Hooper Debate 1 - Biblical Questions

BIBLICAL TERRORISM

Hooper: I would like to quote a local pastor who sums it all up better than I ever could when it comes to the Roman Catholic Church and private interpretation.

I would not be surprised if Mrs. Hooper's testimony is largely the work of some hidden partner, just as she cites a nameless pastor in the beginning of her rebuttal to various Scriptures I sent her.

Hooper: The Catholic Church, as such, from its first private interpretations by Augustine, Cyprian, and Iranaeus, to those of the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546), has been consistent in one thing: wresting and distorting the word of God in an effort to force it to approve of her own heresies and traditions.

The legacy of the saints and doctors of the Church, namely Augustine, Cyprian, and Iranaeus are immediately castigated. This is routine for fundamentalists because they will allow no Church tradition other than established, ironically, by their own pastors. They reject the lessons of history and so are bound to retrace the heresies of old. The Council of Trent is repudiated, largely because it was so very effective in dealing with the Protestant defection from Christian unity. Note here there is only the old slur: that the Catholic Church "has been consistent in one thing: restling the word of God in an effort to force it to approve of her own heresies and traditions." In actually, the Catholic Church is the Mother of the Christian Bible and her teachings and preaching even predated the written New Testament.

Hooper: Catholics will not read it [Bible] for three reasons that NO Catholic reads any investigation of Biblical truth, other than his own subjective investigation:

The business about Catholics not reading the Bible is a typical bigoted stereotype. Catholics not only read the Bible but hear it proclaimed at worship and prayer.

Hooper: Catholics are taught that anything written or preached contrary to the teachings and traditions of the Vatican STATE is a lie, even if Paul, Jesus, or Moses said it.

This is a silly business, because Catholics are taught no such thing. While elements of the Mosaic law are abbrogated by the new dispensation of Christ; what the Church teaches is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We claim the apostolic legacy and testimony of Paul, as well as Peter and so many others.

Hooper: If Paul, Jesus, or Moses did say it, then the statement has to be privately interpreted by the Church to conform with tradition, in order that it may be taught to the Catholic layman that there is no contradiction between the scriptures and the Church (except in the eyes of the PROTESTANT, who is REALLY the party guilty of "private interpretation," (see 1 Peter 1:20).

The terminology here makes no sense. The Church offers no private interpretation. The Scriptures represent a written tradition, while the Gospels began as an oral tradition and that oral tradition continued even after they were written down. There is no conflict. And yes, certain Protestant fundamentalists are truly the ones guilty of a privatized interpretation that often finds disagreement even among their own churchmen.

Hooper: Since every Catholic believes that the damnation of his soul is involved in a turning from any dogma of the Vatican State, they dare not honestly investigate anything contrary to their own religion.

Every Catholic is obliged in conscience to grow in the love and knowledge of Jesus Christ. The false implication here is that "any dogma of the Vatican State" would simply be human wisdom and not divine truth. The Church teaches that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Would the fundamentalist bigot say this is mere Vatican dogma? Probably not, but such critics would be quick to contend that Catholics do not really believe it. They create a false strawman Catholicism and then seek to tear it down.

Hooper: Now, the scriptures command the Christian to "prove all things" (1 Thess. 5:21). He is told to test and try out heresies and false gospels (1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Cor. 11:4), and, since the Christian studies the word himself, as he was commanded to (2 Tim. 2:15), he is not worried about being "always ready to give an answer" (2 Cor. 4:2; 1 Peter 3:15; 4:11). No born again Christian has to worry about reading and studying literature contrary to the Bible, for the Holy Spirit in the Christian has promised to lead and guide him into all truth (1 John 2:27; John 14:26; John 16:13). These plain verses, understood everywhere by all born-again Christians, prove "forever more" that Catholics (as a church organization) are not "born again Christians," no matter what their canons and decrees may state. Born again Christians do not only face error and falsehood confidently, cheerfully, and armed with the sword of the Spirit, but they also desire to search any teaching out to see if there is any truth in it, and put it to the test of the word.

The hypothesis is proven false again and again. The Scriptures cited do not support her position. There are plenty of born-again Christians who have serious disagreements with each other-- about the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the meaning of the descent among the dead, the value of the Lord's Supper, the signs of election in this world, the proper day of the Sabbath observance, etc. The fragmentation of Protestantism into thousands of denominations is ample proof that testing the word, apart from the Church Christ established and with a consideration to the traditions passed down to us, only leads to amplified error. The Holy Spirit watches over the Catholic Church and guards the truth of the Gospel in her teaching and preaching. Also note her presumption that practicing Catholics cannot be born again, an expression that is very dynmaic in Catholicism, meaning that we have been made a new creation in Christ. Her criteria for salvation and true Christianity is to agree with her. She treats the work of studying and understanding the Scriptures into a kind of magic, irrespective of learning. Of course, her position is a sham. Everyone who relies upon a translation of God's Word has already posited trust, not only in God, but in men. The Catholic Church is very careful about which men we trust and what mandate they have received from the Lord.

Hooper: Rome, like a man on a chain gang, is the most "misunderstood" church in the world, and has to employ its "Knights of Columbus" in a full time "ministry" of explaining the discrepancies between ITS teachings and Bible teaching, and making alibis for the rumors that speak of Rome's "hellishness," which is supposed to be her "holiness."

She misunderstands Catholicism, that is for sure. Despite claiming to have been a Catholic, she often fails to exhibit even a grammer-school level of understanding about what Catholics believe. She parrots her anti-Catholic masters. The Knights of Columbus is an order of Catholic men dedicated to Church and God, Country, Community, and Family. They provide insurance benefits to members to safeguard their families and seek to realize their Christian faith and works of charity. They are staunchly pro-life and patriotic. They do much to help the poor and the disabled, particularly children who face physical and mental challenges. Attacking these good men says a lot about her true character and the dark spirit that masquerades as holy in all her rantings. There is no discrepency between the Word of God and the living Church.

Hooper: Rome's defense of her ridiculous and bigoted theology is a standard patter that is found in 1500 years of Church History.

She knows nothing of history. Catholism was the only form of Christianity in the West for the first 1500 years. However, the Church began with Christ and is now some 2000 years old. A study of the ancient fathers verifies this. However, she has closed her mind to truth and her heart to honesty.

Hooper: Protestants are themselves divided about interpretation; therefore, "We must be right, because we all agree as to the correction interpretation."

But you do not all agree. Even now the various Baptist denominations are at war with each other and the fight continues over the control of their seminaries. Note that Mrs. Hooper herself posts at an "independent" Baptist site, probably because the regular Baptists would have nothing to do with her kind. Even the Reverend Fallwell has sought to substitute the rhetoric of hate with that of conciliation.

Hooper: "When we can get all the Protestants back with us, that will be self-admission that they had the wrong interpretation, and that we had the right one."

Not every point of biblical teaching is at question. Protestant churches continue to claim some elements of the truth that were held prior to their breech. Also, their view of some Bible passages are on the mark-- but not all.

Hooper: The fact that Protestants disagree about scripture is proof that the Holy Ghost is not guiding them; but He is guiding us, because "We all agree!"

The Holy Spirit does guide the Catholic Magisterium in teaching only those things that are from the deposit of the faith, and to do so without error. This does NOT mean that there is an official Catholic position on each and every passage from the Bible. Certainly, there is no Scriptural teaching that clashes with Catholic doctrine.

Hooper: This is the standard Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan, Capuchin, and Trappist answer to those who dare to raise their voice against the old Harlot upon the seven mountains (Rev. 17).

Notice her slam here! Learned men from the various religious orders of Catholicism are ignored and the Church is called a whore, which in itself is a mockery of what the Book of Revelation teaches. She would equate the Church of the suffering saints and martyrs with the demonic forces of the beast. Early Catholic Christians were persecuted by pagan, not a Catholic Christian Rome. Mrs. Hooper will have to answer to God and to these noble heroes of faith for her prejudice against them.

Hooper: In the first objection mentioned above, no one takes the time or trouble to note that even if Protestants are divided, born again Christians are not! If born again Christians are divided, they are only divided on 'nonessentials." Again, when it is said that Rome is agreed with herself upon interpretation, that only proves the rottenness of the Roman system, for the agreement (as will be seen) is on the insufficiency of the scriptures. Rome agrees on interpretation but this interpretation is the private, false, wresting, and distorting of clear passages, and the subterfuge of obscure passages for proof texts: it is not scripture compared with scripture; it is not Christian; it is not true to the remaining verses; it makes other passages contradict; and, it is a travesty of common sense and sound judgment. [1]

Here is further evidence of the fracturing in Protestant Christianity. Note that while she hesitantly admits that Protestants are divided, she tries to argue, poorly I should add, that born again Christians are not. Now, she is not only against Roman Catholics, but admits from her own lips, that she is also opposed to these non-Catholic churches. Taking it a step further, she will next say that born again Christians are not divided by essentials. This is a lie. Some born again Christians, like Reverend Jerry Fallwell, admit that while he has serious disagreements with Catholics, that he recognizes her lay people and ministers as Christians. Mrs. Hooper would never make such an admission. Indeed, her enmity in this regard, as well as her insistence in defining her religion by her opposition to Catholicism, and her presumption of truth against any and all rivals, would seem to place her less in the category of a Christian Church and more as a member of a Cult. The sufficiency of Holy Scripture is wrongly argued as having no connection with the life of the preaching and teaching Church throughout the centuries. There is no contest or opposition between Scripture and Tradition. They are intertwined and the Church passes on to us the faith of Jesus Christ. There is nothing private about the Catholic Church's understanding of Scripture. We receive the texts and we also look upon how churchmen and believers have understood these teachings throughout the centuries. We do not come to the Bible alone, and despite her protestations, neither does Mrs. Hooper. You can bet that she did not come up with her views by simply being locked alone in an empty room with a bible. She was seduced by anti-Catholic fundamentalists. Maybe because of a love interest? Maybe because of a Bible Study group that lacked proper direction or which targeted Catholics? Maybe because of the books of critics of the Church? And maybe her responses are not even unique to her, but are also the result of another's hand and head. It is not as simple as she makes out. She has merely replaced one Magisterium, the Pope and Bishops, for one composed of fallible and mean-spirited men. Notice that she even makes citations, knowing that her own response is insufficient and that she must call upon aid from elsewhere. At least the Cathoic never pretends that he comes to the Bible without commentary and support.

SHARING IGNORANCE IN BIBLE STUDY

Hooper: The Roman Catholic Church is just as guilty. It does not matter what a person "thinks this passage means" or "what that passage means." A person can make the Bible teach ANYTHING they want it to teach. And though a person can make it mean whatever he wants it to mean, the one thing he can't do is make it say anything but what it says! We should be greatly concerned about what the Bible SAYS.

Actually, this statement is nonsensical. Jesus says if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. That is what the Bible says, but just as with the prohibition against calling men "teacher" or "father" it is Hebraic Hyperbole and cannot be taken literally. What the fundamentalists do is that they decide what they want to take literally and what they will not. They are not consistent in regard to their "literalism". The difficulty with translations also makes this point mute. Some editions like the KJV are very beautiful but are filled with mistakes. This was even admitted by the Anglican Church that produced the Bible, which also includes a KJV translation of the Catholic books omitted in most U.S. editions. It was not long after its promulgation that attempts were made to correct some of the more glaring problems. Here is an irony. The Bible was not a product of the Baptist churches, but was the English translation of a liturgical Church that still claims priests and services that parallel those of Rome. The British Crown, which became quite Protestant, did not see this Bible as teaching any conflict with these "Catholic" elements retained after the break. Also, if one takes isolated verses and avoids a contexual approach and/or notes, then Scripture can be quickly distorted-- as we see in Mrs. Hooper's use of it.

RUPTURED FROM THE CHURCH

Hooper: What the anti-Christian can't understand is, if a person has ruptured himself from the Roman Catholic Church, it just may be that he decided to open his Bible and read it a little more carefully, allowing the Holy Spirit to lead him and guide him into all truth. It just may be that he was among the number who saw it was better to believe what the Bible SAYS rather than be guided by what other people think. It just may be that the former Catholic finally knew what it meant to trust in Jesus alone for his salvation, and that he need not live by the dictates of the Roman Catholic Church any longer.

Admittedly, Catholics could do a better job at knowing and studying their Bibles. But, I have known many Catholics reaffirm and grow in their faith through the honest study of Scripture. It did nothing to undermine their Catholic beliefs. Catholics are not anti-Christian. They were the first Christians and the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ, himself. Any claim otherwise is a falsification of history. This is the lot of Mrs. Hooper and the other anti-Catholic bigots with which she associates.

BIBLE INTERPRETATION

Hooper: You should really keep the momentum going. You forgot to mention the Catholic Church and how they fall prey to thinking they are the sole interpreter of Scriptures, the pope infallible, how they wrest the Scriptures to fit their unbiblical doctrines, make up places like purgatory, think if they eat a piece of bread and drink some booze that it will give them eternal life, teach a "faith plus works" gospel, how they pray to Mary and dead saints to intercede on their behalf, and then published cannon decrees to condemn anyone to Hell who won't bow down to its beliefs.

Ah, here she goes through the litany of her dissent. I have already made mention in correspondence that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is the authoritative teaching office. As a Protestant she is free to deny this, however she is not content to stop there. Rather, her malicious spirit denies anything Christian of Catholicism and associates it with the beast. Papal infallibility is limited and must be properly understood. But, it does not matter in her case, because she has made herself-- or someone she follows in the shadows-- into the infallible teacher in her life. Do not believe for a moment that it is a direct relationship with the Bible. Someone has helped to spoonfeed her hate. Purgation is proven by various Scriptures and by the truth that only those perfected by grace may enter heaven. Although she purports to once being a Catholic, she now impugns the holy communion that Catholics receive when celebrating the Lord's Supper as "a piece of bread and "some booze". That is all it is to her, now that she has cast aside the gift of faith. It should be no surprise that she also rejects the value of works for people of faith because there is nothing of charity left in her approach to God and religion. The communion with the saints who share in the Easter mystery means nothing to her. After her long list of attacks against Catholic practices and beliefs, she acts like a crybaby saying that the Catholic Church condemns people like her to hell. No, people bring hell upon themselves.

WHERE DID WE GET THE BIBLE?

Hooper: What would the world do without the Roman Catholic Church who falsely claim we would not have the Bible if not for them. I refer the reader to Did the Catholic Church give us our Bible?

The record is clear about this. The role of St. Jerome, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage are public records. The establishment of the Christian Bible was accomplished by the Catholic Church.

CHURCH TRADITION

Hooper: "Christ gave something...?" Come now. Christ never gave anything to the Roman Catholic Church, it was not even in existence at His time.

Here Mrs. Hooper practices historical revisionism in denying the record.

Hooper: Proof again that Roman Catholic church does not think Scriptures in itself are sufficient.

More importantly, the Catholic Church does not think Mrs. Hooper is sufficient.

Hooper: The Bible SAYS, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path" (Ps. 119:105). The Bible also says, "If a man love me, he will keep my words:" (John 14:23), but not according to the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church doctrine would have us believe no one can understand the Bible for themselves, but that for one to understand, he must turn his mind and heart over to the Roman Catholic Church. This is so unbiblical!

As a Catholic Christian, I remain in good standing with my Church and with God's living Word. The Church does not deny the value of allowing the Scriptures to speak to us. What is denied is that anti-Catholic fundamentalists like Mrs. Hooper have a monopoly upon the Scriptures. How can she as an individual claim to think for the whole Christian world and the Catholic Church? While there are many references to the Church in the New Testament, I see no reference to her or that I must follow her personal interpretation of the Bible in order to be a true Christian and to know salvation in Jesus Christ.

Hooper: Vatican II states, It is for the bishops, with whom the apostolic doctrine resides, suitably to instruct the faithful entrusted to them in the correct use of the New Testament by giving them translations of the sacred texts which are equipped with necessary and really adequate explanations. [2]

Yes, and you have opted to accept Anglican texts while denying the authority of that church to preach and teach what their translation means. Have you PERSONALLY produced any Bibles from the scattered ancient documents? No, and nor could you.

Hooper: The Bible was given to mankind to read, mediate, and study, it was not given to some elite group to explain it to others. Man does not live alone on the heresies of the Roman Catholic Church, "but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Deut. 8:3). (Note it doesn't say, "but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of Roman Catholic Popes and Priests.)

The Bible did not pop out of the sky ready-made. Here again is an instance of fantasy and relativism regarding real history.