I registered to the Catholic Answers forum...

[Confessor]

I thought I'd tell ya guys.

"Confessor" was taken to my chagrin, so I took the tag "Confessor01."

The ignorance of many people there is saddening. They understand that Protestantism is their enemy, but many understand "Protestantism" to be broad evangelicalism rather than any resemblance of Reformed confessionalism. So, their ignorance in that respect is mitigated to some degree.

But nonetheless, I have found the debates so far to be easy. I'll be sure to ask on this forum if I come across a more difficult argument, probably one that has to do with Church history or patristics.

 

[charliejunfan]

sweet

 

[Jake]

I've considered joining before, as they do allow Protestants there. However, I have felt like I'll have trouble keeping a Christlike attitude if I am there to debate, without humility. However, I may be more mature now and be able to.

 

[Confessor]

I've considered joining before, as they do allow Protestants there. However, I have felt like I'll have trouble keeping a Christlike attitude if I am there to debate, without humility. However, I may be more mature now and be able to.

Yeah, that is one thing I am keeping a huge check on. If I find myself being angry in my replies, then I am simply not going to reply, because my emotions will likely show through my posts.

Or at least, that's my rule for now. By God's grace I'll actually follow it.

 

[AThornquist]

Good on you, Ben. Hopefully the dialogue will be beneficial to the saints. The only time I registered to a forum to talk to Catholics was last year in late October to wish the Catholics Happy Reformation Day and to thank God that He was faithful to bring the truth of Rome's abominations to light. Maybe that wasn't so edifying.

 

[matt01]

Why?

 

[Confessor]

Why?

Good question.

To let them know what Reformed theology is. Most of them there, from what I have seen, think that the "sinner's prayer" is a hallmark of Protestant orthodoxy.

 

[SolaGratia]

They understand that Protestantism is their enemy, but many understand "Protestantism" to be broad evangelicalism rather than any resemblance of Reformed confessionalism.

Don't you think that the Papist (and others) understanding of what true Protestantism really is has to do in part with us (Reformed) as well?

Thanks for being a very needed advocate for the Reformed Faith.

 

[Confessor]

Don't you think that the Papist (and others) understanding of what true Protestantism really is has to do in part with us (Reformed) as well?

Yes, you're absolutely right. Part of the reason that Catholicism can be so rampant today is because the Reformed faith has not made itself conspicuous enough.

 

[SolaGratia]

Agreed.

To the Papist, the World, etc. This is who we are, This is what we believed according to the Scriptures as found in our Reformed Confessions, such as the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity.

 

[ExGentibus]

One of the first things you will probably have to deal with is their understanding of Sola Scriptura as "me and my Bible," and the whole "the RCC gave you your Bible" argument on the canon.

 

[Confessor]

One of the first things you will probably have to deal with is their understanding of Sola Scriptura as "me and my Bible," and the whole "the RCC gave you your Bible" argument on the canon.

Yes, I have seen that already. But thus far I have not been able to counter it. I plan on making a thread sometime that differentiates the two. It won't be a full-fledged defense of sola Scriptura, but it will make note of the distinction.

 

[Josiah]

Why?

Good question.

To let them know what Reformed theology is. Most of them there, from what I have seen, think that the "sinner's prayer" is a hallmark Protestant orthodoxy.

Have you read Deconstructing Evangelicalism by D.G. Hart? He points out in the book, need to Identify ourselves as Confessional Protestants as opposed to Evangelicals (echoing the sentiments of CVT). He also points out in the book that before the rise of the Neo-Evengelical movement in the 40's , American Protestants were identified by their Denominational affiliation. Since the 40's however, we have all been lumped together in one unhelpful mass by Christians and unbelievers alike (called Evangelicalism) and he advocates that we shouldnt allow ourselves as (Confessional Protestants) to be lumped into it.

 

[Confessor]

Josiah,

No, I have not read that. But that seems to nicely recap what has occurred. Think of how many people today refuse to be "labeled"? They think it's divisive to be denominational, etc. This is all due to a complete ignorance of Biblical teaching which is simply disgusting.

 

[historyb]

I thought I'd tell ya guys.

"Confessor" was taken to my chagrin, so I took the tag "Confessor01."

The ignorance of many people there is saddening. They understand that Protestantism is their enemy, but many understand "Protestantism" to be broad evangelicalism rather than any resemblance of Reformed confessionalism. So, their ignorance in that respect is mitigated to some degree.

But nonetheless, I have found the debates so far to be easy. I'll be sure to ask on this forum if I come across a more difficult argument, probably one that has to do with Church history or patristics.

I am on their too, every once in a while I'll go back and get into a thread. Same user name, well I use that user name all over

 

[Reformed Thomist]

Have you heard the one about Sola Scriptura being a self-refuting principle yet?

Or how about the Epistle of James debunking Sola Fide?

 

[Confessor]

Have you heard the one about Sola Scriptura being a self-refuting principle yet?

Or how about the Epistle of James debunking Sola Fide?

Yes to both. I have basically refuted the latter thus far.

Right now I'm having to defend the charge that the Bible can't be infallible because an "infallible text" is a category mistake.

 

[dudley]

To Ben, Confessor

From: Dudley

Ben, you said "Yes, you're absolutely right. Part of the reason that Catholicism can be so rampant today is because the Reformed faith has not made itself conspicuous enough."

Please remember that I am an ex Roman catholic and now a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian. They the Roman Catholics do an excellent job of publicizing Protestant conversions to Roman Catholicism which in reality are very few. However we Protestants do not do the same job publicizing ex Roman Catholics like myself who have become true Protestants with Reformation conviction.There are actually 15 million ex Roman Catholics like myself in the last 2 decades who have left Roman Catholicism and become Protestants. Type in Roman catholic conversion to Protestant on Google and the only stories that come up are Protestant conversion to Roman catholic. however type in Dudley Davis reformed Presbyterian Protestant or Presbyterian Protestant and you will see my testimony and stories all over the Internet. It is why I am so outspoken now a s a Reformed Protestant and Presbyterian. Also please remember that Roman Catholics wrongly use the term catholic and it is a mistake, they a re Roman Catholics. I stress I left Roman Catholicism and renounced the Roman pope and the church of Rome as did Calvin and all the reformers. if you have any questions please feel free to write me immediately for any assistance and and i will try to write you back for any help I might be able to offer.

In grace,
Dudley

 

[Philip]

Go for it, Ben! Show'em who's really catholic!

 

[A.J.]

Don't you think that the Papist (and others) understanding of what true Protestantism really is has to do in part with us (Reformed) as well?

Thanks for being a very needed advocate for the Reformed Faith.

Another reason I can think of would probably be the small number of Reformed believers and churches in predominantly Roman Catholic areas. In my country where there is a Roman Catholic majority, the word "Protestant" for instance is in many cases identified not with the Reformed but with mainline liberal groups.

In recent years, some Roman Catholic scholars here have published tracts and books attempting to discredit the Protestant Reformation. Their writings, however, does show that it is modern evangelicalism that they are actually attacking, not historic and confessional Protestantism.

A big problem with our situation here is that the bigger Reformed denominations are Reformed in name only. They have largely become broadly evangelical and/or liberal in many of their positions. Good Reformed churches are very few.

 

[dr_parsley]

Josiah,

No, I have not read that. But that seems to nicely recap what has occurred. Think of how many people today refuse to be "labeled"? They think it's divisive to be denominational, etc. This is all due to a complete ignorance of Biblical teaching which is simply disgusting.

With respect, disgust seems an odd response to ignorance, to say the least. How does that work?

 

[Confessor]

however type in Dudley Davis reformed Presbyterian Protestant or Presbyterian Protestant and you will see my testimony and stories all over the Internet.

I was wondering why you often introduced yourself in that way. It makes sense now.

if you have any questions please feel free to write me immediately for any assistance and and i will try to write you back for any help I might be able to offer.

Thank you! I probably will.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 09:18:00 EST-----

Josiah,

No, I have not read that. But that seems to nicely recap what has occurred. Think of how many people today refuse to be "labeled"? They think it's divisive to be denominational, etc. This is all due to a complete ignorance of Biblical teaching which is simply disgusting.

With respect, disgust seems an odd response to ignorance, to say the least. How does that work?

There is such a thing as culpable ignorance. People ought to read their Bibles.

Or, if nothing else, people ought to know that there are disagreements in Christianity. From what I have seen most people favor a "don't label me", non-divisive disposition because they don't even know what they would disagree with. Not many professing Christians even know what Calvinism is.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 09:32:27 EST-----

Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith?

 

[Confessor]

Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith?

...

 

[P.F.]

"There is such a thing as culpable ignorance. People ought to read their Bibles."

Juxtaposed so closely with

"Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith? "

seems a bit striking.

I don't mean to offend, and yet I feel compelled to suggest that you take a little bit of a break from engaging in contra-Romanist apologetics and read up on the historical defenses of the faith against the errors of Rome.

If you should decide to ignore my suggestion, the most obvious place to look for the verses you need is James' remarks about the relation of faith and works. But I will be blunt - there are some sharp Romanists out there and if you have not properly grounded yourself in the Word, you risk being torn to shreds (or at least of appearing to be torn to shreds to those whom you are seeking to convert). You need to know not only what the verses are, but what the traditional Romanist response is, and what the rebuttal to that response is if you want to be fully armed.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

But I will be blunt - there are some sharp Romanists out there and if you have not properly grounded yourself in the Word, you risk being torn to shreds (or at least of appearing to be torn to shreds to those whom you are seeking to convert). You need to know not only what the verses are, but what the traditional Romanist response is, and what the rebuttal to that response is if you want to be fully armed.

Or at least have read the pre-Trent Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott.

AMR

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Don't you think that the Papist (and others) understanding of what true Protestantism really is has to do in part with us (Reformed) as well?

Yes, you're absolutely right. Part of the reason that Catholicism can be so rampant today is because the Reformed faith has not made itself conspicuous enough.

This is true, they don't know anything about reformed theology most of the time. They clump us together as a sinners prayer sort of people and don't know what makes Presbyterians different from Baptists or Pentecostals.

I just encourage you to speak in love, grace, and humility. And like Matthew says, if they hit you on the cheek, present the other.
I hope you enjoy yourself though, I gave up debating Catholics. It almost always resorts to TRADITIONTRADITIONTRADITIONTRADITIONTRADITIONTRADITIONTRADITION and so forth.

Plus, I have found this humorous although considering the massive intellect of this forum you already know this argument.

Me: "What's wrong with Sola Scriptura?
Catholic: "Fallible man, interpreting infallible Scripture."
Me: "Why is the pope infallible?"
Catholic "*points towards that portion of Scripture*"
Me: "So, you're accusing me of incorrect interpretation when your entire system is built on interpretation?"
Catholic: "No."
Me: "wat."

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 05:44:51 EST-----

Im having to defend the charge that the Bible can't be infallible because an "infallible text" is a category mistake.

I actually left my previous forum over that argument. I was so irritated, tired, annoyed, and just angry over such a stupid and redundant argument I left. And I was ironically, debating it with a Catholic.

-----Added 7/9/2009 at 05:48:55 EST-----

Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith?

...

Perhaps Ezekiel 36:26-27, if you see it in that sense.
James 2 (which ultimately speaks about works coming about as a product of faith, not saving us)
You could also argue the fruits of the spirit, when acted out, are byproducts of saving faith.

 

[Confessor]

"There is such a thing as culpable ignorance. People ought to read their Bibles."

Juxtaposed so closely with

"Hey guys, what are some verses that demonstrate that good works are an effect of saving faith? "

seems a bit striking.

I don't mean to offend, and yet I feel compelled to suggest that you take a little bit of a break from engaging in contra-Romanist apologetics and read up on the historical defenses of the faith against the errors of Rome.

If you should decide to ignore my suggestion, the most obvious place to look for the verses you need is James' remarks about the relation of faith and works. But I will be blunt - there are some sharp Romanists out there and if you have not properly grounded yourself in the Word, you risk being torn to shreds (or at least of appearing to be torn to shreds to those whom you are seeking to convert). You need to know not only what the verses are, but what the traditional Romanist response is, and what the rebuttal to that response is if you want to be fully armed.

Thank you for your concern, but I am certainly able to battle Rome, by God's grace. I was simply asking for rather explicit verses that speak of works as explicitly stemming from saving faith. I have already gone in-depth in James, if you see the link I provided earlier in this thread.

 

[P.F.]

"Thank you for your concern, but I am certainly able to battle Rome, by God's grace."

My wish is not for you to avoid battle but to enter it well armed. At least check out Bullinger's Decades, Volume 1, 1st Decade, Semon VI, on Justification by Faith ( The decades of Henry Bullinger ) and from the Sermons/Homilies annexed to the 39th Articles, Book 1, Homilies 4 and 5 (Of the true and lively Faith and Of Good Works) ascribed, I believe, to Cranmer ( Sermons or homilies appointed to be read in churches in the time of Queen Elizabeth of famous memory, to which are annexed The Thirty-nine articles of the United Church of England and Ireland, and the constitutions and canons ecclesiastical ).

Maybe one of the folks more experienced in responding to Romanist views than myself can point out some even better short works on Justification.

 

[Hebrew Student]

Hey Everyone!

You need to know not only what the verses are, but what the traditional Romanist response is, and what the rebuttal to that response is if you want to be fully armed.

I agree that you need to know what the scriptures are, but it seems to me a bit burdensome to learn all of those responses. What I did [and it has worked well for me] is learn how to do exegesis, and learn other languages than Greek and Hebrew. When you start doing that, you begin to see how meaning in language works. This will enable you to see the weaknesses in Roman Catholic interpretations.

The reason I say that is because, when I have done this in my dialogues with Roman Catholics, I have unfailingly seen how they insert things into the text out of the blue. I'll never forget the first time I heard a Roman Catholic say that the phrase "God my savior" in Luke 1:47 meant that God saved Mary from falling into the pit of original sin. Of course, no first century Jew would have ever viewed God as savior in that way, and worse, the Mary's Magnificat very clearly has parallels to Hannah's song in 1 Samuel 2. In other words, the language of the Magnificat already had a long history in Jewish literature by the time Mary said it [in fact, if I recall correctly, there is a Psalm that picks up on this langauge as well]. However, the idea that Hannah was speaking of being saved in the sense of not falling into a pit of original sin is absolutely absurd.

I don't know what it is. I have come to the conclusion that conservative Roman Catholics can't do exegesis, because they already have their exegetical conclusions handed to them by the Papal decrees and ecumenical councils. Yes, it is important to be able to interact with historical arguments, but you can't take them for granted! It almost seems like, with these guys, if you lived before 500 A.D., you were an infallible exegete.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[ZackF]

I thought I'd tell ya guys.

"Confessor" was taken to my chagrin, so I took the tag "Confessor01."

The ignorance of many people there is saddening. They understand that Protestantism is their enemy, but many understand "Protestantism" to be broad evangelicalism rather than any resemblance of Reformed confessionalism. So, their ignorance in that respect is mitigated to some degree.

But nonetheless, I have found the debates so far to be easy. I'll be sure to ask on this forum if I come across a more difficult argument, probably one that has to do with Church history or patristics.

Good luck.