Questions for Protestants

[Ziggamafu]

The alternative to trusting in God’s word alone as our ultimate authority is to trust in something else (such as God’s word AND someone elses word, or just someone else’s word and not God’s word at all).

I don’t know what, exactly, YOUR alternative is to God’s word alone as your ultimate authority, but if you look in Gen. chapter three, you will find that Adam and Eve’s decision to trust the serpent rather than God wouldn’t have been any different if the serpent had said, “The CC is infallible (or the Mormon, or the JW “church”) and it teaches that you will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Isn’t it true that pride came first? Instead of loyalty and submission to God’s word, they showed pride and disloyalty to God’s word by judging it (God’s word) as just another hypothesis with no higher authority than that of the serpent. Adam and Eve made themselves judges over God’s word in order to reject it. Notice that God’s instruction not to eat the fruit was clear without any infallible interpreter. Adam and Eve chose to trust something other than God’s word; they trusted the serpent. So their sin was without excuse. It would be completely out of character (to say the least) for God to suggest that our disobedience to His word is excusable because His word is not sufficiently clear to us! God’s word was, and still remains, sufficient.

The day Adam and Eve decided to trust in something other than God’s word alone as their ultimate authority…was the worst day in human history. We still suffer the effects of our falleness every single day. There is no excusable alternative to trusting in every word spoken by God. We need no other authority.

God’s Word is first and foremost a Person; the written Scripture and living Tradition are merely the revelations of that Person. The dogmas of that Person’s Church - *who *is no less than that Person’s very Body - are that Person’s clarifications of what he has revealed. Our source of authority is the same as yours, Jesus Christ; we disagree on how much he has revealed and the methods through which he has revealed, as well as the method through which he protects and expounds on that revelation. Once again, although you try in vain to avoid the issue, the issue remains the same: is sola scriptura a logically and biblically viable doctrine?

Simple way to find out:

Logic: Did Christ incarnate write Scripture, command its writing, or specifically provide a canon? Did Christ’s Apostles always know that what they wrote was not only authoritative (due to their position) but also clearly inspired by God? Did they command the writing of Scripture (not all writers of the NT were Apostles, mind you) or specify the canon?

Bible: Is there even a single passage that clearly tells us that God’s *written *Word is the Christian’s **ONLY **infallible authority? Is there even a single passage that clearly tells us that God’s Word comes to us only in written form? Is there a divine inspired “Table of Contents” in the Bible (that is, can we discern what books belong in the Bible from the Bible ALONE)?

You (and other Protestants) evade these and similar lines of questioning for a simple reason: they are the critical weakness of Protestantism and are rock-solid proof that the rebellion against the authority of Christ in his Church is based on a fallacy. The doctrine of sola scriptura does not work. It is wrong. And it is absurd.

You obviously love Christ (as you understand him). He loves you. Be Catholic. You will find a deeper relationship with him and a deeper assurance of that relationship when you enter into full communion with his Body, the Church.

 

[Nick_Jones]

God’s Word is first and foremost a Person; the written Scripture and living Tradition are merely the revelations of that Person. The dogmas of that Person’s Church - *who *is no less than that Person’s very Body - are that Person’s clarifications of what he has revealed. Our source of authority is the same as yours, Jesus Christ;

This is the error you’ve made. When Rome says that its Traditions are to be given equal authority with God’s word, you have decided to believe Rome.

Didn’t Adam and Eve make exactly the same mistake when they used their fallible human reasoning in order to accept the faulty interpretation of the serpent, who said, “You will not surely die”?

Nothing good can come from pridefully assuming that **your own fallible reasoning **gives you the right to reject God’s word. The day that Adam and Eve decided to reason their way to the truth instead of submitting to God’s word and trusting only in Him was the worst day in human history.

Simple way to find out:

Logic: Did Christ incarnate write Scripture, command its writing, or specifically provide a canon? Did Christ’s Apostles always know that what they wrote was not only authoritative (due to their position) but also clearly inspired by God? Did they command the writing of Scripture (not all writers of the NT were Apostles, mind you) or specify the canon?

Bible: Is there even a single passage that clearly tells us that God’s *written *Word is the Christian’s **ONLY **infallible authority? Is there even a single passage that clearly tells us that God’s Word comes to us only in written form? Is there a divine inspired “Table of Contents” in the Bible (that is, can we discern what books belong in the Bible from the Bible ALONE)?

You (and other Protestants) evade these and similar lines of questioning for a simple reason: they are the critical weakness of Protestantism and are rock-solid proof that the rebellion against the authority of Christ in his Church is based on a fallacy. The doctrine of sola scriptura does not work. It is wrong. And it is absurd.

Where you see only weakness we see our very life and strength. Where you see the need for logic we see the need for the source of logic which is God Himself. Where you see great value in clever arguments we preach the glory of God. How is it weakness to trust only in God’s word?

 

[Teflon93]

This is the error you’ve made. When Rome says that its Traditions are to be given equal authority with God’s word, you have decided to believe Rome.

Didn’t Adam and Eve make exactly the same mistake when they used their fallible human reasoning in order to accept the faulty interpretation of the serpent, who said, “You will not surely die”?

Nothing good can come from pridefully assuming that **your own fallible reasoning **gives you the right to reject God’s word. The day that Adam and Eve decided to reason their way to the truth instead of submitting to God’s word and trusting only in Him was the worst day in human history.

Where you see only weakness we see our very life and strength. Where you see the need for logic we see the need for the source of logic which is God Himself. Where you see great value in clever arguments we preach the glory of God. How is it weakness to trust only in God’s word?

Where do you think Scripture came from?

Do you not realize that if Scripture were a steamer trunk it would have “Rome” stamped all over it?

Christ built his Church upon Peter, the Rock. Why do you hack away it?

 

[Nick_Jones]

You obviously love Christ (as you understand him). He loves you. Be Catholic. You will find a deeper relationship with him and a deeper assurance of that relationship when you enter into full communion with his Body, the Church.

The reason I will not be part of the Roman system of reasoning, is that its entire emphasis is on visible signs and visible sacraments and visible authority all of which require human beings to administer the graces of God.

But we trust not in what is seen but what is unseen; not in earthly things but in spiritual things. We are grieved by all the focus on human mediators and human traditions that glorify men.

The whole universe exists to glorify God, and Him alone. To God be the glory!

 

[Teflon93]

The reason I will not be part of the Roman system of reasoning, is that its entire emphasis is on visible signs and visible sacraments and visible authority all of which require human beings to administer the graces of God.

But we trust not in what is seen but what is unseen; not in earthly things but in spiritual things. We are grieved by all the focus on human mediators and human traditions that glorify men.

The whole universe exists to glorify God, and Him alone. To God be the glory!

It seems your argument is not with us, but with God.

Did God not create His covenant with the Jews through Abraham?

Did God not save the human race through Noah?

Did God not proclaim and administer His Law through Moses?

Did God not speak through the prophets?

Did Christ not come to us through Mary?

Time and again, God has demonstrated that He prefers to reveal Himself through one of us.

It is the height of ego and folly to proclaim yourself prophet and priest.

Those visible signs and sacraments you rail against were created to protect us from false prophets and wicked men, both of whom falsely claim to be sent by God.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Where do you think Scripture came from?

From God.

Do you not realize that if Scripture were a steamer trunk it would have “Rome” stamped all over it?

Christ built his Church upon Peter, the Rock. Why do you hack away it?

Let’s say you had been raised on a small island where no missionaries had ever visited; no Christian religion was known. One day, a box full of bibles (written in your lauguage) is dropped from a airplane…the box of bibles lands in your village. You pick up a bible and begin reading it. What would you find in it?

Would you find anything about popes, papal infallibility, or the RCC? Nope.

The bible is all about the falleness of mankind and the glory of God. You would find Jesus claiming to be the way, not infallible churches or infallible Roman popes.

Your decision to trust in fallible men for infallible truth isn’t just nonsensical, it clearly proves that you cannot live by faith; you demand certainty. And you will trust in men who are sinners to provide you with the certainty (infallibility) that you demand. All of it is futile.

 

[Nick_Jones]

It seems your argument is not with us, but with God.

Did God not create His covenant with the Jews through Abraham?

Did God not save the human race through Noah?

Did God not proclaim and administer His Law through Moses?

Did God not speak through the prophets?

Did Christ not come to us through Mary?

Time and again, God has demonstrated that He prefers to reveal Himself through one of us.

It is the height of ego and folly to proclaim yourself prophet and priest.

Those visible signs and sacraments you rail against were created to protect us from false prophets and wicked men, both of whom falsely claim to be sent by God.

And the JW’s will say that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society was created by God’s servants to protect us from false prophets and wicked men, both of whom falsely claim to be sent by God.

The Mormons will say that their Prophet was sent by God to protect us from false prophets and wicked men, both of whom falsely claim to be sent by God.

Why are your holy men better than theirs? As for me, I will follow Jesus.

 

[Teflon93]

From God.

And where was the New Testament between Pentecost and the 4th century?

Since Protestants didn’t exist prior to 1517, who actually wrote down and compiled the New Testament?

Let’s say you had been raised on a small island where no missionaries had ever visited; no Christian religion was known. One day, a box full of bibles (written in your lauguage) is dropped from a airplane…the box of bibles lands in your village. You pick up a bible and begin reading it. What would you find in it?

Would you find anything about popes, papal infallibility, or the RCC? Nope.

The bible is all about the falleness of mankind and the glory of God. You would find Jesus claiming to be the way, not infallible churches or infallible Roman popes.

Your decision to trust in fallible men for infallible truth isn’t just nonsensical, it clearly proves that you cannot live by faith; you demand certainty. And you will trust in men who are sinners to provide you with the certainty (infallibility) that you demand. All of it is futile.

The Bible didn’t drop from the sky. It began in the oral traditions of the apostles of the Catholic Church, commissioned by Christ, taught by Christ, and urged to bring others to Christ.

Where in the Bible can I find any reference to Protestants?

Where in the Bible can I find the words “by faith alone” except to refute them in James?

Where in the Bible can I find Christ telling us, “You need only believe in me”? I seem to see plenty of exhortations from Christ to keep the Commandments, to love my neighbor as my self, to do any number of things.

And yet you have listened to fallible men like Martin Luther and Jean Calvin, and believed them despite their lack of charity, despite their lack of reason, and most certainly, despite their lack of authority.

When it comes to claims of following fallible men, you would do better to read more history and write less propaganda.

 

[Teflon93]

And the JW’s will say that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society was created by God’s servants to protect us from false prophets and wicked men, both of whom falsely claim to be sent by God.

The Mormons will say that their Prophet was sent by God to protect us from false prophets and wicked men, both of whom falsely claim to be sent by God.

Why are your holy men better than theirs? As for me, I will follow Jesus.

My holy men, as you would have it, populate The Holy Bible, through which is your sole knowledge of Jesus.

If they are fiction, so is he.

How quickly your claims to hew to God fall when you reveal such disdain for his prophets, the heralds of Christ!

 

[Ziggamafu]

Can anyone think of more questions for Protestants? The questions can be for specific denominations, if you like.

I thought of a couple more:

Do you have real assurance of your salvation if, from time to time because of sin, you have to question if you ‘really meant it’ when you ‘got saved’?

If you believe that Christ is the new, final, and perfect Paschal Lamb, why don’t you believe in the necessity of consuming the lamb according to Scripture?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Can anyone think of more questions for Protestants? The questions can be for specific denominations, if you like.

I thought of a couple more:

Do you have real assurance of your salvation if, from time to time because of sin, you have to question if you ‘really meant it’ when you ‘got saved’?

If you believe that Christ is the new, final, and perfect Paschal Lamb, why don’t you believe in the necessity of consuming the lamb according to Scripture?

To add to the these questions.

How much sin or what types of sin would prove that you were never saved to begin with even though you thought you were?

If you get saved after that sin passes, what is different this time?

 

[Teflon93]

If Scripture is to be interpreted literally, why do you not take literally the command to eat of Christ’s body and drink of his blood?

 

[Tomster]

Perhaps this has been asked already. But I will go ahead and ask it anyway. What is the purpose of a preacher, pastor, minister, etc. in non-Catholic denominations when it comes to preaching the Gospel? Any non-Catholic will tell you that the preacher’s interpretation of the Gospel is fallible. Why should anyone listen to a preacher under these conditions? After all, they are only fallible men/women capable of making mistakes when they interpret Scriptures.

Tomster

 

[look3467]

Phi 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

How do we live in Christ? Must Christ first be in us? And if He is, how did He get there?

These are the things to talk about, not how to stump somebody.

To share what is in you (Christ) is to share His love and compassion in word and in deed.

If as a Catholic or as a protestant, love and compassion knows no bounds.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Nick_Jones]

Better come home to Rome, then, because Paul didn’t teach sola fide, sola scriptura, total depravity, nor the rest of the heretical Protestant doctrines.

We’ll leave a light on for you.

We don’t have only Paul’s letters to guide us, we have the whole bible. If you still insist that something good can come from treating God’s word as less than sufficient as our ultimate authority, I suggest reading Gen. chapter three to find out what happened to all of humanity the first time human beings decided that God’s word was not, in itself, completely sufficient as the ultimate authority.

The RCC, like the serpent in Gen. three, wants us to believe that what turned out to be the ruin of us all (trusting in something other than God’s word as complete and authoritative) is what we need to get the fullness of truth. Do you not find the most important lesson of Scripture taught here?

As for sola fide and total depravity, we can discuss these in another thread.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Again…(and as I expected) you seek to make a case for the unscriptural doctrine of “God’s word alone” (AKA: Sola Scriptura). This article (The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.)shows that you hold an untenable and unscriptural position which, because it is the fundamental basis of all your other theology creates a collapsing cascade effect in n-C belief.Sorry…had to edit out most of your sermonizing as it is just rhetoric anyway.

I’ll refer you to post #115 of this thread for a thorough refutation of your belief that SS is untenable and unscriptural. Your “church” insists that we desperately need the very thing that led to our ruin into sin–that we ought to trust in something other than the word of God as our ultimate authority.
It looks to me like your anti Sola Scriptura project doesn’t produce good fruit. On the other hand, what is the downside of making God’s word our ultimate rule of faith?

 

[Teflon93]

We don’t have only Paul’s letters to guide us, we have the whole bible. If you still insist that something good can come from treating God’s word as less than sufficient as our ultimate authority, I suggest reading Gen. chapter three to find out what happened to all of humanity the first time human beings decided that God’s word was not, in itself, completely sufficient as the ultimate authority.

The RCC, like the serpent in Gen. three, wants us to believe that what turned out to be the ruin of us all (trusting in something other than God’s word as complete and authoritative) is what we need to get the fullness of truth. Do you not find the most important lesson of Scripture taught here?

As for sola fide and total depravity, we can discuss these in another thread.

Of course, your ignorance of history and Scripture is obvious in that Adam and Eve didn’t have Scripture at all. They were completely reliant upon Tradition.

See what happens when we ignore the Tradition and Magisterium of God?

Might want to crack the rest of the Bible.

 

[Nick_Jones]

Of course, your ignorance of history and Scripture is obvious in that Adam and Eve didn’t have Scripture at all. They were completely reliant upon Tradition.

See what happens when we ignore the Tradition and Magisterium of God?

Might want to crack the rest of the Bible.

Are denying that **God spoke **to Adam and Eve when He told them not to eat the fruit of that tree? If not, where does your Tradition enter into this?

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Are denying that **God spoke **to Adam and Eve when He told them not to eat the fruit of that tree? If not, where does your Tradition enter into this?

The word of God was spoken to humans not written by God physically. Tradition guarded the spoken word until it was written as the inspired word of God. “Guarding the word” is our Tradition. The Tradition continues today…

The bible is the inspired word of God, but there can only be one Truth. Your interpertation of the bible is different than mine. Who is correct? We can’t both be. How does the bible tell us to resolve this problem?

Take it to the Church… We’ll lead the way if you care to follow.
Christ is the head of the Church after all. You can choose to follow him in his earthly Church or continue to follow what you think and feel is best.

 

[Teflon93]

Are denying that **God spoke **to Adam and Eve when He told them not to eat the fruit of that tree? If not, where does your Tradition enter into this?

I’m denying that God communicated to Adam and Eve through Scripture, which didn’t exist yet.

Communicating God’s teaching orally is Tradition. We recognize its importance; those who adhere to sola scriptura deny it.