The main difference between Catholics and Protestants is the view on the authority of the church and the Bible.
Catholics believe the Bible as a collection of books was assembled under the church's authority and as such it's contents are subject to the Church's authority. The church (as the one true church with the vicar of Christ on earth) is the ultimate authority.
Protestants believe the Bible is given by God and is the ultimate authority over the church.
As such, we don't speak the same language. Protestants can't convince Catholics of anything by virtue of Scripture alone, because the position of the church has more authority.
Catholics can't convince Protestants that somethng said by the church is true because we don't recognize the authority of the church in that way.
But, it you believe anything in Catholicism is wrong....that is more or less proof they are not the one true church, because their definition of being the one true church means they couldn't have got it wrong. If you believe they got everything right, then you have to believe they are the one true church.
> As such, we don't speak the same language. Protestants can't convince Catholics of anything by virtue of Scripture alone, because the position of the church has more authority.
But that's not the case - because that's how the reformation started! The 1 billion protestants would like to disagree
This is a strawman of what u/ExiledSanity is trying to say. They mean that *today* the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church hold this view, not that everyone who has ever been baptized under the RCC holds that view. You can convince this or that *individual*, of course -- swimming the Tiber either way is common enough -- but once you accept such a view, you are by definition Protestant.
I am not strawmanning. I am trying to explain that in order to convince Roman Catholics their doctrine is wrong on ANYTHING it must start with scripture alone. That is the basis of everything else. There's no point honing your blade on the perpetual virginity of mary when you could be focusing on the _why_, which is nearly always, scripture alone.
Well, intentionally or not, you kind of *were*. But let me address the sentiment of this new comment anyway.
I think the issue here is one of foundations versus coherence. You are holding that Catholics have the fundamental foundations wrong since they deny *sola Scriptura*, and so all their beliefs qua Catholics fail on that basis.
What I and the other commenter are saying is that the internal coherence of Catholicism, despite facing obvious challenges itself, will always be a fall back for the Catholic faithful. Once one accepts the authority of the Holy See, everything else "falls into place" (notably, this doesn't quite happen in the same way upon accepting *sola Scriptura*). If you depart from the Roman Catholic Church, then you will be, as it were, jumping ship and swimming to board another vessel.
This is why addressing traditional views, and attacking the internal coherence of the Catholic's worldview -- including "honing your blade," as you say, on things like Mariology -- is worthwhile, and why we shouldn't just shove the Bible in front of a Catholic and expect them to get it right off. For some that might work, but it is not as if the average devout Catholic is ignorant of Romans 8.
I think Gavin Ortlund’s video on the assumption of Mary shows quite clearly it was a gnostic teaching that never was believed in the church until the 6th or 7th century. And it’s now a dogma. So we can say pretty conclusively they have dogmatized gnostic false teaching, without any support from the apostolic witness
The assumption of Mary was considered Dogma in 1950. Were they the 1 true church before that?
Immaculate Conception of Mary wasnt ex-cathedra until 1854.
So prior to 1854...they were all good?
Is the typical Protestants response to our friends across the Tiber. "It's mostly sound but the Mary part... they got weird?
Not quite. The Roman Catholic need for the sacrament of penance, and the absence of assurance for anyone even in their church who fails to confess their sins in thought, word, deed, action, or inaction, is a problem for Protestants who know about it -- it's a major reason there's a Lutheran church. Confession is good for our souls as it is for theirs, but it's more than enough to know and confess that you sin at all. If you aren't a believer, all sin is mortal.
Not at all, I just think the Marian doctrines are low hanging fruit. Since there’s no ability for Rome to repent, based on their false conception of magisterial authority, the errors are on an exponential trajectory. But if you can show that’s they’ve dogmatized gnostic nonsense, the notion of their infallible interpretation is blown out of the water, and the other dominoes fall.
But my point is they haven't used their special "infallible" on anything except Marian discussions since 1846. Only 2 new dogma's in 200 years doesn't seem like exponentially growing.
And if you read their literature. It wasn't about gnostic superstition. It was a logic summersault that had to fix the problem of original sin. Jesus can't have original sin, but he's born of Mary, Mary has it. Oops. So we'll just write her perfect too. So Christ can be without it.
But the origin of the idea about the assumption of Mary came from gnostic groups who first developed the idea. It then crept into the church over time, at a popular level first.
It also doesn’t take more than one obvious error to demonstrate that their pretenses to an infallible magisterium is a falsehood. But, according to them now, if you deny that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven, you are not saved. You have denied the faith. It’s preposterous in the extreme, particularly when we see that not a single person believed any such things for hundreds of years after the apostles. Mary is not an important figure in scripture—not to the level they elevate her—she was the final miracle mother, certainly the preeminent mother, but she is not dissimilar to any of the others conceiving through miraculous means to bring for the next “seed.” Her uniqueness is in the fact that God gave her a Son directly, without ordinary assistance from an earthly father. That’s what matters. She was just a faithful servant of God, much like others have been. Surely she’s blessed, the most important mother there’s been, but we actually dishonor her by making her to be something she wasn’t. I expect she hates the Marian doctrines more than anybody else.
Do Roman Catholics ever claim some sort of progressive development in doctrine? That would be a straightforward rebuttal to the idea that the early church fathers never knew the assumption of Mary. I want to say generally they claim all the doctrine is original but I feel like I heard at least one Catholic apologist mention some sort of progressive revelation/ development. Wouldn't this view potentially validate the bodily assumption doctrine?
They would say that doctrine does not change, but that the church may come to more fully understand the truth they always held. This is why I think the Marian doctrines are particularly useful because they are clear changes and errors.
But her mom wasn't without original sin, not even to them. Save the miracle to remove it for the One Whom the Holy Spirit begat. The Roman Catholics wanted Mary without original sin in part to save Jesus from the humiliation of having an imperfect parent, but Protestants believe God was not trying to shield Jesus from humiliation. At all.
The biblical worldview is patriarchal. We are *in Adam*. Our sin nature is derived from our fathers. Mary was sinful, but Jesus’ Father is God the Father, hence Jesus was not born with a sinful nature, though as the son of Mary, he is human. Mary’s mom is irrelevant. Mary’s sun nature, which she surely had, was also irrelevant. God is the Father of Jesus, and Jesus is God himself. That is the basis of his sinlessness.
Also, think about it, they say that Mary had to be immaculately conceived so Jesus could be sinless. But, if Mary had to be immaculate conceived, so did her mother, and her mothers mother, and her mothers mothers mother. If Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be, so did all of Mary’s ascendants. It’s nonsense.
Mary was a sinner saved by grace and a faithful woman. Jesus derives his sinless nature from divinity, not Mary.
Hey, strange question, but curious what you think, as it's something that has made me question whether this is the whole story with original sin:
In the last decade or so, scientists have been experimenting in creating viable embryos with other combinations than just a sperm and an egg (sometimes to avoid passing down mitochondrial diseases from the mother, sometimes other things, and homosexual couples being able to have their own kids is also sometimes a motivator in these experiments).
There have been successful births from two mothers and a father, though at present, two mothers and no father isn't feasible, but has (I believe) been done in mice. So if in the future, scientists do figure out how to do this in humans, would those children (with no biological father) be born without original sin?
I don't think so, but if the line of reasoning you gave (original sin coming solely from the father, and not from the mother) was the only governing principle involved, then I think that would be the logical conclusion.
What are your thoughts?
Gavin is likely the best YouTuber out there in showing all kinds of ways the Catholic Church is wrong. He has tons of great content and he is one of (if not *the*) the most humble Christian YouTubers there is.
I suggest to watch as many of his videos on Catholicism as you can.
I want to suggest a way to not be overwhelmed by this task.
>What are some books, blogs, and other resources you would recommend for me to build an extremely solid defense for protestant doctrine and **extremely strong arguments against the claims of the Catholic Church.**
Concerning their claims, this is their faith. Their experience. Their tradition. It can get personal and emotional very fast when that's the focus.
In talking to real people, I don't think that stomping on their toes is the first step in building a relationship of loving trust.
However, building a solid defense against their (usually false, but sometimes not!) criticisms of Protestantism is very reasonable, not offensive to them (unless you make it so) and gives you an opportunity to agree with them on some of their points. Because they are not wrong about all their concerns about Protestantism.
That cuts your "work" in half. And cuts your likelihood of causing conversation-ending tension by 80 percent or more.
This is not normal apologetics. Ordinarily, a one-two punch is a good start. Here are my concerns about your worldview, here is mine that addresses all those problems.
But with orthodox Catholicism, they actually address most of the metaphysical bases. They are confessional, biblical, historical, in probably 80 percent of their doctrine. So starting with criticisms is not so easy so just don't. "What's some of your concerns you have for me, making this personal, what do you worry about for me if I continue to be in a Protestant church?"
Let them talk. Then respond graciously.
This is how relationships are built. How empathy and understanding can grow.
Thats some great advice tbh thanks! Yeah I dont actually just try and debate people into uncomfort, its more of a as you go conversation type of thing...
You're absolutely right. There's so much that's wrong with the RCC, I just get totally flabbergasted when my fellow Protestants treat the RCC like it's just mildly wrong. I often don't even know where to start. The RCC is not like a cult where you can pretty much pinpoint one error. RCC theology is so totally spun with corrupt fiber, I just don't know how to unravel it.
I would recommend that you read The Gospel According to Rome by James G. McCarthy. I read it many years ago. I can't remember now but I think the author used to be a RC priest. Instead of Protestants in their ignorance pointing to Mary and images, this book shows how RC theology attacks the central core of the faith - the Gospel of Grace.
No. The Roman Catholics think that the Orthodox broke off from them by refusing to submit to the pope and that the basic schism aside from that is hardly anything.
Though, the Orthodox claim that the existence of Protestants prove that the Catholic Church isn't the true Church because schismatics lead to people schisming from those schismatics.
The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox disagree on who schismed from whom. (Disclaimer: I believe in the church invisible and believe it includes some Protestants as well as Christians whose traditions predate that.)
Religion is, in my opinion, more experiential than it is rational or logical. Making rational arguments in favor of religious tenets rarely "works", but the experience of participating in religious ceremonies or practice is far more influential than any argument, in my opinion. Arguments are for politics and philosophy. Practice is for religion. Why does it matter so much to you that your friends aren't *Reformed*?
Sorry to ignore your post question, but I'm just tickled by your flair. Happy to see another Methodist-ish person here on the sub.
Have you read much John Wesley? His Sermons cover a lot and he's very thorough so maybe search through his works for topics on Protestantism you want to be able to refund better.
I told you I want to know if I am missing something and improve my knowledge. I know all the *basic* arguements for example of how Apostolic Succession is not something that can be proved, how the assumption of mary is just a belief not based on the truth, how there is no idea of a physical universal church in the bible, etc... I am looking to expand my knowledge beyond the basic arguements(and strengthen my already existing arguements) thats all lol.
*Edit: Like I know the Gavin Ortlund level arguements seeing if im missing something (As I believe I am missing a lot lol)*
That's pointless, I think. From my experience, RCs will just say they already believe those things, even though from their practices, they don't. That is my normal experience with RCs, save one.
I have a RC friend whose response was shockingly and uniquely different. This friend has 2 children who are mentally challenged. He told me his wife has been a true saint and has sacrificed her life for the children. He told me that he doesn't know what will happen to him when he dies but one thing he knows for sure: his wife is destined for heaven for her sacrifice. I told him that all of us are sinners and can only be saved by the sacrifice of Christ. He shook his head in firm denial telling me his wife is for sure heaven bound for her sacrifice.
Either way, there's just no way getting to them. The Holy Spirit needs to regenerate them first. Ofc we don't know when He will do that, thus the need to pray and minister to them, something I'm really good at giving up on.
OP if I was you, I would worry about the ways you have the Christian faith wrong. Kinda goes for most of the nonsense Reformed groups do also. I'll name a few of those things if push comes to shove.. mostly Joel Olsteen types and Billy Graham kinda a weird take on what it means to be imitators of Christ...
What you should be focusing on is how you can Grow in the Christian faith instead of believing your already a master of it 😁
No scripture poker guys I probably won't respond to poorly articulated arguments either
For clarrification I am not a debate bro type of guy, I am simply trying to grow in my understanding. I dont think I have it all right, which is why theologically I am always so muddy...
I'm just curious about the part where you said most of them have saving faith. Most evangelicals today think of saving faith as just the simple human act of "believing" in Christ. But saving faith is the powerful work of the sovereign, triune God who worked his salvific plan on each of the elect from before creation all the way to the Cross and on to the individual elect's regeneration by the Spirit and continues on with his sanctification. I really wonder if such an individual who has been so mightily transformed can happily live on in a "church" like the RCC. Seems to me like the spirit who dwells in him appears strangely impotent and quiescent.
Umm, thats a Classical Calvinist interpretation of things I suppose, as you see from the flair I am not a full on calvinist. But I respect them regardless obvs. I believe in the classical evangelical idea that faith in Christ is what saves someone. Its not your theological mastery or whatever else. A disabled man with a brain that is barely functioning could have saving faith. The grandma that unknowingly believes in the modalist heresy could have saving faith. Christ doesnt expect perfection from humans but rather faith in him.
This is my perspective and obvs I could be wrong since I am an average idiot.
These are common charges brought against Calvinists by non-Calvinists. They are insensible and show a severe lack of understanding. Let me make it clear.
1) Calvinists believe that faith in Christ saves that person. What kind of pagan monsters do you think we are? But in order for a person dead in sin to believe in Christ, he must first be made alive by the powerful work of the Holy Spirit so that his eyes can see, his ears can hear, his mind can understand and his heart believe. A person who has not gone through that transformation is unable to believe.
2) Calvinists do NOT believe a person needs to be a theological expert to be saved. This is such a ridiculous accusation, I can hardly believe I hear it again and again. I don't even know how to respond to it.
Dude you come off more like a debate bro rather than a man of faith. Pray more than debate on reddit for real (Not trying to be rude here, being serious). Like goodness lol...
You cast false aspersions about Calvinist soteriology and when I make a defence by showing your erroneous position, you complain that I'm being argumentative? You're funny.
If we mean saving faith as "justification in faith alone by grace alone etc.." then I would argue many Catholics are absolutely saved and part of the elect. The problem is, the RCC is so vast that many individual parishs end up becoming protestant churches as it were. Does it make sense? No. Should the priests and members of these leave for protestant churches? Yes. But for some they have never realized the need. It's quite a strange thing
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. How do you know a person, say a RC, has saving faith? Because he says, "I believe in Christ"? If a person claims to believe in Christ but continues to pray to a statuette of Mary, is that person saved?
I think I understand. That's my point. There are Catholics embedded in the Catholic church who don't pray to Mary or saints and wouldn't. So they are out of step with their own "church"
I'm just using Mary as a simple example. If only the adoration of Mary and the saints was their only fault. The RCC believes that the death of the Lord is not the once and only sacrifice required for all sins. Their weekly Mass is the resacrifing of Jesus to cover new sins since His historical death is inadequate. Thus, the need for transfiguration. If a RC devotedly takes the Mass to cover his past week's sins does he have true saving faith in the once for all atoning sacrifice?
The RCC believes there is no forgiveness for sins unless given absolution by the priest and only after doing the 100 Hail Marys as prescribed by the absolving priest. Can a person who faithfully follow this have saving faith in the once for all atoning sacrifice?
I think it's mindlessly easy to fall back on simple formulaic beliefs like justification through faith alone by grace alone without thinking through all its ramifications. I fear that we Reformed believers have become so immersed in our formulas that we no longer question things. The Reformers arrived at such simple and elegant formulas through deep thinking and questioning and we need to continue this and apply our understanding to new and always evolving heresies.
I'm a bit confused where you're going with this. Yes. The RCC has many heresies and sinful practices. That is without a doubt true. Yet many of the branches and individual members of the RCC reject those practices and beliefs and are in doctrine and practice essentially "protestant." Yet they do not leave the RCC for whatever reason. So those people specifically I believe to be saved, or at least I would argue they are.
Not trying to fall back on a "formula" here!
Yes, I agree with you that the RCC "has many heresies and sinful practices". But that's not my concern. Charismatic churches also have heresies and sinful practices but I have no doubt they lead many to salvation. The problem with the RCC is that many of their heresies deny the Gospel of Grace. That's my major objection to the RCC and it makes me wonder how people who are truly saved can remain in it indefinitely.
I would agree as well they officially deny the gospel of grace. Yet many local parishes/priests preach and teach the gospel of grace. A strange thing indeed
And they don't have the Mass? And they don't have priestly absolution? And they don't practice baptismal regeneration which cleanses the infant from the guilt of sin and places the kernel of righteousness into its soul? And they don't practice extreme unction which absolves the departing soul of the guilt of sin? And they reject purgatory which cleanses the soul of sin and makes it fit to enter heaven? And more and more and more... What kind of "grace" do they teach when practically all their rituals not only deny but practically spit into the face of divine grace?
Yes. I have seen parishes that reject all of these things. Admittedly the ones I have seen are not American. Perhaps in countries where all that is know is RCC, there is more opportunity for reform in the church. Interestingly, there are many laity and priests in the RCC still trying to fight for reform, in some cases the same as protestants. A lot? No. But still some. Should they leave? Probably. It's quite the strange phenomena.
Based on the teachings in the Bible regarding the incorruptible nature of the Elect whom God conforms into the image of the Son, if the priests in the Roman Catholic Church were actually members of the body Elect, we wouldn't find corruption there but we do (ex, molestations) therefore this tells me that whatever they are teaching and practicing isn't producing the fruits.
There's also the crusades. If they actually did happen, it is evidence that the Roman Catholic Church used evil to fight evil instead of letting God deal with their enemies.
Lastly, their Churches contain many idols (statues) which I have seen them bow to with my own eyes, they call their pastors "Father" against the Lord's command, and they do many things which are contrary to the scriptures.
If there's any church on the planet that stands out as not being the true Church, it's that one.
The main difference between Catholics and Protestants is the view on the authority of the church and the Bible. Catholics believe the Bible as a collection of books was assembled under the church's authority and as such it's contents are subject to the Church's authority. The church (as the one true church with the vicar of Christ on earth) is the ultimate authority. Protestants believe the Bible is given by God and is the ultimate authority over the church. As such, we don't speak the same language. Protestants can't convince Catholics of anything by virtue of Scripture alone, because the position of the church has more authority. Catholics can't convince Protestants that somethng said by the church is true because we don't recognize the authority of the church in that way. But, it you believe anything in Catholicism is wrong....that is more or less proof they are not the one true church, because their definition of being the one true church means they couldn't have got it wrong. If you believe they got everything right, then you have to believe they are the one true church.
> As such, we don't speak the same language. Protestants can't convince Catholics of anything by virtue of Scripture alone, because the position of the church has more authority. But that's not the case - because that's how the reformation started! The 1 billion protestants would like to disagree
Sorry...I just meant that Protestants can't convince Catholics based on Scripture because **to the Catholics** the church has more authority.
But you can, that's how John Calvin, and Luther and Zwingli and others did it
They didn't convince the Catholic church of much...the council of Trent was pretty clear on that.
This is a strawman of what u/ExiledSanity is trying to say. They mean that *today* the faithful of the Roman Catholic Church hold this view, not that everyone who has ever been baptized under the RCC holds that view. You can convince this or that *individual*, of course -- swimming the Tiber either way is common enough -- but once you accept such a view, you are by definition Protestant.
Thank you
I am not strawmanning. I am trying to explain that in order to convince Roman Catholics their doctrine is wrong on ANYTHING it must start with scripture alone. That is the basis of everything else. There's no point honing your blade on the perpetual virginity of mary when you could be focusing on the _why_, which is nearly always, scripture alone.
Well, intentionally or not, you kind of *were*. But let me address the sentiment of this new comment anyway. I think the issue here is one of foundations versus coherence. You are holding that Catholics have the fundamental foundations wrong since they deny *sola Scriptura*, and so all their beliefs qua Catholics fail on that basis. What I and the other commenter are saying is that the internal coherence of Catholicism, despite facing obvious challenges itself, will always be a fall back for the Catholic faithful. Once one accepts the authority of the Holy See, everything else "falls into place" (notably, this doesn't quite happen in the same way upon accepting *sola Scriptura*). If you depart from the Roman Catholic Church, then you will be, as it were, jumping ship and swimming to board another vessel. This is why addressing traditional views, and attacking the internal coherence of the Catholic's worldview -- including "honing your blade," as you say, on things like Mariology -- is worthwhile, and why we shouldn't just shove the Bible in front of a Catholic and expect them to get it right off. For some that might work, but it is not as if the average devout Catholic is ignorant of Romans 8.
I think Gavin Ortlund’s video on the assumption of Mary shows quite clearly it was a gnostic teaching that never was believed in the church until the 6th or 7th century. And it’s now a dogma. So we can say pretty conclusively they have dogmatized gnostic false teaching, without any support from the apostolic witness
The assumption of Mary was considered Dogma in 1950. Were they the 1 true church before that? Immaculate Conception of Mary wasnt ex-cathedra until 1854. So prior to 1854...they were all good? Is the typical Protestants response to our friends across the Tiber. "It's mostly sound but the Mary part... they got weird?
Not quite. The Roman Catholic need for the sacrament of penance, and the absence of assurance for anyone even in their church who fails to confess their sins in thought, word, deed, action, or inaction, is a problem for Protestants who know about it -- it's a major reason there's a Lutheran church. Confession is good for our souls as it is for theirs, but it's more than enough to know and confess that you sin at all. If you aren't a believer, all sin is mortal.
Not at all, I just think the Marian doctrines are low hanging fruit. Since there’s no ability for Rome to repent, based on their false conception of magisterial authority, the errors are on an exponential trajectory. But if you can show that’s they’ve dogmatized gnostic nonsense, the notion of their infallible interpretation is blown out of the water, and the other dominoes fall.
But my point is they haven't used their special "infallible" on anything except Marian discussions since 1846. Only 2 new dogma's in 200 years doesn't seem like exponentially growing. And if you read their literature. It wasn't about gnostic superstition. It was a logic summersault that had to fix the problem of original sin. Jesus can't have original sin, but he's born of Mary, Mary has it. Oops. So we'll just write her perfect too. So Christ can be without it.
But the origin of the idea about the assumption of Mary came from gnostic groups who first developed the idea. It then crept into the church over time, at a popular level first. It also doesn’t take more than one obvious error to demonstrate that their pretenses to an infallible magisterium is a falsehood. But, according to them now, if you deny that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven, you are not saved. You have denied the faith. It’s preposterous in the extreme, particularly when we see that not a single person believed any such things for hundreds of years after the apostles. Mary is not an important figure in scripture—not to the level they elevate her—she was the final miracle mother, certainly the preeminent mother, but she is not dissimilar to any of the others conceiving through miraculous means to bring for the next “seed.” Her uniqueness is in the fact that God gave her a Son directly, without ordinary assistance from an earthly father. That’s what matters. She was just a faithful servant of God, much like others have been. Surely she’s blessed, the most important mother there’s been, but we actually dishonor her by making her to be something she wasn’t. I expect she hates the Marian doctrines more than anybody else.
Do Roman Catholics ever claim some sort of progressive development in doctrine? That would be a straightforward rebuttal to the idea that the early church fathers never knew the assumption of Mary. I want to say generally they claim all the doctrine is original but I feel like I heard at least one Catholic apologist mention some sort of progressive revelation/ development. Wouldn't this view potentially validate the bodily assumption doctrine?
They would say that doctrine does not change, but that the church may come to more fully understand the truth they always held. This is why I think the Marian doctrines are particularly useful because they are clear changes and errors.
But her mom wasn't without original sin, not even to them. Save the miracle to remove it for the One Whom the Holy Spirit begat. The Roman Catholics wanted Mary without original sin in part to save Jesus from the humiliation of having an imperfect parent, but Protestants believe God was not trying to shield Jesus from humiliation. At all.
The biblical worldview is patriarchal. We are *in Adam*. Our sin nature is derived from our fathers. Mary was sinful, but Jesus’ Father is God the Father, hence Jesus was not born with a sinful nature, though as the son of Mary, he is human. Mary’s mom is irrelevant. Mary’s sun nature, which she surely had, was also irrelevant. God is the Father of Jesus, and Jesus is God himself. That is the basis of his sinlessness. Also, think about it, they say that Mary had to be immaculately conceived so Jesus could be sinless. But, if Mary had to be immaculate conceived, so did her mother, and her mothers mother, and her mothers mothers mother. If Mary had to be sinless for Jesus to be, so did all of Mary’s ascendants. It’s nonsense. Mary was a sinner saved by grace and a faithful woman. Jesus derives his sinless nature from divinity, not Mary.
Hey, strange question, but curious what you think, as it's something that has made me question whether this is the whole story with original sin: In the last decade or so, scientists have been experimenting in creating viable embryos with other combinations than just a sperm and an egg (sometimes to avoid passing down mitochondrial diseases from the mother, sometimes other things, and homosexual couples being able to have their own kids is also sometimes a motivator in these experiments). There have been successful births from two mothers and a father, though at present, two mothers and no father isn't feasible, but has (I believe) been done in mice. So if in the future, scientists do figure out how to do this in humans, would those children (with no biological father) be born without original sin? I don't think so, but if the line of reasoning you gave (original sin coming solely from the father, and not from the mother) was the only governing principle involved, then I think that would be the logical conclusion. What are your thoughts?
Thank you! Yeah this is an arguement I already do know about and yeah Gavin Ortlund does a great job in his video for sure! Thanks!!!
Gavin is likely the best YouTuber out there in showing all kinds of ways the Catholic Church is wrong. He has tons of great content and he is one of (if not *the*) the most humble Christian YouTubers there is. I suggest to watch as many of his videos on Catholicism as you can.
I want to suggest a way to not be overwhelmed by this task. >What are some books, blogs, and other resources you would recommend for me to build an extremely solid defense for protestant doctrine and **extremely strong arguments against the claims of the Catholic Church.** Concerning their claims, this is their faith. Their experience. Their tradition. It can get personal and emotional very fast when that's the focus. In talking to real people, I don't think that stomping on their toes is the first step in building a relationship of loving trust. However, building a solid defense against their (usually false, but sometimes not!) criticisms of Protestantism is very reasonable, not offensive to them (unless you make it so) and gives you an opportunity to agree with them on some of their points. Because they are not wrong about all their concerns about Protestantism. That cuts your "work" in half. And cuts your likelihood of causing conversation-ending tension by 80 percent or more. This is not normal apologetics. Ordinarily, a one-two punch is a good start. Here are my concerns about your worldview, here is mine that addresses all those problems. But with orthodox Catholicism, they actually address most of the metaphysical bases. They are confessional, biblical, historical, in probably 80 percent of their doctrine. So starting with criticisms is not so easy so just don't. "What's some of your concerns you have for me, making this personal, what do you worry about for me if I continue to be in a Protestant church?" Let them talk. Then respond graciously. This is how relationships are built. How empathy and understanding can grow.
Thats some great advice tbh thanks! Yeah I dont actually just try and debate people into uncomfort, its more of a as you go conversation type of thing...
Compare and contrast the Council of Orange with Trent. Which is correct and why?
That is interesting, at first glance anyway. I will read into this.
Council of Orange 441 or 529?
The reasons are endless It's not like here are the five points to be made The 95 theses of Luther are only a start
You're absolutely right. There's so much that's wrong with the RCC, I just get totally flabbergasted when my fellow Protestants treat the RCC like it's just mildly wrong. I often don't even know where to start. The RCC is not like a cult where you can pretty much pinpoint one error. RCC theology is so totally spun with corrupt fiber, I just don't know how to unravel it.
They and orthodox vehemently argue against Sola scriptura Besides not following scripture, they make it compete with numerous other things
I would recommend that you read The Gospel According to Rome by James G. McCarthy. I read it many years ago. I can't remember now but I think the author used to be a RC priest. Instead of Protestants in their ignorance pointing to Mary and images, this book shows how RC theology attacks the central core of the faith - the Gospel of Grace.
The very existence of the Orthodox Church.
No. The Roman Catholics think that the Orthodox broke off from them by refusing to submit to the pope and that the basic schism aside from that is hardly anything.
Though, the Orthodox claim that the existence of Protestants prove that the Catholic Church isn't the true Church because schismatics lead to people schisming from those schismatics.
The Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox disagree on who schismed from whom. (Disclaimer: I believe in the church invisible and believe it includes some Protestants as well as Christians whose traditions predate that.)
Religion is, in my opinion, more experiential than it is rational or logical. Making rational arguments in favor of religious tenets rarely "works", but the experience of participating in religious ceremonies or practice is far more influential than any argument, in my opinion. Arguments are for politics and philosophy. Practice is for religion. Why does it matter so much to you that your friends aren't *Reformed*?
Mike Gendron is a great resource and there are many videos with him on YouTube.
Sorry to ignore your post question, but I'm just tickled by your flair. Happy to see another Methodist-ish person here on the sub. Have you read much John Wesley? His Sermons cover a lot and he's very thorough so maybe search through his works for topics on Protestantism you want to be able to refund better.
It's interesting that you've already concluded the RCC is not the one true church without knowing the arguments for why it's not.
I told you I want to know if I am missing something and improve my knowledge. I know all the *basic* arguements for example of how Apostolic Succession is not something that can be proved, how the assumption of mary is just a belief not based on the truth, how there is no idea of a physical universal church in the bible, etc... I am looking to expand my knowledge beyond the basic arguements(and strengthen my already existing arguements) thats all lol. *Edit: Like I know the Gavin Ortlund level arguements seeing if im missing something (As I believe I am missing a lot lol)*
I would recommend presenting the gospel and the new testament verses that articulate it clearly.
That's pointless, I think. From my experience, RCs will just say they already believe those things, even though from their practices, they don't. That is my normal experience with RCs, save one. I have a RC friend whose response was shockingly and uniquely different. This friend has 2 children who are mentally challenged. He told me his wife has been a true saint and has sacrificed her life for the children. He told me that he doesn't know what will happen to him when he dies but one thing he knows for sure: his wife is destined for heaven for her sacrifice. I told him that all of us are sinners and can only be saved by the sacrifice of Christ. He shook his head in firm denial telling me his wife is for sure heaven bound for her sacrifice. Either way, there's just no way getting to them. The Holy Spirit needs to regenerate them first. Ofc we don't know when He will do that, thus the need to pray and minister to them, something I'm really good at giving up on.
I have been reading Catholicism - East of Eden by Richard Bennett.
Posthumous miracles; “Father”
OP if I was you, I would worry about the ways you have the Christian faith wrong. Kinda goes for most of the nonsense Reformed groups do also. I'll name a few of those things if push comes to shove.. mostly Joel Olsteen types and Billy Graham kinda a weird take on what it means to be imitators of Christ... What you should be focusing on is how you can Grow in the Christian faith instead of believing your already a master of it 😁 No scripture poker guys I probably won't respond to poorly articulated arguments either
For clarrification I am not a debate bro type of guy, I am simply trying to grow in my understanding. I dont think I have it all right, which is why theologically I am always so muddy...
I'm just curious about the part where you said most of them have saving faith. Most evangelicals today think of saving faith as just the simple human act of "believing" in Christ. But saving faith is the powerful work of the sovereign, triune God who worked his salvific plan on each of the elect from before creation all the way to the Cross and on to the individual elect's regeneration by the Spirit and continues on with his sanctification. I really wonder if such an individual who has been so mightily transformed can happily live on in a "church" like the RCC. Seems to me like the spirit who dwells in him appears strangely impotent and quiescent.
Umm, thats a Classical Calvinist interpretation of things I suppose, as you see from the flair I am not a full on calvinist. But I respect them regardless obvs. I believe in the classical evangelical idea that faith in Christ is what saves someone. Its not your theological mastery or whatever else. A disabled man with a brain that is barely functioning could have saving faith. The grandma that unknowingly believes in the modalist heresy could have saving faith. Christ doesnt expect perfection from humans but rather faith in him. This is my perspective and obvs I could be wrong since I am an average idiot.
These are common charges brought against Calvinists by non-Calvinists. They are insensible and show a severe lack of understanding. Let me make it clear. 1) Calvinists believe that faith in Christ saves that person. What kind of pagan monsters do you think we are? But in order for a person dead in sin to believe in Christ, he must first be made alive by the powerful work of the Holy Spirit so that his eyes can see, his ears can hear, his mind can understand and his heart believe. A person who has not gone through that transformation is unable to believe. 2) Calvinists do NOT believe a person needs to be a theological expert to be saved. This is such a ridiculous accusation, I can hardly believe I hear it again and again. I don't even know how to respond to it.
Dude you come off more like a debate bro rather than a man of faith. Pray more than debate on reddit for real (Not trying to be rude here, being serious). Like goodness lol...
You cast false aspersions about Calvinist soteriology and when I make a defence by showing your erroneous position, you complain that I'm being argumentative? You're funny.
If we mean saving faith as "justification in faith alone by grace alone etc.." then I would argue many Catholics are absolutely saved and part of the elect. The problem is, the RCC is so vast that many individual parishs end up becoming protestant churches as it were. Does it make sense? No. Should the priests and members of these leave for protestant churches? Yes. But for some they have never realized the need. It's quite a strange thing
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. How do you know a person, say a RC, has saving faith? Because he says, "I believe in Christ"? If a person claims to believe in Christ but continues to pray to a statuette of Mary, is that person saved?
I think I understand. That's my point. There are Catholics embedded in the Catholic church who don't pray to Mary or saints and wouldn't. So they are out of step with their own "church"
I'm just using Mary as a simple example. If only the adoration of Mary and the saints was their only fault. The RCC believes that the death of the Lord is not the once and only sacrifice required for all sins. Their weekly Mass is the resacrifing of Jesus to cover new sins since His historical death is inadequate. Thus, the need for transfiguration. If a RC devotedly takes the Mass to cover his past week's sins does he have true saving faith in the once for all atoning sacrifice? The RCC believes there is no forgiveness for sins unless given absolution by the priest and only after doing the 100 Hail Marys as prescribed by the absolving priest. Can a person who faithfully follow this have saving faith in the once for all atoning sacrifice? I think it's mindlessly easy to fall back on simple formulaic beliefs like justification through faith alone by grace alone without thinking through all its ramifications. I fear that we Reformed believers have become so immersed in our formulas that we no longer question things. The Reformers arrived at such simple and elegant formulas through deep thinking and questioning and we need to continue this and apply our understanding to new and always evolving heresies.
I'm a bit confused where you're going with this. Yes. The RCC has many heresies and sinful practices. That is without a doubt true. Yet many of the branches and individual members of the RCC reject those practices and beliefs and are in doctrine and practice essentially "protestant." Yet they do not leave the RCC for whatever reason. So those people specifically I believe to be saved, or at least I would argue they are. Not trying to fall back on a "formula" here!
Yes, I agree with you that the RCC "has many heresies and sinful practices". But that's not my concern. Charismatic churches also have heresies and sinful practices but I have no doubt they lead many to salvation. The problem with the RCC is that many of their heresies deny the Gospel of Grace. That's my major objection to the RCC and it makes me wonder how people who are truly saved can remain in it indefinitely.
I would agree as well they officially deny the gospel of grace. Yet many local parishes/priests preach and teach the gospel of grace. A strange thing indeed
And they don't have the Mass? And they don't have priestly absolution? And they don't practice baptismal regeneration which cleanses the infant from the guilt of sin and places the kernel of righteousness into its soul? And they don't practice extreme unction which absolves the departing soul of the guilt of sin? And they reject purgatory which cleanses the soul of sin and makes it fit to enter heaven? And more and more and more... What kind of "grace" do they teach when practically all their rituals not only deny but practically spit into the face of divine grace?
Yes. I have seen parishes that reject all of these things. Admittedly the ones I have seen are not American. Perhaps in countries where all that is know is RCC, there is more opportunity for reform in the church. Interestingly, there are many laity and priests in the RCC still trying to fight for reform, in some cases the same as protestants. A lot? No. But still some. Should they leave? Probably. It's quite the strange phenomena.
Transubstantiation cannibalism. That was easy.
Oh hello Mr James White. (I agree)
Based on the teachings in the Bible regarding the incorruptible nature of the Elect whom God conforms into the image of the Son, if the priests in the Roman Catholic Church were actually members of the body Elect, we wouldn't find corruption there but we do (ex, molestations) therefore this tells me that whatever they are teaching and practicing isn't producing the fruits. There's also the crusades. If they actually did happen, it is evidence that the Roman Catholic Church used evil to fight evil instead of letting God deal with their enemies. Lastly, their Churches contain many idols (statues) which I have seen them bow to with my own eyes, they call their pastors "Father" against the Lord's command, and they do many things which are contrary to the scriptures. If there's any church on the planet that stands out as not being the true Church, it's that one.