Ask A Protestant

[stoplooklisten]

Hello, Catholic Friends. I am trying to get better at answering questions and in particular questions that Catholics have about the Protestant worldview. It would really help if you asked me the questions you have and I’ll answer as best as I can.

That’s a good thing to do. The more we engage, the better we can get at witnessing to others.

Q. What are your views on sanctification and holiness? Is it necessary? Can an unholy person on earth enter into the holy presence of God? If a person leaves earth in an unholy state, how do they become holy? Does their incomplete sanctification on earth get resolved with an instant, entire and painless sanctification at death after which they are ushered into the holy Presence of God? Is this a biblical belief? Or, could there be a process of purgation or purification in purgatory?

“Strive for peace with everyone, and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Hebrews 12:14).

Holiness: Personal sanctification is required for attaining the vision of God in heaven (Mt 5:8; Rev 22:4). This includes being made holy or sanctified by the grace of God, first of all in Baptism (1 Cor 6:11). However, the Lord also wills us to “strive” for an increase in sanctification by the exertion of our will in living the gospel to the full (Rom 6:19; 1 Thess 3:12–13; 4:3). The text (Hebrews 12:14) declares this second aspect of holiness to be indispensable for reaching heaven.

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The New Testament. (2010). (p. 434). San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

 

[JonNC]

However, I think we’d both agree that the Lord’s Supper is something the church should do in remembrance of what Jesus has done

What should we do in remembrance of Him? He tells us: “take and eat. This is my body. “. Etc.
In the Lord’s Supper, He tells us to eat His body and drink His blood in remembrance of Him.

 

[stoplooklisten]

What do you mean by Holy Communion? We may have differences. However, I think we’d both agree that the Lord’s Supper is something the church should do in remembrance of what Jesus has done

Hebrews had the Presence of God in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and the Temple. They had this for over 1000 years.

The Catholics (and the Orthodox) have the Presence of God in the Holy of Holies in tabernacles and sanctuaries of churches and chapels around the world. They have had this for nearly 2000 years. We enjoy this Real Presence in the Eucharist of the Lord’s Supper.

I have been in Protestant buildings where they call a room a sanctuary but there is no tabernacle and no Holy of Holies and no particular Presence of God there.

The Book of Revelation shows us another Tabernacle that will endure forever. The Presence of God will be there. God and his people will dwell together.

And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his peoples, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. (Revelation 21:3)

 

[upant]

Maximian:

It is explicitly in the Bible

(A) In Genesis, chaper 1

God is the Father Who creates
The Spirit who moved over the face of the waters and
The Word which God spoke

(B) John Chapter one identifies the Word with Jesus

(C) In Matthew 28 Jesus enjoins baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If you mean that the word “Trinity” was not used till later that is perfectly correct. But the fact of God’s Trinitarian nature is made plain in scripture.

I assume you are not Catholic?

I’m not Catholic in communion with the pope, and I agree. This, and the narrative of Christ’s baptism, are explicit.

where does it say these Three are one?

the church with its authority had to define it

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Maximian:

It is explicitly in the Bible

(A) In Genesis, chaper 1

God is the Father Who creates
The Spirit who moved over the face of the waters and
The Word which God spoke

(B) John Chapter one identifies the Word with Jesus

(C) In Matthew 28 Jesus enjoins baptism in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If you mean that the word “Trinity” was not used till later that is perfectly correct. But the fact of God’s Trinitarian nature is made plain in scripture.

I assume you are not Catholic?

I’m not Catholic in communion with the pope, and I agree. This, and the narrative of Christ’s baptism, are explicit.

where does it say these Three are one?

the church with its authority had to define it

Did the Councils define it out of whole cloth, or did they look at the teaching of scripture ?
The composite of scripture is clear and explicit.

 

[upant]

Did the Councils define it out of whole cloth, or did they look at the teaching of scripture ?

the council settled dispute, so it obviously wasn’t clear from scripture alone.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Did the Councils define it out of whole cloth, or did they look at the teaching of scripture ?

the council settled dispute, so it obviously wasn’t clear from scripture alone.

There are a number of things, explicit in scripture, that the councils settled.
Let us not forget that we know of the Church’s teaching authority through scripture.

 

[upant]

Let us not forget that we know of the Church’s teaching authority through scripture.

we knew it before scripture was scripture, we knew it verbally first.

how many years were there without a defined tomb?

 

[JonNC]

we knew it before scripture was scripture, we knew it verbally first.

We knew it before it was written down because it was written down. It wasn’t recorded. Our record of Christ’s words, of the events of Pentecost, the Great Commission we get from the written word.

how many years were there without a defined tomb?

Christ said numerous times, “it is written “.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

he never claims authority, only opinion, which he says more than once is not binding on others.

He allowed Duke to practice polygamy. It wasn’t that he tolerated it, but he allowed it for “good of his soul”. That’s pretty authoritative to me.

Luther was not infallible even according to Lutherans. I understand that even if something was said or prohibited by Luther, it is not necessarily binding upon your denomination… so saying Luther did or did not reject that doesn’t make that much difference either way.

I do agree that free will means that you have the freedom to make choices and we are responsible to walk in faith and faithfulness and love back the God who created us, love us, and sustains us on a daily basis.

Which is why it was written “he who preservers to the end shall be saved”. Not “he who starts” or anything like that. It isn’t a single choice to choose Lord once and for all- it is a choice we make every day, every minute and every second of our life anew. We have to choose him forever and always repeatedly. Which is why “once saved always saved” never made sense to me.

We have free will insofar as our free will does not contradict God’s promises.

Do you believe we can reject God’s grace? For example reject gift of faith or reject staying in faith? Catholic approach is basically that one can lose salvation if they reject God and His commandments and faith in Him. Protestants basically says one can not do that but in the end say that we can only know one was "really " saved when he did all those things until his death. Basically either way one can not know whether or not he is saved. Even most genuine faith can become in-genuine (and hence someone was never really genuine in Protestant view) and hence one can be “not saved”. I think that difference is that Protestants believe themselves to be saved if they think their faith is genuine (but can’t judge others) while Catholics don’t do that ever. What is your view on this?

However, I think we’d both agree that the Lord’s Supper is something the church should do in remembrance of what Jesus has done

What Catholic Church teaches and does is that we do not simply do it in remembrance (because English translation of that word is somewhat flawed), but we do offer sacrifice to God- we make our Lord’s crucifixion present once again and offer it up for God, as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did on the Cross. It is actually he who offers himself at Mass and we partake in His real Body and His real Blood hidden upon appearance of bread and wine. That’s our belief anyway. Do you believe our Lord is truly present in Eucharist or that he offers himself as sacrifice?

Just to add on the comment about translation… biblically “do this in remembrance of me” would mean “do this as I have done”. Same way, historically speaking symbol also means something that symbolizes but also truly IS something. Which is what we believe about Eucharist.

 

[upant]

We knew it before it was written down because it was written down. It wasn’t recorded. Our record of Christ’s words, of the events of Pentecost, the Great Commission we get from the written word.

it was by the Holy Spirit the teachings were remembered

John 14:25, 26

“I have spoken these things to you while I remain with you. 26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit—the Father will send Him in My name—will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you.

it was 20+ years (depending on which dating you believe) before the gospels were written. What was used during this period by those evangelizing?

when teachings were written, it took over 300 years before the contents were declared

Christ said numerous times, “it is written “.

in reference to the OT

 

[JonNC]

He allowed Duke to practice polygamy. It wasn’t that he tolerated it, but he allowed it for “good of his soul”. That’s pretty authoritative to me.

He offered advice. And that advice was based on the premise that divorce was clearly rejected in scripture. Bigamy was not. He opposed both. He said so.
In a letter to Clemens Ursinus in1527:

“Polygamy, which in former times was permitted to the Jews and Gentiles, cannot be honestly approved of among Christians, and cannot be engaged in with a good conscience, unless in an extreme case of necessity, as, for instance, when one of the spouses is separated from the other by leprosy or for a similar cause. Accordingly, you may say to the carnal people (with whom you have to do), if they want to be Christians, they must keep married fidelity and bridle their flesh, not give it license. If they want to be heathen, let them do what they please, at their own risk.”

So, no, he did not act as some kind of authority.

 

[JonNC]

it was by the Holy Spirit the teachings were remembered

When and by whom? Why do you think the written word was not the tool for this?

it was 20+ years (depending on which dating you believe) before the gospels were written. What was used during this period by those evangelizing?

And?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

So, no, he did not act as some kind of authority.

I see, thank you for correction. Duke did kind of try to play his cards in a fashion where Luther was the one who allowed it and hence he had permission other than his own. I guess that makes sense for Duke to do though. Luther just got caught in that. Interesting and good to know ! Thanks.

 

[upant]

When and by whom?

the Holy Spirit, when they were to go out

Why do you think the written word was not the tool for this?

Do you have proof of this writing? if it was written, what was the involvement of the Holy Spirit? Did He write it?

If you had this writing from the Holy Spirit why would you need man’s writings 20+ years later? why isn’t the Holy Spirits writings the bible?

And?

there were no gospels for decades of evangelization and there was no bible for 300 years

 

[Maximian]

You are mistaken. Pythagoras defined the formula for the relationship between the hypotenuse and the other two sides of a right angle triangle. That doesn’t mean that such relationship was unclear. It could have been seen by anybody who had the mind and the inclination to comprehend the evidence, which is and always been explicit and not open to doubt.

 

[Maximian]

we know of the Church’s teaching authority through scripture.

Im afraid that is incorrect. The Church’s teaching authority existed before any of the books of the New Testaments were written.

 

[hope]

I am glad to have the opportunity to ask you questions that I have wondered about. Am I understanding you correctly that you were once a Catholic for sixteen years? Your personal belief on being justified is based on what? You did quote John as part of your belief that you could not loose your salvation. “My sheep hear my voice” which means they listen to Jesus. I don’t see justification that you can not loose your faith. How do you square what Jesus said in Matthew 25 especially versus 15-46 with your belief no other works are necessary?

”I don’t believe that people are saved through Baptism”

How do you square this with John 3:5, Matthew 28:19,20, Mark 16,16, Acts 2 37,38 and 1 Peter 3: 21

I am very interested in discussing this with you.

 

[upant]

It could have been seen by anybody who had the mind and the inclination to comprehend the evidence, which is and always been explicit and not open to doubt.

due to personal interpretation, other things were seen and put out as correct

the church had to declare which was right.

 

[Maximian]

Correct. Which brings us back to the fact that it is the Church which has the authority not personal interpretation, as the Protestants would have it.