1 Peter 3:15-16:
Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,
but do it with gentleness and reverence…
I would charitably suggest that this is not the best way in engage our brothers and sisters in Christ. We always have to be careful not to come across sounding combative. Most Protestant believe what they do because they sincerely believe they are following Jesus in the best way they can. We have a duty to share with them and show them fullness of what Jesus taught, but we also must not sound like they are somehow defective because they don’t believe what we do. I would encourage you to re-post *one *of your questions and address that. You will find that most Protestants are open to these discussions if they are presented with gentleness and reverence.
The link is broken. Perhaps you can list the questions.
For me, the most interesting and sincere question is this:
Is God’s revelation to man over, or is it ongoing?
That’s a hard one for us Lutherans, I think. It seems we’ve remained static and haven’t added doctrine for the last 500 years. I shudder to think if Christ came back to us to rule - I wonder if I would be given enough of the Holy Sprit to acknowledge my Lord, or would it be an intellectual exercise involving the Bible.
Ok, Got it to open. Way too many questions for one thread, but…
If everything we need to know as Christians is in the bible, them were in the bible does it give us a list of all the books that are supposed to be in the bible?
It doesn’t. What do you think scripture leaves out?
If we are saved by faith alone, then we don’t need to love anyone, do we? Yet Jesus tells us in the bible to love others. But if we need to love to be saved, then we are not saved by faith alone. And if it is faith alone then why 1st Corinthians verse 13 say that love is greater than faith? After all if we are saved by faith alone shouldn’t faith be greater than love? But the bible says that love is greater.
If we saved by faith alone, then why does it say in James: chapter 17 verses 14 to 17:
If faith alone is the most important thing, then why that phrase appear just once in scripture? And where is does say it is says that we are not saved by faith alone: James chapter 2 verse 24
Yes, of course we need to love. Galatians describes a saving faith as a faith that works through love.
If God alone can forgive sin, and we shouldn’t confess to men, then why Mathew chapter 9 verses 6 to 8 say that we are to confess to men? And why does James tell us to confess our sins to one another? James 5 verse 16. And why did Jesus give his disciples the power to forgive or retain sin? John 20 verse 23
Confession to a pastor/confessor is scriptural.
Is whether or not we have faith God’s soul criteria for judging us? If so then why does every passage in the NT that talks of us being judged say that we will be judged by our works, our deeds by what we have done? Such as Mathew 24, john 15, Roman 2, revelation 20. Why don’t they say we will be judged by faith?
Is there any good work - good in God’s eyes - outside of faith?
For a Christian what is the pillar and ground of the truth? Is it the bible? If so then why does 1 timothy chapter 3 verse 15 say it is the church?
According to scripture, it is the Church, which, of course, is subject to scripture.
Is God revelation to men over, or is it ongoing? If it ended, where in the bible does it say that?
God is revealed to me everytime I hear the word and receive the sacraments.
Jesus tells us in John 6 verse 27, to labor for the food that leads to eternal life? Why does it say that, if we are saved faith alone and not works?
If one has a true, saving faith, and not a dead faith, why would choose to not labor for the food that leads to eternal life?
What is the difference between those who are redeemed and unsaved and the redeemed and saved? Is it something we did? Or something Jesus did? If Jesus did it then why didn’t he do it for all men? The bible says that he desires that all men be saved in 1st timothy 2 verse 4. If it something we did then isn’t that a work?
Indeed. For God so loved the world… Not part of it.
Do we have to forgive other in order to have our sins forgiven by God? If so, then we are not saved by faith alone. If not the why does it say we do it in Mathew 6 verse 14?
Your understanding of sola fide is incorrect. Please find me a source that says that sola fide means we don’t have to be obedient to Christ’s commands.
Where in the bible does it say that the bible is the only source of truth?
It doesn’t. truth can come from other sources. The creeds are an excellent example.
Where in the bible does it say that baptism is a symbolic gesture that the already saved believer does to shoe his commitment to God?
It doesn’t, because what you’ve said here is unscriptural.
Where in the bible does it say that everyone has the right to interpret every piece of scripture in any way possible?
It doesn’t. However, even Catholics can interpret scripture in areas not dogmatically defined. Correct?
Where in scripture does it say that you are to have alter calls?
It doesn’t, and Lutherans don’t, but where does it say you can’t?
Where in scripture does it say that you are to meet at you church every Wednesday night?
Don’t most Catholic parishes have a mass on Wednesday?
Where in scripture does it say that it is ok to disagree on the nonessential doctrine as long as you agree on the essential doctrine?
Where in the bible does it say that there is such a thing as a non-essential doctrine?
:coolinoff: Hope I answered all your questions.
Like always, JonNC pops in composed and patient and gives an educated response… I don’t know how you do it brother, God Bless you.
We need to stop (pun intended :D) posting ignorant threads with the title “Protestants” answer this, or answer that, etc. It shows a higher degree of… lack of charity and education and it doesn’t help the rest of us… thanks.
Not hard, most of the time, when one is regularly met by charity, as expressed here by you and fermat.
I’ve seen something similar that seeks to embarrass Catholics. In my humble opinion, these sort of exercises do nothing in the way of fostering reconciliation between Protestants and Catholics. It’s nothing more than a modern-day holy war of words and only proves to be more divisive.
I agree. I used to respond to those “Tough questions for Catholics” threads,propositions or whatever one wants to call them. It proves nothing on either side and only makes matters worse. While we may not agree on many matters,friendly dialogue and charity goes a lot further than attacks and put-downs.
Would it be better to say catholics answer this? If its a questions for non catholics or protestants, then it would make sense to ask a question titled as protestants if thats who the question is for. Not all catholics know what or why protestants believe what they believe. I think it’s ignorant to think that the idea about ‘‘posting ignorant threads with the title “Protestants” answer this’’ is wrong. How will you know the question is for you if we don’t title it that way. Don’t feel bad, just answer the questions the best way you know how. We are all here to learn from each other.
I don’t think it was a combative question. Just too many questions at once.
But this is a Catholic forum.
And there isn’t much charity to Protestants. A lot of these questions, for instance, are quite silly and meant only to elicit frustration and annoyance than anything else.
Because the term Protestant is not the same as the term Catholic. Even though there are different rites in Catholicism, there are basic tenants and doctrines that are universally accepted and all rites are under the School of Cardinals and the Pope.
Protestants on the other hand have different doctrinal practices and are not under a universal doctrinal statement. For example, a Lutheran is not the same as a Presbyterian, a Pentecostal is not the same as an Anglican, etc. So when you ask a question in the general sense of Protestant, you give the impression that:
- You are under the impression that they are all the same
- You understand each individual denomination and are prepared to engage with each individual denomination.
Also, the question is form as a challenge. Can you answer these questions?
Well, a wrong answer is still an answer, so for all purposes… yes I am sure the questions can be answered.
So a more educated question would be to specifically name the denomination you wish to engage, or if you feel that you can engage them all (:eek:) then at least have the courtesy to specify that you understand that not all denomination have the same doctrine but that you are interested in knowing what their understanding of the questions are. At that point you can find a middle ground.
But going off saying: Protestants can you answer these questions?
It looks like you are sitting at lunch with a buddy and you tell him, “hey I’m going to bug these Protestants with these things, let’s see what they say, hehe hehe”. Or something like that…
So if you say: Catholics can you answer these questions?, is just as childish and divisive. Only that as Catholics there should be a more uniformity in the responses.
I think you touched on it for me. There are so many questions, and the way they are phrased leads one to infer a challenge. So, for example, the OP asks,
*“Where in scripture does it say that you are to have alter calls?” *
A better pheasing to get a positive response might be
“What is an altar call, and if you do them, why? What scriptural evidence do you see for them?”
Most of the questions start out with a veiled challenge to sola scriptura, or more correctly, the OP’s perception of sola scriptura: *“Where in scripture does it say…” *
Now to be sure, it is a mimicking of the same challenge phrases often from protestants to Catholics. Example: “Where in scripture does it say to worship Mary?”
Questions such as these tend to do two things, in my view, 1) minimize the chance for positive, constructive dialogue that leads to understanding, if not unity., 2) exposes a lack of understanding on the questioner’s part about those he/she is questioning, as evidenced by some of the OP’s questions, as well as the hypothetical protestant one I posed.
In honesty, I do want the OP to respond back to my answers. And I don’t want Needtostop to feel like we are judging him/her. Being new to the forum, these may be honest questions poorly phrased. :shrug:
Who put these questions together?
Its a doc file, so I’m assuming the OP.
I did not mean to sound rude or combative posting this thread. I apologize if people took it that way.
No problem. Its good you are here at CAF. Did I answer your questions in my previous post?
They are from a talk by John Martinnoni. He runs biblechristiansociety.com
This is how he phrased them, so that’s how I put them. I didn’t realized that they way that are asked upsets people and I apologize.
Hi. I think it is more of a matter of how to use this Forum effectively. You have attached a file which is filled with lots of questions. Thus it appears combative, as if you are not really interested in answers. I am sure you don’t mean it that way.
Topics like by faith alone, Baptism and altar call (a Protestant belief) are huge topics by themselves that you can start a thread each on them, for example. Perhaps you can do that.
There are many non-Catholic posters here who have been participating in the Forum for quite a while already, and some of them are able to give good input to your questions. Not to mention that they have carried themselves quite respectably too. It would be really a disservice for us Catholics if we come up and appear to be lacking in patience and scholarly finesse in posing our argument with them.
Probably it is in this aspect that your naming of the thread is not very appropriate. I would not hold it against you but like I said, you could have compartmentalized your questions more specifically and you’ll probably get more fruitful discussion.
Just my two cents.