passage for Catholic apologists. I don't know why you would have missed that. The woman clothed with the Sun was seen not only by modern Catholic apologists as Mary's assumption, but also the early Church Fathers, which Mr. White is so fond of bringing into the picture. I'd be more than happy, in some future point, to demonstrate, in a different debate, how the early Church Fathers viewed Revelation 12. They exegeted that passage to mean that Mary had been brought up into Heaven in a special way. But, that's another topic."

James White responds:

I grant Madrid's point that the assumption was not the topic of debate. However, simply placing the assumption in Revelation 12 does not prove it belongs there. One of the most ironic things about Revelation 12, is that the woman described "cried out in pain as she was about to give birth." Think back to what God said to Eve in Genesis 3:16 as the result of her fall into sin, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children." So, while proving the assumption, Revelation 12 gives Catholic apologists new problems (Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin solves it this way: "Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively").
But then Madrid appeals to the early church fathers as proof Revelation 12 is about the assumption. Fortunately for Madrid, very few actually read the early church fathers! If they did, they would discover the same thing Giovanni Miegge did. The earliest reference to Mary in Revelation 12 does not appear until the fourth century:

"The modern Mariologists like to turn to [Revelation 12], seeing in it an allegory of the Virgin Mary. But whatever can be thought of their interpretation, it is a fact that none of the early interpreters before the end of the fourth century see the Virgin Mary in the woman of the Revelation. They all understand her to be the Church and so they continue to make most of their interpretations in the following centuries. Ticonius is the first to suggest the Marian interpretation" [Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955, pp.101-102)].

You quote Robert Sungenis as saying, "One has no more right to deny the charism of infallibility to the Magisterium because of disagreements among its hearers than to deny it to Jesus or the apostles because of disagreements among their hearers. To make one dependant on the other is not only illogical, it has no Scriptural precedent." You then try to assert that he "stated it more than clearly; Men are fallible, and teach fallibly." What he really said was that infallible men teach infallibly. If you would like to find the unity of doctrine that the Magisterium produces, you can pick up a copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

And again, you fail to answer how the doctrine of Sola Scriptura brings theological chaos, yet somehow the Pope brings unity when it is because of sinful men that we disagree, not because of the inability of the scripture to teach. You'd think as a Catholic you'd believe God to be more competent so as the speak clearly instead you give a man tyrannical rule over God's very breath.

The real issue is not the infalliblity of Scripture, but that God provided an infallible guide for His Church.

So you say.
Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to His Apostles(John 20:22) and the Holy Spirit will guide into all truth(John 14:26). I agree that men twist Scripture to their own destruction(2 Peter 3:16), and that is why we need an infallible guide, which is what we have in the Catholic Church.

Well, the real problem is that you haven't addressed any of the problems against Rome, but merely asserted and re-asserted. This is psycho reassertionism.

Now, I can quote my original arguments if you'd like, or you can just scroll up and answer them. ;)

God bless you!

Repent! And Believe!

-Javy


All:

I have a suggestion, if you are interested. Stop the theological debates, the Greek grammar “one-up-man-ship”, my man-made doctrine really means this, Yes I do – No I don’t, etc. etc. etc.

If you truly are saved by Grace and a born again Christian then get out there and evangelize.

The time spent on these debates could be put to better use by gaining true converts for His Kingdom.

By the way, would you say you are a good person?



Dennis, the important thing is is grace alone or are we saved by cooperation with God, and grace?

I will not ever, ever cooperate with Rome, or enter communion with he Pope, he is not the head of the Church, but an apostate ruler of an apostate organization who should be opposed.

Spiffy the Basset said...

Amontoya,

I'm sorry but you're just going to have to understand that a lot of people do not take the pluralistic, ecumenical western approach regarding catholicism and we call it exactly what it is... a false, manmade religion that is based on goddess worship(through the religion of isis, again, you even kept the same terminology) that gives man the power to say what the bible does and does not say for other men.

Up to vatican 2, you guys were clear that there was no salvation outside of the catholic church. Just understand that for a very long time, and still today, those who believe in the bible believe there is no salvation IN the catholic church.

nica said...

I have not had a chance to read this entire dialogue, but I will. I do want to add that I went to a Caholic school K-12. I was taught that the Old Testament was a bunch of made up stories. The 4 gospels were true, and we were told not much else about the New Testament. A priest told the miracle of Jesus feeding five thousand by explaining that it was like a pot luck dinner(everybody brining a little) and that is why they had enough to eat and even surplus. Sadly, I feel my education was more harmful than good.

Mahsheed said...

Great discussion! I especially appreciate the talents and energy of amontoya.

My question to all the anti-Catholics here: If the Catholic Church is truly "an apostate organization who should be opposed", then how is it that she is the only church to be consistently pro-life from the beginning, and providing the comprehensive intellectual basis for the pro-life position when all the other churches were not?

(Hint: A house divided against itself cannot stand.)

Spiffy the Basset said...

da

Spiffy the Basset said...

Wow, really? They were pro-life with their role in the holocaust? They were pro-life with burning "heretics?" Or with killing jews in addition to muslims in the crusades?

Regardless, morals don't save someone. There's plenty of nice people that are lost.


http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sf-rcc-b.htm
- explains in a nutshell why protestants should call catholicism like it is.

I'd also encourage people to check out the historical relationship between islam and catholicism(perhaps we should also invite islam into "the house?"

http://www.thebereancall.org/node/5199

Mahsheed said...

Another question:
How is it that the Catholic Church has all the right enemies?

Mahsheed said...

Spiffy,

"Regardless, morals don't save someone. There's plenty of nice people that are lost."

It's about even knowing what is right and wrong, in other words, the teaching authority.

If the Catholic Church were evil, it would be so easy, oh so easy for her to preach that abortion/contraception/premarital sex/adultery/divorce/homosexual acts/euthanasia/cloning/embryonic stem cell research are just fine and dandy. These are after all, bad things that most committed Christians are on board about. But, it was the Catholic Church that promulgated these teachings in the first place and provides the intellectual basis for these views.

Spiffy the Basset said...

That's what mormons believe. you seem to be saying that moral issues should trump fundamental issues like the sanctity of scripture, mary as a codemptrix, etc.

And they certainly don't have the same view as protestants on such issues as divorce(annulment anyone?)

Everyone notice he just said "homosexual acts." In other words, throw out what Christ said about the lust itself being a sin(matthew 5:28).

Two things:
1. The catholic church does in fact not sure all moral stances with conservative protestants.

2.Even if they do, this means no more than when mormons do.

I'd encourage you to read those links I posted.

Kacy said...

Fr. Jim did a good job defending Catholic teaching. Unfortunatelly the beauty and thrill of orthodox teaching is not such that can be summerized in a short radio segment. I wish the people would have been more respectful to Fr. Jim and let him finish what he was stating. Salvation is not an either/or issue. The question is not either grace or works. James shoes us that BOTH are necessary for salvation in fact as a former Protestant I could not figure out how to reconcile James 2:24 with the idea of justification by faith alone:

"You see a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Also, it is important that Catholics interpret the Bible through the lense of tradition and the Church. Without a solid foundation Sacred Scripture becomes open to an interpretation free-for-all. This is why there are so many splits within Protestantism. Everyone wants to interpret the Bible in his or her own way, but there can only be one true interpretation. God does not wish to leave us to the wolves, and thus He has given us the Church to show us how to understand the Bible. The Holy Spirit has always led and guided the Church in this manner.

In a certain sense The Way of the Master people are acting as a type of Protestant pope by defining "orthodox" teaching to their listeners. Why should I trust this pope instead of Our Holy Father in Rome? Why should I trust an ecclesial authority that's only 300 years old instead of trusting one whose claim to authority goes all the way back to Christ saying to Peter, "on this Rock I will build my Church."

A building is only as solid as the foundation it is built upon. This is why I left the sandy foundation of my Baptist upbringin for the solid rock of the Catholic Church.

Spiffy the Basset said...

The solid rock who's popes have have contradicted themselves literally hundreds, if not thousands, of times over the centuries.

The catholic church is about as stable as a sponge. It regularly absorbs local pagan traditions in order to gain members(prayer beads, all hallows eve, the worship of mary which was taken from the goddess isis.)

Spiffy the Basset said...

Actually, I may have exaggerated a bit. I read a list once of all the times the catholic "solid as a rock" church has reversed itself by papal decrees etc. It may be more like several dozen.

I love this link
http://www.popecomments.com/2007/07/10/

I love to hear the pope, the infallible head of the catholic church, say that all other churches are false. I wish he'd make more comments like this so we protestants wouldn't have to educate each other as to the fundamental differences between the false catholic church and biblical churches.

Mahsheed said...

Spiffy,

Again it's not about what social positions are subscribed to today but about teaching authority. The point is that when you think pro-life, you think "Catholic Church". This is because the Catholic Church teaches with authority and provides the intellectual basis for the entire pro-life position. No other church or denomination can make this claim. And this is simply not possible if the Catholic Church is false.

Since you bring it up, actually Mormonism has much in common with Islam.

I read the link you provided. Has it not occurred to you that Islam copied Christianity? And Islam was founded in the 7th century by Mohammed, centuries before your denomination would come into existence so naturally it is more influenced by the Catholic tradition.

The reason I said "homosexual acts" is that we believe being gay is not sinful in itself, but acting on it is. "Acting on it" includes sinful thoughts. If you're interested I can provide you with links, just let me know.

Now about the popecomments link, notice that these are all reports from the mainstream media on the document. It's unclear to me what your point is, please clarify.
If you want to know what he really said, you will have to read the source document, here.

A pertinent quote:
"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church."

Spiffy the Basset said...

Actually, mormonism doesn't. It's not monotheistic, for instance, as they can all become gods one day. The point is that catholicism has been like an amoeba, absorbing various pagan religions and cults since its inception.

This whole idea of "authority" is completely bogus. It boils down to the same thing that other cults boil down to: "you can't trust the scripture alone, so here's this other book/tradition to tell you how to interpret it."

In catholicism, it's church tradition, which is constantly changing(this is why your rock comment was rather bizarre... vatican 2 anyone?) and apostolic succession(also known as a power grab - only we can tell you what the bible and God wants).

I'm sure you do believe being gay is not sinful itself, which is my point, that you do not share the same values as us.

The bible teaches with authority and provides the intellectual basis for the entire pro-life position. John Macarthur did an excellent exposition on this several years ago, and didn't need to rely on catholic doctrine at all.

Mormons are very pro-life. What you are saying is that mormonism cannot be false because their doctrine says you must be pro-life(and they are also very moral in terms of family values, children, and marriage).

Islam didn't copy prayer beads from Christianity. Such things are nowhere in scripture. Ironically, islam and catholicism both adopted these things.

The mainstream media? Are you denying that the pope recently said that all other churches are false churches? Give me a break, man, why was excommunication so terrible for people historically? Because the belief was that there was no salvation outside of the catholic church(nevermind that Jesus fellow who died on the cross for all mankind).

I'm sort of blown away by the idea that because catholicism is pro-life it must therefore be the truth. But then again, we are talking about a belief system that says works are what saves us.

amontoya said...

Spiffy the Basset,

Please provide us this list of Papal Decrees that reversed Catholic Dogma.

The Second Vatican Council did not change the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church. Protestants also teach this doctrine, but word it differently. Protestants teach that there is no salvation outside the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is the Church. So, the real point of contention here is not whether or not there is salvation outside the Church, but what constitutes the Church.

If the "idea of authority is completely bogus," then what is your basis for condemning Catholic interpretation of Sacred Scripture? If Scripture Alone is all that is necessary, then anyone should be able to pick up a Bible, read it, and interpret it for themselves. If we do not need an authoritative interpreter, then why do we need you or John MacArthur telling us the "correct" interpretation?

God bless you!

Mahsheed said...

Hello Amontoya, welcome back! Do you have a website or blog?

And Kacy, you're testimony was inspiring.

Spiffy,

If you read the source document you'll find that is not what the Holy Father said. I find your comment puzzling. You have no problem calling the Catholic Church false so why does it bother you that the Catholic Church makes truth claims? Note the Pope isn't saying you have to be Catholic to be saved. He is simply stating that the fullness of truth resides in the Catholic faith. If this claim is still too offensive to you, then what about your belief that means that over 5 billion people on the planet right now, including all the Jews (Jesus's own people) and all the virtuous non-Christians who you acknowledge exist, and all the people who never heard of Christ, the people who lived in Old Testament times, and the billion Catholics and 250 million Eastern Orthodox are all going to Hell because they don't believe the same as you do. This belief doesn't bother you and make you wonder about God's justice, so long as you get yours (actually mercy for you and justice for others)? And you don't have to be particularly good in any way shape or form? Because that smacks of works righteousness. Have you ever noticed that this is how atheists characterize our religion.

Which brings me to another point, if what you say is correct, then the early Christians should be more like you. The Eastern Orthodox broke away in 1054, centuries before Martin Luther, so by your logic the Eastern Christians (whose center was not Rome) should have more in common with you. Surprise surprise they are actually very catholic with 7 sacraments and revering of Mary, the Theotokos. Not much change in doctrine over a thousand years. How do you explain that? Whereas Protestantism has broken off into 30,000 denominations and still counting.

What is your understanding of the Trinity?

I'm not so much interested in Mormonism to debate it further but the connection has been noted by others. There are even books on this topic.

God Bless.

Spiffy the Basset said...

No one said the second vatican changed that. The point is that the catholic church is changing it's doctrine all of the time, just like it's adopted various pagan holidays and traditions in the past. It's not a solid rock in any way, shape or form.

Actually, protestants do not teach that. The thief on the cross was not a member of a congregation, and lumping us altogether is pretty problematic.

The bogus argument is accurate. This is myself or john macarthur's opinion. In the case of catholicism, it is "the only correct way to interpret scripture."

It's a power grab, only they can tell you what the bible means, etc. In other words, it gives fallen man(who inhabits the false catholic church) authority over the word of God, as you must always go with this fallen institution of man over what you think the word of God says, as only they know for sure.

They actually had a list once of the dozens of decrees the church has reversed itself on(one pope reversed another pope). I am quite sure you are aware of this, so I hope you are not being willfully dishonest in acting like you are not.

But we can talk about two major ones: galileo and the crusades. The church admitted they were wrong on their positions on both at a later time.

The catholic church is about as solid as a bowl of soup.

amontoya said...

Being part of the Body of Christ is not about being part of a congregation or community, but about being united with Jesus. The thief was certainly united with and saved by Jesus Christ. Ephesians 5:23 teaches that Christ is the Savior of the Church which is His Body.

If "the bogus argument is accurate," then why should I accept your or John MacArthur's opinions about Scripture? If I read my Bible and come to the same conclusions that the Catholic Church teaches, why should I trust your opinion that my interpretation is wrong?

Nothing about Galileo or the Crusades is a matter of Catholic Dogma. Galileo was judged by a disciplinary tribunal, and that judgement was not declared to be a doctrine that must be believed by all the faithful. The Church issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling regarding a scientist who was advocating a new unproven theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his views. The Church acknowledging today that Galileo's condemnation was wrong does not constitute a change of doctrine. The Crusades are also not a matter of doctrine or dogma. The Crusades were attempts to reclaim Holy Lands and repel Muslim invaders. Unfortunately, people sometimes do horrible things in war. This is evidenced in many wars before and since the Crusades. The Church admits that atrocities were committed, but those crimes were not the mission of the crusaders. This does not constitute a change in Catholic doctrine or dogma.

Please give us this list that you claim shows Popes reversing Catholic doctrines.

God bless you!

Fish with Trish said...

Hi Gang,

From this point on if you are going to post a comment please do not include a link or website address. We will not be posting any comments that include links or websites of any sort (unless it is for a free give a way that we do periodically and you need to submit your info as a means for us to contact you).

Thank you for understanding!

Trish

Spiffy the Basset said...

I think I've achieved my purpose, as some other protestants have here, to make it clear that catholics and protestants do not believe the same thing, especially in terms of salvation, the authority of scripture, whether or not mary should be worshiped(venerated, or whatever other euphemism you want to try), so that debating further becomes rather unproductive.

We've established that we're not only not on the same page, we don't even agree on the book. I hope and pray for your salvation. I won't be replying anymore, thanks again.

Spiffy

amontoya said...

Mahsheed,

Sorry, no I don't have a blog, but thank you for the encouragement!

J. Jacques said...

To all:

I have a question, a hypothetical if you will. Let's say I'm in a third world country that doesn't practice religion and is shut off from the rest of the world. I'm walking along the road one day and I find a copy of the Bible that fell out of an airplane and just happens to be in my language. Where would I read in that Bible on how to become catholic or any other religion for that matter and how would I contact the Vatican to get the latest doctrine taught by the RCC?

J. Jacques said...

To All:

I have a question for everyone to ponder, a hypothetical if you will. I live in a third world country that has no religion at all and no way of communication with the outside world. I am walking down a road one day and I find a Bible that probobly fell out of an airplane laying on the side of the road that just happens to be in my language. In this Bible, where would I look to find out how to become a catholic or any other denomination for that matter? Secondly, how do I contact the church to find out the latest doctrinal teachings?

J. Jacques said...

Sorry, double entry

Javier said...

Amontoya,

If you can please defend my arguments against the Papacy, and Marian dogmas. Thanks.

I'm still waiting for an answer. :)

amontoya said...

Javier,

Your questions have been answered; though maybe not to your satisfaction.

Under the new covenant any man caught bowing, kissing, 'adoring' a statue was threatened by death. As a Roman Catholic if you lived under the old covenant and were caught 'venerating' Mary, would the excuse "Its only dulia and not latria" mean anything to The Jews?

1) Catholics don't adore statues. 2) As a Roman Catholic I'm under the New Covenant in Jesus' blood, not the Old; so the whole question is irrelevent. 3) The terms dulia and latria came to mean two distinct forms of service due to people or God in the fourth century; so no those terms wouldn't have the same meaning for Old Covenant Jews. However, the Jewish people did have terms that distinguished between honor of people and worship of God; so they would (and did) understand the difference between veneration and adoration.

The woman suffers from pain in birth, this is a curse of original sin given to Eve in Genesis. If Mary was sinless, why is she suffering birth pains?

The woman in Revelation 12 represents more than one person. It is Mary, Eve, Isreal, and the Church. Mary did not suffer birth pains, just as the Church did not give birth to Jesus Christ.

It seems that there is no 'unanimous consent' of the Fathers, and the majority opinion seems to indicate the PROTESTANT position.

Please, give names and quotes from these Fathers who supposedly held Protestant opinions.

Secondly, so what if the text establishes Peter as 'the rock' we know later Peter wasn't infallible, didn't preside over any council, instead it was James who seems to in Acts.

1) Most Protestants believe, but probably won't admit, that Peter acted with infallibilty on AT LEAST two occasions. Namely, when he wrote First and Second Peter. He was guided by the Holy Spirit to write those letters without error, which means he was infallible. 2) At the Council of Jerusalem in Acts, it was Peter who spoke and ended the debate; but presiding over councils, doesn't determine whether or not Peter was given authority. Peter was given the "keys of the kingdom of heaven." In Old Testament times the key to the city was a symbol of authority. A walled city would generally have one gate with one key. To be given a key to the city, meant to be given free access to and authority over that city. This can be found elsewhere in the Bible: Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18. This symbolism was not lost on the Apostles or the early Church.

Thirdly, where is Papal Infallibility? A Succession of Popes established in this text?

1) "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Matt. 16:19. Peter is given authority to bind and loose, and his actions are not only effective here on earth, but also in heaven. If this is not implying infallibility, then that means that Peter could potentially bind or loose error in heaven. 2) Christ said He would build His Church on Peter. Christ made Peter the leader and servant of His Church on earth by giving him the keys and charging him with the care of his flock(John 21:15-17). This is obviously an ongoing task, because His flock continues to need feeding. Like Peter said when quoting the Psalms, "May another take his place of leadership," Acts 1:20.

So, now that a Roman Catholic apologist admits that the Pope didn't bring uniformity in theology, how can you be consistent and argue that somehow scripture hasn't?

1) The Catholic Church has uniformity in Doctrine. This can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. These doctrines and dogmas are to be believed by all Catholics. The fact that some people reject Catholic teaching, doesn't mean that the Majesterium failed to teach uniformly and authoritatively. 2) The problem with Sola Scriptura isn't with Scripture itself. Scripture is inerrant. The problem is with the idea that everyone should interpret the Bible for his or her self. This makes everyone their own pope. This idea has led to thousands of Protestant denominations. There is no authority, whatsoever.

Let me ask you. If everyone should interpret the Bible for his or her self, why should I accept your opinion, that my interpretation, is wrong? Especially since my interpretation leads me to believe the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ. According to Sola Scriptura, everyone's interpretive opinion is equally valid. Who are you to tell me I'm wrong?

There is a serious flaw in the idea of Sola Scriptura. If two people come to completely opposing interpretations of one passage, one must be right and one must be wrong, correct? For example, Matthew 26:26. My interpretation is that the bread really is Jesus's Body. A common Protestant interpretation is that He is speaking symbolically. Both interpretations can't be right, and Scripture can't teach error; so there must be an authority to decide which is correct. Where is this authority in Sola Scriptura? There is none.

God bless you!

Mahsheed said...

Spiffy,

In rereading my last comment to you, I realize I sounded kind of harsh in characterizing your belief, though I believe I am factually correct it still does sound harsh and I apologize to you for that.

God bless you. I appreciate your prayers and will keep you in my prayers.


J Jacques,

This is an interesting question and can be answered different ways but I'd like to take a stab at it.

That the Bible fell into your hands is obviously the hand of Divine Providence, who arranged for you to be there just when and where a Bible would land, in your own language. Thus, He is calling you and you may be sure he will continue to provide you with all the helps you need to follow His will.

Example from the Bible, Acts 8: 26-40 (sorry I can't provide the direct link so I'll paraphrase), where an angel sends a man named Philip to go to a desert road. There he meets up with an Ethiopian eunuch who is reading Isaiah. He asks him "Do you understand what you are reading?", and the Ehiopian replies "How can I unless someone guides me?" And Philip explains it to him.

So if you trust in God and follow His will, He will send people to help you.

There is more I'd like to say about this but I'll stop here for now.
I look forward to reading other replies.

destinycreature said...

Some doctrines held by the Catholic Church that are not in agreement with Scripture:

1. Infallibility of the Pope
2. Purgatory
3. Assumption of Mary
4. Transubstantiation
5. Grace through sacraments
6. Infallibility of the Church
7. Veneration of Angels and Saints

The Bible says:
2 John 1:9 'Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.'

The Roman Catholic is not an apostate Church. It is a FALSE church because it was never true from the beginning. It is the Whore of Babylon that has seduced people into believing its lies to their own destruction.

The Doctrine, History and Practices of the Roman Catholic Church are damnable by God Himself. (Gal 1:8-9, 2 Thess 2:11-12). Just these things alone tell us how bad this cult really is.

Sadly there are a lot of people that have been duped by this false wicked cult.

To Amontoya, I pray you repent from your damnable heresy. If you refuse truth - you embrace error to your own destruction.

amontoya said...

Some Catholic doctrines that are in agreement with Scripture:

1. Infallibility of the Pope; Matt. 16:18-19, John 16:13
2. Purgatory; 1 Cor. 3:15, Rev. 21:27, Matt. 5:26
3. Assumption of Mary; Genesis 5:24, 2 Kings 2:11, Rev. 12
4. Transubstantiation; Matt. 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19, John 6:32-58, 1 Cor. 11:24
5. Grace through Sacraments; John 3:5, John 6:54, Acts 8:17, Matt. 19:6, Matt. 18:18, John 20:23, James 5:14-15
6. Infallibility of the Church; Matt. 18:18, John 16:13, 1 Tim. 3:15
7. Veneration of Saints; Luke 2:48, Hebrews 12:1, Rev. 8:4
8. Sacred Tradition; 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim. 2:2

If the Catholic Church was false "from the beginning" then that would mean that Jesus founded a false Church. If the Catholic Church was false, then no Christian could trust the Bible, since it is the Catholic Church that assembled, preserved, and passed on the Bible for hundreds of years. Even Martin Luther admitted this: "We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it." A false church would not be able to preserve the Word of God.

Gal. 1:8-9: It was the Protestants that began teaching different doctrines(sola scriptura, sola fide). Those doctrines were never taught by the Christian Church before the 16th century.

It is the Catholic Church that has stood firm in the teachings passed on by word of mouth or letter, (2Thess. 2:15).

God bless you!

Melanie said...

amontoya, there are so many things wrong with so many of the things that you have written, but the catolics have "preserved" the word of God by chaining it to the pulpit and keeping it from the people. And incidentally, God is *really* the one that preserves His word, not man. You elevate a church above the word of God, and you might win the battle, but you lose the war. Grace and peace to you.

amontoya said...

Melanie,

The catholics have "preserved" the word of God by chaining it to the pulpit and keeping it from the people.

Catholics didn't chain Bibles to keep them from the people; they chained Bibles to prevent them from being stolen, so they could be available to the people. Before the invention of the printing press, most people couldn't afford to have their own personal copy of Sacred Scripture. Bibles were meticulously hand copied and filled with detailed artwork. The pages were covered with intricate and delicate gold designs. Those Bibles were precious and very expensive. The equivalent value today would probably be around $20,000. If your church paid $20,000 for a Bible, would you leave it on the front porch, or would you keep it under lock and key? In the liturgy, the Catholic Church reads from Sacred Scripture daily. If the Church had not chained Bibles, then the people would not have been able to hear God's Word proclaimed every day in worship. The chains were necessary to safeguard Scripture for the people.

God is *really* the one that preserves His word, not man.

I agree. The real question though is, how does God preserve His Word? The answer is through His Church. God uses His people to accomplish His will. Jesus did not hand a complete copy of the Bible to the Apostles before His ascension. He gave the Apostles authority(Matt. 18:18) and sent the Holy Spirit to guide them(John 16:13). The Apostles passed on this authority to their successors(2 Tim. 2:2), and the Holy Spirit guided their successors to assemble and preserve the Holy Bible. God could have chosen any number of different ways to give us Scripture, but the fact is, He chose to use His Church, the Catholic Church, to preserve His Word and give it to His people.

You might win the battle, but you lose the war.

You are not my enemy. I am not at war with you, or anyone else on this blog. I believe that you, like most Protestants, simply misunderstand Catholic teaching, and my aim is to give you the truth about the Catholic Church. My prayer is that you and everyone on this blog will give serious thought to what I have written, and that the Holy Spirit will move you to investigate the claims of the Catholic Church and discover the Truth.

God bless you!

beencalled said...

From my understanding of the arguements, it seems that it is Christians arguing with Christians. Shouldn't we be working together? I don't agree with every thing the Catholic Church teaches(well, most of it), but hey, we're all the Body of Christ, just different parts of the body. Just a thought...