Catholic Vs. Orthodox Vs. Protestant: Full Panel Discussion

 

I side with the Protestant apologist Gavin Ortlund in the discussion. But I also appreciate the Roman Catholic apologist Trent Horn.

 

Catholic Vs. Orthodox Vs. Protestant: Full Panel
https://youtu.be/_nD3Cy4HZiA

 

Why Protestants Win the Church History Debate (Newman Was Wrong)

 

Why Protestants Win the Church History Debate (Newman Was Wrong)

https://youtu.be/m01G7fsaeY0?si=t-5gm7naUYJHpFgl

Andrew Harrah's Return to Protestantism From Orthodoxy & Catholicism

 

Why I Left Eastern Orthodoxy

https://youtu.be/dCRyOS16_40?si=39ShUGjjxQXrEuju

Why I Left Roman Catholicism 

https://youtu.be/vBiV0_U0YPE?si=tefcNlGqAtZNv95b

While I'm not Anglican, I appreciate the Anglican tradition. So, I'm also adding this third video:

Why I'm an Anglican Christian 

https://youtu.be/wOGWFqU0KKU?si=7MI3jM6Hb3FyrAgf

The Papacy Is Not From God by Gavin Ortlund

 

Protestant scholar Gavin Ortlund discusses why Protestants do not accept the Papacy as given by God to the church. 

 

The Papacy Is Not From God
https://youtu.be/z7zwIN8vEkA 

 

When Did the Papacy Begin? (Response to Joe Heschmeyer)
https://youtu.be/0zQU-_78P34 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Richard Baxter's Polemic Against Roman Catholicism

Richard Baxter is well known for his pastoral works. Here's his book against Roman Catholic claims and defending Protestant claims.

 

The Juggling of the Jesuits: Whether the Cause of the Roman or Reformed Churches be of God? by Richard Baxter

https://www.monergism.com/juggling-jesuits-ebook

My Honest Concerns About Mariology by Austin Suggs

 

Protestant Suggs who is very much into dialogue with non-Protestant denominations like Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy (etc.) discusses his concerns regarding Mariology in Catholicism.

My Honest Concerns About Mariology by Austin Suggs
https://youtu.be/UldloTV7M28

Can Christians Pray to Mary and the Saints? A Quick Review of Sam Shamoun's Video

 

A friend asked me to review & critique from a Protestant perspective the following video by Sam Shamoun on praying to Mary. Below the link is my quick and rushed review.

Here's the original video by Sam: Are Catholics right about PRAYING to Mary? | Sam Shamoun

My rushed, cobbled together review:

First off, notice that in this video Sam Shamoun isn't actually debating a seasoned Protestant apologist. He's addressing someone who hasn't studied these issues deeply from a Protestant perspective. So, of course Sam is going to have the upperhand in the discussion with this layman.

Near the end of the video Sam points out that Jesus says the dead are alive and not dead. Citing Luke 20:38. That's a case of obfuscation on Sam's part. Yes, the saints are alive (spiritually), but they are also physically dead. So, it's not a mistake to call them dead in one sense, and alive in another sense.

Sam Shamoun is right that those who leave Catholicism usually didn't know their faith. But that's because most converts on all sides (including both TO and FROM Catholicism or Protestantism or Judaism, etc.) are ignorant. Most people convert without a serious and prolonged examination of their former and prospective/future worldviews. They are usually ignorant of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. 

The majority of conversions are from Catholicism to Protestantism. Even one of the best Catholic apologists, Trent Horn, lamented that fact in a recent video HERE. But, it is true there are a (smaller) number of prominent conversions from Protestantism to Catholicism and Orthodoxy who are highly educated. But often outside the relevant fields. For example, they will often be philosophers or other academics. But not always well versed in the Bible, church history or patristics (i.e. the writings of the church fathers). Though some are moderately.

Most modern Protestants are against praying for the saints. But some Anglicans and Lutherans do pray for the saints. However, Catholics often conflate praying FOR the saints with praying TO or THROUGH the saints. They aren't the same. The former doesn't invoke dead saints, the later does invoke them and attempts to communicate with/to them. One could argue that Protestant theology might allow for prayer FOR the saints, but not TO or THROUGH the saints.

Sam is surely right that the saints in heaven worship God and have "church services," and that they are praying for us. But it's a logical leap from that to assume we may communicate with the dead and ask them to pray for us. In violation of the Biblical prohibition of necromancy and the Biblical teaching that self-initiated prayer and communication to spirits is to God alone. Or at the very least the Bible never encourages us to initiate communication or pray to spirits other than God. Despite there being dead saints whom the authors of Scripture could have prayed to if prayer to or through the dead were permissible. God may send and angel to communicate with us. But that's not self-initiated. That's God initated. Even then, we must test was a supposed angel is communicating to us with the already delivered Gospel [and standardized and finalized in the Scriptures].

1 Thess. 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.

Gal. 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Rev. 2:2    "'I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.

 Jude 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

Shamoun is somewhat right that arguments from silence are wrong (I would say often wrong, or poor, or weak). He then goes on to talk about indirect inferences based on direct Biblical teaching and principles to support praying to or through the dead. But that actually undermines his position because the Bible's principles undermine prayer to or through intermediaries other than Christ. The fact that the Bible doesn't either 1. positively teach or negatively condemn praying to saints isn't necessarily proof it's a wrong practice. Sam is technically correct there. But at the very least it should make one wonder whether it's a Biblically permissible practice. In fact, when we read the Bible we find that invoking invisible spirits is always and only directed to God. Dead saints aren't among the physically living, so asking them to pray for us would seem to violate the Biblical teaching against necromancy. And so would be different from the case of two Christians on earth asking each other to pray for the other. The Bible repeatedly refers back to the dead patriarches of "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" yet never does Scripture tell us they are praying for Israel or the Church on earth, or that we are to pray to or through them for believers on earth. Yes, this is an argument from silence, but it's a deafening silence.

Think of all the times the Bible touches on prayer. How to pray; what to pray [the contents of prayer]; who to pray to; the purpose of prayer; the effects of prayer; the nature of prayer. And yet virtually nothing in the 66 books of the Protestant canon can be appealed to to support praying to deceased saints. 

[[See the debates on the canon. Also these articles by William Webster on the Old Testament Canon:

https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphapart1/ [Part 1]

https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocryphapart2/ [Part 2]

https://christiantruth.com/articles/apocrypha3/ [Part 3]

]]

The longest book in the Bible, the books of Psalms, is the prayer book and hymn book of the Old and New Testaments people of God and virtually nothing in the psalms is about prayer to deceased saints. It might be argued that that's because the psalms were written and compiled before the saintly dead were taken out of the righteous compartment of Sheol and placed in heaven to live with Christ. Something which only happened around the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ. But we still don't see Christians in the New Testament invoking dead saints like David [OT] and Stephen [NT] in the epistles.

Ezek. 14:14 even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord GOD.

Ezek. 14:20 even if Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, declares the Lord GOD, they would deliver neither son nor daughter. They would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness.

Some Catholic appeal to passages like the above to support prayers to the saints. These passages are an excellent opportunity for the Scriptures to tell us that Jews were praying to or through dead saints. Or that it's proper to do so under some circumstances, but it just so happens that in this particular case the sins of believers were too great that God wouldn't listen to the intercession of dead saints. But nothing like that is taught in the canonical Scriptures. There is never any understood or tacit assumption, or warrant or hint in Scripture that we can ask dead saints to intercede for us.

The apostle Paul talked about how it would be more beneficial to Christians on earth for him to continue living and stay on earth. But if Catholicism were true, he would do more after death if people prayed through him to God and if he interceded for the saints on earth from heaven. This suggests Paul was unaware of the idea that saints in heaven can be invoked. Stephen was already dead as a martyr before Paul was even converted. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were dead many generations prior.

The apostle Paul wrote:

Phil. 1:20 as it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death.21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.22 If I am to live in the flesh, THAT MEANS FRUITFUL LABOR FOR ME. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell.23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.24 BUT TO REMAIN IN THE FLESH IS MORE NECESSARY ON YOUR ACCOUNT. 25 Convinced of this, I know that I will REMAIN AND CONTINUE WITH YOU ALL, FOR YOUR PROGRESS and joy in the faith,26 so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again.

Sam's definition of necromancy is too narrow. The Bible condemns all communication to and with the dead. Not just asking them to be inhabited by them and to [essentially] channel through them, making them channelers. But even then, many modern (alleged) Marian apparitions among Catholics have claimed messages from Mary that those who saw her are to relay to others on earth. That's essentially the same as channeling.
See the following audio lecture by Timothy Kauffman on Marian apparitions. I don't agree with all his views and conclusions, but there's a lot of interesting things he says about the apparitions:

The Occult and Roman Superstitions [lecture by Timothy Kauffman]:
https://www.trinitylectures.org/MP3/The_Occult_and_Roman_Superstitions,_Timothy_Kauffman.mp3

Sam is right that 1 Timothy 2:5 is in the context of Christian intercession (v.1), but it's an earthly intercession, not a heavenly one. Nowhere does the passage talk about saints in heaven who are interceding, much less of Christians on earth invoking them to pray for people on earth. Admittedly, that might leave room for a heavenly intercession, but a case must be made for it, rather than just assuming it A Priori. Sam is also abusing the word "mediator." In Biblical theology, intercessors aren't necessarily mediators. A mediator is a special kind of go-between. Nowhere do the Scriptures talks about Christians on earth or in heaven as mediators. It seems to reserve it to Christ (in the New Testament). The closest thing would be where Peter talks about Christians as a "holy priesthood" (1 Pet. 2:5; cf. Rev. 1:6; Job 1:5). So, all Christians are priests in that sense. Notice, it's egalitarianizing, not hierarchizing/elitizing/stratifying. Just as Pentecost was egalitarianizing in the sense that all believers will be indwelt with the Holy Spirit in a special way not available to Old Testament saints. God would pour out His Spirit on All flesh [young, old, male, female]. A similar thing is the case with the passage Sam quoted. Sam points out James 5:16 says the holier you are, the more powerful your prayers are ["...The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective  (or availeth much)"]. Yet, it's also the case that James' example in the VERY NEXT VERSE (v. 17) of Elijah is egalitarianizing in that James says, "Elijah was a man WITH A NATURE LIKE OURS..." James uses that fact as an encouragement to pray for miracles like healing, rather than discouraging us because we're not at the level of Elijah in terms of holiness.

In the Old Testament, bowing down in obeisance to earthly rulers and prophets was permissible. But in the New Testament this is discouraged. Or even condemned in a religious [or at least in a supernatural and numinous] context. Praying to or through the saints seems to violate that New Testament precident. Were praying to the saints proper and part of true Christian practice, then one would think that rather than restricting this type of obeisance, the New Testament would widen and loosen it. Instead, it actually RESTRICTS it FURTHER.

Rev. 19:9    And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are the true words of God."10 Then I FELL DOWN AT HIS FEET TO WORSHIP HIM, but he said to me, "YOU MUST NOT DO THAT! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Rev. 22:8    I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I FELL DOWN TO WORSHIP AT THE FEET OF THE ANGEL who showed them to me,9 but he said to me, "YOU MUST NOT DO THAT! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."

Acts 14:8    Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled from birth and had never walked.9 He listened to Paul speaking. And Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, 10 said in a loud voice, "Stand upright on your feet." And he sprang up and began walking.11 And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!"12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker.13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds.14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, THEY TORE THEIR GARMENTS and rushed out into the crowd, crying out,15 "Men, WHY ARE YOU DOING THESE THINGS? WE ALSO ARE MEN, OF LIKE NATURE WITH YOU, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.

It's true the Catholic Hail Mary prayer has Scripture in it. But the angelic greetings and descriptions of Mary weren't originally prayers to her. The Hail Mary prayer is a prayer to her that's extra-Scriptural. It's converted from greetings and descriptions and turned into a prayer contrary to their original context.

Sam uses the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man to argue for prayer to or through the saints. But the very passages suggests communication between the dead and the living is not normative. Why wouldn't this apply to praying to or through the saints? Rather, in the story Abraham makes Scripture [i.e. "Moses and the Prophets"] the normative source of religious information and spiritual conviction. It even discourages communication between the living and the (formerly) dead (via resurrection). Instead, he directs the Rich Man to Moses and the Prophets as a sufficient witness to his brothers. Though, there's a tacit exception in that Moses and the Prophets predict the resurrection of the Messiah and His authoritative post-resurrection message.

In Catholic theology there are different kinds of worship. There's dulia, hyperdulia and latria The saints receive dulia, Mary gets hyperdulia, and only God gets the true and proper worship of latria. Catholicism properly seeks to reserve full and proper worship to God alone. That's a good thing. The problem is, that the Bible's description of worship to God includes things which Catholics do toward the dead saints. Like self-initiated supernatural communication to disembodied or unembodied spirits and supernatural entites.

See Gavin Ortlund videos on praying to the saints in response to Joe Heschmeyer:

Praying to the Saints: A Protestant Critique
https://youtu.be/TQRQ-bbmVvI

Praying to the Saints? No, Origen is NOT For it
https://youtu.be/7TxB6_IPmYE

Origen on Praying to Saints: FINAL Response to Joe Heschmeyer
https://youtu.be/fayEcMfouOc

Sam's video is specifically about prayer to Mary because Mary has a special place in Catholic devotion and piety [receiving HYPERdulia]. But when we look at Mary in the Scriptures she isn't treated in ways one would expect given Catholic theology. On Catholicism Mary, due to the doctrine of her Immaculate Conception, was saved by God by preemptively applying grace to her at HER conception such that she lived a sinless life. Keeping Original Sin from tainting her, which leads to actual sins in others who are tainted. But we find Mary in Scripture doubting Jesus' message for a long time despite His miraculous conception, holiness and "signs & wonders." Something one would think a sinless person would NOT do. Since sinful hardness of heart is often the Biblical reason and explanation why people don't undertand or receive Jesus' message. 

Moreover, Jesus doesn't treat Mary in a special way that one would expect if she had the place in God's system as she does in Catholicism. In Catholicism Mary is a perpetual virgin; immaculately conceived; was bodily assumed into heaven (either dead or alive); preserved from Original Sin; never sinned/sinless; receives higher honor than all other saints (hyperdulia rather than mere dulia); and (though not yet dogmatically/officially defined) generally considered the Mediatrix of All Graces. Yet, look at how she's treated in Scripture. She's hardly mentioned in the New Testament. In the book of Acts she disappears after the first chapter (out of 28). She's almost never mentioned in the Epistles (with a few glancing references/allusions like in Gal. 4:4; passim). Galatians 4:4 doesn't even mention her by name but generally refers to her when Christ is said to be "born of a woman." It's disputed whether the reference to the woman in Rev. 12 is to Mary or Israel, or to both Mary and Israel. The woman is described in Rev. 2:2 as "crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth." Yet, such birth pains are a result of the Fall as per Gen. 3:16. But that seems to contradict the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception where she is protected from Original Sin by God's prevenient preemptive grace. Therefore one would think [and it stands to reason] Mary's birthing of Jesus would be painless if she wasn't tainted by Original Sin. 

Notice how Mary is treated by Jesus Himself:

Luke 11:27 As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "BLESSED IS THE WOMB THAT BORE YOU, and the BREASTS at which you NURSED!"28 But he said, "BLESSED RATHER are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"

Matt. 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his MOTHER and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.47 48 But he replied to the man who told him, "WHO IS MY MOTHER, and who are my brothers?"49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "HERE ARE MY MOTHER and my brothers!50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister AND MOTHER."

Mark 3:31    And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you."33 And he answered them, "Who are my mother and my brothers?"34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother."

Luke 8:19    Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd.20 And he was told, "Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you."21 But he answered them, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it."

 

See also the debates on the topic and related Marian dogmas in the videos linked below: 

 James White's Catholicism playlist with most [or all] of his debates on Catholicism: 
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBby84KboLbHnG56Xzlq_91kxhfeSHp_b  

I linked to some classic Catholic vs. Protestant debates on my blogpost here: 
https://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/05/james-white-vs-robert-fastiggi-debates.html

 

John Henry Cardinal Alfred E Newman

 

John Henry Cardinal Alfred E Newman
https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/09/john-henry-cardinal-alfred-e-newman.html 

Rebutting Bertuzzi's Top 3 Arguments Against Sola Scriptura

 

Another great refutation of Cameron Bertuzzi's arguments against Sola Scriptura. 

 

Rebutting Bertuzzi's Top 3 Arguments Against Sola Scriptura
https://youtu.be/VGQRMq6M4A4
Dr. Christopher Cloos (Philosophy, PhD)

 

Sola Scriptura DEFENDED Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ZAa0gNMvE&list=PLshImU6jwhvyFYwH_KCsnU_XVdLAbvSF5 

 

More Protestant Apologetics from Gavin Ortlund

 

Many of my blogposts in this blog are to Gavin Ortlund's defense of Protestantism. Here are more videos by him all grouped together.

How Do We KNOW the New Testament Canon   
https://youtu.be/06ItjoHCp28

How Protestants View the Papacy (Debate Reaction)
https://youtu.be/Lx6GzN_qgiM

The Immaculate Conception  A Protestant Evaluation
https://youtu.be/PR9EbapyPcg

Augustine on the Rock of Matthew 16 (This Will Surprise You)
https://youtu.be/Mslw0lS1ZLQ

The Biggest Misunderstanding About Protestantism
https://youtu.be/Fsjd8xY9OSM

Answering Taylor Marshall on the Eucharist
https://youtu.be/t7xn5hyYiKk

A Protestant Take on Ignatius
https://youtu.be/z42SQYXuXok

A "Worship Problem" For Protestants?
https://youtu.be/lupFft2GqOc

Sola Scriptura is Totally Medieval!
https://youtu.be/3NuskiZmfb0

Did Protestants Remove Books From the Bible !
https://youtu.be/WnzbNkIKwUQ

No, Jerome Didn't Accept a Larger Canon
https://youtu.be/rpHUeTZjeuQ

Origen on Praying to Saints: FINAL Response to Joe Heschmeyer
https://youtu.be/fayEcMfouOc

 Articles:

Church Fathers Who Denied the Immaculate Conception
https://truthunites.org/2020/12/18/church-fathers-who-denied-the-immaculate-conception/

 

A Dissertation Concerning the Rise and Progress of Popery by John Gill

 

A Dissertation Concerning the Rise and Progress of Popery by John Gill
https://web.archive.org/web/20120510002148/http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_57.htm

OR

https://web.archive.org/web/20160506071529/http://pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_57.htm

 

Protestant (Lutheran) Pastor William Weedon Shares His Testimony of Almost Converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, But Eventually Remaining Protestant

 

As I often point out I'm theologically Baptist, Calvinist and Continuationist. But I appreciate my fellow conservative Protestants who aren't Baptist. Here's Lutheran pastor William Weedon's testimony IN TWO PARTS. Plus another video. See also YouTube videos of Joshua Schooping who did convert to Orthodoxy, became an Orthodox priest, but later reverted back to Evangelical Protestantism and is now a Lutheran Pastor as well. One of my other blogs has a link to Schooping's testimony.

 The following videos are on YouTube.

Why you should stay Lutheran: It's all about conscience Rev. William Weedon pt 1 REMASTERED
https://youtu.be/MSArM0xxtxQ


Why you should stay Lutheran: It's all about conscience Rev. William Weedon pt 2 REMASTERED
https://youtu.be/usvyxJL4SGQ

Why you should be Lutheran INSTEAD of Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (w/ Pr. Will Weedon)
https://youtu.be/FtJodGxj-Js

 

 

 

 

Gavin Ortlund on His New Book About Protestantism

 

 Baptist scholar Gavin Ortlund's introduction to his new book explaining Protestantism.

 

I Wrote A Book About Protestantism
[by Gavin Ortlund]

https://youtu.be/CpbNxrZlXfo?si=rNFX9aERDIDs7_-9

Mary’s Assumption Should Make You Protestant

 

Gavin Ortlund changed the name of the video from "Mary’s Assumption Should Make You Protestant" to "Why Mary’s Assumption Is Indefensible" One of the better reasons for changing the name of the video is that just because Roman Catholic beliefs about Mary's Assumption are false doesn't necessitate that Protestantism is true.

 

Why Mary’s Assumption Is Indefensible
(previous title of the video: "Mary’s Assumption Should Make You Protestant")
https://youtu.be/skuBFLns8WA

 

 

Why We Are Still Protesting Rome: Interview With Gavin Ortlund

 

Why We Are Still Protesting Rome: Interview With Gavin Ortlund
https://youtu.be/inIIadwXAUk

 

 

 

 

My Response to a "Catholic Pascal's Wager"

 

In a facebook group a Catholic posted a "Catholic Pascal's Wager." The following is my respond that I posted in the same group year later. I'll quote the wager and then respond to it.

//A Catholic's Pascal's Wager: If sola fide Protestant soteriology is true, then all good Catholics will be saved. If Catholic soteriology is true, then not all good sola fide Protestants will be saved. This is a strong reason to be Catholic rather than sola fide Protestant.//

My two cents worth: I disagree. I believe it's a safer "bet" [so to speak] to be Protestant than Catholic for a number of reasons. For example, because Protestantism is more ecumenical. It can allow for the salvation of many more professing Christians (including Catholics, Orthodox &c.). Baptist Gavin Ortlund has said this numerous times in his videos. Here's one with Ortlund and Lutheran Jordan Cooper together:
What is Protestantism?: https://youtu.be/s7mFQ0lw_3A

Whereas it's disputed *If* and under what *Circumstances* Protestants could possibly fulfill these Ex Cathedra statements:

-"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved."- Pope Innocent III, Forth Lateran Council, 1215

-"Consequently we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff"-Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctuam, 1302

It's also safer to be Protestant because Protestant theology is more Biblically grounded. Whereas many Catholic dogmas are weakly/hardly grounded [to put it mildly] in the Bible, and some of those Catholic distinctives aren't even believed by other historic traditions, much less have *early* patristic support. For example, (correct me if I'm wrong) even the Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, Oriental Orthodox [et al.] don't believe in Purgatory, the Papacy, some of the Catholic Marian dogmas etc. The early patristic evidence for the Bodily Assumption of Mary is zero and zip. It's clearly late and that's why in debates on the topic Catholics will often focus on appealing to the authority of the Catholic Church rather than on the evidence from the fathers.

Because Protestantism is more directly Biblical, it's more parsimonious and therefore has less doctrinal and practical clutter that can get in the way of salvation. Extra-Biblical teaching might or might not be revelation, whereas we know that Biblical teaching is revelation. Moreover, some the fathers seemed to have taught and practiced a version of Sola Scriptura. Including [sic] Augustine!!

Sola Scriptura Defended Playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLshImU6jwhvyFYwH_KCsnU_XVdLAbvSF5

Knowingly or (likely) unknowingly, the Catholic Wager above seems to also equivocate on the word "good." Using or taking advantage of the word "good" in two different senses. "Good" in the sense of consistently believing X theology, and "good" in the sense of living a life of godliness. When it says "good Catholic" it might mean a godly Christian life. If that's what it means, then I'm one of those Protestants who is willing to grant that there's some possibility that some Catholics end up in heaven despite their erroneous theology. Since one is saved by faith alone, and not by a knowledge of and an assent to the doctrine of faith alone.

At the same time, and to balance that candid admission, there are Catholic teachings which, technically speaking, are damnable. For example, worshipping the consecrated host in a monstrance [which is creature worship if transubstantiation is false], and the use of images in worship which was rejected by the church for about the first 600 years, et cetera [damnable RCC errors in doctrine and practice could be multiplied]. In that sense, there are no "good Catholics." That is, in the sense of consistently believing Catholic doctrine and fulfilling Catholic practice which are, according to Protestantism, technically damnable taken as a consistent whole.

When it says "good Protestant" it's not clear whether it's talking about a certain concept of sola fide, or living a moral and godly Protestant life. If it's referring to someone who merely intellectually assents to the Gospel, then that's something which Protestants are divided on.

The historic Protestant view is that mere intellectual assent to the Gospel isn't saving faith. That error is the historic Sandemanian heresy which equates faith with knowledge + assent. Modern Protestants who commit that error include those who hold to the Non-Lordship [or No Lordship] Salvation view (often coupled with a Dispensational theology). A minority of Calvinists also hold a similar view. Usually followers of Gordon H. Clark [see Clark's book "What is Saving Faith?" which combines Clark's books: "Faith and Saving Faith" and "The Johannine Logos"]. Whereas historically Calvinists have held that saving faith includes not just two, but THREE elements: knowledge (notitia), assent (assensus) AND [God given] recombent trust (fiducia).

On Protestantism all who truly believe will be justified. Calvinists like myself believe that justification can't be lost. While some Wesleyans, Arminians and Luthers [et al.] do believe it can be lost.

So, it's true that not everyone who claims to believe the doctrine of sola fide will be justified or persevere. But that's not very damaging to Protestantism because it's also true that on Catholicism not everyone who intellectually assents to Catholic teaching will be persevere and make it to heaven either.

Catholics might respond, "But given that there are at least two understandings of sola fide which often aren't distinguished as you [i.e. me] did above, it can lead to many people having a false sense of security by holding to Non-Lordship Salvation and not being dilligent about living a life of good works and even using sola fide as an excuse to persist in sin." But that very mistaken understanding of sola fide and of God's grace is what evidences it's closer to the Biblical Gospel than Rome's Gospel is. Since, St. Paul's gospel could be mistaken to teach licentiousness [Rom. 6:15; Rom. 6:1-2; Rom 3:8], while the Catholic doctrine could not be mistaken to teach licentiousness. [See the Lloyd-Jones quote below]. Though, the Catholic approach to salvation can also be abused to justify licentiousness. As Catholic members of the mafia sometimes abuse the sacrament of Confession (in not having true contrition) to receive the verbal absolution of sins by a priest.

Moreover, even many of those who teach Non-Lorship Salvation encourage people to live godly lives. It's the wicked believers in Non-Lordship Salvation who naturally abuse a mistaken understanding of sola fide (that's contrary to the historic understanding of sola fide) as an excuse to continue in sin.

The Catholic Wager [to repeat] states, "If Catholic soteriology is true, then not all good sola fide Protestants will be saved." But big deal, if Protestants aren't in the Catholic Church and aren't submitted to the Pope, then he can't be saved anyway. That's the case whichever view of sola fide he holds to and regardless of whether he lives an apparently godly life or not. That Protestants can be in the church and/or under the Pope's authority tacitly and without knowing it is a novel/new interpretation of classic Catholic exclusivistic statements like the two Ex Cathedra statements I posted above. No one who lived in the Ages those ex cathedra statements were given interpreted them in the inclusivistic way many modern Catholics do. That was the case for many generations afterwards as well. The modern Catholic interpretation is anachronistic. BTW, There's a longer ex cathedra statement below that better supports my point.

So, in summary, I think the Catholic Pascal's Wager not only fails, but a better case for a Protestant Pascal's Wager could be made. Which I only briefly outlined above.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Here's the D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones quote: //"The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel. Let me show you what I mean. If a man preaches justification by works, no one would ever raise this question. If a man’s preaching is, ‘If you want to be Christians, and if you want to go to heaven, you must stop committing sins, you must take up good works, and if you do so regularly and constantly, and do not fail to keep on at it, you will make yourselves Christians, you will reconcile yourselves to God and you will go to heaven’. Obviously a man who preaches in that strain would never be liable to this misunderstanding. Nobody would say to such a man, ‘Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?’, because the man’s whole emphasis is just this, that if you go on sinning you are certain to be damned, and only if you stop sinning can you save yourselves. So that misunderstanding could never arise… …Nobody has ever brought this charge against the Church of Rome, but it was brought frequently against Martin Luther; indeed that was precisely what the Church of Rome said about the preaching of Martin Luther. They said, ‘This man who was a priest has changed the doctrine in order to justify his own marriage and his own lust’, and so on. ‘This man’, they said, ‘is an antinomian; and that is heresy.’ That is the very charge they brought against him. It was also brought George Whitfield two hundred years ago. It is the charge that formal dead Christianity—if there is such a thing—has always brought against this startling, staggering message, that God ‘justifies the ungodly’ [alluding to Rom. 4:5]…//

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Here's the longer ex cathedra statement: Ex Cathedra: "[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only Pagans, but Jews, heretics and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but are to go into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil, and his angels', unless before the close of their lives they shall have entered into that Church; also that the unity of the Ecclesiastical body is such that the Chruch's Sacraments avail only those abiding in that Church, and that fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of piety which play their part in the Christian combat are in her alone productive of eternal rewards; moreover, that no one, no matter what alms he may have given, not even if he were to shed his blood for Christ's sake, can be saved unless he abide in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" (Mansi, Concilia, xxxi, 1739) (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

ANOTHER TRANSLATION: " The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that NONE of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, UNLESS before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, NO ONE, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).

 

Some Older Protestant Responses to Catholicism That I Recently Read

 

The following responses to Catholicism are older and therefore less relevant and less sophisticated than modern Protestant responses. Nevertheless, they are interesting as historical glimpses as to what Protestants and Catholics believed about each other back then and the polemics used back then. I recently read them and found them profitable and encouraging. They help confirm my Protestant convictions that Catholicism is false and an incoherent ahistorical system.

 They are all freely available online:

Joseph Hall's No Peace with Rome: Wherein Is Proved, That, As Terms Now Stand, There Can Be No Reconcilation of the Reformed Religion with the Romish : And That the Romanists Are in All the Fault 


George Bull's A Vindication of the Church of England, From the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome [starting at page 137]

George Bull's The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, in Relation to Ecclesiastical Government, the Rule of Faith, and Form of Divine Worship; in Answer to the Bishop of Meaux's Queries [starting at page 235]


John Jewel's An Apology of the Church of England by John Jewel

translated by Anne Lady Bacon
https://archive.org/details/a588502700jeweuoft

translated by William Withers Ewbank
https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_apology_of_the_Church_of_England_tr_b/onQEAAAAQAAJ?hl

translated by William Withers Ewbank
https://archive.org/details/anapologyofchurc00jeweuoft/mode/2up

 

 

Trent Horn's Straw-Man Misrepresentation of Protestantism

 

The following video also has relevance with regard to the criticism that some Christians have made regarding John Piper's views on final justification. I tend to side with Piper in the controversy. The video highlights some of the facts I would cite as reasons for why I side with Piper rather than his critics.

 

Trent Horn's Straw-Man Misrepresentation of Protestantism 

https://youtu.be/jNsKYXE8D7I

 

 

 

 

Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!

 

Gavin Ortlund makes a case for iconoclasm. Or more precisely iconomachy. There might be more in the series than I've included in this blog.

Icon Veneration is CLEARLY an Accretion!
https://youtu.be/_ytYX4dXpRo

Icon Veneration in the Early Church? Response to Craig Truglia
https://youtu.be/kKEntO868hc

Response to Horn and Akin on Icons
https://youtu.be/BRpO54h59dU

The BEST and WORST Responses to my Icons Video
https://youtu.be/fEb73HYP-iY

Icon Veneration is STILL an Accretion (Response to Hamilton/Garten)
https://youtu.be/gNEw8PxXky8

Is Icon Veneration A Big Deal? What Most People Miss

https://youtu.be/aoU4PO5d6kQ?si=CbBMJSsdd7_Nu78H

On Typology, Eliakim, Peter, and Christ - An Interview w/ Dr. Timothy Rucker

 

On Typology, Eliakim, Peter, and Christ - An Interview w/ Dr. Timothy Rucker
https://youtu.be/ouDCjiwUtaQ