Catholic response to James Kennedy’s EE?

[VociMike]

Some interesting responses. It’s pretty clear that the point of these questions is actually to trip up a person who gives any off-the-cuff answer other than the “accepted” one. The purpose of the questions seems to me to put the answerer on the defensive immediately.

I might ask some questions in return, like “why would God ask a question He already knows the answer to?”, and “would my answer to God make any difference to His judgement?” These are not antagonistic questions but they do change the rules of the game so that you’re no longer playing by their script.

Or just ask “why do you want to know my answers?” Make them give reasons for their questions. Or ask them to first answer their own questions to “warm you up” so to speak.

 

[Matt16_18]

VociMike:

It’s pretty clear that the point of these questions is actually to trip up a person who gives any off-the-cuff answer other than the “accepted” one. The purpose of the questions seems to me to put the answerer on the defensive immediately.

What are the traps that you see in the questions? It seems to me that the Evangelical Protestants that use these questions are coming in with a “faith-alone vs. works” mentality, and the point of the questions is to engage people in discussions of salvation-by-faith-alone and OSAS. The Evangelical Protestant mindset will bias what they think are the correct answers, of course. But still, the questions are valid, and Catholics should know how to give a response to these questions without answering in *non sequiturs * or insults.

I might ask some questions in return, like “why would God ask a question He already knows the answer to?”, and “would my answer to God make any difference to His judgement?” These are not antagonistic questions but they do change the rules of the game so that you’re no longer playing by their script.

Make them expose their cards first, IOW. Not a bad strategy.

Or just ask “why do you want to know my answers?” Make them give reasons for their questions. Or ask them to first answer their own questions to “warm you up” so to speak.

If this is done with charity, I see how this could open a door so that the Catholic could evangelize the Evangelical Protestant. Still, a Catholic should be able to give a clear and direct answers to the questions without constantly answering questions with questions.

 

[VociMike]

Matt16_18:

What are the traps that you see in the questions? It seems to me that the Evangelical Protestants that use these questions are coming in with a “faith-alone vs. works” mentality, and the point of the questions is to engage people in discussions of salvation-by-faith-alone and OSAS. The Evangelical Protestant mindset will bias what they think are the correct answers, of course. But still, the questions are valid, and Catholics should know how to give a response to these questions without answering in *non sequiturs * or insults.

I just see them as artificial questions designed to trip up somebody who gives an off-the-cuff answer. Pearly Gates interviews by God, or even entrance requirements lists to get into heaven seem to be missing the point of Christianity. The questions put me more in mind of a job interview or trying to win a scavenger hunt.

If this is done with charity, I see how this could open a door so that the Catholic could evangelize the Evangelical Protestant. Still, a Catholic should be able to give a clear and direct answers to the questions without constantly answering questions with questions.

I don’t disagree, but at the same time I don’t think one is required to answer questions that are not really questions but really just opening gambits in a script. That is, the questions listed might be very interesting in a discussion setting, but are probably pointless in a mall or parking lot encounter. After the first round of counter-questions I would know if the other person was open to discussion or not, and I would proceed accordingly. So no, I don’t think endless rounds of return questions would be called for, but I would want to be able to make a quick evaluation of the motives and intent of the questioner before continuing.

 

[catholic-rcia]

It’s like the questions asked of Jesus by Pilot. They always tried to find fault in His teachings in order to exalt themselves to a higher plain. How could a Catholic come to know Jesus and His works? Well, because they live and breath in the midst of Him. It’s communion, the Eucaharist that we have come to know such things. There is a lot of power in having others follow in protest of the 2000 Year Old Catholic Apostolic faith. You can start your own church.

Look, we come to Jesus as Catholics as we are and He loves us.

He died for us, so that we can come home. There is no ladder to heaven, only Jesus picks us up and places us on His back. (The Cross) We are the Cross upon His back, the lost lamb carried home. Good works flow from this relationship because of Christ, because we choose His will over our own ambitions. We don’t work our way to heaven, Jesus already did the work. What we do is come to the Church to Christ to send a lifetime with the doctor so that we can die to ourselves so that we go out and tell others about the physician so that they to can be healed, in order to tell others.

 

[Della]

…I don’t think one is required to answer questions that are not really questions but really just opening gambits in a script. That is, the questions listed might be very interesting in a discussion setting, but are probably pointless in a mall or parking lot encounter. After the first round of counter-questions I would know if the other person was open to discussion or not, and I would proceed accordingly. So no, I don’t think endless rounds of return questions would be called for, but I would want to be able to make a quick evaluation of the motives and intent of the questioner before continuing.

Thank you, VociMike. Exactly the point I was trying to make.

I know how these people think since I used to go out with these very same set of questions to accost people in an attempt to force them to see salvation from my sect’s point of view. And not only that, but to insist that our ideas about salvation were the only correct ones and if they couldn’t respond properly we had them pegged as among “the lost”. It was stupid and cruel to both us and to our victims, IMO. I don’t think such “gotcha” tactics ought to be encouraged by stopping to talk to them. They aren’t there to listen but only to get one more notch on their witnessing belts.

 

[Matt16_18]

Della:

They aren’t there to listen …

So your answer is to blow them off because they aren’t worth the effort to talk to.

I could say that same thing about the Jehovah Witnesses and the Mormons that show up at my door. If I have time, I always invite these street evangelists into my house, make them comfortable, and try to engage them in an honest discussion. I also know that they are working from scripts and they are carrying around a lot of assumptions about what the “correct answers” are. Of course they do this, or they wouldn’t be out on the street knocking on doors trying to win members to their sects! I simply pray for the Holy Spirit to give me the words to say, bind any demonic forces that would disrupt the conversation, and witness to the truth. I pray that I may be the instrument that God uses to plant a seed that is harvested some time later.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
1Peter 3:15

 

[mkamoski]

Matt16_18:

James Kennedy’s “Evangelical Explosion” (EE) trains Evangelical Protestants to proselytize Catholics with these questions:“Suppose that you were to die tonight and stand before God and he were to say to you, ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?’ What would you say?”

And

“I would be interested in what you think the entrance requirements for anyone to get into heaven are. What would you say God’s requirements are for you to get into heaven?” What would you say is the correct Catholic response to these questions?

It is not a human’s place to judge. That is God’s place. God knows that. We, humans, sometimes forget, as is, apparently, the case with the author of the questions.

The Original Sin was to presume a place of authority, to seek knowledge on par with God, to judge, ultimately, good and evil. There is only one Judge, and that is he who redeems, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

Best we bow, pray, and perhaps cry at the feet of our Master, beg forgiveness and the grace of his love.

The only answer is “I don’t know” as humans truly do NOT know.

May the Lord give you his peace.

 

[bekalc]

I would tell Jesus that I don’t deserve to be in heaven. I don’t even think I deserve purgatory. However, that through his death on the Cross; He’s offered the gift of salvation, and I’d like to accept it.

 

[deb1]

Matt16_18:

Assume that one is just an ordinary Catholic that isn’t trying to bargain with God, that she isn’t trying to sneak into heaven because she knows that she is in a state of unrepentant mortal sin.

How should the ordinary faithful Catholic answer the questions if she is confronted by a person trained in EE?

I would respond the exact way that I stated that I would. I would do it with charity though. Most of these people really believe that they are trying to help you. They want to keep you out of hell. Now, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t misguided or very annoying but they do deserve some sympathy.

First I would ask them if they really believed that after we die that we get to bargin with God about our salvation. The people asking you this question do not believe that after death, God will give them any further chances. They are just using it as an opening to discuss your salvation with you or to test your ability to answer.

If you have the patience and knowledge then begin a charitable discussion with the questioners. You probably won’t convert anyone, but maybe you will put a seed in their heart.

 

[Matt16_18]

bekalc:

I would tell Jesus that I don’t deserve to be in heaven. I don’t even think I deserve purgatory. However, that through his death on the Cross; He’s offered the gift of salvation, and I’d like to accept it.

I think that this is an excellent answer. Direct and to the point. Thanks.

The EE questions are intended to see if a person will respond with the good works that they did while they were alive on earth, and if they do, to ask further questions to see if they believe that our good works earn us a place in Heaven.

You have avoided that trap completely, and instead responded that you seek salvation through the gift that Jesus has offered to man. What you have said seems to me to be summed up in the prayer that Jesus gave to Sister Faustina: “For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on [me] …”. This is a prayer to God for his mercy, a supplication based not on the good works that we have done, but for mercy based on the good work that Jesus has done for man.

If I rephrase your answer a little, I could say that I would ask God to be merciful on me for the sake of the sorrowful passion of His only begotten Son.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Matt16_18

quote: Matt16_18

How do you know that your faith is a living faith that saves, and not a dead faith that has no saving power?

What Kennedy is getting at here, I think, is that one who
has accepted Christ, done h/her best, to follow His
commands, would not pose this kind of question to
h/her self.
They trust Christ, to keep His promise to them.

Given non-Catholic Christians might employ terms like:

-washed in the blood of the Lamb
-His righteousness is my righteousness
-He is my justification *and *salvation
-the work of our salvation and justification
has already been accomplished by
Christ.

• All we need do is accept and acknowledge Him
  as our Savior, accept the reality that He saves and
  justifies us - while following Him, in His commands,
  especially “Love the Lord thy God…and thy neighbor
  as thyself.”

In other words, they have read the gospels and St. Paul aright.

---

“Go thy way, thy faith has saved you.”
“Neither will I condemn you. Go thy
way, and sin no more.” [follow My commands]

That* is* the “freedom of the sons and daughters of God.”

Just some thoughts, on Kennedy’s questions.

Best, :tiphat:

reen

 

[Matt16_18]

reen12:

In other words, they have readt the gospels and St. Paul aright.

Not necessarily, (or even likely) because many of the Evangelical Protestants asking these questions also believe in the heresy of antinomianism and the heresy of “faith-alone”. It is true that Christ is our righteousness, but it is not true that a man is “saved” by his work of faith-alone, and that because he is “saved”, that he can then commit any sin he feels like committing without fear of damnation since he has “eternal security”.

A Catholic that is aware of the defects in Evangelical Protestant soteriology can use these EE questions to witness to the truth of the Catholic faith.

 

[reen12]

Hi, Matt16_18,

quote: Matt16_18

…and that because he is “saved”, that he can then commit any sin he feels like committing without fear of damnation since he has “eternal security”.

When you provide me with your understanding of
their understanding of “faith alone”, I have to smile.
Those who hold to blessed assurance mean -
accept Jesus, His work for us, and follow His
commands. Thus, you are assured of your salvation,
by His work, trusting in His promise.

It’s easy to refute a position, that is not held,
at least not held by me, and millions of others, huh?

quote: Matt16_18

Not necessarily, (or even likely) because many of the Evangelical Protestants asking these questions also believe in the heresy of antinomianism and the heresy of “faith-alone”.

“antinomianism”?

The next time I’m in an anti-abortion demonstration, I’ll have
to ask the Evangelical, next to me, to explain “antinomianism” to me.

Blessed Assurance is *not *“once saved, always saved.”

I’ll be more taken with your:
quote: Matt16_18

… witness to the truth of the Catholic faith.

when you are able to refute what is *actually *held, by
millions of Evangelical Christians, and not the OSAS position,
which is, of course, easy to refute.

Best, :tiphat:

reen12

 

[Matt16_18]

reen12:

Those who hold to blessed assurance mean - accept Jesus, His work for us, and follow His commands.

Some do, but many don’t.

Millions of Evangelical Christians believe in the antinomian version of OSAS, and millions more believe in the Calvinist version of OSAS.

Who can dispute this? Simply Google “Calvinism vs. Arminianism” and see the two camps defend their versions of the OSAS heresy.

If there were no Evangelicals that believed in the antinomian version of OSAS there would be no Lordship Controversy raging among the Evangelical Protestants.

 

[Jehu13]

Should not the Answer be that it is **By God grace the I will enter heaven. **

 

[reen12]

Hi, Matt16_18,

quote: Matt16_18

Some do, but many don’t.

Millions of Evangelical Christians believe in the antinomian version of OSAS, and millions more believe in the Calvinist version of OSAS.

Who can dispute this? Simply Google “Calvinism vs. Arminianism” and see the two camps defend their versions of the OSAS heresy.

If there were no Evangelicals that believed in the antinomian version of OSAS there would be no Lordship Controversy raging among the Evangelical Protestants.

Fair enough, Matt. I realize that somebody holds to
OSAS, because I see continual references to same.
The challenge I offer over and over again [until I bore
*myself silly ] is what about the millions who hold
to blessed assurance: accept Jesus, follow His commands,
rest in the peace of Christ, and have assurance of your
salvation.
I’ll read the material on the link you’ve posted.
BTW, I could no more believe in OSAS than
sprout wings and fly.

The other thing I wanted to say to you is, I rarely see
reference to the wisdom of Holy Mother Church, in
such things as sacramentals. That’s where she thinks
and acts as Jesus did…when He made a paste of mud
to place on the blind man’s eyes, to heal him. The
Church recognizes that humans are body and soul,
and that the material aspect of life is taken into account.
I don’t rail against the sacraments, as sacraments,
but in the way those are presented, theologically.

If someone gives the protestants a hard time, in my
estimation, I leap right in, to their defense.

My continual point is that the Evangelicals, the Lutherans
etc. have an insight lost to Holy Mother Church…the
biblical imagery used by God Himself.
The Catholic Church contains the great jewel, the
Mass.

The “truth” is where it is found, in my view.
Scripture, with the protestants, the Mass with
the Church.
And truth, in it’s immensity, is: I am the Way and the Truth and
the Life.

Please keep in mind that I was a Catholic…for 58 years.
I know what the Church teaches…I’ve defended what
she teaches, yet have ended up, fed up to my
eyeballs, with the abandonment of Scripture, the
distortion of what Paul wrote, the exaltation of
systematic theology over the clear message of
scripture.]

But I am gratetful for the Mass, and for the Church’s recognition
of the material element in this life, and the importance
of same.

I’ve just had it with the triumphalism, period.

Thanks for the info on the Lordship Controversy, Matt.
I’ve never even heard of it, so it should be an interesting
read.
[PS: I take back what I said about Tetzel’s agents.
Even I know that that was *not an accurate rendering
of what the Church actually taught, in the 16th century. ]

:tiphat: To a Catholic, from a former fellow Catholic,

reen

 

[Matt16_18]

reen12:

I realize that somebody holds to OSAS, because I see continual references to same. … I’ll read the material on the link you’ve posted.

These links delve into the **Lordship Controversy ** in greater detail. Note that Ernest Reisinger states that some holding the Non-Lordship postion are preaching “antinomianism at its worst.”

The Lordship Controversy and Repentance
Ernest ReisingerOne major point in the Lordship controversy is the role of repentance in salvation. Both the Lordship and the Non-Lordship teachers believe in repentance …

Before giving a definition of repentance let me name some major errors of the Non-Lordship position:

1. Non-Lordship teaching has a repentance that is not an essential part of salvation.
2. Non-Lordship teaching has a forgiveness of sin that is not necessarily joined with repentance.
3. Non-Lordship preachers teach that repentance is a call to fellowship with God and has nothing to do with eternal life.
4. Non-Lordship teaching removes repentance from any concept of turning from sin initially in coming to faith in Christ.
5. Zane Hodges, one of the front runners for the Non-Lordship position, argues for his position by noting that the word “repentance” is not mentioned in the Gospel of John (I will address this objection below).
6. Non-Lordship teaching is redefining repentance in such a way as to remove it from any concept of turning from sin. (For information of these assertations see Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free, p. 27 and chapters 9 and 12.)
7. The Non-Lordship position argues that regeneration does not necessarily produce faith and repentance. The best writer for the Non-Lordship position is Robert Lightner. He is like a good lawyer with a bad case. He says, “repentance is almost a synonym for faith” (Sin the Savior and Salvation, p. 167). Statements like this clearly show that Lightner does not see that regeneration always precedes faith and repentance, and if it does not precede both it does not produce either. A statement like this also shows that the Non-Lordship teaching does not see that the Bible teaches that there is an inseparable connection between faith and repentance. It is because of this inseparable relationship that I will spend a little more time on this aspect of the differences in the two positions. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.
   One Non-Lordship teacher goes so far as to make the following assertions:
    “Any teaching that demands a change of conduct toward either God or man for salvation is to add works or human effort to faith, and this contradicts all Scripture and is an accursed message.”

 “Lordship salvation contradicts Scripture.”

 “This message is accursed of God.”

 “The person who preaches such a message [Lordship] is also accursed of God.”
These are all quotes from the book, Handbook of Personal Evangelism, by Dr. Ray Stamford, then president of a large Non-Lordship Bible College. (They reflect antinomianism at its worst.)​

Behind the Lordship Controversy
Ernest ReisingerBehind the Lordship controversy is a warped, twisted, unbiblical theology of Dispensationalism.

 

[LSK]

Matt16_18:

James Kennedy’s “Evangelical Explosion” (EE) trains Evangelical Protestants to proselytize Catholics with these questions:“Suppose that you were to die tonight and stand before God and he were to say to you, ‘Why should I let you into my heaven?’ What would you say?”

And

“I would be interested in what you think the entrance requirements for anyone to get into heaven are. What would you say God’s requirements are for you to get into heaven?”
What would you say is the correct Catholic response to these questions?

I would say, “Lord, I stayed faithful to the teachings of your Bride, the Holy Mother Church to the best of my ability. I know, however, that I am at your mercy. Whatever you judge for me I will accept.”

Requirements: “Baptism for the removal of original sin. Faithful adherence to the teachings of Christ as taught by the Holy Mother Church”.

Then I give ‘em a big ol’ kiss - like Bugs Bunny gives Elmer.

Ok - so I wouldn’t do that…lololol

What weird questions.

 

[Matt16_18]

LSK:

Requirements: “Baptism for the removal of original sin. Faithful adherence to the teachings of Christ as taught by the Holy Mother Church”.

Does your “faithful adherence to the teachings of Christ as taught by the Holy Mother Church" earn you a right to entrance into Heaven?

 

[LSK]

Matt16_18:

Does your “faithful adherence to the teachings of Christ as taught by the Holy Mother Church" earn you a right to entrance into Heaven?

I am always hesitant to state what is ‘my right’ and what isn’t - because I believe all is at the mercy and decision of My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I try to the best of my ability, and I hope I am ‘doing it right’ so that I can get into heaven. The problem, and I may be splitting rhetorical hairs so forgive me, is asking ME to make the judgement on my own behavior.

I do believe that all the teachings of the Holy Mother Church are true and correct. They are the teachings of the Incarnate Word. To follow them as faithfully as possible is the best way to live. Whether I get into heaven or not is up to Christ.

I hope I don’t sound like I am dodging your question…