Questions Protestants Can't Answer

  • Thread starter Thread starter rogue13
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rogue13

Guest
Check out the 1st in a series of YouTube videos from John Martignoni entitled, “Questions Protestants Can’t Answer.” First question Protestants can’t answer: Is a dead body really a body?

youtube.com/watch?v=G8jXidiUc8s
 
I just want to play the bad guy for a moment, not to be critical of the clip because I see what he is saying, but to give Catholics a heads up before they try to use this.

I am a former baptist and I would not have been stumped by this. I would have answered that there is faith which is dead, I would not have denied that, but there is saving faith as well. There is faith, and then there is saving faith. Just as James said that the demons believe in God and tremple. The demons know for a fact that the Lord is real, but the difference between them and a true Christian is that they do not submit to it. There are plenty of people who believe that God is real, but it does not mean that they have asked Jesus to come into their lives.

When it comes right down to it I believe that those who believe in faith alone actually believe much of what we believe but it is a matter of vocabulary and the way they spin it in order to justify their doctrine with passages of Scripture that shows the need of works in the Christian life. To say that faith alone saves you, but that faith that saves does produce good works is just a spin on words. I spent years as a Baptist defending hobby horse doctrines while cherry picking the Bible to do so, but as a Catholic I have found relief because I can rest in the fact of acknowledging that the Scriptures have lots to say about how to get to Heaven, and the Catholic Faith uses all of Scripture and not just selected passages.
 
Yes, up until about the 5:03 mark he makes essentially an argument a Protestant would make but then suddenly draws a different conclusion based upon his framework. Up until the five minute mark, I wonder if he realized that a Protestant has been spending the last 30 seconds thinking they were arguing THEIR case.
By that time, it is pretty much a lost cause.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
I just want to play the bad guy for a moment, not to be critical of the clip because I see what he is saying, but to give Catholics a heads up before they try to use this.

I am a former baptist and I would not have been stumped by this. I would have answered that there is faith which is dead, I would not have denied that, but there is saving faith as well. There is faith, and then there is saving faith.
Click to expand...
Actually, you would have been stumped by that question with that answer. The follow up to your answer would be: “Then you agree with Catholics that salvation by faith alone can save no one.” And, should you mount a protest to that statement, the follow up question would be: “What is the difference between a faith that is dead and a faith that is not dead?” According to James 2:26, the difference between a body that is dead and a body that is not dead is? The spirit. So, according to the analogy James makes, the difference between a faith that is dead and one that is not dead is? Works!

I.e., works are necessary for spiritual life - not simply a by-product of it, just as the spirit is necessary for physical life - not merely a by-product of it. So, salvation by faith alone, according to James 2:26, is not possible and that dogma is dead on arrival. James 2:26 makes the analogy: sola corpus = dead body; sola fide = dead faith.
 
Rightlydivide said:
Yes, up until about the 5:03 mark he makes essentially an argument a Protestant would make but then suddenly draws a different conclusion based upon his framework. Up until the five minute mark, I wonder if he realized that a Protestant has been spending the last 30 seconds thinking they were arguing THEIR case.
By that time, it is pretty much a lost cause.
Click to expand...
So, a Protestant makes the argument that sola fide - faith without works - is a dead faith? Sorry, haven’t heard many Protestants make that argument.

By the way, Rightlydivide, if Peter wrote his letters to the same people Paul wrote his letters to, then which way do you “rightly divide” Peter’s letters? Are they meant for Gentile’s or Jews?

And one more question, can a man get to Heaven if he does not provide for his family?
 
COPLAND_3 said:
I just want to play the bad guy for a moment, not to be critical of the clip because I see what he is saying, but to give Catholics a heads up before they try to use this.

I am a former baptist and I would not have been stumped by this. I would have answered that there is faith which is dead, I would not have denied that, but there is saving faith as well. There is faith, and then there is saving faith. Just as James said that the demons believe in God and tremple. The demons know for a fact that the Lord is real, but the difference between them and a true Christian is that they do not submit to it. There are plenty of people who believe that God is real, but it does not mean that they have asked Jesus to come into their lives.
When it comes right down to it I believe that those who believe in faith alone actually believe much of what we believe but it is a matter of vocabulary and the way they spin it in order to justify their doctrine with passages of Scripture that shows the need of works in the Christian life. To say that faith alone saves you, but that faith that saves does produce good works is just a spin on words. I spent years as a Baptist defending hobby horse doctrines while cherry picking the Bible to do so, but as a Catholic I have found relief because I can rest in the fact of acknowledging that the Scriptures have lots to say about how to get to Heaven, and the Catholic Faith uses all of Scripture and not just selected passages./QUOTE
Copland 3;
All denominations have their drawbacks with there hermeneutics; some more than others. It is true many baptists anothers use their pet scriptures to prove certain scriptures and even doctrines like eternal security unconditionally. You mention about catholics using all the scriptures and that is a good thing. Then what comes into play is context and if you don’t know how to understand context you can get the wrong interpretation… Another way is listening to traditions that don’t line up with the word of God. Another way is to believe in someone’s infallibility. Many cults do this and the end result is usually not good. Some go to extremes in greater ways than others. This is why we need to be like the bereans to see if that leader is telling the truth and we need to rightly divide the word.
Denominations across the board don’t always agree with each other on every jot and tittle.
Charles Stanley teaches OSAS and I love him and I wouldn’t indict him personally because he doesn’t believe in a sinning religion. But to me his teaching causes some believers to live carnal and he will be judged by God for his teaching…
Like you said earlier about saved by faith alone you could have answered it which shows that you have to be careful stereotyping people across the board. You can be aware of their stance on issues to follow them. This is why labels are not good; for example, I believe in dispensations but I don’t like to be labeled a dipensationalist because there some things I differ in or doesn( seem to be reconciled with scripture.
Like denominationsj is said to mean division. If this is true then it only makes sense of why there are so many different factions in the church. Paul said to the Corinthians that they need to be saying the same thing so their be no schisms in the body. There is only one true church full of believers built on the foundation of the apostles and Christ that make up the one body of Christ . Food for thought! God Bless! Jerry Kelso
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Jerry Kelso:
All denominations have their drawbacks with there hermeneutics; some more than others. It is true many baptists and others use their pet scriptures to prove certain scriptures and even doctrines like eternal security unconditionally. You mention about catholics using all the scriptures and that is a good thing. Then what comes into play is context and if you don’t know how to understand context you can get the wrong interpretation… Another way is listening to traditions that don’t line up with the word of God. Another way is to believe in someone’s infallibility. Many cults do this and the end result is usually not good…This is why we need to be like the bereans to see if that leader is telling the truth and we need to rightly divide the word.
Click to expand...
So, the question you, as a Protestant, cannot answer is this: Do you perfectly understand context when reading Scripture and do you get every single one of your interpretations of Scripture correct? The reason you cannot answer this question is because if you say, “Yes, I perfectly understand Scripture and get all of my interpretations correct,” then that means you believe yourself infallible in your interpretation of Scripture; yet, you just said believing anyone can be infallible is wrong. But, if you say, “No, I do not perfectly understand Scripture and it is indeed possible for me to get my interpretations wrong,” then you are faced with the fact that you have no certainty in regard to anything you believe, because everything you believe is based on your own personal, fallible interpretation of the Bible. So, your belief that no one can be infallible, could be wrong, right? Food for thought, indeed!
 
Just a quick question - if I can give a consistent, Scriptural answer to the question that a Protestant can’t answer, what do I win?
40.png
rogue13:
So, the question you, as a Protestant, cannot answer is this: Do you perfectly understand context when reading Scripture and do you get every single one of your interpretations of Scripture correct? The reason you cannot answer this question is because if you say, “Yes, I perfectly understand Scripture and get all of my interpretations correct,” then that means you believe yourself infallible in your interpretation of Scripture; yet, you just said believing anyone can be infallible is wrong. But, if you say, “No, I do not perfectly understand Scripture and it is indeed possible for me to get my interpretations wrong,” then you are faced with the fact that you have no certainty in regard to anything you believe, because everything you believe is based on your own personal, fallible interpretation of the Bible. So, your belief that no one can be infallible, could be wrong, right? Food for thought, indeed!
Click to expand...
Here’s some food for thought - Do you “infallibly’” understand the “infallible” teachings of the Catholic Church, or are you relying on your own, fallible interpretation of what you believe is being taught? Seems to me you are in the same boat I am, except that I recognize my need to study the Scriptures to better understand what God has for me (not to mention that my source (the Scriptures) do not “develop” new doctrines over time, unlike your source, but that would be another topic).
 
I don’t re-interpret what I’ve been taught by the Church; I just agree with her teachings.
 
This is for Rogue 13; Cachonga; and Blinky:
1.There are only Jews and Gentiles and the Church mentioned as classes of people
2. No Catholics or Protestants mentioned
3. We are not Jews but we are gentiles
4. The body of Christ has only believers in Christ
5. People that say there will be Catholics, and protestant and Jews will be in heaven mean only by what demomination the attend. So if you are truly saved you are a gentile believer like me.
6.The bible also states there are not Jews or Gentiles in the body of Christ. This means one is not above the other.
7. Paul said to the Corinthians Take heed lest you fall. We are not perfect in our knowledge but we are to be perfect in love. Knowlege comes by different ways; sometimes by experience , sometimes by studying and other times by someone teaching. Sometimes they are on and sometimes they miss the mark.
8. As I’ve said before, Paul said he was judged by no man. Because of false apostles later on. They had to try those who say they were not true apostles and they were commended for doing that. Being infallible on doctrine as far as a true apostle doesn’t mean you’re infallible about every jot and tittle.
9. We are fallible as human beings for we know that we can sin. It doesn’t negate the fact that the power of god in a believer can’t live free from sin.
10. Blinky: You said you just believe whatever the church teaches like there’s no reason to enquire. The bible says to be like the bereans to see if they are telling the truth.
In conclusion: If your doctine from the church is infallible then there is no reason to study except to retain it whether or not it lined up with the word of God
11. Just because one is fallible doesn’t mean one can"t be sure of something
12. So your argument about Infallibillity and fallibility hinges on complete across the board. Now if this be true, the burden of proof is on you to prove by proper exegesis. I said you can be infallible as far as right in some things but most likely not across the board. Either way we’re not to laud it over others.
13. II will challenge you to explain 1 Corinthians 15 what Paul meant when he said;" I Die Daily".
And let me know what you think it means and give some scriptures that harmonize with it.Youmay be infallible or you may be fallible. God bless! Jerry kelso"
"
 
Cachonga said:
Just a quick question - if I can give a consistent, Scriptural answer to the question that a Protestant can’t answer, what do I win?

Here’s some food for thought - Do you “infallibly’” understand the “infallible” teachings of the Catholic Church, or are you relying on your own, fallible interpretation of what you believe is being taught? Seems to me you are in the same boat I am, except that I recognize my need to study the Scriptures to better understand what God has for me (not to mention that my source (the Scriptures) do not “develop” new doctrines over time, unlike your source, but that would be another topic).
Click to expand...
The way I see it is that the Church teaches infallibly, and my understanding to grasp it all does not change that fact, it has nothing to with me. An example is when I get on a jet to travel somewhere, no matter how much I know about the mechanics of a jet or how to fly a plane, I do trust that it will get me there, and my understanding of it does not change anything about it. I can learn as much about it as I can and that will strengthen my understanding and faith that the jet will get me there, but it does not change anything about the substance of what it is or does. As for Catholicism, I trust that it is the Church that Christ established 2000 years ago, and since ti was established by Christ I believe what that Church teaches. And whether I have the capacity to grasp everything that She teaches does not change what She is or does. As St. Augustine said, “Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.” I have faith to believe it, but with understanding gained by devoted study I can, over time, begin to see what it is that I believe.
 
rogue13 said:
Check out the 1st in a series of YouTube videos from John Martignoni entitled, “Questions Protestants Can’t Answer.” First question Protestants can’t answer: Is a dead body really a body?

youtube.com/watch?v=G8jXidiUc8s
Click to expand...
Don’t quite understand what you are getting at.

If we are in a code, and we call it…i.e. the person is dead…well, there’s no heartbeat. The person is not breathing. The pupils are fixed and dilated…no response. Nothing.

They are dead. the physical body is there, yes. But it’s a shell, nothing more. It will decompose, and return to the carbon atoms that it was composed of, eventually…or if you are planning to cremate…well, sooner than later.

But, then again, I’m not religious.

I don’t quite understand where you are going with this? Do you actually think the body will become reanimated again at some point, as in the rapture?

Please tell me you don’t think this…

(sorry, haven’t seen the clip…will in a bit…)
 
Jerry
All denominations have their drawbacks with there hermeneutics; some more than others. It is true many baptists anothers use their pet scriptures to prove certain scriptures and even doctrines like eternal security unconditionally. You mention about catholics using all the scriptures and that is a good thing. Then what comes into play is context and if you don’t know how to understand context you can get the wrong interpretation… Another way is listening to traditions that don’t line up with the word of God. Another way is to believe in someone’s infallibility. Many cults do this and the end result is usually not good. Some go to extremes in greater ways than others. This is why we need to be like the bereans to see if that leader is telling the truth and we need to rightly divide the word.
Denominations across the board don’t always agree with each other on every jot and tittle.
Charles Stanley teaches OSAS and I love him and I wouldn’t indict him personally because he doesn’t believe in a sinning religion. But to me his teaching causes some believers to live carnal and he will be judged by God for his teaching…
Like you said earlier about saved by faith alone you could have answered it which shows that you have to be careful stereotyping people across the board. You can be aware of their stance on issues to follow them. This is why labels are not good; for example, I believe in dispensations but I don’t like to be labeled a dipensationalist because there some things I differ in or doesn( seem to be reconciled with scripture.
Like denominationsj is said to mean division. If this is true then it only makes sense of why there are so many different factions in the church. Paul said to the Corinthians that they need to be saying the same thing so their be no schisms in the body. There is only one true church full of believers built on the foundation of the apostles and Christ that make up the one body of Christ . Food for thought! God Bless! Jerry Kelso
Click to expand...
I rememeber when I first discovered the Early Church Fathers, I began reading them when I was a Southern Baptist. I was amazed that the Apostolic Fathers ( that is, those who were comtemporaries with the Apostles and even were taught by them and worked beside them) even existed. What surprised me even more is that they did not resemble Southern Baptists or any other Protestant denomination, but they were Catholic through and through. That was the most convincing food for thought that I had ever chewed on. Apostolic tradition and authority was vital, just like it is now in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has operated in that same Spirit the whole time. I struggled for years with the whole denomination thing. The Fathers of the Church showed me that the Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is the Church of the Bible. It is the place to get the fullness of the Christian Faith.

Not that I don’t think non-Catholics will not get to Heaven, I think there will be lots of non-Catholics in Heaven, especially those who follow God the best they can with what understanding they have based on what has been revealed to them. As for Protestant brethren, I think there will be plenty in Heaven, and the only regrets they will have is one day they will find out that they missed out on a lot of blessings on earth because they did not receive all that they could have. Not that there won’t be plenty of us Catholics who also don’t realize what we have in our own Faith and take full advantage of it.
 
Cachonga said:
Just a quick question - if I can give a consistent, Scriptural answer to the question that a Protestant can’t answer, what do I win?

Here’s some food for thought - Do you “infallibly’” understand the “infallible” teachings of the Catholic Church, or are you relying on your own, fallible interpretation of what you believe is being taught? Seems to me you are in the same boat I am, except that I recognize my need to study the Scriptures to better understand what God has for me (not to mention that my source (the Scriptures) do not “develop” new doctrines over time, unlike your source, but that would be another topic).
Click to expand...
Catholics fallibly understand infallible teachings.

Protestants fallibly understand fallible teachings.
A Protestant may be wrong on both ends of the deal as their teachings are their own interpretations. A Catholic can only be wrong on their understanding of a teaching, however Catholic teachings can be summarized quite simply and not all Catholics need to understand all deep aspects of the Faith. Believers recognize the Mysteries of the Faith, and that is sufficient.

Scriptures do not grow doctrine, but people reading them with their own interpretation do grow their own doctrine. The Protestant concept of the figurative meaning of the Eucharist really did not appear until Luther in the 16th century. Never mind the Early Church understood the Real Presence as Catholics do. The idea of the Rapture did not appear until the 1700s. These two examples show up over a thousand years after Christ and over 700 years after the compilation of the Bible. Protestant beliefs such as these two lack evidence from the Early Church.
 
COPLAND_3 said:
JerryI rememeber when I first discovered the Early Church Fathers, I began reading them when I was a Southern Baptist. I was amazed that the Apostolic Fathers ( that is, those who were comtemporaries with the Apostles and even were taught by them and worked beside them) even existed. What surprised me even more is that they did not resemble Southern Baptists or any other Protestant denomination, but they were Catholic through and through. That was the most convincing food for thought that I had ever chewed on. Apostolic tradition and authority was vital, just like it is now in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has operated in that same Spirit the whole time. I struggled for years with the whole denomination thing. The Fathers of the Church showed me that the Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is the Church of the Bible. It is the place to get the fullness of the Christian Faith.

Not that I don’t think non-Catholics will not get to Heaven, I think there will be lots of non-Catholics in Heaven, especially those who follow God the best they can with what understanding they have based on what has been revealed to them. As for Protestant brethren, I think there will be plenty in Heaven, and the only regrets they will have is one day they will find out that they missed out on a lot of blessings on earth because they did not receive all that they could have. Not that there won’t be plenty of us Catholics who also don’t realize what we have in our own Faith and take full advantage of it.
Click to expand...
Copland 3: I have nothing against infallible teachings of real truth from real Apostles. The question is does the Catholic church have the truth? If they do they woud be real apostles with apostolic authority.
Being like the early church fathers more than than the protestants is not necessariliy any big thing for some of the early church fathers were thwarted in their thinkiing and were a little off track. Trust me there are protestant that follow certain doctrines of the early church fathers and are a detriment to the doctrine of Christ and live even defeated and yet are proud at the same time to their own detriment and sometimes others.
Do you know what Paul meant when he said “I DIE DAILY” and why! If you have the truth let me know. You may have infallible truth or not. God bless! Jerry Kelso
 
Cachonga said:
Just a quick question - if I can give a consistent, Scriptural answer to the question that a Protestant can’t answer, what do I win?)
Click to expand...
Well, anyone can give a consistent Scriptural answer, that ain’t the problem. The problem for you, if you believe in salvation by faith alone, is that you cannot give an answer that is consistent with your theology and with Scripture at the same time.
Cachonga said:
Here’s some food for thought - Do you “infallibly’” understand the “infallible” teachings of the Catholic Church, or are you relying on your own, fallible interpretation of what you believe is being taught? Seems to me you are in the same boat I am, except that I recognize my need to study the Scriptures to better understand what God has for me (not to mention that my source (the Scriptures) do not “develop” new doctrines over time, unlike your source, but that would be another topic).
Click to expand...
Sorry, but your premise is flawed. You do indeed have only your fallible interpretation to rely upon when you interpret the Bible because the Bible cannot speak. The Bible cannot say to you, “Excuse me, but that’s not what those words mean.” So, you are stuck listening only to the voice in your head that says, “I can read the Bible, therefore I am Pope, pastor, and theologian of the Church of Cachonga and will decide for myself, by my own authority, what is true doctrine and what is false doctrine.”

I, on the other hand, have an infallible authority that can actually talk to me, that can teach me, that can correct me when I err and point me to the truth. I have a teacher that is the pillar and ground of the truth. Do you have such a teacher? I have a teacher who can say, “Whoever listens to us is of God, and whoever does not listen to us is not of God. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” Do you have such a teacher?

So, no, we are not in the same boat. You are quite right that your “source” cannot develop new doctrines, it cannot do anything except be rightly or wrongly interpreted. However, neither can my “source” develop new doctrines. It can, however, teach the truth entrusted to it by Jesus Christ through His Apostles. It can also correct those who believe and teach error. My source is infallible when teaching on faith and morals. Your source is only as infallible as the person reading and interpreting it. It is the inspired Word of God, and it is inerrant, but what guarantee of doctrinal soundness does it offer to the ignorant and the unstable when they interpret it in a fallible way and by their own authority?
 
jerry_kelso said:
This is for Rogue 13; Cachonga; and Blinky:
1.There are only Jews and Gentiles and the Church mentioned as classes of people
2. No Catholics or Protestants mentioned
3. We are not Jews but we are gentiles
4. The body of Christ has only believers in Christ
5. People that say there will be Catholics, and protestant and Jews will be in heaven mean only by what demomination the attend. So if you are truly saved you are a gentile believer like me.
.
.
.
12. So your argument about Infallibillity and fallibility hinges on complete across the board. Now if this be true, the burden of proof is on you to prove by proper exegesis. I said you can be infallible as far as right in some things but most likely not across the board. Either way we’re not to laud it over others.
13. II will challenge you to explain 1 Corinthians 15 what Paul meant when he said;" I Die Daily".
And let me know what you think it means and give some scriptures that harmonize with it.Youmay be infallible or you may be fallible. God bless! Jerry kelso"
"
Click to expand...
Huh??? Just answer the question Jerry Kelso: Do you perfectly understand context when reading Scripture and do you get every single one of your interpretations of Scripture correct? Yes or no? It’s a very easy question to answer, why do you avoid it?
 
I really dislike when protestants talk about just how bad tradition is. Maybe it is because they don’t believe in “Sacred Tradition”. I see a lot of liturgical protestant churches dog on tradition. Do they not have their own?

Anyway, Sacred Tradition plays an important role in His Church. For the same reasons it is difficult for a human being to fully understand the Holy Trinity, “Three in One, One in Three”, concept, it may make little logical sense that Jesus Christ chose Simon Peter to be His “rock”. What are the signs? Wasn’t Peter the one who denied him? Wasn’t Peter one of the Apostles who was too scared to stay with Jesus when He was crucified? According to Sacred Scripture, John was the Apostle “whom Jesus loved”. The fact is that Christ made Peter the rock, on which to build his Church. He bestowed a great blessing upon John, as well, when He gave him Mary as his mother.

We can’t begin to understand God’s plan for the world. It is what it is. That’s the bottom line. And who tells us this… Sacred Tradition combined with Sacred Tradition. The infallibility is very evident.
 
QUOTE=roguRogue 13: In my opinion, I don’t believe necessarily that anyone may have every jot and tittle right whether the catholic church or me or someone else.
At the time I can’t say a thus saith the lord on it according to every sinlgle person because I don’t know every single person in the world. I believe I know what the catholic church believes that may not be right. Let me know if you understand that. God Bless! Jerry Kelso
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top