Questions for Protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ziggamafu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brooklyn said:
You really don’t think you will ever convince Ian Paisley to believe anything differently, do you? It would take a “Damscus Road” incident to convince him, and I’m not sure that would even work! :banghead:
Click to expand...
I well remember him barging into an auditorium once and shouting profanities at John Paul 2 who was speaking at the time and the pope just looked at him in a calm , detached manner…there was no doubt in my mind that Paisley had made an absolute fool of himself and had also cast mainstream protestantism in a bad light.
I am always amazed at how individuals like this manage to convince people to follow them blindly…in my view they are dangerous because they hinder genuine and sincere efforts to try and find unity amongst the body of Christ.:mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Ziggamafu said:
Hey, I just thought of another one:

28. What good would the constitution be without a government to interpret and apply it? Is it really reasonable to assume that God would leave us with such a large body of text without an infallible interpreter?​

Click to expand...
Jehovah’s Witnesses claim only 144,000 people will be in heaven for eternityh. Notice, however, that this group is identified as male virgins (Rev 14), while Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in consecrated celibacy. Who are these people who will be saved, and how about the rest of us?

mgrfin
 
Excellent thread.

A couple of my favorites:
  1. If the path to salvation Christ opened for us requires simple belief in Christ, why does he in his own words constantly urge us to “DO” rather than to “BELIEVE”?
  2. What made the good Samaritan good if there’s no evidence he believed in Christ at all?
  3. If Scripture is self-interpreting, what is the meaning of the Ethiopian’s question “How can I, when no one has taught me?”
  4. Since many Protestants believe that Catholics worship statues because we pray in their presence, would Catholics be correct in claiming Protestants worship wood because they pray in the presence of a cross without Christ on it?
  5. Is everyone who claims to be a Christian based on their interpretation of the Bible a Christian? On what basis do you determine who may or may not legitimately call themselves a Christian?
  6. If the Church is invisible, as some Protestants say, how do we fulfill Christ’s command to go to the Church when our initial attempts to correct our Christian brothers fail? How do we know where to go if we can’t see it?
  7. Since there is nothing in the New Testament which condemns homosexuality, on what basis do Protestants reject actively homosexual clergy? Or homosexual marriage?
  8. Is it possible to bear false witness against Catholics?
  9. If Christians are forbidden to pray to the saints or even talk to the dead, how do you explain Christ’s conversation with Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration? Were Moses and Elijah not dead?
  10. Did Jesus turn water into wine or into grape juice at Cana? If the latter, what do you make of the fact that pasteurization of grape juice didn’t exist until the 19th century and the only way to keep such juice in the desert was in the form of wine as it fermented swiftly?
 
Teflon93 said:
Which faith is that? How do you know it was once and for all delivered to the saints? How do you know you personally are saved?
Click to expand...
I alway wonder about people who are so secretive about their faith. I sometimes think they are privately ashamed to admit their roots, or their faith, and their religion, cause then people can see the falsity, lack of reason, and cohesion of their beliefs.

One person voluntarily admitted to being a Seventh Day Adventist.
This was a religion that was founded less than 200 years ago. I guess we can all found a religion that appeals to our ‘faith’ and ‘morals’.

pax
 
mgrfin said:
I alway wonder about people who are so secretive about their faith. I sometimes think they are privately ashamed to admit their roots, or their faith, and their religion, cause then people can see the falsity, lack of reason, and cohesion of their beliefs.

One person voluntarily admitted to being a Seventh Day Adventist.
This was a religion that was founded less than 200 years ago. I guess we can all found a religion that appeals to our ‘faith’ and ‘morals’.

pax
Click to expand...
Well, I think we also need to make very clear that while we may argue this doctrine or that historical event, often passionately, we will not jump on someone’s pious faith. I have several friends who are part of Kenneth Copeland’s Word of Faith movement. While I disagree almost completely with its theology and doctrine, I respect my friends’ deep devotion to Christ and charitable works.

So while I disagree with Kaycee on lots of things, I doubt not for an instant that he is a devout Christian and our brother.

It is true that specificity invites specific discussion, which folks sometimes aren’t really comfortable having. That’s fine; I just wondered where he was coming from as he seems to have a great deal of certainty regarding salvation and the teachings of his faith without having the benefit of Tradition and Magisterium we Catholics draw upon.
 
I hope this is the right place to put a question.

Throughout this site, Catholics place an emphasis on Matt 16, 18-19: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death (hell) shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”.

The quote has extraordinary implications for St. Peter’s preeminence as the supreme earthly head of the Church, or Pope, which he was appointed by our Lord Jesus himself.

The passage also expresses indefectibility: the idea that the Church founded by Christ can never be overcome by the powers of darkness; that it will always preserve the true Christian handed down by Jesus to the Apostles.

What Protestants have in common is the rejection of the Papacy. How is this passage to be interpreted if Peter was not chosen as the head?

peace
 
There is tremendous Scriptural proofs for many defined doctrines of the Catholic Church.

The Eucharist is one of these important Catholic beliefs.

How do Protestants handle St. Paul’s admonition regarding receiving the Eucharist unworthily:

1 Corinthians 11:27-30: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaining the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died”.

Pretty strong words from the Apostle who believed in mercy and forgiveness from Jesus. Of course, if the Eucharist that Protestants have is not the real and true Body and Blood of the Lord, well, the passage has little meaning.

I’d be interested to hear with our non-catholic brethren have to say about this passage.

peace
 
mgrfin said:
1 Corinthians 11:27-30: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaining the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died”.

Pretty strong words from the Apostle who believed in mercy and forgiveness from Jesus. Of course, if the Eucharist that Protestants have is not the real and true Body and Blood of the Lord, well, the passage has little meaning.
Click to expand...
By distributing communion as rarely as possible. 😉

Whoops—answer, not question!

How’s this one:

If God promised Noah He would not destroy the Earth again, how does this square with the Fundamentalist reading of Revelation?
 
I would hope that non-Catholics would visit this site often, and ply their scriptural wits on some of the issues covered here.

It is one thing to attack Dogmas from all sides, but then to be all quiet when asked questions themselves.

One of the short Epistles of St. Paul was 2nd Thessalonians, and I have two favorite quotes from there I would like addressed.

On Tradition:
2 Thess 2, 14: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word , or by our epistle.”

And On Good Works:
2 Thess 2. 16: “Exhort your hearts, and confirm you in every good work and word.” (Faith never mentioned).

2 Thess 3, 13: “But you, brethren, be not weary in well doing.”
( Confirmed by Gal 6,9: “And in doing good, let us not fail, for in due time we shall reap, not failing”.

peace
 
mgrfin said:
I would hope that non-Catholics would visit this site often, and ply their scriptural wits on some of the issues covered here.

It is one thing to attack Dogmas from all sides, but then to be all quiet when asked questions themselves.
Click to expand...
In fairness, answers are being addressed in a split thread. Before the thread was split and reinforced, there was no shortage of Protestant attempts to answer some of these questions head on.
 
Teflon93 said:
In fairness, answers are being addressed in a split thread. Before the thread was split and reinforced, there was no shortage of Protestant attempts to answer some of these questions head on.
Click to expand...
I think the ‘split’ was a bad idea. Did a Protestant come up with that idea?

peace
 
mgrfin said:
I think the ‘split’ was a bad idea. Did a Protestant come up with that idea?

peace
Click to expand...
LOL—nope; the intent was to focus on coming up with questions for the OP.

I can understand that—otherwise, we’d spend all of our time arguing over the answers. 😉
 
hm. off the top of my head and there may be some repetition in theme.
  1. Can we know with 100% certainty that any particular canonical NT book is inspired.
  2. Can you know with certainty that your particular interpretation of Scripture, especially in portions where there is disagreement is 100% correct.
  3. If you answered no or gave qualifications to either 1 or 2, how can you say with 100% certainty that you have assurance of salvation? The scriptures you base your assurance on may in fact be un-inspired or your interpretation of those verses may be invalid.
 
Stylite said:
hm. off the top of my head and there may be some repetition in theme.
  1. Can we know with 100% certainty that any particular canonical NT book is inspired.
  2. Can you know with certainty that your particular interpretation of Scripture, especially in portions where there is disagreement is 100% correct.
  3. If you answered no or gave qualifications to either 1 or 2, how can you say with 100% certainty that you have assurance of salvation? The scriptures you base your assurance on may in fact be un-inspired or your interpretation of those verses may be invalid.
Click to expand...
Good questions for non-Catholics.

peace
 
Stylite said:
hm. off the top of my head and there may be some repetition in theme.
  1. Can we know with 100% certainty that any particular canonical NT book is inspired.
  2. Can you know with certainty that your particular interpretation of Scripture, especially in portions where there is disagreement is 100% correct.
  3. If you answered no or gave qualifications to either 1 or 2, how can you say with 100% certainty that you have assurance of salvation? The scriptures you base your assurance on may in fact be un-inspired or your interpretation of those verses may be invalid.
Click to expand...
Can you know with 100% certainty that the RCC is infallible?

Why ask a question of us when a similar question is applicable to you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top