Share on
Apologetics for the Masses #498 - A Facebook Conversation w/Anti-Catholic Protestants
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter
Topic
An Analysis of a Subscriber's Facebook Interaction With Some Anti-Catholic Protestants - the good, the bad, and the ugly.
General Comments
Hey folks,
Just one more push aimed at the guys for them to check out the Exodus 90 app - in particular, the Advent Challenge the app has going on right now. You can sign up for a free 2-week trial to see if it works for you or not before you have to spend a dime. My summary blog post of this first week of the Advent Challenge is at the bottom of this newsletter if you want to check it out to kind of get an idea of what the Advent Challenge is all about. You can download the app here (you'll see the 14-day trial in the upper right of the homepage): https://exodus90.com/
Introduction
Okay, in this issue I'm going to start the analysis of a Facebook conversation that one of our subscribers sent in to me as she was asking for advice. What I'm going to do is print the entire conversation first, and then come back and repeat it, but with my comments interspersed.
But, so as to avoid making this a really long newsletter, I'm going to just give a few comments to get things started, then I want you to look at the rest of the conversation and think about how you would have handled it from there. What did the Catholic do right...or wrong? What would you have done differently? What "Blue Collar Apologetics" principles and strategies might you have employed? Can you identify some of the common tactics the Protestants are using? Thinking about these things in your mind helps to prepare you for when you get into a conversation like this. Then, in the next newsletter, I'll finish my comments on the conversation.
One caveat: Everything I say below is my opinion based on my years of dealing with Protestants. So, when I say something is "Good" or "Bad", that is not an objective statement, but a subjective one. Please always keep that in mind. Every situation is different and there are almost always extenuating circumstances that need to be considered when you're in the midst of the conversation, but which I can't necessarily take into account looking at things from a distance like this.
Alright, let's rock and roll (the original conversation will be in italics)...
Challenge/Response/Strategy
Cecilia (OP) (Protestant): As the two thieves hung on the cross on either side of Yeshua, one cried out to Him as he repented and recognized Yeshua (Jesus) for who He is: the long awaited Messiah. The other one taunted Him. One thief repented, that none may despair, but only one, so that none may presume.
Martin (Protestant): He May have done good "Works", but ,that did not Save Him. How many ,good works, will you have to do, to be "Saved "?? You will never know because we can't quantify it ... Faith excludes works. "Our good works, are as filthy Rags," to a HOLY GOD "Good works through a new Heart & Spirit is the Order which we do works. If our Works precede Salvation, they will be burned at the Bema seat Judgement. The Good works, we do, in JESUS Name, come from JESUS, not us Believers ...Without HIM, we Can do Nothing. There fixed it
Catholic to Martin (Protestant): You said that the good thief had "no good works." I pointed out that, in fact, he did have good works. I did not say that his good works saved him; his faith saved him! And his faith was demonstrated by his immediate good works. "But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works" (James 2:18).|
Devon (Protestant): My point is that baptism is a work and works do not save anyone.
Catholic:But the Bible, in 1 Peter 3:21, says that baptism saves us.
Devon (Protestant): Those who believe that baptism is required for salvation are quick to use 1 Peter 3:21 as a “proof text,” because it states “baptism now saves you.” Was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all. A good example of someone who was saved before being baptized is Cornelius and his household in Acts 10. We know that they were saved before being baptized because they had received the Holy Spirit, which is the evidence of salvation (Romans 8:9; Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 3:24). The evidence of their salvation was the reason Peter allowed them to be baptized. Countless passages of Scripture clearly teach that salvation comes when one believes in the gospel, at which time he or she is sealed “in Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Ephesians 1:13).
Thankfully, though, we don’t have to guess at what Peter means in this verse because he clarifies that for us with the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting wet part that saves but the “appeal to God for a clean conscience” which is signified by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ.
Therefore, the baptism that Peter says saves us is the one that is preceded by faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ that justifies the unrighteous sinner (Romans 3:25-26; 4:5). Baptism is the outward sign of what God has done “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5).
Catholic: I never said that baptism is the only thing that saves us, so examples of people being saved without baptism have no bearing on the Biblical fact that baptism saves you. When I read 1 Peter 3:21 and the surrounding verses, I do not have to add words like "represents" and "signified." I believe what God says, baptism saves you.
Devon (Protestant): So you believe you have to be baptized in water to be saved? It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ that saves us. Water baptism is only an ordinance and a picture and identification with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.
1Corinthians 12:13, “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”
Catholic: I did not say "you have to be baptized in water to be saved." I said that water baptism saves you, just as the Bible tells us. To use an analogy, the MMR vaccine protects me from measles, mumps and rubella, but I can also be protected by a strong immune system. The Biblical fact that "water now saves you" allows for other means of salvation. Thank you for quoting 1 Cor 12:13, this verse tells us that the Holy Spirit enters into us during baptism. Glory be to God! Please cite your Bible verse that states "water baptism is only an ordinance"; I am willing to learn.
Devon (Protestant): you must be born again to be saved. That happens the moment you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You need to ask Him to show you. He is the only One who can show you the truth. I pray you seek Him because I have serious doubts that you understand salvation.
The Bible says that baptism is an ordinance in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands his disciples to baptize people in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is known as the Great Commission.
Catholic: Let's make a deal: I won't question your relationship with Jesus Christ and you don't question mine. I have repeatedly quoted or referenced the Bible, so you already know that I'm not Scripturally illiterate. I asked you to help me learn, and you respond by questioning my relationship with Jesus? OK. I now turn my other cheek for you to figuratively strike. I asked you to show me a Bible verse that states "water baptism is only an ordinance." You showed me the Great Commission; this verse in no way shows that baptism does not save. I again ask, where in the Bible do we learn that "water baptism is only an ordinance"?
Devon (Protestant): I'm sorry, but by your comments it is obvious to me that you don't understand the Bible or salvation at all. You are following false doctrines. You twist scriptures and take them out of context and misinterpret them. If you were saved/born again, then you would have the Holy Spirit indwelling you to guide you into all truth. If you seek the truth, then keep seeking Him with all your heart and you will be found by Him. I pray you will.
John 16:12-14 (KJV), "12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you."
By the way, Satan knows the scriptures well, but he doesn't believe them. He is good at twisting them and making you doubt what God says and what God means. And Satan would love it if I didn't question your false beliefs.
{End of conversation.}
{My comments.}
Cecilia (OP) (Protestant): As the two thieves hung on the cross on either side of Yeshua, one cried out to Him as he repented and recognized Yeshua (Jesus) for who He is: the long awaited Messiah. The other one taunted Him. One thief repented, that none may despair, but only one, so that none may presume.
My Comments
Okay, the Catholic sees the quote about the good thief on the cross being saved - "that none may despair" - and apparently assumes that the OP is taking a Sola Fide position - salvation by faith alone - and wants to counter that position. So, the Catholic looks to plant a seed that shows Sola Fide is not supported by the story of the good thief.
Good: Looking to plant a seed of truth by countering the error of Sola Fide.
Bad: Assuming the OP was making a point about salvation by faith alone. That is nowhere stated in the OP. Now, the Catholic, knowing that Cecilia is Protestant, can definitely assume - if she doesn't in fact know for sure - that Cecilia believes in Sola Fide, but that is not explicitly stated in the OP. That last sentence in the OP, about "none may despair...none may presume," is perfectly Catholic. It's even been attributed by some to St. Augustine. But, even if it was a Protestant who originally said it, there is nothing about it that is offensive to Catholic truth. So, even though Cecilia may believe in Sola Fide, the quote in the OP was not directly stating a Sola Fide position.
Lesson: Don't insert meaning into other people's words that is not found directly in their words. Read what they say very carefully and don't respond to what you think someone is saying, rather, respond to what they actually said.
Good: Now, if the Catholic was simply using the OP as an opportunity to plant a seed of truth with Cecilia, because she knew Cecilia was all about Sola Fide and wanted to get a conversation going on that topic, then I would change the "Bad" assessment to a "Good" assessment.
Bad: Stating things about the Good Thief that are not directly supported by the Scriptures. The one place in the Gospels where the Good Thief speaks is in Luke 23:39-43. First of all, nowhere does the Bible say that the Good Thief was "proclaiming Jesus as Lord". Not in there. So, don't say it. Also, nowhere does it say that he "recognized Jesus as his Savior" or that he "repented of his sins". Now, in this particular case, we can assume those things based on his words, and the words of Jesus - and the fact that he is promised salvation - but they are not stated directly, so be very careful about posting something that essentially says they were. The general rule I try to follow is to not go beyond what the Scripture says, because you can very easily get yourself in trouble when you do. Plus, if you do that, it's justification for the Protestant to do that. So, in this case, just say something along the lines of, "The Good Thief, obviously recognizing Jesus as his Savior, then goes on to...and repenting of his sins..." All you need to do is add a word like "obviously" or "apparently" or a phrase like "we can assume" or something along those lines. It might seem like a fine point, especially in this case, but it could, as I said, keep you out of trouble in other situations.
Lesson: A general rule to follow is - If the Bible doesn't say it, or the Church doesn't say it, then don't you say it.
Bad: Emphasizing the role of "good works" right out of the gate. In the eyes of Protestants, it looks a whole lot like the Catholic is saying good works saved the Good Thief. Now, that's not what she said, nor is it even what she was implying; however, when talking to a Protestant you have to do your best to look at everything you say through Protestant eyes. In this instance, the Catholic could have left out every mention of the phrase "good works" and simply expounded on the things the Good Thief did while being crucified. Then, if the Protestant brings up the issue of the Good Thief being saved by faith alone, the Catholic simply goes back and says, "Wait a minute, don't you remember all the things the Good Thief did?" and then reiterate them.
Here's the thing, though, whether you mention the "works" the Good Thief did while being crucified or not, the most effective tactic that I have found to counter the Protestant Sola Fide claim regarding this passage, is to ask this question: "Would the Good Thief have been saved if he had not spoken up in defense of Jesus?" That puts the Protestant in a bind. Because, if it is faith alone that saved the Good Thief, then of course he would have been saved without saying anything. But, if he never said anything, then we wouldn't know if he had faith or not, and Jesus would not have promised him to be with Him in Paradise. So, would silence have still gotten him saved? By waiting for the Protestant to bring up the Sola Fide claim regarding the Good Thief, you get to ask them that question, and that question, whether they answer it or not (usually they don't), all by itself strongly implies that if the thief had not done at least one work - speak up in defense of Jesus - then he may not have been saved.
Catholic: You said that the good thief had "no good works." I pointed out that, in fact, he did have good works. I did not say that his good works saved him; his faith saved him! And his faith was demonstrated by his immediate good works. "But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works" (James 2:18).|
My Comments
First thing to take note of: The Catholic states that Martin said the good thief had "no good works". Yet, nowhere did Martin say that. He said that the good thief did do good works, but that his good works did not save him. So, Martin in fact stated the opposite of what the Catholic said he said. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to accurately quote the other person's words. A good habit to get into, to avoid misquoting someone, or simply misunderstanding someone, is to re-read what the other guy has written after you have typed up your response. Re-read what they wrote and then re-read what you wrote and make sure what you wrote responds to what they actually said, and not to what you "think" they said. If you quote someone, make sure you get the quote right.
The next thing I want to point out, is this thing about good works being like "filthy rags" that Protestants are forever throwing out there. Before quoting any Scripture about "righteous" deeds or good works (which the Catholic did a good job of), the first thing you need to do when someone uses the line about good works being like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), is to point out that the Protestant is using that phrase out of context and quite obviously doesn't understand what Isaiah 64:6 is actually saying. I did an entire newsletter on that verse which explains how the Protestants are completely misconstruing what the verse is saying.
You can read it here: https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/524-apologetics-for-the-masses-387-your-works-are-like-filthy-rags-isaiah-64-6
Essentially, Isaiah 64:6 says that if a righteous man sins and turns away from God, then - and only then - all the righteous deeds he had previously done would be like filthy rags. The verse nowhere...NOWHERE!...says that good works...righteous deeds...in and of themselves, are all like filthy rags. So, make sure to point out the Protestant's misinterpretation of that Scripture passage because, by doing so, you have just demonstrated that they really don't know the Bible like they think they do and that, if they can make such an obvious mistake regarding one verse of Scripture, then it's quite possible they are making mistakes on their interpretation of other passages of Scripture. I.e., you've put a dent in their unspoken claim of authority on all matters Scripture.
{HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT - Now, go back up to the rest of the conversation and think about things you would have said in response to the Protestant's arguments.}
Closing Comments
I hope all of you are having a wonderful Advent in preparation for His arrival! Gentlemen, don't forget to look over my blog post below about the first week of Advent meditations/prayers in the Exodus 90 challenge.
Donations
The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations
or send a check to:
Bible Christian Society
PO Box 424
Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.
Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!
Unsubscribe/Subscribe
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter
https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter
Exodus 90 Blog Post - 1st Week of Advent Meditations/Prayers
Two things stood out to me as I went through the daily prayers, readings, and reflections for the first week of Advent - the idea of being a watchman, and also the concept of “Advent asceticism”.
We have to be watchful of...on guard against...the wiles of Satan. As one of the reflections - quoting Scripture - stated, he is prowling about like a lion, seeking victims to devour. Satan wants our souls. How does he get them? When we give in to evil. We need to realize that evil is easy. We can fall into evil. We turn on a screen - on our phone, our computer, or even our television - and we can fall into evil. It’s just that easy. And, when we do so, we separate ourselves from Christ. So, we have to be ever watchful, ever vigilant, to guard against allowing evil into our minds and hearts. And we do that by keeping our attention so focused on Christ, and particularly in this Season, on His coming, that evil can find no place to worm its way in. That is the beauty of these daily meditations - they help us to fix our gaze on Christ.
The concept of “Advent asceticism” made me think of a Scripture verse from Luke, “If any man would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me,” (Luke 9:23). Advent asceticism is about denying our natural inclinations toward spiritual laziness. We have a tendency to want to “do” in the material plane, and we tend to neglect our need to “be” in the spiritual plane. It can be very difficult, particularly for men, to take a break from the busyness of life to simply stop and take time to pray. We can see the immediate results of our physical activities - work gets done, problems get solved, tasks get accomplished - but we rarely see immediate results from our spiritual activities, from our prayers. Which, at least for me, often causes me to want to focus more on what I can see rather than what I can’t see. But, as the Word tells us in Luke, we need to deny ourselves in order to follow Christ. Normally, though, when we think of practicing asceticism, we think of having less of something. Advent asceticism, however, is focused on having more - more time in prayer, more time meditating on Christ, more time thinking of others.
Hebrews 12:14 tells us to “Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” Becoming a watchman - guarding against the approach of evil - and practicing Advent asceticism - denying our natural tendency to focus on the physical world and instead turning our thoughts to the spiritual world...to Christ...more and more often - lead us to the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. As I said above, evil is easy, but holiness...we have to “strive” for holiness. We have to deny ourselves and pick up our cross daily. Holiness is a lot of work.
And these daily meditations for this first week of Advent have, at least with me, kinda planted a seed - a seed of anticipation. Generally, if I’m being honest, I’m not much of a liturgical kind of guy. By that I mean, the liturgical seasons of the Church calendar have never really impacted me in the way that they are probably meant to. One season of the Church calendar has been pretty much like the next season of the Church calendar. But, these meditations seem to have cracked open a door, as it were. We’ll see where it goes...
Share this newsletter on:
