Posted on 07/25/2010 3:35:08 AM PDT by GonzoII
Evangelical Protestants are taught to recruit Catholics by exploiting their lack of Bible knowledge, but use Scripture out of context to make Catholic beliefs look flawed.
This is the claim of Catholic apologist Steve Ray, in Perth from the United States of America earlier this month as part of a national tour. Mr Ray used to take on this role.
“We were trained to evangelise Catholics – we believed you are not saved, that you are going to hell as you follow the Pope instead of Jesus, you pray to Mary instead of God, you have tradition instead of Scripture, you thought you got saved by doing good works instead of by faith in Jesus,” he told about 60 people on Thursday, 8 July, at Trinity College, East Perth.
“It was our job to get you saved and become real Bible Christians. This is what Evangelicals think – most of them, even in Australia.”
He said that he was taught the right questions to ask and memorised up to 15 verses that “were good to use with Catholics”.
Mr Ray, married to Janet for 33 years with four children, said he and his wife went from being “anti-Catholic Baptists” to “crossing an uncrossable chasm and becoming Catholics”.
The Rays were not alone. They opened their home for two years to people seeking to discuss their differences with Catholics and explained why they converted, “even if people hated Catholics”.
In that time, Mr Ray said over 200 people joined the Catholic Church.
Addressing several key issues that cause the at-times vicious divide, especially in the United States, between Protestants and Catholics, Mr Ray said he achieved “great success” by asking carefully selected questions and backing them up with isolated Scripture quotes.
(Excerpt) Read more at therecord.com.au ...
You wrote:
“Poor attempt to justify your ad hominems.”
I made no attempt to justify. I see nothing wrong with what I said. What I said is true. It needs no justification.
“Labeling and accusation of lying. Well, that’s between you and God; and as it’s written, by their fruits ye shall know them.”
And that’s why we know anti-Catholics almost routinely lie. It happens so often online that it is shocking.
“Sounds like you’ve been shot down too many times to count, especially when your knee-jerk reaction is to call them ignorant and liars. This is getting very reminiscent of James 3:8.”
Anti-Catholics are almost always ignorant. I can’t deny the truth of that fact. Many anti-Catholics are also dishonest. I can’t deny the truth of that fact either. It is not knee-jerk of me to know or admit what is true.
“There can only be one authority, not multiple ones.”
God is the only ultimate source. He teaches US through His written word, His tradition passed to the Apostles and the Magisterium. Thus, you are correct when you say there can only be one (ultimate) source, but you are mistaken if you believe the product source is greater than God.
“There’s a reason why one of God’s names is “One” (Zechariah 14:9).”
Even you there are admitting what I said while denying what you yourself just said. What is your source of authority? Is it God or scripture? That is a question based on a false premise since scripture comes from God. And that is essentially what you tried to pose to me before contradicting yourself.
“Jesus condemned tradition (Matthew 15:6, Mark 7:13).”
Nope. Jesus never once condemned tradition. He condemned tradition that nullified the word of God. So do we condemn it. None of our sacred traditions nullify the word of God nor could they.
“And yes, the whole thing about magisterial authority and tradition were questions that made me look in the scriptures, as well as the matter of the sabbath; there’s a reason why the seventh day is given special prominence in the first chapter of Genesis, after all, and the Hebrew word translated “forever” (olam) really does mean “forever”.”
And yet the old law is not binding on Christians as it was on Jews. We live under grace and not the old law.
“I didn’t mention sola scriptura, but anything that is not of God is of men, and that cannot be ignored.”
Sola scriptura is of men.
“Do I have to repeat the omitted text?”
There was no omitted text. The link I directed you to showed the full text of the commandments just as they appear in scripture (twice no less).
“Now none of that text appears in what’s quoted from the Catechism.”
False. As I already posted here, the full text of the commandments are in the CCC. Here, let me help you since you seem to be struggling with read the computer screen in front of you. This is what it says at the link I posted for you:
You shall not make for yourself a graven image,
or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above,
or that is in the earth beneath,
or that is in the water under the earth;
you shall not bow down to them or serve them;
for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers
upon the children to the third and the fourth
generation of those who hate me,
but showing steadfast love to thousands of those
who love me and keep my commandments.
Thus, what you said was omitted is in fact in the Catechism, in the list of commandments and to has now been posted here for you. To keep saying that the text has been deleted from the commandments would be a lie.
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ.
“And as for reality, that’s exactly what appears in the Bible; Jesus said that not one jot nor tittle will pass from the law (Matthew 5:18, from iota and keraia respectively, referring to the Hebrew letter yod and the serifs of those letters).”
Yes, Jesus did say that. He also told Peter that the old law was passed. Acts 10.
“Furthermore, the Synod of Laodicea explicitly makes a difference between the sabbath day and the “Lord’s day” (which is not the same “Lord’s day” as mentioned in Revelation 1:10; that’s the “Day of the LORD” mentioned in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah and the minor prophets); this is their decree from Canon 29 of that council.”
What the council said is this: “Christians should not Judaize and should not be idle on the Sabbath, but should work on that day; they should, however, particularly reverence the Lordís day and, if possible, not work on it, because they were Christians” (Canon 29 [A.D. 360]). Clearly early Christians knew that the Lord’s day was no longer the Jewish Sabbath. I have no problem with that and apparently neither did St. Paul or St. Luke.
“There is but one place that the Greek word ioudaizo (or “judaizo”) appears in the Greek text (Galatians 2:14),”
Actually it appears once in the Septuagint too.
“and that refers to Jewish tradition that is outside of scripture”
No. Both times it is used to mean practicing those things that separated Jews from others, i.e. the Mosaic laws about diet, circumcision, etc. This is the sort of thing referred to in Acts 15:1.
“(which Jesus condemned in Matthew 15:6 and Mark 7:13, once more); this is why Paul mentioned that the apostles were “not walk(ing) uprightly according to the truth of the gospel” (and gospel comes from the Hebrew word basorah in Isaiah 61:1, translated into Greek evangelizesthai, a tense of evangelion or “gospel”, in Luke 4:12).”
Judaizing was at odds with the gospel. It still is.
“Notwithstanding, the Bible does indeed call them “ten commandments” and tells us to not omit a single word, which means that you should include the phrase “who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” in the first commandment.”
It’s there. Twice on that page I linked to.
“Neither of those verses mention worship or resting from labor.”
Incorrect. Acts 20:7 and 20:11 references the breaking of bread – a reference to the Eucharist. This became common enough that by the time Revelation was written it was called the Lord’s day (Rev. 1:10).
“The apostles preached on all days of the week, but went into the temple and synagogues especially on the seventh day, just as Jesus did. As for the “collection for the saints”, refer to Romans 15:25-28, which explains what that was about (and if you think that I’m trying to be deceptive, note Isaiah 28:10, and even more so the timeline of those letters of Paul).”
Even to this day collections are taken for the saints at Sunday Mass.
“Any Catholic would know what I was talking about. “
False. I’m Catholic and I had no idea what you were saying when you used “Parable form” in reference to the Ten Commandments. You had written, “There’s no mistaking what the scripture actually says. Even in older English, it’s quite clear and emphatic, and not in parable form.” Your comment seemed to make no sense.
“My mother, one of the most ardent (and conservative!) Catholics I know, taught me about parables and the form they took. None of the Commandments are parables; they’re straightforward.”
Yes, they are.
“The Masoretic text does not date from the nineteenth century, nor does the Majority Greek text. (And frankly, the King James Bible was finalized in the very early 17th Century.)”
False. The KJV text was finalized in 1769. Many ignorant Protestants believe they are reading a text identical to the 1611 KJV text when in reality they are reading one standardized only in 1769. Also, your arguments for the Sabbath are not scriptural, but 19th century SDA arguments which used scripture. Just as I predicted.
“Anyhow, I’ll leave you with a quote from Cardian Gibbons from 1893, which is a remarkable confession:“The Catholic church, for over 1,000 years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday…You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day we never sanctify.””
It is not a remarkable confession at all. God invested the Church with teaching authority. The Church exercised it.
***********************
Correct. Imho, it's a massive waste of time and can even lead some astray.
“What if games make no sense because, as has been pointed out, we don’t know what God would have done and it doesn’t matter in any even because the “what if” NEVER HAPPENED.”
Absolutely! We can continue with
~What if Joseph hadn’t heeded the angels warning when Jesus was born and taken him and Mary to Egypt?
~What if Joseph had decided to have Mary stoned?
On and on and on...it doesn’t matter because we can’t know the mind of God and saying that he could of is nonsensical.
I didn't say you were required, but you should give it more weight.
But he did mediate, Do you think that if Jesus were to mediate for Tim Mc Veigh, Pol Pot, Stalin, or Obama, that even that would change Gods mind?
You twist my words. I am not saying that it is wrong to ask others to pray for us, or to join us in prayer. I’m saying that it’s creepy to ask dead people to pray for us, and unbiblical to contend that Jesus’ mother’s prayers are/were any more effective than my mother’s prayers.
Now who is twisting words, Where did I ever say to engage in necromancy (And I chose my words very carefully because I knew that YOU would be the one to lie and twist words). I never once said to do that I said to pray to those in heaven, because they are fully alive in the Lord, and because it is Biblical.
I suppose you have to rely on lies and deception to support your doctrines.
The only one engaging in lies and deception is you and the prots you listen to
I will say a rosary for you, May the God of Love have mercy on your soul
Those are weasel words.
It HAS lead hundreds of millions of people astray.
They have asked, "What if the Virgin Mary said no?" and their conclusion has been that, "God would have just chosen another woman." This conclusion has lead to them totally ignoring the Blessed Mother's significance in her Son's life.
The sinner’s prayer is a fine example of a very good tradition.
Thank you for your reply. But there is near universal agreement in the symbolic position among evangelicals, who hold to the supremacy of Scripture and preach the gospel of grace thru faith, versus works-merit, while a minority of Catholics have affirmed the official Rome position. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_17_128/ai_79305248)
As for typology and extending it to Christ’s plain statements, “ see post 207. John makes abundant use of allegory, and is also distinguished “in his use of of particles, pronouns, prepositions, verbs, etc.” as well as analogy, etc., all of which can make interpretation more than a simplistic matter.
Mad Dawg, i am afraid the Inquisition might have you on their list. Conversing with the enemy, and now you explain “really” eating with intercourse!
“But there is near universal agreement in the symbolic position among evangelicals”
LOL! Good for y’all!
Believe what you will.
I will continue to believe rightly in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.
They have asked, "What if the Virgin Mary said no?" and their conclusion has been that, "God would have just chosen another woman." This conclusion has lead to them totally ignoring the Blessed Mother's significance in her Son's life.
**************************
Yes, excellent point.
Oh, we Catholics are big fans of intercourse. Where do you think all those 8-kid families come from. It sho’ ain’t from playing Parcheesi!
Actually that would be critics of Catholicism. You have to read pretty selectively to reach that conclusion. It's easy to gloss over words like "good" in "a good confession" or "a good rosary." It's easy to trivialize the commitment, which is an internal thing, of others.
Yet in another sense there is SOME truth in the criticism. God is in certain sense external, though not in the more important senses. And we do trust Him to work through sacraments. And I would venture to say that may of the "internally" committed would testify that on a day when things were as dry as the Baca Valley they looked back and found that it had been a place of springs after all. (Ps 84)
I am sure if i should be laughing in the midst of a debate on a solemn subject of debate, and your candidness is not helping!
Lemme splain for the peanut gallery. "Periphrasis" is "talking around." So when somebody says "Heavens above" what they are really doing is either cussing or engaging in a "pious ejaculation." (I don't make this stuff up) BECAUSE what they mean is "God Ahmighty!"
There's a lot of reverential periphrasis in the Bible because of the sacredness of God's name. But it's a natural thing. How many times have you heard someone refer to "the man upstairs?"
Well, I believe in reverential flippancy. What we DARE to discuss really ought to burn our mouths right off our faces. And we know it. How dare I presume for a minute to limn the ways of God? And yet, being an allegedly rational animal and all, it's what I do. So to sort of blow off the pious terror, I make nervous jokes. -> Reverential flippancy.
Besides, laughing together brings people closer to each other. That's rarely a bad thing.
No, i actually was not familiar with the phrase “reverential periphrasis”, but i am aware of that the Bible often uses euphemisms.
I am fearful of sounding irreverent, and sometimes my humorous side needs to be more tempered by that.
As regards the analogous use of male/female relations, i have expressed one aspect of this as being akin to God’s revelation of Himself. That is, a woman’s naked beauty is not for public consumption (and the kind of bait you use largely determines your manner of catch, and she ought not to cast not her pearls before swine), but for her husband, who has entered into covenant of committed cherishing love with her, and to consummate in mutual love (nakedness=vulnerability, requires trust).
To demand this and or marital relations with her before that bond, is in essence a form of rape. Likewise, those who, seeking a show or to justify unbelief, demand God do some miracle before they will believe.
What God does is reveal Himself, like a virtuous women, in a veiled form, which invites seeking, and which seeking prepares the heart for receiving. And only those who fear/reverence the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom, will He reveal His covenant, (Ps. 25:14) and only to those who enter into covenant with Him will He reveal His hidden glory. (Ps. 63:1,2; Jn. 17:24; Acts 7:55)
And the more our eyes be single, then the more our bodes shall be full of light, (Mt. 6:22) and corporately so, as the church should shine as Moses did, (Ex. 34:29) as the light of the world, preaching His law, heard or read, but written upon the heart. (2Cor. 3:3)
VERY good stuff.
I think one day God will rein in my silliness. But for the time being, I mean to enjoy it. I trust He currently reigns in my silliness.
Your pun for the day.
So you’re a Nestorian.
To say that Mary carried God does mean she carried Father and Son. Only a Sabellian would say that.
But then Nestorians accuse everyone else of Sabellianism.
I notice you did not address the schizoid issue.
Be a Nestorian, Chistotokian, whatever.
I’ll stick with Orthodoxy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.