Baptist Blasts Catholics pt 1 of 5

Below is a continuing dialogue with a Protestant Co worker. I appreciate any insight you may have in this discussion. He started in black and I replied in Red then he retorts in blue.


**2) You often refer to Luther’s desire to weed out James. That is true but the fact that it was not taken out only illustrates that God not Luther or any other man is in control of His word I point this out to show that once the discipline of following the leader (the Church) is cast aside and one is given the “freedom” to interpret God’s meaning in Scripture apart from the unified Church then there are really no restraints. He tossed out 7 books and many groups insist that scripture, all scripture, speaks literally and should be taken that way then others feel something else. **

** Again; break away from the Church and chaos ensues which is not what Jesus wanted for his Church. Scripture is clear about the Christian Church being one Jn 10:16, Eph 4:3-6, Rom 12:5 and 16:17, 1 Cor 1:10 and Col 3:15 to name a few. Do you really believe that because that because a Methodist and a Baptist have differences on secondary items like the mode of baptism or how the government of the church should be practiced that we are not one. That is where you talk out of ignorance. My Methodist brethren and I are one because we accept Jesus gift of salvation on his terms and not ours. You mentioned Sunday that about what is the big picture and the big picture is how one gathers a right relationship with God. Protestant believes clearly it is by Grace through faith. The Universal Catholic (and all that means is universal) Church is one. When the rapture happens every believer that has placed his trust only in the death of the Lord Jesus to cleanse him from his sin will be part of this event**

Peter not the leader

3)There is nothing in scripture that indicates the Paul was considered head of the Apostle. In fact when the Jerusalem counsel met it was James not Peter who served as the spokesman when the decision at to whether Gentile needed to follow Jesus custom. **You say we are guilty of revisionist history but the evidence we cite direct from scripture is clear. To Peter was the establishment of the Church entrusted and the book of Acts is about him and his works. Paul was given his place and that was to go preach and build new Churches. Paul was educated and had to shepherd his flocks, he did so by writing. Just because Peter is not prolific doesn’t denigrate his position as the administrative, ecclesiastical and apostolic head of the Church. Jesus didn’t write anything, does that make him less important? Again here is what is written in the Scriptures; When an organized body of people come to a meeting it is the leader of them who kicks things off, Acts 1:15 shows Peter doing just that. (2:37), when they are confronted by the priests about their healing works it is Peter who speaks for them (4:8). When Peter is passing he has gained so much prestige as the leader that when he passes the faithful lay out the sick so even his shadow will heal them, not the others just PETER (5:15). And when Cornelius meets Peter, the leader of the Christians, he bows at his feet acknowledging his status (10:25). After Paul’s conversion he goes on a retreat for three years and when he returns he goes to seek advice from Peter (Gal. 1:18). **You can, for your own reasons, ignore what is plainly shown in scripture. But Peter was the lead Apostle and it is so written for all to see. Of course you do not address the issue you just use rhetoric. James not Peter was the chief spokesman during the Council which determined what responsibilities Gentiles had when they entered the body of Christ. It is unfathomable that Peter would have not rendered this cornerstone opinion if he was in fact the Chief Apostle. Peter is not even the principal character of the Books of Acts. Paul has supremacy and dominates the recounting of the early church. Your point about Jesus not writing is ridiculous. He did not baptize anyone either but we do not denigrate what baptism symbolizes. Where is it clear in scripture that Peter was the head? Only Peter had the authority to bind and loosen. You are not practicing sound exegesis when you state belief. When Jesus gives the Apostle the charge for the Great Commission in Matthews 28:18-20 no sane and perceptive person believes that this commission was only meant for the Apostle. No, they properly understand this charge for every believer. It is not only the Apostle responsibility to make disciples it is every believer responsibility. So, when you lay Jesus’s charge to Peter being given the keys and make it only applies to Peter you are not rightly dividing the word. Why is that we understand when Jesus was speaking in Chapter 28 although He was talking to the Apostle it was meant for every believer but when He spoke to Peter it meant him only. That is not consistent and how do you pick and choose. You choose when it benefits you own propaganda. Logic tells me that every believer is charged to make disciples even though He said specifically said it to the Apostle. The same system applies when Jesus spoke to Peter in Chapter 16

The Pope

**The title Pope was not inferred until the fourth century. The onus is on you: prove to me through verfiable documents that Peter started an unbreakable chain of Popes. **Jesus said some pretty strange things to Peter in Matthew 16 so the first source is of course the bible. But Protestants dispute what is plainly written. Jesus changes Peter’s name to Rock (Cephas) and says, pointing to Peter, “You are Peter (Rock) and upon this rock I will build (future, active, indicative) My Church (singular) and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Jesus then proceeds to give to Peter the keys of the kingdom, a declaration and transferal that conferred great authority and responsibility. Matthew 7:24 also speaks about the need to build upon rock and the new KJ version is written “the rock”. One must ask what was the intent of these strange saying and how did the hearers understand it, and how was it understood by the first century Christians. See previous and I do not hold what might have been said by 1st Century adherents might or might not believed is on the same par with the Holy Writ. Where do we get from the bible that Peter was the official head and all other were subordinate to him by divine authority.

** So lets look a moment, how did the first Christians understand this declaration of their Lord? **

** Peter, after leaving Antioch eventually ended up as leader of the Church in Rome, along with St. Paul. Both were martyred there in about 64 AD. In reading the history of the first centuries it is clear that Rome held the place of preeminence primarily because it was the see of St. Peter, not because it was a good church. Rich, for a guy who study history you really miss the boat here. Rome did not hold any sacred position. The believers at Rome were mostly Gentile.**

** Clement, the third bishop of Rome from Peter (Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement . . . ) had a clear understanding of the primacy of the Roman church as early as 96 AD when he wrote his “big-brotherly” epistle to the Corinthians which can be another source for your consumption. According to Irenaeus, Clement had known and conversed with the two great apostles and therefore would not have been unfamiliar with the post to which he was being assigned, Bishop of Rome. What does this prove? I reject along with many other that Matthew 16 provides scriptural authority to regard Peter as Pope of Popes.**

**After listing off the Apostolic Succession of bishops from the Apostle Peter down to his time, Irenaeus said in the second century “For with this Church (the Roman church), because of its more efficient leadership, all Churches must agree, that is to say, the faithful of all places, because in it the apostolic tradition has been always preserved by the faithful of all places.” Point me to the teaching that says that we must unite under the church in Rome where Peter was the head. We follow what Paul and Peter spoke in scripture. It is only things that we humbly submit. I guarantee you that Paul and Peter spoke many words, many of which I am sure are life-changing and helpful but we do hold to them as infallible. You give me all the supposed proof but show me that Peter considered himself a Pope and that he was transferring authority to Linus. Why do know that power was transferred from Moses to Joshua. Because the Holy Writ tells me. You trust the wisdom of man but I trust only the wisdom of God revealed through scripture. **

I’m really not much of an apologist, but you can start here (and do some research to buffer it)

First of all, it’s not grace through faith…it’s faith through Grace. Faith is a gift of the spirit, and the only way we can recieve these gifts is through Grace.

In the gospels somewhere Jesus says that no one comes to him but those who are called to do so. This is grace…Faith is our ability to believe his Word.

Your friend has the cart before the horse.

Secondly, the rapture is a theology only a few hundred years old, so a relatively new “theology” not based on the true context of the Bible. You will want to read “The Rapture Trap” to assist you in countering his claims.

On the Bible

**The council of Carhtage and Hippo affirmed the NT The canon of scripture for the OT was decided before the birth of Christ. There was a rabbinical gathering at Jamnia A.D. 90 which again affirmed the canon of these books. But again you are supporting the reduction of the books because they were removed by the council of Jamnia in 100 AD. The date means that when that group of Jews met it was well after the time of Jesus and was in response to the growing challenges of Christianity. It would seem to me that one would do well to KEEP the book as it was when Jesus was using it and that is what the Catholics have done. The Jerome discussion is that he was initially in accord with the Jews but as many scholars of today do, when shown the error of his thought he changed his mind and KEPT them in the cannon of scripture as included in the Vulgate edition of the bible. Your purposely omit a very important word in my sentence which was they AGAIN affirmed. They did not make any new doctrine here. They simply held what was held previously. **

** ****4) Jesus repeatedly teaches based on principes taught in scriptures (OT); never does He teach based off of the teachings of men. Scriptures is given primacy. You are spinning your wheels here because I am secure in this belief. You should remain secure in the primacy of Scripture but you shouldn’t limit God to just the written word. He reveals Himself slowing deliberately to each believer in ways each person will see. Catholics recognize that also teachings from the early Church and Jesus were not all written down in scripture just like the bible clearly says. **

You are livng a lie sir. You trust your faith tradition to reveal the truth to you beyond sola scriptura just like Catholics but without the authority of the direction of Jesus HIMSELF. And you do it without the understanding that you are guilty of adding to the bible all the while pointing to Catholics and saying they do that, here is what I mean about the hypocrisy: Show me in scripture the teaching about the trinity, show me where JESUS tells us we are justified by faith alone and not of works and also where he teaches us to rely only on scripture from scripture, show where in scripture we find these new protestant terms and ideas; Age of accountability, Total depravity of man, Personal Lord and Savior, Ask Jesus into your heart, The Rapture, the concept of the Invisible church, Limited atonement, Imputed righteousness, Covered with the righteousness of Christ, Eternal Security, Once saved-always saved and of course the Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura doctrines. What is the litmus test about Jesus having to have said the words? That is silly. I could throw the same ridiculous questions back at you. Where did Jesus teach that Mary was Sinless? When did Jesus teach that I would need to go to purgatory?

** sola Scriptura**

**If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative as God’s Word? (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15), Incredible. You are using Matthew23:2 where Jesus lambastes the Scribes and Pharisees for being hypocrites to teach we are supposed to follow tradition. The Pharisees were not charged to instruct God’s people on tradition but on what God had revealed. Go back to Deuteronomy 6 and see what they were charged to teach. Show me where God instructs the people of God to follow after the traditions of mankind. **

That is why I can agree with Luther on some point and be free to disagree on others. The church as individual believers are not infalliable. Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything a heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief, Protestants usually claim that they all agree “on the important things” like you said to me in my office the other day but who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not? If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)? And what about 2 Thes 3:6 where we are told to shun those who don’t listen to traditions? Here you go again. You are simply taking the teaching of another without practicing exegesis for yourself. What is the context here? Paul is teaching about idle people who wanted to spunge off of others. Paul tradition was to work with his own hands and not live off the goodness of others. Read the entire chapter to understand the context. When you do have context you have pretext. That is what you are practicing. You have a theory and then search out for scripture which you believe support that theory. Blasting out 2 Thess 3:6 without considering the cultural/historical and literary context is to rob the scripture of its intended meaning. What would this passage meant to the original audience. This is why you miss the boat. Let’s go back to Matthew 16. Who was there while the conversation was taking place? If you read it properly you will read you will realize that the other disciples were present. They heard Jesus’ word to Peter. If they knew that Peter was the head of the Apostle then why are James and John arguing about who can sit on the right hand (Mark 10:35-42). Surely, if Peter was commissioned as the Chief Apostle there is no way that the brothers would even be speculating of whether they could have a sit of such prominence. Surely since Peter had been given to the key to the kingdom and made the 1st Pope by Jesus himself that place of prominence would be reserved for himself. You keep throwing up what the 1st century believers taught and practiced. What about what the Apostle believed and practiced. See, that hold weight. Did James and John regard Peter as first amongst Apostles? If so, why did they have the gall to ask the question and since you fixate so much on what Jesus actually says why He not condemns them for quickly forgetting what he promises

As you continue to give more data which you purport to validate your aruguements you do not answer my questions
****1) If the Aprocphayal books were considered equal with the other OT books neither why Jesus does nor the Apostles quote from them. If the standard for inclusion is that a book must be quoted then there is a problem because if I am not mistaken not every book in the OT is quoted from which means that others should be eliminated. Too simplistic: Each division of the OT is referenced. The Law, History, Prophecy and Books of Wisdom. Of the many times that Jesus and the Apostles reference scripture not one time do they use the disputed books? Clear circumstantial evidence they were not on the same par. The onus is on you and your side is found lacking. The OT purpose was primarily to point to the coming of the Messiah. Understanding it is crucial to God’s progressive revelation.

sorry I can’t help, I can’t even read this. I have debated a lot of Baptists in my family, but will have to bow out, sorry.

Agreed. There’s not even enough gray matter here to start a cohesive thread.

[quote=eleusis]On the Bible

Where did Jesus teach that Mary was Sinless? When did Jesus teach that I would need to go to purgatory?

People who don’t understand Mary do not really understand Jesus! How can ANY Christian believe that God would allow his Son who was totally pure and sinless be born of a woman who was a sinner?? That makes no sense at all. The woman who was to bear the Son of God HAD to be as immaculate as He was!

There’s help for you here:

Bible Truths for Baptists

is the website of Stephen K. Ray, former Baptist, author of Crossing the Tiber (his conversion story) and Upon This Rock (a defense of the papacy). He is also the producer of many videos that explain the Catholic Church. His award-winning series on salvation is excellent.

Steve is a Bible teacher who really knows his stuff.

At the home page, go to “writings,” and then click on Steve Ray.

You’ll find article after article that Ray has written that explains the issues your co-worker is concerned about. Since Ray was a Baptist, it’s written in language that your co-worker and you will both understand.

Steve Ray is a gifted convert.


[quote=eleusis]Of the many times that Jesus and the Apostles reference scripture not one time do they use the disputed books?

More like “lots of times” – See James Akin’s “Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament” at
and “Defending the Deuterocanonicals” at

See also

Hope this helps!

Another reference link can be found in this thread:

I always try to keep them on one issue and go from there. Sola scriptura is the best place to start. When that goes everything goes and they know it. Ask him to give you the specific and explicit quote that says the Bible alone is all we need. Hammer that repeatedly. Then show where the Bible advocates Tradition and says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Just keep on this and don’t let him get you off track. Clamp on like a bulldog.

[quote=Katholikos]There’s help for you here:

Bible Truths for Baptists

Thank you very much for your assistance that website and all the others I have been sent have helped me a great deal. The debate has ignited across the office and I had a “former” catholic ask for my home email so he could correspond with me about “a few topics”.

Thanks again to each of you for helping me go about my Father’s business.

Very offended and scared that he said Methodists and Baptists were brothers. Umm…my father-in-law is a Baptist preacher, he preaches right across the street from a Methodist church, and if you’d ever been there and seen the Methodists come out of church and glare at us, while we’re waving and saying hi to them, you’d know for darn sure we aren’t brothers.

He has dedicated men put up signs that say Christ is Born!, while the Methodists are putting up their Happy Holidays signs. HUGE difference.

I wish you good fortune and wisdom in your discussions with your baptist friend.

Pt3 shows how much hard work you’re having to do when your friend asks for verifiable documents and when given verifiable documents immediately dismisses themon the ground that they’re not in the canon of scripture.

I don’t know enough to give you any help in the discussion though a few prayers will come your way (and your friend’s way). My prayer life is too awful to offer lots of prayers!

Don’t give up, and keep on with the prayer. There is hope and room for change - I was a deacon & lay preacher in a baptist church. If God can turn me (and many others) catholic he can soften your friend until there’s room for change.



Isn’t it strange that this Baptist is arguing over litature that was compiled by the Catholic Chruch, and others took it upon themselves to disect it.?

" I like that, we’ll keep that"

" No don’t like that ,lets get rid of it"

Ah !!! wonderful a Bible for every occassion, and it fits in perfectly with my lifestyle :rolleyes:

[quote=Christian4life]He has dedicated men put up signs that say Christ is Born!, while the Methodists are putting up their Happy Holidays signs. HUGE difference.

So can you point out what the differences are? He says the protestant churches only differ on ‘minor’ issues vice the Catholic biggies. However, I know that is a crock because there wouldn’t be the explosion of various churches if there really was no major differences. I am doing my own reading in Handbook of Denominations but it doesn’t go into enough details.

I took the advice I got on this thread and am dogging him on the concept of Sola Scriptaura and its fallacy in practice among Baptists and he has suddenly fallen silent and scooted out yesterday early from work.

Thank you to all of you for your assistance it appears we are making some dents in this guy’s “holier than catholics” attitude.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit