Starting a discussion with a Protestant

  • Thread starter Thread starter go_Leafs_go
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
*from this very little section of scripture, some have decided to make a huge deal of it,
because, well, not everything is in scripture, so it isnt suffiecient then. *

I would say it’s not sufficient because both Scripture and Tradition comprise God’s revelation to man. Not just Scripture alone. There is nothing in the bible that states that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith and morals.

the reason we trust what was written down in scripture alone is because from the time the apostles died, the followers of christ were gone, and so if we wanted to stick to what
jesus said and taught, then we followed what was written.

However, this is an unfounded assertion that has no backing in any writing by anyone in the Church for the first 15 centuries. Take for example the jews. For over a millennium, they kept the oral law without writing it down and only did so because of the diaspora when the temple was gone. So this is a theory, but history shows that the Church never believed it.

*A lot of time had passed since the early church fathers lived and the church
was becoming so large that they needed to put oral tradition into writing. *

And they did.

*as you said, there were many herecies arising, and so they needed to form a
rule of scripture. this was the major reason for the formation of the canon
at that time.
*Not entirely true. The canon was decided upon so that there was an authoritative list of writings. However, the litmus test of what was orthodox teaching and what was heresy was always decided upon by the Bishops of the Church. Did you ever consider how the bible came to be? Could a book, inspired by God be ruled upon by mere fallible men?

It is illogical that the fallible decide on the infallible. Only through the infallible charism of the Bishops of the Church, led by the Bishop of Rome given by the Holy Spirit could men decide upon the bible. You trust the bible because the Church decided what was canonical and what wasn’t. If we say that the men who decided upon the canon of Scripture weren’t infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, then the logical conclusion is that our bible is only a reasoned theory as to what constitutes the truth.

So you really end up denying the bible if you deny the authority of the Church. One logically leads to the other, and that is why Sola Scriptura is false. Scripture alone can in no way be the sole rule of faith and morals because it depends upon it’s existence from the men who chose the canon, guided without error, by the Holy Spirit.

Now, if we are going to say that the Holy Spirit guided us then, but not now, then you are going to have to prove how you objectively know this.
 
when it comes to biblical interpretation, authority is not something that is needed. that is why i assert that we do not need someone else to teach us what the bible says.

It’s not? Does that explain why there are over 33,000 separate Christian denominations in the world today, and over 250 in the US alone, and there is not 1 single point of doctrine on which they can agree. If we don’t need someone to teach us what the bible says, then why do oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity? They are bible only Christians. Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons deny Christ’s Divinity? They claim to follow the bible, and use biblical proof to say that Trinitarian Christians are false.

You can’t use that argument because it doesn’t explain the far left cults that also claim the same thing you do, that the bible alone is the sole rule of faith. You wouldn’t say that they interpret the bible correctly, but they do. So how do you objectively decide who is right? Is God the author of all of this denominational criticism, or is it man, trying to interpret the bible for himself? I say it is the latter, not the former.

Yes i totally agree with you that the church has been given the keys of the kingdom, but unlike you, the church is not a physical building or organization, it is the body of Christ, his followers.

Yes, the Church is the Body of Christ, I agree with you. But Christ specifically gave his authority to certain men only, the Apostles, the pillars of the truth (Gal 2:9). And what does Paul say about the Church in 1Tim 3:15? He says that the Church is the pillar of the truth and is founded on the Apostles and the Prophets (Eph 2:20).

It is the apostolic authority of the apostles that were given the Keys of the Kingdom (see Isa 22:22). The word keys are strong rabbinical language that denote authority. In Isa 22:22 it says that Christ is given the keys to open and shut. And in Matt 16:18-19 and Matt 18:18, he gives these same keys to Peter. It is no small coincidence that the jews that matthew was writing to would know exactly what kind of authority that Christ was transferring to Peter. And if Peter had this authority, by his authority, he could pass it on, and Tradition tells us that that is EXACTLY what the Church did and that is what theChurch believed for 1500 years until Martin Luther changed what was always believed.

letting someone else tell you what a verse means is dangerous.

But that is exactly what a preacher does.

*we are allowed to use our own brains. *

Catholics are too. Are you inferring that we aren’t?
 
  • the things that are very clear from scripture are written over and over and over again. these are the things that we call foundational. the things that are not clear, or can be interpreted by equal persons in different ways we need to chill on. *
Please cite the verse that states this? You are asserting that this is the correct way to study Scripture, but is this strategy asserted in Scripture or is it a reasoned opinion?

And how can we even decide on what is foundational. All of the different denominations out there couldn’t even agree on what was foundational and what was secondary. For some, speaking in tongues is absolutely foundational, to others it is not. So by what objective standards are we to decide this? So you see the fallacy of your argument?

It lacks no authority so it just becomes reaoned opinion. Without the authority that Christ gave the Apostles and handed down to the Bishops, all you have is reasoned authority. In the Catholic Church, you have authority guided by the Holy Spirit as guaranteed by Christ (Lk 10:16, John 16:13)

*things like, sin, salvation, redemption, these are the major foundational things. *

I’ll take just one of these, salvation. Some protestants believe that you can lose your salvation (Methodists, Episcopalians, Nazarenes, Wesleyans), some believe that you cannot lose your salvation (Presbyterians, reformed, Lutherans, Baptists). So even on your list of foundational things, all of these bible only Christians cannot agree. If they are all reading the same bible, why can’t they believe the same thing that is so foundational?

*the problem the reformers saw was that the present church was nothing like the
early church, neither in form, practice, fluidity, or theology. *

Prove these assertions because I contend that these are all false. Specific examples please.

*that is why the kept saying that we as the catholic church need to go back to the way it
was, but powerful people dont give up power so easily.
*if that was true, the one would expect to see the same thing with the eastern Orthodox. But they hold the same faith as Catholics and reject Protestantism on the sam grounds that the Catholic Church did. The Orthodox did not have this “power” as you say, but they still held to the way the things always were. You’re argument holds no water because the Orthodox are not like the Protestants, they are like the Catholics, and believe the same doctrines as the Catholics, but yet they didn’t have this supposed corruption from Rome.
 
*we are presently discussing the groundwork for licenced Christian theology at present. *

I would assert that Christian theology of evangelicalism does not hold up to what was believed from the first day of Pentecost. Until we can agree on what authority we will both accept, we cannot debate because evangelicals do not accept Tradition. And, as I showed with many examples, evangelical assumptions about the bible alone do not stand up to logical criticism.

*there is no harsh feelings here at all. *

No harsh feelings from me. I am enjoying this. I have quoted many Scriptures. I know that my opinions are solidly Scripturally and historically founded.
 
A question that I’ve yet to have a protestant answer, one of those foundational beliefs, is about baptism. Some protestants believe you have to be baptised, some believe you don’t. If those that teach that you don’t have to be baptised are wrong, then what they are teaching could be condemning people to hell. Is no authority needed to prevent those kind of errors? I was raised Southern Baptist, so I have these kind of discussions all the time with my family. Your discussion is very interesting to read.
 
go Leafs go:
I have agreed to a request from my girlfriend to talk to a protestant youth paster over e-mail. I have loads of questions, and apparantly this guy is well versed in history, greek translations, etc. What is the best way to start dialogue with this guy? I figure it should start with the establishment of a visible church with visible leaders, successors, etc. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Try to get in contact with John Martignoni or Fr. Mitch Pacwa. You can get some tapes by John at his website at www.biblechristiansociety.com or you can email John at john@biblechristiansociety.com. I don’t know where you can contact Fr. Mitch Pacwa, but if you search his name, you might be able to find a website. Hope this helps!

Vita in Christo! 😃
 
Thanks again people, especially Dan the Man, but everyone else too. I’ve sent a long e-mail to him mostly using what I have from here. I’ve also asked him to start being more specific on things and to stick with one topic, mainly Sola Scriptura and of course with that, Authority and Oral Tradition.

i won’t post my long e-mails on here anymore as it’s too long for people to read, but I will post his.

Thanks again!!!
JohnPaul
 
who’s “his”?
you mean me?
oh, MY!

Corpus Christi gave another good web site, the biblechrristiansociety.
i think the guys name is John Mariotti(sp).
he has a call in radio show on the EWTN radio network which is also on relvaent radio on thursdays at 2PM.
He is an excellent resource on debating with non-Catholics about sola scriptura and especially salvation by faith alone.
 
40.png
Dan-Man916:
who’s “his”?
you mean me?
oh, MY!

Corpus Christi gave another good web site, the biblechrristiansociety.
i think the guys name is John Mariotti(sp).
he has a call in radio show on the EWTN radio network which is also on relvaent radio on thursdays at 2PM.
He is an excellent resource on debating with non-Catholics about sola scriptura and especially salvation by faith alone.
Click to expand...
UNfortunately in Toronto we don’t get EWTN radio, and EWTN TV is only available on Digital TV which we don’t subscribe to. I have Direct TV (getting it the Canadian Way since we can’t subscribe to it because of Broadcast rules) but for some reason I don’t get the EWTN feed (and yes I found the Channel.

and Dan the Man…“His” is the Guy I’m dialoguing with, lol, not you, even though I’m using your responses.
 
Here are my two cents on this fascinating discussion (BTW, I’m not Catholic–I nearly became Catholic some time ago, wound up becoming Episcopalian, agree with about 90% of Catholic teaching, and still think about becoming Catholic or possibly Orthodox, especially now that Anglicanism seems to be falling apart).

First of all, bear in mind that if this guy went to Tyndale Seminary, he’s probably not a hardline fundamentalist. Tyndale is a conservative evangelical school, but they have a rather ecumenical faculty, including for instance an Anglican priest who was at one time a Pentecostal and the chairman of the Catholic-Pentecostal ecumenical dialogue. They teach a course on Christian spirituality that focuses on the Fathers and the Middle Ages. So avoid relying too much on Keating, and avoid trying to engage in some kind of knock-down war of prooftexts. Focus on testifying to what you believe and why you believe it rather than trying to paint him into a corner, fun as that little game can be.
I’d focus on his claims about how sola scriptura developed. Notice that he admits that at the time the NT was being written Scripture was not the only source of authority. Press him on why he assumes that once the NT canon was complete oral tradition ceased to be authoritative. He seems to take this for granted because it makes sense to him. Point out that the Christian writings we have from this period (i.e., the 2nd century) don’t set Scripture and Tradition up against each other. Irenaeus, for instance, argues against the Gnostics on the basis of Scripture, but also (given that the Gnostics challenge the orthodox canon and the orthodox interpretation) relies heavily on the reliability of the tradition passed down from one bishop to the next. In other words, at the time when the youth pastor says that early Christians were beginning to rely on Scripture alone, Irenaeus is quite happy to rely on the authority of bishops alongside Scripture.

Challenge him on whether in fact Catholic doctrines are “new” rather than being organic developments of what was believed earlier. Every new development was in fact argued fiercely and usually was only defined as dogma once it had become well established in Christian belief. The Immaculate Conception, for instance, was almost universally believed for centuries before Pius IX defined it. That doesn’t prove that it was a true development. But point out that he’s begging the question. He’s starting from the assumption that only Scripture is trustworthy and that therefore the Church can’t be trusted to stay faithful to Scripture. Suggest that surely the burden of proof should be on the other side–that the historic Church should be trusted unless and until it is proven to have gone against Scripture (not simply gone “beyond” it by developing Scriptural principles further).

I would avoid invoking infallibility or the “need for an authoritative interpreter.” I think there are very good reasons for us Protestants to consider conversion to Catholicism, but I don’t think that is the strongest. Obviously most people on this board don’t agree with me, but at least bear in mind the possibility that if you try that line of proof you will get bogged down in endless debates about how we know truth and what the nature of religious authority is. Focus on the basic presumption that the historic Church can be trusted to be faithful (Matt. 16 is of course important here), and keep the burden of proof squarely on him. He is the one who left the Catholic Church for another form of Christianity, and he is the one who is being called in to try to convert you. I would advise against turning the tables and trying to prove Catholicism to be true. All you need to do is show that as a Catholic you are entirely faithful to Scripture and that you have a living faith in Jesus Christ.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
40.png
Dan-Man916:
who’s “his”?
you mean me?
oh, MY!

Corpus Christi gave another good web site, the biblechrristiansociety.
i think the guys name is John Mariotti(sp).
he has a call in radio show on the EWTN radio network which is also on relvaent radio on thursdays at 2PM.
He is an excellent resource on debating with non-Catholics about sola scriptura and especially salvation by faith alone.
Click to expand...
His name is John Martignoni (martin-oh-nee) and yes, he is fantastic. He lays the information out in such a way that anyone can understand, and he uses the bible to support Catholic teachings. He is great with sola scriptura, faith alone, one church, sacraments and the bible, papal authority, you name it. I tell ya, this guy is hard to beat.

You can order audio tapes of his through his website at $4 each and he always offers at least three tapes free. Tell him Little Mary sent you.

His website is www.biblechristiansociety.com and you can e-mail him directly at john@biblechristiansociety or john@bellsouth.net

Let me know what you think of the tapes if you get them!
 
Little Mary:
His name is John Martignoni (martin-oh-nee) and yes, he is fantastic. He lays the information out in such a way that anyone can understand, and he uses the bible to support Catholic teachings. He is great with sola scriptura, faith alone, one church, sacraments and the bible, papal authority, you name it. I tell ya, this guy is hard to beat.

You can order audio tapes of his through his website at $4 each and he always offers at least three tapes free. Tell him Little Mary sent you.

His website is www.biblechristiansociety.com and you can e-mail him directly at john@biblechristiansociety or john@bellsouth.net

Let me know what you think of the tapes if you get them!
Click to expand...
Thanks a bunch, went there, he told me that he will have everything on CD’s in a month, so I’ll wait for that.

Contarini…thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut, stuff I’ll definitely consider. Thanks again, good stuff.
 
hmmm, since my last e-mail to him on the 5th, no response. I’ll wait until next wednesday before I bug him again, I did send him a big e-mail, so maybe he needs time.
 
go Leafs go:
hmmm, since my last e-mail to him on the 5th, no response. I’ll wait until next wednesday before I bug him again, I did send him a big e-mail, so maybe he needs time.
Click to expand...
Does he know that you’re posting what he writes on the internet?

~Matt
 
40.png
p90:
Does he know that you’re posting what he writes on the internet?

~Matt
Click to expand...
Nope, why? That’s irellevant, I never disclosed who he is so basically this is an, and we are all after truth here, so people here can help.
 
go Leafs go:
Nope, why?
Click to expand...
I’ve had things I’ve written posted on the internet, without my name attached, and discovered it at a later date. It was an uncomfortable experience. I am concerned he might feel the same way. In any case, I’ll leave the matter up to your judgment.

~Matt
 
He mentioned that popes contradicted one another…
Ask for specific instances here, specific popes who contradicted one another, what the contraditction was… You need to research and argue each specific contradiction he’s talking about.

If he says:
“Everything God wants us to know is in the Bible alone”
You say: The Bible doesn’t say that. The Bible does say that God’s Word comes to us through written and unwritten Tradition.
"Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught either by oral statement or by a letter of ours." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

If he says “Why do Catholics teach things that are not in the Bible?” You say:Not everything God wants us to believe is plainly spelled out in the Bible. For example, the word “trinity” isn’t there. That is also the case for other truths. **“There are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” John 21:25 ** Although a teaching may not be plainly stated in the Bible, nothing the Catholic Church teaches contradicts the Bible. If he disagrees ask for specific detailed Catholic Teachings which contradict the Bible and clearly argue each one.

If he says “Only the Bible is infallible. No mere man is infallible, not even the Pope.” You say: Who wrote the Bible? Mere men inspired by the Holy Spirit. If he helped “mere men” to write the Bible, why shouldn’t he guide “mere men” to teach if faithfully? **“For no prophecy came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” 2Peter1:21 **The prophets in the Old Testament spoke infallibly. The writers of the New Testament wrote infallibly. Today, the pope, or the pope with the bishops, of the Church teaches infallibly…

If he says:"The Bible alone is the ultimate authority of truth, not the Church.
You say: That’s not what St. Paul says in his letter to Timothy…
"But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15 Jesus established a living authority, the Church. The Church gave us the Bible and is the final authority on matters of faith.

If he says “I don’t need a church to tell me what to believe. I can read the Bible and decide for myself”
You say: Jesus told the apostles to “teach”, not to hand people a Bible andlet them decide for themselves. **“Go… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Matthew 28:19-20 **Without teachers who have learned what was handed down from the apostles, the Bible can be interpreted in a million ways! That is why there are hundreds of Protestant denominations, who each interpret the Bible differently.

If he says: “You believe your church is the one true church.” You say: Jesus began only one church when he said…**“There will be one flock, one shepherd.” John 10:16 **History confirms teh Cahtolic Church was teh first Christian Church. It was also teh Church that collected and preserved the New Testament.

If he says “You think the Catholic Church has never made an error.” You say: When the Pope with the bishops, or the pope alone, offers a definitive teaching on faith and morals, he cannot make an error. **“when the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” John 16:13 **In this verse, Jesus promised that the Church would be guided to all truth. The Holy Spirit cannot deceive.
 
If he says “Even if Peter had authority, that does not mean that it was passed on to the later popes.” You say: Jesus told Peter and the apostles to preach the gospel to all nations. The only way they could do this was if their authority was passed on to successors.** “Then they prayed, ‘You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry.’”** Just as Americans can trace each president back to George Washington, Catholics can trace each pope back to Peter. If he wants historical evidence I’m sure you can provide it. (He will be doing lots of reading."
 
40.png
Peace-bwu:
If he says “Even if Peter had authority, that does not mean that it was passed on to the later popes.” You say: Jesus told Peter and the apostles to preach the gospel to all nations. The only way they could do this was if their authority was passed on to successors.** “Then they prayed, ‘You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry.’”** Just as Americans can trace each president back to George Washington, Catholics can trace each pope back to Peter. If he wants historical evidence I’m sure you can provide it. (He will be doing lots of reading."
Click to expand...
GREAT POINT, I never knew of this verse!!!
 
"Then they prayed, ‘You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry.’"

what verse is this?
please cite where it is.
thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top