Catholic Faith Defender

JOHN. 8:32 “et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos”

Archive for March, 2009


Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 24, 2009


By Carlos Antonio Palad

THE FIRST ENGLISH BIBLE, 1539: The Byble in Englyshe : that is to saye, the content of all the holy scrypture, bothe of ye olde and newe testament, truly translated after the veryte of the Hebrue and Greke textes, by ye dylygent studye of dyverse excellent learned men, expert in the forsayde tonges. [London] : prynted by Rychard Grafton & Edward Whitchurch, 1539.

In 1539, Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, hired Myles Coverdale at the behest of Henry VIII to publish the “Great Bible” – so-called because of its impressive physical size. It was the first Bible in English to be authorised for public use, being distributed to every church and chained to the pulpit.(By Fr. Abe)

Where did you get the Bible anyway?

When you have no time to defend the Catholic Church in detail, what should you say?

Carlos Antonio Palad

You have a friend who is a Born-Again Christian; well, not yet, perhaps, but she is attending Bible studies and services in a Born-Again or “nondenominational” church and is beginning to question your Catholic faith.

“Where is it in the Bible that we should pray to Mary?”

“Where is it in the Bible that we should have statues? Don’t these violate the Second Commandment?”

Ideally, any Catholic should know enough of the Bible in order to answer these basic questions. As St. Jerome said, “ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ,” and the Bible itself says “Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” (1 Peter 3:15)

Hopefully, you would be able to say that we pray to Mary because she is the Mother of all who follow Christ (cf. John 19:26-27 and Revelations 12, esp. 12:17) – and can we not talk to our mother? You could also say that we have statues because having statues is not actually forbidden by the Ten Commandments. What the Lord forbids is the worship of statues as if these are real gods in addition to Him, the one true God. The Lord Himself ordered statues that represent His power and presence to be made (Exodus 37:7-9, Numbers 21:8-9). Catholic statues of the Virgin Mary, of angels and saints, and of the Lord Himself, are not gods, but are reminders of God’s presence.

However, there will come a time when answering these questions will become very repetitive and tiring. Before even coming to that point, it would be better to stop the vicious cycle by challenging the very basis of all these questions.

So, next time your friend asks you another question that begins: “Where is that in the Bible…”, respond with your own questions: “Why do you believe in the Bible anyway? Where did you get the Bible, and how do you know that the Bible is God’s Word?”

Look at your friend’s eyes widen in shock and surprise when you answer: “The only reason why you and I consider the Bible to be the Word of God is because the Catholic Church says so!”

That’s right! The Bible didn’t just fall from heaven, while a thundering voice from out of nowhere proclaimed “THIS IS GOD’S WORD!” The Bible as we know it – with 27 books in the New Testament and 46 (for Protestants, 39) books in the Old Testament – did not even exist in the time of Christ and of the Apostles.

What we now call the Bible came into its final form only in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., when Church authorities sought to stop the proliferation of fake “Gospels” and “Epistles” and of the errors contained in these, by compiling a definite collection of books that can be considered as truly inspired by God and as containing the authentic teaching of Our Lord Jesus and His Apostles.
The complete story would take volumes to relate, but in a nutshell, here is how it went:

In 367, St. Athanasius of Alexandria – a great defender of the Divinity of Christ – wrote his “39th Festal Letter” in which he identified what books rightfully belong to the “New Testament.” He did this to protect his followers in Alexandria from believing in the various heresies and errors contained in bogus “holy books”. This was the first time that the “canon” or official list of books of the New Testament was identified. It gained immediate acceptance with most believers.

In the years 393, the Council of Hippo made the first enumeration of all the 73 books (both Old and New Testament) that we Catholics now consider as comprising the Bible. This same list was affirmed 4 years later, in 397, in the Council of Carthage. A few years later, Saint Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope St. Innocent I in a formal letter requesting the list of canonical books. The Pope replied in 405 A.D. with a letter confirming and reaffirming the canon given at Hippo and Carthage. Yet another Council in Carthage, in the year 419, reaffirmed the canon of the Bible given in previous Councils in Hippo and Carthage.

Now, some Born-Again Christians might complain: “But the Catholic Bible has a different Old Testament from the Old Testament that we use!” They’re right: the Catholic Old Testament has 46 books while the Protestant Old Testament has only 39 books.

There is an easy answer to this: the Catholic Old Testament is based upon the Greek Old Testament actually used in the time of Jesus Christ and accepted by all Christians for 1,500 years. The version of the Old Testament used by Protestants (including the “Born Again”), on the other hand, is based on a Hebrew version compiled several decades after Jesus lived and walked on the Earth. It was not accepted as the real Old Testament by any Christian until the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, did so in 1521. The differences between the Protestant and Catholic Old Testament also do not change the fact that Born Again Christians accept – without question – the Catholic New Testament.

So, next time someone tries to weaken your Catholic faith by using the Bible, remember: the Bible is a Catholic book.

Carlos Antonio Palad is an Associate of the Defensores Fidei Foundation, a group dedicated to teaching Catholics how to defend their faith. He is also part of the team behind the blog “Rorate Caeli” (http://rorate- caeli.blogspot. com)

Posted in Apologetics-General, Bible | Leave a Comment »

The Conversion to the Catholic Church of the Former Atheist Jennifer Fulwiler

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 20, 2009

The Conversion to the Catholic Church of the Former Atheist Jennifer Fulwiler


The Lord Jesus as the All-Powerful God [Pantokrator], King of the Universe and Teacher of All.

From Atheist to Catholic

‘Unshakable’ Rationalist Blogged Her Way Into the Church
BY Nona Aguilar

March 22-28, 2009 Issue Posted 3/13/09 at 8:04 AM
‘Unshakable’ Rationalist Blogged Her Way Into the Church
Jennifer Fulwiler “always thought it was obvious that God did not exist.”

Fulwiler grew up a content atheist. Having a profound respect for knowledge, particularly scientific knowledge, Fulwiler was convinced that religion and reason were incompatible. Not surprisingly, she was also emphatically anti-Christian and, especially, anti-Catholic. “Catholic beliefs seemed bizarre and weird,” she says.

Fulwiler would have been astonished to know that she and Joe Fulwiler, her husband, would come to embrace those “bizarre,” “weird” beliefs. On Easter 2007, they entered the Catholic Church with deep joy and a sense of coming home — and a blog aided their conversion.

Register correspondent Nona Aguilar spoke to Jennifer Fulwiler about the couple’s unexpected journey.

There is always a first step that leads to belief in God. What was yours?

Thanks to meeting and knowing my husband, I learned that belief in God is not fundamentally unreasonable. We met at the high-tech company where we both worked. Joe believed in God — something that, fortunately, I didn’t know for a while.

Why was that fortunate?

To me, belief in God was so unreasonable that, by definition, no reasonable person could believe in such a thing. I felt I could never be compatible with someone that unreasonable. Had I known that Joe believed in God, I would never have dated him.

What was your reaction when you found out?

It gave me pause. Joe is too smart — brilliant, really, with degrees from Yale, Columbia and Stanford — to believe in something nonsensical. I also met many of his friends. They, too, are highly intelligent — some with M.D.s and Ph.D.s from schools like Harvard and Princeton — and believed.

None of this made me believe in God, of course, but I could no longer say that only unreasonable or unintelligent people believe.

What caused you to consider the question more seriously?

I have always been a truth-seeker, which is why I was an atheist. But I had a prideful, arrogant way of approaching questions about life and meaning. I now realize that pride is the most effective way to block out God so that one doesn’t see him at all. Certainly, I didn’t.

The birth of our first child motivated me to seek the truth with humility. I can’t emphasize this point enough: Humility, true humility, is crucial to the conversion process.

Most atheists are unchanged after their children’s births. Why were you so affected?

First, I had already begun thinking about the possibility of God’s existence. After our son’s birth, I wanted to know the truth about life’s great questions — for his sake. For the first time, I was motivated to seek truth with true humility. For example, I began reading, studying, and thinking about the great minds. Most, if not the majority, believed in some other world, some higher power, a god or gods — something. Even the great pre-Christian thinkers like Plato, Aristotle and Socrates believed.

Another avenue of exploration: I always revered the great scientists, including the founders of the significant branches of science. Very few were atheists. Indeed, some of the greatest were profoundly believing Christians.

It could be argued this was because they were steeped in the Christian culture and beliefs of their times.

That ignores a larger question I began asking myself: Is it really likely that great minds like Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Descartes and others didn’t know how to ask tough questions? Do these people seem to be men who didn’t know how to question assumptions and fearlessly seek truth? Of course not.

Was your husband a help in this process?

Eventually, but not at first. Religion wasn’t something we talked about. Joe was a non-churchgoing Baptist, which was fine by me. In fact, since I was an atheist, I considered not talking about God to be a good compromise. Our lives were completely secular — just like our wedding.

No church wedding?

Definitely not! I wore a purple dress; we married in a theater with a friend officiating, using vows we wrote ourselves. The ceremony took seven minutes, then we all partied all night long. In fact, we didn’t even technically get married at our wedding: We did that at city hall a few days before.

Was there ever an aha moment that finally made you abandon atheism?

Several, but one in particular actually shocked me.

I asked myself two questions: What is information? And: Can information ever come from a non-intelligent source?

It was a shocking moment for me because I had to confront the fact that DNA is information. If I remained an atheist, I would have to believe that all the intricate, detailed, complex information contained in DNA comes out of nowhere and nothing.

But I also knew that idea did not make sense. After all, I don’t look at billboards — which contain much simpler information than DNA — and think that wind and erosion created them. That wouldn’t be rational. Suddenly, I found that I was a very discomfited atheist.

Is that the point at which you began to believe in God?

No. But now I was a reluctant atheist. I had lots of questions but knew no one who might have answers: I had always consciously, deliberately distanced myself from believers. So, coming from the high-tech world, where did I go for answers? I put up a blog, of course! I started posting tough questions on my blog.

One matter stood out from the beginning: The best, most thoughtful responses came from Catholics. Incidentally, their answers were consistently better than the ones from atheists. It intrigued me that Catholics could handle anything I threw at them. Also, their responses reflected such an eminently reasonable worldview that I kept asking myself: How is it that Catholics have so much of this all figured out?

Was your husband helpful to you at this point?

As I started telling Joe some of the answers that I was getting, especially from Catholics, his own interest in religion — and Catholicism — was piqued. We have always been a great team, so it was wonderful that we were exploring these issues and questions together, especially since we were so anti-Catholic.
Both of you?

Yes. I thought the Church’s views on most things, but especially marriage, contraception and abortion (since I was then ardently pro-choice), were simply crazy. Joe’s anti-Catholicism, while different, was stronger and more settled. He didn’t understand any Catholic doctrine or apologetics, so he fell into a stereotyped view of Catholics, thinking that they made idols of the pope and Mary, etc. Also, it never really occurred to him to take seriously the idea that Jesus founded one Church. He just assumed the way to pick a church is to find one that fits your personality.

Your conversion has impacted your daily life. What change, in particular, stands out in your mind?

Community! There is nothing like it in atheism. I never understood what people meant by members of the Church being part of the body of Christ, but now I really get it. By being part of the one, holy Catholic Church, there is a palpable connection I now have with other Catholics, even people I don’t know. It’s been amazing to experience that connection and community.

Nona Aguilar writes
from New York City.

Posted in Converts | 1 Comment »

SUKNAAN (December 7, 2008)

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 20, 2009


Ni Bro. Socrates C. Fernandez

Date: December 7, 2008

Source: Bag-ong LUNGSORANON, Page 8

Topic: Santa Maria-Kanunay’ng Ulay


Nganong moingon man kamo nga si Maria inahan ni Jesus, ulay kanunay? Dili ba si San Jose bana ni Maria ug kay magtiayon man sila, dili sala kon maghimo sila sa buhat sa magtiayon: Kini nahimo ni Jose kay giingon sa kasulatan, “Ug wala si Jose makighilawas kang Maria sa wala pa siya manganak kang Jesus, ang anak niya nga panganay,” (Mat. 1:25) Klaro, nga human manganak si Maria kang Jesus gihilabtan na ni Jose si Maria. Giingon usab nga si Jesus adunay manghud: “Dili ba kini si Jesus, ang panday, ang iyang inahan mao si Maria, ang iyang mga amahan mao si Jose? Ug ang iyang igsoon mao sila si Santiago, Judas, Jose ug si Simon ug ang iyang mga igsoong mga babaye ania man uban kanato?” (Mar. 6:3). Tubaga kini (Dan Cugtas, Lawaan II, Talisay City, Cebu).


Gitagna nga usa ra si Jesus nga anak sa Iyang inahan nga mao si Maria, ug wala Siya’y manghud. Si Profeta Ezekiel miingon: “Ania ang usa ka pultahan, moagi niini ang Ginoong Dios sa Israel. Ug wala nay tawo nga moagi pa niini nga pultahan, kay kini pagasirhan na” (Ezek. 44:3). Ang mga lalawigan sa Palestina mao ang Judea, Samaria ug ang Idmea. Sila adunay mga ganghaan, apan daghan ang miagi ug misulod niini. Ang bugtong pultahan nga gipasabot nga giagian sa Ginoong Dios sa Israel mao ang tagoanggan ni Maria. Ug kini tak-opan na.

Ang giingon: “Wala hilabti ni Jose si Maria hangtud nga siya nag-anak kang Jesus nga iyang panganay,” Wala magpasabot nga dunay nahitabo human sa pagpanganak ni Maria. Kay sa Bibliya ang pulong “hangtud” wa’y gipasabot nga human sa okasyon nga gihangturan dunay sunod nga mahitabo: “Gipadala ni Noe ang uwak, apan wala na kini mobalik hangtud nahubas ang tubig,” (Gen. 8:7). Wala magpasabot nga human mahubas ang tubig mibalik ang uwak. Busa ang pag-ingon nga “Wala hilabti ni Jose si Maria hangtud nanganak kang Jesus,” nagpasabot nga bisan humana manganak si Maria kang Jesus, si Jose wala mohilabot kang Maria. Ang pulong hangtud maoy gigamit sa mga karaang Bibliya nga hubad bisan sa atong mga igsoong Protestante sa Mat. 1:25.

Ug kining giingon nga mga igsoon ni Jesus dili mga anak ni Jose ug ni Maria. Ang ilang ginikanan mao si Alfeo-Kleopas ug Maria usab ang ngalan sa iyang asawa (Luk. 6:13-16, Juan 19:25-26, Mar. 15:40). Gitawag sila ug igsoon ni Jesus, kay ang asawa ni Kleopas paryenti ra usab ni Santa Maria inahan ni Jesus, subay kini sa ilang kultura (Ezek 11:25, Roma 9:3). Ang pulong “panganay” nagkahulogan nga mao ang una nga miagi sa tagoangkan sa inahan, bisan pa og wala kini manghud (Exudos 13:1). Lahi sa kamagulangan, kay kini nagpasabot nga dunay mga manghud. Si Jesus gitawag og “panganay” sa mga balaan nga nagsunod sa kabubot-on sa Dios, apan dili sa pagkamagsoon sa unod, kay si Jesus wala may mga manghud, (Zacarias 12:10). Sila nagbangotan tungod kaniya, ingon sa usa ka anak nga bugtong..iyang Anak nga panganay.

Posted in Apologetics-Visayan, Santa Maria (Visaya), Socrates C. Fernandez, SUKNAAN (Visaya) | 1 Comment »

What the Pope really said about AIDS and condoms

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 18, 2009

What the Pope really said about AIDS and condoms

Pope Benedict XVI

Aboard the papal plane, Mar 18, 2009 / 11:35 am (CNA).- Yesterday the international media played host to a raft of experts railing against Pope Benedict’s brief words on the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS. However, the incident was the result of the Pope’s words being pulled from his defense of the Church’s personalistic approach to the AIDS crisis.

The vast majority of the Pope’s words were dedicated to explaining how the best response to AIDS is to promote a spiritual and human renewal of people’s understanding of sexuality and to be willing to live true sacrificial friendships with those who suffer from AIDS.

A full transcript of the exchange follows.

A journalist from French state TV asked Pope Benedict:

“Holy Father among the many evils that affect Africa there is also the particular problem of the the spread of AIDS. The position of the Catholic Church for fighting this evil is frequently considered unrealistic and ineffective.

“Will you address this issue during your trip? Holy Father, could you please respond in French to this question?” he asked.

Although the Pope responded to a previous question from the French newspaper La Croix in French, he gave this in-depth answer in Italian.

“I would say the opposite.”

“It is my belief that the most effective presence on the front in the battle against HIV/AIDS is precisely the Catholic Church and her institutions. I think of the Community of Sant’ Egidio, which does so much, visibly and invisibly to fight AIDS, of the Camillians, of all the nuns that are at the service of the sick.

“I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness – even through personal sacrifice – to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.

“Therefore, I would say that our double effort is to renew the human person internally, to give spiritual and human strength to a way of behaving that is just towards our own body and the other person’s body; and this capacity of suffering with those who suffer, to remain present in trying situations.

“I believe that this is the first response [to AIDS] and that this is what the Church does, and thus, she offers a great and important contribution. And we are grateful to those that do this.”

Posted in Moral Issue, Pope Benedict XVI | Leave a Comment »

Books of Catholic Faith Defenders

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 18, 2009

Books of Catholic Faith Defenders

Authored by Bro. Socrates Fernandez

Title: Ang Taming

Language: Cebuano

This booklet contains the summary of chapters and verses of the Bible used by Catholic Faith Defenders in defending the true church against Protestant objections, heretics and even anti-catholic criticisms.

Title: Argumento Biblico

Language: Cebuano

This booklet contains Biblical answers and defends in defending the Catholic Doctrine against Protestant arguments. This booklet also contains some techniques in argumentation and debate.

Title: Katin-awan

Language: Cebuano

This book contains a complete Biblical defends against Protestant Objections and criticisms. All Catholics must have this book so that they will know the truth and knowledge of the Catholic Teaching.

Title: Katin-awan II

Language: Cebuano

This book contains Catholic Biblical answers primarily in the questions of our Protestant brethren with regards in the Catholic Doctrines and Dogma.

Title: Defense: Catholic Truth

Language: English

This book contains a complete Biblical defends against Protestant Objections and criticisms. This book was intended to our brethren whom do not understand the Cebuano dialect.

Posted in Books (Products) | 7 Comments »

SUKNAAN (March 22, 2009)

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 17, 2009


Ni Bro. Socrates C. Fernandez

Date: March 22, 2009

Topic: Larawan


Giingon ni Jesus, “Maingon nga si Moises nagpatindog ug halas sa kamingawan mao usab patindugon ang anak sa Tawo. Aron ang tanan mutuo Kaniya dili mawala kondili makaangkon sa kinabuhi nga walay katapusan,” (Juan 3:14). Mao ba kini nga ang gipasukaran sa mga Katoliko nga dunay larawan ni Kristo nga linansang sa krus diha sa inyong simbahan? Apan wala ba kini mahasumpaki sa giingon ni Jehova “Kay ang tanang mga dios sa mga katawhan mga larawan man…” (Sal. 96:5), dili ba klaro nga kadtong mga miingon nga naghupot silag larawan, kini nahimo nga ilang mga dios, sumala sa Bibliya?


Ang gisulti ni Jesus usa ka sukaranan sa Katoliko bahin sa larawan. Matin-aw ang tumong sa Dios nga nagpahimo Siya ug larawan nga sinalsal o kinulit sa dagway sa anghel o kerubin ug larawan sa baalang mga tawo, kini nagsimbolo sa presensiya sa Dios.

Saysay sa Templo sa Dios. Ug kini hinimo, ang uban ang mga kerubin ug mga kahoy’ng palma, sa pagkaagi dihay nawong sa tawo nga nag-atubang sa kahoy’ng palma ug nawong sa batan-ong leon atubangan sa kahoy’ng palma,” (Ezek. 41:18-22). Ug ang GINOO nag-ingon, “Akong gipahiluna ang Akong kaugalingon sa kerubin,” (1 Cronicas 13:6). Ug gani sa diha nga gidala kini sa balay ni Obed-edom, ang balay ni Obed-edom napuno sa panalangin sa Dios, (1 Cron. 13:14).

Si Josue nga nag-ampo atubangan sa maong kaban o arka nga may larawan sa kerubin, wala siya mag-ampo sa kerubin kondili ngadto ni Yahweh nga Dios sa Israel: “Gigisi ni Josue ang iyang sapot ug mihapa atubangan sa kahon ni Yahweh uban sa mga anciano ug gibutangan nilag abo ang ilang ulo… siya miingon, “Oh Yahweh, among Ginoo, nganong kami Imong gidala dinhi tabok sa Jordan?…” (Josue 7:6-7).

Wala ipasimba sa Dios ang Iyang gipabuhat nga larawan ingon nga kini mao ang MATUOD NGA DIOS. Hinoon gisugo nga kini tahuron sa katawhan sa Dios. Tahura ninyo ang Akong santuario, kay Ako ang inyong GINOO,” (Lev. 19:30). Sa diha nga ang larawan sa bitin nga bronsi nga gigamit sa Ginoo nga kon sud-ongon kini makaluwas sa pinaakan sa mga tawo ilang gisimba, kini gipaputol-potul sa GINOO, ug gipatunaw (2 Hari 18:4).

Busa klaro nga ang Dios nagsugo nga dunay mga gipabuhat nga linilok nga larawan, ang kerubin ug mga balaan, apan dili kini ilhon nga Dios. Busa wala mahiapil ang katawhan sa Dios nga ilang mga larawan mao ang ilang dios (Sal. 96:5), kondili gitumong kadto sa Dios sa mga pagano. Giingnan sila sa Dios, “Sila pakaulawan gayud kanang nagsalig sa linilok nga larawan kanang nga-ingon sa tinunaw nga larawan: Kamo mao ang among mga dios,” (Isaias 42:17). Ug dili kini referedo sa mga Katoliko… “Our Catholic worship is not directed towards the images but to (God) whom they represent…” (Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 2132).

Posted in Apologetics-Visayan, Larawan (Visaya), Socrates C. Fernandez, SUKNAAN (Visaya) | Leave a Comment »


Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 16, 2009


By: Fr. Abe Arganiosa, CRS


In an unexpected gesture Bro. Rodimus apologized on the issue of John 4:5 and John 1:1. Once apology is given the love of Christ urges us to accept it. It is a command of charity then to return love for love and from then on walk in the light of Peace. Let us praise the Lord, not because Bro. Rodimus apologized, but because His truth is setting us free. Truly, His great love is without end.
Here is the apology of Bro. Rodimus and followed by my own posted in his blog comment section:
Friday, March 13, 2009

An apology to all

After much consideration on the facts, I hereby admit that I stand corrected on John 4:5 and John 1:1 as well. The posts have been deleted.
Furthermore, I apologize to Defensores Fidei Foundation especially to Atty. Marwil Llasos, Fr. Abe Arganiosa, and Mr. Cenon Bibe for the things I said about them. I was supposed to exchange information instead I ended up trash talking about yourselves. Please forgive my arrogance and sarcasm. So I therefore take back what I said.
I apologize to my colleagues for I went rogue and acted on my own. You don’t have to be held accountable for my actions.
I’m sorry, everyone.
Fr. Abe, CRS said…
N.B.: I capitalized my message for stressing my points and not for any emotional outburst. He,he,he…
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Rev. Fr. Abe P. Arganiosa, CRS

March 13, 2009 6:26 PM

Posted in Bereans, Debate, Doctrinal Comparison, Frequently Asked Questions, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Virgin Mary | 4 Comments »

Apologetics for the Masses – Issue #112 (Sola Scriptura)

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 16, 2009


Topic: Apologetics for the Masses – Issue #112

General Comments

Hey folks,

I’ll be in Fayetteville, TN – St. Anthony’s parish – tomorrow morning to give a couple of talks. If you’re in the south central part of Tennessee or the North Central Alabama area, I’d love to have you come by. The talks start at 9:00 AM.

My travel schedule, combined with some other things that are going on right now, has put me behind in getting these newsletters out the last couple of weeks. The next several weeks, though, should be a little less hectic and the newsletters should be pretty regular.

As always, I have very much appreciated the comments regarding the individual chapters of the book. The comments are being read and are being given due consideration, and a lot of your advice and suggestions will be reflected in the final version.

Again, though, you don’t need to comment about spaces between letters and strange characters appearing in the copy – those are server-to-server email translation problems that I can do nothing about. Neither the spaces, nor the extraneous characters are in the original.


This newsletter contains the second half of chapter 3 – the scriptural perspective on Sola Scriptura. Actually, I might go ahead and make it a separate chapter – to keep each chapter relatively short.

As always, comments and suggestions, and editing of typos, misspelled words, grammatical errors, etc. is welcomed and appreciated.

By the way, as it will be stated in the introductory pages of the book, all scripture quotations, unless otherwise stated, come from the Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) of the Bible.


The Perspective Provided by Scripture

We have seen that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura fails the tests of logic and history, but what about the all–important test of Scripture? What does Scripture say about Sola Scriptura? Does the Bible teach that it is the sole infallible authority for deciding matters related to Christian teaching and practice? In other words, does the Bible teach that it is the sole rule of faith for the Christian?

Well, let’s look and see. First of all, it has to be admitted by all that there is no passage in the Bible which explicitly states that the Bible is the “sole authority” for Christians, or the “sole rule of faith” for Christians. But, are there passages that implicitly state this? Proponents of Sola Scriptura say that indeed there are such Scripture passages, and the first such passage they usually turn to is 2 Tim 3:16–17.

Tim 3:16–17 reads as follows: “All scrip ture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” First, as a Catholic, let me say that I agree 100% with this passage. “Amen,” I say! However, it nowhere says anything about the Bible being the sole rule of faith for the Christian.

There are two main things to note about this passage: 1) It says scripture is “profitable”, it does not say scripture is “all sufficient”; in other words, it does not say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians…the sole authority in matters of faith and morals for Christians; and, 2) Nowhere do we see the word “alone” in this passage, as in “scripture alone”.
What this passage is saying, and all this passage is saying, is that all of Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teachi ng and correction and so forth. As a Catholic, I agree…I agree with that 100%. With every passage of Scripture, I, as a Catholic, agree.
Scripture is indeed inspired and it is indeed profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. We need to read Scripture. We need to know it. We need to ponder it, soak in it, meditate on it, pray it, and be able to share it. But, this passage still doesn’t say Scripture is the sole rule of faith for Christians. People try to force this scripture verse to say something that it doesn’t actually say.
“But,” someone might say, “this verse says that the scriptures are given so that the man of God may be complete, or, as it says in the King James Version (KJV), that the man of God may be perfect.” And they argue that if the Scriptures make one perfect, then there is no need for anything else.
Ther e are, however, a couple of problems with that interpretation. First of all, it doesn’t say Scripture “alone” makes the man of God complete or perfect. For example, a soldier needs a rifle to be complete, to be made perfect for battle. But, is a rifle the only thing he needs to be complete? No. He needs his helmet, his boots, his fatigues, his backpack, his ammunition, and so on. In other words, he needs his rifle to be complete, to be perfect for battle, but not his rifle alone. Just so the man of God in relation to Scripture. He needs the Scriptures to be complete, to be made perfect, but it does not say Scripture alone.
The other problem with this interpretation is presented by Scripture itself. In James 1:3–4, it says this: ”…for you know that testing of your faith produces steadfastness [patience]. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” James is telling us that steadfastness, or patience, makes the Christian, the man of God, “perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
So, what are the implications here? Well, if we interpret this verse the same way Sola Scriptura adherents interpret 2 Tim 3:16–17, then we have a good case for arguing that patience “alone” is all that is needed for the man of God to be made perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Apparently he doesn’t even need Scripture, as long as he has patience. The Bible says that with patience a Christian is “lacking in nothing.” Again, using the method of interpretation used by Sola Scriptura adherents in 2 Tim 3:16–17, we have a pretty good argument that patience alone is all the man of God needs to be complete, perfect, lacking in nothing. It’s not Sola Scriptura, it’s Sola Patientia – patience alone.
Another big problem with 2 T im 3:16–17, for those who try to use this passage as scriptural support for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, is found in the context of the passage itself. These verses apparently prove too much when interpreted as teaching Sola Scriptura. If you go back just one verse and read 2 Tim 3:15, you’ll see what I mean. In verse 15, Paul says to Timothy, “…and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” The sacred writings that Timothy has known from childhood?! Now, even though Timothy was a relatively young man, few, if any, of the books of the New Testament had been written when Timothy was a child. In other words, the “scripture” being referred to here is the Old Testament.
Paul is clearly talking about the Old Testament here. So, if one wants to interpret this passage as “proving” Sola Scriptura, t hen what they are actually “proving” is that it is the Old Testament scripture “alone” that is able to make the man of God perfect. Sola Old Testament Scriptura. Again, Paul is talking about the O.T. here, not the N.T.! So, it would seem to be saying more than any proponent of Sola Scriptura would want to admit to – instead of Sola Scriptura…instead of the Bible alone – it seems to be saying the Old Testament alone is necessary “that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
Some have argued that even though when Paul wrote 2 Timothy he was indeed referring to the Old Testament, that his words came to include the New Testament scriptures as well, once the various New Testament books were written down. Well, I would agree with that. I agree that Paul’s words to Timothy are applicable to both Old and New Testament scriptures.
However, that does not solve the problem for those who try to find Sola Scriptura in these verses. Paul saying that all scripture is inspired of God and profitable for teaching and so forth is indeed true of all Scripture – Old and New Testament – even if Paul was referring specifically to the Old Testament scriptures at the time he wrote those words. However, if you interpret this verse as teaching Sola Scriptura, you still have an insurmountable problem. The problem is that a Sola Scriptura interpretation gives the verse one meaning when Paul wrote it, but a completely different and contradictory meaning now. It also makes the New Testament scriptures unnecessary for the early Christians.
According to a Sola Scriptura interpretation of these verses, Paul was telling Timothy that the Old Testament alone was the sole rule of faith – the sole authority in matters of faith and morals – for the Christian. That has to be the interpretation becaus e Paul is clearly referring to the Old Testament in these verses. But in our day, the Sola Scriptura Christian rejects the notion that the Old Testament alone is the sole rule of faith for the Christian. Which means, a Sola Scriptura interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16–17 necessitates a change in doctrine. What was supposedly true for Timothy and other early Christians – Sola Old Testament Scriptura – is no longer true for Christians of our age.
So, for a sola scriptura interpretation of these verses to be true, doctrine needs to have changed. Truth, in essence, needs to have changed. But, does truth change? Ever? Do you know of any other place where Scripture gives us a doctrinal teaching that was supposedly true for the early Christians, but is now false for Christians of our time?
Also, when Paul wrote to Timothy, around 65 A.D. or so, several books of the New Testament had indeed been written. But, these we re not books that Timothy would have known “since childhood.” So, again, Paul’s words to Timothy were not referring to these books of the New Testament that had already been written. But, if you interpret these words as teaching Sola Scriptura, then you in essence have Paul saying that, even though many books of the New Testament were in existence at the time of his letter to Timothy, they were basically unnecessary for the man of God to be made complete, to be equipped for all good works or, as verse 15 says, “to instruct you for salvation.”
In other words, to interpret these verses from 2 Timothy as teaching the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is to basically have Paul telling Timothy that the books of the New Testament, which were in existence at that time, were unnecessary for the man of God to be complete – unnecessary for the man of God to be equipped for every good work. Does that make any sense at all? All the Christian “man of God” of the time needed was the Old Testament?
For all of these reasons just mentioned, I think it is indeed a very reasonable position to reject the notion that 2 Tim 3:16–17 teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
“But,” someone might ask, “what about the Bereans?” Acts 17:11 says, “Now these Jews [the Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the Word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” The King James Version of the Bible says that they “searched” the Scriptures daily.
You know, I keep hearing about these Berean folks from Acts 17. And, every time I hear about them, someone is using them to “prove” Sola Scriptura, to prove that one should go by the Bible alone. They say that the example of the Bereans proves Sola Scriptur a, because the Bereans were searching Scripture to see if what Paul was saying was true. But, again, the problem is that nowhere does this verse say the Bereans went by the Bible alone. In fact, it is well known that Jews, whether in Berea or elsewhere, did not go by the Bible alone – they did not practice Sola Scriptura – they believed in authoritative Scripture and authoritative tradition. Which means Jesus, being a good Jew, didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura. And, as I’ve already mentioned, neither did the early Christians.
What was going on here with the Bereans in Acts 17 was this: Paul was preaching to them about Jesus being the Messiah. And Paul, in his preaching, would quote Scripture verses – from the Old Testament – that he would say pointed to Jesus. Paul would say something along the lines of, “It has been testified somewhere…” and the Bereans would then simply open up their Scripture s to verify what Paul was saying. They were not searching the Scriptures to settle doctrinal disputes, they were searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was actually in the Scriptures!
Plus, the fact that the Bereans: a) Didn’t already know the Scripture verses were there, and b) had to “search” the Scriptures to find the verses Paul was quoting, actually might indicate that they weren’t all that familiar with the Scriptures; which, if they were believers in Sola Scriptura, seems to be a pretty odd thing.
Plus, if this verse is a “proof” of Sola Scriptura then you again have the same problem that I mentioned earlier – the Bereans were Jews and the only scriptures they had were the Old Testament scriptures. So, if Acts 17:11 “proves” Sola Scriptura, then it would be proving Sola Old Testament Scriptura.
Furthermore, the fact tha t the Bereans obviously did not understand the true meaning of the Scriptures until Paul explained it to them, actually works against the Sola Scriptura position. One of the necessary corollaries to a belief in Sola Scriptura is the belief in individual private interpretation of Scripture. That each individual, guided by the Holy Spirit, has the ability to read the Bible for themselves – without answering to any outside authority – in order to come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation.
Yet, the example of the Bereans shows us that this obviously isn’t the case. The Bereans needed Paul to explain the Scriptures to them. The Bereans, left alone with the Scriptures, obviously had not come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation. They needed a guide, Paul, to correctly interpret Scripture for them. Which means the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, with its corollary of individual private interpretation of Scripture, obviously isn’t supported by this passage from Acts 17 about the Bereans.
Which means, when all is said and done, two of the predominant Scripture passages used by folks to “prove” Sola Scriptura, upon close and thoughtful examination, actually inflict serious, if not fatal, blows upon that doctrine. These passages clearly do not mean what the Sola Scriptura advocates try to make them mean. Furthermore, there are numerous passages that point to the fact that individual interpretation of Scripture…each person reading and interpreting the Bible on their own to determine for themselves what is and is not correct Christian doctrine and practice…is quite contrary to the Word of God.
The Bible states that fairly directly. If we look at 2 Ptr 1:20, we find the following: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’ s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation. I don’t know if it can be said any more plainly or directly that the principal of private interpretation, one of the foundations the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is built upon, is contrary to the Bible.
Look at Acts chapter 8. Acts 8:27–31, “And he [Philip] rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah…So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And [the Ethiopian] said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’”

< div>“How can I, unless some one guides me?” This was obviously an Ethiopian Jew. He was a very educated man, we know that from that fact that he was one of the Queen’s ministers, and not just any minister, but he was, in essence, the Secretary of the Treasury for the entire kingdom of Ethiopia. He was a man of worship, having come all the way from Ethiopia to worship in Jerusalem – no easy task in those days. Yet, what does the Bible say, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And the response, from this educated man who had come from so far away to worship in Jerusalem? “How can I unless someone guides me?”

And what did Philip say in response? Did he say, “Just pray to the Holy Spirit and He will guide you?” No! Philip got up in the chariot with this man and explained the meaning of Scripture to him. Philip was this man’s guide in reading, interpreting, and understanding Scriptur e.
Scripture is very clear, as we see in Peter’s letter, and the Book of Acts – both with the Ethiopian eunuch and the Bereans – and other places as well, that we must have a guide, an authority, other than the Bible, in order to properly understand the Bible. Having a guide to help us properly interpret Scripture is scriptural. Individual interpretation of Scripture, everybody reading the Bible on their own to decide what is and is not correct doctrine…what is and is not sound moral teaching…is not scriptural. In other words, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, is not scriptural.
And, please don’t take me to say that you cannot, as an individual reading Scripture, come to some knowledge of the truth. You can. As I said earlier, we must read the Bible, study the Bible, meditate on it, soak in it, pray it, live it, and breathe it. As St. Jerome once said, “Ignorance of Scripture is ign orance of Christ.” But, there are very many things in the Bible that are difficult to understand. The Bible itself tells us this. 2 Peter 3:16: “There are some things in them [Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”
Scripture tells us that there are some things, in Scripture, that are difficult to understand, and that these things that are hard to understand are important to our salvation. They are not non–essential matters because, as it says, it is possible to twist these things to our own destruction.
What Peter was saying here in 2 Peter 3:16, is that there were a number of folks out there reading the Scriptures on their own, not paying attention to what Peter or Paul or the other Church leaders were telling them, and these people were misinterpreting things in Paul’s letters, and ot her parts of the Scriptures as well, in such a way that it was leading to their damnation. Peter was, in essence, issuing a warning to those who were relying on their own private fallible interpretations of Scripture. That should be a very scary and sobering passage for anyone who believes they can simply pick up the Bible and read it on their own to make a decision in any and all matters pertaining to the Christian faith.
There is another passage I want to mention on this particular topic of needing a guide to properly interpret Scripture. Listen to what St. John says in one of his letters, 1 John 4:6: “We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” This is a verse that wreaks absolute havoc with the notion of Sola Scriptura.
If you asked someone who believes in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura this qu estion: “How do we know the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error?” What do you think they would say? Would they not say something along the lines of, “You get yourself a good Bible and by reading Scripture, and praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance, you can discern the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error.” The problem is, though, that is not a biblical answer.
The Bible says that we discern the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error by listening to someone…to “us”…to John and apparently to his fellow leaders in the Church. It further says that if you know God you will indeed listen to these Church leaders. And, if you are not of God, you won’t listen to them. Does that sound like the early Christians believed in Sola Scriptura?
Another passage which tells us the early Christians did not believe in Sola Scriptura is from Acts 15. At the Council of Jerusalem, whi ch is described in verses 6–29, what do we see? We see that a doctrinal dispute arose in the early Church over whether or not the Gentile converts should be circumcised. Well, what did they do? How did they decide the matter? Did they consult Scripture as they should do if they believed in Sola Scriptura? No. They called a council. The leaders of the Church, in a council, decided the first doctrinal dispute in the early Church. The teaching of Sola Scriptura obviously did not exist in the early Church because if it had, and they had indeed gone solely by Scripture to decide this dispute, what would have happened? Well, they would have seen in Genesis how God required circumcision and they would have come to a completely different conclusion than the one they came to.
We have seen, from Scripture, that the early Christians did not believe in Sola Scriptura. We have seen, from Scripture, that relying upon individual interpretation of Scripture to decide on all matters of the Christian faith, is not scriptural. We have seen, from Scripture, that there are some important things in Scripture that are difficult to understand and that can be twisted to one’s own destruction through private interpretation. We have seen, from Scripture, that having a guide to help us properly interpret Scripture is indeed scriptural. And, we have seen that the passages often relied upon to prove the case for Sola Scriptura, when read in context, actually make the case against Sola Scriptura.
Now, one more thing that I wish to discuss, which further damages the Sola Scriptura argument – the matter of tradition. As I stated earlier, the Jews believed in authoritative Scripture and authoritative tradition. For many non–Catholic Christians, though, the word “tradition” is almost like a curse word. They cringe when they hear that word because they have been mistakenly taught that Cathol ics believe in the “traditions of men.” And, as they rightly say, Jesus condemns the traditions of men in the Gospels.
Jesus does not, however, condemn all tradition. Nowhere does Scripture say such a thing. Jesus condemns the traditions of men, but not even all traditions of men. Specifically, Jesus condemns those traditions of men which negate the Word of God. Traditions, in and of themselves, are not bad things. It’s when they negate the Word of God that Jesus has a problem with them.
Again, tradition, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. If it were, then how could the Word of God tell us this: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” That’s from 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter – w ritten tradition, also known as “Scripture.” Traditions which they are being told to “stand firm and hold to”. In other words, authoritative traditions.
What else does the Bible say about holding on to traditions? 2 Tim 2:2, “…and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” Did Paul say, “What you have read in my writing pass on to others so that they may read it, too?” No! Did he say, “What you have heard from me, entrust to faithful men who will write it down for everyone to read for themselves?” No! He said to entrust it to faithful men who will “teach” others. What we have here is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of authoritative oral tradition.
1 Cor 11:2, “I [Paul] commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the tradit ions even as I have delivered them to you.” The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Authoritative Scripture and authoritative tradition. Or, as we Catholics say, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Back to Thessalonians: 1 Thes 2:13, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.” So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture. In Acts 2:42 we read that the first Christians were “continuing steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine,” or the “Apostles’ teaching”.
That’s what Sacred Tradition is – the Apostles’ doctrine, or the Apostles’ teaching, as given to them by our Lord Jesus Christ. As we clearly just saw in several places in the New Testament, traditions that come from the Apostles – because the Apostles were taught by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit – are not condemned in Scripture. These traditions, these teachings, are considered, as we saw in 1 Thes 2:13, not the word of men – not the traditions of men – but the Word of God.
One last word about tradition. Every church has one or more “traditions” that are not found in the Bible, whether they want to admit it or not. Which books should be in the Bible? Not in the Bible – Tradition. Sunday as the Sabbath. Not in the Bible – Tradition. Wednesday night church meeting. Not in the Bible – tradition. Altar calls. Not in the Bible – tradition. Sola Scriptura. Not in the Bible – tradition. And this last one is a tradition of men that is contrary to the Word of God.

< div>

To close, I believe I have made a very strong and rational argument – from logic, from history, and from Scripture – for why Catholics believe as we do in regards to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Nowhere in Scripture do we see Sola Scriptura used as an operational principle. Nowhere is anyone instructed to consult the Scriptures to solve a doctrinal dispute between Christians. The one place I’ve mentioned where it is said someone went to the Scriptures, the case of the Bereans, was a case of verification – they were simply verifying that the verses Paul quoted were indeed in the Scriptures – it was not a case of using the Scriptures, and individual interpretation of the Scriptures, in order to solve a doctrinal dispute.
Nowhere does the Bible say that, as individuals, reading the Bible on our own, the Holy Spirit will guide us to an infallible interpretation of any and every passage of Scripture. That verse simpl y does not exist. In fact, as I’ve shown, a number of verses do exist that directly contradict that belief.
Ultimately, under a Sola Scriptura system, any dispute between Christians – on matters of doctrine, on matters of morals, on matters of worship, on matters of anything Christian – comes down to this: My fallible, non–authoritative, non–binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of Scripture vs. your fallible, non–authoritative, non–binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of Scripture.
Actually, the problem is even worse than that, because under a Sola Scriptura system, as I mentioned earlier, we can’t even be sure of what the Scriptures are in the first place. So, it essentially comes down to my fallible, non–authoritative, non–binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of something that I th ink is Scripture, but cannot be infallibly sure about; vs. your fallible, non–authoritative, non–binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of something that you think Scripture is, but cannot be infallibly sure about.

Questions to Ask:

1) Did the leaders of the early Christian Church believe in Sola Scriptura? If, yes, then why did they call a Council (Acts 15) to decide a doctrinal dispute, why didn’t they just consult the Bible to settle the matter?

2) When Paul wrote 2 Tim 3:16–17, was the Old Testament alone sufficient for the man of God to be made complete, or perfect? Yes or no? If, yes, then of what need does the Christian have for the New Testament? If, no, then what books of the New Testament, in addition to the books of the Old Testament, did Timothy know since childhood? And, is it then only these books of the New Testament along with the Old Testament that the Christian of the time needed to be made complete, or perfect?

3) Where in Scripture does it say that each person should read Scripture for themselves, to determine by themselves – without reference to any outside authority – what is and is not correct Christian doctrine and practice?

4) At what point did authority for deciding doctrinal matters pass from the leaders of the early Church (as we see, for example, in Acts 15 and 1 John 4:6) to each individual reading the Bible on their own?

5) Is it scriptural to have an authoritative guide for the proper interpretation of Scripture (see Acts 8, for example)?

6) Did Paul commend the Corinthians and the Thessalonians for keeping the traditions he had passed on to them? Yes or no? If, yes, where does the Bible record that every one of these traditions was subsequently recorded in Scripture?

7) If all of the oral traditions Paul passed on to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, and which he comman ded Timothy to pass on, were not recorded in Scripture, then where is the Scripture verse that says those traditions should no longer be maintained?

Strategy: Asking questions – “How to be Offensive Without Being Offensive” strategy. Any time someone might dispute a Catholic interpretation of Scripture – “But That’s My Interpretation” strategy.

An example of using both of these at one time: If someone says that 2 Tim 3:16–17 isn’t referring to the Old Testament, you can first ask, “Then what are the scriptures Paul is referring to that Timothy has known ‘since childhood’?” Then, when they ignore your question, no matter how many times you ask it, or they provide some explanation that doesn’t really make any sense given the context of the passage, you can simply say, “Look, that’s my interpretation of this passage. Am I not allowed to interpret Scripture for myself? And, if I am allowed to interpret Scripture for myself, then how can you tell me I’m wrong? By what authority do you say that I’m wrong?”

In Conclusion

I hope all of you have a great week! Remember to pray for the economy to bounce back and to especially keep in prayer those who have been put out of work, and to pray for the conversion of our President.



Posted in Bible, Debate, Doctrinal Comparison, Sola Scriptura, Strategy (Apologetics), THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER | Leave a Comment »

“Catholic Church ay Huwad sa Kanila, e di Huwad ang Biblia”

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 16, 2009

“Catholic Church ay Huwad sa Kanila, e di Huwad ang Biblia”

Author : dhugz (IP: ,
E-mail : cr3053@gmail.Com
URL    :
Whois  :

Mga bro, nalulungkot ako sa mga nagsusulputang mga sekta ngayon. . . Hindi nila alam ang mga sinasabi nila at ang mga totoong doktrina mula nung kapanahunan ni Cristo. Unang una sa lahat ang Bibliya ay binuo ng mga paring katoliko, e ang basehan nila ng kanilang doktrina ay ang bibliya mismo. Dahil sa ganang kanila pagkamatay ng mga apostol, ang Catholic Church ay nakaranas ng total apostasy pagkatapos ng First Century. .

Tapos na ang debate sa kanila, bakit? Kung ang Catholic Church ay huwad sa kanila, e di huwad ang bibliyang gamit nila ngayon. Dahil wala pang bibliya nung 1st century, matagal ng patay ang mga apostol at dumaan ang hundreds of years bago nabuo ng Catholic Church ang Bibliya. . . . .

The Codex Vaticanus

Sa mga kapatid na katoliko kung may umakay o mangaral sa inyo tungkol daw sa katotohanan, gamitin lang natin ang argumentong aking sinabi sapagkat para sakin sapat na iyon upang matigilan sila. Dahil kung kukunin at makipagpaliwanagan tayo sa kanila base sa kanilang mga piniling texto sa bibliya na ayon kuno sa kanilang aral. . .

The Bible is a Catholic Property in the sense that our Church compiled it! Now, Martin Luther rejected the deuterocanonical books that which are included by the Canon of Scripture in the Bible, thus their bible Contains 66books. Honestly, kung binawasan natin ang original na Bibliya ay hindi na iyon Bibliya . . . . . . .

The Divine Master teaching in the Synagogue

Ang lahat ng ito ay nangyayari, ang pagsulpot ng mga bulaang propeta, mga ibang Cristo o magtuturo ng ibang Jesus mula sa Turo ng Simbahan atbp. . . Dahil lahat ng iyon ay kelangang mangyari upang matupad ang mga hula ng Bibliya at Upang lalong Mapatunayan na ang Catholic Church ay ang true Christ’s Church. . . .Amen!

Posted in Bible, How to Help others become Catholic | Leave a Comment »

The Love Of The Holy Spirit

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 14, 2009

Posted By: Sis. Mary Grace A. Judilla

Holy Spirit talks to you

Matthew 13:16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear;
We are all God’s creation and He wants all of us to receive our crown when we go into the next life. Jesus said that once He leaves His flesh, He will send us the Holy Spirit to comfort us. In any normal day we usually run into encounters that gives us a choice. For instance, when you see a real homeless person, a voice comes in your head that your going to help him/her or the voice says, he’s a drug addict and I’m not going to give him anything. When you throw trash away, the same voice says to throw it in a trash can while another might say, throw it on the ground, the city is already dirty and street cleaning will clean it up. Your given a choice between good and evil in our most simplistic daily lives.
Matthew 13:19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside.
Have you ever had the urge to go to church or felt guilty because you haven’t attended in some time, and then before you actually decide to go a voice in your head will give you numerous reasons on why not to go. If so, the Holy Spirit and a demon has spoken to you. But thanks be to God for the Bible and His presence in our lives that we can hear the difference between an angel and a demon.
Ephesians 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
The next time your arguing or yelling at someone that you don’t really know, try to keep this scripture in mind. When someone cuts you off while your driving and your rage wants to strangle that person, remember he’s not your enemy, it’s the devil getting in your head. The book of Job says that the devil walks amongst the earth with us daily. Are you prepared to fight him off?
Matthew 13:43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! (NKJV)

The love of the Spirit


1 John 4:16

Jeremiah 31:3

1John 4:9

John 3:16

Romans 5:5


-HE FELLOWSHIPS with us-(2Cor.13:14)

-HE COMPORTS us (John14:16)

-HE INTERCEDES for us-(Romans 8:26)

-HE TEACHES us-(John 14:26)

-HE LEADS us-(Romans 8:14)

-HE GUIDES us-(John 16:13)

-HE EMPOWERS us-(Mark 13:11)



-HE PRODUCES FRUIT-(Galatians5:22-23)

Posted in Holy Spirit | 5 Comments »