DEBATE WITH A ROMAN CATHOLIC

• and taking pagan practices and sanctifying them for God's glory. If we deny the possibility of the latter, how can we countenance the fact that God forgives us and sanctifies us, taking us out of our paganism and sin, and restores us to our birthright as his children?

• Because we cease doing the things we used to do. You are saying a pagan who idolatrously offered a biscuit as the sun god's own body can take that into christianity, so long as he believes the deity is now Christ he worships. When a sinner repents, they do just that... repent. They turn around. They must bring forth fruits meet from repentance. They live lives that are changed..
• Baptized idolatry is only a change in terms, but not practice. Changed sinners do not practice what they one did.


• If everything pagan is irredeemable, how can we ourselves hope to be saved? "What God has made clean, you are not to call profane" (Acts 10:15).


• When we are redeemed we are changed. When the pagan ritual is baptized it keeps doing the same thing.


• And, second, in sanctifying pagan practices, the Church is only doing what Jesus himself did when he instituted Baptism as a means of salvation. Because Baptism was practiced by pagans.


• That is nonsense. Baptism for remission of sins was never practiced by pagans. Pagans also wore red robes, but does that mean wearing a red coat is pagan? No because the designer of the red coat probably knew nothing about the pagan robes. There was no conscious borrowing of a pagan rite when Jesus commanded baptism.


• So if you object to Catholicism on this basis, you must object to your own beliefs as well! Because, as my friend shows, in substantial respects your own beliefs are a restatement of the pagan religion, Mithraism.


• Nonsense. I am shocked you would even say this.


• And by the way, the Church has *never* formulated doctrines or principles or beliefs to accommodate pagan peoples. It *has* taken some pagan *practices or customs* and sanctified them, offering them to God's glory. But these *practices and customs* never in any way changed the Church's teachings or beliefs.


• They didn't? Yes they did. Mary became an object of worship whereas never was she so in the Bible. But when you called her the same title as the pagan deity Queen of Heaven, then naturally she became worshiped also.


• An example: In Guadalupe, Mexico, in the early 15th century -- very early in the history of Christianity in the New World! -- Mary appeared to a humble peasant, a Christian man.


• I do not believe this at all.
• 2Cor 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.


• This remarkable visitation -- which has been proven to be supernatural by 20th century science -- was an effort by God to draw the native peoples away from their repugnant pagan practice of human sacrifice. (Which we see reprised in a very disturbing way in our own time by our practice of abortion.)


• Same scripture as above.


• Now, certain of the native people pagan *practices and customs* -- like their long-distance devotional parades -- were simply carried over and used to honor God or one of the saints. Doctrines were *not* adapted or altered -- simply people were permitted to walk long distances, singing and praying. Is that an evil practice? Of course not. Is it pagan in origin? In this case, yes.


• When pagans cut themselves with knives in Elijah's day, and flagellation whips and torture was inflicted upon Mexican Catholics in self-multilation in order to please God exactly as Baal's men tried to please him, it affects ones thoughts.


• Who cares how old it is? Paganism is old, too. But does age make it right? And the didache is controversial so far as its age is concerned. Of course you would prefer the earlier date due to bias. But not all scholars agree with that date.

• Do you believe that age denotes accuracy? Then how about the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who in 110 A.D., made this impassioned plea: "I beseech you, therefore, do nothing in a spirit of division, but act according to Christian teaching. Indeed, I heard some men saying, 'If I do not find it in the official records in the gospel I do not believe.' And when I made answer to them, 'It is written!' they replied, 'That is the point at issue.' But to me, the official record is Jesus Christ; the inviolable record is His cross, His death, and His resurrection, and the faith which He brings about -- in these I desire to be justified by your prayers." (Ibid., Vol. I, p. 23)
• I couldn't have said it better myself!


• I agree. And I disagree with this man's thoughts as well as yours.

• Sure, you might ask, but what does he mean about 'Christian teaching'? That cannot have much resemblance to what Catholics believe today, right?

• Well, not exactly. For his beliefs on the Mass and the Eucharist are clear: "Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery (My note: it is from this word that we derived the term, 'priest') and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Ibid., p. 22).

• And Jude warned about false teachers in his day. This means nothing to me when you say this and quote these things. There were false prophets in the early church days. But you do not see any of the apostles saying anything similar to what your church says about paganism.


• He even decried the errors of heretics who objected to the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not convess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again" (Ibid., p. 25).


• As the false prophets in the early church commanded that people be circumcised..

• He also upholds the hierarchical organization of the Church: "You must all follow the biship as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God" (Ibid., p. 25)

We also see the community gathering for Mass on Sundays -- "On the Lord's Day of the Lord gather together, break bread and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure

• Where is "mass" mentioned and the idea that the bread is not a symbol of the body of Christ in this portion of writing?

And baptizing via a pouring: "In regard to Baptism, baptize thus: After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pout water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Ibid., p. 2)

• Whether or not you agree with the teachings of the Church, you must agree that they are consistent with those of this earliest community of believers.


• "earliest?" I think not!
• Acts 8:36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
• Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

• In fact, some historians believe that Ignatius was himself ordained by St. Peter --


• That does not make it so.

• and that's not at all farfetched, since we know Ignatius was third bishop of Antioch, just one removed from Peter, the first bishop of Antioch.

• I can easily say these are results of false prophets.

• You can, but where are the teachings or the writings of the early believers who refute these writings?

• I showed you in Acts where Philip said baptism is not possible unless one believes with his own whole heart.

• They don't exist. Instead, we see *remarkable* uniformity of belief in the writings of the Early Fathers -- especially since we are talking about a very young sect with beliefs that fall far outside the mainstream of spiritual thought then current.


• Birds of a feather flock together. I just say you got the false flock.

• The apostles would have written in the Bible the infant baptismal truth if it were truth. Such important issues would not be excluded from the bible.

• I respond that they would have certainly explicitly *prohibited* infant Baptism if they had seen a reason to bar any person from the sacrament.


• If they were to write, as I told you and Brent aforetime, of every thing NOT to do, there would not be enough planet to hold the books. Imagine every little thing WE SHOULD NOT DO. There are an unlimited number of things people might presume to do.
• But Philip did say YOU CANNOT BE BAPTIZED IF YOU PERSONALLY DO NOT WHOLLY BELIEVE.

• Not the entire community. Who said that? The fact is that only a minority of folks began writing like your fathers did.

• No, virtually *every single* early Christian writer wrote as these men did. I could name you dozens, but I don't want to bore you.


• Virtually every single christian at this time was illiterate, compared to the few who were not.


• The most of the people were not that educated to even read. Go back and study the times and the education level of the people.

• I submit respectfully that you could also use a history lesson -- to find out what the earliest believers really held to.

• I am not saying what they held to but what their level of education was.

• Certainly, the mass of people could not read, but think about where you're going with your argument here. You are saying that because your position is upheld by *none* of the earliest Christian writings, then we are to assume your position is true.


• But I am coupling that by telling you that there were false prophets in those times. Who is to say your fathers were not them? I have the evidence of scripture where Philip for example would not baptize the eunuch unless the man believed. Your fathers say babies can be baptized. Where is that in the bible? the case weighs against you.

• Paul said not many noble and wise were called. That stated the majority of the folks were not able to read let alone write. And history shows that the greek apologists, who first proposed a trinity, were of philosophical backgrounds, and Paul distinctly warned about traditions in connection with philosophy in Col. 2:7-9. It seems you folks did not heed that warning.

• Mike, the one doctrine that Paul can *not* be referring to here is the Trinity. The phrase Paul uses here as a warning, the 'elemental powers of the world,' he also uses in the same way, in Galatians 4:3:

• I am talking about philosophy, as Justin Martyr walked from, carrying his philosophical robes with him, into Christianity.

• "In the same way we also, when we were not of age, were enslaved to the elemental powers of the world. But when the fulness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption."
• So we see that the "elemental powers" he is alluding to held sway *before* the birth of Jesus
• i.e., among the Jewish community. And as you point out so eloquently, the Jewish people *nowhere* taught the doctrine of the Trinity.


• The "elements" were THE LAW. Elementary school... Law was schoolmaster leading Israel to Christ. And that was not all that was referred to in Colossians, though. Philosophy also. PHILO was a philosopher and he started this whole LOGOS thing that turned into your trinity.

• These folks came along with their hybrid paganism and christianity and then claimed lack of explicit instruction that the Lord gave oral tradition outside the scripture was not necessary for them to propose that thought. >

• "These people" did not come along. Indeed, if anything, the *scriptures* "came along."

• You are ignoring my point.

• They didn't make the claims you attribute to them, for the simple reason that the Bible didn't even exist in its present form until well into the fifth century.


• They had the OLD TESTAMENT as scripture. And all that was orally transmitted was written down later as the new testament books.


• It is not explicitly stated in the Bible that the manner in which you claim tradition has come to you from the apostles. If it were explicit, then there would be no debate among us. And I am intelligent enough to see that Jesus' conversation regarding the Spirit guiding into all truth is not explicitly saying in any form that the Apostles would teach doctrines not found in the written Bible.

• Actually, it is explicit. Paul is not only explicit, but *emphatic* when he directs Timothy: "And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well" (2 Tim. 2:2).

• I said JESUS' words. Do not say it is explicit when I said that Jesus' conversation was not explicit in that direction you claim it was.


• Mike, Paul could scarcely be more specific here if he mentioned the Magisterium by name. Here he > is, writing to Timothy. But he doesn't tell Timothy to protect his *letter* -- or anything at all he has written. He doesn't even tell Timothy to write down the words he remembers Paul speaking.

• And Paul wrote the same words down in other epistles himself.

• Instead, he tells him to pass along 'what you heard from me through many witnesses...' Which is precisely what the sacred Tradition is, and how it works.

• As you say, scriptures were not written in full at that time. Why do you not say that it was written later, albeit only spoken to Timothy at that time, by Paul in other epistles?

• And there are plenty more such explicit references. But, as you yourself admitted, for some reason you decide to interpret all references to 'speech' and 'hearing' to signify 'writing' and 'reading.'
• I would submit that it is your *tradition* that makes you interpret these passages so. For there is *no* justification for it in the Bible.

• My foundation is a lot more solid than "hearsay" never found written in what we have now as authentic writings of the apostles.

• You are afraid to trust in the Lord when the Bible said plainly it is better to trust in the Lord than in men.

• Ah, I definitely *do* trust in the Lord. It is myself in which I do not trust.

• So you do not trust that you can trust?

• So I am not about to set myself up as the supreme authority on the interpretation of scripture -- which is the awkward position that all 'sola scriptura' adherents find themselves in.

• Nonsense. As I said, you are refusing to see what my definition of sola scriptura says for it is easier for you to tell me what I believe and destroy that ( a straw man) than to take my actual words and destroy them.

• Because those areas do not regard salvation!!!! I am claiming that the vital elements required for salvation are in plain black and white and are not inexplicit whatsoever. On the other hand you seem to believe that even the most important issues are not explicitly stated in scripture.

• And their writings about those issues are all we need to know to be saved.

• Read above.

• There is no need for direct revelation when it comes to know how to be saved. There are truths regarding depths of righteousness that we do not need to know to be saved, but only to grow into.
• A truly born again believer is an infant in the spirit. And so long as they are in the kingdom born again they are saved from sin. They need not know all the depths to enter the Kingdom.

• Where in the scriptures does it define what it is we 'need to know' and what we 'need not know'?

• And that precedes revelation from God.

• I believe I as a pastor of a people am directed by God to receive insight they do not receive. So I agree partly with what you are saying. But the spirit bears witness with the people. You never seem to say anything similar to those words of Paul regarding this fact in Romans 8.

• Because I haven't gotten that far.

• Could it be that you do not stress scripture as much as we do?

• Paul is talking about the sacramental life we share as members of the Mystical Body of Christ. I'll discuss that at the end of this message.

• What if their consciences are in error? Are they still right?

• No, they are not right. But they are not condemned for their own weakness and lack of understanding, so long as they have sought the truth in good faith.

• Not true.
• You are saying a devil worshiper will be saved so long as he was sincere and knew nothing about Jesus Christ.

• I argue that incredibly severe. I told you that Philips' words to the eunuch deny the possibility that infants can be baptized. To say different is to blatantly contradict Philip and to listen to popes after philip and fathers since Philip more than Philip.

• Nonsense. Interpretation often requires only common sense, as in the example I corrected you on in Peter.

• I disagree with that statement,. It takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe the Bible is the only source of truth so far as where we get our explicit doctrines for salvation from.

• But that statement *cannot* be true, simply from the standpoint of logic.
• If, as you say, the Bible is the *only* source of truth regarding salvation, and *that statement* is *itself* an important one regarding salvation, then it necessarily follows that that statement *must* be found in the Bible.

• No. For it is logical that if Jesus said HIS APOSTLES, THEMSELVES, and not others who supposedly repeated their words they did not write down themselves, would give words that would save us (See John 17), then their writings alone are to be upheld.
• John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
• These were the words of the specific apostles.
• It is mentioned, but you take those very notes where it is mentioned and re-interpret them to mean that they refer to oral tradition.

• No, that's what they say. I only go from the words on the page.

• And yet you said that the scriptures were not even finished in that day. Why not say the scriptures later written by these same men are those inferences? Its safer and more faithful to John 17:20.
• I could come along and say a lost manuscript was recovered yesterday by my archaeological findings, and it is the writings of Father Joe Blow in the 2nd century, claiming he received oral tradition dating from the Lord Jesus and the apostles we should shave a bald spot on our heads to honour God. By your rule, if the letter was genuine, you would have to submit to its directions.
• You would likely refuse it. Refutation of this teaching is exactly what I practice with your fathers' words. I do not buy them.

We see communities who receive the *spoken* Word -- through the teaching and the preaching of the Apostles. Not one instance do we see of any community -- indeed, not of one single person -- being converted through sola scriptura.

• The preachers used the doctrines found only in scripture to preach to these people. I am surprised at how your friend twisted what sola scriptura meant, and now how you do so.

The Pharisees likewise are condemned by Jesus for poring through scriptures instead of listening to him: "You search the scriptures, because you think you will have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf. But you do not want to come to me to have life" (John 5:39-40).

• The "scriptures" in that day were restricted only to the Old Testament. And Jesus did not cross them since He felt they referred to scriptural Old Testament for truth. He crossed them because they were blinded that they did not see the very scriptures they read referred to Jesus. Another twist of yours.

• The fact is, without Jesus' teachings -- and the proofs he gave for all to see -- *no one* could have known Jesus was the Messiah, or that he lived and died for the salvation of all mankind.

• He wasn't condemning them for not reading scripture properly. He condemned them for not believing the evidence of their eyes and ears -- which was *confirmed* in scriptures, but in ways that were hidden from them.
• You said he condemned them for taking scripture alone for their stand. You are wrong. You are now avoiding that accusation.

• For a second, imagine yourself a Jew in 35 A.D. You hear no preaching of the disciples. You've never heard of Jesus. All you have are the writings of the Old Testament. Can you discern the fact that Jesus the Messiah lived and died for the salvation of all creation? Certainly not.

• If my heart was sincere, yes! 2 Cor 3.

• *Yet this was all the scripture available for decades to come!*
• I repeat my point: That not one individual in the New Testament was converted *by scripture alone.*

• Who said they were? You are twisting what I said about sola scriptura. More straw man arguments.

• You claim that the Bible is the only source of truth regarding salvation.

• Yes. Big difference than saying people were converted by scripture alone.

• If that is true, then you must also claim that until the Bible was pronounced and promulgated, *no one was saved!* But of course you would not claim this.

• You twist what I am saying altogether! I told you that Romans 10 says a preacher must explain the scriptures. But you hold to doctrines not found in scripture. That is my qualm.

• Now I turn to the hopefully more concise statement on exactly *how* the Church views scripture!
• Thanks, as always, for your consideration!

• In Sum, your doctrine excludes personal revelation from God despite 2 Cor 3:14-18, 4:6.
• Thanks for your words!
• All the best!