Help talking with my Protestant friend

[Carmabelle12]

Hi everyone,
I just joined this forum because I’m in a huge religious debate with one of my best friends that’s been going on for over a year. She is a non-catholic Christian, she’s been taught that her particular brand of Christianity is the only one intended by God and based on the Bible, and I just don’t know what to say any more that would get through to her.

How can I explain to her that there are things we believe that are not necessarily in the Bible? For example, I mentioned something about Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross not being a one time deal, but that at every moment He continues to offer His perfect sacrifice to God in Heaven. She jumped on that right away, and wanted to know where in the Bible I got that, but I’m pretty sure it’s Church teaching and not directly in the Bible, so how can I explain something like that? What she says when I tell her about Church teaching is that “oh no, its made up from the minds of men, and not in the Bible, so your faith is flawed.” I tried telling her that actually, the Church has been given authority and promised infallibly by Jesus, but that started another argument, because she doesn’t believe that Jesus actually founded the Church, or gave Peter authority, and told me that I twisted the words of one verse of the Bible, the “keys to the kingdom” verse, to prove that the Church has divine, infallible authority. She says that we have no way of proving that the leaders of the Church didn’t just claim authority after Jesus death because they were power hungry.

I guess my main question is, how should I go about this? It just seems like we keep getting stuck at an impasse, because she has an explanation for every one of my verses, and I’ve got an answer for every one of hers. Her insistence that her interpretation of the Bible alone is the only true one and the only way to be saved, is starting to exasperate me. Are there any books I should read, or give to her to read? Sorry this was long, but thanks so much!

 

[1ke]

Perhaps you should go about it by not arguing about relgion at all. Live your Catholic faith. Pray for her.

 

[DexUK]

Ask her where her particular branch of protestantism started. What was there before it? Where did it gets its ideas and its doctrine? And where did the source of its doctrine get its ideas before that?

Sooner or later she’d going to have to admit someone got the idea from the Catholic Church, seeing as we were there first.

Other than that, don’t push it. Give witness by your example, rather than by arguing, because that tends towards entrenching people in their own views. She will come round more if she sees the value in what you do rather than what you just say.

 

[BarbG]

I agree with 1ke – I wouldn’t argue with her – she has her religion and you have yours, the one begun by Jesus when He said “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”. I don’t know if you ever listen to the Catholic radio station, but several of the men on Catholic Answers were Protestant ministers and when they looked into proving the Catholic Church wrong, they were surprised to find it wasn’t and became converts.

 

[laircy]

“. . . I find it very difficult to take some of the Protestant propositions even seriously. What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense. The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on. I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus”; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.” But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed? To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,” is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,” is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.”
–G.K. Chesterton

 

[SummitJim]

I have a Christian friend (he says he’s not Protestant, just Chistian) with whom I often discuss religion. We have an agreement to answer each other’s questions about what we believe and why, but not to try convincing the other of his error. This has had an unexpected beneit when we both were targeted at the same time by a Jehovah’s Witness, and we each fed off the strenghts of the other in showing the truth of traditional Christianity versus a sect. Most importantly, my friend and I still continue to discuss thigs like the daily Bible quotes he receives, to our mutual reward.

 

[Christine85]

I think stop talking about it and if she really keeps pushing ask her to investigate the history of her Church and the history of the Catholic Church in books other than the Bible.

 

[Incomplete]

I have a Christian friend (he says he’s not Protestant, just Christian) with whom I often discuss religion. We have an agreement to answer each others’ questions about what we believe and why, but not to try convincing the other of his error. This has had an unexpected benefit when we both were targeted at the same time by a Jehovah’s Witness, and we each fed off the strengths of the other in showing the truth of traditional Christianity versus a sect. Most importantly, my friend and I still continue to discuss things like the daily Bible quotes he receives, to our mutual reward.

I love this.

 

[Incomplete]

Hi everyone,
I just joined this forum because I’m in a huge religious debate with one of my best friends that’s been going on for over a year. She is a non-catholic Christian, she’s been taught that her particular brand of Christianity is the only one intended by God and based on the Bible, and I just don’t know what to say any more that would get through to her.

I’m not sure you’re going to be able to get through to her. On the other hand, it’s very good for you to have answers to questions, both because it helps you to understand your faith more fully and because there might be someone one day who you CAN get through to. That, and you might be planting seeds here.

How can I explain to her that there are things we believe that are not necessarily in the Bible? For example, I mentioned something about Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross not being a one time deal, but that at every moment He continues to offer His perfect sacrifice to God in Heaven. She jumped on that right away, and wanted to know where in the Bible I got that

She does believe God is outside of time, right?

What she says when I tell her about Church teaching is that “oh no, its made up from the minds of men, and not in the Bible, so your faith is flawed.”

Yet however her church interprets Scripture is different from how some other church interprets Scripture. She might claim that their interpretation is from the Holy Spirit, but how can she prove that her church is inspired by the Holy Spirit but Catholicism is not? Certainly not by flawed man interpreting Scripture.

She says that we have no way of proving that the leaders of the Church didn’t just claim authority after Jesus death because they were power hungry.

We have no way to prove that God actually exists, either. She can’t prove anything about leaders of the Church (and that would be people like Peter and Paul) being power hungry. Jesus said that He was building His Church on the rock that is Peter, so there is scriptural evidence of Jesus starting a church.

Her insistence that her interpretation of the Bible alone is the only true one and the only way to be saved, is starting to exasperate me. Are there any books I should read, or give to her to read? Sorry this was long, but thanks so much!

There are lots of books that people suggest. If you want, I can make some suggestions, but I would make them for you, not for her, to prepare you even more in the future.

But her insistence on the Bible alone is not, ironically, in the Bible. And the Bible does not actually tell you how to interpret it, so I would ask why she thinks her particular interpretations are right, when so many prayerful people, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, would disagree with her interpretations?

 

[Kal2012]

Speaking as someone going through RCIA →

1. Did she actually say that Jesus didn’t found the church? Doesn’t she realize that w/o Jesus, there wouldn’t be Christianity? That really struck me as I read your post.
2. The quote " Her insistence that her interpretation of the Bible alone is the only true one and the only way to be saved, is starting to exasperate me." tells me a lot.

I can see why you are exasperated. I grew up in the same type of church as this woman and there isn’t room for other interpretations of the Bible. Their way or the highway.

This particular argument just bothered me “She says that we have no way of proving that the leaders of the Church didn’t just claim authority after Jesus death because they were power hungry.”

Actually we can prove how the first century church acted and behaved. I’m willing to bet that there are many resources on this topic if we wanted to delve into the history of the Church. Researchers have spent a lot of time finding out about the early church because so many people have a fascination w/it.

Also, there’s nothing inherently wrong with power. There’s only something wrong with power when someone abuses it.

After the Jesus died, the church needed structure, so St. Peter created it.

If there’s something inherently wrong with authority or power, then why does she bother to go to her church and listening to her minister? If the Bible tells her everything she needs to know?

“Prove it” is the kind of thing that’s supposed to make people defensive and, if they don’t know immediately how to do this, then they’ll drop the topic and the accuser can chalk up a cheap win.

The thing is that you don’t have ‘prove it’ the minute that someone says ‘prove it.’ I’m not an expert in church history, but I know how to use google and if I wanted to continue this argument w/someone like your friend, I’d get armed with facts (from good sources), not just opinions from CAF. A lot of times, facts scare people.

1. DexUK has the best advice. I’m not going to re-invent the wheel.

PM me, if you want some more advice about making arguments.

Never make it personal. Make it about the evidence.

 

[dee_burk]

if they arent open to your beliefs and how the CC came about them…what more can you do?
I love it when sola scriptura only works for one side and if the other side uses scripture it is “twisting” the truth. i have that battle sometimes since i am the only “trying to be” Cath on my side of the family.

 

[mark_a]

How can I explain to her that there are things we believe that are not necessarily in the Bible?

“Not necessarily in the bible” is not an accurate statement. All Catholic beliefs are in the bible. Every single one. Some are explicit, some are implicit.

She says that we have no way of proving that the leaders of the Church didn’t just claim authority after Jesus death because they were power hungry.

It’s difficult to overcome a negative Protestant mindset.

I guess my main question is, how should I go about this? It just seems like we keep getting stuck at an impasse, because she has an explanation for every one of my verses, and I’ve got an answer for every one of hers.

Be encouraged! Hang in there! God works in his own way.

Are there any books I should read, or give to her to read?

I’d start with the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr.

 

[zz912]

You need to work to learn your faith better. You have an opportunity to give a good example of the Catholic faith and showing Christian love to her. Make sure if you don’t know something, honestly admit it and DON’T just wing the answer. Nothing will lose your credibility faster than making something up, because it ALWAYS comes back to bite you in the end.

As to your discussion with her, start at the beginning. Just because she has something right, doesn’t mean you don’t need to question her assertion and ask for support. Take as an example the presumption both of you make that the Bible is Sacred Scripture. This is true. But don’t gloss over this fact.

Catholics have support for believing and asserting that the Bible is Sacred Scripture. We have two witnesses, the Church and Sacred Tradition which testify to that the Bible is Sacred Scripture. Your friend has none of this. So begin by asking her how she knows that the Bible is the word of God. Ask her how she knows that the 27 books of the NT actually belong in the NT, and other books do NOT belong in the NT. She has probably NEVER even considered why she accepts the Bible as God’s word.

She CANNOT be Bible-only. She MUST rely on someone, or something to declare that the Bible is the word of God. Ask her to list out why she believes the Bible is the word of God. The first explanation she will probably give is that the Holy Spirit tells her it is God’s word. That’s NOT good enough. The Holy Spirit didn’t descend upon her and give her a list of books to cobble together. Ask her when and how the Bible was put together, and who declared that it was God’s word.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

This is a great opportunity for you to research your faith. One favorite saying I have, which applies equally to both Catholic and Non-Catholic denominations, is that most are “indoctrinated not educated”. How this applies to this situation is that you both seem to be repeating things told you by others. While we get the basic ideas from that type of learning, it always has the bias of the one speaking it.

Take the questions you have and research the answers. See where in Scripture your beliefs come from. Learn her beliefs and see where they come from so you can discuss intelligently both viewpoints. It’s amazing how much someone will listen when you know more about their faith than they do!

When someone says “that’s not in the Bible” they usually tend to mean Tradition has no value. Did you know the Bible came from Tradition? Does your friend know it came from Tradition (obviously not).

Congratulations on wanting to share your faith. Keep in mind people can hold different theological viewpoints and remain friends.

PAX

 

[fred_conty]

Hi everyone,
I just joined this forum because I’m in a huge religious debate with one of my best friends that’s been going on for over a year. She is a non-catholic Christian, she’s been taught that her particular brand of Christianity is the only one intended by God and based on the Bible, and I just don’t know what to say any more that would get through to her.

How can I explain to her that there are things we believe that are not necessarily in the Bible? For example, I mentioned something about Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross not being a one time deal, but that at every moment He continues to offer His perfect sacrifice to God in Heaven. She jumped on that right away, and wanted to know where in the Bible I got that, but I’m pretty sure it’s Church teaching and not directly in the Bible, so how can I explain something like that? What she says when I tell her about Church teaching is that “oh no, its made up from the minds of men, and not in the Bible, so your faith is flawed.” I tried telling her that actually, the Church has been given authority and promised infallibly by Jesus, but that started another argument, because she doesn’t believe that Jesus actually founded the Church, or gave Peter authority, and told me that I twisted the words of one verse of the Bible, the “keys to the kingdom” verse, to prove that the Church has divine, infallible authority. She says that we have no way of proving that the leaders of the Church didn’t just claim authority after Jesus death because they were power hungry.

I guess my main question is, how should I go about this? It just seems like we keep getting stuck at an impasse, because she has an explanation for every one of my verses, and I’ve got an answer for every one of hers. Her insistence that her interpretation of the Bible alone is the only true one and the only way to be saved, is starting to exasperate me. Are there any books I should read, or give to her to read? Sorry this was long, but thanks so much!

Just stay with short replies and repeat them when it is possible.

She is bible based. The New Testament didn’t exist in the beginning of Peter’s preaching.
Peter didn’t hand out bibles on Pentecost because there were none. The New Testament came about 20 years later with the letters of St. Paul. The four gospels came even later. If it is all bible based, then how were those people to be saved when they didn’t have the bible?
Peter taught orally and not with the written N.T. which wasn’t written yet.

So the early church was not bible based it was oral based.

Also there were also all kinds of sacred books in circulation in the early days of christianity. The gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Peter, the acts of Paul, and so on, which none of these were inspired books belonging to the true bible. It was the church which decided which books belonged to the bible and we owe her the honor of being the mother of the N.T. that we have today. Without the church we would not know which books belonged to the N.T. So the bible itself is church based.

If it is so important that the teaching be only bible based, it would certainly say so in the New Testament itself. And where does it say that we “only need the bible” in the N.T.?

Just some thoughts.

 

[steve_b]

Hi everyone,
I just joined this forum because I’m in a huge religious debate with one of my best friends that’s been going on for over a year. She is a non-catholic Christian, she’s been taught that her particular brand of Christianity is the only one intended by God and based on the Bible**,** and I just don’t know what to say any more that would get through to her.

Here’s a few thoughts. Put this in your own words, not mine. I’m just thinking outloud with you. You know the best way to address this with your friend

Ask your friend what’s the exact name of her “church”? You can look it up and see who the founder was, and when he/she founded it. That should end THAT part of the discussion. Ever hear the phrase to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant? John Henry Newman said those words while he was still a Protestant.

• Know that no Protestant organization is a “church.” They have no authority to start a “Church”. The Church Jesus established is already here. Peter’s see was Rome, and Benedict 16th is the 266th successor to Peter. That’s the Church Protestants revolted from and that’s condemned in scripture…addressed later
• Since Protestants can only trace their geneology back to the Protestant revolt in the 16th century, there is huge folly on their part to think they are the ONE Church Jesus started and gave all His promises to.
• Technically, Protestants don’t follow the bible. Why?
• they revolted from the Church of Rome, the chair of Peter, and that division is condemned in scripture. All the Protestant revolters knew of the following 2 warnings. Paul addressed division specifically.

Warning 1

Paul writes to the Church of Rome.

***Rom 16:*17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil. 20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.

So, what’s the consequence for those who divide from the Church and don’t return to the Church before they die? Here’s the consequence

Warning 2

Gal 5:
*19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. *I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Note:
Those 2 warning have no expiration date. They’re good for the 1st century when Paul wrote them, as they are for Henry VIII, Luther, Calvin, and all the other’s who revolted from Rome in their day. Protestantism today (regardless of stripe) is the fruit of all that out of control division over the last 500 years…and of course, those warnings go on into the future for THEM and anyone else who leaves the Catholic Church. No expiration date on those warnings

BTW, There’s also your scriptural reference to the phrase often spoken of…* “Outside the Church there is no salvation”.* See consequences Gal 5? Those who dissent and divide from the Church, and remain that way, will not inherit the kingdom of God

Re: your friends comment about "based on the bible "

You can say

• division(s) from the beginning is condemned in scripture, which identifies Protestantism, everyone of them.
• You can point out, the bible was written in, by, and for the Catholic Church and the books in the bible, and only those books (the canon), were canonized by the Catholic Church beginning at the council of Rome 382 a.d. The writers of the NT scriptures (Peter, Paul, James John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Jude), were all in the Church they wrote to. They were not seperate from that ONE Church nor was that ONE Church seperate from them.
• As Luke states in Acts 9:31 So the church throughout all [in the Greek κατά kataὅ**λοςholos* …" iow the Church is the ****Kataholos Church = Catholic Church. ****The English word Catholic is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos which is a compound word from kata, which means according to, and holos, which means whole. *http://www.catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

If you want Early Church Father quotes, just ask

 

[pablope]

Hi everyone,
I just joined this forum because I’m in a huge religious debate with one of my best friends that’s been going on for over a year. She is a non-catholic Christian, she’s been taught that her particular brand of Christianity is the only one intended by God and based on the Bible, and I just don’t know what to say any more that would get through to her.

How can I explain to her that there are things we believe that are not necessarily in the Bible?

I guess my main question is, how should I go about this? It just seems like we keep getting stuck at an impasse, because she has an explanation for every one of my verses,

and I’ve got an answer for every one of hers. Her insistence that her interpretation of the Bible alone is the only true one and the only way to be saved, is starting to exasperate me. Are there any books I should read, or give to her to read? Sorry this was long, but thanks so much!

Okay…ask her where she got her interpretation? Once she points this out…ask her if the interpretation she is following is fallible or infallible? She will most like say fallible for she will not admit infallibility.

So it is fallible…so how does she know if there is error or not?

Then point this biblical example:

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.

Here, Paul, even though he had a direct revelation from Christ, still had to go submit his gospel to the Apostles for assurance. So ask her…who did she submit his intepretation too for assurance, similar to the example of St. Paul?

This should at least get her to thinking…I hope.