Topics

    Visitors

    Recent site activity

    Editorials‎ > ‎

    Rev. Anderson

    Apostolic Apologetics: Rev. Anderson


    By Paul Swonger (Jan, 10, 2010).

    Introduction


    In my time browsing the web I sometimes come across websites of varying interest, and occasionally I have a hard time resisting responding to the false claims they make. After all, if I found the page, chances are I'm not the only one, so if someone is teaching error, it's important to set the record straight. This document will include a full rebuttal of "Rev. Anderson's" Catholicism page, which I originally came across here. I will paste the entire document here, and respond point by point within. The original text will be black, my responses will be in sort of pasty coloured tables.

    Note: Don't forget to read Rev. Anderson's response, and my further rebuttal (Part 2).
    Find that here, or the link at the bottom of this page.



    Begin Document and Response

    In this part of my site, I intend to systematically show that the Catholic church has much error in its doctrines, this part will not be very long, but it is important in demonstrating how to easily debate a Catholic and prove them wrong with as little effort as possible.

    I am fully convinced that no Catholic on planet Earth can debate me without leaving the Bible and having to use extra-Biblical sources, this does not come from a smugness or arrogance, it comes from years of experience.

    Despite the disclaimer, there is a great deal of smugness and arrogance in these opening remarks. First, is the notion that any and all readers will accept the non-biblical and thus self refuting doctrine of Sola Scriptura as an already legitimized and proven premise on which we absolutely must operate. This extraordinarily ironic introduction is so because of the protestant deletion of seven books from the Old Testament, specifically for the reason that they supported Catholic Doctrine. Make no mistake, there was indeed an intentional move by the protestant reformation to remove scripture supporting Catholic Doctrine, and, if Martin Luther had his way, we would also be missing several books from the New Testament as well (Revelation, James ).

    The first issue in disproving Catholicism is their "communion of the saints" now they'll say they don't actually pray to the dead saints, but they merely ask them to intercede on their own behalf. Then I simply ask them...

    "Where do we find anybody in the bible, praying to someone who has passed on to intercede for them? I want to see evidence of Peter petitioning Noah, Paul petitioning David, John petitioning Abraham, Stephen petitioning Elijah etc... We see no evidence at all of this happening in scriptures. Surely if this was an important thing in the early church, if there was any truth at all to it, it would have happened SOMEWHERE in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.


    First, I will refer to my comments above, which are historical fact. Second, I will refer to the word of God, which protestants, violating Revelation 22:19, have removed from the Bible as it has been since the 4th century within the Catholic Church (long before any protestant denominations existed).

    More on that subject (the deuterocanon) here.

    The Book 2 Maccabees perhaps most clearly makes the point. This book was part of the Jewish Old Testament since ~150 BC, and has been included in the Latin Vulgate since the 4th century. The Latin Vulgate was and is the official Bible of the Catholic Church, and was so to all Christendom until the 16th Century. This is when Martin Luther moved the deuterocanonicals to "Apocrypha". Additionally, The 1611 Edition of the King James Version, it's original version, also included these books, but they have gradually been removed from Bibles all-together. Again, this is an independently verifiable fact.

    Note: Any Bible in any museum pre-dating Martin Luther contains 2 Maccabees.

    2 Maccabees 15:12 
    Now the vision was in this manner. Onias, who had been high priest, a good and virtuous man, modest in his looks, gentle in his manners, and graceful in speech, and who from a child was exercised in virtues holding up his hands, prayed for all the people of the Jews:

    2 Maccabees 15:13 
    After this there appeared also another man, admirable for age, and glory, and environed with great beauty and majesty:

    2 Maccabees 15:14 
    Then Onias answering, said: This is a lover of his brethren, and of the people of Israel: this is he that prayeth much for the people, and for all the holy city, Jeremias, the prophet of God.

    2 Maccabees 15:15 
    Whereupon Jeremias stretched forth his right hand, and gave to Judas a sword of gold, saying:

    2 Maccabees 15:16 
    Take this holy sword, a gift from God, wherewith thou shalt overthrow the adversaries of my people Israel.

    We need not go into the deuterocanonical books though to demonstrate or validate the Catholic practice of intercession. We need look no further than the example of our Lord Jesus Christ.

    1. Jesus converses with the "deceased" Moses and Elijah. They are more alive than the saints on earth.

    Matthew 17:3
    And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him.

    Mark 9:4
    And there appeared to them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

    Luke 9:30
    And behold two men were talking with him. And they were Moses and Elias

    2. We can become a spectacle not only to men, but to angels as well, this indicates that angels are aware of our earthly activity. Those in heaven are connected to those on earth.

    1 Corinthians 4:9
    For I think that God hath set forth us apostles, the last, as it were men appointed to death. We are made a spectacle to the world and to angels and to men.

    3. We are called to be saints. Saints refer to both those on earth and in heaven who are in Christ.

    1 Corinthians 1:2
    To the church of God that is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that invoke the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place of theirs and ours.

    Romans 1:7 
    To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you and peace, from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

    3.a In these verses, we see that Christians still living on earth are called "saints."

    Acts 9:13,32,41; 26:10; 1 Cor. 6:1-2; 14:33; 2 Cor. 1:1; 8:4; 9:1-2; 13:13; Rom. 8:27; 12:23; 15:25,26, 31; 16:2,15; Eph. 1:1,15,18; 3:8; 5:3; 6:18; Phil. 1:1; 4:22; Col 1:2,4,26; 1 Tm 5:10; Philemon 1:5,7; Heb. 6:10; 13:24; Jude 1:3; Rev. 11:18; 13:7; 14:12; 16:6; 17:6;18:20,24; Rev 19:8; 20:9.

    3.b In these verses, we also see that "saints" also refer to those in heaven who united with us

    Matt. 27:52; Eph. 2:19; 3:18; Col. 1:12; 2 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 5:8; 8:3-4; 11:18; 13:10

    Further scripture demonstrating the Biblical case for the Communion of Saints can be found here.


    An educated Catholic may resort to Revelation and talking about the 24 elders with the prayers of the saints, but that is alot of twisting on the side of Catholicism. They must first establish that these people are the dead saints of Catholicism, and they must prove secondly that the prayers of the saints are intercessory prayers, and not their own prayers. Neither is indicated by scriptures.



    The scripture being referred to follows.
     
    Revelation 8:3 
    And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer: and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints, upon the golden altar which is before the throne of God.

    Revelation 8:4 
    And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.

    1. The first request for proof that "these are the dead saints of Catholicism" is ridiculous. The body of Christ is One. "Catholic" is a descriptive term, and relates directly to Matthew 28:19, a verse all persons claiming to be part of the Church Christ started, must reconcile themselves to.

    John 10:16 
    And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

    John 17:23

    I in them, and thou in me: that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me.

    Romans 15:5 
    Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind, one towards another, according to Jesus Christ:

    2. "Prove they are intercessory prayers".

    Prove they are not.

    The Bible itself contains the proof here, as is clearly indicated in scripture, that we are to offer prayers for each other, that is, the members of the body of Christ (cf. Eph. 6:18, 1 Thess. 5:17, 1 Tim. 2:1-3, James 5:16, Gen. 27:29, Num. 24:9, Jer. 15:1 etc.). The actual burden of proof then, is that this behaviour is to cease upon our entry to Heaven, which cannot be done as it is not in scripture, and in fact contradicts it.

    See also Tobit (removed by protestants, again for supporting Catholic Doctrine)

    Tobit 12:12 
    When thou didst pray with tears, and didst bury the dead, and didst leave thy dinner, and hide the dead by day in thy house, and bury them by night, I offered thy prayer to the Lord.

    This is an angel speaking.



    An educated Catholic might also try to establish that "nobody is really dead in Christ, so our prayers to the saints are as real and as personal as if you spoke to your own neighbor or family". They will then follow up with this verse. Mat 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Some Catholics take this as meaning people are not literally dead in Christ.


    Actually a reverse chronological reading of two verses illuminates this point unmistakeably.

    Romans 6:3 
    Know you not that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death?

    So if we're dead in Christ (baptized into his death), what does that mean? What are we dead to? Jesus? The Saints? No. Read one verse back for very clear context. We're dead to sin. Not each other. Which means we are Saved. We are in the body of Christ. We are ONE.

    Romans 6:2 
    God forbid! For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein?


    I will first of all say that's an erroneous interpretation of that scripture. He was talking to the Sadducees, so claiming that saints are still alive in the same paragraph that Jesus is referring to the resurrection of the dead, is not wise. To prove it with scriptures, we need look no further than Rom 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. This verse proves that yes, there are dead people that Jesus is the Lord of. This takes care of the sometimes Catholic interpretation of Mat 22:32 Getting back to Catholicism....


    Straw man argument.

    Matthew 22:29
    And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.

    The authentic Catholic Interpretation

    You err.  The Sadducees erred in supposing that there would be no resurrection, or if there was, that the future state would be like the present.  Unable to conceive any thing else, they thought themselves justified in concluding that the soul would not survive the body.  Had they known the Scriptures, they would not have fallen into this error; since therein are found abundant testimonies of a resurrection, as Job xiv and xix, Isaias xxvi, Ezechiel xxxvii, Daniel xii.  The power of God also, had they paid sufficient attention to that consideration, would have taught them the same truth.  It cannot be difficult for that power, which created and formed all things from nothing, to raise the body again after it has been reduced to ashes: nor impossible to prepare in a future state, rewards and enjoyments superior to and widely different from any thing that is seen in our present stage of existence. (Jansenius)


    The next point I bring up and ask is about the irrefutible authority of the church, that some Catholics believe the church cannot ever be wrong. I bring up Galileo, who was thrown in jail by none other than the Catholic church, for saying that the Earth went around the Sun.


     It behooves us to remember that Jesus does not call saints, but sinners.

     1. Peter Infallibly wrote two Epistles (books of the Bible).
     2. Peter also made mistakes (and even sinned cf. Romans 3:2).

     3. The Bible therefore demonstrates that a person in authority in the Church (e.g. Peter cf. Matthew 16:18) can not only sin, make mistakes, not be perfect, but also, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, be preserved from error when it comes to assembling binding doctrine regarding faith and morals to the whole Church.

    This is actually the most typical incorrect understanding on what the Catholic Church's position actually is. First and foremost should be reading my document on Papal Infallibility located here (opens in new window).

    The Catholic Church maintains, as the Bible states, that the Paraclete (the Holy Spirit) was sent to the Church to preserve her from error, though it makes a distinction that this applies only under a very strict criteria, which are:
    1. The Pope must speak Ex Cathedra--from the Chair of Peter (meaning in his official capacity).
    2. The decision must be binding on the whole Church.
    3. It must be on a matter of faith or morals.
    4. He must be intending to teach.
    At no point in time did the Galileo affair approach these criteria, nor was the dogma defined until the 1800s (long after Galileo) -- are we to think the Church just ignored this "point" being made?

    Now would be a good point to ask "Rev. Anderson" by what means, as a Sola Scriptura Christian, he came to the conclusion that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, as was thought not only by Catholics and Protestants, but indeed the secular world as well.

    Again I recommend the article I linked to as I treat the subject with much more depth than I care to paste here.

    Pertaining directly to the Galileo affair, is this document I created containing a very detailed video series going in depth into the events surrounding the Galileo affair, dispelling common myths and misconceptions, which you appear to hold to.

    The statement by the way, that Galileo was "thrown in jail" is false. House arrest in a luxurious home was what he received, and it wasn't for opposing geocentricism, (something many Catholic thinkers, especially Jesuits of the time, did as well) but for heresy in trying to claim that his interpretations of scripture were authoritative vs the Church's. Protestants of the day by the way, were quite vocal about not giving into Galileo as well, so the "blame game" isn't going to work on folks aware of the facts.


    So tell me, can the church be wrong? If they can be wrong about that, what else could they be wrong about? Nothing indicates that the Catholic church has always been the same, I seriously doubt the church of Galileo's time was the same as the first century church, and it sure as heck isn't the same as today's Catholicism.


    The Church has never taught error when it comes to binding dogmatic theology regarding faith and morals, subject to the whole Church. That's what our position is, and it's the position of Christ:

    Matthew 16:18
    And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    Not for a day, a second, or 1500 years until the protestant reformation can claim it's "correcting the errors of the Church". The Church cannot err in the manner the reformers claim.


    1 Timothy 3:15 
    But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

    John 14:16 
    And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

    John 14:17 
    The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you.

    John 14:18 
    I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you.


    Regarding Mary, I need to point out that she did not remain a virgin. Mark 6:3 mentioning Jesus's brothers and sisters I'll admit can be taken more than one way, but how about Mat 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
    Joseph and Mary clearly consumated their marriage at some point after Christ was born. We know Joseph was alive at least until Jesus was 12, since he is present during the temple incident. Do Catholics really believe that she and Joseph never had sex in those 12 years? Virgin mother she may be, but was she not a good wife? Even then, if you know female anatomy, the act of childbirth would remove her virginity would it not?


     With love, these are common but faulty arguments.

     1. adelphoi (bretheren) -- The Original Greek text of the NT (e.g. Mark 6:3) uses the words adelphoi, adelphai, adelphos, and anepsios. These words do not necessarily indicate blood relation.

     These words are used to indicate:

    (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2);
    (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23);
    (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19);
    (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17);
    (5) any man, a neighbour (Lk 10:29);
    (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47);
    (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9);
    (8) mankind (Mt 25:40);
    (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8);
    (10) believers (Mt 23:8).

    Further, at no point in scripture are children other than Jesus ascribed to Mary directly.

     2. heos ("till" or "until") -- The Original Greek word is heos. Further, the Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (rendered in various translations of the bible as until, til, unto or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated.

    In the case of scripture, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.

    Biblical Precedent

    2 Samuel 6:23 
    Therefore Michol the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.

    Obviously we are not to believe Michol had a child after her death.

    Hebrews 1:13
    But to what angel has he ever said, "Sit at my right hand, till (heos) I make thy enemies a stool for thy feet"?

    What's implied "after"?

    1 Timothy 4:13
    Till (heos) I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.

    And stop when Paul comes? No. False. That is not implied.

    Please read my full article "Did Jesus have Siblings".

    You might ask yourself why Greek speaking Christians (e.g. Greek Orthodox) categorically reject your arguments. These are fine folks to discuss these passages with.



    On Peter and Papal celibacy, if Peter really was the first Pope, he was certainly married.
    Mat 8:14, not only mentions Peter's wife, but also Peter's mother-in-law, and why would any man have a mother-in-law unless they were married? Furthermore 1st Tim 3:2 says that a bishop should be the husband of one wife, yet Catholic bishops are forbidden to marry. Proof that this cannot be interpretated as 'married to the church' reverts back to the fact that Peter had a literal flesh and blood wife.

    First and foremost Celibacy is after the example and also direct and explicit advice of Christ who said (in red):

    Matthew 19:11
    Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.

    Matthew 19:12
    For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

    The Biblical case for celibacy is very very strong, and I have gone into great detail demonstrating this here.

    Peter was indeed married, and the Catholic Church does not deny this.

    1 Timothy 3:2
    It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,

    Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.

     A couple more considerations.

    1 Corinthians 7:32
    But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God.

    1 Corinthians 7:33

    But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided.

    1 Corinthians 7:38
    Therefore both he that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well: and he that giveth her not doth better.

    Paul says it's better to be celibate. Explicitly.



    The last thing I bring up is the office of the Pope. Where is this office in the Bible? It mentions it nowhere

    False.

    The Roman Catholic Church from Apostolic times has literally followed the Bible in the establishment of good order in the Church. According to Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus there are three orders to the organization and leadership of the Church (sometimes known as ecclesiastical order or hierarchy): episcopos or bishops, presbyteros or elders, commonly translated priests, and diaconos or deacons.

    The first in order and the greatest in authority is the episcopos, the bishop.

    1 Tim 3:1-2
    This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach ...
    Tit 1:7,9
    For a bishop (episcopon) as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.

    Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, distinguishes the shepherding role of the episcopos/bishop.

    Acts 20:28
    Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (episcopous), in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.

    The shepherding role of the apostle Peter as episcopos was related by John.

    Jn 21:15-17
    When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

    The Roman Catholic Church believes that the twelve apostles were the first episcopes, receiving at the Last Supper their leadership order to serve when Jesus told them "Do this in remembrance of Me."

    Peter, as demonstrated in the biblical portrait of him, exercised a leadership role first among the other apostles and early Christians, and then later in Rome before his martyrdom there in 67/68 AD.

    Peter's presence in Rome in indicated in his first letter. The name "Babylon" is used here as a cryptic name for the city of Rome, a characteristic of writings done during times of persecution. During Peter's time (witnessed by his own martyrdom) and most New Testament times (witness the Book of Revelation--classic persecution literature), Rome took on the characteristics of the most outstanding example of a world power hostile to God--ancient Babylon.

    1 Peter 5:12-13
    I write you this briefly through Silvanus ... The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.

    Clement of Rome (I Clement) and Irenaeus (To the Romans) both attest to Peter's presence and death in Rome.

    Paul makes mention of Linus, a Christian at Rome. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, 3, 3, 3) tells us that the same Linus was Peter's first successor as bishop of Rome.

    2 Timothy 4:21
    Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.

    Two great historians of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea, and Augustine, bishop and theologian, preserve for us the list of successors of the bishop of Rome to their own time. They attest to the sense and realization the Church had to the need for historic succession to the Bishop of Rome.

    Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
    After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. ... Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome ... to Miltiades.
    Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
    For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, ... to Siricius Anastasius.

    On the following pages is a list the bishops of Rome from Peter to Benedict XVI. Historians both secular and ecclesiastical concur with a final list published by the Vatican Library.

    The only biblical "claim to fame" of these men is that they are episcopoi, bishops. There is no greater "order" according to the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches this. Other titles are only honorary and organizational.

    The Catholic Church has also taken Paul at his word.

    1 Cor 4:14-16
    I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.
    1 Thess 2:11-12
    As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.

    The faithful of the Church has always called their ordered leadership "father." In Greek, the language of the early Church, the word for father was pappas; in Latin, the language of the later Church, the word for father was papa.

    By the 300's, bishops were sometimes called "pope" a corruption of the word for father. By the 700's the title for affection and respect for the Bishop of Rome exclusively was Pope.

    It is not uncommon for enemies and non-believers of Roman Catholicism to create an argument against the succession and therefore validity of the Bishops of Rome as true successors to Peter by proffering the history of the "bad Popes." That argument arises from a basic misunderstanding of Sacred Scripture.

    The first response to be made to the so-called argument from the "bad Popes" is admission that many men who held the position of Bishop of Rome were not holy men. Perhaps Peter was the best model for human failure in such a leadership role. He denied Jesus three times after being told he would do so. Some (e.g., Peter, Judas) who are called stumble and fall.

    Some (Peter) repent and are saved. Others (Judas) reject that grace. It behooves us to remember that Jesus does not call saints, but sinners.

    Lk 5:31-32
    Jesus said to them in reply, "Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners."
    Mt 9:12
    He heard this and said, "Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do."

    The moral miracle of the "bad Popes" is that they were worldly men, public sinners, and never functioned as spiritual leaders nor touched or changed the deposit of faith of Christianity.

    We are reminded by the Lord even to the present day that the lifestyle of the messenger does not alter the validity of the message. Recall the American TeleEvangelists' scandals in 1987 and 1988.

    No Catholic can answer these questions without using sources outside of the Bible, Catholics rely solely on tradition. Getting your beliefs from 'sola scriptura' (latin for scriptures only) is very important. For if we could use other sources, then why not the book of Mormon too? How about the writings of Ellen G. White and the Seventh Day Adventists while we're at it? Let's also throw in some new age writings, and if tradition is what's important, why not adopt some Judaism? The point is, it's a dangerous path to get doctrines from outside of the Bible, and the Catholic faith relies on such doctrines.

    1. The accusation that Catholics rely solely on tradition is false. Sacred Scripture (The Bible) however, is tradition.

    2. I think for the most part I have relied solely on scripture here, however, I still have no proof from scripture itself that I must operate under those conditions. That burden of proof is upon you.

    The simple fact that Sola Scriptura Christians (Ecclesial Deists) cannot come to terms with is that the Bible Came from the Church, via the Holy Spirit. The Church does not come from the Bible. There was Christianity before the NT existed, and indeed existed for nearly 4 centuries before "what scripture is" was decided (by the Catholic Church, in council, you're welcome--and we're glad you like our book, now use it how it was intended to be used please).

    As far as the comments regarding why not to accept the writings of the Mormons and so forth, using the same logic, why are we to accept the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, and so forth?

    The reason we accept the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is because Christ founded it, and called it the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth 1500 years before the reformation (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15  ).

    The Biblical portrait of scriptural interpretation is within the context of the hierarchy of the Church (see the council of Jerusalem). Private interpretation, which gave birth to the rejection of the Church Christ founded, known as protestantism, is condemned in the Bible (cf. Luke 24:45, Acts 8:27-40, 2Pet 1:20, 2Pet 3:16-17).

    This is because the earliest of heresies, which occurred during the lives of the apostles, were also, as with protestantism, "validated" via scripture (e.g. the circumciser heresy)

    Further, the Jews did not practice Sola Scriptura, nor did the first century Church ( a difficult task being that there was no NT at the time). Sola Scriptura was why the Thessalonians, unable to verify what Paul was saying from scripture alone, rejected his teachings and kicked him out of town (Acts 17).

    What the Jews did have however was an authoritative teaching body, as represented by the Seat of Moses in the synagogues (cf. Matt. 23:2), this is something that protestantism obviously lacks, and does not receive from the Apostolic Church.


    As a parting shot, here is something to point out to Catholics from one of their own sacred publications....

    “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.
    Official Catholic Doctrine from Catechism of the Catholic Church Ignatius Press p. 116 (p. 129 in 2nd ed by Doubleday)

    St. Athanasius De Inc., 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
    See also: St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57:1-4 and St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 71, 939

    St. Augustine's own words, "...so that man can become God." Which sounds like the same lie repeated since the garden of Eden, trying to get man on God's throne, with power and authority and exaltation. Just like the Mormon belief that someday everyone will be a god, and have our own planet.

    And in The Dialogue of Saint Catherine of Siena, God the Father told her: "taking your humanity, and, freeing you from the servitude of the devil, I made you free. And if you examine, you will see that man has become God, and God has become man, through the union of the divine with the human nature."


    Genesis 3:5 
    For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

    Also See Isaiah 43:10, and reconcile it with Psa 82:6. The interpretation I lay out below is sound.

    Additionally
    , I think these paragraphs are addressed quite well here, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    458 The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God's love: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him."72 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."73

    459 The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness: "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me." "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me."74 On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: "Listen to him!"75 Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law: "Love one another as I have loved you."76 This love implies an effective offering of oneself, after his example.77

    460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

    See Also:

    Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho

    ''But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point, but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve.''

    The meaning is not in the Mormon sense that we will become literally "Gods", but we will share in his gifts, e.g. eternal life (an attribute of God).

    Regards, and God Bless.

    Paul S.

    Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam


    Read Part 2 here.

    Subpages (1): Rev. Anderson Part 2
    Comments