Replies to a Catholic

Today I had an encounter with a Catholic and the topic of the source of the "canon of scripture" came up, and I wanted to post my reply to him for the sake of the edification of others.


Many of you have never heard some of these points before, but they are important to properly being able to refute Catholicism.
Many people think that the canon of scripture was established at the Counsel of Nicea, but that is not the truth. Giving in on that matter really does surrender a lot of important points to Catholicism.

So, here is my reply with minimal editing. I hope it is both enlightening and informative.

1. The Catholics did not compile scripture, as they assert.
2. If they did, then they failed utterly, since scripture clearly shows their beliefs and practices to be wrong.
3. Scripture clearly shows that it is sufficient, entirely by itself, of teaching everything that a follower of Jesus needs.
4. Why, if scripture was made by and supports Catholics, would they forbid the reading of it by the common man and outlaw the translation of it into the common tongue for hundreds of years?

----------------------------
1. Catholics did not compile scripture.
The New Testament church had the other writings of the New Testament during the period that those things were being written. It is obvious from viewing scripture.

II Peter 3:15-17

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17  Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

This demonstrates that not only had Peter read the epistles of Paul, but the audience of people that he was writing to (this was a "general epistle" which means it was written to a large group, and not just a single church in a single city) had also read Paul's writings.
So, we already have the epistles of Paul read by Christians throughout the world.
Not only had they read those works, but there had been enough time for false teachers to try and twist those words, so obviously they had been available for some time.


Luke 1:1

1  Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

In beginning his account of the life of Christ and the Acts of the Apostles, Luke states that many others had already done such, and he was just giving further affirmation of to his audience.
Now, Luke was a Greek convert to Christianity that traveled with Paul, so he had spent his time out in regions that were just being turned to Christianity, yet he somehow had already seen several accounts of the Gospel.

So, we have both the epistles of Paul and the Gospels already having traveled widely within Christianity over 200 years before the "Counsel of Nicea."

Finally (though there are other places):
Col 4:16

16  And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

This passage shows how the various epistles were easily spread into various churches. They would read them, and then send them to others and others would send what they had been given to that church.

So, it is very clear, just by looking in the Bible, to see that the New Testament was spread and compiled for the understanding of the church long before Catholics had anything to do with it.

2. If the Catholics had compiled scripture, how did they miss so many passages that contradict their doctrine and practice?
In short: why does the Bible contradict Catholicism?

There are hundreds of points to demonstrate this, but I'll only go through a few of them.

I Tim 4:1-3

1  Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2  Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3  Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

This passage clearly states that commanding any member of Christianity not to marry (holy orders) and abstaining from meats (lent practices) are "doctrines of devils."


Mt. 23:8-10

8  But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10  Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

This passage says that we are to call no man "father" on Earth.
Now, obviously we can call our physical fathers "father," that is not what the passage is saying. The context around this makes it clear that we are to call no man "father" in a religious sense.
So, there we have the Bible clearly saying that the Catholic practice of calling a priest "Father" is wrong.



I Tim. 2:5

5  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Jesus is the one and only mediator between God and men.
That means there is no "Co-Mediatrix" in Mary and no need for a "priest" to help us to God.
With the point about the priests, you can go to Rev 1:6 or 5:10 and see that Jesus has made every Christian a king and a priest to God, so no other priest is necessary.

So there's 3 easy points showing that the Bible contradicts Catholic doctrine and practice.

I would think that if the Counsel of Nicea had really been the ones to compile scripture, they would have been smart enough to see that the thing they were compiling showed them all to be charlatans.
Either way that condemns Catholicism.

3. Scripture states clearly that it by itself is sufficient for teaching Christians what they need to properly worship God.


II Tim 3:16-17

16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The passage states that using scripture, and nothing else is mentioned here other than scripture, the man of God can be "perfect" and "throughly furnished unto ALL GOOD WORKS."
That passage leaves no room for needing "church tradition" or the "Magisterium."

4. If the Bible was made by Catholics and supports Catholic doctrine and practice, why was the reading of it by the common man and the translating of it into the common tongue forbidden for many hundreds of years by Catholics.

The list of names of men killed for translating, transporting translations, or possessing translations of scripture is incredibly long.

If the scripture was so on the side of Catholicism, why would they not want it read and understood by the common people?

The answer is plain. The scriptures condemn Catholicism, and the attempt to suppress their spread to the common people was an attempt to keep them from having the means of showing that condemnation and being free from Rome's power.

----------------------------

If this sparks any thoughts for anyone or any questions, I would love to hear what people think.
This was made in a hurry, so any mistakes or strange wording is my own fault for my speed.