Questions For Protestants

[Seek]

Here are some questions from one of my favorite websites (catholicoutlook.com). Protestants, please respond.

Some Tough Questions for “Bible Christians”

By Steve Ray

(Edited by Gary Hoge)

Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

Where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down?

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

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

Protestants claim that St. Paul categorically 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)?

If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God’s Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?

Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?

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

On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?

Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible?

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?

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

Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?

Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?

If the books of the New Testament are “self­authenticating” 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?

If the meaning of the Bible is so clear, so easily interpreted, and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly, then why are there over 23,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?

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

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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

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?

If Christianity is a “book religion,” how did it flourish during the first 1500 years of Church history when the vast majority of people were illiterate?

How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?

If the early Church believed in sola Scriptura, why do the creeds of the early Church always say “we believe in the Holy Catholic Church,” and not “we believe in Holy Scripture”?

A Few Additional Questions from Me

By Gary Hoge

If the Bible is as clear as Martin Luther claimed, why was he the first one to interpret it the way he did?

The time interval between the Resurrection and the establishment of the New Testament canon in A.D. 382 is roughly the same as the interval between the arrival of the Mayflower in America and the present day. Therefore, since the early Christians had no defined New Testament for almost four hundred years, how did they practice sola Scriptura?

If the Bible is the only foundation and basis of Christian truth, why does the Bible itself say that the Church is the foundation and basis of Christian truth (1 Tim. 3:15)?

Jesus said that the unity of Christians would be objective evidence to the world that He had been sent by God (John 17:20-23). How can the world see an invisible “unity” that exists only in the hearts of believers?

If the unity of Christians was meant to convince the world that Jesus was sent by God, what does the ever-increasing fragmentation of Protestantism say to the world?

Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” What is the expiration date of this verse? When did it become okay not only to disobey the Church’s leaders, but to rebel against them and set up rival churches?

The Koran explicitly claims inspiration, but the New Testament books do not. How do you know that the New Testament books are nevertheless inspired, but the Koran is not?

[Robyn]

Here are some questions from one of my favorite websites (catholicoutlook.com).  Protestants, please respond.

That website wrongly presents 'protestant' beliefs.

More specifically, in his "Protestant to Catholic" story, he goes on to compare Catholic vs Protestant interpretations of the bible....these "protestant" views are generally wrong or dangerously worded. It's HIS opinion, and personally I don't buy it.

Also note that it's dangerous to shove all protestant churches in the one box.

Edited November 15, 2003 by Robyn

[Aloysius]

remember, protestantism is schismatic all over. they believe hundreds of different things. that's why no one site can really compare Catholic to Protestant.

Bible Christians are the Frogs of our day croaking in the Marsh "We are the only Christians!"

[Seek]

Robyn,

I don't think that site wrongly presents 'protestant' beliefs. As you put it... it's dangerous to shove all protestant churches in the one box. Gary Hoge was a devout Protestant and he does a fine job explaining what his beliefs were and how they changed. No single Protestant is going to be able to present 'Protestant' beliefs in such a way that all Protestants agree. I have an Aunt and Uncle that mirror most of his former Protestant beliefs. They tried to convert me on a couple occasions when I was younger. They used the same arguments Mr. Hoge is now (on his site) arguing against.

Can you give me some specifics in regards to his miss-presenting of Protestant beliefs.

Thank you and God Bless.

P.S.

I posted this on the debate forum in hopes that some Protestants would try and answer the questions. I honestly do not want to offend anyone. Especially a fellow Christian.

[ICTHUS]

I honestly do not want to offend anyone.  Especially a fellow Christian.

I see nowhere in Scripture where it says 'thou shalt not step on toes'

If protestants are offended by the truth of the Catholic faith, that's their problem, not ours.

[Katholikos]

These questions were originally formulated by an ex-Baptist, Stephen Ray, and can be found at his website, http://www.catholic-convert.com. They were modified by Gary Hoge, another former Protestant (don't know the denom), but not much. Steve is a Bible teacher and author of best-selling Catholic books and tapes. These questions certainly reflect my former beliefs, when I was a Baptist.

You've never said what denomination you are, Robyn. Did you and I missed it? Tell us the name and we could make a list of questions for your specific denomination. But with 33,820 Protestant denominations and counting, all of them conflicting and competing, it's impossible to tailor make a list of question that encompasses all of them. There are just too many brands of Protestants, too many different beliefs -- all of them absolutely true, of course -- so they each claim. They all have their "proof-texts," and all begin their sentences: "it says right here in the Bible . . ."

Peace be to you and to all.

JMJ Likos

[Robyn]

I'm pentecostal. Don't bother tailoring a list. I don't have the time to answer them.

[Paladin D]

I'm pentecostal. Don't bother tailoring a list. I don't have the time to answer them.

I was a former-Pentecostal. Yet there are many different views with Pentecostals (but most agree on certain things)

[Faithful heart]

Why don't non-Catholics ever want to answer questions about their faith? I would like to know what they believe about the topics of faith.

[Paladin D]

Why don't non-Catholics ever want to answer questions about their faith?  I would like to know what they believe about the topics of faith.

They have before, it turns into a debate. Which can be good and bad.

[Uncle Gus]

Also note that it's dangerous to shove all protestant churches in the one box.

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement?

[Unshackled]

Why don't non-Catholics ever want to answer questions about their faith?  I would like to know what they believe about the topics of faith.

From what I have read on this site, if a protestant states any belief it is immediately attacked as not being valid. This to me is contrary to the definition of the word DEBATE.

Perhaps if members of this site seriously were inquisitive about what they understand as the truth, you might listen first before the predictable attacks commence. I believe that scripture clearly states that "they will know we are Christians by our LOVE." These words also are part of a well known song sung in Catholic churches in the seventies.

:mellow:

[Paladin D]

From what I have read on this site, if a protestant states any belief it is immediately attacked as not being valid. This to me is contrary to the definition of the word DEBATE.

Perhaps if members of this site seriously were inquisitive about what they understand as the truth, you might listen first before the predictable attacks commence. I believe that scripture clearly states that "they will know we are Christians by our LOVE." These words also are part of a well known song sung in Catholic churches in the seventies.

:mellow:

Noted, some us tend to get a little jumpy at times (we all do time to time). But a debate if you read one of the definitions...

Debate: A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood.

...I highly doubt if anyone is "attacking". The problem is, we have people who either...

A) Ignore our statements or not answering our questions, thus making us a little fusterated. Especially when the "Protestant" (not being used offensively) repeats his/herself over and over, ignoring some very valid points being made by other posters.

B) Sometimes they take it was an "attack". Even though it may be not (and most of the time, it isn't).

C) Some Protestants join the forum and make statements about our own faith, (example: We worship Mary as a goddess) and claim they know more about our very own faith.

D) The Debate forum includes debating religious beliefs. If you post something that is related to what you personally believe, it will get questioned. We believe that we have the fullness of Truth, thus if we see an inaccuracy, we're gonna try our hardest to point it out! Backing it up with Scripture, Tradition, Church Fathers, and History.

Edited November 17, 2003 by Paladin D

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Here we go two stepping again..

Prots never want to answer the questions we give them simply because that would take admitting their wrong and their faith is baseless.

From what I have read on this site, if a protestant states any belief it is immediately attacked as not being valid. This to me is contrary to the definition of the word DEBATE.

Perhaps if members of this site seriously were inquisitive about what they understand as the truth, you might listen first before the predictable attacks commence. I believe that scripture clearly states that "they will know we are Christians by our LOVE." These words also are part of a well known song sung in Catholic churches in the seventies.

UnShackeled..most of us here were once Prots, we dont need to hear the falseness of their believes, were already aware of them. And on top of that, 9 times out of 10 you dont see a Prot simply stating their belief without a reference to Catholics and Hell in the same sentence.

Those were valid questions that were stated above. It typical prot'ness to turn a blind eye at them and say "I dont have time to answer them" But yet they have time to browse this phorum and comment in other area's..

Did you take lessons to learn that two step or did your pastors teach ya?

CatholicAndFanatical

[Undercover]

Unshackled had a good point, and I agree. You're not going to be able to use your intellect to convert anyone to Catholicism or more generally Christianity without love. Let love be your starting point, then education if necessary.

Yes, "prots" don't typically like to answer questions like that, but then I could probably devise a list of questions that the average Catholic woulnd't want to answer either (although you super-intellectual phatmassers would love it!). It's not a question of faith, or even being right, but of education, which I believe can be a misdirection. Someone who is highly intellectual and skilled at debating can tear down even a very sound argument.

Oh, and the use of rhetorical questions in that list above is classic.

"Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?". hah!

[marielapin]

Oh, and the use of rhetorical questions in that list above is classic.

"Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?". hah!

Ok, here's a more direct version of that question: Where did Jesus teach that the Bible would sufficient in and of itself? i.e. where did Jesus teach Sola Scriptora?

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Whether its a classic question or not is not important, its still a valid question and, when and if its ever answered, will weaken the erroneous armor in the prot churchs and belief. But not just this question, all of them above are great questions that are worthy of answering.

Cant speak for everyone, but I would be happy if just one question would be answered from above.

But I wont hold my breathe.

CatholicAndFanatical

[Undercover]

Where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down?

Well, Jesus may not have told them, but ...

Rev. 1:10,11 - John was told by the Spirit to write to the Churches.

1 Cor. 14:37

36

Did the word of God go forth from you? Or has it come to you alone?

37

If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or a spiritual person, he should recognize that what I am writing to you is a commandment of the Lord.

38

If anyone does not acknowledge this, he is not acknowledged.

(NAB)

I'm sure I could probably use 1. Cor 4:6 too, but I'm not sure that it would be in the correct context..

..however, 2 Cor. 3:2,3,4 seem to disprove the notion of "Sola Scriptora" (which I don't agree with either, there is more than JUST the Bible.. like how about a relationship with God and fellowship with other believers?)

Not sure this answers the question or clears up anything, but it's interesting.

Edited November 17, 2003 by Undercover

[Seek]

Well, Jesus may not have told them, but ...

Rev. 1:10,11 - John was told by the Spirit to write to the Churches.

Well done, undercover.

Though if you read on I think you will see that it is inDouche Jesus telling St. John to write down what he sees.

12: Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands,

13: and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast;

14: his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire,

15: his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters;

16: in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.

17: When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last,

18: and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

19: Now write what you see, what is and what is to take place hereafter.

I don't see the same thing in the other passages you quoted however. They appear to be claiming that the specific thing written is a command of the Lord not that the Lord commanded the writing of the thing.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

[CatholicAndFanatical]

sure he might of said write these things down, but for who to read? Laymen or clergy?

Most people couldnt even read or write and they relied on the CHURCH to hear the teachings, it was only the Church that taught, not an individual doing his own interpretation.

But the question still stands, so Jesus said write what John saw down, but that in no where says that people should only believe what John was writting down and nothing else, meaning Sola Scriptura.

Even at the End of John's Gospel it states that not everything is written in this Book, we should rely on Sacred Tradition to learn more from the Apostles and Christs Church.

CatholicAndFanatical