Protestants, pick a question take your best shot. I got nothing

[Mammoths]

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–the same authors used by evangelicals to support the reliability of scripture?

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?

 

[ATraveller]

Not the best at this but I’ll give it a try.

Is it plausible that Christ would lose his church?

No. Why would that be the case?

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

Not understanding this. The Body of Christ is composed of saints. From a Lutheran perspective I believe all believers are saints.

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”

We can’t agree over a few things but we still believe in the same Triune God.

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

I don’t see how it did. Other things played a much bigger role if one considered the Reformation a factor in the secular sphere. For the Church, at least with the Reformation things were grounded in Scripture. Most calls for gay ‘marriage’ in the Church isn’t based on Scripture. The very few that try to use Scripture are unconvincing.

 

[pablope]

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

crisismagazine.com/2012/what-the-reformation-has-wrought

Gregory argues that today’s relativism and cult of the consumer—what he ironically calls “the goods life”—have roots that run centuries deep…Protestant Reformers unintentionally set in motion certain ideas that eventually enabled today’s radical self-centeredness.

The Protestants, preaching sola scriptura, threw much of it away. The Protestants believed that the deposit and structure of Catholic faith were fundamentally flawed, that Christ no longer abided in the Roman Church, and that Scripture alone communicated God’s will. Sola scriptura changed everything for Western Christendom. The Church became the churches, and the process inadvertently, but relentlessly, fueled individual sovereignty and relativism.

The Abandonment of Sacraments Brings Profound Consequences
The Reformation also had implications for science and technology. With varying degrees of self-awareness, when the Reformers dismembered the sacraments, they changed the way Western culture perceived nature and the whole material world.

But the Reformers’ disdain for works and sacraments inevitably made faith a more inward, abstract experience.

As Gregory details, when the sacraments are no longer public patrimony but merely private practices, culture inevitably changes.

 

[Mammoths]

crisismagazine.com/2012/what-the-reformation-has-wrought

Gregory argues that today’s relativism and cult of the consumer—what he ironically calls “the goods life”—have roots that run centuries deep…Protestant Reformers unintentionally set in motion certain ideas that eventually enabled today’s radical self-centeredness.

The Protestants, preaching sola scriptura, threw much of it away. The Protestants believed that the deposit and structure of Catholic faith were fundamentally flawed, that Christ no longer abided in the Roman Church, and that Scripture alone communicated God’s will. Sola scriptura changed everything for Western Christendom. The Church became the churches, and the process inadvertently, but relentlessly, fueled individual sovereignty and relativism.

The Abandonment of Sacraments Brings Profound Consequences
The Reformation also had implications for science and technology. With varying degrees of self-awareness, when the Reformers dismembered the sacraments, they changed the way Western culture perceived nature and the whole material world.

But the Reformers’ disdain for works and sacraments inevitably made faith a more inward, abstract experience.

As Gregory details, when the sacraments are no longer public patrimony but merely private practices, culture inevitably changes.

The reformers gave us the notion that marriage occurred under the state. At the time even Protestant Europe exercised state religion. However when state religion was rejected, it was only a matter of time until post Christian cultures saw no need for the state to enforce a religious definition of marriage. As a result, divorce and marriage of abomination are now common.

 

[ATraveller]

crisismagazine.com/2012/what-the-reformation-has-wrought

Gregory argues that today’s relativism and cult of the consumer—what he ironically calls “the goods life”—have roots that run centuries deep…Protestant Reformers unintentionally set in motion certain ideas that eventually enabled today’s radical self-centeredness.

The Protestants, preaching sola scriptura, threw much of it away. The Protestants believed that the deposit and structure of Catholic faith were fundamentally flawed, that Christ no longer abided in the Roman Church, and that Scripture alone communicated God’s will. Sola scriptura changed everything for Western Christendom. The Church became the churches, and the process inadvertently, but relentlessly, fueled individual sovereignty and relativism.

The Abandonment of Sacraments Brings Profound Consequences
The Reformation also had implications for science and technology. With varying degrees of self-awareness, when the Reformers dismembered the sacraments, they changed the way Western culture perceived nature and the whole material world.

But the Reformers’ disdain for works and sacraments inevitably made faith a more inward, abstract experience.

As Gregory details, when the sacraments are no longer public patrimony but merely private practices, culture inevitably changes.

I’m not smart enough to challenge that. I will say though for me and many today that works as a way to salvation is the issue because it confuses many and used to confuse me. I wouldn’t say we disdain them. The idea is you can’t earn your way to salvation because we would fail. However, works show you have been regenerated and love the Lord. It’s such a fine detail it’s not something the laity (or at least me) will give much attention to. It’s fretting over what the path from A to B looks likes. Baptisms, we just need to look at all of those baptized who have rejected Christianity.

 

[Memaw]

I’m not smart enough to challenge that. I will say though for me and many today that works as a way to salvation is the issue because it confuses many and used to confuse me. I wouldn’t say we disdain them. The idea is you can’t earn your way to salvation because we would fail. However, works show you have been regenerated and love the Lord. It’s such a fine detail it’s not something the laity (or at least me) will give much attention to. It’s fretting over what the path from A to B looks likes. Baptisms, we just need to look at all of those baptized who have rejected Christianity.

The Catholic Church has never taught that we “earn” our way to Heaven. Where you got that idea, who knows!!! Good works naturally follow strong faith. Jesus said,“Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for ME.” God Bless, Memaw

 

[MrsAngelala]

…The idea is you can’t earn your way to salvation because we would fail. However, works show you have been regenerated and love the Lord… Baptisms, we just need to look at all of those baptized who have rejected Christianity.

A misunderstanding of baptism as a sacrament lies at the heart of both these statements.

Baptism is the sacrament through which we are adopted into the family of God. Through grace it confers this ontological change to our souls, but it does not remove free will or the tendency toward sin. In human terms, people walk away from their families (biological or adopted) all the time. It doesn’t mean they were never a part of their families, or that their DNA has changed, or that their families don’t love them and want them back. The fact that people walk away from the Church after being baptized does not mean the sacrament is ineffective as a sacrament. A validly baptized person can never go back to being unbaptized, however they behave after the fact; they will forever be a part of the family of God, whether they want to acknowledge it or not.

As for works – The Church as the Body of Christ is not a figurative concept, but a literal one. Through baptism, we are grafted onto that body, of which Christ is the Head. Because we are literally a part of Christ, our works can obtain merit with God: when we act, Christ acts. This concept of the Church as the Body of Christ is not a pretty picture or effective metaphor, but the literal truth. All impetus toward virtuous action is a gift of grace, the ability to complete the action is a gift of grace, and the merit the action earns is a gift of grace – yet we are invited to actively participate in an efficacious way, and are able to respond because we are the Body of Christ. This is how our works “merit” our salvation. This is why we can “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.”

The Catholic explanation of faith-and-works is much more nuanced and explosively wondrous than I’ve ever heard elsewhere. It’s also terrifying. If we simply stop at, “well, we can’t do anything to earn our salvation,” that means we never need to do anything more than one thing. It means that, like God, we need only make one act of the will (to accept Christ) and our destination is decided forever.

However, unlike God,

1. Our words and will do not actually effect change, they simply indicate a desire for change. If I say, “Jesus, I accept you as my Lord and Savior,” that doesn’t mean I’ve actually done it, throughout all parts of me – physical, spiritual, mental, moral, emotional, etc. – for the rest of my temporal life, in such a way as will get me to the eternity I want. This isn’t possible, because I’ll be changing at every moment for the rest of my life on earth. (And yes, I’ve said that, and yes, it was very very real, and yes, I’ve been vetted by Protestant pastors, and yes, it did produce life-altering fruit. But after 16 years… it’s clearly not all that’s necessary.)
2. Expanding on that concept of change: we exist within time, in constantly changing circumstances, including constantly changing bodies, and one decision cannot carry us all the way through our lives. We are also body-soul unities, which means that those ever-changing bodies and ever-changing souls affect each other. Though the baptized cannot ever leave the family of God, we can step outside the circle of sanctifying grace. This is why the sacraments of Confession and Eucharist are repeatable. God ministers directly to both body and soul through the sacraments, as body and soul exist separately and in influence of each other at that particular moment.

The Catholic way of looking at these things is just so beautifully complete. I’ve been in awe, learning this stuff over the past year. So beautiful.

Mammoths, if you want to learn more about what the Church teaches about the sacraments specifically, the St. Paul Center is giving a free video-based class this Lent. It’s called The Bible and the Sacraments. You only have to give them your email address. I took the Bible and the Virgin Mary course last fall, and it was very good – amazing content and high production values.

I hope you get some of your questions answered to your satisfaction.

 

[Tomyris]

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–the same authors used by evangelicals to support the reliability of scripture?

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?

These are all trivial one liners that betray a caricature of history and Protestant thought arising from the worst of comic-book style Catholic apologetics. There are posters around here who arise from that, mostly ex-Protestants who want to demonstrate they are more Catholic than the Catholics.

Mostly these are “have you stopped beating your wife” type questions.

Beyond that, each question has consumed numerous threads on CAF and really should not be combined into one thread, unless your purpose is simply to antagonize Protestants.

 

[goout]

Is it plausible that Christ would lose his church?

The answer to this question is found in the question “who is Christ?”

Christ and the Church are inseparable.
The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.
If Christ is who he says he is, the Church is durable.

 

[adamhovey1988]

crisismagazine.com/2012/what-the-reformation-has-wrought

Gregory argues that today’s relativism and cult of the consumer—what he ironically calls “the goods life”—have roots that run centuries deep…Protestant Reformers unintentionally set in motion certain ideas that eventually enabled today’s radical self-centeredness.

The Protestants, preaching sola scriptura, threw much of it away. The Protestants believed that the deposit and structure of Catholic faith were fundamentally flawed, that Christ no longer abided in the Roman Church, and that Scripture alone communicated God’s will. Sola scriptura changed everything for Western Christendom. The Church became the churches, and the process inadvertently, but relentlessly, fueled individual sovereignty and relativism.

The Abandonment of Sacraments Brings Profound Consequences
The Reformation also had implications for science and technology. With varying degrees of self-awareness, when the Reformers dismembered the sacraments, they changed the way Western culture perceived nature and the whole material world.

But the Reformers’ disdain for works and sacraments inevitably made faith a more inward, abstract experience.

As Gregory details, when the sacraments are no longer public patrimony but merely private practices, culture inevitably changes.

I have said for a long time I think the problem with sola scriptura and private interpretation is that if every man decides for himself what the Bible says, he will explain it away completely. I think that is the logical conclusion of sola scriptura

 

[TOmNossor]

Mammoths;14501923:

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

crisismagazine.com/2012/what-the-reformation-has-wrought
Gregory argues that today’s relativism and cult of the consumer—what he ironically calls “the goods life”—have roots that run centuries deep…Protestant Reformers unintentionally set in motion certain ideas that eventually enabled today’s radical self-centeredness.

Hello!
I belong to a church that most of society would call more conservative than the Catholic Church. I think treating homosexuals with respect is appropriate, but claiming homosexual sex is “no sin” is not.
The Reformation was one of the things that COULD be part of forming what is called an “open access society.” The forming of an “open access society” rather than a “limited access society” was very important towards carrying out God’s purposes.
faculty.unlv.edu/bmalamud/aa.359.north.human%20history.pptx
Most folks who post here are fans of the “open access society” that exists in Europe, all of North America with some lingering problems in Mexico, some of Asia and South America. Most of the folks who post here see the pluses and minuses of the ultimate “open access society,” the Internet (where Catholic Answers exists next to “the dark web”).
Those who would know, “If the sentry of self fails there are simply not enough other policemen to restrain those who will not restrain themselves and beating the system will become the system” will lament the trajectory of our societies. But, it is my opinion that Augustine’s City of God is not the most effective way of “making Saints.” The freedoms we enjoy and the opportunities to choose right verses wrong in an “open access society” are why/how God makes saints most efficiently.
To the extent that the Protestant Reformation ushered in the “open access state,” I believe it was in alignment with God’s will and even inspired in some or many aspects. In any case, we are where we are. As much as you or I might long to use an internet without pornography, I do not think we could have one and also talk about anti-Catholicism, anti-Mormonism, and anti-…-ism. And, even if Augustine’s City of God is better than our “open access state,” God used the selling of Joseph as a slave to bring about His purposes. We are called to get busy, not of the world, but still in the world.
Charity, TOm
P.S. Ireland was the first nation to embrace same sex marriage by popular vote. In the US, it was IMO judicial overreach. It is harder to believe Ireland’s popular sentiment (62%) is a product of Protestant influence there. The fact that faith communities serve a wider range of folks in the United States has IMO insulated us from some of the changes in Europe, but it opens us up to other problems too.

 

[Ernie07]

As for works – The Church as the Body of Christ is not a figurative concept, but a literal one. Through baptism, we are grafted onto that body, of which Christ is the Head. Because we are literally a part of Christ, our works can obtain merit with God: when we act, Christ acts. This concept of the Church as the Body of Christ is not a pretty picture or effective metaphor, but the literal truth. All impetus toward virtuous action is a gift of grace, the ability to complete the action is a gift of grace, and the merit the action earns is a gift of grace – yet we are invited to actively participate in an efficacious way, and are able to respond because we are the Body of Christ. This is how our works “merit” our salvation. This is why we can “work out our salvation with fear and trembling.”

The Catholic explanation of faith-and-works is much more nuanced and explosively wondrous than I’ve ever heard elsewhere. It’s also terrifying. If we simply stop at, “well, we can’t do anything to earn our salvation,” that means we never need to do anything more than one thing. It means that, like God, we need only make one act of the will (to accept Christ) and our destination is decided forever.

The Catholic way of looking at these things is just so beautifully complete. I’ve been in awe, learning this stuff over the past year. So beautiful.

Hi Mrs. Angela,

I found your post interesting and inspiring. I wanted to comment and get your thoughts on the faith + works doctrine. I’m a salesperson by occupation and I’ve been trying to view Catholicism as if it were my product to sell (equating that to evangelization). One thing that seems to get in our way with Protestants is when we start to discuss “works”. As I better understand grace I’m starting to look at things we do not as our “works” but rather our “decisions”. Let me explain if I could.

God sends us grace all the time…the grace to have faith, to pray, to repent, to be charitable, to be kind and so on. On the other hand, the devil sends us temptations to fornicate, be envious or jealous, to be prideful or spiteful, and so on. We therefore have decisions to make…either to decide to do “good works” by accepting grace or to do “bad works” and side with temptation leading to sin. When we do anything good it is simply because we have cooperated with grace and not with temptation. Our “good works” are good, but not because of what we have done, but because of what God has graced us with. All we needed to do is decide to accept it.

It is about our decisions and that should be the focus rather than our “good works” because focusing on the term “good works” appears that we ourselves are doing something to earn something in return. Even Protestants would admit that although God provides the grace to have faith it still requires us to cooperate (make a decision) with that grace to accept Jesus as our Lord, God, and Savior. All we as Catholics say is that rather than making that one decision for faith, we need to continue to make good decisions accepting grace that is presented to us. And that is why we can be “made holy” rather than simply to be “declared holy”. Why settle to only be “declared” when you can be “made”!!??

I agree with you that the Catholic faith is a beautiful faith. And we shouldn’t be afraid to proclaim it, all of it, from the mountain tops!!

-Ernie-

 

[Mammoths]

Hi Mrs. Angela,

I found your post interesting and inspiring. I wanted to comment and get your thoughts on the faith + works doctrine. I’m a salesperson by occupation and I’ve been trying to view Catholicism as if it were my product to sell (equating that to evangelization). One thing that seems to get in our way with Protestants is when we start to discuss “works”. As I better understand grace I’m starting to look at things we do not as our “works” but rather our “decisions”. Let me explain if I could.

God sends us grace all the time…the grace to have faith, to pray, to repent, to be charitable, to be kind and so on. On the other hand, the devil sends us temptations to fornicate, be envious or jealous, to be prideful or spiteful, and so on. We therefore have decisions to make…either to decide to do “good works” by accepting grace or to do “bad works” and side with temptation leading to sin. When we do anything good it is simply because we have cooperated with grace and not with temptation. Our “good works” are good, but not because of what we have done, but because of what God has graced us with. All we needed to do is decide to accept it.

It is about our decisions and that should be the focus rather than our “good works” because focusing on the term “good works” appears that we ourselves are doing something to earn something in return. Even Protestants would admit that although God provides the grace to have faith it still requires us to cooperate (make a decision) with that grace to accept Jesus as our Lord, God, and Savior. All we as Catholics say is that rather than making that one decision for faith, we need to continue to make good decisions accepting grace that is presented to us. And that is why we can be “made holy” rather than simply to be “declared holy”. Why settle to only be “declared” when you can be “made”!!??

I agree with you that the Catholic faith is a beautiful faith. And we shouldn’t be afraid to proclaim it, all of it, from the mountain tops!!

-Ernie-

I am no expert but it seems like if you are “selling” the Catholic message to evangelicals one of the big barriers to communication is a different experience with the Bible. Catholics who attend mass at least once a week do read the Bible but they read it as part of a liturgy so their mental card catolog is based on the liturgical year. Devout Protestants are immersed in bible study with the actual bible in their hands. The read it directly, discuss it amongst each other. Their mental card catelog system is chapter and verse. It will help you a lot if you become familiar with their card catelog. They have no hope of learning yours because it isn’t even available to them within their normal experience.

In the Bible there are verses that deal with this issue of grace and works. I would learn them. Quite often you can quote them verbatim and they will respond as though they disagree. Then you give them chapter and verse. Ephesians 2 is a good one. On this forum I occasionally find Catholics making grand sweeping statements about my background that as an evangelical with 38 years bible immersion seem very uninformed. If the Bible is a catholic book, it ought to be something we have in common. Use that to your advantage.

 

[Mammoths]

Hello!
I belong to a church that most of society would call more conservative than the Catholic Church. I think treating homosexuals with respect is appropriate, but claiming homosexual sex is “no sin” is not.
The Reformation was one of the things that COULD be part of forming what is called an “open access society.” The forming of an “open access society” rather than a “limited access society” was very important towards carrying out God’s purposes.
faculty.unlv.edu/bmalamud/aa.359.north.human%20history.pptx
Most folks who post here are fans of the “open access society” that exists in Europe, all of North America with some lingering problems in Mexico, some of Asia and South America. Most of the folks who post here see the pluses and minuses of the ultimate “open access society,” the Internet (where Catholic Answers exists next to “the dark web”).
Those who would know, “If the sentry of self fails there are simply not enough other policemen to restrain those who will not restrain themselves and beating the system will become the system” will lament the trajectory of our societies. But, it is my opinion that Augustine’s City of God is not the most effective way of “making Saints.” The freedoms we enjoy and the opportunities to choose right verses wrong in an “open access society” are why/how God makes saints most efficiently.
To the extent that the Protestant Reformation ushered in the “open access state,” I believe it was in alignment with God’s will and even inspired in some or many aspects. In any case, we are where we are. As much as you or I might long to use an internet without pornography, I do not think we could have one and also talk about anti-Catholicism, anti-Mormonism, and anti-…-ism. And, even if Augustine’s City of God is better than our “open access state,” God used the selling of Joseph as a slave to bring about His purposes. We are called to get busy, not of the world, but still in the world.
Charity, TOm
P.S. Ireland was the first nation to embrace same sex marriage by popular vote. In the US, it was IMO judicial overreach. It is harder to believe Ireland’s popular sentiment (62%) is a product of Protestant influence there. The fact that faith communities serve a wider range of folks in the United States has IMO insulated us from some of the changes in Europe, but it opens us up to other problems too.

A Mormon embracing open access society after JS tried to conquer MO as a Mormon state is a little far from the tree, don’t you think?

 

[Dorothy]

I am no expert but it seems like if you are “selling” the Catholic message to evangelicals one of the big barriers to communication is a different experience with the Bible. Catholics who attend mass at least once a week do read the Bible but they read it as part of a liturgy so their mental card catolog is based on the liturgical year. Devout Protestants are immersed in bible study with the actual bible in their hands. The read it directly, discuss it amongst each other. Their mental card catelog system is chapter and verse. It will help you a lot if you become familiar with their card catelog. They have no hope of learning yours because it isn’t even available to them within their normal experience.

In the Bible there are verses that deal with this issue of grace and works. I would learn them. Quite often you can quote them verbatim and they will respond as though they disagree. Then you give them chapter and verse. Ephesians 2 is a good one. On this forum I occasionally find Catholics making grand sweeping statements about my background that as an evangelical with 38 years bible immersion seem very uninformed. If the Bible is a catholic book, it ought to be something we have in common. Use that to your advantage.

I would just like to point out that bible studies are abounding in the Catholic churches where I live. I have gone starting seven years ago, and am still going. They are abounding in other areas as well, as I correspond with other Catholics via US mail and the internet.

 

[Mammoths]

I would just like to point out that bible studies are abounding in the Catholic churches where I live. I have gone starting seven years ago, and am still going. They are abounding in other areas as well, as I correspond with other Catholics via US mail and the internet.

 

[Mammoths]

These are all trivial one liners that betray a caricature of history and Protestant thought arising from the worst of comic-book style Catholic apologetics. There are posters around here who arise from that, mostly ex-Protestants who want to demonstrate they are more Catholic than the Catholics.

Mostly these are “have you stopped beating your wife” type questions.

Beyond that, each question has consumed numerous threads on CAF and really should not be combined into one thread, unless your purpose is simply to antagonize Protestants.

Those questions are my questions. They are based on my experience. Catholics didn’t give them to me. I have been devout in post catholic Christianity for 33 years ± These are questions I came to not being able to find answers that have explanatory power. I can answer them all in a way that most Protestants would accept.

 

[Mammoths]

The answer to this question is found in the question “who is Christ?”

Christ and the Church are inseparable.
The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.
If Christ is who he says he is, the Church is durable.

That’s the problem. Smoke that Protestants!

 

[Ernie07]

I am no expert but it seems like if you are “selling” the Catholic message to evangelicals one of the big barriers to communication is a different experience with the Bible. Catholics who attend mass at least once a week do read the Bible but they read it as part of a liturgy so their mental card catolog is based on the liturgical year. Devout Protestants are immersed in bible study with the actual bible in their hands. The read it directly, discuss it amongst each other. Their mental card catelog system is chapter and verse. It will help you a lot if you become familiar with their card catelog. They have no hope of learning yours because it isn’t even available to them within their normal experience.

In the Bible there are verses that deal with this issue of grace and works. I would learn them. Quite often you can quote them verbatim and they will respond as though they disagree. Then you give them chapter and verse. Ephesians 2 is a good one. On this forum I occasionally find Catholics making grand sweeping statements about my background that as an evangelical with 38 years bible immersion seem very uninformed. If the Bible is a catholic book, it ought to be something we have in common. Use that to your advantage.

Good stuff!! Thank you for your response! Based on your background and experience I’d like to run an idea by you. I’ve been in many debates, read debates on this site and others, and have seen debates on videos. Every time it ends up in what I call a “my interpretation is better than yours” type debate. We each use the Bible, interpret it in our own ways, and then more often than not agree to disagree. Why not change the game? Here’s what I mean.

Before engaging in a debate on a particular belief you first establish ground rules. The ground rules are the acceptance that Jesus established His Church and that He would protect it (MT 16:18). This protection must include error for we can all agree that if His Church taught idolatry then the gates of hell shall have prevailed.

Once that is established then you can talk about the debated belief because now you can ask, “who believed as you believe in the Church’s first 800 years when there was just a single universal Christian Church?”. For if we believe that the real truth never changes then your “truth” must have been evidenced in that one Church. If not, then you are saying you have the truth and the early Church got it wrong, but then that means that Jesus was unable to keep His promise. And we know that’s not possible.

When I’ve used this approach the only responses I have heard was that there was a “hidden church for 1500 years” or a “who cares?” type response. But, now they’re playing on my field because my clear differentiator is being the one true Church. Yes, they get frustrated and try to get back to the “my interpretation is better than yours” game, but I continue then to ask the “who believed as you believe” question because I can answer that question! It takes the emotion out of the argument and why debate them on their field when mine is so strong? And I don’t have to memorize so much to make my point, that there is a Church that proves that Jesus kept His promise and that Church is the Catholic Church, whether they like it or not. I take the attitude that I’m planting seeds rather than trying to win a debate or argument.

How would you have responded?

Thanks!

-Ernie-

 

[Tomyris]

Those questions are my questions. They are based on my experience. Catholics didn’t give them to me. I have been devout in post catholic Christianity for 33 years ± These are questions I came to not being able to find answers that have explanatory power. I can answer them all in a way that most Protestants would accept.

Those being your questions, you have had a very shallow experience in evangelicalism, which is easy to do.

I am not sure you can answer these questions well. Based on this, you give me the impression you have read more about evangelicalism from a Catholic perspective than you have read evangelical theology from evangelicals. The reason I say this is that I really don’t think you would be asking these questions if you understood where evangelicals are coming from. It seems to me you may be leaving evangelical circles without understanding evangelical theology. It is very easy to sit in evangelical churches for a long time and even attend Sunday school regularly without getting a good grasp on the essentials of the faith.

And if you do have answers to these questions that satisfy you as a Protestant, why are you asking them of Protestants?