SPLIT: Answers from Protestants to "Questions For Protestants"

[mozart-250]

1. Question: Where in the Bible does it say:
   A) Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith for Christians?

Well, I for one don’t believe that. I do believe it is the sole infallible (or inerrant) rule of faith. And before you ask, no the Bible does not claim itself as the only infallible/inerrant rule of faith. But at the same time it does not point to anything else as being “incapable of error”.

B) We are saved, or justified, by faith alone?

Well I don’t believe that either. I do believe we are saved by living faith alone.

C) Baptism is a symbolic gesture that the already saved believer makes to show his commitment to God?

It doesn’t. But again I was not baptized on day 0. So if you say I must be baptized to be saved, it really does not square with how God has worked in my life.

D) That every individual, Christian or not, has the right to interpret every single passage of Scripture on their own in order to determine, by their own authority, what is true doctrine and what is false doctrine?

I don’t believe this.

E) That you are to have altar calls?
F) That you are to meet at your church every Wednesday night?

It doesn’t. Who says that every jot and tittle of how we do thing in church has to be spelled out in the Bible. You certainly don’t adhere to this standard. This seems silly.

G) That it is okay to disagree on the “non-essential” doctrines as long as you agree on the “essential” doctrines?
H) That there is even such a thing as a non-essential doctrine…a non-essential part of the Word of God?

It doesn’t. But unless you believe that one must be 100% correct on all issues that Christians disagree on in order to have eternal life, then there logically is such a thing as a non-essential doctrine.

Since I do believe that people who disagreed with each other in this life can both be in eternity with Christ, I must believe there is non-essential doctrine.

This was not hard at all. Maybe I will do some more questions later.

 

[Inquirer]

Sigh … Catholic stumpers for Protestants will only work if we have Catholic thinking. If you have Protestant thinking, the answers that will come up WILL make sense to them. As some have already shown, it’s even perfectly fine to answer a question with a question. Just look at Kaysee’s first reply.

To them the answers make perfect sense and does not seem to have the effect we anticipate.

This really is an exercise in futility.

 

[mgrfin]

Throughout this site, Catholics place an emphasis on Matt 16, 18-19: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death (hell) shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”.

The quote has extraordinary implications for St. Peter’s preeminence as the supreme earthly head of the Church, or Pope, which he was appointed by our Lord Jesus himself.

The passage also expresses indefectibility: the idea that the Church founded by Christ can never be overcome by the powers of darkness; that it will always preserve the true Christian handed down by Jesus to the Apostles.

What Protestants have in common is the rejection of the Papacy. How is this passage to be interpreted if Peter was not chosen as the head?

peace

 

[mozart-250]

Oh boy, this is fun:

1. Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?

I don’t know anybody that believes the Christian faith is based solely upon a book. The last I checked the book points us to Christ, and the Christian faith is based on Christ.

1. Some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8 13). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they “sit on Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2)?

I don’t believe that Jesus condemned oral tradition. I just don’t believe that oral tradition 2000 years after the fact has exactly the same authority level as the written word of God. For starters, separating true apostolic tradition that the Bible refers to from other tradition is quite problematic apart from the written word of God.

1. Some Protestants claim that St. Paul condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2)?

Neither do I believe that St. Paul condemned oral tradition.

1. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?

Well I think there are some books in the list where the author identifies himself (but I may be wrong). But for the other books probably some combination of scholarship and yes tradition. However, I don’t believe that it is impossible for us to be wrong in this knowledge. For example it is not impossible that documents could surface that prove without a doubt that say Paul was actually the author of Matthew. If that were to occur (as ridiculous as it may sound) nobody should have a crisis of belief. We would just accept the new findings and move on.

1. Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?) How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?

Last I checked, that is not in the Bible. Your point being?

1. How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first-century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us as Scripture 2000 years later?

Last I checked, that is not in the Bible. Your point being?

 

[mozart-250]

1. If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

I don’t believe they are necessarily “self-authenticating”.

1. Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?

You can’t. Divisions have consequences.

1. Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?

False dichotomy. There are some things in the Bible that are not a matter of interpretation, but only 5th grade reading comprehension.

1. Protestants usually claim that they all agree “on the important things.” Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?

You can’t. Divisions have consequences. But generally the important things in the Christian faith are a matter of 5th grade reading comprehension in the Bible.

1. How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?

Jesus. That was simple.

1. Who in the Church had the authority to determine which books belonged in the New Testament canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians? If nobody has this authority, then can I remove or add books to the canon on my own authority?

:I dunno. I accept the Bible as it was given to me. My own personal canon…yeah right.

1. Why do Protestant scholars recognize the early Church councils at Hippo and Carthage as the first instances in which the New Testament canon was officially ratified, but ignore the fact that those same councils ratified the Old Testament canon used by the Catholic Church today but abandoned by Protestants at the Reformation?

I’m not sure the facts of the case as presented here are accurate. Since I have not studied the history of the Bible, I pass. As I said, I accept the Bible that was handed to me.

1. Why do Protestants follow post apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the Old Testament canon, rather than the decision of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

See above. However from what little I know it seems that these post apostolic Jewish decisions on the boundaries of the OT canon square with what Jesus would have understood to be canonical. If that is the case, then what was good enough for Jesus is good enough for me.

1. 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?

Who says God can’t use folks who believe in distincively catholic doctrines.

That took about 1/2 hour. Plus 15 minutes for assorted edits.

 

[Teflon93]

Sigh … Catholic stumpers for Protestants will only work if we have Catholic thinking. If you have Protestant thinking, the answers that will come up WILL make sense to them. As some have already shown, it’s even perfectly fine to answer a question with a question. Just look at Kaysee’s first reply.

To them the answers make perfect sense and does not seem to have the effect we anticipate.

This really is an exercise in futility.

Not at all—reasonable questions prompt reasonable answers (sometimes).

If nothing else, the questions offer a window into Catholic thinking.

And Catholics should remember that the Church’s truth relies not at all on are arguments. Truth is truth. People may attempt to explain it away, but it hasn’t gone away in 2,000 years, whereas these people and their various heretical beliefs have.

 

[mgrfin]

Correct!

That thread is at the other end of this link.
SPLIT: Answers from Protestants to “Questions For Protestants”
MF

MODERATOR:

IT WAS A BAD IDEA SPLITTING THIS THREAD.

PLEASE CORRECT THIS. ONLY CATHOLICS ARE VISITING THAT THREAD.

PEACE
MGRFIN