Share on
Apologetics for the Masses #499 - A Facebook Conversation w/Anti-Catholic Protestants (Part 2)
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,
A couple of things:
First, I cannot thank you enough for all of the support given in response to last week's semi-annual 10 cent appeal! I'm continually amazed at all the people around the world that the Bible Christian Society is able to reach each year with the truths of the Catholic Faith, and that is only possible because of the support we receive from you guys. You are 100% responsible for the success of this organization. Every person who comes back to the faith or comes into the faith for the first time, and every Catholic who grows stronger in their faith and who learns how to defend and share their faith, is on you. So it's all your fault!
Secondly, this is the 34th issue of Apologetics for the Masses that I've gotten out this year, which is the most ever in a single year in the 20 years I've been doing this. So, given that, plus the holidays, I'm going to take 2-3 weeks off to enjoy the holidays, get a little rest and relaxation, and recharge the batteries a bit. Which means I'll start back in early January with Issue #500!
So, I hope all of you have a happy and holy Christmas and New Year, and that 2025 brings you and your loved ones many, many blessings...
Introduction
Okay, in this issue I'm going to continue the analysis of a Facebook conversation that one of our subscribers sent in to me as she was asking for advice in dealing with anti-Catholics. I'm going to print the entire conversation with my comments interspersed. I'll repeat my initial comments from the previous issue and then pick it up from there. Although, I have added some additional remarks to what I said in the last issue.
I hope you took some time after reading the last issue to do your homework; i.e., to look over the conversation and think about how you would have handled the comments from the anti-Catholics. What responses would you have made? What strategies and tactics would you have employed? And that's what I want you to develop in your dealings with others about the faith - a strategic way of thinking about your social media conversations, email dialogues, and discussions with friends/family/co-workers or whoever, as opposed to just a haphazard, shoot from the hip approach with your answers and arguments vis-a-vis a defense of the faith.
When you enter into a conversation - whether in person, online, etc. - you should not look at it as a situation where you'll just take each argument/question as it comes and do your best to answer each one individually. No! Every discussion you get into should be looked at from a strategic and tactical perspective. You need to keep the end of the conversation in mind from the beginning of the conversation. You need to know where you want to go - which is always the question of authority - and how you want to get there, as soon as the first volleys have been fired. You need to have a plan. You need to think strategy. You need to think tactics. You need to be in charge of the conversation and deliberately leading it to a particular conclusion.
So, what I'm going to do below is point out where I think the Catholic did well and didn't do so well and give you some thoughts as to how I would have responded. And, in the process, give you some idea of how to approach a conversation with a strategic way of thinking as opposed to just a take-it-as-it-comes way of thinking.
And, as last time, there is 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.
This is a little longer newsletter than average, but, you'll have an extra week or two to read it, so just take your time. 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.
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 - salvation by faith alone - position 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.
Strategic Approach: Okay, after Cecilia's original post about the thieves, what I would have done, is to very innocently ask something like this: "You know, I've always wondered...would the good thief have been saved if he had never said a word? What do you think, Cecilia?"
Remember, be as wise as the serpent and as innocent as the dove (Matt 10:16). What have I done with that question? Well, I've started down the path towards showing Cecilia the necessity of works in the process of salvation. I.e., that the good thief was not saved by faith alone. But, I didn't go right at it like a bull in a china shop. Plus, I've kind of put Cecilia in a bind as to how to answer my question. Her immediate thought will be that the good thief probably would not have been saved if he had kept quiet. If she actually says that, though, then I say, "So, in addition to his faith, he had to DO something in order to be saved, right?" If she says that he would have been saved regardless, then you simply ask, "How do you know?" Do you see see the subtleties involved here? I'm letting the other person lead the way (or so they think), but they're walking right into a theological corner. And, I'm keeping my view on the even longer range strategy that once Cecilia (or whoever) and I engage on Sola Fide, then I will start looking for opportunities to steer the conversation towards the more fundamental question of authority. No need to rush. Remember, whenever possible, ask questions as opposed to simply making statements.
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" - put it in quotes. 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 what she said about the good thief's faith saving him. Well, yes and no. First of all, that wording - "his faith saved him" and "his faith was demonstrated by his immediate good works" - plays right into the Protestant Sola Fide mindset. Yes, his faith saved him, but not his faith alone. In Luke 7:50, Jesus says to the woman who had anointed his feet with ointment that her faith had saved her. But, she had faith in Jesus before she left her house, yet she wasn't saved then. It was only after she had anointed his feet, and had shown much love, that He forgave her of her sins and told her she was saved. So, yes, her faith saved her, but only because her faith compelled her to act. And, through her actions, she was forgiven - not because of her actions or her faith, but by the grace of God. Just so the thief on the cross. His faith compelled him to act. And, after he acted, he was granted salvation - by the grace of the Son of God. So, faith and works saved him, but all by the grace of God.
Finally, this 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.
Strategic Approach: Always pay careful attention to what the other person says. Why? So you can ask them questions about it. What do you not see in Martin's post? Zero citations of Scripture! Which means, Martin is giving you nothing more than his personal, fallible, non-authoritative opinions of what Scripture says. So, ask him questions. "Where does the Bible say, 'faith excludes works'?" And, if you're familiar with the Scriptures a little bit, you could add on to that question by asking, "Doesn't the Bible say faith is completed by works (James 2:22)?" You can also ask, "Where does the Bible say, 'Our good works are as filthy rags'?" It doesn't. So, when he answers with Isaiah 64:6, tell him he's not quite understanding what that verse says. It actually says the good works of the righteous who have since turned away from God are as filthy rags, but not good works in general (as I mentioned above). And once you've asked questions like that, then be quiet. The shorter the post the better. Let the Protestant talk. You ask questions.
My Comments
Catholic's response was excellent! "I'm sorry, all I did was quote the Bible," and then she quotes the same verse from the Bible again...outstanding! The last sentence, though...not so good. Instead of making a statement about being falsely accused, what she could have done to follow up on those first two sentences is ask a question: "Are you saying the Bible is wrong?" Always, always, always put the onus on the other person to justify/explain their statements.
My Comments
Catholic is on the defensive. Go on offense! A possible response to Devon : "Satan does the same thing? You mean He says the Word of God is wrong, too? By the way, where does the Bible say that the good thief was not baptized?" Possible response to Martin: "So, you agree with me, the good thief had to DO something in order to be saved...he had to repent, right? Repentance is a work, is it not? It's an action the good thief DID, is it not?" And, with a little Bible knowledge, you could add this: "But, here's the thing, the New Covenant had not yet been instituted, seeing as how Jesus had not yet been resurrected, which means, if you knew your Bible, then you would know that whether or not the good thief was baptized is irrelevant to the discussion. He, being a Jew, would have been circumcised, and circumcision is the Old Covenant entrance into covenant with God (Genesis 17:10-14). So your arguments about Baptism are moot."
Strategic Approach: Catholic makes an excellent point about whether or not the good thief had been baptized. Based on Scripture, you can't say he was or wasn't. The real point is, though, it doesn't matter if he was or not. And, even if he was, it wasn't a sacramental baptism. That didn't happen until Pentecost Sunday. Ask questions like the ones above, and point out the irrelevance of his baptism (or no baptism), all of which is so you can continue moving toward the question of authority. You want them to say as much as possible, while you say as little as possible, so that they will give you an opening to eventually ask: "Are you infallible in your interpretation of Scripture?" And/or, "By what authority do you claim that your interpretation is infallibly correct?" Or some other such question that makes the point about their lack of authority in these matters.
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.
My Comments
Good job by the Catholic. I would have added, "Do you not believe what the Bible very plainly says?" Offense. Ask questions.
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.
My Comments
Short response from Catholic and to the point. Very good. Particularly the part about not adding words like "represents" and "signified". And, she didn't try to get into all the nitty gritty of his "explanation". However, her "I never said that baptism is..." is a defensive response. So, there is room for improvement here. When it comes to 1 Peter 3:21, to get around the Protestant appeal to the "not as removal of dirt from the body" argument (which is the 2nd half of verse 21), go back to verse 20, and go on offense.
Here's how you can do that: "Thank you so much for your private, fallible opinion as to what 1 Peter 3:21 means. However, I reject your fallible opinion. And I reject you adding words like 'represents' and 'signified' to the Word of God. The Word of God says, 'Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you.' The Word of Devon says, 'Baptism, which corresponds to this, does NOT save you.' By the way, what is the 'this' that Baptism corresponds to? Well, we can see in verse 20. 'This' refers to being saved through water. So, let's re-read verse 21, 'Baptism, which corresponds to being saved through water, now saves you.' That's pretty clear to understand for anyone who comes to Scripture without predetermined beliefs. 'Baptism now saves you.' And this fits perfectly with the prophecy from Ezekiel 36:25-27 about Baptism. And, no, it doesn't contradict any other part of Scripture, as God is capable of making exceptions to the rule in extraordinary situations, is He not? I believe He is, even if you don't believe He is capable of doing so. All in all, I prefer to believe the Word of God as opposed to the Word of Devon."
Strategic Approach: No matter how the Protestant responds to this, you have now reached the point where you have made it known that you know he doesn't really know the Bible like he thinks he does. Furthermore, you have made it clear to him that you know he has no authority to privately interpret the Bible and that any interpretation he does come up with is prone to error, since he's not infallible - and that you reject his interpretations of the Bible. From here, all you have to do is keep repeating those themes over and over again. They might try to go down the Mary path, or the Pope path, or whatever other path, but all you have to do is stay on the one path. Just keep saying that you agree 100% with the Word of God over and above the Word of Devon (or whoever it is you're talking to). The one question you can ask, that I have never had answered, is this: "Who has the authority to proclaim any interpretation of Scripture as being an authentic interpretation - the Church founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit, or each individual who can read the Bible and come up with their own private, fallible interpretation of this or that passage?"
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.
My Comments
Good and bad. Asking for a Bible verse that says what he said...very good. Muddying the water on water baptism vis-a-vis salvation...not so good. Yes, Catholics do not claim that water baptism is THE only way to be saved. We believe God can save whomever it pleases Him to save. However, we also believe that water baptism is the only ordinary means of salvation known to us. It is the means by which God Himself has ordained for us to be saved. Any other means of salvation is an extraordinary means of salvation. Jesus Himself says unless one is born again of water and the Spirit (Baptism), he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. So, you don't ever want to say anything that could confuse someone is this regard. The vaccine analogy is lacking in that it makes it seem that both means of protection against disease are ordinary. A better analogy would have been: you could be protected from those diseases by the MMR vaccine (ordinary), or, alternatively, by a special intervention of God (extraordinary). Don't give an inch on Church teachings...not one inch. The Church has not been, nor will it ever be, proven wrong on any of its doctrines, dogmas, and moral teachings.
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"?
My Comments
Exhibits defensiveness. Show no weakness! Otherwise, excellent response! You can make the same point about having your relationship with Jesus attacked, but in such a way that it is an offensive move rather than a defensive one. For example: "I ask you a question about where Scripture says what you say it says, and your only response is to question my relationship with Jesus? Really?! But, of course that's all you're able to do, because you can't answer my question about Scripture, can you?" And then you do exactly what Catholic did, repeat the question. You could, if you wanted, then say something like: "By the way, where does the Bible say, 'Devon is able to judge other people's relationships with Jesus?'" One other question you could ask from his response is this: "Where exactly does the Bible say that being born again 'happens the moment you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ?' Book, chapter, and verse, please."
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
Though Catholic did not respond to Devon, this is how I would have done so: "Oh, it's obvious to YOU, that I don't understand the Bible and that I'm not saved. Is that an infallible decision? Obviously, you've never read 1 Cor 4:3-5, 'But with me it is a small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself...it is the Lord Who judges me. Therefore, do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes...' Are you the Lord? If not, even though Paul says that it is the Lord Who judges, and do not judge before He comes, you have taken it upon yourself to deny Scripture and to judge me, as well as yourself. Paul doesn't even judge himself, so you must consider yourself greater than Paul, right? Tell me, please, what authority do you have to judge me, or to judge anyone, as being saved or not? Oh, and one other thing - you said Satan doesn't believe the Scriptures, actually he does. He hates them because they are God's Word, but he believes them. And he understands them way better than you apparently do."
Strategic Approach: Authority, authority, authority. Get there and stay there. Always remember - in Protestant theology, the best the other guy can do is his private, non-authoritative, fallible interpretation of Scripture vs. your private, non-authoritative, fallible interpretation of Scripture. No one has the authority to declare their interpretation to be THE correct interpretation of this or that verse, or passage, of Scripture. That is where you want every conversation/dialogue/discussion/debate with a Protestant to go. Plant the seed with them that there is no authority within all of Protestantism that can make a binding, authoritative decision regarding Scripture interpretation - i.e., doctrine and dogma - because there is no authority within all of Protestantism that is infallible. Without infallibility, you cannot "bind" anyone to what you proclaim. Yet, Jesus left us a church with the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16 and Matt 18). Huh...so...if there is no authority within Protestantism that has this power of binding and loosing, then what does that say about Protestantism vis-a-vis the church founded by Jesus? It ain't it.
Closing Comments
Again, wishing you and yours a very happy and holy Christmas and New Year's!
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
Share this newsletter on:
