Questions Protestants Can't Answer

[CastingCrown]

If you take the philosophical view, from Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, the person does not exist after death and the previous body of a human is now flesh remnants that deserve dignity due to its former function, like a very important symbol of the residence of an immortal soul

Death doesn’t mean non-existence, otherwise the Trinity would have been in real trouble on Good Friday…

To indifferent strangers this is much ado about nothing, to the grieving relatives, the body deserves all the honor we can muster.

The question wasn’t whether or not the body deserves honour or not, but whether or not it’s still a body. If it is, then by analogy, St. James is saying that Sola Fide is a dead faith, one which cannot save.

It may be of interest to some to examine the origin of Medicine and the fact that the Muslim doctors were far ahead, possibly, because they were willing to perform autopsies while Christians saw that as a desacration…

Maybe of interest, but way, way off-topic.

Here is a question Catholics may find hard to answer If Global Warming proves to be true, and survival of the human race is seen in doubt, will the need to survive, justiry one-baby-per-family?

This isn’t a hard question at all. I’m assuming this is in reference to the Catholic teaching on contraception. (Until the 1960’s this was the teaching of the entire Christian Church - both Catholic and non-Catholic) . To answer your question, simply answer this question: if something is morally wrong, is it okay to do it anyway if it’s kinda hard and inconvenient to you?

As an aside, the question doesn’t make a whole lot of sense anyway since you could fit the entire current population of the world in Texas with each individual person taking having 1/3 of an ache to themselves.

 

[sonettegarbin]

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).

May I quote from “Catholic Biblical Apologetics” to all those “apartheid” people.

This text grew out of a series of presentations which explained Roman Catholic Church teachings in a manner which was easy to understand, yet soundly rooted in the two streams of the one source of Divine Revelation. The authors each participate in two faith communities, one Roman Catholic, and the other Evangelical Protestant. We realized that much of the friction between these communities results from miscommunication and misunderstanding. Therefore, we set out to explain the basis of foundational Roman Catholic teachings.
The foundation of Christianity is relationship with Jesus. One key to this relationship is our relationships with each other. We cannot love God and hate people. Changing our lives to love people and love God more is what formation is all about. This text cannot show you the reality of Roman Catholicism. Only participation in an active faith community can give one the understanding of what Catholics are really about.
2 Tim 2:14
Remind people of these things and charge them before God to stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen.

 

[sonettegarbin]

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.

god bless you copeland 3 and jerry kelso for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Very positive, copeland 3.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Apolgetics is all nice and good…but sometimes we spend to much time tied up in doctorine, that we forget about jesus…his love and influence he has had on our lives thru
faith and his word.

God bless

This is a good observation, and true.

From the Catholic point of view, it is the Protestants who started it, and who maintain the attack, to justify their separate existence.

 

[mackbrislawn]

First time on this thread; I am amazed at the arguments back and forth, here to there, Peter was the first Pope, etc, et al.
Guys: Jesus is Lord. Period. Repentance, acceptance and the faith, that God instituted in us anyway. No rosaries, no redundant prayers, no infallible leadership-no vicar on earth. Mary (co redeemer arguments). Traditions, traditions, traditions. Get on your knees call on the name of Jesus, trust and obey. Let Him finish the work He starts.
Jesus is the reason for the history of mankind, not some elitist claim of sole church authority. Jesus, only Jesus. That’s it.

Quite true, Jesus is Lord, and the reason for the history of mankind.

But, the only reason we know about Jesus and believe in Him, is because of the church authority. The only reason we believe in God, and the Scriptures, and know to call on the name of Jesus, is because of the authority of the church.

 

[fxcc]

Do you give any credit to the Holy Spirit to lead and guide believers into all truth (John 14:26; 16:13) or is that promise not for all believers today, but only for the Apostles to whom Jesus directly spoke those words? If the latter, can we say anything that Jesus said to the Apostles applies equally to us regular, garden-variety believers today? If so, how do we determine that?

If the N.T. writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit, isn’t the Holy Spirit the only truly infallible interpreter of those writings? And isn’t man totally dependent on Him to correctly “divide” or handle the Word of Truth? Can you or the Pope or any other man truly claim that only HE is totally and infallibly dependent on the Holy Spirit and only HE hears from the Holy Spirit as to what is the correct interpretation of every jot and tittle of those N.T. writings?

*“For into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter; nor dwell in the body that is subject unto sin.” *Wisdom 1:4

The Holy Spirit does not indwell any individual soul constantly - He flees whenever a soul is “malicious” or “subject unto sin” - which we as indivuduals all are at times.

This explains the countless, confusing, conflicting and contradictory errors in “Christian” doctrines which are produced by the intellects of individual sinful men and women (all allegedly under the guidance of the one Holy Spirit). Some of these understandings/doctrines are correct, while others aren’t - the latter clearly being not the fruit of Wisdom/the Holy Spirit.

If God did not provide His people with an infallible and readily accessible source of understanding of Him, (leaving it merely to error-prone personal interpretations of a Book alone - by those able to read) He would be less than God.

On the matter of infallibility: firstly, the infallibility of Papal pronouncements is restricted only to matters of faith and morals.

Secondly, the infallibility clearly granted by Jesus when He said “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it” obtains to the (Catholic) Church, not to any Pope as an individual (who might well be a sinner), per se. And certainly not to individuals who formulate their own doctrines in revolt against that Church, and found their own (“invisible”) churches!

How come THE Church is infallible in her teachings? Because Wisdom/the Holy Spirit dwells in her and will never leave her. How is that? Because, despite the failings of her individual members (starting from the Apostles themselves), she herself remains at all times Holy (besides being One, Catholic and Apostolic). She is always Holy because Christ, her head, is always holy. On her His guiding Spirit rests. And on everything that this one Pillar and Bulwark of Truth formally teaches, the true Christian faith rests.

Francis

 

[rogue13]

Video #2 of the “Questions Protestants Can’t Answer” series by John Martignoni is now available on YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=ykU8Ku4ENDs

 

[Rjmusseau]

I have devolope a little equation for the works faith argument, you can correct me If I am wrong:

Faith - Works = Dead faith

Works - faith = Dead works

Faith + words = well done my good and faithful servent

Does this make any sense?

God bless

 

[dcastlen50]

I have devolope a little equation for the works faith argument, you can correct me If I am wrong:

Faith - Works = Dead faith

Works - faith = Dead works

Faith + words = well done my good and faithful servent

Does this make any sense?

God bless

 

[fxcc]

I have devoloped a little equation for the works faith argument, you can correct me If I am wrong:
Faith - Works = Dead faith
Works - faith = Dead works
Faith + words = well done my good and faithful servent
Does this make any sense?
God bless

“if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.” 1 Cor 13:2
*“So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.” *1 Cor 13:13

Love is expressive. If it isn’t expressive, it isn’t love. But how is love truly expressed? It is truly expressed by works (as opposed to mere words) of love. The greatest love ever? Christ’s **work **of salvation!

Whenever Scripture warns about the futility of works, it refers **only **to “works of law”. Seems to me way too many Christians fail to understand this.

**Works of love **(done voluntarily and solely for love of God and neighbour) on the other hand, are meritorious, as the Church rightly teaches. They obtain for us heavenly rewards, as Christ so clearly taught.

Isn’t it interesting that in Matt 25 where Jesus talks about works (of love), He actually uses the word “righteous” to describe those who do them? (Matt 25:46) And He contrasts these “righteous” with those who fail to do good works - the “UN-righteous” presumably, who are actually told to depart from His sight!

The ironic thing in the “faith or works or both” debate is this: even the staunchest proponents of the “faith alone” argument concede that faith must produce works if it is to be proven genuine - and therefore to be of any real value. (That’s what makes the “faith alone” argument so patently spurious - seemingly just to establish a point of difference with Catholics, as it were.)

On the other hand, “works of love”, by its very definition, implies compliance with God’s greatest comandment to "love one another as I have loved you… do good to those who hate you… " And what does such compliance assume, if not an active, genuine **faith **in His Word, in the saving truth of His decrees?

My argument therefore, is this: works of love are always an indication of underlying faith, while faith per se, being no guarantor of love (works of love) - is no indicator of the reward-earning righteousness referred to in Matt 25:46.

Of course, the Church, well aware that we can be so easily tempted to undertake works of love for our own esteem or self glory, rightly teaches that they must be accompanied by a clear profession of faith in Christ, the Lord to whom alone is owing all the glory: Faith + Works.

Faith, by the way, that is proven, even before any works are undertaken, by humble acceptance of **everything **that God has decreed and subjugation of the individual intellect to all the sacred authorities that He has appointed over us. But that’s another volatile topic, for another day!

 

[dcastlen50]

"if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing." 1 Cor 13:2
"So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love." 1 Cor 13:13

Love is expressive. If it isn’t expressive, it isn’t love. But how is love truly expressed? It is truly expressed by works (as opposed to mere words) of love. The greatest love ever? Christ’s **work **of salvation!

Whenever Scripture warns about the futility of works, it refers **only **to “works of law”. Seems to me way too many Christians fail to understand this.

**Works of love **(done voluntarily and solely for love of God and neighbour) on the other hand, are meritorious, as the Church rightly teaches. They obtain for us heavenly rewards, as Christ so clearly taught.

Isn’t it interesting that in Matt 25 where Jesus talks about works (of love), He actually uses the word “righteous” to describe those who do them? (Matt 25:46) And He contrasts these “righteous” with those who fail to do good works - the “UN-righteous” presumably, who are actually told to depart from His sight!

The ironic thing in the “faith or works or both” debate is this: even the staunchest proponents of the “faith alone” argument concede that faith must produce works if it is to be proven genuine - and therefore to be of any real value. (That’s what makes the “faith alone” argument so patently spurious - seemingly just to establish a point of difference with Catholics, as it were.)

On the other hand, “works of love”, by its very definition, implies compliance with God’s greatest comandment to "love one another as I have loved you… do good to those who hate you… " And what does such compliance assume, if not an active, genuine **faith **in His Word, in the saving truth of His decrees?

My argument therefore, is this: works of love are always an indication of underlying faith, while faith per se, being no guarantor of love (works of love) - is no indicator of the reward-earning righteousness referred to in Matt 25:46.

Of course, the Church, well aware that we can be so easily tempted to undertake works of love for our own esteem or self glory, rightly teaches that they must be accompanied by a clear profession of faith in Christ, the Lord to whom alone is owing all the glory: Faith + Works.

Faith, by the way, that is proven, even before any works are undertaken, by humble acceptance of **everything **that God has decreed and subjugation of the individual intellect to all the sacred authorities that He has appointed over us. But that’s another volatile topic, for another day!

Oh, so well put

 

[Rjmusseau]

Why don’t we add to it then, and make it even simplier!

Faith + works + Love = my works are Good, My faith is good, and the most important thing of all is my love is genuein…

God bless

 

[fxcc]

Why don’t we add to it then, and make it even simplier!

Faith + works + Love = my works are Good, My faith is good, and the most important thing of all is my love is genuein…

God bless

Yes!

Faith (in He who is Love) expressed concretely in works done out of selfless love, leading to righteousness in the sight of He who is Love.

I like it!

 

[MikeSar]

*1 John 4:6 – John writes that whoever knows God “listens to us” (the bishops and successors to the apostles). Then John writes “This is the way we discern truth and error. John does not say “reading the Bible is the way we discern truth and error.” But if listening to mere human beings helps us discern truth and error, God would have had to endow his chosen leaders with the special gift of infallibility, so that they would be prevented from teaching error. *

It is impossible for the Church to invent new doctrines.

John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.

*John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance. *

John 16:13 - Jesus promises that the Spirit will “guide” the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.

"By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite uncommon in the Church’s previous history. The whole spectrum of Christology and Mariology has witnessed such dogmatic progress. Adoration of the Eucharist, therefore, is simply another, though dramatic, example of doctrinal development.

Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the believing mind becomes increasingly more firm."​

In addition to the above, I think our Protestant brothers are unable to differentiate Format from Content. Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his booklet “In the Beginning…” He clarified why expressions were made in a form that was meaningful to the readers at the beginning of humanity in the Old Testament. If “they” would stop quibbling about exact wording, under modern style, they would then be able to focus on the real meaning intended in the message from God; intended for those that knew only what was known in their time, not in our time.
Further, to make sure there are no contradictions, the formulation of doctrinal concepts is not only good and necessary but essential to avoid logical contradictions.
Some of our bretheren refuse to convert the Word of God into the needed Logical Ideas of Man that are essential to avoid confusion.
Our bretheren insist that we need not go any further than quoting the same phrases from the Bible -and ignore all contradictions. The confusion would be avoided if they could see any doctrinal concepts in The Words of God. They insist in not going further than repetition, like I am doing now, here…Unwise, or worse, right?

 

[mickeyfan35]

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.

AMEN!

 

[Rjmusseau]

What better blessing can God give us, other than his love.

God bless

 

[MikeSar]

The Question Protestants Have Never Consider or Try to Answer is this:
What means do you have to insure the object of your faith remains constant?
What means do you have to insure the object of faith of all member of your church is the same?
What means do you have to deal with the unexpected in ways that agree with your faith?
Do you know that the absence of a Doctrine that all of your faith can agree,
implies that confusion may be expected?
How can you assure yourself that all your views are logically connected to the views in your own Bible?
Doctrine is the protector of Catholic logic and the assurance of Truth in agreement with the Word of God. What do you have, instead?
Would you fly a plane designed by different engineers that know nothing about each other?
Do you believe God knows the abilities and limitations of man?

 

[dcastlen50]

The Question Protestants Have Never Consider or Try to Answer is this:
What means do you have to insure the object of your faith remains constant?
What means do you have to insure the object of faith of all member of your church is the same?
What means do you have to deal with the unexpected in ways that agree with your faith?
Do you know that the absence of a Doctrine that all of your faith can agree,
implies that confusion may be expected?
How can you assure yourself that all your views are logically connected to the views in your own Bible?
Doctrine is the protector of Catholic logic and the assurance of Truth in agreement with the Word of God. What do you have, instead?
Would you fly a plane designed by different engineers that know nothing about each other?
Do you believe God knows the abilities and limitations of man?

:thumbsup:I like this. It is a good outline for a pamphlet; though it screams for an explanation: how does the Catholic Church accomplish the solutions to these problems (you pose) created by Protestant formation? Can you put the answer in a short one sentence explanation without run-on sentences?

Obviously, the answers would be assertions, premises without even the beginning of an apologetic. The one sentence answers will create enough interest to create a conversation.

This leads me to an important issue: Most Catholics are not able to respond to these issues; what happened to catechesis. Do you know how many Catholics do not believe in hell, the presence of God in the Eucharist, the sin of contraception, the basics of the Mass, what the Popes infallibility relates to etc

Maybe the pamphlet would have to be more than one page.

Never the less, I love you thoughts.

 

[Rjmusseau]

All I have is God’s word…that if I ask him he will answer…if I seek him I will find him…If I knock he will open…that is the only asurrance I have of anything…he is my faithful father, he will not let me perrish if I trust him.

God bless

 

[fxcc]

All I have is God’s word…that if I ask him he will answer…if I seek him I will find him…If I knock he will open…that is the only asurrance I have of anything…he is my faithful father, he will not let me perrish if I trust him.
God bless

God has already heard - and answered in fullest measure - the cry of His people!
He has answered with His only Word. In other words, He has answered with Himself - He being the Word Incarnate!
He cannot do any more! He cannot be more present to His people than He already is now! Man’s search for Him is actually over! All that’s left now is intimate communion!
Walk into a Catholic church any time and there you will find Him, awaiting you, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity!
“I will not leave you orphans!” He promises. “For behold, I am with you until the end of the age! Come to me and I will give you rest!”
So, just go!


God bless,
Francis