Debating with protestants who just won't listen

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

You are literally twisting St. Paul’s words to your own destruction, as St. Peter warned.

Please give a detailed example.

Very simple. You claim that St. Paul was not talking about “eternal” salvation and insist that he must insert the word “eternal” in the phrase in order for it to be understood eternal. But you yourself have said that the Scriptures speak of spiritual truths. Yet, now you want us to believe that in this case, because the word “eternal” is not there, it is a matter of a natural or temporal truth.

Neh, you’re just twisting the Word of God. As I mentioned in another response, St. Paul didn’t believe that he had attained to the resurrection, that means he didn’t believe he had attained, with absolute assurance, to eternal salvation.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

How so? explain.

Twisting the Word of God is the sin of putting words in God’s mouth. It is the sin of adding to God’s word. It is the sin of lying and attributing that lie to God.

Those who do that, will be punished.

 

[tgGodsway]

Then His disciples came to Him and awoke Him saying, “Lord SAVE us! we are perishing…” Matt. 8:25. According to your way of looking at this word, it should always mean the same thing every time. So the disciples were concerned that they would perish in the storm eternally. right? … Or… should the context decided how we use the word save?..

 

[De_Maria]

Then His disciples came to Him and awoke Him saying, “Lord SAVE us! we are perishing…” Matt. 8:25. According to your way of looking at this word, it should always mean the same thing every time. So the disciples were concerned that they would perish in the storm eternally. right? … Or… should the context decided how we use the word save?..

On the contrary, you are now making straw men to hide your error. Although there is a spiritual teaching in the words, “Lord save us! We are perishing…”, it is not primarily so.

When did I say that save must mean the same thing whenever it is mentioned in Scripture? If that is what you think I mean, then it must be you who said that because I was attributing to you, that statement.

Didn’t you say?

Why is it not literal?.. Because almost all of the New Testament Truths are spiritual. We have been made spiritual so that we can understand them…

 

[tgGodsway]

When did I say that save must mean the same thing whenever it is mentioned in Scripture? If that is what you think I mean, then it must be you who said that because I was attributing to you, that statement.

Didn’t you say?

You said I was twisting scripture, but I have not. I have simply used a face-value approach to it. I stand by what I said and have not wavered. Unless the word eternal sits behind the word salvation in any biblical statement to qualify it’s meaning, there is no grounds to read any salvation passage in that light.

The Holy Spirit is very deliberate with each and every word He inspired the writers to write. Each word is deliberate. Yet all you can do is say I’m twisting what he said. No… I’m expounding on exactly what He said and nothing more. I refuse to read into the passage an idea that is not actually there. But you do.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

When did I say that save must mean the same thing whenever it is mentioned in Scripture? If that is what you think I mean, then it must be you who said that because I was attributing to you, that statement.

Didn’t you say?

You said I was twisting scripture, but I have not.

Yes, you have. Whether you did it intentionally, is another question. But do you really think it matters to God that you are twisting His words, unintentionally? Especially when you are being told your errors but you insist on committing them?

James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

I have simply used a face-value approach to it. I stand by what I said and have not wavered. Unless the word eternal sits behind the word salvation in any biblical statement to qualify it’s meaning, there is no grounds to read any salvation passage in that light.

I respect your honesty. But that just means you stand by your errors. There’s no glory in obstinate falsehood.

But that is the fruit of Sola Scriptura and the right of private interpretation. People who practice those errors confuse their own interpretation for the Word of God.

The Holy Spirit is very deliberate with each and every word He inspired the writers to write. Each word is deliberate. Yet all you can do is say I’m twisting what he said. No… I’m expounding on exactly what He said and nothing more. I refuse to read into the passage an idea that is not actually there. But you do.

I didn’t just say that you’re twisting the Word. You asked for a detailed explanation and I gave it. You require the word “eternal” before salvation. But the context of the verse in light of all St. Paul’s writings is clear. St. Paul was speaking of the hope of “eternal” salvation.

THAT is what St. Paul means in that verse. And you are twisting his words in order to prove your own doctrine.

 

[RedFan]

Unless the word eternal sits behind the word salvation in any biblical statement to qualify it’s meaning, there is no grounds to read any salvation passage in that light.

Can you give some examples of being non-eternally saved?

 

[tweedlealice]

 Salutations, 
   In my little world, in Philly. We were told not to read the Bible because it could confuse us. We would hear it in church. For proof, is where I relate the Bible reading ceremony in my HS. 1963(?). 
    As far as reading corrupted Protestant BIBLES, they say the same thing. It’s not Word for word but teachings are the same. I have my Catholic Bible. I loved my Catholic Jerusalem Bible. I have a Catholic Precious moment Bible for children but it is great. I have a Kings James. I have a Nelson. I have a Jack Heyford Holy Spirit educational Bible w cross references for 4 Bible notes

The message is the same.
Our first Bible was the translation from St. Jerome. Later, All translated by multiple religious translators of languages, including Catholic. The Newer ones, the scholars use the Dead Sea Scrolls to verify some OT. Translations as far back as Aramaic, Greek, Latin to English. Even Protestants were using St.Jeromes Latin Vulgate in their translations.
Walking w the Lord, in scripture has been exciting. We have the extra Deutercannical books. The Protestants don’t. The Lutherans sometimes have the apochryphal books as books of wisdom in the back of their Bible.
As I understand it, our extra books were scrolls Jesus read in the Temples.
We operated on tradition and word of mouth for 50 yrs. Paul’s letters were being passed around to the churches.There was a debate whether to include his letters in the Bible. We prayed and the books included are felt to be Holy Spirit inspired.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful. I was born in 1947.In parochial dchool all my life. We were told Bible stories. Nativity. Life of Christ w Miracles. Never had stories from OT x Creation. Ten Commandments. Poor Isaac and sacrifice.(7-8 grade?).not for little kids.
We didn’t own a Bible. No one in my large family owned a Bible.
We had a nun and a priest in the family. Either your later or in a Holier Family.
I’m glad for you.
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

 

[tweedlealice]

Salutations,
It only takes reading what Jesus said, at the Last Supper to understand.

Take this, all of you, and eat of it,
for this is my Body,
which will be given up for you.

Take this, all of you, and drink from it,
for this is the chalice of my Blood,
the Blood of the new and eternal covenant,
which will be poured out for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins.
Do this in memory of me.

I’ve read many a Bible, including Protestants.
NONE SAY SYMBOL!!.

Our Eucharist, bread and wine, is changed by Holy Spirit to His Body and Blood.
It’s when the Priest speaks God’s words over the chalices, when it happens.

We repeat the Last Supper Which is our Mass…
During which the prayers from Old Testament, Priverbs, Psalms are read. There is time for Major and Minor Priophrts. Then, Paul’s epistles and then Gospel.,
The church distributes the readings over the year relating to the Saints feasts and important days on church calendar.
Nowhere in any Bible I read says it’s a symbol.
I don’t feel we can add to it. If He said it, I believe it.
It’s a matter of FAITH.

Hebrews 11:1King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
.
Who is your teacher? Some Protestant Churches do not like Catholics. Everything taught isn’t for Christ in those churches but against another denomination.
The scriptures and gospels are to be taught. Not other denominations flaws as discerned by Preacher.
I hope that helps you understand, it is Not idolatry to worship our God!
We believe in Trinity. A word not in any Bible but made by the church to understand “God the Father is in me and I am in Him.” The Holy Spirit will follow.”
Three persons in One God.
God bless you
His truth will set us free!
In Christ’s love
Tweedlealice

 

[Mary888]

If there is a.debate happening then the OP has to admit that they are listening.

 

[TheHolyTrinity]

Those who you talk to are not yet spirtually ready to hear your words of wisdom.

 

[Ernie07]

Hi AnnetteJoan,

I just saw your thread and thought I’d comment based on my experiences in debating primarily evangelicals (those that describe themselves as Christians rather than a particular denomination). My “glass is half full” view is that they hate the Catholic Church because they love Jesus. They are very misguided in their views on the Catholic Church, but they do so because in their heart they believe that the Church’s teachings take away from a focus on Jesus and His message. Again, they are misguided, but this belief allows me to debate them without getting personal (for the most part…I’m not perfect!).

Everyone that I’ve debated that has expressed hostility to the Catholic Church does so because they believe that we worship Mary, practice necromancy and idol worship, bow down before statues, and other things that take away from the sole focus we should have on Jesus. Noble at its core, however misguided and misinformed it really is. And seemingly no amount of discussion can convince them otherwise. But, to me, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t debate/defend our faith.

I’ve read on this thread that we shouldn’t debate as it leads only to division and anger without any ability to convince. I wholeheartedly disagree with that notion. To walk away is to give up and give the impression that you can’t defend your beliefs (as most Catholics can’t) and actually adds fuel to the belief that Catholics are brain-washed by the evil Church.

As long as we keep it respectful (and I’ll admit that it’s hard for me not to think, “how could you be so obtuse and stupid???”…haha!) we should defend our faith vigorously in all instances. Not to “win” the debate per se, but to defend the Church that Jesus built and protected…His Church. To not defend His Church is to not defend Him. Would we not vigorously defend ourselves or our family’s credibility against a character attack? If someone was spreading a lie about someone we loved would we walk away or “fight”? I can’t believe anyone would walk away…so don’t walk away from our Lord and His Church if defending is needed.

Lastly, those who will attack your faith will make it personal so you need to be aware of that. I’ve been called a liar, sick, ignorant, stupid, a robot, and a “worker for Lucifer” among other things…and that was just on one Christian Chat site! Don’t take the bait and make it personal as well. I view it as their hatred for the Catholic Church is so deep that any points I might make that may have them questioning their belief system causes them to panic.

Plus, remember that you’re not just debating that particular person, but there are many others that choose not to participate and are just viewing the thread that you are evangelizing as well. Plant the seeds and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.

God Bless you in your efforts to defend our great faith!!

-Ernie-

 

[nodelink]

I have simply used a face-value approach to it

Have you passed like a camel through the eye of a needle (per the face-value meaning of those words)?

 

[mkoopman]

This is a “test troll”, on a divide and conquer posting, unfortunately.

Dropping 2000 years of rabbinic teaching against Christians and insistent that the last twenty years of new language are a stumbling block is a but more than dubious.

I have the sandal of Brian if anyone would like to venerate this icon.

 

[nodelink]

Are you taking all the difficult, hard verses at face value (and just the easy verses)?

For example: “the gate is narrow, and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matt. 7:14 rsv)

The gate is narrow, the way is hard, few find.

 

[tgGodsway]

This verse is easy peasy. … Jesus is preaching His sermon the mount. He was preaching to God’s people about doing things God’s way. The nation of Israel had not had the voice of God since Malachi.

Jesus told His people, “Enter by the narrow gate…” Question: Since He used a metaphor, how shall we interpret it?.. What does this metaphorical narrow gate and difficult path represent and on what bases do we arrive at our conclusions?

Traditionally, both protestant and catholic interpretations conclude how the narrow gate and difficult path were about a journey to eternal life.

But unjustifiably in most reformed views. One obvious reason is because it didn’t actually say so. Seeing that words matter, the key word here is the word life. We know Jesus made a distinction between having LIFE, and having it more abundantly. Such a distinction should not be unreasonable here.

In this passage we have a metaphor about a narrow gate and a difficult path. Was Jesus giving us the game-plan to obtaining eternal life? If so, he easy could have done it by saying … “narrow is the gate and difficult is the way that leads to ETERNAL life.” Surely the holy Spirit could have used this kind of easy solution if this is what He really wanted to say.

By forcing the metaphor to mean an eternal pathway without the actual word on the page, we have actually “read-into” the passage an idea not actually in the passage. We have manipulated the author’s intent.

So what are we left with?.. if he didn’t mean eternal life then what does the gate and difficult way represent?..

Since the gospel of Matthew really offers no call to eternal life contained, we can safely find another solution. Could the narrow gate and difficult way be about DISCIPLESHIP? …

The Journey from point A to point B requires a difficult commitment… Jesus said, if you want to be my disciple you must “hate your own father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes and even your own life, (otherwise) you cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26. This is just one of a few conditions for discipleship. It is a hyperbole but the point is clear… it is a difficult pathway leading to LIFE.

 

[tgGodsway]

If you remain in it. But many have fallen away

I was born into it. There is nothing that can reverse the birth and adoption.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

If you remain in it. But many have fallen away

I was born into it. There is nothing that can reverse the birth and adoption.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

 

[tgGodsway]

The particulars in this passage do not address the loss of salvation… but I’ll play along here.

It is impossible for a saved man, if they fall away, to what?.. to renew them again unto REPENTANCE…

why repentance and not eternal life?..

The context was about potential Jewish converts who were terribly persecuted for their faith. So as a solution, they decided to return to the Jewish rituals and practice of Judaism as a way to escape persecution, seeing that Judaism was a legal practice at the time while Christianity was not.

So they returned to the types and shadows of the faith while denying the reality of it. Their sin was that they were denying their faith in Jesus Christ to the point that they were crucifying to themselves the son of God and putting Him to an open shame.

The author basically said, people who have gone this far cannot in of themselves be brought back to repentance. (Of course with God all things are possible.) They will find themselves in a state of un-repentance. Their hearts were hardened to this fact. And of course they will find themselves standing at the judgment seat of Christ to give an account. They denied Christ and thus Christ will deny them.

Chapter 10 picks up on the example of chapter 6, where the author said, "And God will judge His people… 10:30. What does any of this have to do with the fact that I’ve been born into the family of God and His spiritual DNA runs through my spiritual veins.

 

[tgGodsway]

Catholic is the proper name of the Church Jesus established. It’s been that name of the Church, in writing, since the beginning.

Okay, so that if I were to go back to let’s say, the 1st century apostolic writings I will see this word? Uh… no the Church did not begin around the world, it slowly evangelized and became universal. Any protest along the way changes nothing. We could have 5 more reformations and it will not change the fact that God’s Church is present in the earth.