Questions Protestants Can't Answer

[Cachonga]

kepha1:

Agreed, but somebody had to prove which “scriptures” were from God and which ones were not. That “somebody” was the teaching authority of the Church. The bible didn’t fall from the sky. God gave inspired scriptures to His people but you don’t give names or councils who proved which books were inspired and which ones were not. There is a difference between inspiration, which, at the time, was any body’s guess, and canonization, where inspiration was proven. There were some 12 “gospels” and at least 15 “book of acts” floating around. It was human authority under the superintendence of the Holy Spirit that made the discernment of which books were from God. This is the reality and historical fact you cannot admit, because if you did, you would have to acknowledge the teaching authority of the Church.

Did the Jews claim to have an “infallible” teaching magisterium? According to myth, when was the canon of the OT closed (hint - a ficitious Council at a place called Jamnia, years after Herod’s Temple was destroyed and the Jews were dispersed … again)? Did Jesus hold them accountable for what was recorded in Scripture?

Answers are - No, Don’t know (unless you have some documentation to back up the assertion), Yes. I’m not sure this was meant to be a thread on the Scriptures, but I would ask - if the Jews didn’t have an “infallible” authority to determine the books of Scripture, and yet Jesus held them accountable for what was in them, what makes you think we need an “infallible” authority today to tell us what the Scriptures are? As far as “canonizatoin” goes, if it was so necessary to have these books canonized, why did the Church wait until the Council of Trent in 1545 to finally, dogmaticly, “officially” close the canon? Do you think God will hold people responsible for what’s in His word who lived and died BEFORE this? What about the folks who lived and died in the 2nd century? Will they be held accountable for what the Scriptures say? Keep in mind, even Peter recognized Pauls writings as Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:15-16). Now there’s a reliable Apostolic Tradition!

You assume every individual scripture reader knew automatically which books were inspired and which ones were not. This fantasy was dreamed up for the sole purpose of undermining Church authority.

If this were true, Peter would not have given the warning he did in 2 Peter 3:16.

Wrong again. The early Church hotly debated some of the Holy Books for over 300 years. A loose collection of believers with no central authority could never accomplish canonization. And the Church does not claim to have authority OVER the Scriptures, that is just a misunderstanding. The Church is a SERVANT of the scriptures, preserving and proclaiming them, without which, you would not have them.

So if the folks who “hotly debated some of the Holy books” DIDN’T recognize them as Scripture (and therefore accept or reject on that basis), how did they determine what was and wasn’t Scripture?

In regard to the Church having authority over the Scriptures, I know the Church claims to be the servant of both Scripture and Tradition. But how can you be the servant of something that only YOU can “infallibly” define and interpret? For example, the Church has “infallibly” declared that the Book of Judith is God-breathed Scripture, and therefore part of the canon of the Old Testament. How does the Church explain the numerous historical errors? (actually, I’m discussing that very thing in another thread, but just to recap what has been offered - it is being compared to the parables of Jesus). The point here is, because the Church has “infallibly” declared this historically inaccurate book to be God-breathed Scripture, you MUST accept it without question. How is the Church the servant when it ALONE determines what is and what is not Scripture, as well as the interpretation of what it claims to be Scripture (this holds for Sacred Tradition as well)? Since this is not a thread on Scripture, I do not expect an answer, but just think about it!

We both know this is untrue. And the Scripures are not the only thing that is “God breathed.” See John 20:22 where the Lord “breathes” on the apostles.

So the Apostles are God-breathed? OK, answer this - has the Church ever, “infallibly” declared a single word spoken by these Apostles (or even Jesus) that we do not have recorded in Scripture? I think this is straying off topic, so I’ll stop here.

As far as your test goes, is this supposed to be another set of “Questions Protestants can’t answer”? Quickly, though, here are my answers -

1. 
   *]False
   *]A (Yes)
   *]E (Godly men led by the Holy Spirit who recognized God’s word)
   *]A (they were guided by the Holy Spirit)
   *]E (no) (maybe D, but I didn’t fully understand what you were saying there)
   *]G (N/A)
   *]False
   *]2 Tim 3:16-17 and Isa 8:20 (just off the top of my head)
   *]N/A
   
   I would suggest that if you wish to pursue these questions further you start a new thread (they do not seem to be completely on topic).

 

[kepha1]

Since the Church that Jesus founded was made of people, and since God has always had people in every age that worshipped Him, then the gates of hell have not (and never will) prevail against His Church. Your mistake is in thinking that Jesus founded an insitution. Jesus did not establish an institution, but a “body” of believers. I will not go further into this, since it is off topic, but I can assure you, Satan has not, and will never, prevail against the Church (the true body of Christ).

You will not go into this because there is no evidence to support your theory. Jesus founded a infallible, supernatural and hierarchical institution. This is supported by Scripture and the facts of history.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-IV
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html#the_church-VI
Your theory was spawned from the opinions of the so called reformers. There is no possible way a loose collection of believers could compile the books of the Bible without some kind of organization. You look at the Catholic Church and all you see is a human institution. That’s your mistake.

Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible “unity” that exists only in the hearts of believers?

If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?

How were the bishops at Hippo and Carthage able to determine the correct canon of Scripture, in spite of the fact that they believed all the distinctively Catholic doctrines such as the apostolic succession of bishops, the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, etc?

 

[kepha1]

1. 
   *]False
   *]A (Yes)
   *]E (Godly men led by the Holy Spirit who recognized God’s word)
   *]A (they were guided by the Holy Spirit)
   *]E (no) (maybe D, but I didn’t fully understand what you were saying there)
   *]G (N/A)
   *]False
   *]2 Tim 3:16-17 and Isa 8:20 (just off the top of my head)
   *]N/A
   
   1.) True or false: The Bible has a verse(s) that lists what books belong in the Bible.
   correct
   1. If the Bible doesn’t tell us what books belong in it, then is the Bible’s “table of contents” merely a human tradition?
      A) yes half correct
      B) no, its not by “merely human tradition” that compiled the Holy Books
   2. If the list of Biblical books is not revealed in the Bible itself, what men drew up the list?
      A) Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Zwingli
      B) The Twelve Apostles
      C) The Jewish Council of Jamnia in the 1st century
      D) Several Bishops in 4 councils from the 2nd to the 4th century
      (there is no E)
   3. Why do you trust these men? (you chose A, which is 1/4 correct.
      A) they were guided by the Holy Spirit
      B) their offices were of direct descent from the Apostles
      C) they were unanimous in faith and practice
      D) all of the above
   X 5. Is their list infallible? (without error)
   A) yes
   B) no, Luther removed the added books 1100 years later and made
   it infallible
   C) no, the Jewish council of Jamnia (95 AD) had more authority about the canon of scripture than Christians, even though they rejected Christ and the message of the New Testament.
   D) No, the bible came from God, it didn’t come from man, that’s why its infallible.

 

[kepha1]

X6. If the list of books in YOUR Bible is infallible, on what authority is it so?
A) by virtue of the office of the bishops who proved which ones of the many books were inspired
B) the power to bind and loose which was given to the Church
C) by the authority of Christ which lives in the Church
D) King James, who gathered the books from the Apostles, and lived to be 1600 years old.
E) I trust the publisher
F) A, B, C
there is no G

X7. True or False: Even though the list of books in the bible is not in the bible, it is an infallible list.? if you get 5 wrong, you will probably get 7 wrong. If the list of books is not infallible, then there is nothing to stop anyone from adding or subtracting books, and calling a Bible.

X8. If their list is not infallible, and is merely a human tradition, why do you trust it? On what authority?
A) God decided the list, not men. That is why I trust it, on the authority of the Holy Spirit, Who had no need of men to make the list.
B) the list IS infallible, on the authority that Jesus gave to sinful Church leaders.
C) the list IS infallible on the authority that the Holy Spirit gives me a good feeling about it.

X9) Some claim the Bible says that unless doctrines are explicitlyfound in scripture, they cannot be trusted. State any explicit biblical basis for this doctrine, Old or New Testament.
We are the ones accused of inventing doctrines under the erroneous assumption that such doctrines were never believed by the early Church. Because there is not reams of documentation does not mean something was not believed until it was documented. It is very applicable, because trusting only doctrines that are explicitly found in scripture is an invented doctrine rigidly adhered to by most Protestants. It is not found in Scripture.

1. If (9) has no verses to support the claim, but you accept it as a doctrine anyway,isn’t that an extra-biblical “rule of faith and practice”, or an extra-biblical doctrine?
   A) yes
   B) no

 

[Cachonga]

kepha1, it seems you want to pull this off topic, and I won’t do that. I will apologize because I missed a question (#8), and so my answers to 8 & 9 were meant for 9 & 10. My answer to #8 would be “Because I trust that God led the early Church in recognizing His written Word”. I also agree with Jerome that the deuterocanonical books are good for edification, but not to be used to determine doctrine (a view that was also held by many Church leaders, including Bishops, Cardinals, and even some Popes, all the way up until the Council of Trent declared them to be scripture).

BTW - all your test proves is that you can ask questions in such a way that you can make it mean whatever you want (especially given the limited answers). I answered correctly and to the best of my ability, even though I had to add the correct answer (because, apparently, my answers never occurred to you; and even then you ignored them). Needless to say, I will not take another of your tests.

 

[NoAvailableName]

1. False
2. There are different Bibles with different books in them. While I don’t know exactly how each list came to be, “human tradition” is probably not an edifying description of the process.
3. It various depending on which Bible you are talking about
4. I don’t trust them
5. No
6. I have several different Bibles with different books in them, but I don’t consider any infallible.
7. False
8. I never said I trusted it.
9. I would prefer to let those that make such claims defend them.
10. It follows from the definition of extra-biblical that a doctrine not contained in the Bible is extra-biblical.

 

[RBK]

I also agree with Jerome that the deuterocanonical books are good for edification, but not to be used to determine doctrine…

You can’t invoke St. Jerome. Period.

In his later years St. Jerome did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He “followed the judgment of the churches.”

 

[eagle_eye222001]

I see there is no point in continuing to try and dialogue with you, since you seem to feel that my reasoning and argumentation is “irrelevant”. Very well, I will no longer respond to anything you have to say. Hopefully, rogue13 (to whom my comments were directed) will respond without writing me off completely.

I pointed out an assumption you were making. Now you have to logically go back a level, and figure out how to support the assumption you made. I await a reply on every point I made in posts 32 and 33 as I responded to each and every point you made in the post I responded too. Until you do, there is nothing to discuss as you can just run this conversation in circles by ignoring the posts you can’t deal with and skipping to a point you find ground in.

Ignoring me awards me the debate, and affirms the thread title that there are “Questions Protestants Can’t Answer” as they must ignore certain points to continue as you threaten to do by ignoring me.

 

[Wildkit]

I pointed out an assumption you were making. Now you have to logically go back a level, and figure out how to support the assumption you made. I await a reply on every point I made in posts 32 and 33 as I responded to each and every point you made in the post I responded too. Until you do, there is nothing to discuss as you can just run this conversation in circles by ignoring the posts you can’t deal with and skipping to a point you find ground in.

Ignoring me awards me the debate, and affirms the thread title that there are “Questions Protestants Can’t Answer” as they must ignore certain points to continue as you threaten to do by ignoring me.

Maybe one shoudn’t make a statement in the first place?

Others might say run their mouth, but that is not kind as we know,.

This is an Orthodox site, or maybe a Protestant site,…isn’t it?

 

[rogue13]

Rogue 13: If you really understood what I said you wouldn’t keep trying to put words in my mouth or keep drawing wrong conclusions.

Well that’s the problem, I don’t understand a lot of what you say. Do you re-read what you write before you post it? If you would just answer the questions with a simple yes, or no, I wouldn’t have to guess at what it is you’re trying to say, would I?
jerry kelso:

If you read some of my other posts I mention about believing and recieving the Apostle’s messag e who was not an apostle from the catholic church. So I am very confident that I have the truth and the spirit helps me understand and determine was is a riigjt message and what’s not.

Is that the same spirit that is helping you with your spelling and your diction? Jerry Kelso, do me a big favor and simply answer my questions with a very clear, “Yes,” or a very clear, “No.” I really don’t think it’s that difficult a thing to do, is it? Here they are again:

1. Is a dead body really a body? Yes…or…no?
2. Do you perfectly understand context when reading Scripture and do you get every single one of your interpretations of Scripture correct? Yes…or…no?

If you do not respond with a “yes” or a “no,” then I will consider you unable to carry on a useful dialogue and will respond no more to you.

 

[jerry_kelso]

Well that’s the problem, I don’t understand a lot of what you say. Do you re-read what you write before you post it? If you would just answer the questions with a simple yes, or no, I wouldn’t have to guess at what it is you’re trying to say, would I?

Is that the same spirit that is helping you with your spelling and your diction? Jerry Kelso, do me a big favor and simply answer my questions with a very clear, “Yes,” or a very clear, “No.” I really don’t think it’s that difficult a thing to do, is it? Here they are again:

1. Is a dead body really a body? Yes…or…no?
2. Do you perfectly understand context when reading Scripture and do you get every single one of your interpretations of Scripture correct? Yes…or…no?

If you do not respond with a “yes” or a “no,” then I will consider you unable to carry on a useful dialogue and will respond no more to you.

Rogue 13: I’m sorry you are having such a hard time understanding. I don’t believe anyone else I’ve conversed with on this board has had as much problem or sounded so uncomfortable.
But that’s alright, but you must understand not everything is plain black and white in the bible. There is nobody, including the Pope that can understand certain scriptures without studying other passages and put all the different scriptures on that subject according to their context to understand overall perspective.
2. The bible says from dust we came to dust we will go. Yes a dead body is a dead body until it turns back to dust.
3. I do understand context when I read the Bible; more than some and less than some. I may not understand certain details because of not knowing jewish history such as their customs etc. The bible says study to show yourself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed. When it comes to judgement day there’ll be noone responsible but you,
4. As far as diction and spelling I’m really better than what I’ve posted. I apologize because I post so long and my eyes are not as good as they used to be. The biggest thing is I’m’ doing it on my mobile so it doesn’t cooperate with me at times. God bless! Jerry Kelso

 

[rogue13]

Sorry for the delay. I was without internet for a while.

Do you think John Martignoni is infallible? Also, if I can give a consistent, Scriptural answer, it would agree with my “faith alone” belief (otherwise, it wouldn’t be Scripturally consistent). But what do I win if I can answer his unanswerable question in a consistent, Scriptural manner?

John Martignoni is infallible as long as he is teaching what the Church, founded by Jesus Christ, teaches in the areas of faith and morals. What do you win? You could win a soul with the truth.

Cachonga:

Your charicature of Protestants is false (at least for some of us). I recognize the authority of the Church, and the importance of having pastors and elders over me, teaching, praying and guiding me in my walk with Jesus Christ. I just don’t believe the Catholic Church has remained true to the original teachings, and is, therefore, not a Church that I should be subject to.

Based on your words, I don’t think I have made a false “caricature of Protestants.” Not only do you contradict yourself within this one paragraph, but you contradict yourself from paragraph to paragraph. Let me put this quote from you together with another quote from your same post:

Cachonga:

I am always free to question my pastor and elders on a particular Scripture, and I will never be told “Because the Church has infallibly declared it to be so”.

So, in one paragraph you recognize “the importance of having pastors and elders over me,” but in the next paragraph above, you say that you are free to “question my pastor and elders on a particular Scripture.” So, how exactly is it, that these “pastors and elders” are “over you” if you are free to disagree with them on doctrinal and moral matters based on your interpretation of the Scripture vs. their interpretation of Scripture?

The only authority that they have “over” you, is the authority that you allow them as long as what they teach agrees with your interpretation of the Bible. The second that they disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, however, do they still have authority “over” you? No, they don’t, do they?

And this is born out by the fact that in one paragraph you, again, say that you recognize the importance of having pastors and elders “over me,” but in that same paragraph you claim that the Catholic Church has no authority over you. Why? Because it has the audacity to disagree with your interpretation of the Bible.

So, unless you are willing to state that you recognize that your pastors and elders have the authority to bind you to their interpretation of Scripture on matters of faith and morals, even if you disagree with that interpretation, then I did not present a false caricature of Protestants. Are you willing to state such a thing? If not, then they have no real authority “over” you and you do indeed have only your fallible interpretation to rely upon when you interpret the Bible because, again, the Bible cannot speak to you to tell you your interpretations are wrong. So, you are indeed Pope, pastor, and theologian of the Church of Cachonga and you do indeed decide for yourself, by your own authority, what is true doctrine and what is false doctrine.

Cachonga:

I remember some other threads I’ve seen where someone complains about their priest (for example, teaching that the multiplying of the loaves and fishes was really just getting people to share ,and not a real miracle), and being advised to “go to another Church”. How do you know your priest is correct? Is he infallible? Is he always consistent in his teachings? Or is he just consistent with your belief of what the Church actually teaches? Have you ever gotten a phone call from the Pope explaining a particular doctrine or dogma, and taking the time to make sure you understand it “infallibly”?

Is a priest infallible? No. The Pope is the only one with the charism of infallibility when it comes to matters of faith and morals. An individual priest can teach error, an individual bishop can teach error, the Pope cannot. No, I have never gotten a phone call from the Pope (you’re really stretching for something here, aren’t you?), but I can read what he teaches regarding Scripture and Tradition, faith and morals, in the Catechism, in Papal Encyclicals, and in the documents of the various Church Councils. Does your church have any such statement of its beliefs? Of course not because if it did, over half the people in your church would disagree with something in that statement and go to another church. Has your church ever held a single council like the original church did in Acts 15 when there was a doctrinal dispute? My Church has. By the way, in the Council of Jerusalem, did they solve the doctrinal dispute they were having by consulting Scripture?

I’ll finish up in the next post…

 

[rogue13]

Cachonga:

I find the claim that your source of authority can’t “develop new doctrines” to be very inconsistent with reality. For example, the assumption of Mary was made a De Fide Dogma of the Church somewhere around 1950.

Sorry, declaring something a dogma is not the same thing as developing a new doctrine. A dogmatic declaration is simply a more definitive teaching on a particular doctrine that was in existence prior to the dogmatic declaration. I think you’re smart enough to know that, aren’t you?.

Cachonga:

Your own Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’ says that the earliest documentation comes from the transistus literature of the 5th and 6th century. These are (by his own admission) apochryphal writings. Where is the “apostolic tradition” in something that first appears in apochryphal writings in the 5th of 6th CENTURY???

Again, weak argument. The fact that the earliest extant writing we have (apocryphal or no), which mentions a particular doctrine, dates to 4 or 5 centuries after Christ, is not proof of any kind that that doctrine 1st came into existence at that time. The oldest manuscript we have for information about Socrates dates back only about 12 centuries or so, I believe. Does that mean that Socrates was made up by some 8th or 9th century writer?

Cachonga:

If your “infallible” authority can’t “develop new doctrines”, then please explain John Henry Cardinal Newman’s (sorry if it’s not spelled right) “Development Theory”?

With all due respect, but are you serious with this question? You haven’t actually read Newman’s “Development Theory,” have you? Do you not understand that there is a universe of difference between “development of a doctrine” and “development of a new doctrine?”

When a doctrine is developed, that simply means that we have come to understand it better, that we are able to dive deeper into it. The Trinity, for example. The Trinity was believed from the beginning of Christianity. It wasn’t until some 300 years after Christ, however, when the doctrine was facing its first serious doubts, that a Council was called and the doctrine was then “developed” in a more systematic manner. It was fleshed out. It was understood and explained better. The Council of Nicea developed the doctrine of the Trinity, but it did not develop a new doctrine on the Trinity.

Cachonga:

You are correct that Scriptures can be “rightly or wrongly interpreted”, but you automatically assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church (or what you believe the Catholic Church to be) is wrong. The sad thing is, we can’t even really discuss the issues, because your auhtority has already told you what certain Scriptures mean, and you HAVE TO believe it.

Actually, my authority has authoritatively defined very few verses of Scripture. You, in fact, have authoritatively defined way more Scriptures for me than my authority has. And, yes, I automatically assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church is wrong. That is what infallibility is supposed to do…give me a solid rock upon which to build my foundation. Do you not believe that anyone who disagrees with your admittedly fallible interpretation of the Bible is wrong? For example, will you now admit to all reading this thread that you could be wrong in your interpretation of John 6 regarding the eating of Jesus’ flesh and the drinking of His blood - will you admit that Jesus might not have been speaking symbolically? Will you admit to that possibility? I don’t think you will.

Will you also admit to the possibility that you could be wrong in your interpretation of Scripture that causes you to believe in salvation by faith alone? I don’t think you will. And, if you won’t, then are you not accusing the Catholic Church of the very thing that you do?

Cachonga:

What would you do if the Pope came out tomorrow and declared, “infallibly” that Mary told him in a dream that Jesus Christ had returned (via reincarnation) and is known as (put in whatever name you like), and then turns over the authority of the Church to him? Perhaps you are right, we are not in the same boat. I am always free to question my pastor and elders on a particular Scripture, and I will never be told “Because the Church has infallibly declared it to be so”.

You have to speak hypothetically, I do not. What if your pastor came out tomorrow and taught something that you disagreed with. Would you humbly submit to that “new” teaching, or would you leave the Church? This is not a hypothetical situation in Protestantism, is it? Also, your question contains a contradiction that could never happen. A private revelation cannot be put forth as an infallible teaching. That is an infallible teaching of the Church. So, the Pope cannot infallibly teach anything that he received as a private revelation.

 

[rogue13]

But what do I win if I can answer his unanswerable question in a consistent, Scriptural manner?

By the way, are you ever going to answer the question: Is a dead body really a body?

 

[Cachonga]

rogue13:

By the way, are you ever going to answer the question: Is a dead body really a body?

This will be my last response on this thread. To answer the question - Yes, a dead body is a body. Likewise, dead faith is still faith. The question is, how can you turn a dead faith into a living faith? By doing “good” works? I would suggest that many people have tried that, which is why Jesus says, “On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’” (Matt 7:22-23 RSV). Isn’t casting out demons a “good work”? And yet, Jesus says He never knew these people. I would suggest that a dead faith can only be made alive in the same way a dead body can be made alive, which is through the mercy and grace of God. Eph 2:8-10 (RSV) says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Notice that God has prepared the good works that we are to do, and this by the faith that He has given us. Also notice that the faith for salvation came before the works that God prepared for us to do. I would say that this clearly shows that salvation comes by faith alone (and that as a free gift from God). Just as life in the body is dependant upon God alone, so faith comes from God alone, and is not “earned” or “deserved” in any way.

Pax!

 

[eagle_eye222001]

This will be my last response on this thread. To answer the question - Yes, a dead body is a body. Likewise, dead faith is still faith. The question is, how can you turn a dead faith into a living faith? By doing “good” works?

Not the Catholic position, and not anything we suggest. Dead faith may be faith, but it’s dead, so it’s pointless.

I would suggest that many people have tried that, which is why Jesus says, “On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’” (Matt 7:22-23 RSV). Isn’t casting out demons a “good work”? And yet, Jesus says He never knew these people. I would suggest that a dead faith can only be made alive in the same way a dead body can be made alive, which is through the mercy and grace of God. Eph 2:8-10 (RSV) says, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Notice that God has prepared the good works that we are to do, and this by the faith that He has given us. Also notice that the faith for salvation came before the works that God prepared for us to do. I would say that this clearly shows that salvation comes by faith alone (and that as a free gift from God). Just as life in the body is dependant upon God alone, so faith comes from God alone, and is not “earned” or “deserved” in any way.

Pax!

I would point out now that you have quoted a couple verses that seem to show the Protestant position, but have ignored their context, the context of the Bible, and have ignored many points made for the Catholic position in posts numbers such as #32, #33, and others. With many points left unanswered, we can’t accept any further arguments until you deal with the previous unanswered questions in this thread made against the Protestant position.

God Bless

 

[stpetric]

Y’know, Protestants are not dolts. However wrong they may be about this or that, their theology has been developing for hundreds of years, and has engaged many very able thinkers. They are quite aware of the tension between Paul and James, and their theologians have written volumes about the relationship between the two.

We can play gotcha with theologically unsophisticated Protestants – just as Protestant evangelists sometimes do with theologically unsophisticated Catholics about some of the more arcane byways of Catholic belief. Don’t think that these questions will stymie a thoughtful, educated Protestant.

 

[ljsedivy]

I have been a fan of John’s for quite some time! I love his apologetics.

I can’t wait for more of his videos to hit the “tube”.

In joy,

Laura J

 

[dayofwrath]

Do you think the Lord Jesus Christ is satisfied of debate between Christians? Many are going to be surprised in the last DAY.

 

[NoAvailableName]

Do you think the Lord Jesus Christ is satisfied of debate between Christians? Many are going to be surprised in the last DAY.

Are you arguing against all debate or just the people who like to ridicule and give false representations of their opponents?

I think it is the silent ones who have much more to be worried about than the honest debaters. The honest debaters want to grow in their own faith and share it with others.