![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2025\/11\/SeeNoEvil-2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nI did a presentation with Catholic apologist Suan Sonna on his channel, Intellectual Catholicism<\/em>, called<\/span> \u201cTop 5 Un-Protestant Bible Verses\u201d<\/a> (11-26-25). One<\/span> \u201c@alexanderarias494\u2033<\/span><\/a> (presumably, Alexander Arias) made a reply in the combox. This is my counter-reply. He said it was okay to do a blog post of the exchange. His words will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>. Portions in green<\/span> are from my original prepared presentation, for Suan\u2019s show.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Alexander made his reply and then we had exchanges about it in a general sense. I\u2019ll post those first and then get to an in-depth reply.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/p>\n Interesting comment. Maybe next time you will interact with my actual reasoning instead of caricaturing my arguments and then proceeding to bash \u2019em.<\/span><\/p>\n If you think it\u2019s a caricature, feel free to point out which part wasn\u2019t accurate. I addressed your claims directly\u2026 pillar does not equal infallibility, Jesus using the Law does not equal works-salvation, \u201cthey\u201d does not equal \u201cwe\u201d in 1 Corinthians 15, parables does not equal theological instruction manuals, and judgment according to works does not equal salvation by works. If you believe your interpretations still stand, then show how\u2026 not just assert it. I interacted with the reasoning, you just didn\u2019t like how easily it fell apart.<\/span><\/p>\n I will reply after church today, and I\u2019ll also post your comments with my reply on my blog. Does that sound like I thought my arguments<\/span> \u201cfell apart\u201d<\/span> under your compelling reasoning? You never stop writing (here and on my channel), but you don\u2019t have much to say<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n That is fine, reply whenever you want. Posting it on your blog is also fine. But notice something. Length does not equal substance. Saying you will reply later does not actually answer the points right now. None of my arguments depend on style or speed. They depend on the text itself. If you think I have nothing to say, then it should be very easy for you to deal with the actual claims instead of talking about how many words I write. Just show from the text where pillar means infallible, where Jesus teaches salvation by selling belongings, where Paul commands baptism for the dead as a Christian practice, where a parable about a rich man in torment becomes a doctrine of talking to the departed, or where works become the cause of salvation and not the result of it. Take your time. I am not going anywhere. But when you answer, answer the verses and not my typing habits.<\/span><\/p>\n I don\u2019t need much time to answer your replies (and\/or \u201creplies\u201d). It\u2019ll be up in an hour or two, after I have my late lunch.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/span><\/p>\n Now onto my reply proper:<\/span><\/p>\n Dave\u2019s \u201cfive un-Protestant verses\u201d are basically a masterclass in reading Catholic doctrines into the Bible and then acting surprised when the text doesn\u2019t collapse under the weight.<\/span><\/p>\n This is the usual empty contra-Catholic charge of relentless Catholic eisegesis. Protestant apologists and polemicists of Alexander\u2019s type simply can\u2019t fathom the notion that a Catholic may have a legitimate point to make about biblical texts: contrary to Protestant doctrine. They assume that they \u201cown\u201d the Bible and that they are the \u201cBible people\u201d in a way exponentially superior to any Catholic claims. <\/span><\/p>\n Therefore, given this hostile premise, we get the sweeping charge that the Catholic\u00a0 must\u00a0 be<\/span> \u201creading Catholic doctrines into the Bible\u201d<\/span> (literally, what the word eisegesis<\/em> means). Of course that has to be demonstrated<\/em>, not just asserted. Alexander thinks he has done so. I think he offers a weak, insubstantial, failed reply and has scarcely even begun to \u201crefute\u201d what I have presented, as I will now painstakingly demonstrate.<\/span><\/p>\n 1 Timothy 3:15<\/strong>\u00a0(RSV) . . . the household of God, which is\u00a0the church<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0of the living God,\u00a0the pillar and bulwark of the truth<\/em><\/strong>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church a pillar, not a printing press of infallible dogma. A pillar holds something up. It doesn\u2019t magically become the source of truth any more than Israel did when God called them His assembly. If \u201cpillar\u201d means infallible, then Corinth, Galatia, and Laodicea were all infallible too but Paul says otherwise.<\/span><\/p>\n This is Alexander\u2019s entire reputed refutation of this section: four sentences. There\u2019s no way that that can even remotely refute what I gave. The notes alone that I prepared for the show with Suan, were 3,300 words, which would be roughly twelve pages of writing, and that\u2019s not counting the discussion back-and-forth with Suan (an hourlong show). <\/span><\/p>\n And Alexander thinks he can refute the first part of five (my presentation of it was six paragraphs long) with four sentences (56 words)? It\u2019s simply not possible<\/em>: whatever content he offers. He\u2019s not taking my argument seriously<\/em>, which is what comes from having such hostile premises going in, as discussed above, and which inevitably produces a failed reply. This is why I said that he was \u201ccaricaturing my arguments.\u201d It\u2019s the old straw man routine.<\/span><\/p>\n But it\u2019s very easy to refute Alexander\u2019s 56 words above, because there\u2019s hardy anything<\/em> there<\/em>. It\u2019s like boxing with a paper opponent. We agree that<\/span> \u201cA pillar holds something up.\u201d <\/span>Yes, that was a key part of my argument. But what does it mean<\/em> to support something or be its foundation? I address that presuppositional factor in-depth and at some length; he does not. I never claimed<\/em> that the Church was the<\/span> \u201csource of truth.\u201d <\/span>This is an example of the \u201ccaricature\u201d that typifies Alexander\u2019s reply. He doesn\u2019t even accurately report what I argued, and proceeds to knock down the straw man that he just invented.\u00a0 I said that the Church supported the truth, per Paul\u2019s statement and that we must think deeply about what that means; the implications of it.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cCorinth, Galatia, and Laodicea\u201d are never described as \u201cpillars\u201d so it\u2019s irrelevant to bring them up. This is what we call a non sequitur<\/em> in logic. Paul is clearly referring to the entire Church, not simply local congregations. \u201cChurch\u201d (Gk., ekklesia<\/em>) is used that way many times in Scripture. And so this was Alexander\u2019s entire \u201cargument.\u201d It\u2019s not even worthy of the name. These are bald assertions, and two of them are immediately absurd or irrelevant.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n He didn\u2019t address my arguments for what it means<\/em> to be a pillar or bulwark. Protestants themselves say that<\/span> the two \u201cpillars\u201d of their so-called \u201cReformation\u201d<\/a> are sola Scriptura<\/em> and sola fide<\/em>. They obviously think that both are completely true beliefs, that their system is built upon. One is their rule of faith and the other is the heart f their incomplete and partially erroneous soteriology. They never question the truthfulness of either, precisely because these are their unquestionable axioms or premises. <\/span><\/p>\n Many Protestant reference sources support the straightforward meaning of \u201cpillar\u201d in 1 Timothy 3:15, almost identically to the way that I argued it:<\/span><\/p>\n New Bible Dictionary<\/em> (1962), \u201cPillar\u201d: \u201d \u2018Pillar\u2019 is also used to describe . . . the Church as upholding the truth (1 Tim. iii.15) . . .\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Eerdmans Bible Dictionary<\/em>, \u201cPilar\u201d: \u201c. . . the Church as that which upholds the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) . . . \u201c<\/span><\/p>\n Ellicott\u2019s Commentary for English Readers<\/em><\/a>: This peculiar aspect of the Church, \u201dthe support and pillar of the truth,\u201d was dwelt upon probably by the Apostle as \u201cdefining\u2014with indirect allusion to nascent and developing heresies\u2014the true note, office, and vocation of the Church. . . . Were there no Church, there would be no witness, no guardian of archives, no basis, nothing whereon acknowledged truth could rest\u201d . . .<\/span><\/p>\n Barnes\u2019 Notes on the Bible<\/em><\/a>: The word \u201cpillar\u201d means a column, such as that by which a building is supported, and then any firm prop or support;\u00a0Galatians 2:9;\u00a0Revelation 3:12. If it refers to the church here, it means that that is the support of the truth, as a pillar is of a building. It sustains it amidst the war of elements, the natural tendency to fall, and the assaults which may be made on it, and preserves it when it would otherwise tumble into ruin.<\/span><\/p>\n Thus it is with the church. It is entrusted with the business of maintaining the truth, of defending it from the assaults of error, and of transmitting it to future times. The truth is, in fact, upheld in the world by the church. The people of the world feel no interest in defending it, and it is to the church of Christ that it is owing that it is preserved and transmitted from age to age. The word rendered \u201cground\u201d \u2013 \u03b5\u0314\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u0301\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1 hedraio\u0304ma \u2013 means, properly, a basis, or foundation. The figure here is evidently taken from architecture, as the use of the word pillar is. The proper meaning of the one expression would be, that truth is supported by the church. as an edifice is by a pillar; of the other, that the truth rests \u201con\u201d the church, as a house does on its foundation. It is that which makes it fixed, stable, permanent; that on which it securely stands amidst storms and tempests; that which renders it firm when systems of error are swept away as a house that is built on the sand; compare notes on\u00a0Matthew 7:24-27.<\/span><\/p>\n The meaning then is, that the stability of the truth on earth is dependent on the church. It is owing to the fact that the church is itself founded on a rock, that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, that no storms of persecution can overthrow it, that the truth is preserved from age to age. Other systems of religion are swept away; other opinions change; other forms of doctrine vanish; but the knowledge of the great system of redemption is preserved on earth unshaken, because the church is preserved, and because its foundations cannot be moved.<\/span><\/p>\n Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary<\/a><\/em>: The Church is \u201cthe pillar of the truth,\u201d as the continued existence (historically) of the truth rests on it; for it supports and preserves the word of truth. He who is of the truth belongs by the very fact to the Church. Christ is the alone ground of the truth in the highest sense (1Co 3:11). The apostles are foundations in a secondary sense (Eph 2:20; Re 21:14). The Church rests on the truth as it is in Christ; not the truth on the Church. But the truth as it is in itself is to be distinguished from the truth as it is acknowledged in the world. In the former sense it needs no pillar, but supports itself; in the latter sense, it needs the Church as its pillar, that is, its supporter and preserver [Baumgarten]. The importance of Timothy\u2019s commission is set forth by reminding him of the excellence of \u201cthe house\u201d in which he serves; and this in opposition to the coming heresies which Paul presciently forewarns him of immediately after (1Ti 4:1). The Church is to be the stay of the truth and its conserver for the world, and God\u2019s instrument for securing its continuance on earth, in opposition to those heresies (Mt 16:18; 28:20). The apostle does not recognize a Church which has not the truth, or has it only in part.<\/span><\/p>\n Expositor\u2019s Greek Testament<\/a><\/em>: The Church, of the old covenant or of the new, is the divinely constituted human Society by which the support and maintenance in the world of revealed truth is conditioned. Truth if revealed to isolated individuals, no matter how numerous, would be dissipated in the world. But the Divine Society, in which it is given an objective existence, at once compels the world to take knowledge of it, and assures those who receive the revelation that it is independent of, and external to, themselves, and not a mere fancy of their own.<\/span><\/p>\n Pulpit Commentary<\/em><\/a>: The Church is the pillar of the truth. It supports it; holds it together \u2013 binds together its different parts. And it is the ground of the truth. By it the truth is made fast, firm, and fixed. The ground<\/span>\u00a0(\u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u1f77\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1<\/span>). This word only occurs here at all;\u00a0\u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2<\/span>, common both in the New Testament, the LXX., and in classical Greek, means \u201cfixed,\u201d \u201cfirm,\u201d or\u201d fast.\u201d In the A.V. of\u00a01 Corinthians 7:37\u00a0and 1 Cor 15:58, \u201csteadfast;\u201d\u00a0Colossians 1:23\u00a0(where it is coupled with\u00a0\u03c4\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u1f73\u03bd\u03b1<\/span>), \u201csettled.\u201d Thence\u00a0\u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u1f79\u03c9<\/span>\u00a0in late Greek, \u201cto make firm or fast,\u201d and\u00a0\u1f11\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u1f77\u03bc\u03b1<\/span>, the \u201cestablishment\u201d or \u201cgrounding\u201d of the truth; that in and by which the truth is placed on a sure and fixed basis.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Alexander completely ignored essential aspects of my argument, such as the biblical assertions that Jesus is the \u201ccornerstone\u201d of the Church, and the apostles and prophets also being part of the foundation (all of which presented total inspired truths); therefore, the Church is at the very least infallible<\/em> (a far lesser gift than inspiration). This is how I put it:<\/span><\/p>\n Similarly, in Ephesians 2:19-20 Paul refers to the \u201chousehold of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.\u201d Prophets spoke \u201cin the name of the Lord\u201d and commonly introduced their utterances with \u201cthus says the Lord\u201d. They spoke the \u201cword of the Lord\u201d. Their messages cannot contain any untruths since the prophet is serving as God\u2019s spokesman or intermediary. Likewise, apostles proclaimed truth unmixed with error.<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus is the cornerstone,\u00a0and of course He<\/em>\u00a0can\u2019t be a faulty foundation. And if apostles and prophets are infallible, likewise, so is the Church, \u201cbuilt upon\u201d them. The Church is even\u00a0identified with Jesus himself<\/em>, by being called his \u201cBody\u201d. That the Church is so intimately connected with Jesus, is itself a strong argument that it\u2019s\u00a0infallible and without error regarding doctrine.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Mark 10:17-21\u00a0<\/strong>And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, \u201cGood Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?\u201d [18] And Jesus said to him, . . . [19] You know the commandments: `Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.\u2019\u201d [20] And he said to him, \u201cTeacher, all these I have observed from my youth.\u201d [21] And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, \u201cYou lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Rich Young Ruler passage is just Jesus doing what Jesus does\u2026 using the Law to expose self-righteousness. He tells a guy who thinks he\u2019s crushing the commandments to \u201cbe perfect\u201d and \u201csell everything,\u201d and Catholics somehow think this is a literal salvation formula. Meanwhile Jesus literally says salvation is \u201cimpossible\u201d without God, which is the exact opposite of works-salvation, but sure, let\u2019s pretend that got lost in translation.<\/span><\/p>\n So Alexander gives me about the same number of words supposedly \u201crefuting\u201d my second biblical argument. My initial presentation \u2014 not counting my discussion of it with Suan, was five paragraphs long: two of them quite lengthy paragraphs. His reply is a farce and a joke, and doesn\u2019t address my actual arguments at all. Many people don\u2019t have the slightest clue how to actually debate or dialogue. Alexander is one of them. I explain what a true debate \/ dialogue is in my almost 25-year-old article, <\/span>Good Discussion: Back-and-Forth Dialogue vs.\u00a0\u201cMutual Monologue\u201d<\/a> [1-21-01].<\/p>\n Alexander thinks that Jesus is somehow against the Mosaic law<\/em> in this exchange with the young ruler. Nothing could be further from the truth. And he thinks this has little or nothing to do with salvation. Jesus is asked by him, \u201cwhat must I do to inherit eternal life?\u201d and His reply is to ask Him whether he kept the commandments (i.e.., the law). Jesus doesn\u2019t speak against that; doesn\u2019t say it was irrelevant to salvation (as Protestants habitually do).\u00a0 But He tells him that he has one additional work to do, to be saved: sell everything he owns. And that was because money was the young man\u2019s idol. But he is advised to do this extraordinary work, not merely to have faith alone in Him. I sarcastically expressed in my presentation what a \u201cProtestant Jesus\u201d should<\/em> have said:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cwhy do you ask about works? You\u00a0can\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0do\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0work to attain eternal life! You must have\u00a0faith alone<\/em>!\u201d . . . \u201cIf you would enter life,\u00a0exercise faith alone\u00a0in the son of man. No commandments can save you. Say the sinner\u2019s prayer, so you\u00a0will be saved; and come, follow me.\u00a0Truly, I say to you, it will be hard for a man\u00a0without faith alone\u00a0to\u00a0enter the kingdom of heaven.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the parallel passage, Luke 10:27 the ruler sums up the law in saying, \u201c. . . You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.\u201d This is the very thing that Jesus elsewhere described as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n Matthew 22:36-40<\/strong> \u201cTeacher, which is the great commandment in the law?\u201d [37] And he said to him, \u201cYou shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. [38] This is the great and first commandment. [39] And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. [40] On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In parallel passage Mark 12:31 Jesus says, \u201cThere is no other commandment greater than these.\u201d\u00a0So when the ruler repeated this \u201cgreatest\u201d commandment back to Jesus, how did Our Lord respond<\/em>? He said, \u201cYou have answered right; do this, and you will live.\u201d In other words, living by what Jesus called \u201cthe great commandment\u201d of the Mosaic Law, would save one (\u201clive\u201d here meaning \u201ceternal life\u201d). Yet Alexander somehow manages to believe that Jesus is here knocking<\/em> the Law. <\/span><\/p>\n The complete opposite<\/em> is true. Jesus says here something that should by itself jar Protestants out of their sola fide<\/em> error: that observing the Law and doing an extraordinary work are both the basis of salvation. He never mentions faith. Alexander also \u2014 typically of Protestants \u2014 assumes that no one can adequately observe the Mosaic Law. This is untrue. The Bible says that many people<\/em> did so<\/span>, as I wrote about and documented<\/a>.<\/p>\n In his last sentence, Alexander commits another non sequitur<\/em>, by falsely assuming that we teach works-salvation (we don\u2019t: that is<\/span> Pelagianism<\/a>, which the Catholic Church<\/span> condemned in the 6th century<\/a>) and that we supposedly deny that salvation is impossible without God (we don\u2019t at all: see the<\/span> canons and decrees on justification from the Council of Trent<\/a>).<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:29-30, 32<\/strong>\u00a0Otherwise, what do people mean by being\u00a0baptized on behalf of the dead<\/em><\/strong>? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? [30] Why am I in peril every hour? . . . [32] What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, \u201cLet us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Baptism for the dead? Paul doesn\u2019t command it, endorse it, or even say Christians do it. He calls it something they do, not something we do\u2026 basic pronoun literacy destroys the Catholic argument instantly. But since the Catholic interpretation depends on an apocryphal book they added later, the mental gymnastics make sense.<\/span><\/p>\n Alexander provides his by-now-expected superficial, utterly inadequate, farcical \u201creply\u201d \u2014 this time a whopping 48 words \u2014 to what many Protestant commentators (I cited two major ones) believe is the most difficult passage in the NT to understand. Paul does indeed endorse the practice of penances (secondary meaning of \u201cbaptism\u201d). He is speaking rhetorically<\/em>, as he often does \u2014 especially in 1 Corinthians, which<\/span> contains<\/a> 106<\/a> question marks<\/a> \u2013, with the socratic-like questions. In other words, if the passage were non<\/em>-rhetorical in form (i.e., literal), it would read something like the following:<\/span><\/p>\n People are baptized on behalf of the dead because the dead are raised. This is why I myself am in peril every hour. I gain something by doing things like fighting with beasts at Ephesus, because, after all, the dead are raised and we can help them with our sufferings and penances, which have the greatest meaning, as opposed to a cynical attitude of \u201cLet us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I provided extensive reasoning for why I took the position I did (including similar Protestant analysis): all of which Alexander ignores, all the while claiming that he has refuted me to such an extent that I could have no counter-reply back. I\u2019m not gonna spend more of my valuable time (on this Sunday, the first of Advent) repeating what he will simply ignore or cover with rank insults for the second time, anyway. But if someone wants to hear my reasoning and actually take it seriously, the same argument is presented in my article, \u201cThe Three Most UnProtestant Bible Verses (Transcript)\u201d<\/a> (10-18-25; section at the end). I need not present it again here.<\/span><\/p>\n By now we see the pattern of Alexander\u2019s \u201carguments\u201d: which are little more than bald emptyheaded insults and empty sophistry, so I will spend a lot less time on the last two. He doesn\u2019t deserve anything more, being clearly \u2014 I know now<\/em> \u2014 the sort of person that Paul commands us to avoid:<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Timothy 2:23<\/strong> Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; . . . (cf. 3:5-9)<\/span><\/p>\n Titus 3:9<\/strong> But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019ll give someone one<\/em> reply, as presently, mainly for the sake of others<\/em> observing, but if I see that they don\u2019t know how to debate (yet think<\/em> they do) and offer nothing of substance, and a lot of straw men and misrepresentations and insults (veiled or not), I won\u2019t waste my time again.<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Matthew 25:32-36, 40, 46<\/strong> Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, [33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. [34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.\u2019 . . . [40] . . . `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.\u2019 . . . [46] And they will go away . . . into eternal life. <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Matthew 25 isn\u2019t Jesus giving you a merit badge checklist to earn heaven. He calls them \u201csheep\u201d before mentioning a single good deed. Their works reveal their identity; they don\u2019t create it. But when your theology needs salvation by charity work, everything starts looking like a spiritual performance review.<\/span><\/p>\n Another short mocking, fatuous, vapid supposed \u201crefutation\u201d . . . Alexander utterly ignores my reasoning. I won\u2019t bother to defend it because there\u2019s literally nothing here to deal with. He doesn\u2019t interact. He has not a clue about how rational, intelligent debate works; how it proceeds. It\u2019s the classic<\/span> \u201csophomore syndrome\u201d<\/a>: the kid who has learned a bit in one year of college and starts thinking that he or she \u201cknows everything.\u201d\u00a0 Rather than spend any more time on this asinine rant, I\u2019ll simply repeat this time my entire presentation. Let the reader decide if Alexander has \u201crefuted\u201d it:<\/span><\/p>\n Evangelical Protestants have a line they love to use when they are witnessing: especially if they know the person is a Catholic: \u201cIf you were to die tonight and God asked you why He ought to let you into heaven, what would you tell Him?\u201d But the odd and ironic thing is that I can\u2019t find anywhere in the Bible where God ever speaks<\/em> like this. Nevertheless. These Protestants believe that if God did ask this, He would say that the criterion to get into heaven would be all about faith and belief in Jesus and not about works at all.<\/span><\/p>\n But all Jesus does<\/em> in Matthew 25, which is exactly about this very thing: standing before God after we die, is talk about works.<\/em> Why doesn\u2019t Jesus talk about faith alone <\/em>and why does He never even mention faith at all<\/em>?!<\/span><\/p>\n One day I was curious, and I love to study the Bible, so I started to look up passages having to do with judgment day. I found fifty. Of these \u2013 here\u2019s the striking thing \u2014 not a single one<\/em><\/strong>stated that\u00a0faith alone<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0was the sole\u00a0reason<\/em>\u00a0we were saved. None even mentioned <\/em>faith, except for one: Revelation 21:8. It included<\/em> faith (but not faith alone) along with works.\u00a0In the Bible \u2013 according to the above passage and these other 49 \u2014\u00a0 the exact\u00a0opposite\u00a0<\/em>of what Protestants assert is true: if God asked us the canned \u201cProtestant\u201d question, and we replied by recounting repeated acts of charity and mercy and various other \u201cgood deeds\u201d that we had done, then we would be imitating what\u00a0Jesus Himself\u00a0<\/em>did when\u00a0He<\/em>\u00a0described how a person can enter heaven, but we would \u2013 for some reason \u2014 be rebuked for doing so. The biblical<\/em> answer to this Protestant question, as I discovered, could include any one or all of the following 50 responses: direct quotes or very close paraphrases from the Bible [see the<\/span> complete listing of these passages<\/a>]:<\/span><\/p>\n God should let me into heaven because I am characterized<\/em> by righteousness, integrity, uprightness of heart, good conduct, good ways and good fruits, good deeds, having done the will of God, endured to the end, hearing Jesus\u2019 words and doing them, feeding the hungry, providing drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, welcoming strangers, visiting the sick and prisoners, inviting the poor and maimed and lame and blind to my feast, good works, obeying the truth, being a good laborer and fellow worker with God, unblamable holiness, being wholly sanctified, a sound and blameless spirit and soul and body, being without spot or blemish, knowing God, obeying the gospel, sharing Christ\u2019s sufferings, and repentance.<\/span><\/p>\n Conversely, I\u2019m not<\/em> wicked, committing abominations, angry with or insulting my brother, calling someone a fool, weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness, and the cares of this life, ungodly, suppressing the truth, doing evil, a coward,\u00a0faithless,\u00a0polluted, a\u00a0murderer, fornicator, sorcerer, idolater, or\u00a0a liar.<\/span><\/p>\n