Responding to challenges from protestants

[3much5u]

So I stumbled across this page:

reformationtheology.com/2007/08/before_you_convert_to_roman_ca.php

…and I was curious to hear what you guys thought of it.

If you guys have any good responses to some of the claims/questions posted on this page, please share!

(btw, sorry, i tried to quote it but it was too long)

 

[ProdglArchitect]

1. Have you listened to both sides? That is, have you done more than read Rome Sweet Home and listen to a few emotion-tugging conversion stories?

A valid suggestion, emotion should never control life-altering decisions like this.

1. Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries, and that accurately explains the controversies, struggles, successes and failures of those early believers?

They make the mistake here of suggesting that multiple viewpoints suggest that all viewpoints were equally valid. That controversies and dissension existed doesn’t support the notion that Catholicism is wrong, it only means that there were multiple opinions, so of which were valid and some of which were invalid. The important thing to do it determine which is which.

1. Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims of the Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility?

This one is born of a faulty understanding of Papal infallibility. Also, the Church odes not claim that the fathers were unanimous on all points, only that they were, with very few exceptions, unanimous on the important parts. (True Presence, authority of Rome, etc.) Furthermore, they do not provide any evidence, they only say that evidence exists. I’ll admit, I don’t even understand the claims they make against the church in this paragraph. What’s a pornoocracy, and by Byzantine “capturing” the church, do they mean the time when the seat of Peter was moved out of Rome? That doesn’t somehow disprove succession, it just means we moved our headquarter fora while.

1. Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome’s ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura?

-How do you explain the fact that Rome’s answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge.

This one’s just stupid really, they never actually say what the circular chain of logic is, they just make a faulty assumption about how we we resolve their undisclosed “answer”. Also, Christ quite clearly tells us that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, so… you know… there’s that.

Same paragraph: Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn’t Rome’s magisterium produce unanimity and harmony?

Probably because people will always ignore the Truth, no matter how clearly defined it is… you know… sort of like you guys… Judas and the Jews rejected the Truth when He was freaking doing miracles right in front of him. Why do they think we’d be any better than people who saw Christ at work?

1. Have you read the Papal Syllabus of Errors and Indulgentiarum Doctrina?

The Papal syllabus of errors appears to be a cherry picked selection of herasies or papal proclamations (form encyclicals or public speaking) completely devoid of proper context… So… we’re going tpo pick out these few things that sounds bad and use them to discredit the Church as a whole. I this it against stems from a faulty understanding of papal infallibility. The second is an encyclical, and in no way binding on the Catholic populous. Individual Popes can err (not saying this one did, I haven’t read it), that means nothing for the Church as a whole.

continued…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

1. Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Rome’s doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?

The good old protestant tactic of Cherry picking verses outside of the greater context of the Bible as a whole to support their erroneous claims. Certain individual verses may appear to contradict Church teaching, but taken in the greater context of their passages, and of the Bible as a whole will always result in teh same conclusions the Church has reached. Each of those particular objections have been addressed ad nauseaum on the forums, and there’s likely several tracts on each of them you can look up on the main catholic.com site.

1. Have you pondered what it means to embrace a system that teaches you approach the sacrifice of Christ thousands of times in your life and yet you can die impure, and, in fact, even die an enemy of God, though you came to the cross over and over again? And have you pondered what it means that though the historical teachings of Rome on these issues are easily identifiable, the vast majority of Roman Catholics today, including priests, bishops, and scholars, don’t believe these things anymore?

Well, St. Paul certainly worried about his salvation (Phillipians 2:12), so if the apostle they seem to regard highest (based on this article) though it was something to worry about, I’d say it’s a safe bet we worry about it as well. Coming to the cross is not enough. We hear this weekend about how there are those who will say "My Lord, My Lord’ but Christ will turn from them, exclaiming “I do not know you.” (I’m paraphrasing, sorry, don’t have the exact verse in front of me). Also, the second part of this paragraph, about the majority of Catholics not believing it anymore, is an unsubstantiated straw man; and further, even if most of them didn’t believe it that would have absolutely zero affect on whether or not it’s true.

1. Have you considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that’s a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that’s the Holy Spirit)?

The word in Greek used for father (I believe it’s Abba), was specifically intended to reference God the father. We do not call the Pope God the father, we call him the Holy Father, a shepard meant to guide Christ’s flock towards him always. I don’t get why they get so hung up on this. By that estimation we should never call our dad’s father either, and I doubt many of them would support that interpretation. Also, I don’t know where they get that “Vicar of Christ” is the Holy Spirit. I’d have to see some documentation on that one.

1. Have you considered how completely unbiblical and a-historical is the entire complex of doctrines and dogmas related to Mary?

Well, no, I haven’t because the Bible isn’t the sole authority, as they are suggesting (ask them to prove it in scripture sometime. It’s fun to watch them struggle… ok, that was mean…) Mary’s role in the Bible was important, but ultimately the book wasn’t about her, it was about Chirst. Luckily for us, we get more than the book, we get the book, the tradition and the passed on history. Basically, we get the cheat sheet to the Bible I’m not good at explaining this stuff short of, if Christ honored his mother, so should we. There are plenty of tracts on this this one on the site.

And the number 1 question I would ask of such a person is: if you claim to have once embraced the gospel of grace, whereby you confessed that your sole standing before a thrice-holy God was the seamless garment of the imputed righteousness of Christ, so that you claimed no merit of your own, no mixture of other merit with the perfect righteousness of Christ, but that you stood full and complete in Him and in Him alone, at true peace with God because there is no place in the universe safer from the wrath of God than in Christ, upon what possible grounds could you come to embrace a system that at its very heart denies you the peace that is found in a perfect Savior who accomplishes the Father’s will and a Spirit who cannot fail but to bring that work to fruition in the life of God’s elect?

That’s a really wordy way of saying “If you’ve been saved, why embrace a system that rejects the notion of being saved?” This one is probably the single easiest one to answer. Because, the notion of “being saved” makes no sense in the greater Biblical context (considering how often Christ and the Apostles spoke of it being possible to lose salvation), and there’s absolutely no mention of this doctrine existing -anywhere- prior to the 1500’s. To claim that it was a teaching of the apostles is beyond faulty, to the degree of being outright deceptive.

Sorry I can’t give more complete answers, but I have to run. Hope this helps, God Bless.

 

[anon53744415]

Interesting link. And yes, I’ve questioned or pondered all of those things which is why I’m no longer in the UMC and in RCIA now. I’ve looked at the Protestant Deformation from both sides and to me there’s no question as to which way to go.

 

[fide]

So I stumbled across this page:

reformationtheology.com/2007/08/before_you_convert_to_roman_ca.php

…and I was curious to hear what you guys thought of it.

If you guys have any good responses to some of the claims/questions posted on this page, please share!

(btw, sorry, i tried to quote it but it was too long)

There are some major headings under which most Protestant objections fall, and those fundamentals need to be believed deeply by us Catholics, before trying to address the human persons who are confused and scandalized (mostly, I think) by the sins that they see among Catholics.

1. Protestant Objection: Catholics are sinners and hypocrites, including “infallible” Popes, including “successors to the Apostles” Bishops, including “holier-than-thou” Catholic moralists on the subject of birth control, etc.

Response:

Yes, there are sinners among the members of HIs Church. But the His Church is holy, and is true, because He is.

First, God is faithful to His promises. He does not break His word, not even when His people break His words.
Rom 3:1 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.
Rom 3:3 **What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? **
Rom 3:4 By no means! Let God be true though every man be false,
…
**Psa 89:20 I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him;
Psa 89:21 so that my hand shall ever abide with him, my arm also shall strengthen him.
Psa 89:22 The enemy shall not outwit him, the wicked shall not humble him.
Psa 89:23 I will crush his foes before him and strike down those who hate him.
Psa 89:24 My faithfulness and my steadfast love shall be with him, and in my name shall his horn be exalted. **
Psa 89:25 I will set his hand on the sea and his right hand on the rivers.
Psa 89:26 He shall cry to me, ‘Thou art my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’
Psa 89:27 And I will make him the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth.
Psa 89:28 My steadfast love I will keep for him for ever, and my covenant will stand firm for him.
Psa 89:29 I will establish his line for ever and his throne as the days of the heavens.
**Psa 89:30 If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my ordinances,
Psa 89:31 if they violate my statutes and do not keep my commandments,
Psa 89:32 then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with scourges;
Psa 89:33 but I will not remove from him my steadfast love, or be false to my faithfulness. **
Psa 89:34 I will not violate my covenant, or alter the word that went forth from my lips.
Psa 89:35 Once for all I have sworn by my holiness; I will not lie to David.

Jesus said to His Apostolic Church:

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

He meant it, and the “close of the age” has not come yet. It may be close! But it has not come yet.

 

[fide]

So I stumbled across this page:

reformationtheology.com/2007/08/before_you_convert_to_roman_ca.php

…and I was curious to hear what you guys thought of it.

If you guys have any good responses to some of the claims/questions posted on this page, please share!

(btw, sorry, i tried to quote it but it was too long)

Fundamental Protestant objection 2: How can Catholics claim to have infallible teachings, when so many popes and bishops have been evil sinners!

Catholic response: The sins and disobedience of men does not change the inerrancy of the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus sent His Spirit to “guide you into all the truth.” (Jn 16:13).

Yes, popes and bishops can be, and some have been, sinners and disobedient themselves, yet the Spirit has “guided” His Holy Church into “all the truth”, as Jesus promised. And their personal failings have NOT negated the truth given them and entrusted to HIs Church. Listen to what Jesus taught, for the same situation in His day:

Mt 23:2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat;
Mt 23:3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”

So today, as Christians, the same principle applies. If some “scribes and pharisees, hypocrites” have seated themselves on the “seat” of authority in the Church - on the seat of Peter, or the seat of other Apostles - then we are to obey Jesus! “Practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”

The teachings are true, whether or not the teachers are true, because the teachings given to the Church are those from Jesus, and working with Him, the abiding Holy Spirit.

Woe to the sinners in the Church! Woe to any “scribes and pharisees, hypocrites”! To whom much is given, much will be required. But for our part, obey the teachings of the Lord: they are Truth.

What do we see when we look to the “theological fruit” of those who have broken away from His Church? We see theological confusion, disagreements, different interpretations, and much lacking in substance. None of this gives any confidence in the “gospel” they are proclaiming, because in fact “the Protestant gospel” is not consistent from denomination to denomination. God’s will was not for a scattered group of disagreeing witness to HIs Gospel, but One Faith, One Truth, One way - the way of Jesus.

 

[mikeeh]

It’s so funny that other denominations (and religions) have to attack the Catholic Church to justify their beliefs. If their faith can’t stand on it’s own there’s probably something very wrong. Run away as fast as you can.

 

[Wildkit]

It’s so funny that other denominations (and religions) have to attack the Catholic Church to justify their beliefs. If their faith can’t stand on it’s own there’s probably something very wrong. Run away as fast as you can.

I absolutely love the examples since 33 AD. I ask this question to myself. Why do all these miracles only happen in this one Church, is someone trying to tell me something? I feel sure miraculous events have and do occur with other Christian faiths, but why do all these time and evaluated events such as Lanciano, Guadalupe, the incorrupt Saints, this miracle occurring today in Bolivia, those with stigmatas,…… why do they only happen in this one Church? Again I ask myself,……is someone trying to tell me something? Why can’t another non-Catholic denomination respond to this question? A tough but reasonable question.