I recently discovered an anti-Catholic tract on the windshield of my Silverado. The tract stated that the Eucharist, Penance, Baptism, and performing works “of the law” cannot save me, because the Bible says that we are saved by faith alone. The tract also said, “But can you never sin again?,” which made absolutely no sense whatsoever to me. Needless to say, I was very disturbed by these lies, all being said out of ignorance of what the Catholic Church actually teaches and what the Bible really says and truly means. Luckily for me, the text included an e-mail address to which I politely wrote, asking if these matters could be discussed in person. Finally, after a week or two, a man named Fred replied. We have been meeting at a local diner once a month. As it turns out, Fred is a very nice man. We have had some rather frank, yet friendly, discussions about his attack on my faith. He obviously thinks he is “saving” me from Catholicism.
My Initial Rebuttal
I told him that the Bible never says that we are saved by “faith alone.” I said that Martin Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 to make the verse erroneously say that “we are justified by faith alone, apart from works of the law.” In fact, James 2:24 says that we are not justified by faith alone, but by faith AND works. I told him that the Eucharist, according to the Bible, is the actual flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. He replied that, no, they are “symbols” of his flesh and blood. “There you go again,” I said, “adding words to scripture like Luther.” The word “symbol” is nowhere to be found in John 6:48-58, which says that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood to have eternal life. Then I told him that his question to Catholics, “But can you never sin again?,” was a huge straw man that he knocked down., No Catholic believes in a sinless future, which is why we have the sacrament of Confession from John 20:21-23 and James 5:16. St. Paul even says in 2 Corinthians 5:18 that he has the ministry of Reconciliation (Confession). Fred seemed somewhat in disbelief of my assertions, but then he did say that he may have to rewrite his little windshield card.
Further Discussions
As we delved deeper into our give and take, the stark difference in our Bible comprehension became obvious to me. the Catholic belief in the supernatural content of scripture, versus the Protestant intellectual understanding of scripture. Jimmy Swaggart, televangelist, says that claiming that the Eucharist becomes the metaphysical body of Christ is a “monstrosity,” because, he asserts, “the Bible doesn’t say that.” But the Catholic reading of John 6:48-58 says it does say exactly that, when read through a supernatural lens:
48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; 54 he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
The Jews who were there at the time perfectly understood Jesus to be speaking literally, because they said, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” This Real Presence of Christ as consecrated bread is especially evident when you realize that the Bible verses above use the Greek word “trogos” for the word “eat,” which means to “munch” or to “gnaw” on. But this reality is totally hidden to Protestants who read John 6 with the human understanding of their intellectual mind rather than through the supernatural lens of the Church. This Real Presence of Christ as the Eucharist was never even challenged in the Church for over a thousand years, until Berengar of Tours came along and publicly disclaimed it.
So the next time we meet, I am going to ask Fred to eat a piece of plastic fruit, a “symbol” of a real piece of fruit and ask him if it will give him the same kind of nourishment!
Faith and Works Discussion
One of the huge divides between Fred and me is the issue of faith and works being necessary for salvation. He claims that “only faith alone” is necessary, and good works will come about because of your faith. If you don’t perform any works, it’s no big deal. I then quoted him James 2:26, which says that faith without works is dead! Then I told him about the sheep (those who do good works) and the goats (those who do not do good works) of Matthew 25: 31-46:
31 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in \prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’ 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
To the Catholic, the statement that those who fail to do good works as a fruit of their faith (Colossians 1:10) will wind up in hell is evident. Fred and I agreed that grace is a free gift from God, which leads to our faith, which in turn leads to good works. Where we disagreed is that good works are necessary for salvation, which I still do not understand in light of Matthew 25:31-46.
Fred hinted in his windshield blurb that following the law is not necessary for salvation; only faith is required. His definition of the law is following the Ten Commandments. He quoted St. Paul to back up his assertion, Galatians 2:16:
16 yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.
I explained to him that the Dead Sea Scrolls actually define “works of the law.” The Essenes who lived a celibate lifestyle in the caves of Qumran wrote a letter to the Pharisees in Jerusalem. In that letter, the phrase “works of the law” is defined as Jewish works of the law such as circumcision, only eating kosher foods, cleanliness of drinking vessels, not touching anything unclean, etc. These actions have absolutely nothing to do with “good works,” like giving alms, helping the poor, feeding the hungry, etc. In this, Luther and company were entirely mistaken, and his error is still believed by many Protestants today, who deny the efficacy of good works as being necessary for salvation. I told Fred that faith and works are like a coin with a head side and a tail side. Doing good works is the flip side of your faith in Jesus:
Matthew 7:21: “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Romans 2:6: For he will render to every man according to his works
Revelation 20:13: And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.
His main problem with doing good works is the scripture:
Ephesians 2: 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.
If I understand him correctly, he is saying that good works are not necessary, because then you will boast, and boasting is bad. However, he says that God has given us good works to do, and so he does them. These two statements are confusing!
How Catholics Are Saved
I did some research in the Bible on how Catholics are saved:
- BY BELIEVING IN JESUS
- BY REPENTANCE
- BY BAPTISM
- BY THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
- BY OUR DECLARATIONS BEFORE MEN
- BY PHYSICALLY EATING AND DRINKING THE FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS
- BY GOOD WORKS
- BY GRACE (A SHARE OF DIVINE LIFE)
- BY HIS BLOOD
- BY HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS
- BY KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS
- BY OUR WORDS
- THROUGH CHILDBEARING (WOMEN)
- BY LOVE
- BY FAITH
- BY AVOIDING SIN
- BY COMING TO KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH
- BY FORGIVENESS
- BY MORTIFICATION
- BY SUFFERING
Next month, I will explain the salvation methods listed above and write more about my Bible discussions with Fred. Keep us in your prayers so that Fred will one day see the truth of Catholicism!
19 thoughts on “Bible Discussions with a Protestant Friend”
Pingback: Is It Hubris to Believe That the Catholic Church Is the Only True Church? - Catholic Stand
Pingback: MONDAY EDITION | BIG PULPIT
Gene:
Paul tells us in Ephesians 6: 17 And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Not tradition, nor the writings of later church leaders. Certainly not the CCC.
And by the way, thank you for those kind words on Holy Thursday.
Robert, what is it that you didn’t understand about “end of discussion?”
Since you continue to be obtuse, I’m going to be blunt. Everything you’ve brought up has been responded to countless times by Apologists. If you are having a problem with the Faith you profess to believe in I can only surmise that the devil is whispering in your ear. Go out and buy these three books: “The Case for Catholicism” by Trent Horn, “Meeting the Protestant Challenge” by Karlo Broussard, and “The Early Church Was the Catholic Church” by Joe Heschmeyer. Hopefully they will be of help to you.
And for sure, not the words of Robert…
You and the RCC could be wrong.
. . . said the devil, whispering in his ear.
Gene:
Did Jesus tell the apostles to cease observing the sabbath?
From my Catholic Bible:
Matthew 5:17
New American Bible (Revised Edition)
Teaching About the Law. 17 [a]“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
Read full chapter
Footnotes
5:17–20 This statement of Jesus’ position concerning the Mosaic law is composed of traditional material from Matthew’s sermon documentation (see note on Mt 5:1–7:29), other Q material (cf. Mt 18; Lk 16:17), and the evangelist’s own editorial touches. To fulfill the law appears at first to mean a literal enforcement of the law in the least detail: until heaven and earth pass away nothing of the law will pass (Mt 5:18). Yet the “passing away” of heaven and earth is not necessarily the end of the world understood, as in much apocalyptic literature, as the dissolution of the existing universe. The “turning of the ages” comes with the apocalyptic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and those to whom this gospel is addressed are living in the new and final age, prophesied by Isaiah as the time of “new heavens and a new earth” (Is 65:17; 66:22). Meanwhile, during Jesus’ ministry when the kingdom is already breaking in, his mission remains within the framework of the law, though with significant anticipation of the age to come, as the following antitheses (Mt 5:21–48) show.
Robert, the comments section of articles is not meant for long drawn out discussions, so this will be my final reply to you.
Two more footnotes down from the one you quote it says: “Six examples of the conduct demanded of the Christian disciple. Each deals with a commandment of the law, introduced by You have heard that it was said to your ancestors or an equivalent formula, followed by Jesus’ teaching in respect to that commandment, But I say to you; thus their designation as “antitheses.” Three of them accept the Mosaic law but extend or deepen it (Mt 5:21–22; 27–28; 43–44); three reject it as a standard of conduct for the disciples (Mt 5:31–32; 33–37; 38–39).
Jeremiah 31:31 says:” See, days are coming—oracle of the LORD—when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”
As part of the New Covenant, a number of aspects of the Mosaic Law were done away with. As the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” says:
2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:
Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord’s Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.
2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship “as a sign of his universal beneficence to all.” Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.”
Jesus gave Peter, the Apostles, and their successors (Catholic popes and bishops) the power to loose and bind (Mathew 16:19). The Church says we now worship on the Lord’s Day which fulfills “moral command of the Old Covenant” to worship on the Sabbath. End of discussion.
Gene:
I’ll check out those articles.
Gene:
In the meantime check out Hebrews 4. Paul tells us to keep the 7th day sabbath and encourages us to directly approach our high priest, Jesus. No mention of earthly priest.
Robert, actually, Paul is not saying we must keep the Sabbath. The Sabbath is Mosaic Law (the Mosaic Covenant). The New Covenant supersedes the Old Law. The context in Hebrews makes clear that the Jewish “seventh day” has been superseded, or, more properly, fulfilled, in “another day,” “a certain day,” that is a new “Sabbath rest for the people of God.”
Recall also Colossians 2:16-17: “Let no one, then, pass judgment on you in matters of food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath. These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.” Paul is saying here that the Sabbath is a “shadow” of the Old Law.
Also recall Acts 20:7. “On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread, Paul spoke to them . . .”
Kawikafivesix:
The words of Jesus as shared by those who interacted with Him vs. church leaders over the past 2,000 years? Who is closer to the source of truth?
What’s more important to me is what Jesus Christ thinks.
That would be a good start, why don’t you try it sometime?
Ray:
Good to see that you are having a fruitful relationship with a fellow believer in Christ. I’m even more excited that you have used scripture to bolster your argument on the issues.
As I fellow Catholic, I would like to have a meaningful exchange with you, too. Unfortunately, you are in Texas and I’m in Pennsylvania.
Consequently, we are reduced to this avenue of exchange.
To begin, let me say that the “church” left by Jesus at his ascension is not what we have today in the RCC. Since you used scripture to justify your position with the Protestant, I suggest that some of the teachings of the RCC are not founded in scripture. For example, Jesus says that we should not call anyone father, except the One in Heaven. Yet, we are expected to address priests as “father”.
There are only descriptions of bishops and deacons in NT scripture, nothing about priests. Paul further contends that our high priest is Jesus, and we don’t need any others. He further wrote that Jesus is our sole mediator with God. Bishops and deacons could be married and have families. Peter was married. Paul complained that he was expected to remain single.
With respect to the body and blood of Jesus Christ, I would point out that the RCC has not offered the blood of Christ since 2020 in our diocese, which is an incomplete Eucharist according to Our Lord and Savior.
Nothing in the Bible to suggest that Christians should abandon the Jewish Sabbath and institute the Lord’s Day (Sunday).
Nothing about the Assumption of Mary in the Bible, although John, the Apostle, wrote his books after Mary’s death.
Peter was not “infallible”. Paul brought an issue to the Jerusalem Church about Peter’s error in judgment.
Nothing in the Bible that claims the dead immediately go to heaven or hell. Several passages throughout the OT and NT suggest otherwise.
Nothing in the Bible suggests that Muslims share in our salvation, which contradicts CC841. Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God.
The homosexual lifestyle is an abomination according to scripture, yet the current pope allows priests to grant them a blessing. Jesus said repent and turn away from your sin. In fact, there are homosexuals in the RCC priesthood.
Or how about the rewriting of the 10 Commandments by the RCC?
Hopefully my comments will not be deleted by you or the editorial staff at Catholic Stand.
Remember, Jesus is coming back!
Robert sounds more like a Protestant than any “catholic”!
Robert, you say you are Catholic so you should know, as you’ve stated, that “some of the teachings of the RCC” are not found in scripture alone. As a Catholic you should know that the Catholic Faith is based on Scripture AND Tradition. Many Protestant teachings, however, are based on errant readings of Scripture. Your statements on priests, calling priests father, the Sabbath vs. the Lord’s Day, the Assumption, infallibility, heaven and hell, etc., all have been addressed and refuted countless times by Catholic clerics, theologians, apologists, and lay writers in print and in videos. As the tag line from the X-Files said, the truth is out there. And it’s not that hard to find. Here are just two examples – “call no man father”
https://catholicstand.com/call-no-man-father/
and “priests in the New Testament”
https://www.catholic.com/qa/where-in-the-new-testament-are-priests-mentioned
Here’s another point you might have made to Fred: Ephesians 2:9 doesn’t sat “lest any man should boast”. It says “lest any should boast”. St. Paul isn’t concerned here (or anywhere in Ephesians) about men boasting before God about their good deeds. He is concerned about Jewish Christians boasting before Gentile Christians about their own adherence to the 600 or so observances required in the Torah. Paul is saying that these things don’t matter under the new covenant. Protestants consistently misconstrue this verse from Ephesians (as do some Catholics, I’m sorry to say). It’s not about God/Man. It’s about Jew/Gentile.