Catholicism is not Biblical (2)

Rather, I will simply address Pro’s arguments and hopefully offer the reader some semblance of a summation. I am severely limited in my word count, so my comments will be brief. Peter I have offered up significant evidence that Matthew supports the Catholic position where the rock that Jesus referred to was, in fact, Peter and “on this rock” Jesus will build his Church. Pro has argued that there is one and only one clear interpretation of this passage and that Jesus refers to himself as the Rock. Despite the evidence I have put forth that significant non-Catholic scholarship does not agree with his interpretation, Pro holds fast to his position. Similarly, I have shown how Peter drew from Isaiah when issuing they keys to Peter. Pro argues that it was not Peter who was given the keys, but rather all of the apostles. I have agreed with Pro that authority was given to all of the Apostles, but argued that the Prime Minister’s office was given to Peter alone. I have also provided evidence where Peter was first among the apostles, to which Pro’s response is that my evidence was not properly interpreted, and that the other Apostles had the same authority. Pro alludes that “Paul settled many such disputes” yet gives no specific examples. I again have provided non-Catholic Christian scholarship which agrees with the Catholic position on the meaning of the “keys”. . Pro argues that the bible interprets itself, but what is really happening here is that Pro feels his own interpretation is the only proper one in the face of a mound of evidence to the contrary. At a minimum, I feel I have provided at least some substantiation that the Catholic position is biblically based. Mary I first must acknowledge that I did miss-quote Pro in round 2. I quoted him as saying “full of grace”. I meant to acknowledge the Pro agreed that Mary was endowed with grace. I offer my sincere apologies for this mistake. In the final round Pro has provided us with a definition of holy to which I am very thankful. Catholics believe that God alone deserves the highest honor. In Latin, it is referred to “Latria”. In contrast, those human beings who have lived very saintly lives are also deserving of our honor. This term is called “Dulia”. Because God endowed upon Mary the very special honor of being the Mother of God incarnate, she is deserving of a very unique respect from us; in Latin, “hyperdulia (more that dulia). There is so much more to the Catholic doctrine on Mary, but limited space prevents me from going further. Suffice it to say, based on what Pro has put forth, the special respect that we have for Mary is biblical. Pro has not met his burden of proof in arguing that Mary is unholy. Deuterocanonical Pro insists that it is incumbent upon me to explain why the first century Jews did not include the Deuterocanonical as part of their canon. Frankly, I do not see the need. The Church established the Christian Cannon as previously outlined. For centuries included the deuterocanonicals starting in 382 AD. Pro brings up the Muratorian Canon, but I hope the reader will note that the fragment did not include James, John, Peter and Jude as well as the deutercanonicals [7], so are we to consider this source authoritative? I think not. Pro is dependent on Catholicism as authoritative when considering the books of the New Testament, but denies the Church’s authority with regards to the old. As stated before, you cannot have it both ways. Infant Baptism Pro and I are really close on this issue. We both agree that baptism is necessary for salvation. We both agree that a profession of faith is necessary for salvation. Pro has argued (successfully, I might add) that an adult should make a proper profession of faith before being baptized, and that this profession saves. My whole argument is that each element is salvific in nature and does not necessarily depend on the other. Infants obviously are not in a position to make a profession of faith, yet the baptism has great value. For the one who has made a profession of faith, but has not been baptized, the profession still has great value. This exemplifies their exclusivity. Since the bible does not exclude infant baptism, it is allowed. Conclusion I sincerely want to thank Pro for this debate. I consider him to be a forthright and honest person and it was a pleasure to have the exchange. I thank him for his prayers, I encourage him to continue his search for the truth as well. [7] . http://www.umass.edu...