Four Reasons to Evangelize Protestants

I received this great question via email recently:

Hi Devin,

I have a friend from one of those non-denominational Bible churches that put on a combination Praise & Worship concert/Bible study service every Sunday (I don’t say that mockingly; that’s just the most concise picture I can paint of her faith background). I am a born and raised Roman Catholic. At some point during our conversation the topic of God and our respective faiths came up. To save time I won’t get into the finer details of the discussion, but needless to say her faith is in error on a great many matters. But I just can’t bring myself to be all that concerned.

I guess the big thing is that, if I had to take a guess, I would say the ultimate destination of her soul is heaven. Yeah, she believes some things that our Church says are erroneous, and yes, she thinks the Catholic Church is wrong, but she was raised in that environment. She is still a passionate Christian who loves God. And (correct me if I am wrong), we as Catholics don’t believe that unless you are a Catholic during this life you are condemned to hell. So what’s the point? If we all (can) end up in the same place, why should I bother to try and help others see the fullness of Truth?

Are there circles of heaven? Tiered plains for the different types of Christians? Is there more joy awaiting Catholics than non-Catholics? If so I could see some urgency in evangelizing non-Catholic Christians. But even if that was the case, it’s heaven: you’re not going to be aware of anything lacking; you won’t be jealous of those that have more joy than you.

I’m just finding it hard at this point to do anything other than shrug my shoulders and say, “Whatever; you do your thing and I’ll do mine.”

Great question! Here are the four reasons you should evangelize Protestant friends and family with the fullness of the truth:

pw11. Future Souls

I have a Protestant friend who had two children then got sterilized. He and I had lots of discussions about the Catholic Faith and Protestantism. I told him at one point contraception and sterilization were sinful. He got angry.

But he also began to desire having more children. He was something of a providentialist and said that “God will miraculously give us children if He wants to, in spite of the sterilization.” I told him to get it reversed.

A year or two later he decided to reverse the sterilization. A short while later they conceived again and had a son. Then conceived again and had a daughter. So they have two older children and two little children! Sharing the fullness of truth in the Catholic Faith resulted in two new souls being created by God, destined for eternity with Him. Almost all Protestants embrace contraception and sterilization, which is really sad and not what God wants.

Note that this friend is still Protestant. He didn’t become Catholic, at least not yet. I hope he does, but I am thrilled that they opened up their marriage to God blessing them with more children.

2. The Sacraments

Protestants have baptism and marriage but not any other sacraments. God instituted seven, including the Eucharist, so that we could receive Him body and blood, soul and divinity, as well as Confirmation to be strengthened fully in the Spirit, and Confession to reconcile us to Himself and His Church. They are missing out on these.

They also miss out on consecrated virginity for the sake of the Kingdom, which Jesus in Matthew 19 spoke of and Paul did in 1 Corinthians 7. God wants His children to consider all vocations, not just marriage.

Through the sacraments we receive God’s grace in abundance.

3. Bigger Cups!

It is true that everyone in Heaven will be filled to the brim with God’s love, but some people will have bigger cups than others. Here on earth we can, with the help of His grace, become holier and holier, more and more like Him, so that our cups are enlarged. In the Catholic Faith these opportunities abound; we have the fullness of the means of sanctification.

Protestants want to become just like Jesus. They want the biggest cup possible. But they are operating outside of the ordinary means of increasing their cup’s volume.

4. Danger of Hell

It is true that God is not bound by His sacraments and can save anyone He likes. It is also true that Protestants have valid baptisms (by and large) and so receive the Holy Spirit and are regenerated, being born again, from above, to newness of life. However, it is also true that they are relying on God to work in an extra-ordinary way. He set out the way He wanted us to assure our salvation by giving us His Church, with rightful leaders, sacraments, Tradition, and protection from error of her doctrines.

Protestants eschew all those things and so in a sense test God to save them in spite of it. He is so merciful that He can and no doubt will, but Protestants are following the Faith on their own terms, not the way that God planned it.

What happens when a Protestant, after being baptized, commits a mortal sin? Their soul is in peril, and they cannot avail themselves of Confession. They have to confess directly to God and hope that they have perfect contrition to be forgiven. They are essentially gambling with their souls, though most don’t know it (invincible ignorance).

For all these reasons you should help your friend consider the Catholic Faith!

God bless,
Devin

84 thoughts on “Four Reasons to Evangelize Protestants”

  1. Even though we are not Roman Catholics and have some trouble with Catholic theology and practice, we do not believe we have to evangelize Catholics. Because we believe you are brothers and sisters in Christ. In spite of the bad theology foisted upon you. We also feel the same way about Baptists and so-called non-denominational and other forms of Christianity with less than stellar theologies.

    1. > Even though we are not Roman Catholics and have some trouble with Catholic theology and practice, we do not believe we have to evangelize Catholics. Because we believe you are brothers and sisters in Christ.

      I have to say I’m rather disappointed/confused by this…

      Firstly, if you think you have the truth, surely you’d want to share it? To withhold water to a thirsty man seems cruel.

      Secondly, I think you do try and evangelize Catholics, as noted by your comments on this and other blogs.

      Finally, holding someone to be a brother in Christ and attempting to correct his errors are not mutually exclusive propositions.

  2. I agree with you totally, Steve. My Roman Catholic friends, family members and any others I come across in this life I regard as nothing but brothers and sisters in the faith. I love them dearly. And I respect their faith deeply. I would never, never ever say or believe anything different. And I would never attempt to “convert” them.

    1. > I agree with you totally, Steve. My Roman Catholic friends, family members and any others I come across in this life I regard as nothing but brothers and sisters in the faith. I love them dearly.

      Are you saying that it’s not possible both to love someone and also try and fix their theology?

      > I would never, never ever say or believe anything different. And I would never attempt to “convert” them.

      The claims of the Catholic Church are either true or false and, if they’re false, then they’re abominable! If Jesus isn’t really present in the Eucharist, I’m committing idolatry worshipping bread. If the Saints can’t hear my prayers then I’m attempting something like necromancy…

      Now, just to clarify, I think that “…what unites us is infinitely greater than what divides us” (Raniero Cantalamessa/Nicky Gumble). I think that Catholics and Protestants are brethren in Christ and we should work for unity and mutual understanding. I believe that we should work together on projects of shared importance such as poverty, the unborn etc. However, I don’t understand why someone would think that Catholicism is false and not want to rescue souls from what they believe to be a false religious system.

      If you see someone drinking a container that you know to contain poison, wouldn’t you be duty-bound to warn them?

      1. Hi Restless Pilgrim. I believe that Jesus is fully present in the Eucharist. So I don’t feel duty bound to warn them.

        God bless you, friend. Take care. You can write more if you want, but this is the last I have to say on this. For some reason I am feeling really, really sad. Sorry about that.

  3. Perhaps I am destined (or predestined, if you like) to follow Steve Martin’s comments on your blog. Very well. The only thing foisted on us was Luther’s bad theology, God love him. Everyone says they are “biblical,” including those who don’t much regard Lutherans as anything more than pseudo-papists. That little bit of inconvenient truth should cause us to wonder at the basis for the commonality of all Christians, for one. I get more than a vague feeling that it leads back to dudes in funny hats. Just sayin.’ Moreover, one eventually wonders if one’s appeal to “Scripture” is really an appeal to oneself. I can personally testify that all the “book-learnin'” under the sun doesn’t really get a person closer to What The Bible Really Says. I do go on, don’t I?

      1. Not when we reach some level of participation, or goodness, or seriousness.

        Hebrews 12:14
        Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

          1. A gift which is given to those who work righteousness.

            Romans 6:19
            I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

            Romans 6:22
            But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

  4. Devin, let me address your four reasons in the order of your post:
    1) Contraception and sterilization are not sins. If you use Genesis 38:9 as proof of contraception, you’re wrong. Onan was destroyed because he didn’t obey the command to provide offspring for his deceased brother.
    2) Protestants have true baptism (believer’s by immersion), true breaking of bread (not actually Jesus), and even the washing of the saints feet. Also, while virginity was better, it was not commanded (1 Timothy 4:3; 1 Corinthians 7:2,7; Matthew 8:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5). And concerning the vow of celibacy: Matthew 5:37 and the before cited Scriptures.
    3) Revelation 18:4-6
    4) First, before VaticanII, the RCC says that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and then, after VaticanII, she says that Protestants AND unbelievers can get into heaven. How contradictory does it get? Shoot, to say that an unbeliever can get in, is, without a doubt, going against Ephesians 2:8-9.

  5. mike says:
    January 8, 2015 at 2:25 am
    Devin, let me address your four reasons in the order of your post:
    1) Contraception and sterilization are not sins. If you use Genesis 38:9 as proof of contraception, you’re wrong. Onan was destroyed because he didn’t obey the command to provide offspring for his deceased brother.

    The thing which he did, displeased the Lord. Not the thing which he didn’t do.

    Genesis 38:9-10 King James Version (KJV)

    9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.

    10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.

    2) Protestants have true baptism (believer’s by immersion),

    That is Catholic Teaching. But that doesn’t negate Baptism by pouring or sprinkling nor infant baptism by the faith of the Church.

    true breaking of bread (not actually Jesus),

    Jesus said:

    Matthew 26:26
    And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

    and even the washing of the saints feet.

    Is that a Sacrament in your denom?

    Also, while virginity was better,

    I never heard any Protestant promote virginity. Show me your denom’s official teaching on this.

    it was not commanded (1 Timothy 4:3; 1 Corinthians 7:2,7; Matthew 8:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5).

    It didn’t need to be commanded. We were commanded to be perfect as God is perfect. Jesus is God and Jesus remained a virgin all His life.

    And concerning the vow of celibacy: Matthew 5:37 and the before cited Scriptures.

    And concerning the vow of celibacy, Jesus is our example.

    3) Revelation 18:4-6

    That’s God’s voice telling the Jews to come out of Jerusalem and into the Catholic Church.

    This, however, does prophecy the coming of Protestants
    (2 Timothy 4:3-4 ).

    4) First, before VaticanII, the RCC says that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and then, after VaticanII, she says that Protestants AND unbelievers can get into heaven. How contradictory does it get?

    Its your understanding of the Catholic Doctrine which is in error. The Catholic Church has always taught that some, which appeared to be outside the Church, could be saved because of their desire to do God’s will.

    Shoot, to say that an unbeliever can get in, is, without a doubt, going against Ephesians 2:8-9.

    Nope. That says that we are saved in the Sacraments of faith. It is in the Sacraments, that Catholics show themselves to be the children of Abraham. It is when we submit to the Sacraments that God sees our faith and declares us righteous and pours His sanctifying grace into our souls.

    Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

    1. Infant baptism is not what the NT teaches. . Lutheran professor, Curt Allen, after intensive study of infant baptism says, “There is no definite proof of the practice until after the third century,” and he says, “This cannot be contested.”
      Catholic professor of theology, Haggenmacher, writes, “This controversy has shown that it is not possible to bring in absolute proof of infant baptism by basing one’s argument on the Bible.”

      BTW- there is no sacrament mentioned in Eph 2:8-9. No mention at all in Scripture that says “we are saved in the Sacraments of faith.”

      1. We don’t follow the traditions of men like Curt Allen. Jesus Christ established a Church and commanded that Church to teach what He commanded. The Catholic Church is that Church and the Catholic Church has always baptized infants understanding that baptism replaces circumcision.

        1. Huh??? Allen is just giving historical facts that shows that infant baptism is not biblical.

          BTW- no mention in Scripture that “baptism replaces circumcision”.

            1. Nothing in Col 2:11-12 about replacing baptism. Rather it speaks of a circumcision that is done by the Spirit and also baptism which signifies our being buried with Him.

              1. Jay, your interpretation is wrong. Baptism was seen as the New Covenant counterpart to circumcision from the time of the Church Fathers to the Protestant Reformers themselves. It was the entrance rite into the People of God (the Israelites in the Old Covenant and the Church in the New Covenant). See Zwingli’s beliefs on this in particular.

                A portion of St. John Chrysostom’s homily on these verses: “No longer, he says, is the circumcision with the knife, but in Christ Himself; for no hand imparts this circumcision, as is the case there, but the Spirit. It circumcises not a part, but the whole man. It is the body both in the one and the other case, but in the one it is carnally, in the other it is spiritually circumcised; but not as the Jews, for you have not put off flesh, but sins. When and where? In Baptism. And what he calls circumcision, he again calls burial.”

                When and where: in baptism.

            2. That passage speaks of circumcision being a mere picture of baptism in the sense that it is a sign (work) of the covenant (circumcision for the law, and baptism for the New Covenant). Remember, David’s boy from his adulterous act died on the seventh day, and David said that he would go to him in heaven. (2 Samuel 12:18,23) Again, BOTH covenant signs are works. The heart determines salvation for those past the age of reason. (John 3:7; Romans 8:13 and Colossians 2:11-12 for the proof of need for a change in heart; the tradition of bar mitzvahs for proof that thirteen is the age of reason (other than those with certain special needs); and Matthew 19:14 and the before mentioned Davidic Scripture for proof of infants and children being in heaven)

  6. De Maria, let me address your points:
    1) Onan was destroyed because by spilling his semen on the ground, he was NOT providing offspring for his deceased brother as he was told to do. It doesn’t even come remotely close to being confirmation for condemning contraception and sterilization.
    2) a) Infants are just getting wet when they’re baptized. Infants are already heaven bound (Matthew 19:14). Plus, how can they believe, repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) when they don’t even know what believing and repenting are? b) If Matthew 26:26 was literal, then why didn’t he just rip up his arm and tell them to eat that? See, you just don’t understand Unleavened Bread. The matzo was a picture of Isaiah 53. He was saying that by eating the matzo and drinking the cup as a believer, you were proclaiming: by His stripes YOU are healed, He was pierced for YOUR transgressions, He was bruised for YOUR iniquity, and YOU are covered in The Blood. The matzo shows stripes, piercings, and bruises by the way it’s prepared, and the cup obviously proclaims the blood shed for our sins. It was not saying to worship the bread. That’s just idolatry. c) Concerning it being okay to remain in the state of virginity or the unmarried state: 1 Corinthians 7:7. Also, you didn’t address the Scriptures I cited to prove, without a reason of a doubt, that it is okay to marry.
    3) a) How could Revelation 18:4-6 be about telling the Jews to come out of Jerusalem and into the Catholic Church? Since when was the city that sits on seven hills called Jerusalem? Also, the Whore of Babylon MUST be around when the anti-Christ comes since “the beast and the ten will hate the whore and bring her to ruin”. (Revelation 17:16) b) 2 Timothy 4:3-4 is actually about the RCC, the TULIPs, and other liars.
    4) a) When did the RCC say those outside the RCC can be saved before VaticanII? b) If unbelievers can be saved, then Ephesians 2:8-9 is a total lie.

    1. Mike,

      I’m not a Protestant. Scripture interpretation is not open for debate. The Catholic Church has spoken. There’s no more to say except to let you know that you don’t understand Scripture because you don’t have the plum line which Jesus Christ established to anchor you firmly to His Word. Jesus said:

      Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

      And Scripture says:
      Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

      Jesus Christ did not say, “interpret the Scripture yourself.” Jesus Christ did not even write Scripture. He taught the Word of God and established a Church which He commanded to Teach the Word of God in His place after He ascended to the Father. It is this Church which wrote the New Testament based upon His Teachings.

      That is the same Word which we are teaching you . But you are following the privately interpreted false traditions of the rebellious reformers who split from God’s Church. You will not understand the Word of God until you begin to understand the Traditions of Jesus Christ which are the foundation of the New Testament.

      Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

        1. If you understood the Traditions of Jesus Christ, you wouldn’t be asking for an “official” interpretation. You would understand the meaning of the Scripture because New Testament is the inscripturation of the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

          1. De Maria,
            Where does your church say that its official interpretation of the Scripture means “the meaning of the Scripture because New Testament is the inscripturation of the Traditions of Jesus Christ.”?

            Remember: even the interpretations of your church need to be interpreted. Even your phrase “the Traditions of Jesus Christ” needs to be interpreted.

      1. DeMaria:
        1) Apostolic succession doesn’t exist. ALL the apostles were Jewish rabbis of the New Covenant whom saw the risen Lord. Yea, they ordained bishops, but Paul said that false prophets would come even from among those he taught. (Acts 20:28-30) It’s a very weak argument. Also, if you’re talking about the married Peter, the rock whom the gates of hades wouldn’t prevail against could NOT be Peter since the gates prevailed against him when he told Jesus he’d never disown him, and he denied him three times. The gates prevailed against Peter when he didn’t want to be seen eating with the gentiles and was publicly rebuked by Paul. (Matthew 26:34; Galatians 2:11)
        2) If Jesus didn’t say to interpret the Scriptures yourself, then what was John saying in 1 John 2:27?
        3) The RCC did NOT write the Scripture. It was the apostles and their closest associates. It’s unreasonable to think it took some late, late fourth century council to tell you what’s in the Word of God.

        1. mike says:
          January 11, 2015 at 2:40 am
          DeMaria:
          1) Apostolic succession doesn’t exist. ALL the apostles were Jewish rabbis of the New Covenant whom saw the risen Lord. ….

          Jesus Christ did not establish a Church for one generation, but for all generations. Since people don’t live forever, then Apostolic Succession is necessary in order for the Church to accomplish the mission which Jesus Christ assigned to it:

          Matthew 28:19-20King James Version (KJV)

          19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

          20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

          Yea, they ordained bishops, but Paul said that false prophets would come even from among those he taught. (Acts 20:28-30) It’s a very weak argument.

          Yours is the weak argument. Even Jesus appointed Judas Iscariot. But that didn’t stop Jesus from commissioning the Church to accomplish the evangelization of the world until the end of the world.

          Also, if you’re talking about the married Peter, the rock whom the gates of hades wouldn’t prevail against could NOT be Peter since the gates prevailed against him when he told Jesus he’d never disown him, and he denied him three times.

          Jesus forgave Peter that sin:

          John 21:15-17

          17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

          That was before the Holy Spirit came down and Jesus sent the Church out to preach:

          Acts 1:8
          But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

          The gates prevailed against Peter when he didn’t want to be seen eating with the gentiles and was publicly rebuked by Paul. (Matthew 26:34; Galatians 2:11)

          On the contrary, if you understood the Word of God, you would see that this is the reason why St. Paul calls himself the least of the Apostles:

          1 Corinthians 15:9
          For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

          And laments his sinfulness:

          Romans 7:24-25King James Version (KJV)

          24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

          Because he exhorts and practices exactly that which he claimed was wrong for St. Peter to do.

          1 Corinthians 8:9-11King James Version (KJV)

          9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

          St. Peter was acting precisely so. And it was lucky for St. Paul that St. Peter did not exercise the awesome power which was given him by God. See Acts 5:1-10.

          Or our Lord might have had to appoint another as Apostle to the Gentiles.

          2) If Jesus didn’t say to interpret the Scriptures yourself, then what was John saying in 1 John 2:27?

          That by the Sacrament of Confirmation, we have received the anointing to proclaim the Teaching of Jesus Christ which is passed down by the Church in Scripture and Tradition.

          3) The RCC did NOT write the Scripture. It was the apostles and their closest associates. It’s unreasonable to think it took some late, late fourth century council to tell you what’s in the Word of God.

          The Apostles and their associates were the first members of the Catholic Church. Until you understand that the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament based upon the Traditions of Jesus Christ, you will not understand the Word of God but will continue to follow the errors of the so-called Reformation.

          1. DeMaria:
            1) a) Matthew 28:19-20 doesn’t even come remotely close to proving apostolic succession. Not even close. b) It doesn’t matter if Peter was forgiven that sin. The gates of hell prevailed against him when he denied knowing Jesus AND before he was publicly rebuked by Paul. Period. c) On your citing of Paul supposedly being under Peter: What are you talking about?!?! Where did that come from?! Talk about grabbing doctrine out of thin air! Never, ever, had I heard any member of the RCC use that argument! Never! That said, what about when James gave the final say in the Acts 15 council?
            2) Confirmation does that, huh? Okay, what about those who are only there because their mommies and daddies told them to? Being a new creation has absolutely nothing to do with what you are told to do. Being a new creation is because of God and God alone. Period. Terrible argument.
            3) a) The apostles and their closest associates were very much so NOT members of the RCC. Nowhere does Scripture come even close to teaching prayers to anyone other than the Father in Jesus’ name or to Jesus (that includes prayers to the Holy Spirit being unbiblical), infant baptism, the confessional, communion in only bread OR wine, and the list goes on… and on… and on. b) Who said I follow the “so-called Reformation”? What about those in favor of the true Montanists (whom Pentecostals recognize), those in favor of Nissan 14, or those in favor of the Iconoclast, to name just a few?

            1. mike says:
              January 11, 2015 at 5:32 pm
              DeMaria:
              1) a) Matthew 28:19-20 doesn’t even come remotely close to proving apostolic succession. ….

              Mike, the reason you don’t understand Apostolic succession or any Catholic Doctrines is because you lean upon your own understanding. The Catholic Church is the voice of God in this world. You don’t believe that anyone can represent God. That is why you would never dream of confessing to a Priest. Read this:

              2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

              Yeah, the Catholic Church is the ambassador of Christ through whom God beseeches you and who prays for you in Christ’s stead. When you deny the Teaching of the Catholic Church, you deny the Teaching of Christ.

              1. DeMaria, I used to be engulfed in Catholicism, so I definitely “dreamed” of confessing to a priest. But it is unbiblical because of the following:
                1) “Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them.” = Acts 7:59-60
                “Whose sins you retain, they are retained.” = Psalm 69:27-28
                2) When Jesus was “rebuked” by the unbelieving Jews because they said that only God can forgive sins, Jesus didn’t rebuke them for that thought since it is actually true that ONLY God can forgive sins.
                3) Since a priest doesn’t know men’s thoughts, how does he know if the penitent is truly repentant?

                If I deny the teachings of the Bible, THEN and ONLY THEN do I deny Jesus. Why keep listening to man instead of the Spirit, DeMaria?

              1. Jay says:
                January 11, 2015 at 7:15 pm
                Then they are misleading you.

                No, Jay, it is you who have been misled. There is only one Catholic Church and it is the Church which Jesus Christ established 2000 years ago and which you call the Roman Catholic Church.

                And anyone who opposes the Catholic Church, opposes God.

  7. Hi Devin,
    Speaking of opportunity to evangelize Protestants,
    Why did you back out of the debate with James White on Moody Radio?

    Seems to me if you want to “Evangelize Protestants”, you would go for that opportunity, especially since you claim that your book destroys Jame White’s book on Sola Scriptura. What gives?

    I was looking forward to that, but you backing out is a big disappointment.

    Dr. White has had many debates with priest Mitchell Pacwa ( 5 debates), Gerry Mattatics (all before becoming Seda-Vacantist), Robert Sungenis ( at least 5); priest Peter Stravinskas, Robert Fastiggi, Tim Staples ( at least 3), Patrick Madrid, Gary Mitchuta, Scott Butler, and others (off top of my head can’t remember the others), where there is equal time and fairness.

    What gives?

    You need to step up to the plate and back up what you say on your video and book.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Temple

    1. Neh. James White is proficient at twisting the Word of God to his own destruction and to the destruction of those who follow him.

      Devin has already debunked James White in print. That is sufficient and has the advantage that one can study it at their leisure and return to it as often as they like.

  8. I think there’s also another reason to evangelize Protestants. In fact, the Eastern Orthodox theologian David Hart Bentley recently talked about this, and said that reunion is of utmost urgency.

    And that is this: Christ said that a Kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. We’re also told that the Church is a body, and if one part of that body is injured, then the whole thing suffers.

    Notice that the areas where the Protestants split created the vast majority of the secular movements? Charles Darwin came from England, a Protestant nation. The French Revolutionaries came from John Calvin’s land, and France ended up turning completely secular. I could name numerous others. I know nearly all of Europe is secular now, but the majority of the philosophers that created this mess all came from areas that gave rise to the Protestant reformation.

    I also can’t help but think that the lack of “offering up” sufferings for others within Protestantism has hurt the world and helped it secularize. When I was a Protestant I would pray for others and see some results here and there. But now, as a Catholic, when I offer up my sufferings for specific people, I see much more grace being given to that person. (Sort of like when the Apostles couldn’t cast the demon out of the man, and Jesus said prayer wasn’t enough, but had to be combined with prayer AND fasting– the Disciples fasting had an affect on the demoniacs possession!!!) I’ve seen the difference in offering up my sufferings for others vs solely praying for them, and it’s definitely different. And I’m only a single person doing this– imagine if all hundreds of millions of Protestants were doing this!

    I think the spread of secularism can be directly attributed to the divisions in the church and the lack of offering up sufferings for others. Stopping the Protests and reuniting could defeat secularism easily. If not, we will probably be steamrolled by secularists, just like the Eastern Orthodox were steamrolled by Islam.

    1. I don’t know Keith-
      Italy, Spain, Portugal are pretty secular also, (arguably similar secularism with nominalism like Great Britian, Germany, Belgium, Holland, France, etc.) with a history of being Roman Catholic. France was Roman Catholic also mostly. Only a small group in Calvin’s day was Reformed – the Huggenots – and they were persecuted and killed and driven out by the Roman Catholics. Remember St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre?

  9. Devin,
    Here is what DeMaria claimed–“the Catholic Church has always baptized infants understanding that baptism replaces circumcision.”

    This is not true via the Scripture because there is-“no mention in Scripture that “baptism replaces circumcision”.

    Chrysostom’s homily does not claim that baptism replaces circumcision. Spiritual circumcision still happens to those who are in Christ.

    1. Jay,

      You’re following the traditions of men. We’re following the Traditions of Christ which are taught by the Church He established. The Tradition of Christ says that baptism replaces circumcision.

      Note how St. Paul condemns the circumcision of the flesh:

      Galatians 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

      But he exalts something called the circumcision of Christ:

      Romans 15:7-9King James Version (KJV)

      7 Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of God. 8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

      And this is the circumcision made without hands:

      Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

      Which is Baptism:

      12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

      And the early Church understood that these are the same thing. Therefore, they baptize on the eighth day.

      St. Cyprian
      As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise…..” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

      We don’t follow the traditions of men. But the Traditions of Jesus Christ which are passed down by the Catholic Church.

      1. DeMaria, Paul was NOT condemning circumcision. Not even close. He was saying that you must be a new creation. If a Jew circumcises his boy, they are still bound to be a new creation after the age of reason. Although nothing explicitly says that Jews and Jews alone (whom the law was for) should discontinue circumcision, the Word does explicitly say we are to be a new creation. (John 3:7; Romans 8:13)

        1. Mike,

          You have no authority to tell me anything about the Scriptures. You believe in private interpretation. But now you’re doing that which you deny the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Yet Scripture says of the Catholic Church:

          Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

          It is the Church which I recognize as the voice of God in this world. Anyone who opposes the Church opposes Christ.

            1. I say it is. Since you believe in private interpretation, what authority do you pretend to have over me?

              The Catholic Church is the only one described in the New Testament.

              First, Jesus Christ appointed a Pastor as head of the entire Church:
              John 21:17
              He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

              I see only a few Churches with such a Pastor. Further, Jesus Christ said that the Pastor over His Church would be infallible:

              Matthew 16:17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

              The list of Churches accept this teaching gets smaller. Certainly, all Protestant denominations can now be eliminated.

              Jesus Christ not only said that the Pastor was infallible but Scripture describes the Church as infallible:
              Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

              The list remains the same, but now I can certainly eliminate all Protestant denominations.

              Back to Matt 16:18, Scripture says that Jesus Christ established one Church. History shows that all the Churches sprang from the Church which is frequently described as the Mother Church. The Catholic Church.

              So, even using just a few verses we can eliminate the Protestants. None of their denominations even come close to being in Scripture. But we can continue to find Catholic indicators throughout the Bible:

              The Church which is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).
              The Church which is united (Eph 4:5).
              The doctrines of the Catholic Church which are distinctive from other churches:
              Purgatory (1 Cor 3:15).
              Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-27).
              Communion of Saints (Rom 12:12-20).
              The Mass and the necessity to attend (Heb 10:25-31).
              The Sacrament of Confession (Heb 13:17).
              The Sacrament of Holy Orders (1 Tim 4:14).
              The Sacrament of Baptism (Titus 3:5).
              Justification and salvation by faith and works (Rom 2:1-13).

              And we find that the Protestant doctrinal pillars all contradict Scripture. For instance:

              Sola Scriptura contradicts 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

              Sola Fide contradicts James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

              OSAS contradicts Heb 6:4-6
              4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

              Salvation by grace alone contradicts:
              Philippians 2:12
              Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

              and also:
              Romans 6:16
              Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

              Every Protestant doctrine which contradicts the Catholic Church also contradicts the Word of God in the Bible.

              1. DeMaria wrote:
                I say it is. Since you believe in private interpretation, what authority do you pretend to have over me?

                I don’t claim any kind of authority over you, except that Jesus gave authority to all believers to proclaim the gospel. Public debate or evangelism is not a claim of authority.

                The Catholic Church is the only one described in the New Testament.

                in the sense of “universal” – spreading to all nations, languages, peoples, cultures, yes – Revelation 5:9, 7:9-14; Colossians 3:9-11. But the first time the word “kata-holic” (according to the whole) was used was in Ignatius’ writings. We agree with that usage, but it was not Roman Catholic.

                First, Jesus Christ appointed a Pastor as head of the entire Church:
                John 21:17
                He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

                All elders/teachers are to feed/pastor the sheep. (1 Peter 5:1-4; Acts 20:17, 28; Ephesians 4:11-12) There is nothing about Peter being the only Pastor or universal bishop in that passage. The apostles appointed elders for each church. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7) Local churches exist today with elders/pastors/overseers.

                I see only a few Churches with such a Pastor. Further, Jesus Christ said that the Pastor over His Church would be infallible:
                Matthew 16:17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

                There is nothing about one pastor over all churches there, nor anything about infallibility. Peter spoke the truth about Jesus – that He is the Messiah and the Son of the Living God. All churches who hold to those truths and the truths that flow from them are true churches – the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the gospel, the Messiah as suffering servant who came and died, accomplished a perfect atonement of redemption of the church, resurrected, ascended to heaven, etc.

                The list of Churches accept this teaching gets smaller. Certainly, all Protestant denominations can now be eliminated.

                All churches are true churches that hold to the Bible and the gospel and confess that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God – points to the Deity of Christ and the Trinity. So we are not eliminated at all; Protestantism grew out of the context of the centuries of the corruptions and traditions of men that had been allowed in slowly over time. We are in seed form in the early catholic church.

                Jesus Christ not only said that the Pastor was infallible but Scripture describes the Church as infallible:
                Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

                Nothing about infallibility there, but when the church is faithful and preaches the gospel to the Gentiles – reaches out in missions – it rebukes the evil spirits – “principalities and powers in the heavenly places” – see also Ephesians 6:10-12.

                The list remains the same, but now I can certainly eliminate all Protestant denominations.

                no, you cannot eliminate all Protestant denominations. that is typical Roman triumphalism.

                Back to Matt 16:18, Scripture says that Jesus Christ established one Church. History shows that all the Churches sprang from the Church which is frequently described as the Mother Church. The Catholic Church.

                They sprang from the church in Jerusalem (Acts 1-8), and later, Antioch (Acts 13:1-4). But many churches quickly left the gospel (Galatians 1:6-9); and left their first love and God removed their lamp stands. (Revelation 2:4-5, all in Revelation chapters 2-3 and Colossea disappeared from history. God allowed Islam to conquer them because of false doctrine, sin, and lack of outreach to the Arabs and other Muslims.

                So, even using just a few verses we can eliminate the Protestants.
                not true; your church is eliminated for leaving and condemning the heart of the gospel message (Council of Trent falls under the anathema of Galatians 1:6-9) and exalting Mary too much and taking glory away from Jesus and worshipping bread and wine rather than Jesus Himself.

                None of their denominations even come close to being in Scripture. But we can continue to find Catholic indicators throughout the Bible:
                The Church which is infallible (1 Tim 3:15; Eph 3:10).

                Again, there is nothing about infallibility in those passages. Evangelical Reformed, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches, and others who hold to the gospel and sound doctrine obey those verses today.

                The Church which is united (Eph 4:5).

                Churches should strive for unity. (Ephesians 4:1-16; John 17) But true unity is unity around the truth. When the Roman Church refused the heart of the gospel and condemned it at Trent, it became a false church. Unfortunately 2000 years has produced a lot of disunity because people are sinners.

                continued

              2. Ken Temple says:
                January 12, 2015 at 7:53 am

                I don’t claim any kind of authority over you,except that Jesus gave authority to all believers to proclaim the gospel. Public debate or evangelism is not a claim of authority.

                Jesus Christ gave St. Peter the Keys to the Kingdom. St. Peter represents the Church and the keys represent authority upon earth and in heaven.

                Matt 16:18-19
                Matthew 16:18-19King James Version (KJV)

                18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

                Jesus Christ gave us the duty to proclaim the Gospel. But not the authority to bind.

                in the sense of “universal” – spreading to all nations, languages, peoples, cultures, yes – Revelation 5:9, 7:9-14; Colossians 3:9-11. But the first time the word “kata-holic” (according to the whole) was used was in Ignatius’ writings. We agree with that usage, but it was not Roman Catholic.

                You’re changing the subject. A rose by any other name is still a rose. And the Church of Jesus Christ by any other name is still the Catholic Church. But the name of the Church is not the subject. The first name it used was the Way. The fact is that the Catholic Church is described in Scripture as I have shown.

                All elders/teachers are to feed/pastor the sheep. (1 Peter 5:1-4; Acts 20:17, 28; Ephesians 4:11-12) There is nothing about Peter being the only Pastor or universal bishop in that passage. The apostles appointed elders for each church. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-7) Local churches exist today with elders/pastors/overseers.

                But Jesus Christ appointed Simon Peter as the Pastor over His entire flock. John 21:15-17

                There is nothing about one pastor over all churches there, nor anything about infallibility. Peter spoke the truth about Jesus – that He is the Messiah and the Son of the Living God. All churches who hold to those truths and the truths that flow from them are true churches – the Deity of Christ, the Trinity, the gospel, the Messiah as suffering servant who came and died, accomplished a perfect atonement of redemption of the church, resurrected, ascended to heaven, etc. ….All churches are true churches that hold to the Bible and the gospel ….

                Yeah, but you don’t. Here’s a clear example. Neither you nor any other Protestant will admit that men represent God. Nor that men will pray for you in Christ’s stead. All of you ridicule and accuse the Catholic Church of blasphemy for faithfully accepting this role. And here it is in Scripture.

                2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

                You reject it, the Church accepts it with all it entails, yeah, that means infallibility. Since God is beseeching us through the Church. And God is certainly infallible.

                no, you cannot eliminate all Protestant denominations. that is typical Roman triumphalism.

                They eliminated themselves when they rejected the Church of Jesus Christ.

                Nothing about infallibility there, but when the church is faithful and preaches the gospel to the Gentiles – reaches out in missions – it rebukes the evil spirits – “principalities and powers in the heavenly places” – see also Ephesians 6:10-12./b>

                As I told you before, you don’t understand the New Testament because you have discarded the plum line, the Deposit of Faith, which Jesus Christ commanded the Church to pass down to each generation. It is based upon that Deposit that the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament.

                They sprang from the church in Jerusalem (Acts 1-8), ….

                Jesus Christ established His Church upon Peter. Where Peter went, the Church went with him.

                Churches should strive for unity. (Ephesians 4:1-16; John 17) But true unity is unity around the truth. When the Roman Church refused the heart of the gospel and condemned it at Trent, it became a false church. Unfortunately 2000 years has produced a lot of disunity because people are sinners.

                Jesus Christ promised that His Church would not fall. (Matt 16:18). I believe Jesus Christ. It is Protestants who rejected the Gospel when they proclaimed their own in the Protestant Reformation.

              3. mike says:
                January 12, 2015 at 2:33 am
                DeMaria:
                1) The rock of Matthew 16:18 is the confession of Jesus being the Son of God.

                No. Its Peter. Many others made the same confession (Luke 22:70, Luke 8:28, Luke 4:41, Matthew 14:33, John 1:34, John 1:49, John 11:27). But Jesus Christ only appointed Peter to be the Rock upon which He founded the Church.

                2) a) 1 Corinthians 3:15 for purgatory:
                Actually, you have to look at 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. A…

                Again, if you understood that the New Testament was written based upon a pre-existing Tradition, you would recognize that this verse teaches the existence of Purgatory.

                b) 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 for the eucharist:
                Notice in the 27th verse it says, “whenever you eat this bread AND (my emphasis) drink this cup”? It wasn’t until after VaticanII that you could drink the cup, ….Blasphemy!

                You have no idea what you’re talking about.

                For one thing, the Catholic Church has the right to withhold communion in any form or both. And she has, throughout history, done so whenever it was for the spiritual benefit of her children.

                2, However, from the time of the Apostles, we have partaken of the Eucharist in both species.Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).

                c) Hebrews 10:25-31 for the necessity of the mass:
                All it says is that we shouldn’t forsake the assembly;

                Yeah, the Mass.

                not you’ll go to hell if you miss one week without going to confession, as the RCC teaches.

                Well, without meaning any disrespect, I can call that a bald faced lie. But if you want to prove your truthfulness, provide the Catholic Teaching.

                But say it was for the necessity of the mass (which it isn’t), how can you “encourage one another” when you’re suppose to be quiet at mass?

                Lol! Really? I guess you’ve never been to a Mass. You might also learn about the “confiteore”.

                d) Hebrews 13:17 for confession:

                No. Heb 13:17 describes confession.

                It is in Confession that we submit to and obey the priest and he makes an account of our souls to God.

                Again, if your denom had not rejected the Teachings of Christ, you would recognize them in the New Testament.

                I think you meant John 20:23 since Hebrews 13:17 has absolutely nothing to do with confession. John 20:23 was simply in agreement with Acts 7:59-60 and Psalm 69:27-28…..

                e) 1 Timothy 4:14 for Holy Orders:
                That passage was referring to a prophecy about Timothy, and that’s it.

                1. Confession is explained above.

                2. It makes not a whit what you think. You have no authority to explain Scripture because you’ve got it all twisted. It is to the Catholic Church that the authority to infallibly proclaim the Wisdom of God was given.

                But, on a side note, concerning the vow of celibacy:
                1 Timothy 4:3
                Matthew 5:37

                The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage, but recommends it for those who want to be virgins for Christ:

                Revelation 14:2-4King James Version (KJV)

                2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: 3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

                4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

                But, I don’t think Protestants want any part of that. To you, sex is more important than imitating the Lamb and following Him where ever He leads.

                3) “Blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it,” okays sola scriptura AND not praying to Mary. (Luke 11:27-28) You note, “whether by word, or epistle,” but you happen to forget that it means you can’t contradict Scripture, as the RCC constantly does.

                The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament. The Catholic Church never contradicted Scripture. But, when ever Protestants contradict the Catholic Church, they also contradict Scripture.

                4) You say salvation by grace alone is WRONG? Wow!

                Grace alone is a false doctrine introduced by Luther to discredit the Church, the Papacy and the Priesthood. Scripture teaches us that all good things are from God, therefore, all good things are grace. But it is not by grace alone that we are saved but by our response to that grace (Rom 3:31).

                You admit Christ and Him crucified is NOT a gift.

                You didn’t understand my words. It is the Church which preaches Christ crucified. Whereas, you have taken Him off the cross and preach only the resurrection.

                Even other Catholics will rebuke you for that one, DeMaria.

                Other Catholics will understand my words because they also keep the Traditions of Jesus Christ.

                HE WHO HAS EARS, LET HIM HEAR.

                Good advice. Notice that it doesn’t say, “read the bible”.

                Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

              1. DeMaria:
                1) The rock of Matthew 16:18 is the confession of Jesus being the Son of God.
                2) a) 1 Corinthians 3:15 for purgatory:
                Actually, you have to look at 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. All it says is our good works will be separated from those works that are good founded in Christ and those works that are good founded not in Christ. (Philippians 1:18; Proverbs 17:28) Plus, purgatory (and the confessional) absolutely denies the blessing of forgetting our sins in the New Covenant. (Jeremiah 31:33-34; Hebrews 8:12)
                b) 1 Corinthians 11:23-27 for the eucharist:
                Notice in the 27th verse it says, “whenever you eat this bread AND (my emphasis) drink this cup”? It wasn’t until after VaticanII that you could drink the cup, but you could only have one or the other even though “the life of the flesh is in the blood”. (Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22) So, in your RCC rituals you can only proclaim healing in the atonement OR the covering of your sin, even though you’re suppose to proclaim both. Blasphemy!
                c) Hebrews 10:25-31 for the necessity of the mass:
                All it says is that we shouldn’t forsake the assembly; not you’ll go to hell if you miss one week without going to confession, as the RCC teaches. But say it was for the necessity of the mass (which it isn’t), how can you “encourage one another” when you’re suppose to be quiet at mass?
                d) Hebrews 13:17 for confession:
                I think you meant John 20:23 since Hebrews 13:17 has absolutely nothing to do with confession. John 20:23 was simply in agreement with Acts 7:59-60 and Psalm 69:27-28.
                e) 1 Timothy 4:14 for Holy Orders:
                That passage was referring to a prophecy about Timothy, and that’s it. But, on a side note, concerning the vow of celibacy:
                1 Timothy 4:3
                Matthew 5:37
                3) “Blessed are those who hear the word of God and obey it,” okays sola scriptura AND not praying to Mary. (Luke 11:27-28) You note, “whether by word, or epistle,” but you happen to forget that it means you can’t contradict Scripture, as the RCC constantly does.
                4) You say salvation by grace alone is WRONG? Wow! You admit Christ and Him crucified is NOT a gift. Even other Catholics will rebuke you for that one, DeMaria.

                HE WHO HAS EARS, LET HIM HEAR.

    1. No, Jay, it is the Protestants who teach false doctrines.

      When we search Scripture, we find that the Protestant doctrinal pillars all contradict Scripture. For instance:

      Sola Scriptura contradicts 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

      Sola Fide contradicts James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

      OSAS contradicts Heb 6:4-6
      4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

      Salvation by grace alone contradicts:
      Philippians 2:12
      Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

      and also:
      Romans 6:16
      Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

      Every Protestant doctrine which contradicts the Catholic Church also contradicts the Word of God in the Bible.

      1. part 2
        DeMaria wrote:
        The doctrines of the Catholic Church which are distinctive from other churches:

        Purgatory (1 Cor 3:15). a false doctrine, a tradition of man; not taught at all in 1 Cor. 3:15, nor anywhere else in Scripture. nor in early church history.

        Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-27). “eucharisto” is a good word, meaning “thanksgiving”. We also celebrate the Lord’s supper, examine ourselves, confess our sins, eat the supper, remember His death. There is nothing about transubstantiation there, nor in the gospels.

        Communion of Saints (Rom 12:12-20).

        Romans 12:12-20 is about loving and serving one another, in the church, people who are alive. We cannot contact dead people, nor should we pray to dead people.

        The Mass and the necessity to attend (Heb 10:25-31).

        that is about going to church, and a warning to not reject Christ and leave the faith; nothing about a RC mass. There are many who think that they are believers, go to church for a while, but later leave the faith completely and admit they don’t believe. Jesus said, “I never knew you” (Matthew 7:23)

        The Sacrament of Confession (Heb 13:17).

        1 John 1:9 teaches confession of sins to God. there is nothing about a sacrament or confession to a priest in Hebrews 13:17.

        The Sacrament of Holy Orders (1 Tim 4:14).

        Evangelical Protestant churches also ordain people for ministry and send out missionaries. also Acts 13:1-4.

        The Sacrament of Baptism (Titus 3:5).

        Titus 3:5 is about the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit on the inside, not external water baptism. Nothing about water there.

        Justification and salvation by faith and works (Rom 2:1-13).

        justification is by faith alone (Romans 1:17; 3:28; 4:1-16; 5:1; Acts 13:37-38; Acts 16:31; John 3:16; 5:24; 11:25; 20:30-31; Romans 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9;

        The Romans 2 passage you cite is best understood as Paul is making an extended argument – you have to keep reading to Romans 3:9-23 ). Good works are the results of true faith – Ephesians 2:10; James 2:14-26; Galatians 5:22-23

        And we find that the Protestant doctrinal pillars all contradict Scripture. For instance:
        Sola Scriptura contradicts 2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

        1 and 2 Thessalonians, along with Galatians, are the first 3 letters written by the apostle Paul. (49 AD, 50-52 AD) The epistle of James and the gospel according to Mark are probably written around that time also, possibly Matthew. The full revelation of the truth deposit was not complete yet, at the time of writing of those epistles. They needed oral traditions as long as other books were not written yet, of course. The Thessalonians did not have the content of Romans and Ephesians and Luke in their little letters, so Paul was orally teaching the other truths there at that time. Of course he is going to be teaching orally (traditions); but they are all later written down in Romans, 1-2 Cor.; Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians. 4 gospels, Acts, Hebrews, Revelation, Jude, etc. 2 Thess. 2:15 does not contradict Sola Scriptura at all.

        Sola Fide contradicts James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

        Not at all; James 2:14-26 shows that good works are the necessary result and fruit of true faith. Anyone can claim to have faith, even the demons have intellectual faith in the facts that God exists (James 2:19); but if there is no good works or change or fruit, that claim is empty. James 2:24 is properly understood as “a man is proved that he is justified by works, not by faith alone.” The way that James uses dikaow in James 2 is similar to the way that same verb is used in Luke 7:35, Matthew 11:19, and 1 Timothy 3:16 – the prove right, to confirm, to vindicate, to show.
        Matthew 11:19 – “wisdom is vindicated by her deeds” or “wisdom is proved right by her deeds”;
        Luke 7:35 – “wisdom is vindicated by her children”
        1 Timothy 3:16 – “vindicated by the Spirit”

        continued

        1. Acts 13:37-38 should have been

          Acts 13:38-39
          38 “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. (NIV)

          “Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, 39 and by him everyone who believes is freed [justified] from everything from which you could not be freed [justified] by the law of Moses. (ESV, with my added in [ justified – Greek word, ???????, dikaiow]

        2. Ken Temple says:
          January 12, 2015 at 8:02 am
          part 2

          Purgatory (1 Cor 3:15). a false doctrine, a tradition of man; not taught at all in 1 Cor. 3:15, nor anywhere else in Scripture. nor in early church history.

          The Catholic Church describes Purgatory in the New Testament. The word is not there because it had not yet been coined. It is, in fact, based upon an old Jewish belief which is described in 2 Maccabees 12:41-46. Read more.

          Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-27). “eucharisto” is a good word, meaning “thanksgiving”. We also celebrate the Lord’s supper, examine ourselves, confess our sins, eat the supper, remember His death. There is nothing about transubstantiation there, nor in the gospels.

          The word transubstantiation is not there, it had not yet been coined. But it is described in very succinct and powerful words.

          John 6:51
          I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

          The bread is His flesh. That is the epitome of transubstantiation.

          Romans 12:12-20 is about loving and serving one another, in the church, people who are alive. We cannot contact dead people, nor should we pray to dead people.

          God is a God of the living, not of the dead:

          John 11:25
          Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

          hat is about going to church, and a warning to not reject Christ and leave the faith; nothing about a RC mass. …

          It is precisely about the Mass. The Eucharistic sacrifice is there described:

          Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

          1 John 1:9 teaches confession of sins to God. there is nothing about a sacrament or confession to a priest in Hebrews 13:17.

          You don’t recognize it because you have rejected the Traditions of Jesus Christ. But it is in Confession that we submit to and obey the Priest and he makes an account to God of our souls.

          Evangelical Protestant churches also ordain people for ministry and send out missionaries. also Acts 13:1-4.

          But they reject Apostolic succession, so they’re really just patting their buddies on the back. No grace is conferred. No anointing occurs.

          Titus 3:5 is about the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit on the inside, not external water baptism. Nothing about water there.

          That’s why its called a “washing”, because it is about Baptism.

          Titus 3:5King James Version (KJV)

          5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

          justification is by faith alone ….

          Scripture condemns the idea of justification by faith alone:

          James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

          The Romans 2 passage you cite is best understood as Paul is making an extended argument ….

          St. Paul makes the point that only those who do the will of God are justified:

          Romans 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

          And you can actually extend his discourse all the way to Rom 4:22

          Rom 4:20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

          21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

          22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

          Notice how his strong faith produced good works and THEREFORE he was justified.

          1 and 2 Thessalonians, along with Galatians, are the first 3 letters written by the apostle Paul. (49 AD, 50-52 AD) The epistle of James and the gospel according to Mark are probably written around that time also, possibly Matthew. The full revelation of the truth deposit was not complete yet, ….

          Jesus Christ deposited the truth with the Catholic Church, long before anyone put pen to paper.

          Not at all; James 2:14-26 shows that good works are the necessary result and fruit of true faith. ….

          You’re twisting of the Word of God is of no avail. St. James is eminently clear:

          James 2:21
          Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

          James 2:24
          Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

          James 2:25
          Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

      2. What specifically were those traditions that Paul mentions in 2 Thess 2:15 and how do you know? Where can I see the your proof what these traditions were?

        1. Jay says:
          January 12, 2015 at 8:27 pm
          What specifically were those traditions that Paul mentions in 2 Thess 2:15

          Acts 17: 1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

          and how do you know?

          Because he said so.

          Where can I see the your proof what these traditions were?

          You learn them by listening to the Wisdom of God passed down by the Church:

          Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

  10. Part 3:
    DeMaria wrote:
    OSAS contradicts Heb 6:4-6
    4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

    keep reading -verses 7-9. “But we are convinced of better things about you, concerning things that accompany salvation . . . “ The lack of fruit, and the growth of thorns and thistles means that they had no life in the first place. The rain could not produce good fruit because the seed was bad.

    People who leave the faith prove that they were not true sheep in the first place. Matthew 7:23 – Jesus said, “I never knew you”. 1 John 2:19 – “they left us and proved that they were not really one of us”. 2 Peter 2:21 – they are like dogs who return to vomit and pigs who go back to the mud and scum, after being externally washed. Their nature was never changed on the inside. One can get baptized in water externally, but it does not change the heart.

    Salvation by grace alone contradicts:

    Are you sure you want to stand by that? That contradicts even Roman Catholic doctrine.

    Philippians 2:12
    Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

    “work out” does not mean “work for”. You also left out verse 13 – “for” (because) it is God who is in you, both to will and work for His good pleasure.” God the Holy Spirit gives us the power and motivation to do good works and persevere in the faith.

    and also:
    Romans 6:16
    Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

    yes, we believe that and it is compatible with Sola Fide and the exhortation to live holy lives. Romans 6 comes after Romans 3, 4, and 5. Sanctification comes after justification. Romans 5:1 – “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God.”

    Every Protestant doctrine which contradicts the Catholic Church also contradicts the Word of God in the Bible.

    Not true; as I just have demonstrated above.

    1. Ken Temple says:
      January 12, 2015 at 8:20 am
      Part 3:

      keep reading -verses 7-9. “But we are convinced of better things about you, concerning things that accompany salvation . . . “ The lack of fruit, and the growth of thorns and thistles means that they had no life in the first place. The rain could not produce good fruit because the seed was bad.

      You are reading the verse out of context of Tradition and even Scripture itself. Because Scripture says elsewhere:

      1 Timothy 1:19
      Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:

      Scripture is eminently clear that a believer can fall away.

      People who leave the faith prove that they were not true sheep in the first place. Matthew 7:23 – Jesus said, “I never knew you”. 1 John 2:19 – “they left us and proved that they were not really one of us”. 2 Peter 2:21

      Very true. But only God knows who are the true sheep:

      1 Corinthians 4:2-4King James Version (KJV)

      2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

      Whereas, Protestants would say, “I know by myself that I’m saved by my faith alone!” Thus exalting themselves and setting aside the judgment of our Lord.

      – they are like dogs who return to vomit and pigs who go back to the mud and scum, after being externally washed. Their nature was never changed on the inside. One can get baptized in water externally, but it does not change the heart.

      Note the following. St. Peter says that their sins were “purged”.

      2 Peter 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

      Therefore, these were the baptized who were washed of their sins and still, fell away.

      Are you sure you want to stand by that? That contradicts even Roman Catholic doctrine.

      Any Catholic who claims salvation by grace alone doesn’t understand Catholic Teaching. The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by grace. But not by grace alone.

      CCC#1847 “God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us.” To receive his mercy, we must admit our faults. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

      “work out” does not mean “work for”.

      Merriam Webster definition:

      Definition of WORK OUT

      transitive verb
      1a : to bring about by labor and exertion

      You also left out verse 13 – “for” (because) it is God who is in you, both to will and work for His good pleasure.” God the Holy Spirit gives us the power and motivation to do good works and persevere in the faith.

      That is precisely why it is so important to add to your faith, good works which are in accordance and obedience to the Father’s will. Because it is really He who works through us.

      yes, we believe that and it is compatible with Sola Fide and the exhortation to live holy lives. Romans 6 comes after Romans 3, 4, and 5.

      If you require living righteously in addition to faith, you are no longer saved by faith alone.

      Sanctification comes after justification. Romans 5:1 – “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God.”

      Sanctification and justification are two sides of the same coin. They occur simultaneously.

      Romans 5:1 – “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God.”

      That is Catholic Doctrine. Notice that it doesn’t say, faith alone.

      Not true; as I just have demonstrated above.

      The readers can decide who has demonstrated what between you and I.

  11. I meant 2 Peter 2:22, above: (not verse 21)

    People who leave the faith prove that they were not true sheep in the first place. Matthew 7:23 – Jesus said, “I never knew you”. 1 John 2:19 – “they left us and proved that they were not really one of us”. 2 Peter 2:22 – they are like dogs who return to vomit and pigs who go back to the mud and scum, after being externally washed. Their nature was never changed on the inside. One can get baptized in water externally, but it does not change the heart.

    1. That makes no difference. You think you’re a sheep of Christ. And I think I’m a sheep of Christ. Mormons think they are sheep of Christ. Even some Muslims claim to follow Christ.

      It is Christ who judges.

      1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

      And this is the teaching of the Church. Protestants continually exalt themselves claiming to save themselves by faith alone. But they are simply showing themselves for the modern day Pharisees:

      Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

      But, in the end, they don’t go home justified because they usurp God’s right to judge their souls. They commit the sin of presumption.

  12. Guys,
    There are no Protestant ‘Churches”. There are thousands of Protestant churches ( small C ) meaning church buildings though.
    Protestants are denominations, not Churches.
    There are the Catholic, Armenian, Coptic, Orthodox, etc. Churches but no denomination, including the Anglican Communion, are true Churches in the biblical sense.
    We can even speak of the Catholic Church in Portland, the Catholic Church in Lisbon, the Catholic Church in New York.

    You see, a Church needs a Bishop. A real Bishop and not just someone called by that title as the Anglicans do.

    The 7 Churches of Ephesus, Sardis, Laodacea, etc. had Bishops and were members of the one Catholic Church whose visible head was in Rome.

    There are no Protestant Churches as they did away with Holy Orders at the Deformation. Protestant denominations ( including the ones that call themselves “non-denominational” ) and branches of denominations are just groups of people that meet for fellowship under the headship of a layman who may or may not be called a bishop,

    1. Jim,
      The RCC fails in its requirements for a bishop. The bishop is to be married with children. See I Tim 3. Your church disqualifies a RC married man from being a bishop because he is married. Thus by your traditions you nullify the Word of God.

      1. To whom was Jesus married?

        1 Peter 2:25
        For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

        Catholic Bishops are focused upon God and not upon their wives:

        1 Corinthians 7:31-33King James Version (KJV)

        31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. 32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

        1. De Maria,
          Jesus was not married.

          Here is what the Scripture says for bishops-overseers:
          ” An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), ..”I Tim 3
          The context for this passage is church leadership. 1 Corinthians 7:31-33 is not about church leadership. It does not apply here.

          1. Jesus is the Bishop of our Faith. And He was not married. Jesus is our example.

            Jesus also gave the Church the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. This is why we celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday and not on Saturday. By the authority which Christ gave the Church.

            And it is by this same authority that the Church adopted St. Paul’s advice of 1 Cor 7:32-33 and requires it of anyone who wants to be a priest.

            1. Where did Jesus make celibacy are requirement to be a bishop in the gospels?

              1 Cor 7:32-33 has absolutely nothing to do with the qualifications for church leadership.

            2. DeMaria, how can you or any Catholic not see how your point is EXACTLY what Paul was talking about in 1 Timothy 4:3?

      2. Jay, actually you are way wrong on that one since Paul, who wrote the text, was himself celibate. The text was just saying in a double-application sense:
        1) A bishop could not practice polygamy.
        2) A bishop, after being saved, couldn’t be divorced AND remarried. (1 Timothy 3:5)

  13. Ken,

    ” One can get baptized in water externally, but it does not change the heart.”

    Please give a Bible reference.
    Where does Paul or anyone else ever say, ” You have been washed, but not sanctified or justified”?

    Jesus did not say to Nicodemus, ” Unless you be born again of the Spirit but not the water…”.

    Where does scripture speak of a Baptism NOT for the remission of sin?

    1. the washing is an internal washing, not physical water

      1 Peter 3:21 teaches that, after mentioning baptism, (“corresponding to this, baptism now saves you . . . “) he qualifies it – “. . . not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.”

      water baptism is important as the way in which believers testify and express their repentance and faith in Christ in a local church or with believers of a local church, symbolizing what happens on the inside when someone is born again by the Holy Spirit.

      the reference to water in John 3:5 could be one of these three options: ( I am torn between # 1 and 2)
      1. pointing to Ezekiel 36:25-27 – cleansing from idolatry and giving a new heart and new spirit.
      2. meaning “born physically” / born in the fleshly way / with water – physical birth – context – playing off of Nicodemus’ question “mother’s womb” (verse 4) and the next verse (John 3:6) – “that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit.”
      3. If it is about baptism, it is about John the Baptizer’s baptism (John chapters 1, 3:22-36) where Jesus is basically saying, it is not enough to be baptized in water; you must be born again by the Spirit. Physical water does not cause the Spirit to cause regeneration, rather hearing the word of God and the Lord working in the heart to draw a person to Himself, and the person responding with repentance and trust in Christ. (Romans 10:9-15; Acts 16:14; John 6:44; I Peter 1:23-25)

      1. Ken Temple says:
        January 12, 2015 at 1:51 pm

        1 Peter 3:21 teaches that, after mentioning baptism, (“corresponding to this, baptism now saves you . . . “) he qualifies it – “. . . not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.”

        Exactly. St. Peter is saying that the washing of the water causes the removal of sin from your soul. This is confirmed by St. Luke when he describes the Baptism of St. Paul:

        Acts 22:16King James Version (KJV)

        16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

        the reference to water in John 3:5 could be one of these three options: ( I am torn between # 1 and 2)
        ….

        Lol! That’s funny. You don’t know but you come here acting like you were appointed pope.

        I prefer the Teaching of the Magisterium. That way I don’t lean upon my meager understanding but upon the Wisdom of God which is Taught infallibly by the Catholic Church.

        1. Is it more funny than saying (pre-VaticanII) that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and then saying (post-VaticanII) that unbelievers and unbaptized babies might have a hope. You hypocrite! You argue that baptism saves you, and then you agree with a church that says others can get in without baptism. Wow! What, is it a mystery?

      2. Ken,

        In Jn 3:23 it speaks of Baptisms taking place in a region where there was “much water”, a.k.a. an aqueous solution of two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen.

  14. Ken,

    You asserted,
    “James 2:24 is properly understood as “a man is proved that he is justified by works, not by faith alone.”

    Please drop the “properly understood” business as you are assuming the Calvinist position you have yet to prove.

    The passage says, ” a man is justified”, not “proved to be justified”.

  15. Jim,
    No; I don’t have to drop that and it is not assumed; rather is flows from context and harmony with Romans 2, 4, 5, book of Galatians, etc.

    So how do you explain the usage of the same verb in
    Luke 7:35
    Matthew 11:19
    and
    1 Timothy 3:16

    ??

    the semantic range of the word gives us options, then those are decided by context and harmony with other passages. Basic rules of exegesis.

    1. The most basic rule of exegesis is to interpret the Word of God according to the Traditions of the Church:

      113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (“. . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church”81).

      You discarded the Traditions of Jesus Christ, therefore, you don’t understand the Word of God.

    2. Ken,

      I totally agree with you that James is in “harmony” wit Romans 2, 4 , 5 and Galatians.

      In Romans 2 it speaks of being judged according to our works.

      Romans 4 is all about the faith that Abraham had. Hebrews 11:4 describes the quality of that faith. It was anything but a “Faith Alone”.

      Romans 5 speaks of the Love of/from/for God being shed into our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given to us as our guest.
      That is what justifies us, Ken.

      And of course Galatians speaks of Faith working through Love.

      Without that Love, given to us by the Holy Spirit as Romans 4 says, Faith is zero. Even if it can move mountains.

      James is talking about works of Charity. Without them, Faith is dead. Just as body with a spirit is dead. and it isn’t so much the actual works but the Charity that enlivens them. Charity justifies us.
      Remember Ken, a body without a spirit is still a body. And Faith without works of love is still Faith. Faith can therefore exist without Charity. And it is real faith. But it won’t justify.

      The demons do the first part of the Shema and acknowledge that “God is One”.
      But the don’t follow it with Loving God with their whole being.

      So yes Ken, the texts from Paul you mention are in harmony with James. They show us that Charity is what make Faith saving. Faith Alone is dead Faith.

Comments are closed.