Responding to Protestant objections

[TLEtweety]

First of all thank you all so much for responding to my previous posts (I am converting to Catholicism but husband is remaining a Protestant). My question is, when I share some things with my husband, he has a rebuttal quite quickly and then I can only say, “well, thats how you have been taught to interpret that particular passage in scripture”, so how should I respond?

An example is, the other day I was talking about a former Catholic who is now a Protestant, and she shares with Catholics that they don’t need all that “extra stuff”, just Jesus. I had asked her why she left The Church, and she said “I came face to face with God.”

Well, I was telling my husband that I didn’t understand how she could just ignore the fact that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. I was saying that I thought it strange that she just didn’t believe that anymore, and I was wondering how she could just ignore that. He then asked me to explain it to him, and I did the best I could, being new to all of this. Anyway I took him to scripture and he said that it doesn’t say Christ is actually there, and then I told him about when a lot of Jesus’ disciples left him when he preached about having to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, I explained all that to him, and he said that our former pastor explained that to us before (this pastor is major anti-catholic). All I could say was "well, that’s his interpretation.’

When I try and take him to history and the church fathers, he says wells they could have been wrong.

So, any advice on how to respond to these types of things?

 

[DeFide]

Especially when you’re close to someone, it’s often best to use a third party to avoid feelings of confrontation or being attacked. These feelings can cause people to close themselves off to what’s being presented.

So what’s a good third party? The library tracts on this website are good to print out and are fairly short. You could also offer books, or audio materials. Be careful not to overwhelm him, but if you have books on particular topics, it doesn’t hurt to leave them around the house as you read them if he declines to read them outright.

Before all this, your first and constant recourse should be toward prayer.

 

[MariaG]

TLEtweety:

First of all thank you all so much for responding to my previous posts (I am converting to Catholicism but husband is remaining a Protestant). My question is, when I share some things with my husband, he has a rebuttal quite quickly and then I can only say, “well, thats how you have been taught to interpret that particular passage in scripture”, so how should I respond?

An example is, the other day I was talking about a former Catholic who is now a Protestant, and she shares with Catholics that they don’t need all that “extra stuff”, just Jesus. I had asked her why she left The Church, and she said “I came face to face with God.”

Well, I was telling my husband that I didn’t understand how she could just ignore the fact that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. I was saying that I thought it strange that she just didn’t believe that anymore, and I was wondering how she could just ignore that. He then asked me to explain it to him, and I did the best I could, being new to all of this. Anyway I took him to scripture and he said that it doesn’t say Christ is actually there, and then I told him about when a lot of Jesus’ disciples left him when he preached about having to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, I explained all that to him, and he said that our former pastor explained that to us before (this pastor is major anti-catholic). All I could say was "well, that’s his interpretation.’

When I try and take him to history and the church fathers, he says wells they could have been wrong.

So, any advice on how to respond to these types of things?

I would ask him if he really believes the promises of God as testified to in Scripture?

If so…I would show him scripture with the following explanations from Scripture Catholic

18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

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.

and my personal favorite

1Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Tim. 3:15 - Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. She also must be the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have not changed for 2,000 years. God loves us so much that He gave us a Church that infallibly teaches the truth so that we have the fullness of the means of salvation in His only begotten Son.

Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. If Christians as early as 100AD got it wrong, if all those who made up the Church got it wrong, then Scripture lies.

God Bless,
Maria

ps But I would not “confront” him or even approach him as suggested by DeFide. If he approaches you however, be ready, with pamphelets, or even your own written out scripture to just hand to him.

 

[valient_Lucy]

TLEtweety:

First of all thank you all so much for responding to my previous posts (I am converting to Catholicism but husband is remaining a Protestant). My question is, when I share some things with my husband, he has a rebuttal quite quickly and then I can only say, “well, thats how you have been taught to interpret that particular passage in scripture”, so how should I respond?

An example is, the other day I was talking about a former Catholic who is now a Protestant, and she shares with Catholics that they don’t need all that “extra stuff”, just Jesus. I had asked her why she left The Church, and she said “I came face to face with God.”

Well, I was telling my husband that I didn’t understand how she could just ignore the fact that Christ is really present in the Eucharist. I was saying that I thought it strange that she just didn’t believe that anymore, and I was wondering how she could just ignore that. He then asked me to explain it to him, and I did the best I could, being new to all of this. Anyway I took him to scripture and he said that it doesn’t say Christ is actually there, and then I told him about when a lot of Jesus’ disciples left him when he preached about having to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, I explained all that to him, and he said that our former pastor explained that to us before (this pastor is major anti-catholic). All I could say was "well, that’s his interpretation.’

When I try and take him to history and the church fathers, he says wells they could have been wrong.

So, any advice on how to respond to these types of things?

What exactly was the pastor’s interpretation of those passages?

I would also advise simply listening to his objections, to find out why exactly he does not believe in the Real Presence. Also, find out what he believes the Church teaches. Many Protestants have a very limited understanding of Church teaching (VERY limited.) That will give you a much better idea of how to proceed. Sometimes you just have to listen.

Also, point out what Paul says about the Eucharist in I Corinthians 10 and 11. How does he understand those passages?

 

[Thal59]

TLEtweety:

An example is, the other day I was talking about a former Catholic who is now a Protestant, and she shares with Catholics that they don’t need all that “extra stuff”, just Jesus. I had asked her why she left The Church, and she said “I came face to face with God.”

This may be difficult to hear, and I am sure a lot of Protestants will vehemently disagree with this. Please take a look at what I have bolded above.

The painful truth of it all is that Protestants do not love Jesus. What they love is salvation and heavenly reward. Mankind, in his fallen nature, is focused on himself more than anything. He always desires to make an unjustified profit. I call it the “Day off with pay syndrome.” Everyone wants a days wages without performing the work. So it is with Protestantism, which is man-made, and therefore smells of the selfish motives of fallen men.

"All I need is Jesus, I don’t need all that extra stuff!"

Extra stuff, of course, means attending mass regularly, being obedient to God’s ministers, charity, devotional prayers, praying for the deceased, Mary, purgatory, etc. Such things as these require devotion, dedication, as well as suffering and sacrificing (love) for others.

Therefore, the truncated Protestant theology informs them that “all they have to do” to be saved is make their altar call, say their sinners prayer, and lo and behold, they are saved. They are “once saved always saved.” They cannot lose their salvation no matter what. (Free license to continue sinning.) Salvation is in their back-pocket, they can “backslide” but they cannot lose their salvation.

There is no confession to the priest. (That would require a little humility and honesty, which is an inconvenience.)

There is no purgatory. (That would mean being accountable and responsible for their actions.)

No prayers for the dead. (That would be a “giving” thing, not a “getting” thing. I am here to “get” not to “give.”)

Charity is not necessary for salvation. (Same as above.)

The Eucharist is only symbolic. (If I believed it was truly the body and blood of Christ, then I would be required to commit myself to Him intimately; through a sacred covenant oath. I don’t want so intimate a union with Him, I just want Him to get me salvation.)

There is no ministerial priesthood/ the Pope is the anti-Christ. (Being subject to a minister of the Lord does not sate the self importance (arrogance) I want to have with God. Who are they that “I” should be subject to them?)

Protestantism is a man-made Christianity that is scrubbed clean of suffering, sacrificing, and charity. It is designed to give the Protestant follower everything his heart desires while giving back as little as humanly possible. It is wanting the eternal paycheck, without the temporal labor. The day off with pay.

This is beautifully reflected in chapter 6 of the Gospel of John when the “disciples” of Jesus where told by Christ that they had to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Their response… “This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?” Or, in the modern vernacular, “This is difficult, and we don’t want to hear it.” These disciples, who were faithful when everything was easy and glorious, walked out on the Lord when the first difficult demand was laid on them.

Until the focus of the people in your life moves from what they want of God, to what God wants of them, then all you can do is pray for them.

Thal59