LOL. When I read the Protestant apologetic against Catholicism, "robust exegesis" is not what I'm seeing. More like a robust disregard for either textual or cultural context, exhibited during a frantic search for prooftexts to rip out of context and use as weapons, while the texts that might support the Catholic view are simply swept under the carpet.
His "off the top of his head" reason number 3 means he doesn't understand the difference between "Pope Francis' off-the-cuff opinions" and the "teaching of the church".
Number 4 tells me he doesn't understand that the "post Vatican II ethos" has even less authority than "Pope Francis' off-the-cuff opinions". (The actual documents of Vatican II, IMO, clearly teach the same thing as Pius IX and other Popes before him: only invincible ignorance can excuse lack of Christian faith.)
Broadly Protestant notions of justification are clearly taught by the Bible.
Where does the Bible teach that justifying grace is only forensic and external, i.e., that justification means a change in how God views us, not also a change God works in us at exactly the same time?
I've not encountered on a regular basis the Roman Catholic who uses/understands the textual or cultural context of the New Testament.
Additionally, when I've shown passages in their proper context that RCs cite to justify their doctrines, that do not support their position, they are ignored.
It is the rare post where a Roman Catholic has demonstrated applying the passage in question in proper context and understanding the Greek behind the passage.
When I've shown how the ECFs contradict each other Roman Catholics ignore that.
I will cite the Immaculate Conception as one of examples when one of Roman Catholicism's own sources admit there is no direct or categorical Scriptural support for the doctrine nor is there unanimous consent among the ECFs on the dogma.....yet Roman Catholicism continues to double down on the dogma.
What difference does it make what a book of myths and fables says about anything?
Sure there HAS to be a DUMMIES book on:
How to Cook an Albatross.
The way it's written:
Examples please of that as a norm, as in refuting such Catholic distinctives as post 172 describes, versus the egregious extrapolation or erroneous exegesis RCs resort to in attempting to support these as being what the NT church believed.
Number 4 tells me he doesn't understand that the "post Vatican II ethos" has even less authority than "Pope Francis' off-the-cuff opinions". (The actual documents of Vatican II, IMO, clearly teach the same thing as Pius IX and other Popes before him: only invincible ignorance can excuse lack of Christian faith.)
Don't you mean lack of Catholic faith, such as is not in submission to the pope, and abiding in the bosom of the Catholic church?
Of just how do you interpret Lumen Gentium? Do Muslims worship the same God as Catholics? Are properly baptized RCs saved if they convert to and live and die as faithful evangelicals, trusting the Divine Son of God to save them by efficacious faith, but not believing in the act of baptism effecting regeneration, or the Catholic Eucharist, the papacy, etc.?
Where does the Bible teach that justifying grace is only forensic and external, i.e., that justification means a change in how God views us, not also a change God works in us at exactly the same time?
It doesn't. Where did documents such as the Westminster Confession teach that conversion and its justification by faith leaves the convert just as he was before, versus heart-purifying justifying faith not being alone but effecting obedience, though the effect is not the cause of actual justification?