Is It Protestant VERSUS Catholic? | My Conversation with @TruthUnites

Gospel Reassurance Through Theological Depth

Is the current Catholic view of justification heretical?

We personally did not create all of these disagreements. We inherit traditions that have disagreed, and all sides have sinned against one another.

As we engage, you know, again, Protestant-Catholic, what are some things you wish that Protestants knew?

Of course I would like people to embrace a Protestant perspective. That would be a step towards Catholicity, actually.

You debated Trent on Sola Scriptura. What was that experience like for you, being on stage against Trent Horn? I just want to kind of jump in and hear a little bit about your background. So I guess the first question that comes to mind for me, and I know some of my viewers too, is how did you get into, you know, the academic field?

You know, how did you come up and become a pastor? Tell us a little bit about your story.

Yeah, it's kind of fun to share this because I haven't gone into this in great detail, I don't think, on YouTube before. But I originally felt a call to academia, or I don't know if I could say felt a call.

I think it was actually kind of an idol. I've always loved thinking. I've always loved to study. In late high school, early college, I began to enjoy studying more. I started reading C .S. Lewis. I started reading other things that kind of whet my appetite for the life of the mind and all of that.

And then I was in seminary and I was feeling a call to ministry and didn't know what that would look like. My dream was to go to Princeton and study Karl Barth. That was Princeton Seminary, not university.

That was my dream. That's what I hoped to do. And there's lots went into that. And the short version of this story is basically the Lord kind of worked in me and helped me to just go back to the simple verse in Mark 10 .45.

Even the son of man came not to be served, but to serve. And I began to think more about, okay, it's not just about what I want to do or what I would find intellectually interesting. I need to spend my life for the kingdom of God.

I felt the Lord was calling me to pastoral ministry and to just let go of the PhD thing. So I've been in pastoral ministry pretty much consistently since around 2010. But then I felt like God gave me that dream back.

And while I was a pastor, he opened up a door to do a PhD at Fuller Seminary. And I had a great experience there. And then since that time, I've just, God's been so good. He's opened up doors for publishing and for academic things, conferences, things like that.

We have considered teaching at points, but at this point, I feel like the Lord's got me right where he wants me in terms of this kind of ministry. Right now, there's more doors opening up for online apologetics type ministry.

And that's interesting because that's kind of a third thing, different from both local church ministry and academic ministry. So I'm finding my way in that world right now.

JG Wow.

I mean, could you maybe say a little bit more about online apologetics ministry? I'm sure some of the ears of our viewers perked up there. What does that look like?

Online Apologetics as Pastoral, Human, and Compassionate Ministry

CB Well, I never thought I would get into apologetics because I sometimes have some hesitations about how apologetics can go. Sometimes, not always, but sometimes it can be a bit triumphalist. Sometimes it can be about just scoring points.

And there's just certain things about that personality that the personality God has given me isn't necessarily what you would think of when you think of apologist. I'm not someone who loves arguing. I probably fit better as kind of a pastor scholar in terms of my natural temperament.

And yet, I actually think the needs of the times right now do call for apologetics that is a little more human and has a little more of a compassionate touch to it. So I do sense God calling me to just do everything I can to try to meet needs.

And there have been opportunities that have come up through my YouTube channel to try to meet needs, whether it be defending Protestant beliefs, other beliefs, general Christian beliefs, trying to do things like theological triage, which means ranking different doctrines and just trying to speak any way that I can genuinely sense maybe this could meet some.

Needs.

That's really what I try to come back to. I have my marching orders from a passage in Isaiah 58 that I feel like God's put in front of me that talks about giving food to the hungry. So every video I come back to and say, is this going to meet needs?

Is it going to help people? That's what I want my whole life to be about.

That's so good. It's funny you say that. The way that my channel has sort of come up, so to speak, is through debates specifically. So I was a former debate teacher and I tried to think about providing some kind of value that wasn't out there.

But I've always noticed, I'm very wary of promoting debates because, I agree with you, we are so adversarial right now in our culture, in our society, in the way that we talk to each other as people, believer and non-believer.

So whenever I put out another debate teacher reacts to the series, I'm always like, oh man, I'm trying to be very careful because I don't think we should be debating, actually. I think we should be loving each other.

We should be leading. Our lead foot should be in love and caring concern and letting conversations flow that.

Way.

So I appreciate what you said there. Maybe we could talk about your heart behind Truth Unites, behind your ministry efforts there, and you already have sort of said this a little bit, but especially when it comes to engaging Roman Catholicism.

What is your heart behind it? Is it merely to clarify false teaching behind Roman Catholicism, or is it to maybe one day unite the Church again?

Gospel Reassurance, Truth, and Unity Without Compromise

Hmm, yeah. Well, this has come into greater clarity in my own heart and mind over time. When I was in my first six months of my YouTube channel, I was still sort of feeling out what it would be like, and it's actually surprised me that I've gotten pulled into Protestant versus, I'll just say the non-Protestant traditions to encompass all of them out there as much as I have.

I've condensed my goal down to five words, and it's gospel reassurance through theological.

Depth.

And so the idea there is that we're trying to go a little deeper into theology, and the purpose of that being that we want to create an assurance in the gospel, clarity about the gospel, an assurance in the gospel.

I just see that there's a huge amount of anxiety right now, and a lot of people are questioning things, and that's a feature of the culture and the times in which we live. And so I've just resolved that I want my YouTube channel to be something that people can go to, kind of the imagery of food to hunger from earlier.

Another thing would be if you're walking up a steep staircase and there's the railing beside you, you can hold onto to help you as you go. I hope the resources I'm putting out there are like that. I hope it's just a help and a stabilizing factor for people.

Our church prays for revival in our nation right now. We pray for the third great awakening. Right now, we're just in a time of massive secularization and de-churching over the last 30 years. The percentage of religiously unaffiliated people has gone from 5 to 30 or more, from one out of 20 people to one out of three almost.

It's just crazy the time we live in. And so in that sea change of anxiety, I'm just trying to speak hope and speak the gospel and speak the love of Jesus as much as I can. But I have gotten pulled into the Protestant stuff, and that really is my goal there.

So to your question of unity and that kind of thing, I would say in some respects, yes, I do hope for as much unity as we can have, but of course, not at the expense of truth. So I also try to commend the truth, and that does mean defending Protestant beliefs as.

Well.

But I think we can try to do that in a gracious way where we try to remain friends along the way as much as we can.

Yeah.

I mean, was it something that you ended up reacting to that sort of caused you to start talking about that more, about sort of answering Roman Catholicism, or was it always your plan to sort of go down this path in YouTube?

Totally caught me by surprise. Never thought I would get into Protestant apologetics, you know, never. It was never a point of emphasis in my past. And the simple reason was trying to respond to needs.

I got onto YouTube, and I started to look around, and I realized we actually have a fair number of general Christian apologists on YouTube, many of whom are doing really fantastic work. You know, you think of people like William Lane Craig and his great ministry, Reasonable.

Faith.

He's out there.

He's doing stuff, and there's lots like that. But what I discovered is there are apologists for the non-Protestant traditions on YouTube who really occupy a significant space, and they're churning out a lot of material, you know, arguing against Protestantism.

And there really hasn't been very much at all response to that on YouTube, and so I just got sucked in. You know, you start addressing it a little bit, and then you feel all these needs coming at you, and you're getting emails every day from people saying, hey, what about this?

Could you do a video on that? And so you're just responding to the needs, and before I knew it, now I'm a Protestant apologist to my own surprise.

Yeah, well, I think that's also a testament to, you know, the giftings that God has given you and your obedience to develop those talents and skills, to be able to sit back and go, how can I best fill in needs?

I'll go this way. And what you've done is tremendous work. I was saying this before we got started here, but I'm a huge fan of Truth Unites. I try to catch all your videos. If I can just encourage you, and I'm sure I'm speaking on behalf of your viewers as well, keep going.

It's a blessing. You really are doing the Lord's work, so thank you.

Oh, thanks. Thanks, that means a lot to me.

Yeah, well, so you mentioned non-Protestant apologists, so let's talk about Trent Horne just for a split second. So you debated him. You debated Trent on solo scriptura. So I'm just curious, you know, especially for somebody like me, a former debate teacher, stuff like that, what was that experience like for you, being on stage against Trent Horne?

Debating Trent Horn and Preparing for a Live Audience

Yeah, I'll be curious for your thoughts. I mean, feel free to share your perspective as a former debate teacher. I'll actually be fascinated at what you have to say, but I experienced it as a lot of fun.

So Trent is one of the people within that tradition that I enjoy interacting with because he's professional and he's not—there's lots of people online who are just as provocative as possible, or they will try to tear you down in all kinds of ways.

I mean, I actually do meet a fair amount of just outright hostility, not from—the vast majority of people in any Christian tradition are not like that, but there is enough of that that you meet that. So whenever I meet people that I'm able to interact with and it feels like it's professional, it's productive, it's above board, it's done with class, you're always grateful for that.

You try to maintain those relationships. Matt Fradd at Pines with Aquinas does a great job hosting debates. They're always very fair. You can just tell they're trying to be honorable in how they go about things.

So I enjoyed the whole experience. I enjoyed debating with Trent. It was fun being in a live audience. It was—the room didn't feel hostile. I share your sentiments about debates. I'm kind of ambivalent about them.

I see some benefits, but I also see some ways they can become a little bit toxic, a little bit about human ego. It's about trouncing the other side. And I think my biggest frustration with debates is the way a lot of people view them.

I finally figured out how to phrase this more in terms of the optics than the substance. That's how I finally figured out how to phrase that. I used to use the word rhetoric, but I think rhetoric is a great thing.

Rhetoric is good, so I don't want to use that word. But I mean optics than substance. Some people view it in terms of just this very surface-level appearance of how something might have appeared at one moment and less so the actual arguments, and that's just a feature of debates that can happen.

But a lot of people don't do that too, but that's just something you have to be aware.

Of.

But yeah, so the room, the mood of the room was very cordial. It was fun. Afterwards, we all hung out a long time, and that was great just to get to know people. And even the next day, I was grateful we had a dialogue, some about Catholic versus Protestant relationships, but also about atheism and where we can come together.

And that felt really healthy to be able to not hold back in a debate, but also supplement it with a kind of dialogue about areas of common ground. It just feels a little bit more human to be able to do both of those.

So that was a great experience too. So yeah, no, I enjoyed it. The only other thing I remember feeling is just how fast it flew by. I mean, it was just like, and that's not a criticism of the time slots we gave because even if we'd had longer ones, it probably still would have felt like that.

But it just absolutely flies by. What I tried to do is a ton of preparation in advance so that I'd be ready to not have to think in the moment any more than is necessary and just kind of be prepared to anticipate whatever might come up.

So that's probably, to me, one of the key things in a debate is being ready for what might come about.

No, actually, that was the next question I was going to ask you. First of all, I'm so sorry. I actually have not seen the exchange yet. I had always planned on doing it and I got caught up with work at the time and never circled back around.

So I actually plan on watching it. And yeah, I have excitement to see it because Trent, he's a formidable opponent, but also you are incredibly intelligent. So I see that as a great match up there. Having said that, though, I was going to ask you about your prep because, and this is something I try to relay in the debate videos, it is incredibly important that you anticipate what your opponent is going to say.

Not in the wrong way. You actually have to, and it's a skill, anticipate what they're actually going to say. So I wanted to ask you, how did you do that? How did you, in your mind, what were you telling yourself?

This is what Trent is going to say when I see him. How did you figure all that stuff out?

Anticipating Arguments in Debates

Yeah, yeah. It was a fun process to prepare and just read a bunch, first of all. But then as you say, it's such a different skill set than just what you might do for like writing an article on Sola Scriptura or something like that, or even giving a speech on Sola Scriptura.

I mean, that's like 5 overlap, but then you move out and so much of it is anticipation. And then you have to be mindful of rhetoric and soundbite as opposed to hyper nuanced chain of argumentation, because you have five minutes or you have seven minutes or whatever.

It is.

So yeah, I mean, nothing too complicated. Basically just, you listen to Trent's treatment of Sola Scriptura a little bit. I didn't do a super deep dive, but I watched a couple of videos where he's addressed that to try to learn his way of thinking about the topic.

And then I looked at his chapter in the case for Catholicism, a book he wrote just where he addresses. I think he's probably got two chapters in there on Sola Scriptura. So you become really familiar with the arguments.

And then it just takes a lot of time to just basically think through and type out. You know, I think I just came up with maybe 10 or 12 different possible arguments at different points where you can then basically just write out a paragraph response, kind of like a one paragraph soundbite response and as clear and cogent as possible.

And then you just have those typed out and ready to go. And so, yeah, so it's basically just a matter of study the topic really thoroughly and then anticipate responses and then try to think through in terms of the structure of the debate, when those might come up, how things might fall out.

And of course, it's always the case. You just don't have enough time to say everything you want to say.

That's true.

Well, shoot.

I mean, as you list the things that you did, it sounds like maybe you'd done this before. Did you have a background at all in debating in school or?

A little bit. I don't consider myself a huge debater. I did debate in high school. So four years of debate in high school. I did Lincoln-Douglas debate. So where I went to high school in Georgia, it was policy debate.

But then I was the one person who really wanted to do Lincoln-Douglas debate, which for people watching this is just a different format of debate, which I like because it's less reliance upon evidence that you're reading through really quickly.

As in policy debate, it's more focused upon the arguments. And I just find that a little more profitable and more enjoyable myself. So I did four years of debate in high school. It wasn't my main focus.

I don't really consider myself an expert debater or something like that. But I think I've learned enough to be able to do it. You know, each time I have an opportunity, I'll pray through it and think through it.

And if I think it could be useful, I'll engage in that way. I've done maybe five or six, you know, since I started my YouTube channel, formal debates, maybe. I think that's right. I think five or six.

So, yeah, it's a medium that I find limited, but not terrible. And I think it has value. But I think just going into it, understanding that it's not going to be the answer to truth, that you're going to have to conjoin debate viewing with reading, dialogue, reflection, your spiritual life, your prayer life.

You know, this is just one tool among others by which we can discern truth. I think knowing that going into it helps. But, yeah, I did do, I do have a little bit of a background in debate, enough that gives me a little bit of a sensitivity for that world and that way of thinking.

Engaging Catholics with Patience, Curiosity, and Clear Definitions

Yeah, that's great. Well, I look forward to checking it out, and I'm sure everybody in the audience is tisking me for not having seen it. Well, so maybe we can shift a little bit, and instead of talking about debating, maybe the better way to say it is just engaging.

Again, one of the things that you're focused on at Truth Unites is engaging Roman Catholicism. And so, I guess maybe the question I could ask here is, like, what is the goal of engaging Catholics, in your mind, as you think about Protestants doing this kind of a thing?

Are we merely just trying to make Catholics Protestant, or is there something else going on?

Well, I try, I find it helps me to have modest goals and not think, if I go into every interaction thinking the goal is to just get whoever I'm talking to to agree with me, that this is very unlikely to succeed, and there will be more of a tendency for frustration.

But if you try, what helps me is to try to keep the bigger picture in mind. And so, the main goal for me, others might feel called differently, the main goal for me is to help viewers who might be struggling with anxiety or uncertainty about the topic, and to help them understand what is a historic classical Protestant perspective, or if it's a different field, some other topic.

It could be within Protestantism, a Baptist perspective or something like that. So, I'm trying to help the viewer. I'm trying to help, and that helps me to keep that in mind, because then I'm less tempted to go down into every time, if somebody misrepresents you and you're tempted, should I respond to this or not?

And it helps me to remember a lot of times just let stuff go, because the average viewer out there just doesn't care. If Gavin Ortlund was misrepresented in this tiny little thing or something like that, you got to keep your audience in front of you and say, I don't want to serve, meet those needs out there.

And then another thing that actually has been surprising to me is, I think it is, of course, I would like people to embrace a Protestant perspective, because I believe that that would be a step towards truth and a step towards Catholicity, actually.

But I also have respect for people, and I know sincere, intelligent people will disagree and be of a different perspective. So, in the meantime, we can remain respectful to one another. And just to have a civil dialogue is actually a witness to the gospel in our culture, in my opinion.

To be able to talk without hatred, without contempt, I actually think that is countercultural, sadly. And I actually know atheists and agnostics and skeptics do watch the Protestant versus Catholic versus Orthodox discussions.

And many of them, they're in dialogue with me, and they'll talk about, well, I think the Catholic side is better for this reason. And I'm fascinated by that, because I'm thinking, I'm surprised that you care at that point, which of these two sides is right, but I respect their intellect and their intelligence.

So, I do think, in other words, to model the ability to talk civilly, because we share some foundational beliefs across these traditions. One of those beliefs is that God became a baby. So, if we all believe together that God became a baby, we should talk to each other with love and humility.

And that can be a testimony to the gospel to those watching along.

No, you're so right. I love that. What does that do to our conversations, Gavin? So again, I mean, in thinking about engaging Catholics and trying to remove that little bug inside a lot of us where we just want to close the deal, what does that do to our conversations?

Does it spread them out over a period of weeks, months, and years, talking to our Catholic neighbors, co-workers, family members, and maybe just trying to provide one nugget here, one nugget there? Is that what that looks like practically?

What do you think?

Well, I think that is a very wise approach to have patience like that, because the truth is that these differences that we inherit, that's actually kind of helpful for us to remember to depressurize things a little bit, is we personally did not create all of these disagreements.

We inherit traditions that have disagreed, and all sides have sinned against one another. And that comes to us today. So we inherit these differences, and they're not simple. They're complicated. If they were simple, they probably would have been resolved or died out.

But the fact that hundreds of millions of people still disagree for centuries about these things probably means that it's complicated. And it is complicated. And each side has a different range of values and presuppositions.

And so I think what you pointed out there in your question about patience and the need for little bits at a time, and even yes, years, absolutely. We're going to have to, I think, get used to the long haul and not expect a quick fix.

I think it's going to be years and years and years of talking to each other, sometimes before we fully understand, and probably most significant progress will be the result of a longer process, it seems to me.

Yeah. Which has an interesting relationship to debate. One of the fundamental first things that you do is define key terms. Why? So that you can have a conversation with the person that you disagree with, because if you don't, and you don't share terminology, you end up just talking past each other and stuff.

And in regular conversations, I mean, that just takes a while to be able to listen actively and understand the person that you're talking to, their point of view, where they're coming from, how they define certain things.

That does take time. How can you help us, Gavin? We don't apparently want to do anything longer than it takes to microwave popcorn. So how do we instill this habit in us to just take our time and be patient?

Curiosity, Listening, and Avoiding Squishy Ecumenism

Hmm. Well, one value that might help us is cultivating curiosity for the differences. So that if you're thinking of Lewis and Tolkien at the pub, they're talking about their literature and maybe Catholic versus Protestant differences come up.

Lewis and Tolkien are both pretty intelligent, pretty impressive thinkers. And it would be curious to think if I could be a fly on the wall at a meeting of the inklings and just sit there and just soak it in, that would be absolutely fascinating.

Well, there's a lot of people like that today where we can say, I'm curious. I really want to understand a different way of thinking. And I find a disposition of curiosity is so valuable to ask questions.

The ability to really say, like Atticus Finch in Kill a Mockingbird, how does it make sense to them? I want to see the world through their eyes. How does it make sense to them? How is it satisfying and compelling to them?

And the thing is we live in these extremes where some people, they don't have anything like that and we need to encourage them to that. Other times though, people can think, oh yeah, we just need to be curious and understand and listen and dialogue.

And so there's no space for pushback or contending for what you believe is true. And so that's where that balance I think is needed to, especially when it comes to the more important issues, also be okay in the patient process and along the way saying, you know, here is the conviction that God has led me to and here's why that is important.

And I would like to share that and commend that along the way, even while I keep listening as well. And so that way it steers it clear from being too squishy of an ecumenism too where we sacrifice really contending for the truth, which when we sacrifice that, we don't.

Honor the importance of these issues. Yeah, it's so good. Curiosity is such a wonderful quality to have. You know, I was a high school teacher before I became a pastor myself and that is the key to engagement with students is creating an environment where we're all just trying to solve mysteries, you know, we're curious.

The Proverbs, Proverbs chapter 2, incline your heart towards understanding. I mean, this takes curiosity in order to do something like that. It's wonderful, I think. That's wonderful advice, thank you.

As we engage, you know, again, Protestant-Catholic, what are some things you wish that Protestants knew in order to better engage Catholics,.

Just from your vantage point? Yeah, well, I'll give two really basic ones that are so basic that, you know, some people might say, well, of course we already know that, but I have learned not to assume that, you know, something that might seem basic might not, you know, it's still worth saying.

So sometimes Protestants may be guilty of failing to appreciate the sincerity of the other side, but all sides can do this, but it can be this mentality of, we wouldn't say this, but we can think if they really care about the truth and if they're really seeking the truth, eventually, they're just going to see it just like I do and we fail to appreciate that someone might be sincere and disagree or sometimes we maybe have seen a lot of traditionalism in other traditions, maybe even some Protestant traditions, but some of the non-Protestant traditions and so we assume that people don't really value, you know, personal vital faith in Jesus day by day and that's just not true and people just need to understand there are people, you know, I often say there are better Christians than I am in these other traditions and that's so obviously true.

You just look around and you see there's some amazing people out there, so just that's so simple, but you got to say it right up front is don't assume people are not sincere when they disagree with you and don't assume they're disingenuous.

They may be completely sincere, so that's the thing and then another thing would be on the issue of justification specifically. I think a key problem I see is that because that issue has been so central to the Catholic versus Protestant divide, I think that it is sometimes simplified and just as the Catholics will say against the Protestants that you guys are all, you all believe in easy believism where because you believe in justification by faith alone, therefore you're saying works are not necessary.

You can just believe and you're good and that's really a caricature, but similarly many Protestants still labor under the caricature that Catholics are just pure works righteousness and they don't understand grace and that really is a caricature and I think we just need to be open to learning more of the nuances of where that disagreement falls out on justification because that gets right to the heart of the gospel and too often I think there's been a mentality of they just completely deny the gospel, whereas I would say it's not that simple and at the very least, whatever conclusion someone comes to, they need to kind of wade into the nuances of that doctrine.

That's interesting. One of the, so I hope you don't mind I put it out to some of the audience to ask, you know, questions if they had any questions to send them your way and this was one of the questions, it was related, is the current Catholic view of justification heretical and, you know, I think you're already starting to talk about this a little bit, maybe if you wanted to say a few more words about it, you know, Paul in Galatians says, you know, O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, having begun in the spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh or something to that effect?

So that's kind of the gist of the question that's coming at you, I mean, what do you think about the Catholic view of justification?

Catholic Justification, Legalism, and the Difference from the Judaizers

This might be a left turn. No, that's fine. No, it's totally fine. It's a great question and you're right, we've already kind of pushed into it a little bit. So yeah, I mean, I'll be brief now but I will say I have a video on justification where I unpack a longer response to this.

To briefly summarize, I would just say that I think we have to appreciate, first of all, I don't want to dismiss the concern, you know, that it is possible for us to fall away from the gospel into legalism that does happen in all of our traditions at times where we just don't understand the gospel and we fall.

So I'm not, this is a very live concern that I'm not wanting to dismiss but in terms of the official Catholic view and what is necessary to maintain, I just think we need to appreciate the differences between the Judaizers' error that Paul is opposing in Galatians and Romans and the current contemporary Roman Catholic theology which does have important differences in my opinion.

One of them will be that for initial, they make a distinction between initial justification and final justification. So for initial justification to come into a state of friendship with God, Catholics don't believe you need to do a bunch of good works before God will accept you or something like that.

You can be, you know, a complete sinner running away from God, come to your senses like the prodigal son, run to Christ, have faith, repentance, get baptized and they really emphasize baptism more than like some of our Protestant traditions would but still it's not the same as the Judaizers because they think you're clean and in a state of friendship with God just at that point.

Now that where it gets really tough is then from there, you know, what the necessity of confession, what happens after you commit a mortal sin. So, you know, there's all kinds of important issues that I'm not trying to minimize but I'm just saying is this a scenario where it's like the Judaizers where we have to give an anathema upon them and say they have a false gospel?

I would say no and I would say a caution for us would just be looking at church history where Catholic terminology, the way they define the word justification as a process, that's common to the medieval tradition, that's from Saint Augustine.

So if we don't want to, if we're too quick to say something's a false gospel, we're going to be in a position where we may be saying that about Anselm and Thomas Aquinas and Augustine himself and so I think that might induce caution here to really slow down and work through this.

Well, I mean, that's very helpful.

Because what I'm thinking about as you talk about this is landmines. So again, I mean, the focus of this whole entire discussion, especially for somebody like me, is effective engagement. How can we as Protestants engage our Catholic friends, our co-workers, and our family members and do it in ways that are actually effective?

But now I'm starting to think about landmines and I think we're already getting there. How do we avoid stepping on things that would be a big mistake? And so in terms of engagement, what are some things that we should say to Catholics and we should do, and what are some things that we should avoid doing and saying?

The Church, Authority, and Sola Scriptura in Protestant-Catholic Dialogue

Hmm. Yeah, well, one thing that I find very helpful is to get into, I'll say two things. One is to get into the nature of the Church. I think a lot of times the talking past each other happens because they're thinking of the Church more institutionally and we're thinking of the Church more organically, and even though that's not a complete antithesis, there's a difference of emphasis and that causes misunderstandings in both directions.