25 Unanswered Questions

Dear HW,
I have created this site to list the numerous questions I have asked you during our correspondence that have gone unanswered. Hopefully this will demonstrate the reality of your belief system, that it is a system without answers. A system you have not tested. I have listed 25 questions from our past emails. I quit after 25, because it was a nice round number, and I got tired of listing them. I calculate that there are at least twice this many unanswered questions that you have not even made an attempt to address. Conversely, I have presented to you the Case for the Catholic Faith, the only Christian faith for the first 1000+ years of Christianity and therefore the Faith of the Apostles and the Holy Bible. To my knowledge I have answered every question you have asked. If not please send it to me so I can address it. For the Christian Faith, the Faith of the Apostles has Biblical answers to all questions on matters of Faith or Morals. Please email me, you know the address, INRI33AD@aol.com.
My friend, you have embraced a belief system you have not tested, that is why the majority of my questions, 98% of them, continue to go unanswered. Either you know the answer and don't want to tell me you know, or you refuse to "test" this belief system by demanding an answer from it. Possible because of what that answer might be. The Holy Bible commands us to:
“Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 and our Lord tells us:
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." 1 John 4
25 Unanswered Questions Refuting the Protestant Belief System
1.
Unanswered Question:
How can new ideas or new doctrines be the Gospel of Christ when they were not even embraced by Protestantism’s first Protestants in the 16th century? Christ does not change and neither does his Gospel. So how did Christ's Gospel change for you? I have asked this for 2 years now and have never gotten a reply.
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings." Hebrews 13:8-9
Can modern ideas, (not even embraced by Protestantism's own reformers) like
a. the Eucharist is just a symbol, which denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and
b. the modern idea in some Protestant circles that Baptism plays no role in the salvation process and is not a forgiveness of sin but just a symbol.
Can these ideas or doctrines be "Biblical" if the Apostles did not teach them and write them into the NT Bible? If so, how did these doctrines get into the NT Bible if the Apostles did not teach them and write them in there? The answer is they can't be Biblical because they are modern inventions not even embraced by the first Protestants. This begs the question then,,, why do you embrace these unbiblical ideas and at the same time claim to be a Bible Christian?? Does this not violate the law of non-contradiction?
Some Protestant churches to include yours deny the saving power of Baptism "Baptism...now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:20–21),
Some Protestant churches to include yours deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist ( John 6:52-54, Mark 14:22-24. Matt. 26:26-28, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Cor. 10:16)
Some Protestant churches to include your teaches a "Once saved always saved" idea. The first Protestants didn't even believe this 17th century Anabaptist idea so how could the Apostles have taught it?
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings ." Hebrews 13:8-9
Would the reformers recognize the Strange teachings of Modern Protestantism or Grace Bible Church? Would the Apostles recognize these Strange teachings?
What logic compels you to believe they would when they weren't invented yet?
2.
Unanswered question.
Do you agree with the following: Yes or No.
That the Bible is "Materially Sufficient" yet not "Formally Sufficient." In essence, the Holy Bible is materially sufficient in that it holds all the materials for the complete faith of Christ's Gospel, but it is not Formally sufficient, in that everything required for the Christian Faith is present in the proper form to "take off the shelf" if you will. A perfect example is the Trinity. It is materially present in the Holy Bible but it is not formally sufficient, for no where does the Holy Bible define the Trinity as: One God in three persons, all existing from eternity, that the Spirit proceeded from the Father and the Son as the Nicene Creed states. Again, where does it state that the Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the Trinity or define the Trinity as we know it today or even mention the Word "Trinity?" Can you agree with this delineation of how the Bible is sufficient? If not, again, what verse teaches us, using the Bible Alone, that the Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the Holy Trinity or that it coexisted from all eternity with the Father and the Son? Where is the definition of the Trinity in the Holy Bible? This is an important question HW. For you contend that you can derive doctrine only from the divinely inspired text! And I contend that the material for this determination is there, but not in the proper form. Something else was needed to come to the understanding of the Blessed Trinity. And that something was the Church Christ commissioned to do this very chore. A divinely commissioned institution with Christ's full authority.
"And I say that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, I give you the keys to kingdom of Heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and what ever you loosen on earth will be loosened in Heaven." Matt 16:16-19.
Another example is the Christian understanding of Christ, that he was fully divine and fully human, one person not two, but with two natures, one divine and one human. Was he born human and then became divine?? Or vise versa? Or did he possess both qualities since the incarnation? These principles and doctrines are not "Formally" presented in the Holy Bible so for one to claim it is "the complete Truth and all that we need" ignores the fact that not everything is in the Bible in a formal manner.
Mt 18:17-18 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Do you agree with this: Yes or No. And if no, what verse tells us the definition of the Holy Trinity?
Unanswered Question:
HW, if a belief in ONE God is reasonable, why is a belief in ONE Church teaching ONE Faith so Unreasonable?
"There is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God." (Eph 4:4) You seem to deny Eph 4:4.
Did the Apostles have an "all-or-nothing" approach to the Gospel, the One Faith and the Universal Church? (Catholic in Greek means universal: Katholikos)
Or did they allow "any idea under the sun" to be preached as the "Gospel of Christ" as we find in the ever expanding world of Protestantism? Did they not have but One faith? You criticize the Catholic Faith for an "all-or-nothing" approach yet that is what we find in the Holy Bible. I don't understand this. Is following a Biblical example wrong? Or should the Church embrace the Protestant network of "anything theology goes as long as it's not Catholic" as the 1000s of Protestant churches in the yellow pages give testament to? (And that's just PHX BTW...). What would the Apostle Paul say if Christians in the 1st century rejected the Church Christ commissioned and "church shopped" for their church? He might say something like: "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed ." Gal 1:8-9
This sounds pretty "all-or-nothing" to me. Do you read this verse differently?
"There is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God." (Eph 4:4)
I read "One Faith." Do you read 1000s of Faiths in this verse?
If a belief in ONE God is reasonable, why is a belief in ONE Church teaching ONE Faith so Unreasonable?
4.
Unanswered Question:
You write: As a consequence your defense is geared mostly towards upholding the doctrines of the Catholic Church, instead of an Anselmian type approach that tries to discover the true nature of God and reality.
HW, since the doctrines of the Catholic Church ARE the Gospel of Christ, and since the Church IS the Body of Christ himself, perhaps the two are one in the same.
Unanswered Question: You seem to believe they are not. Why?
Why do you deny the following 3 verses?
Are you saying that the Church is not the Body of Christ?
Why do you reject the Body of Christ?
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. Eph 1: 22
And he is the head of the body, the church; Colossians 1:18
[Paul's Labor for the Church] Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. Colossians 1:24
5.
Unanswered Question: Can you answer why you are not Lutheran? I've asked it 4 times now. [5 with this letter]. Perhaps I can answer it for you. I reject Luther's ideas and Lutheranism because it is a belief system that is incomplete, in that it has changed the Gospel of Christ into something the Apostles did not teach. I believe you reject it for the same reasons. In fact you reject it for the same reasons, "ultimately," that you reject the JW theology, i.e., the Apostles did not teach these ideas. For if they DID teach Luther's ideas in their entirety, you would embrace it and so would I!
Am I correct?
6.
Unanswered Question: Is there any Biblical evidence for the Protestant concept and function of his idea of a Christian church?
Where in the Holy Bible does it express the idea that Christians may pick and choose whatever church they want to attend, and embrace the church with the theology (or gospel) they like, and “church shop” until this is accomplished? What verse tells the Protestant that multiple gospels are authorized in Christianity as evidenced by the 1000s of gospel’s/statement’s of faith in the Protestant world?
"As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed." Gal 1:8-9
Where in the Holy Bible does it say that "the individual" can decide what the Bible means,,, and then find a church that agrees with him? Isn't that how you "church shopped" for Grace Bible Church?
7.
Unanswered Question
Where in the Holy Bible does it tell us that the church’s authority and teachings can be usurped or countermanded by the individual at will? Or that the Church Christ commissioned is Not a divine institution with Christ’s infallible authority to "bind and loose" doctrine?
What verse supports this modern Protestant idea? "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).
8.
Unanswered Question
Where in the Holy Bible does it tell the Protestant that Christ’s Church, his Holy Body (Colossians 1:18) is NOT protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error (on matters of faith or morals)? Christ said he would send the "the spirit of truth to guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13) for his Church to "Teach all nations” until the “end of the world.”(Matt 28:20) Does not the Holy Bible call the only Christian faith in the first 1000+ years of Christianity: "The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Tim 3:15?
9.
Unanswered Question
The Holy Bible is absent of any verse supporting the Protestant concept of what a church is or how it functions. Why would any Bible Believing Christian embrace unbiblical and even anti-biblical ideas on Christ's Church, which is His very Body? "Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church." Colossians 1:24 (Also Colossians 1:18, Eph 1:22
10.
Unanswered Question
It would appear to be black or white. Either one embraces the Holy Bible in its entirety or they don't. Either one believes its Holy Words or they don't. Either the "Gates of Hell" overcame Christ's Church or they didn't. Either the "Church of the Living God is the pillar and foundation of Truth" 1 Tim 3:15 or it isn't. Either Christ sent His Church "the spirit of truth to guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13) or he didn't. It's black or white. Either a Christian "listens" to Christ's Church, the only Christian Faith for the first 1000+ years of Christianity and therefore the Faith of the Holy Bible or one turns a deaf ear to it. Mt 18:17-18 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
To be a "Bible Christian" means to embrace the whole Bible, even the verses that contradict one's belief system, not just embracing the verses taught in your pastors "Statement of Faith” and ignoring/rejecting all others.
BTW: You wrote concerning the claim "only Christian Faith for the 1st 1000 years of Christianity":
Thomas the Apostle traveled to India, having never been to Rome and having never heard of the Catholic Church.
Are you saying then that St Thomas was not part of the Universal (catholic/Katholikos) Church? What church was he representing if not the Universal Church? Or better yet if this was a different church apart from the Church of Rome, what is different in their teachings,,,what does this Thomistic church teach that the Universal/Catholic Church does not teach? And if there is no difference, why would you believe they are two different churches? HW, there was one Christian Faith in the first millennium. Why aren't you part of it?
11.
Your statement of "Of course there’s only one Faith", defies the position you have embraced, which is a belief system that condones and perpetuates 1000s of faiths while at the same time never knowing if any of them are true. The Protestant belief system of uncertainty contradicts Scripture yet again: “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace” 1 Cor 14:33
I don't' see how you can call yourself a "Bible Christian" or embrace the "Bible Only" idea and at the same time reject the verses of Scripture that contradict your belief system. One who rejects Scripture is hardly a Bible Christian. I'm sure you agree. With that in mind:
Unanswered Question:
Again, either the "Gates of Hell" (Matt 16:16-19) overcame Christ's Church or they didn't. Which is it?
12.
Unanswered Question:
Either Christ will be with His Church, His own body "until the end of the world" (Matt 28:20) or he won't. Which is it?
Since the Apostles would not live forever, this promise was to His Church. Did Christ break His promise?
13.
Unanswered Question:
Either Christ's Church, the only Christian faith for the first 1000+ years of Christianity is "The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Tim 3:15. Or it isn't. Which is it?
Either you are a Bible Christian or you aren't. If your belief system cannot answer these questions, reject the system and embrace the Bride of Christ who has Biblical answers to every question you have. “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace” 1 Cor 14:33
14.
Unanswered Question:
I ask you my friend. What is the difference in your approach to Scripture from that of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Rev Moon or David Koresh? Are they not all the same? What do you do that David Koresh did not do in the formulation of his gospel? Did David Koresh embrace anyone else's authority in his interpretation of Scripture? No. Neither do you, you told me this.
You and you alone are your own sole authority on the Holy Scriptures and Christian theology.
15.
Unanswered Question:
Are you your own oracle of Truth? If not who what earthly body, person or organization has authority over you to “Bind and Loose” your theology? Who can trump your gospel? You write:
"People are held accountable for personal study and understanding"
Who holds you accountable HW for all your NEW ideas on Christ's Gospel? Please answer this. Who on this earth holds you accountable? If you were in error in your interpretation, how would you know? Or have you stacked the process so that you are never in error, i.e., a modern prophet.
Mt 18:17-18 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
What earthly body, person or organization has authority over you to “Bind and Loose” your theology?
If you are your own oracle of truth, and as you told me, even your own pastor has no authority over you or your theology, when you teach his Sunday School in his church, when there is a conflict in theology, who’s theology do you teach the children, yours or his?
Matt 18:3-6 "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and ( A) become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and ( A) become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4"Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5"And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
16.
Unanswered Challenge:
The 3rd Unanswered Challenge for Protestant Theology: Is the Catholic Faith Apostolic?
Name just one Catholic doctrine that isn't. Name one doctrine the early Church believed,,,, that the Catholic Faith *no longer does*.
Why can't the Protestant theologies make the same bold claim?
Click here:
http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/questions.html
HW, what did the early Church believe that the same Church today does not? Why does history tell us that EVERYTHING they believed and embraced, the Catholic Faith of today STILL embraces? If not name one doctrine. Why can't the Protestant theologies make the same bold claim?
17.
Unanswered Question: Since your particular theology is unique to you and only you, and is not embraced by any other organization on this planet, have you not in essence created your own denomination courtesy of Sola Scriptura or the Bible Only idea? The “HW-its”?
(So how again did Christ’s Apostles teach these strange teachings of yours?? Did Christ's Gospel change? Did Christ change?)
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings." Hebrews 13:8-9
18.
Unanswered Question.
HW, who has greater evidence for their gospel being “Apostolic” or the teachings of the Apostles? You or the Mormons or the JW’s? And what historical evidence can you provide that they can’t? We know that no one in the first millennium taught their gospel. For the theology of the first millennium was Catholic. Every Christian was of the Catholic Faith.
Who in the first millennium taught your gospel?
19.
Unanswered Question: HW, what greater Biblical evidence is there for the Protestant invention of Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone) that the JW’s do not have? E.G., What greater historical or Biblical evidence is there for Protestantism's idea of Sola Scriptura over the JW idea of Jesus being an angle? At least the JW have a verse to lean on for their idea. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 What verse supports SS as the SOLE infallible rule of faith or that one's personal spin on the Bible takes precedence over the Church of God, or who taught this idea before the Renaissance era? I ask for One verse, One person.
The JW can offer neither. Can Protestantism? If not why do you embrace a belief system that fails your truth funnel?
20.
Unanswered Question:
Why did Christ even bother commissioning his Church and giving it the "Great Commission" to teach all nations if as you say: "The Church doesn't matter"?
Why did he bother?
What was the point?
Why do you think his Church, which is his Holy Body, is optional?
Scripture says: Eph 1: 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. And he is the head of the body, the church; Colossians 1:18
[Paul's Labor for the Church] Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. Colossians 1:24
What Biblical command allows you to reject Christ's Church HW?
Would Christ really want you to reject his Body?
You have never addressed this. Why?
How can you Biblically reject the Body of Christ and still say you are part of his Body?
21.
Unanswered Question: Is this an accurate statement: The Protestant litmus test for Biblicism is: "the person's personal interpretation of the Bible--which may be different from the Christian church down the street -- but that's OK, because as per Sola Scriptura, Protestants are free to believe anything they want. For their absolute authority is not just the Bible, but their particular INTERPRETATION of the Bible, 2000 years and 3 languages removed." Is this not in practicality the modus operandi of the Protestant system of
hermeneutics? If not why not?
This idea of personal interpretation is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20 "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." And in 2 Peter 3:16 "There are some things in scripture that are hard to understand which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction.."
22.
Unanswered Question: “EMPIRICISM: (Is there tangible evidence?)”
What historical “tangible evidence” can you offer for the distinctive Protestant theologies that don't exist for the JW theologies (and are not part of Catholic theology)?
Can you answer this question or provide this evidence?
23.
Unanswered Question: How can your modern theology, the beliefs about Christ's Gospel that you embrace today in the 21st century be what the Apostles taught and wrote into the Bible if they weren't even embraced by your own Protestant reformers? How do you leap from your ideas on Christ's Gospel, ***past*** your own Protestants, to the Apostles?
What Logical explanation do you have for this? I have asked you this repeatedly and have not received an answer.
24.
Unanswered Question.
You write: When you start adding doctrines to your Church, without this type of clear-cut Biblical pedigree, you’re doing what all heretics have done throughout history.
Like what my friend? What is not grounded in Scripture that the Catholic Faith embraces (the only Christian Faith for the first 1000+ years and therefore that of the Apostles). What does the Church embrace [in matters of faith or morals], that is not rooted in the Holy Scriptures? Again there are many verses not underlined in your Bible HW.
See: http://www.catholic.com/library/fathers_know_best.asp
25.
Unanswered Question.
Does it bother you in the least that I have asked you dozens of questions that you have no hope for the reason that you have? What does that tell you my friend?
HW, I ask you: what is your burden of proof to reject your current theology? Do you have a burden of proof, or are you going to cling to it "no matter what" even if you know it's impossible to be what the Apostles taught.
What is your burden of proof HW?
Mine is this.:
1. It had to be taught by the Apostles and Christ's early Church
2. And it can't contradict the Bible.
That is why I reject all of the Protestant theologies, because they all fail #1.
And many of their distinctive ideas fail #2.
IN SUMMARY:
HW, you have no greater claim to Apostolicity for your distinct ideas than the Mormons. You have no greater proof that your modern theology is what the Apostles taught than the JW's do that their modern theology is what the Apostles taught. In fact all of you deny and repudiate the faith of your own Protestant reformers and each other.. Again HW, if I am wrong in the accusation, please, please prove me wrong! This is not an insult but a wake up call that your position is no stronger than that of any other Protestant group to include the Mormons and the JW's, (who just took Sola Scriptura a little too far... even for Protestants).
I ask you to embrace the position of the Church Christ created. A position with answers, Biblical answers. Biblical answers you can't even touch. It's black or it's white. E.G., either the "Gates of Hell" overcame Christ's Church or they didn't, etc., etc., which is it? You ask me to embrace your position, a position that can't answer 98% of the Biblical questions I ask you. An unbiblical position what doesn't even embrace the teachings of the first Protestants...etc. etc.
This is not a contest. It is a battle for souls. I see greatness in you HW, in your ability to communicate Christ's Gospel as it was preached by Christ's infant Church and for 1000+ years thereafter. I don't like doing this, I would rather talk to folks like you about flying. But I can't allow folks like you to reject the Bride of Christ based on false information and false Protestant claims for Apostolicity and Biblicism, and corrupt other souls and attempt to turn them against the "The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Tim 3:15 . Again, either it is or it isn't. It's black or white. . For our Lord commands us to embrace His One Faith, His One Church. Our Lord Jesus Christ has told us:
“I have given them [believers] the glory that you gave me, that they may be as one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” (John 17:22,23)
And Scripture commands this as well:
“Now I beseech you brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing, and that there be no dissension among you, but that you be perfectly united in one mind and in one judgment.” (1 Cor 1:10)
These verses fly in the face of the Protestant world of 1000s of gospels and "church shopping." If you would only read what the Holy Bible says about His One Faith and His One Church, the authority He gave it and the infallibility he bestowed upon it. But those would be the verses not underlined in your Bible HW. And your Protestant prejudice prevents you from accepting the black and white plain teachings of Scripture. (Either it is or it isn't, there is no middle ground.) Either we accept the whole Bible or we reject Scripture and consequently the title of "Bible Christian."
Protestants often ask: "WHAT ELSE IS THERE?"
"What else has Christ's Infallible Authority besides the Holy Scriptures?"
Read the verses most likely not underlined in your Bible nor taught in Protestant seminaries or churches. http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/whatelse.html
God Bless you HW.
Your friend always,
Dan