Hi Geoff,

Let me see if I can assist you with some counter arguments.

He said:
Catholic Tradition versus the Bible.

Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that the Eucharist is a repeat-sacrifice of the one Sacrifice on Calvary and that Jesus comes back at the beck and call of the priest and voluntarily dies again at every Mass to help atone for sin.

This implies that the first Sacrifice was not sufficient to take away all sin. However,
the New Testament Book of Hebrews says . . .

This is all categorically wrong. We do not believe it to be a "repeat sacrifice" of the one on Calvary. We believe it to be one and the same sacrifice on Calvary — the one sacrifice of Christ made present to us. It's the way we apply the sacrifice of Christ to our sins — sacramentally.

Jesus was our Passover Sacrifice but the Jews had not only to make the sacrifice, they also had to *eat the sacrificed flesh* in order to be saved from the Angel of Death. So it is with Christ,
our Passover; we must eat His flesh to have eternal life.

He said:
Praying to the saints and to Mary also contradicts Scripture. The Bible teaches that God is a jealous God and we should pray to Him alone (Deuteronomy 4:15-26 and Deuteronomy 5:7-9), but elsewhere we are commanded to not contact the dead!

You are confusing prayer and worship. These verses forbid idolatry, but that's not what's going on here. Saints are not worshipped in Catholicism. The word in Latin for "pray" is the same as the word "ask", and that's all that prayer is; it is asking for someone to pray for you.

Also, it is not a question of "contacting the dead". What is forbidden there is receiving messages from the dead. This is the essence of mediumship. Prayer to the dead is entirely
one-way; no one expects the Saint to respond verbally.

He said:
Praying to the saints or Mary is a violation of both commandments above, not to mention the mass production of images, statues and figurines where people:

• pray to them
• bow to them
• leave them candles, and
• incense offerings!

This is sheer ignorance.  No one is bowing or praying to statues, or leaving them candles or incense offerings.  The person is bowing as a sign of respect to the Saint. Again, the prayer goes to the Saint, not the statue.  The candle symbolizes leaving one's prayer in a location as a vigil.  Incense is not made as an offering to a statue or a saint.

He said:
Mary and other disciples of Christ were simply men and women like us who have died; and to pray to them counts as communicating (and|or) worshiping the Dead, which dabbles with witchcraft, and necromancy, something God expressly prohibits in the Holy Scriptures!

Again, you aren't receiving any messages from them, so it is categorically not like that.

We know the saints are involved in our prayers from Revelation 5:8, where the saints in Heaven are holding bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints on earth. We know that the saints in Heaven surround us (Hebrews 12:1, 12:23). We know that the saints in Heaven can and do intercede for those on earth. (Jeremiah 15:1) So there is a host of stuff supporting prayer to the saints.

He said:
Jesus the Christ Himself, taught us how to pray, and it was to God the Father alone! (Matthew 6:5-13) Therefore, offering prayers to anyone else is against Scripture and is idolatry. Praying to Mary is a slap in God's face.

• So you don't pray to Christ or the Holy Spirit?

He said:
The Roman Catholic Church has taken it further and made things worse. The Pope has declared that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born with no sin (the Immaculate Conception dogma) which directly contradicts the Bible. The Bible says that all of Adam's descendents are cursed with sin from conception. Mary was conceived by a man and woman, and so bears this curse with the rest of us. Only Jesus was free of this curse, being that Mary was a virgin and was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, with no son of Adam involved.

Well, nowhere does it say that only men pass on the sinfulness gene. Jesus was sinless because He was God, and for no other reason.

Generally, any argument, that Mary "had to have sinned" based on Scripture, fails because the same verses that could be used to "prove" she "had to be" sinful, could also be used to "prove" Jesus "had to be" sinful, which He wasn't. So if there was an exception possible for Jesus, there very well could be an exception allowed for Mary.

He said:
Mary herself acknowledged her status as a sinner in her Magnificat (Luke 1:47), because she called on God her Savior! A sinless person doesn't need a savior. Therefore, Mary was a sinner and the Pope is making false doctrine!

Not true. Jesus *was* her Savior; He saved her from sin, only He saved her *before* she fell into sin, instead of *after*. You can save someone from a puddle by pulling them from it, muddy and wet, or by yanking them out of the way when they are about to step into it.

Either way, you are "saving" them from the puddle.

He said:
Speaking of the Pope, how about Pope John Paul II in 1986 calling leaders from any and every religion to come and join him in Italy to “stand side by side and ask God for peace.” They came; leaders from:

• Islam
• Hinduism
• Animism
• Native Americans
• Buddhist, and various leaders from:
  • Protestant
  • Catholic, and
  • Orthodox sects.

They prayed from their own religious writings, songs and beliefs. This “standing side by side” to pray together is tantamount to saying all religions point to the same deity, and all roads lead to Heaven. That is not what the Bible says.

That's patently absurd.  By no means does praying alongside someone mean that all religions point to the same deity or all roads lead to Heaven. That would be like saying, eating together in the same cafeteria means you're eating the exact same food.  It's just preposterous. 

• Why can't people pray in their own way in the same location without automatically embracing some form of syncretism?

You quoted Ezra 10:10-12:

I think you're in trouble if you want to apply this to the Christian Church. You'd better go off and form your own country and separate yourselves from the pagans in the land.

He said:
If pagan religions are okay with praying beside you, then that should be a big warning sign that something is wrong with you! Obviously, you don't stand for the "one way to God through Jesus, the Christ alone, and all else is heresy and false"!

• What does praying next to someone have to do with not standing for the
  "one way to God", etc.?
• Is there some magic force that interferes with your theology when a pagan starts to pray near you?
• What is it about physical proximity that causes everything to go haywire?

He quoted 2 Corinthians 6:15-18:

This is subject to interpretation. Obviously, it can't mean mere physical proximity; otherwise, we'd have to live very isolated lives. Perhaps the Amish interpret it this way, but most Fundamentalists and Evangelicals do not. Again, one would not interpret it to mean that a pagan cannot come into a Christian church service; otherwise, your evangelism would be wrong.

• What happens if a pagan comes into a church service and secretly prays to his god?
• Does that jeopardize the congregation?
• Perhaps he tells the Christian next to him what he is doing; do the "pagan cooties"
  demand that that Christian absent himself to remain pure and separate?

Just some things to think about.

He said:
It stands to reason that the best way to keep a lost person lost, is to make him think he is saved, when he is not. That way, he happily ignores all salvation messages, thinking that they don't apply to him since he is already "saved"!

This applies twofold when it comes to churches who teach "once-saved, always-saved".

He said:

• In light of these verses above, why would people want to pray to Mary or to the saints?

Because: "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." James 5:16

N.B./Note well, nothing prevents you from praying to Jesus as well; as well you should but as one would bring one's petitions to one's brothers and sisters in Christ on earth, so one would also want to bring them to one's brothers and sisters in Christ in Heaven.

He said:
And again, it explains why those standing for Scripture got persecuted! Satan's old habits die hard. What happened to the "True Church", only God knows.

Well, we know the gates of Hell did not prevail against Her (Matthew 16:19), and we know the words of God will never depart from Her. (Isaiah 59:20-21)

He said:
I am hearing a lot of "We are the original Church", as if that is some sort of guarantee of truth and correctness. Remember, the Jews were originally the Chosen people, and they screwed up and lost it.

The Jews did not have the Holy Spirit:

Moreover, the Jews did not *lose* the truth; rather, they did not *obey* the truth. They knew what was right and refused to follow it. Jesus rebuked them for what they did, more than what they believed theologically.

He said:

• Who says that can't happen again?

I say it has. I say the "Church" is not part of any "denomination": Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant. I say if the Catholic Church was started by Constantine, then it has been a false Church from the beginning, and is still so today.

Strange that so many Catholic teachings can be historically demonstrated long before Constantine.

He said:
The Roman Catholic Church is not the original, and they have no evidence to refute me with, only "tradition", which is a nice way to say legends.

• If you're going to arbitrarily dismiss all written historical evidence as "legends", which
  a priori, are false, then haven't you stacked the deck?
• Is it only a legend because it disagrees with your interpretation?
• Real history doesn't work this way; why should this history work this way?

He said:
The original is the Jewish children of Abraham, not the Catholic Church!

A pagan king shows no repentance and is credited in history as starting the Catholic Church. The early Roman Catholic Church is plagued with bad doctrine and corruption and greed, and this is objectively verifiable by the way.

Well, this "corrupt" Catholic Church sorted out for you which books of the Bible were authentic and which were not. I can never figure out why people who believe in the Bible so distrust the Church that judged, on the basis of Her traditions, which books belonged there.

He said:
Don't let the Roman Catholic Church deceive you!!

I firmly believe that in spite of Satan's efforts, many people in Catholic churches will get to Heaven. They are not deceived into the false doctrine and dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. However, I also firmly believe that if someone is going to hold to all tenets of Catholic doctrine and dogma, then they are deceived, and they will perish in the end for:

• idolatry
  • praying
  • worshiping, and
  • venerating Mary and the saints, instead of God, or
• trusting in good works, instead of surrendering to Jesus the Christ, or
• trying to earn salvation and do penance to atone for sin, rather than repenting and sinning no more; and giving all glory for the atoning salvation to Jesus alone.

You are so confused it's not even funny.

Catholics, as we have said, do not worship saints or Mary. We honor them and ask them as our brothers and sisters for prayer, not instead of praying to God, but in addition to praying to God.

We trust in the grace of God alone, not in our good works. It is the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the Cross that is the source of all our merits. To suggest that we believe that there is no need to repent, and sin no more, is just ignorance of what we teach.

The Catholic Catechism teaches:

Article 2: Grace and JustificationCCC Table of Contents II. Grace 1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. (cf. John 1:12-18; 17:3; Romans 8:14-17; 2 Peter 1:3-4)

He said:
Don't forget the thief on the Cross.

That man did not have the chance to be baptized, go to Confession or go to Mass, nor did he receive Last Rites, or have a chance to do penance for his sin(s) in order to get out of Purgatory. His death sentence doesn't count, because it was state imposed, not priest imposed, and yet Jesus, the Christ, said that very day, that the man would be with Him in Paradise!!

You're obviously not familiar with Catholic theology.

First of all, God is not bound by the Sacraments. They are guarantees of grace, but not the only way to obtain grace. Here we have an example of baptism of desire, i.e., someone who wants to be baptized, but who dies without being able to obtain water Baptism, nevertheless receives the grace of baptism.

Second of all, for someone who is baptized, there is no need to receive Confession or go to Purgatory for one's sins before Baptism.

Last Rites does not save you; it's simply the name of the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick and would not be required by the thief.

The grace of the Eucharist can likewise be received extra-sacramentally, for those unable to sacramentally receive it.

He said:
The Scripture says that when people listen to Jesus' message, and reject you, they are really reacting to Jesus' message, not to you personally. It has nothing to do with Church authority and it presumes that the “speaker” is proclaiming Jesus' message in Spirit and Truth.

Nevertheless, to reject someone who represents Jesus, is to reject Jesus. One can't accept Jesus and reject the one who proclaims His teachings. It has everything to do with Church authority since they represent Jesus and are sent In His Name.

He said:
RE: Scripture Alone:

† Scripture Only — Much Protestant theology depends on the notion that Scripture is the sole source of truth. Yet in John 21:25, we read that not everything is in Scripture. This is what the verse actually says:

Obviously, God could have preserved what He wanted us to know. The rest is not needed. No doubt it was good, but not essential, and so by the Holy Spirit's direction, those parts were not included. To say the Bible is missing parts, implies that God is not powerful enough to preserve the important truths! Besides, "everything" is an awful lot. I don't think we needed to know each step Jesus took between villages, or how long He stayed in each place, or what He ate at each mea, or where He got His clothes, etc., etc. To call it a fault, to not include everything, is foolish and naive!

To say the Bible is "missing parts" does not say God is not powerful enough to preserve the important truths, because He could have done so (and, we argue, has done so) through Tradition. Verses such as:

• 2 Thessalonians 2:15
• Romans 16:17
• 2 Thessalonians 3:6
• 1 Peter 1:25
• Jude 3
• 1 Thessalonians 2:13
• Isaiah 59:20-21
• 2 Timothy 1:13f
• 2 Peter 2:21, and
• Romans 10:14-18

all support the idea that the Word of God is oral, as much as it is written. If you sit down and look at it, the vast majority of references to the Word of God are either clearly oral, or ambiguous; very few identify the Word of God with the written Word (2 Timothy 3:15 is a notable exception).
So it should not be surprising that there are important things that are part of the oral Tradition,
and not part of the written Tradition.

He said:
In 1 Timothy 3:15, we read that the Church is the pillar of faith, not the Bible. This is what the passage actually says:

What this passage is talking about are guidelines for behavior and standards for church leadership and verse 15 must be examined in that context! God is the Pillar and foundation of Truth, and Jesus is the Cap Stone, or cornerstone, as mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament!

• And how does that context relate to interpreting what "pillar and foundation of the truth" refers to?
• In other words, how is it that you are arguing that the text doesn't say what it quite obviously says, namely, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

He said:
In 1 Corinthians 11, we are urged to hold on to all the traditions we have been taught.
This is what the passage actually says:

• What did Paul pass on to them?
  

He passed on to them the example and teachings of Christ! The teachings and examples of Christ are not traditions; they are the Word of God, aka Scripture!

You're begging the question. The teachings and examples of Christ were oral; the New Testament was not completed or even started for decades after Jesus died.

• How do you think the truth was taught before the New Testament was started?

They are traditions whether you choose to acknowledge them as such or not. Your translation is deceiving you; the word for "teachings" is paradosis, which means traditions, as the:

• NASB, New American Standard
• NKJV, New King James Version
• ASV, American Standard Version and
• other Bibles correctly translate the word.

It's the same word used in Matthew 15:3, so I don't want to hear that he is not talking about the traditions you condemn here. As I said earlier, Scripture more often than not identifies the Word of God as something oral, i.e., a tradition.

That is what Paul was passing down.

Hope this helps Geoff!

Eric