Arguing with a Protestant?

[pablope]

This verse \

As a protestant I would have no problem accepting the traditions of the RCC as athuritative if I could be convinced of Apostolic session, QUOTE]

from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

From Clement of Rome, in his epistle to Corinth…in accordance with the passages above…
earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

1Clem 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.
57:1 Do ye, therefore, that have laid the foundation of the sedition submit yourselves to the presbyters, and be chastised to repentance, bending the knees of your hearts.

57:2 Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the vain and haughty self-will of your tongues; for it is better that you should be small and approved in the flock of Christ, rather than that, seeming to be superior to others, ye should be cast out of his hope

59:1 But if some should be disobedient to the things spoken by him through us, let them know that they will entangle themselves in no small transgression and danger,

And St. Ignatius of Antioch… (d. 107 AD) wrote:
As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavor that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.41

St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes: (against the Gnostics who denied the sacramental nature of the Church):

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

 

[ssdunk]

I’m trying to keep this as short and to the point as I can, as I have a tendancy of being really long winded,

I was born and raised a Catholic in my youth but have had a powerful life changing conversion to a direct relationship with Jesus as challenged by an evangelical I used to work with. My religion over time became a real life relationship with the only one who has life to give, Christ. I became an Evangelical although I didn’t realize it at the time. That was34 years ago. Since that time, I too have been taught Sola Scriptura but I’ve also studied through the entire Catacism of the Catholic Church over a seven month period years ago.
You are correct in stating that most Protestants have never heard the defenses for the Catholic position. Certainly, not by many, if any of the big powerhouse Catholic apologists that are out there. Over the years though, I’ve read many books, publications and listened to countless debates by Jimmy Akins, Tim Staples, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Gerry Matatics, Karl Keating, Robert Sungenis etc…from the Catholic side. They are all very complelling and could easily make “short order” of most arguements made by the average Protestant, myself included. Through these guys and some relationships with Priests and other Catholic clergy that I’ve made over the years working as a construction supervisor building a number of Catholic Churches, I’ve grown to appreciate Catholics in general much more than I ever have before. Having said that, I’ve also read many books, publications and listened to countless debates by some of the Protestant apologists like Norman Geisler, Eric Svendson, James White, Hank Hanegraff, Ralph Mckenzie, Greg Koukl, etc. who likewise make very powerful and compelling arguements on their side. I love the debates because they are moderated. A formal debate leaves no “wiggle room” for anyone to marshall a position without the other guy being able to counter the arguement. I tell people, Protestant and Catholics alike, that if all you listen to and study is one position, then that’s all you’ll ever know. I find that it’s usually what the other side doesn’t tell you that can make a big difference in how you walk away. For instance; Jesus continually used the word of God as his total and complete authority when speaking to those in authority by using terms such as “For it is written” or “thus says the Lord” etc… over 112 times in the Scriptures. That’s pretty compeling from where I’m standing. He expected his hearers to know the Old Testament Scriptures, because He regarded them as the authority from which He acted. I also have three volumes of works compiled by one scholar, that documents multitueds of early church fathers with excerpts and citations from their own writings on the fact that they believed in the absolute and total authority of the Scriptures, even above those in leadership positions. Needless to say, Catholic apologists have countered these writings as they see them.

At the end of the day, us common folk do our own study, listen to those we respect as scholoars, clergy and theologians, many in positions of authority of course, digest it all as best we can and make our decisions.

I remain an Evangelical Protestant after some 30+ years. I’m absolutely conviced that the one and only true church that Christ established is and will always be the body of believers that have truly and sincerly put their trust in Jesus and Him alone as Lord. As the old saying goes, “Standing in a church pew every Sunday and going through the motions, no more makes you a Christian believer, than standing in a garage makes you a car.” In closing, I can only tell you that it does indeed come down to the issue of “authority”, but I can honestly say that despite our many differences, I respect and love my Catholic brothers and sisters too like I’ve never done before even though I disagree to this day with much of Catholic theology.

Many blessings to you guys!

 

[pablope]

This

As a protestant I would have no problem accepting the traditions of the RCC as athuritative if I could be convinced of Apostolic session,** and those traditions didn’t contridict scripture.**

 

[bmonk]

My own experience–which I fully expected. About a month ago, in late October 2012, I was traveling to one of my parishes and listening to the local Evangelical station, with a minister preaching on how God wants us to be happy, and things like abstaining from meat on Fridays makes us miserable–indeed, is designed to make us miserable, to be a burden. He specifically asked, “Where is this [no meat, or maybe all asceticism] in the Gospel?”

He then continued on the Evangelical councils, claiming that we required them for salvation, and again asking “Where are these in the Gospel?”

Well, I wrote a three page letter setting out our faith on these points, with New Testament citations for all four of his specific questions: fasting from meat (Mark 2:18-20), and the evangelical counsels of poverty (Mark 10:17), chastity/celibacy (Matthew 19:11-12) and obedience (Phil 2:5-8, among others). I noted that fasting is not a burden, that we have limits that keep it from being a burden, that it is a witness and reminder to us and to all where we stand. I noted that the vows, for those called to them, are not a burden but a joyful response and a freeing from burdens–and that the Church has never and will never require them for salvation.

I have not yet received a response, not that I expected one. But at least I witnessed a fuller truth to him than he had when he preached his message.

 

[COPLAND_3]

In my experience, 99.999% of the time they just ignore what you say. And they usually combine that with a series of rapid-fire red herrings such as the Crusades (unaware that the Crusades saved Europe from Islamic extremist conquest), the Inquisition (unaware that it was the state, not the Church that sentenced people to death), and scandals in the Church (oblivious to the fact that scandals happen among Protestant preachers more than with priests).

Great post!

 

[Cranch]

2 Timothy 3:16and17 “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Is this verse in 2 Timothy true or not?

The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition both come from God and “come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” (CCC 80) That being the case, the man of God could not be thoroughly equipped without Scripture.

Leaving aside the fact Paul was probably writing about the Jewish Scriptures (“And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures”), I know why I believe this verse is true, even of the New Testament. The question is why do you believe it is true? Who told you Paul is to be believed? Is it because you believe Paul’s letters to be Scripture? Who says? Please don’t say Peter (2Peter 3:16) because I will ask you who told you to believe him?

…the traditions Paul is talking about are the “words of mouth and the letters” of he and the other Apostles. The words and letters of the Apostles are scripture too.

How can you make this statement? Paul says “by word of mouth or by letter.” These are two different modes of transmission of the Gospel. Scripture (small s or big S) is written. Calling oral testimony written, even if the content is the same is inaccurate and in this context accuracy is important.

 

[rchapm77]

Let me ask you RChap…who is to decide what is Scriptural tradition and what is not?

Good point, but I would still hold to the ideal that those oral teachings are from the apostles and did not contradict scripture.

With that said, I would like to share this article with you, to expound on this further:calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

.
Wow great article, very challenging. Alot of it is above my head but I think it is good for Al Mohler to have that pick and choose approach if his critera for accepting and rejecting what the early church fathers is based on what can be clearly seen in scripture. Not really sure about that right now I plan on looking that article over again and give it some honest consideation.

From which I will quote to make my point across:

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.
I’m not sure this observation about Mohler is right. As I understand it we protestants want scripture itself to guide our interpretation. Exegesis, finding the meaning of the text from within the text itself.

 

[rchapm77]

The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition both come from God and “come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” (CCC 80) That being the case, the man of God could not be thoroughly equipped without Scripture.

Leaving aside the fact Paul was probably writing about the Jewish Scriptures (“And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures”), I know why I believe this verse is true, even of the New Testament. The question is why do you believe it is true? Who told you Paul is to be believed? Is it because you believe Paul’s letters to be Scripture? Who says? Please don’t say Peter (2Peter 3:16) because I will ask you who told you to believe him?

Peter and Paul both did miracles which was one of the authentications of a true Apostle. But I think what you are getting at is why do I accept the canon of scripture as the complete word of God. I do believe that when the early church gathered these writings that make up the new testament they were right to decalre them the word of God. I also have historical reasons, and the new testament in the gospels fullfills what was already established in the old testament prophecies.

How can you make this statement? Paul says “by word of mouth or by letter.” These are two different modes of transmission of the Gospel. Scripture (small s or big S) is written. Calling oral testimony written, even if the content is the same is inaccurate and in this context accuracy is important.

Ok, granted. That is an important distinction that I didn’t think about.

 

[irisfromohio]

I’d recommend not so much arguing to win, but arguing (in the sense of convincing discussion as opposed to yelling ) to explain the Faith without necessarily focusing on “winning” anything. There is a GREAT and WONDERFL book that goes into depth on how NOT to share the Faith…and a discussion about it here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=721056

You got that right. However, my experience is that when most non Catholics or Protestants want to engage you, their interest is evangelization. I do usually thank them for their gracious concern for my salvation, but stand my ground. I declare my love for Mother Church for her guidance. Then, I am usually accused of worshiping the pope and simply parroting what he has given me in the form of brainwash.

Just be content to plant a seed and have pride in your devotion. We can attempt to unlock the door and pray that another person will allow Him to open the door.

Iris Marie.

 

[chero23]

You got that right. However, my experience is that when most non Catholics or Protestants want to engage you, their interest is evangelization. I do usually thank them for their gracious concern for my salvation, but stand my ground. I declare my love for Mother Church for her guidance. Then, I am usually accused of worshiping the pope and simply parroting what he has given me in the form of brainwash.

Just be content to plant a seed and have pride in your devotion. We can attempt to unlock the door and pray that another person will allow Him to open the door.

Iris Marie.

That is true, they don’t do talk with us for the sake of talking, they do it b/c they feel were going to hell first class. But like you said and all of us Catholics have to stand up for our church just like if we would if somebody said something wrong about our mother or loved one.

 

[peipappy]

I do not think your response correctly sums up the situation. If Paul “destroys” Sola Scriptura, what is Jesus suggesting about tradition when He tells the Pharisees that they “nullify the Word of God” with their traditions? This is in Matthew 15:6.

This is a valid question and one that deserves an answer. Christ was telling the Pharisees that their man made small “t” traditions were not in keeping with the sacred capital “T” traditions of their ancestors. And truly, this is something all Christians, Catholic included, should always be aware of. It is because of this very warning by Christ that we Catholics have a teaching arm of the church, to ensure that man made disciplines and new age mantras don’t misrepresent Sacred Traditions passed down by the Apostles and early Church Fathers which is always in line with the written word of God.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I used to talk with catholics to convert them. I no longer do that as I believe a sincere Catholic is just as Christian as I am. We are all part of the One, holy and Catholic church, though you see me as partialy seperated from the full expression of the Church.

 

[chero23]

I used to talk with catholics to convert them. I no longer do that as I believe a sincere Catholic is just as Christian as I am. We are all part of the One, holy and Catholic church, though you see me as partialy seperated from the full expression of the Church.

That’s the problem with Protestants. They feel that they know the real way to be Christians when their religion was started by a man, meanwhile the Catholic Church was establishe by Jesus Christ and his Apostles.
I say this to Protestants very respectfully, don’t try to inven the wheel, it was already made and the Catholic Church has the instructions.

 

[Aschecte]

as a protestant I should of cause comment and ask if you want the 5 minute argument or the longer one

Now let’s start a simple argument, why would you believe that Jesus made wine at the wedding in Canaan. Would it not be against the truth and against his later teachings - in fact against the logos that is God? To me fiddling with OH molecules and flavours is a cheap magicians trick but the miracle is to turn water into wine without making wine.

I’m not fully following what your saying here and to a extent feel like your leading this down a road (Marian) but I’m not sure that’s your intention. Obviously we believe that the wedding feast at Cana happened because of scripture that was orally passed down for 360 or so years. As to our lord turning water into wine yes that was his first miracle. As to cheap magicians tricks playing with Oh ( oxygen / hydrogen ) molecules … As someone who has a lot of knowledge on this I assure you it’s not that simple turning in water into wine is a miracle.

 

[chero23]

I’m not fully following what your saying here and to a extent feel like your leading this down a road (Marian) but I’m not sure that’s your intention. Obviously we believe that the wedding feast at Cana happened because of scripture that was orally passed down for 360 or so years. As to our lord turning water into wine yes that was his first miracle. As to cheap magicians tricks playing with Oh ( oxygen / hydrogen ) molecules … As someone who has a lot of knowledge on this I assure you it’s not that simple turning in water into wine is a miracle.

Probably also b/c the Bible also says that. Isn’t it something that ya as Protestant believe that everything in the Bible is true. So why are you as a Protestant denying what the Bible says. Also keep in mind that the Wedding at Cana was Jesus first miracle. Guess who interceded? That is correct, our Mother, the Virgin Mary.

 

[Cranch]

Peter and Paul both did miracles which was one of the authentications of a true Apostle. But I think what you are getting at is why do I accept the canon of scripture as the complete word of God. I do believe that when the early church gathered these writings that make up the new testament they were right to decalre them the word of God. I also have historical reasons, and the new testament in the gospels fullfills what was already established in the old testament prophecies

What I was getting at is the New Testament claims Peter and Paul did miracles. It claims the Gospel fulfilled OT prophecies. How do you know it’s true? And you answered rightly: “when the early church gathered these writings that make up the new testament they were right to declare them the word of God.” Yes! It is only through the authoritative witness of the Church that we know God’s Word. The bible does not (because it cannot) authenticate itself. Therefore Sola Scriptura is an error.

 

[pablope]

No I don’t think this tradition is sinful or wrong at all, what would be wrong is to bind or lose behaivior where scripture has not done so. So IF an athurity in the church would say attendance to these special masses is mandatory, that would be wrong.

Thank you for clarifying. Now I see what you are trying to drive at. Those that the Church and bind are its doctrines and dogma. Attending these masses is not dogma or doctrine.

Also if there was a traditon that contradicted scripture that would be wrong like indulgences, which I take to contradict the teaching of scripture that the payment of Christ on the cross is sufficent to pay for the sins of a christian

.

If you want to start a thread on this…please do and we can correct your misunderstanding.

Here is a short answer to the (blue) part of your post:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0091.html

Now what does this mean, that Christ has not paid for our sin? Of course not. It doesn’t mean that. Christ has paid once and for all for our sin. His death is the ultimate satisfaction and price for our redemption, but His life and His death must be lived out in us. That’s why we need to pick up our cross, and we need to imitate Christ. Did you catch that? We don’t suffer because Christ’s sufferings weren’t enough. We suffer because Christ’s life must be reproduced in us. It is finished. It is accomplished, but now it must be applied. The work of the third person of the Holy Spirit is New Testament history, is personal history.

cin.org/users/james/files/how2purg.htm

Quite the contrary! The fact is that the suffering we experience in sanctification in this life is something we receive because of Christ’s sacrifice for us. His sufferings paid the price for us to be sanctified, and his sufferings paid the price for the whole of our sanctification – both the initial and final parts. Thus it is because of Christ’s sacrifice that we receive the final sanctification in the first place! If he had not suffered, we would not be given the final sanctification (or the glorification to which it leads), but would go straight to hell. Thus purgatory does not imply Christ’s sufferings were insufficient; rather it is because of Christ’s sufferings that we are given the final sanctification of purgatory in the first place!

For the most part I don’t think there is anything sinful with most of Catholic tradition, I just feel no compulsion to accept them when I don’t see them commened to me in scripture.

Again…who is to judge what is Scriptural and what is not?

Good point, but I would still hold to the ideal that those oral teachings are from the apostles and did not contradict scripture.

Let me as you…RC…your pastor…you listen to him every week…how do you know what he is teaching, what he is saying in his sermon…how do you know it is from the Apostles?

Let me cite the example of St. Paul:

Galatians 2:2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain.

Paul had a direct revelation from Christ. Yet, from the two passages above, he goes to visit Cephas/Peter and submits himself to Peter. Gal 2: 2 states his purpose…to present his gospel/message to make sure it is in line with the Apostles and what they were handed down from Christ.

And read this passage and how it fulfills Paul’s example: from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Let me ask you…how does your pastor’s teaching fulfill the example of Paul and 1john4:6? Who did he submit his teaching to and who approved his teaching as coming from the Apostles? Can he trace a line from himself to the apostles?

 

[michaelhager]

…I’m not sure this observation about Mohler is right. As I understand it we protestants want scripture itself to guide our interpretation. Exegesis, finding the meaning of the text from within the text itself.

The problem here lies in so many trying to interpret the meaning of scripture based on their current favorite translation with little knowledge of what the original words or intent of the writer actually were. This is something that extra-scriptural church tradition helps us to understand.

 

[Aschecte]

Probably also b/c the Bible also says that. Isn’t it something that ya as Protestant believe that everything in the Bible is true. So why are you as a Protestant denying what the Bible says. Also keep in mind that the Wedding at Cana was Jesus first miracle. Guess who interceded? That is correct, our Mother, the Virgin Mary.

I must be having a off day or something… I’m not a Protestant I’m Roman Catholic I was trying to clarify that it was a miracle and NOT a magic trick as the op was suggesting. And by all means the blessed mother had a huge role in his first miracle. Maybe I wasn’t clear in my original post as I didn’t fully understand the first post I responded to.

 

[Cranch]

I must be having a off day or something… I’m not a Protestant I’m Roman Catholic I was trying to clarify that it was a miracle and NOT a magic trick as the op was suggesting. And by all means the blessed mother had a huge role in his first miracle. Maybe I wasn’t clear in my original post as I didn’t fully understand the first post I responded to.

I’m not sure, but I think chero23 meant to reply to the same post you were replying to, namely this one:

as a protestant I should of cause comment and ask if you want the 5 minute argument or the longer one

Now let’s start a simple argument, why would you believe that Jesus made wine at the wedding in Canaan. Would it not be against the truth and against his later teachings - in fact against the logos that is God? To me fiddling with OH molecules and flavours is a cheap magicians trick but the miracle is to turn water into wine without making wine.