Best questions to ask Protestants

[rfournier103]

He was adamant that he did not want to surrender his ability to interpret the Scriptures.

He doesn’t want to give up HIS ability to interpret Scripture; or he thinks EVERYONE should be free to interpret Scripture? What I’ve always wondered is if anyone and everyone is free to interpret Scripture for themselves, what need have we of clergy at all? (leaving aside the Sacraments…)

I did bring up the problems with sola scriptura, and he said that he believed that the Church recognized the canon of Scripture, rather than determined the canon with any authority. Any help with this one?

Thanks again for all your help.

I have no idea what the heck he meant by that, either. If the Church didn’t determine the canon of Scripture, who did???

Very confusing, indeed…

 

[Mammoths]

I have spent hundreds of hours with Protestant or evangelical ministers quibbling over the distinctions of one side of a hair or another. This is an argument you won’t win if your goal is to change his mind in a day.

However, as has previously been stated, being prepared with your catholic apologetics will challenge an important narrative in Protestant circles–that Catholics believe silly idolatrous things for no good reason. That may put a bee in his bonnet because if you know catholic teaching it will be a very short time before you get passed his knowledge.

I am in a similar process as you and am hoping to meet with a priest and an evangelical pastor in the next few weeks if I can hook it up. As a former youth pastor and as an evangelist, some of the questions that bother me are:

Is it plausible that Christ would lose his church?

Sola scriptura is based on outside evidence making it internally inconsistent or its based on internal evidence such as scripture, making it circular. Either way it is unsupportable, right?

How can there be perseverance of the saints but not perseverance of the church?

After God covers our sins and makes us positionally righteous, is he just no longer omnipotent and self deluding about sin? Or perhaps he actually changes us as the church teaches.

If the apostles had power to bind their teaching on earth and heaven, how did God just disregard their establishment of apostolic succession so that those who came a short time later were apostate?

All the sacraments mentioned in the Bible are spoken of in language consistent with the sacramental view. How did this happen if sacraments are just pictures. For that matter wouldn’t it make them vain rituals if there is no substance?

Why did the early fathers write like Catholics affirming catholic distinctives like the real presence? Come prepared with examples and wait until he starts using the early fathers as evidence of scriptural authority. Then use the same authors to prove sacremental dogmas.

Jesus prayed we would be one. That makes schism a sin. Where did our denomination come from?

“They went out from us because they were not of us”
“Their folly will become evident to all”

How did the reformation set the stage for gay marriage in the United States?

 

[Mammoths]

He doesn’t want to give up HIS ability to interpret Scripture; or he thinks EVERYONE should be free to interpret Scripture? What I’ve always wondered is if anyone and everyone is free to interpret Scripture for themselves, what need have we of clergy at all? (leaving aside the Sacraments…)

I have no idea what the heck he meant by that, either. If the Church didn’t determine the canon of Scripture, who did???

Very confusing, indeed…

Re recognized vs determined. This is quibbling over a hair. He makes it sound as if the canonization of scripture was just a matter of all the bishops bringing their scriptures to council, organizing them by genre, authorship and length, and xeroxing them. He knows better.

The scriptures were recognized initially for their authorship but as time went by spurious writings were published about. In the late 4th century the bishops carefully considered what was scripture and made a canonical declaration based on their knowledge of authenticity and accuracy of the texts in question. Some texts that were included were at first thought to be spurious but the bishops considered all the facts and declared them scripture on the basis of their authority as bishops. This “recognized” claim denies the very process of authorship. The Pauline letters are recognized on the basis of the churche’s knowledge of Paul’s authority. That’s how I understand it anyway.

 

[Mammoths]

If the Bible as we know it wasn’t compiled until AD 393-97; who or what was the rule of faith between the death of the last apostle (c. AD 100) and the compilation of the Bible? After all, the Bible didn’t just appear out of thin air the day after Pentecost, did it?

Who had the authority to determine what was included in the Bible, and what was not?

How do we determine who has the authority to interpret Scripture? Everyone can’t be right.

Those are my best ones.

–Not the questions of the former Protestant. Those are easy. The Bible as we know it does not mean the epistles and gospels weren’t written. It just means they weren’t formally canonized. They were copied and published in abundance, recognized by the church as apostolic teaching centuries before formal canonization–unless you agree with your opponents the Catholic Church wrote the Bible in the late 4th century. I think there is plenty evidence the early fathers considered the epistles and gospels to be scripture and submitted to its authority.

Who has authority to interpret scripture is a good one but the discussion that follows is a messy one.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have spent hundreds of hours with Protestant or evangelical ministers quibbling over the distinctions of one side of a hair or another. This is an argument you won’t win if your goal is to change his mind in a day.

However, as has previously been stated, being prepared with your catholic apologetics will challenge an important narrative in Protestant circles–that Catholics believe silly idolatrous things for no good reason. That may put a bee in his bonnet because if you know catholic teaching it will be a very short time before you get passed his knowledge.

I am in a similar process as you and am hoping to meet with a priest and an evangelical pastor in the next few weeks if I can hook it up. As a former youth pastor and as an evangelist, some of the questions that bother me are:

Is it plausible that Christ would lose his church?

Sola scriptura is based on outside evidence making it internally inconsistent or its based on internal evidence such as scripture, making it circular. Either way it is unsupportable, right?

How can there be perseverance of the saints but not perseverance of the church?

After God covers our sins and makes us positionally righteous, is he just no longer omnipotent and self deluding about sin? Or perhaps he actually changes us as the church teaches.

If the apostles had power to bind their teaching on earth and heaven, how did God just disregard their establishment of apostolic succession so that those who came a short time later were apostate?

All the sacraments mentioned in the Bible are spoken of in language consistent with the sacramental view. How did this happen if sacraments are just pictures. For that matter wouldn’t it make them vain rituals if there is no substance?

Why did the early fathers write like Catholics affirming catholic distinctives like the real presence? Come prepared with examples and wait until he starts using the early fathers as evidence of scriptural authority. Then use the same authors to prove sacremental dogmas.

Jesus prayed we would be one. That makes schism a sin. Where did our denomination come from?

“They went out from us because they were not of us”
“Their folly will become evident to all”

How did the reformation set the stage for gay marriage in the United States?

Great post.

In regards to morality…100 years ago not one Christian denomination was OK with Birth control…not one. Now, all of them less the Catholic Church has OK’d it.

So we can ask the non Catholics, what exactly happened there? Did truth change? Or are you acting as lord of your own life and interpreting Christianity as it’s convenient to you?

Important point to make, and TBH, it’s opened the flood gates for a whole host of immorality in this country…and much of it has crept into Christian Churches.

 

[Mammoths]

Great post.

In regards to morality…100 years ago not one Christian denomination was OK with Birth control…not one. Now, all of them less the Catholic Church has OK’d it.

So we can ask the non Catholics, what exactly happened there? Did truth change? Or are you acting as lord of your own life and interpreting Christianity as it’s convenient to you?

Important point to make, and TBH, it’s opened the flood gates for a whole host of immorality in this country…and much of it has crept into Christian Churches.

BIG point! immorality is rampantly tolerated in protestant circles. Even the more conservative pastors will marry divorced couples.

In my experience (my dad agreed when i mentioned it to him this evening) right about the time somebody makes a statement about the bible being inerrant and the highest authority etc etc etc… etc… the very next thing that will come out of their mouth will be some ridiculous, plain, transparent heresy that even a child could detect. “Jesus only died for the elect. He didn’t die for the whole world.”

 

[steve_b]

I find myself drawing ever closer to the Catholic Church. I fully intend to go to Mass tomorrow (although I won’t be receiving Communion yet). But I haven’t quite got up the courage to go to Confession yet.

On Monday, I am going to meet with my pastor to discuss the Catholic faith. I lent him a copy of Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic by David Currie. I told him about the many different Protestant denominations and how they all teach different things, and he responded that there are Catholics who also believe different things. *I told him that they’re supposed to believe the same things and said that poor catechesis might be the reason why. *

You gave a great answer
M:

What are the best “stumper questions” you can think of to ask Protestants? I know about “Show me where the Bible teaches that the Bible alone is the supreme infallible authority” but what other questions do you think are good to ask Protestants to make them reconsider Protestantism and think about Catholicism?

The biggy is, who started your church? Ever hear the phrase, “to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”? while still a Protestant John Henry Newman coined the phrase

Catholics can show that Jesus started the Catholic Church ( a condensed history of the 1st 400 yrs #34 )

 

[Catholic_Dude]

What are the best “stumper questions” you can think of to ask Protestants? I know about “Show me where the Bible teaches that the Bible alone is the supreme infallible authority” but what other questions do you think are good to ask Protestants to make them reconsider Protestantism and think about Catholicism?

The absolute best, easiest, and most powerful argument is to ask them: Where in the Bible does it teach your Sunday Liturgy? The fact is, nowhere does the Bible give details on what goes on during a Sunday Worship service, so when they gather together to hear a sermon on the Bible and sing songs…they don’t realize this is 100% a tradition of men, nowhere taught in the New Testament. See the link in my signature for more. This works especially well on Reformed denominations.

 

[Michael85]

The absolute best, easiest, and most powerful argument is to ask them: Where in the Bible does it teach your Sunday Liturgy? The fact is, nowhere does the Bible give details on what goes on during a Sunday Worship service, so when they gather together to hear a sermon on the Bible and sing songs…they don’t realize this is 100% a tradition of men, nowhere taught in the New Testament. See the link in my signature for more. This works especially well on Reformed denominations.

I did in fact mention this topic, and he said that they take principles from the Bible and put them into practice in the church service.

Reformed churches (including the one I attend) claim to follow the “Regulative Principle of Worship”, i.e. whatever is not commanded in the Scriptures is forbidden. Only thing is, they can’t agree on how this principle is to be interpreted. For example, many Reformed and Presbyterian churches had no musical instruments for many years (and some still don’t) yet our church has an organ and a piano which are regularly played at the services. Some Presbyterians and Reformed only sing psalms (no, not even traditional hymns are sung), yet our church sings both psalms and hymns, and also some modern songs. This principle seems to be like sola scriptura - it can be interpreted in many different ways.

 

[Mammoths]

The absolute best, easiest, and most powerful argument is to ask them: Where in the Bible does it teach your Sunday Liturgy? The fact is, nowhere does the Bible give details on what goes on during a Sunday Worship service, so when they gather together to hear a sermon on the Bible and sing songs…they don’t realize this is 100% a tradition of men, nowhere taught in the New Testament. See the link in my signature for more. This works especially well on Reformed denominations.

Truly you have a dizzying intellect. The argument in your link is entirely circular. However if you condescend to pick up the gauntlet, meet me here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=14497090#post14497090

We shall have a cordial debate for educational purposes.

 

[pablope]

I did in fact mention this topic, and he said that they take principles from the Bible and put them into practice in the church service.

Reformed churches (including the one I attend) claim to follow the “Regulative Principle of Worship”, i.e. whatever is not commanded in the Scriptures is forbidden. Only thing is, they can’t agree on how this principle is to be interpreted. For example, many Reformed and Presbyterian churches had no musical instruments for many years (and some still don’t) yet our church has an organ and a piano which are regularly played at the services. Some Presbyterians and Reformed only sing psalms (no, not even traditional hymns are sung), yet our church sings both psalms and hymns, and also some modern songs. This principle seems to be like sola scriptura - it can be interpreted in many different ways.

In this regard with interpretation, I would recommend this article for you to read and for your pastor…and discuss after you both read it…

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…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.

Only thing is, they can’t agree on how this principle is to be interpreted. For example, many Reformed and Presbyterian churches had no musical instruments for many years (and some still don’t) yet our church has an organ and a piano which are regularly played at the services. …This principle seems to be like sola scriptura - it can be interpreted in many different ways

And from the citation above, you could see what is being described in the article…happening in that situation you just described.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I did in fact mention this topic, and he said that they take principles from the Bible and put them into practice in the church service.

Reformed churches (including the one I attend) claim to follow the “Regulative Principle of Worship”, i.e. whatever is not commanded in the Scriptures is forbidden. Only thing is, they can’t agree on how this principle is to be interpreted. For example, many Reformed and Presbyterian churches had no musical instruments for many years (and some still don’t) yet our church has an organ and a piano which are regularly played at the services. Some Presbyterians and Reformed only sing psalms (no, not even traditional hymns are sung), yet our church sings both psalms and hymns, and also some modern songs. This principle seems to be like sola scriptura - it can be interpreted in many different ways.

Agreed, the Reformed have good intentions with the RPW, but the fact they cannot put it into practice in a consistent manner ultimately undermines the very intention of the RPW. One key example I also point out is that they cannot agree on whether the Eucharist is to be celebrated weekly or only a few times a year. The Eucharist is probably the clearest aspect of worship in the NT, yet most Reformed say the Eucharist is not essential to Sunday Worship and thus only celebrate their Lord’s Supper only a few times a year (though other Reformed celebrate it weekly).

Truly you have a dizzying intellect. The argument in your link is entirely circular. However if you condescend to pick up the gauntlet, meet me here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=14497090#post14497090
We shall have a cordial debate for educational purposes.

The thread was closed before I could get a chance to check it out.

 

[fred_conty]

I find myself drawing ever closer to the Catholic Church. I fully intend to go to Mass tomorrow (although I won’t be receiving Communion yet). But I haven’t quite got up the courage to go to Confession yet.

On Monday, I am going to meet with my pastor to discuss the Catholic faith. I lent him a copy of Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic by David Currie. I told him about the many different Protestant denominations and how they all teach different things, and he responded that there are Catholics who also believe different things. I told him that they’re supposed to believe the same things and said that poor catechesis might be the reason why.

What are the best “stumper questions” you can think of to ask Protestants? I know about “Show me where the Bible teaches that the Bible alone is the supreme infallible authority” but what other questions do you think are good to ask Protestants to make them reconsider Protestantism and think about Catholicism?

I would seem to me the best question could be presented after talking with the person about his faith, namely, what he believes in. Then pick something that he mentioned that just isn’t correct that he misunderstood. Then ask him about this and tell him what the bible or Jesus said about this. In other words, find a weakness and then let him consider it. Then drop it. In that way he will begin to be a bit bewildered and try to find a reasonable answer other than the one you offered. He may not find one that is acceptable. And that may be the first step in his journey.

 

[Mammoths]

I would seem to me the best question could be presented after talking with the person about his faith, namely, what he believes in. Then pick something that he mentioned that just isn’t correct that he misunderstood. Then ask him about this and tell him what the bible or Jesus said about this. In other words, find a weakness and then let him consider it. Then drop it. In that way he will begin to be a bit bewildered and try to find a reasonable answer other than the one you offered. He may not find one that is acceptable. And that may be the first step in his journey.

This is what I meant. But you said it so much better.

 

[fred_conty]

This is what I meant. But you said it so much better.

Thank you for your kindness.

One question that so many have a misunderstanding about is the Eucharist. If they bring it up or if you can work the conversation around to this, this is a good question to ask them.

For instance,just explain the scene at the Last Supper when the 12 were there with Jesus. And He took into his hands some unleavened bread, and said “this is my body…, take all of you and eat of it”. After this, he took into his hands a chalice of wine, and said “this is my blood…, take and drink…” Now ask them a question of what they think he meant when he did this and let them first explain their understanding. After which, just say that is interesting.

And then say, "would you like to know what we believe and why? If they say “no” then drop it for that would indicate a closed mind. As Jesus said, some seed fell on hard rocky ground and could not grow. If they say “yes” then you have their good will to explain the real meaning of the Eucharist as you believe it to be.

It may well be that they will not accept your understanding, but that is ok. It may be that the wall they have built toward the true Eucharistic meaning has been softened somewhat, and the next encounter with the real meaning may take hold.

It is important not only what we say, but in what way we say it. One person can read another person’s sincerity. If we think like Mary, from the heart, this will make a deeper impression.

 

[MikeHammer]

I find myself drawing ever closer to the Catholic Church. I fully intend to go to Mass tomorrow (although I won’t be receiving Communion yet). But I haven’t quite got up the courage to go to Confession yet.

On Monday, I am going to meet with my pastor to discuss the Catholic faith. I lent him a copy of Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic by David Currie. I told him about the many different Protestant denominations and how they all teach different things, and he responded that there are Catholics who also believe different things. I told him that they’re supposed to believe the same things and said that poor catechesis might be the reason why.

What are the best “stumper questions” you can think of to ask Protestants? I know about “Show me where the Bible teaches that the Bible alone is the supreme infallible authority” but what other questions do you think are good to ask Protestants to make them reconsider Protestantism and think about Catholicism?

Perhaps you should have re-phrased the question to Best questions to ask fundamentalists.
Here’s one:
What did Christians do before they had a Bible?

 

[JonNC]

Here are a few of the biggies that pushed me over:

Why is your take on Christianity any more authoritative than the thousands of other Protestant denominations that claim your same basis for existence?

If it’s that your interpretation of scripture is better, how do you know so?

If Christ said the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against the Church, why would reformation/restoration be necessary?

In the classic Lutheran view that the church didn’t fail, we just needed to “remove some barnacles from the boat”, who determined what was “barnacle” and what was “boat”?

Why was Luther so zealous to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation and Esther from the primary canon? What even gave him the authority to try? Why did he successfully remove the deuterocanon that was present in scripture for the previous 1000 years?

There are others

Good luck. Stick with it.

Had he been zealous to remove them, he would have. His commentaries do not reveal such a zealotry, nor does his translation. Secondly, his transition did include the DC’s and the Prayer of Manasseh.

 

[steve_b]

Here are a few of the biggies that pushed me over:

Why is your take on Christianity any more authoritative than the thousands of other Protestant denominations that claim your same basis for existence?

exactly

only 1 Church goes back to the beginning #34

To this day, I can’t believe how all those bible alone believers, completely ignore, that division from the Church, the Catholic Church, is condemned as are those who do it. Once a person sees the evidence, they are no longer innocently ignorant of the truth.

the internal links are all operational in #34. The consequences are dire for division from this Church shown in scripture and the ECF’s, references are all properly referenced.
V:

If Christ said the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against the Church, why would -]reformation/restoration/-] be necessary?

especially since it was an all out revolt
V:

In the classic Lutheran view that the church didn’t fail, we just needed to “remove some barnacles from the boat”, who determined what was “barnacle” and what was “boat”?

nice turn of phrase
V:

Why was Luther so zealous to remove Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation and Esther from the primary canon? What even gave him the authority to try? Why did he successfully remove the deuterocanon that was present in scripture for the previous 1000 years?

Yes, The canon hasn’t changed since 382 at the council of Rome and the decree of pope Damasus I.

 

[epostle]

Thanks for all the replies. I will definitely use some of the suggestions.

To clarify: I am baptized in the Catholic Church (I converted), so RCIA isn’t necessary. I didn’t even go through RCIA when I converted but a shorter period of instruction with a priest. So I am a baptized Catholic. I’m not sure, however, if Confession alone will suffice, seeing as how I made a profession of faith in my Reformed church, so a profession of the Creed of St Pius V may be necessary.

This afternoon I spoke with a friend who is studying to become a pastor in my denomination. We discussed many things about the Catholic Church, and he said that he would find it easier to be an atheist than a Catholic because of all the things that the Catholic Church teaches. He was adamant that he did not want to surrender his ability to interpret the Scriptures. I did bring up the problems with sola scriptura, and he said that he believed that the Church recognized the canon of Scripture, rather than determined the canon with any authority. Any help with this one?

Thanks again for all your help.

The major stumbling block for Protestants is ignorance of history. It is true the Church recognized what was inspired, but there were many books that were thought to be inspired, but later rejected. This process took 4 centuries and not as simple as Protestants think. For example, the book of Hebrews was not universally accepted until the 4th century, and the 5th century in the east, if memory serves me correctly.

Stumper questions:

Where in the Bible is the Bible ever pitted against the Church?

Hebrews 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
What is the expiration date of this verse?

• The Divinity or Godhood of Christ was only finalized in 325 at the Council of Nicaea,
• and the full doctrine of the Trinity in 381 at the Council of Constantinople.
• The dogma of the Two Natures of Christ (God and Man) was proclaimed in 451 at the

Council of Chalcedon.

These decisions of General Councils of the Church were in response to challenging heresies. Why should Protestants accept these authoritative verdicts, but reject similar proclamations on Church government, the Eucharist, Mary, Purgatory, etc.?