DEBATE WITH A ROMAN CATHOLIC

The following is a discussion I personally had with a Roman Catholic believer.  I was especially disappointed by his admission that the Romish Church borrowed from paganism various rites and rituals and adapted them to worship God with.  You will notice that the latter half of the discussion, which gets into that aspect, shows writings from Romish writers proposing that there are biblical examples of God desiring His people, Israel, to borrow from paganism and adapting pagan rites in worship to Him.  I cannot explain the shock I felt when I first had this person tell me these things.  I am saddened that people have been made to beleive such things!  The idea that God condoned the adaptation of pagan rituals into worship to him is simply blasphemous.  God's Word distinctly speaks out against this in Ezekiel 20:39, which I tried to explain to the writer.  I trust this discussion will help open your eyes to the need to be sincere before God when reading the Word.

The Roman Catholic Writer's words are indicated without any bullets.

• My responses to the Roman Catholic writer's initial words to me are indicated by this bullet


• Response from the Roman Catholic in return.


• My final response to the previous Roman Catholic Statements.

MF Blume wrote:

•  The only thing I would want to know, which you will most likely get at further down, is whether you believe there are doctrines that are not found in the Bible that we must believe in order to go to Heaven one day.  That is the issue.

• I want to answer your question straightforwardly, but it's difficult because of our very different conceptions of the role of scripture -- basically, that you believe that the fullness of truth emanates from scripture, and I believe that scripture emanates from the fullness of truth.  One way to answer this question is to agree with you and say that, yes, all we must believe in order to go to Heaven one day *is* contained in the Bible.

• That is basically what sola scriptura is.

• And I would be accurate in stating this; it is in fact the teaching of the Church.  But I would not be responding to your question as you intended it; for I mean that statement in a far broader sense than you do. Let me try to explain:
• The Catholic Church teaches that the scriptures contain all truths that are *materially* sufficient for salvation.  That does not mean that everyone is capable of discerning those truths.  In fact, the disciples themselves were not -- until the hermeneutics lesson from Jesus on the road to Emmaeus, plus *ongoing* inspiration of the Holy Spirit of the type we see in Peter's dreams about the gentiles.
• What the Church does *not* teach -- but you definitely believe -- is that the truths contained in the scriptures are *formally* sufficient for salvation.  'Material' sufficiency means that the truths are there -- but often hidden, obscure, and sometimes even seemingly contradictory.
• The lack of 'formal' sufficiency means that the truths are not plainly organized, lined up, or systematically presented.
• 'Formal' sufficiency -- which you adhere to but which the Church

• ...You mean the "roman catholic church"...

• does not -- is the claim that *all* the truths are in any way clear and easy to understand.
• It's the difference between a pile of car parts -- which a skilled mechanic might be able to put together after much struggle ('materially sufficient') -- versus an assembled Lexus, filled with gas, engine purring ('formally sufficient').

• Actually we are similar.  I believe God calls the five-fold ministry in Ephesians 4 as a means of ministering the word of God to people in the proper interpretations for them to understand the word.  For example, Romans says that the sinner cannot hear without a preacher and that means they cannot have faith that comes from hearing the word.  So a man of God must be  called of God to minister.  Now, I know people who simply wanted to be catholic priests, and had no calling at all.
• Roma 10:14  How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
• Roma 10:15  And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
• One must truly be sent of God to preach.  And the fruits of the truly sent minister will be the strength of people in the faith of the word of God.
• Paul was in no need of proving his ministry by writing letters of the results of his outreach to people, for the people whom he worked with were evidence enough in their very lives!
• 2Cor 3:1  Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some [others], epistles of commendation to you, or [letters] of commendation from you?
• 2Cor 3:2  Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
• 2Cor 3:3  [Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
• Personally, we have seen people commit to Christ through my ministry, and their lives have been utterly changed to a love for God beyond anything else.  There are always those who do not receive the engrafted word, and it fails them since their "stony ground" is so shallow a resource for the seed of the word to grow in them strongly.  But the fruits of true ministry is changed lives.
• Right now millions are leaving the Roman Catholic Church simply because they are not receiving true change of lives.
• Several people in our church are former Roman Catholics.  One lady in particular simply got nothing from rituals and liturgy as cold as they all were.  A few years ago she was in a bar and felt God actually speak to her and ask her, "IS this where you want Me to find you when I come?"
• She suddenly burst into tears and walked out without her friends knowing what happened.  In fact, her Roman Catholic mentality seemed void to answer such an experience.  Only someone like yourself could relate to me how you would react to thinking such thoughts as a Roman Catholic.
• She told me she was so hurt by the romish church also because of the treatment the nuns gave her in public school. She said they were utterly cruel and mean.  But she knew there was a God.
• But she saw none of the preachers on tv who speak about the Lord's return all the time, yet this experience happened to her in that bar.
• So she set her heart in true prayer and asked God to lead her.  She moved here to Halifax later in life and after serious prayer, and decided not to go to mass that sunday.  She passed by a flea market and looked at a bible sitting there and felt God nudging her to read it.  She bought it and prayed for Him to lead her to  understand it.  The next thing she knew two ladies from our church met her and invited her to have home bible studies.
• The word began to open up to her and today she is one of our strongest members and loves the Lord more than anything in this world.  You should see her with her hands in the air, just like 1 Tim 2:8 and Psalm 134:2 say, with tear-filled eyes thanking God for his love to her.
• She began praying for her children who were not going nor wanting to go to church.  It was then that I came to the church here just before I came to pastor, and held special  meetings.  And she came to the altar to pray after one service, and I went to her, not knowing anything about the situation and her prayers, and told her that she was not to worry about her children but that God would help them in His power.  I did not know it then, but at that moment I came, she was silently praying about that very thing.
• She had a dream around that time that her boy and girl walked down the street past a white picket fence and turned the corner out of her sight.  She was worried, but God told her in the dream that she cannot see them, but He can.
• Today both her children are baptized in Jesus' name by immersion and filled with the Holy Ghost speaking in tongues.  8 years old and 20 years old.
• Changed lives is what proof of true faith really makes.
• My grandfather was an alcoholic and drank away their substantial income and wealth.  He became the drunk of the town and people would not let him into their homes.
• His oldest son experienced Acts 2:4 and he kicked his boy out of the house for being a "holy roller."  But the day his son was baptized in the river, grampy was seen making his way through the bushes to the riverside to watch.  Not long after he bowed his knee and confessed his sin and asked God to forgive him.  And grampy never so much as DESIRED a drop of alcohol from that moment on.
• It was a total miracle!!!!  And five sons became preachers of the gospel from that family of 19 children.  I am a grandson, and there is also a great grandson preaching the gospel now.
• These miraculous conversions and such wholehearted love for Jesus Christ are simply void in the roman catholic conversions.
• Our sister I just spoke about, who is an ex-roman catholic, told of her drunk, cigarette smoking priest in Newfoundland.  Not one called or sent of God to say the least! Anyway, my point is that, yes, I believe people need ministers to preach and teach the word since the Bible is not all that plain to follow without a guide.  But these preachers are truly sent and called of God.
• Hebr 5:4  And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as [was] Aaron.
• Hebrews teaches that no man simply chooses to be a minister of the gospel.  One must be called.
• Anyway, a truly called man of God will receive insight, as I do, regarding the truths contained in Scripture.  We give ourselves to study and prayer about them.
• Timothy was a minister:
• 2Tim 2:15  Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
• A minister must not fight with people and strive but rather try to meekly show them their errors.
• 2Tim 2:24  And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient,
• 2Tim 2:25  In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
• 2Tim 2:26  And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
• Paul said that he received insight and revelation concerning the mystery of the gospel, which was that jew and gentile would be one body as planned before the world, but reserved for revelation until the time of New Testament preachers.
• 1Cor 2:6  Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
• 1Cor 2:7  But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
• 1Cor 2:8  Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
• 1Cor 2:9  But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
• 1Cor 2:10  But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
• 1Cor 2:11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
• 1Cor 2:12  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
• 1Cor 2:13  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
• 1Cor 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
• 1Cor 2:15  But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
• Paul said that he preached to people that might be taught.  But yet he said the common saint of God must also be spiritual and not carnal.
• You seem to say that all church congregants are "carnal" and cannot be spiritual.  You say only the apostolic successors are spiritual to be led by the Spirit and perceive spiritual truths.
• I say that the ministers truly called of God are sent by God and receive revelation and insight, and also have themselves been taught by truly called of God preachers.  And they teach these truths to the saints.  But the saints must also be spiritual.
• In 2 Cor 3 we read that the common hearer of the word must turn their hearts to Jesus...
• 2Cor 3:14  But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ.
• 2Cor 3:15  But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
• 2Cor 3:16  Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
• The heart is turned away from mere Mosaic law to Christ, and that means there is a FAITH exerted in Jesus for salvation.  This is for the common believer, Paul said.  He spoke in context of Jews who were in Mosaic law and thus had to TURN to Christ, in this instance, but the principle of the point is the same with anyone.  Turn your heart to Jesus in faith for salvation.
• And he said that when you turn in faith, a "veil" is removed from the heart, and the "spirit" Paul ministered, as opposed to simply letter and legalism (see 2 cor 3:6-8), can succeed in ministering to these people.  And look what he said occurs!:
• 2Cor 3:18  But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, [even] as by the Spirit of the Lord.
• This describes receiving a personal revelation and one that CHANGES our lives.  And it all begins by a sincere common person who turns their heart to the Lord Jesus for salvation, in faith, while they hear a true God-sent preacher minister "spirit".  He said that The Lord is that "spirit" he referred to:
• 2Cor 3:17  Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty.
• He preached Jesus, in other words:
• COMPARE:
• 2Cor 3:6  Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
• WITH:
• 2Cor 4:5  For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
• ...in light of 3:17.
• And in chapter 4 he said this occurs:
• 2Cor 4:6  For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
• So Paul preached to people whose hearts were "unveiled" so as to be able to receive revelation as he preached to them.  And he described that revelation reception as light shining out of darkness into thee hearts.

• Now the reason I said all of this is that you totally exclude this from happening when you say that the common person cannot personally experience this direct touch of God.  Now I am saying that preachers are necessary for this to occur.  There is a succession of ministers from the early church ministry.  But not as you say it.  It is anybody who is truly called of God to preach, and the proof in the pudding.  Look at the lives of the people and how changed they are unto godliness. Like that lady who is ex-roman catholic in our church.  Godliness imply glows from her and she is a light to her neighbours who come to her and ask her to pray for them and who ask her what is the glow in her face that she has.
• There is a personal work of the Spirit upon every sincere person who turns their hearts to the preached word of God.  Granted, a preacher is necessary.  I teach our people they have to have a preacher, or they cannot be saved. But the reason I say that is because the Bible teaches it.  Sola scriptura in action!
•  Inferring from your statements and questions (and not from your more limited expression of your understanding of 'sola scriptura') you believe that all truth about our faith are derived from -- and limited to -- scripture.  You believe that scripture is the sole supreme authority in the faith.

• Yes I do.  Anything God reveals to a person better line up with the Book or it is false and not genuinely from God.

•  The Church, while believing the Bible to be inerrant and *absolutely authoritative* -- since it is passed down to us by God through the prophets and apostles

• ...which is your Roman Catholic opinion...

•  -- does *not* derive its authority from the Bible.  Indeed, the Bible derives its authority from the Church, which pre-dated the Bible,

• God's word is not predated.  It is eternal.  We do not look at the Bible as simply a leather bound set of pages with black ink in it, as you do in this statement of yours, but we see it as the written and inspired account of the eternal word of God.  It  is the message that is the Bible that is our point.  And that message is the WORD OF GOD.  Your church had nothing to do with it, unless your church is God.
• John 1:1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

• discerned the canon of the Bible under the inspiration of the Spirit, and declared through its authority the shape and contents of the Bible. And don't misunderstand the difficulty of this accomplishment.  There was much disagreement within the early community about which books were sacred, and which were apocryphal.  But all looked to the Church for leadership in discerning.  As St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote in 35 A.D., '...whatever books are not read in the churches, do not read even by yourself, as you have already heard me say'  (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Jurgens, Vol. I, p. 352).  Cyril did not want the faithful to be led astray by apocryphal books.  And the way to discern, in his mind, was to follow the lead of the Church.  And at that time, the Holy Spirit was working through the Church to distill the divinely inspired from the earthly.

• I disagree the true church was the one you speak of at that time.  The true church was not in league with greek apologists who were former philosophers who kept wearing their robes of philosophical symbol.  Like Justin Martyr, who truly y feel the pagan idea of Philo of Alexandria's  LOGOS doctrine was inspired by God.  Your church agrees with Martyr.   A greek pagan idea of God existing with a LOGOS created as a mediator since God Himself was too holy to directly commune with the world, is exactly what you adopted and baptized into your religion.  And the Bible says on the other hand that pagans simply could not hear from God at that time.  Not only were the mysteries of the New testament truth given only to those who were conscious believers in Jesus Christ, which Philo was not, but it was given only to new testament preachers. Your church sealed approval on Martyr, and thus sealed approval on Philo's concept of the Logos.  And Martyr said GOD REVEALED THAT TO HIM.  Philo!  A pagan!!

• Maybe here you are saying that doctrines outside the Bible must be believed to be saved.

• Because of the difference in our view of scripture -- the distinction between 'material' and 'formal' sufficiency, I do *not* believe that the Bible is clear enough for all the faithful to use to unfailingly discern the truth and gain their salvation.

 
• But do you believe, for example, that one must have faith in Mary as Mediatrix, although the Bible gives no hint of it, and says the opposite that there is one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus?  That would be an extrabiblical doctrine, let alone an anti-biblical one..

 
• As evidence of my position, I would submit the 20,000 denominations filled with individuals who believe as you do, but disagree (as I've pointed out) on every aspect of their faith except the existence of heaven.  By rights, the principle of sola scriptura ought to be called 'scriptura mea' -- 'my scripture.'  Since that is what it amounts to.

 
• Nonsense.  That is a cop-out for excuse to not seek the Lord as Paul said in 2 Cor 3:16 to receive 3:18's revelation that changes a life from glory to glory.  There are counterfeits of truth, not counterfeits of error.  If there are no true twenty dollar bills then there would be no counterfeits made.

And there are areas of vagueness and mystery as well.

Which is why, to fully understand the Word, the Church relies on the sacred Tradition which comes to us from Jesus through the Apostles.  For in the issues where scriptures are not explicit -- such as infant Baptism -- we need an authoritative interpretive source.

•  Here is where I disagree highly with you.  Since scripture does not teach infant baptism explicitly, we are not to believe it.  If you can for one moment imagine that your traditions actually came from paganism, which you admitted your church used and baptized into itself, you can see how perfect a trap you have caught yourself in since the proponents of such incorrect thoughts have you over a barrel.  You must accept what they say or else be in error when it comes to infant baptism.  That is a good way to keep people perpetuating extrabiblical doctrines.

So Tradition is not something that the Church cooks up as it goes along.
 

• What if it is paganism baptized into Christianity?  Did you read THE TWO BABYLONS as I cited the homepage address for you to read?  It is online.

• I address paganism a little farther along.  And I don't think it worthwhile to read 'The Two Babylons' at this point,

 
• How can we deal with the issue?  You would not read all of Charlotte either.  You are clearly biased and prejudiced.  It is free.  It is online. I gave you the address.  It proves my point. You even said Pagan rites were baptized into your church.

• since I have already stipulated the point you wished to make:  namely, that the Catholic Church as sanctified certain formerly pagan practices and incorporated them into its worship.

 
• And I told you that Ezekiel 20 forbids this.

• Your church only claims that and has no proof.

• Not true, Mike.  We have no truth that *you* acknowledge, since you refer all matters to scripture.  However, we have the testimony of the earliest community of believers -- the very individuals who, through the inspiration of the Spirit and the authority of the Church, established the canon of the Bible itself.

• That is not good enough.  You fail to note that maybe you chose the wrong crowd to have confidence in.  In the days of Paul there were already wolves in sheep's clothing.  You simply look at a date that is early and look at the only writings made then, and say that must be the true church.  Why?  On what basis?  Did Jesus say that the ones who write comments about Him would be the ones who would be the true church?  No.  And you simply closed your eyes to the possibility that this group you refer to in those days might be the bad group of false prophets with evil fruit, according to Matthew 7.  Jesus did say by their fruit you would know them.  What fruit?  Read Galatians 5 and the fruit of the Spirit.  And see these men in your group exile and rail on those who disagreed with them, and fight amongst themselves, and who worked with the pagan roman emperor, supposedly converted, Constantine.  The man refused baptism until his death bed.  And you let this man run the show of your Council at Nicaea in 325 AD.
• But we were aware of Jesus' and Paul's and Peter's and Jude's prophecies of false prophets coming.  And from the fruit produced by these men we ascertained them indeed to be the ones you held on to.
• Jude stopped writing an account of the Gospel when God inspired him to warn the true church of the great falsity that existed and would rise in short time.  And who took the public eye? Your predecessors who exiled and later murdered and tortured.
• You just did not go back far enough to find out who was the true church.  You took an early date, took the only writings made in that time, and said that is the church.

• And I contend these men were the results of greek philosophers who amalgamated pagan rites into their newfound worship to Jesus.  Nothing similar is ever found in the Bible where people baptized pagan rites into their worship to God and got away with it.  As I said, God rebuked Israel for including His name in their idolatrous worship in chapter 20 of Ezekiel  I have yet to hear a response to that proposal from you.

•  I did respond.  You might recall that I said that here God was rebuking the Israelites, not for their practices of worship, but for the objects of their worship -- mere idols.  Since they had utterly turned away from God.
• But it seems to me that you have a couple of 'default' positions which you call upon whenever you need a failsafe case against the Church.  One is paganism, and one is the Inquisition.  So  let's discuss them again, in not too much detail hopefully.

 
• No, you did not respond.  After you said the former paragraph, I responded and clarified the point of scripture in Ezekiel 20 which pin-pointed the very error of baptising paganism into your church practice.  I will do it again and see if you respond this time.
• Throughout the chapter God lists the time in Egypt when they became mingled in idolatry and how He wrought for his name's sake and did not destroy them, but delivered them.  The same thing happened in the wilderness, and even in Canaan.  But then He said Enough is enough!  And read this verse:
• Ezek 20:39  As for you, O house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD; Go ye, serve ye every one his idols, and hereafter [also], if ye will not hearken unto me: but pollute ye my holy name no more with your gifts, and with your idols.
• You never responded when I said this verse notes the forbiddance to mingle God's name amongst idolatry.  When your church "baptized" (how sacrilegious!) pagan rites into its worship, you mingled GOD'S NAME WITH IDOLATRY.  You said it is now towards the true God we do this act that pagans initiated towards their gods.
• How can you excuse your church by saying that God condones baptizing pagan rites into christian worship when, not only does the bible not give an example of this, but it actually says do not do it?
• You did not respond to this point of God telling them to not mingle his name with idolatry. Will you respond this time?

 
• First, I'll along the comments of a friend of mine who makes some very interesting points.
• [Begin friend's comments:]
• Baptism was a pagan practice long before God commanded it, and before Jesus partook of it. Plenty of atheists will be the first to affirm that.  Note also that the idea of an ark box covered by cherubim above a seat (such as found in the temple God commanded to be built) was common throughout the ancient Near East. The ark box was a sort of throne, and according to German scholar Afmar Kiel, 'The great popularity of cherubim thrones is demonstrated in Cana and Phoenicia during the late Bronze and early Iron Ages.'
• We see an ARK OF THE COVENANT IN HEAVEN in the book of revelation.  So I would dare say that the pagan versions were copies of the true.  After all, Satan used to be in heaven and Satan initiated the false religions.
• Therefore, God often took pagan practices (note the difference between this and when the Israelites mixed pagan practices with Judaism, as in the golden calf) and made them holy.

 
• This is total blasphemy.  Especially in light of Ezekiel 20:39.
• And God REBUKED the israelites for making a golden calf!
• Exod 32:20  And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt [it] in the fire, and ground [it] to powder, and strawed [it] upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink [of it].
• Exod 32:21  And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them?

 
• (In fact, even with the golden calf, God later used it to remind the people of their sin - from there on out, Aaron, and his sons (the priestly line) had to slay a calf before entering the Holy of Holies.  Why? As an act of repentance and renunciation for leading the people into idolatry by building a calf in the first place.

 
• Nonsense.  As a blood sacrifice as was first done by Abel in Eden.
• Gene 4:4  And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

 
• All the rabbis knew what it was for.) So there is a big difference between incorporating pagan practices, gods and all, and using those practices to worship God, and God alone. The latter is a matter of stripping those practices of their association with the pagan gods, and 'devoting' them to God. 'Devotion' in the Bible means the irrevocable giving over of something to God, often (but not always) by completely destroying it. We can see how He often completely destroyed the pagan practices, but also sometimes just totally turned them over to use for His glory. (This is directly applicable to Christmas and Easter)

 
• This is in total disobedience to Ezekiel 20:39.
• Also:
• Jere 10:2  Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen,
• Do not use their manners and their ways.
• Levi 18:3  After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
• Levi 20:23  And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

 
• So God actually commanded the taking of pagan practices and adapting them to worship Him, and Him alone, so we cannot assert that the mere association with a formerly pagan practice necessitates the abandonment of that practice.

 
• This is from someone entirely ignorant of the truth of sacrifice long before pagans did anything to any false deities, as in Abel's case.  And why did Abel offer blood sacrifice? Because blood made atonement for his soul.  And where does the Bible say that God had them sacrifice calves because it told them to not worship them?

• However, this of course does not refute the use of the concept of the Trinity, since it was not a made-up concept, but rather, how God was, from the beginning, so it certainly was no adaptation of some other god. God can and does take pagan rituals, transforms them, and then uses them for his holy purposes, as Steve Ray excellently shows in his book Crossing the Tiber [pp. 97-98]. If God could not do that, if He could not take sinful and corrupt human beings even and make them holy (indeed, He makes us His Sons and Daughters!), then how could we be saved? So, something being pagan in origin can still be transformed by God into something good.

• This burns in my very spirit as detestable and disobedient to all that Ezekiel 20:39 commanded.  God's wrath will surely be kindled against such proponents of this evil thought.  I pray for their souls.

• For example, baptism. Long before Jesus instituted it as a Sacrament, baptismal washings were done by Jews and Pagans. So one should be cautious in one's condemnation of this or that practice as pagan. The Lord Himself can transform such a practice into something that is good, for "nothing is impossible with God" (Mark 10:27)!

 
• This is as nonsensical as saying "God can lie, because nothing is impossible with God," although the Bible says:
• Hebr 6:18  That by two immutable things, in which [it was] impossible for God to lie,
• Since the Bible stated we do not mix His name in with pagan practices, you cannot say this is not impossible with God to do, any more than you can say God can lie because nothing is impossible, for the word also says that it is not possible for God to lie.

 
•  The fact that a pagan deity was known as the queen of heaven doesn't mean this term can't rightfully be applied, in another sense altogether, to Mary.

 
• Disagreed.

• By the way, a book by Joscelyn Godwin entitled "Mystery Religions," tells us about pagan Mithraism:
• "Who is the Mithras of the mysteries?  He is one of the gods.  He is orderer of the universe. Seeing mankind afflicted by Ahriman, the cosmic power of darkness, he incarnated on earth. His birth was witnessed by shepherds. After many deeds (some of them described by the plates) he held a last supper with his disciples and returned to heaven.  At the end of the world he will come again to judge resurrected mankind and after the last battle, victorious over evil, he will lead the chosen ones through a river of fire to blessed immortality.  It is possible to prepare oneself for this event during life by devotion to him." (page 99)
• Based on the text above, I suggest that it is a waste of time to discredit Catholic beliefs because they might appear to be similar to some pagan belief.

 
• Not at all.  You simply see it all through roman catholic coloured glasses.  You do not consider satan has a counterfeit of God for satan cannot create.  You have it turned around that all we should do is originated by Satan, rather than God, and make Satan the creator and God the counterfeiter.

 
• [End Friend's comments.]
• So to recap my friend's arguments:  First, there is a big difference between worshipping pagan gods (which Ezekiel was condemning),

 
• That was not all that Ezekiel condemned.  He condemned worshipping the true God with idolatrous practices.  And you ignored that entire point I made and continue pretending I never said it. My point was that God said do not mix HIM and HIS NAME with idolatrous practices.  That is what I accused your church of doing, and you agreed..