So I got an email from a good friend of mine, a pastor of a small church who is singlehandedly trying to handle all of the administrative, personal, and every other side of the game, all while playing dutiful dad and attentive husband. He has a new member of the congregation who came from a Roman Catholic church, though someone from that congregation are trying to draw this person back.
Being that this is 2008 and technology has advanced quite significantly in the last 400 years or so, matters are no longer argued in public forums, they're argued on internet forums and email. Fortunately, email can be dealt with at one's convenience, but unfortunately, my buddy doesn't have the time to deal with the Catholic person's arguments. So he asked me if I could respond for him.
*cue diabolical laugh*
So here is the email I received, and my response below. Names have been changed to protect the innocent ... ok, we're all guilty sinners without Christ, but I changed them anyway. I will warn you that it's pretty long, so be prepared to dig in. Enjoy!
Original Message:
Here's some teaching Of YOUR FAITH WITH VERSE LIKE YOU SAID.
nOW DISPUTE THAT.
TELL ME THE CATHOLIC FAITH IS NOT THE BETTER FAITH.
1.The Catholic teachings actually are in the Bible.
2.The Bible nowhere claims that Christians are to base their faith solely on the Bible (Sola Scriptura). Rather, the Bible instructs Christians to accept the faith which was handed on to them by authorized Church leaders. 2 thess 2:15
•Purgatory. That only the perfect are allowed into heaven and that those whose faith is imperfect when they die must be purified before entering heaven. Heb 12:23, mat 5:48, rev 21:27
•Devotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
•Confession before a priest. But the Bible specifies that the church leaders have the power to forgive sins. John 20:23
•That communion (the Eucharist) is more than just a symbol.
.
(John 20:30). (John 21:25). In addition to scripture the Catholic Church values the tradition which has been passed down from Jesus to the Apostles through the Church.
This passage supports the idea that Paul considered himself to be a priest (Rom 15:16). Catholic
My Response:*Please note that the following response is going to be in, more or less, an informal "debate-style" tone where I counter the points made by the other person and provide some of my own. In my humble opinion, this is the most straightforward means of giving an honest response to the questions at hand, though running the risk of being a little forceful and/or blunt, which is not my intention. Also, since formatting is often lost between email servers, I am CAPITALIZING words rather than italicize/bold to emphasize them. I apologize if it seems as though I am yelling (as common internet etiquette would suggest), but please accept this peculiarity with its intended usage.
Let me begin by pointing out that starting an argument with the statement that the idea of the Catholic Faith being (or not being) the "better" faith is rather spurious. Matthew 5 says "blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth," but yet saying that one belief is "better" than another appears to be a claim made with much pride and bravado. We should all be seeking to know the truth, rather than rooting for a particular side or another. Additionally, the very idea of Catholicism labeling itself as "better" than another contradicts the very meaning of the term "Catholic," which means "unified." Its very inability to maintain its unity with all spirit-filled believers of Christ is a foreshadowing of some of the internal contradictions within its tradition that the honest follower must face.
So let's start with the listed objections.
1. "The Catholic teachings actually are in the Bible" - My first observation is that there is no evidence provided to substantiate this claim. Had it been made at the end of an argument, it may have had some substance behind it, but to list it as a point unto itself makes it purely an unsubstantiated claim. As a matter of fact, by going through these other points, it will be quite evident that many of the Catholic beliefs not only AREN'T in the Bible, but CONTRADICT scripture outright, though the Catholic doctrine makes general reference to scriptures that are taken entirely out of context, manipulated by the doctrine to try to prove itself. This is basically "verse abuse," otherwise known as "eisogesis" - reading ones beliefs into the scripture.
2. "Sola Scriptura" - 2 Thessalonians 2:15 does mention "teachings" that was handed down to them by others, "whether by word of mouth or by letter." However, this verse is rather vague by itself, since it doesn't include the particular teachings it was referencing. Basically, one can see from the beginning of the verse ("So then, brothers...") that the verse was not intended to stand on its own, but is in fact a CONCLUSION of the preceding verses. Paul was basically CONCLUDING a series of points, not making another one intended to stand alone from everything else he was saying. So let's read verse 14 WITH 15 to see what exactly Paul is talking about.
14"He (God) called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
It seems fairly clear, in context, that the GOSPEL is what teachings were being referred to. This in NO WAY justifies any other teachings/doctrine that supercede the scriptures.
Additionally, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 clearly states that "16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
The Catholics argue that Paul could've only referenced the Old Testament, because the New Testament had not been completed yet; however, Paul never gives any other teaching or tradition the same authority whatsoever, making this a moot point.
Furthermore, in Matthew 24:35, Jesus says, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." However, the Catholic Church claims that its doctrines supercede the very teachings of Jesus.
This is an obvious indication that they believe that some Jesus' words are no longer applicable, in DIRECT DEFIANCE of Jesus' own teachings. How can the Catholic Church dare to teach doctrine which contradicts the very authority of Jesus Himself?
3. "Purgatory" - Our perfection is already MADE COMPLETE in Christ. The verses that were cited are unfortunately vague in nature, and actually DON'T make any sort of reference to the concept of Purgatory unless one reads into them quite heavily. Hebrews 12:23 and Revelation 21:27 do NOT specify the necessity of some vague intermediate location between Earth and Heaven for purification. Though they mention the need of being "made perfect", the sacrifice of Christ is sufficient. In 2 Corintians 5:21, Paul says - "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." Matthew 5:43 is merely a reminder from Jesus of the commandments of the Mosaic Law, which just points back to Christ as the necessary sacrifice for our atonement.
Let's look at a few verses that ARE specific:
*Romans 5:18-19 - "18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."
As you can see from this verse, "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." The very idea that each man must go through some sort of separate purification goes against this concept of "one act" justifying every believer.
*Romans 3:23-24 - "23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."
Again, it's quite clear that the believer is "justified FREELY by his grace." Believing that the Christian must go through some other sort of "cleansing" indicates that there is still some sort of payment that is still due. If there is still a debt to sin, then logically, justification CANNOT be free.
Here's another one: 1 Corinthians 6:11 - "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
I think that it's safe to say that it eliminates the idea that we'd need anything else.
Additionally, it's evident in John 19:30 that Jesus Himself (while on the cross, at that), stated "It is finished." Though this verse speaks quite conclusively on its own in simple English, the original Greek text uses the term "tetelestai," which means complete payment in full for a debt. There is nothing left for us to pay.
Finally, everywhere in scripture you look, references of death and judgement occur WITHOUT any sort of intermediate cleansing in between. Here are a couple more examples:
*Hebrews 9:27 - "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment."
*Romans 3:19-20 - "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin."
4. Devotion to Mary - Hebrews 12:2 encourages us to look to CHRIST, "the author and finisher of our faith" (beginning and end), NOT to anywhere else. In context, we are told in verse one to set aside everything else that would hold us back from "run[ning] the race that is set before us" as we "look towards Christ" (v.2, again). Nowhere in scripture are we told to have any special reverence for Mary.
Additionally, though the Roman Catholics believe that Mary was sinless, she herself states otherwise in Luke 1:47 - "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior..." If Mary was truly sinless, then she would have no need for a savior, already being blameless in God's sight; however, by expressing her need, she humbly acknowledges her sin.
5. Confession - John 20:23 is an interesting verse. John Wesley, a classical Biblical scholar, once questioned the meaning behind it. Since the original quote is somewhat antiquated and difficult to read, please allow me to paraphrase: Aren't the sins, of someone who truly repents and believes, already fully pardoned? And aren't the sins of everyone else still held against them? If so, then doesn't this imply that the power being granted is nothing more and nothing less than the declaration of the Christian belief of forgiveness - whose sins are forgiven and those held against them?
Basically, the power that we've been granted is the very same "Great Commission" spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20 - "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."
It's also important to note that putting the onus of asking for constant forgiveness on the sinner takes away from the sacrifice of Christ. John 3:16 states: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Note here that the emphasis is on BELIEF, not on continual repentance. Looking again at the verses I quoted in response to point three, it's evident that the one-time sacrifice of Christ was enough to sanctify us.
Let's revisit 1 Corinthians 6:11 - "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
The believer WAS washed, WAS sanctified, and WAS justified. This is past-tense. As Jesus said in 19:30, "Tetelastai." It is finished. The debt has been paid IN FULL. One is not unforgiven until confessing to a priest and/or for doing penance in order to receive forgiveness. It has already been granted to the believer, and to suggest that more is needed is to take away from the totality of Christ's incredible sacrifice.
6. Communion - The question is not whether or not "communion (the Eucharist) is more than just a symbol." The question is whether or not bread and wine LITERALLY becomes Jesus' flesh and blood. I will not deny that there is more than just mere symbolism involved. Martin Luther called it the "Sacramental Union," John Calvin called it "Consubstantiation," Uldrich Zvingli referenced the "Real Presence," each basically using different terms to describe the SPIRITUAL "essence" of Christ somehow being especially present at the time of the Eucharist. But to suggest that the bread and wine literally ceases to be bread + wine, and somehow actually becomes the actual flesh and blood of Jesus is not biblical. First of all, Jesus was still alive when He commanded that the disciples do this. He had not yet been handed over by the Sanhedrin to the Romans to be crucified. Since He was still physically intact, having not yet been sacrificed for our sins, how could the bread + wine He offered to the disciples become His sacrifical body + blood?
Furthermore, the very idea of eating literal flesh and blood was clearly forbidden by Levitical law (Lev. 17:14), and would've repulsed the disciples to no end. To conclude, Jesus was quite fond of figurative language, which was clearly used here as a foreshadowing, and then later as a reminder, of the price He paid for our sins. As He was present with the disciples during that time, some believe that He is somehow spiritually present with us during the Eucharist, but to literally become His body and become sacrificed over and over again is pointless and redundant. As many of the scriptures I've referenced point out, once was enough.
7. A couple of verses (John 20:30, John 21:25) are used to support the claim that "the Catholic Church values the tradition which has been passed down from Jesus to the Apostles through the Church." So let's look at them:
John 20:30 - "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book."
John 21:25 - "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
These two verses are quite similar. They both indicate that Jesus did other actions that, for one reason or another, weren't written down. That's not surprising at all. If a woman touching His cloak was enough to cure her (Matthew 9:20), imagine what a simple smile from the Creator in human flesh could've done to someone. But by no means do those verses indicate that any of Jesus' teachings were left out.
Additionally, Hebrews 13:8 says that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." He would not later teach something that contradicted an earlier message.
"15I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me 16to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."
OK... so Paul had the "priestly DUTY OF PROCLAIMING THE GOSPEL." This is no different than the "Great Commission" spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20 (as I previously referenced) - "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."
Were ALL of the disciples priests? Were all of their disciples priests? Is it not the duty of EVERY BELEVER to proclaim the gospel?
Look at Romans 10:8-13 - "8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.""
Take note here that confessing that "Jesus is Lord" is an act that ACCOMPANIES salvation. EVERY believer should be confessing Jesus, regardless of the fear of "being put to shame" (v.11). So Paul's "priestly duty," in proper context, was no different than the duty of any other believer.
To conclude, I will return to the beginning, by saying that the better faith is the one most consistent with the teachings of the Bible. As mentioned, Hebrews 13:8 says that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Therefore, it would be contrary to the VERY NATURE of Christ to go back on His Word and later proclaim a different message and different traditions, whether oral or written. What would one rather believe - the very words of Jesus, the Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity ... or the words/traditions of fallible man that directly contradict those of Christ? To this extent, the Catholic church shares the same fallacy as that of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints (Mormons), who also contradict many of the teachings of the Bible (in the Book of Mormon), though certainly to sometimes vastly different degrees. The Bible is the ultimate authority. Sola Scriptura.
In Christ,
End of Message
Ok, so the only name I omitted was my own, LOL. In retrospect, I realized I made a boo-boo somewhere in there. Can you tell where it was? Quite honestly, I doubt that either the new believer OR the Catholic will even catch it. I'll let it slide on the no0b, but it's absolutely heart-breaking to see someone who's gone to church (or Mass) his/her whole life, and hasn't even obtained a rudimentary understanding of scripture.
If you're still with me at this point, then maybe I'll post future responses, if/when I get them!
