Debating a Protestant

[DylanO]

Hi again everyone,

I’ve been debating a lot of Protestants lately; some of which are out on the fringe. I had been discussing the Table of Nations (listed in Genesis 10). I gave a list of all the names listed there and which peoples today descend from those individuals. I used historical references from ancient historians such as Josephus and Herodotus, names of places, and traditions of peoples worldwide.

Some of these (very anti-Catholic Protestants) called this commentary “stupid” for a number of reasons (primarily because it conflicts in their ‘interpretations’ on who are “Adamites” and who are not. [They believe in Preadamism])

One of these Protestants (a Calvinist, to be specific) has stated before that she refuses to read Catholic material because it is “long and boring”. She responded to my commentary, saying:

I read the first paragraph of the first post of this thread and could not continue as a serious reader.

• along other similar comments.

I responded:

* Too “long and boring” for you?*

The moderator (a Protestant, and anti-Catholic) said this:

Why are you rude to her? Do you think that encourages a productive response back?

Now this moderator completely ignores the rude and condescending remarks over her fellow Protestants, yet acts as if it is me who is the instigator.

I responded:

Excuse me, I’m being rude? Have you even read any of your Protestant friends have said to me?

She said in response:

*So do you believe that two wrongs make a right or that we should repay evil with evil? *

How should I respond to this?

Thanks in advance.

 

[mercygate]

Hi again everyone,

I’ve been debating a lot of Protestants lately; some of which are out on the fringe. I had been discussing the Table of Nations (listed in Genesis 10). I gave a list of all the names listed there and which peoples today descend from those individuals. I used historical references from ancient historians such as Josephus and Herodotus, names of places, and traditions of peoples worldwide.

Some of these (very anti-Catholic Protestants) called this commentary “stupid” for a number of reasons (primarily because it conflicts in their ‘interpretations’ on who are “Adamites” and who are not. [They believe in Preadamism])

One of these Protestants (a Calvinist, to be specific) has stated before that she refuses to read Catholic material because it is “long and boring”. She responded to my commentary, saying:

• along other similar comments.

I responded:

The moderator (a Protestant, and anti-Catholic) said this:

Now this moderator completely ignores the rude and condescending remarks over her fellow Protestants, yet acts as if it is me who is the instigator.

I responded:

She said in response:

How should I respond to this?

Thanks in advance.

You should say: Of course. You are correct. It was unkind to quote the poster against herself. Point taken.

 

[DylanO]

You should say: Of course. You are correct. It was unkind to quote the poster against herself. Point taken.

Thats a good one. Thanks for your response.

Does anyone else have anything to add? I plan on writing a longer response to this moderator’s statements.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Janet_S]

Thats a good one. Thanks for your response.

Does anyone else have anything to add? I plan on writing a longer response to this moderator’s statements.

Thanks in advance.

Don’t be surprised if you get banned just for standing up for the Church.

Just keep doing what you’re doing and continue to use the Bible to support what you’re saying. Just your being there and standing up for the Church is doing a lot of good.

 

[mercygate]

Thats a good one. Thanks for your response.

Does anyone else have anything to add? I plan on writing a longer response to this moderator’s statements.

Thanks in advance.

I didn’t mean that in a sarcastic way. When we snipe, even when provoked, it hurts our cause.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Dylan,

you should ask this person to point out in catholic teaching in any century where we are to worship the queen of heaven?

ask him to show you where the church erred in teaching and offered worship to someone other than God Himslf, adn have him show you the source of his proof.

If he cannot do this then his argument which is not valid, falls on it’s face.

Anyone can SAY whatever they like as far as this type of calumnious talk goes, but to prove it is an entirely different story.

this would be no different than if you were to claim that he worships a book called the Bible instead of God and then give all these different so-called “proofs” of his church worshipping the Bible. It would take him forever to prove that he does not worhsip the Bible, especially because his church probably does not have enough history on this earth to prove otherwise from it’s members, theologians etc…

The Catholic Church has her proofs from the very beginning.

 

[DylanO]

I didn’t mean that in a sarcastic way. When we snipe, even when provoked, it hurts our cause.

Yes, that is true.

 

[RedSoxFan]

Yes, that is true.

You have my pity in what seems to be a thankless effort that your doing here. Still thank you.

You remind me of those Gieco commercials where the Caveman is debating on tv with a local reporter and an “expert”.

 

[DylanO]

The poster who said “Catholic material is long and boring” said this in response:

I myself was willing to let the “long and boring” statement go, but since it is an issue I would appreciate it very much if Catholics would state the whole thought that I have related in previous posts rather than “picking and choosing” bits and pieces here and there----so typically Catholic----to paint the unfavorable picture you want to see depicted.

What you refused to mention, I had stated to other Catholics throughout many conversations that Catholic material is fraught with twisted interpretations of scripture, false assumptions, and totally unbiblical conclusions.

I used to read lot’s of things that are long and boring like organic chemistry text books, Latin I and II text books, pharmacology text books, etc. But no matter how boring the material I always got something out of it that served me well later in life.

I still read long and boring material like tax codes, medical codes, state and federal regulations, new car manuals,etc. I get something out of reading this material too!

There are some materials however that are long and boring which offer no aid, no insight, no comfort, no stepping stone to greater understanding. Yet you keep reading it because someone put a whole lot of effort into writing this **** so you think there must be a golden horse at the end, but there isn’t.
You waste your time on that sort of material exactly once.

Catholic material is just such material. There is no golden horse at the end! The kindest thing I can say about Catholic material is that it’s “long and boring.” That’s a compliment!

It is a total waste of time to read Catholic tracts, articles, essays because it is NOT CHRISTIAN material, it is brainwashing in POPERY.

I know how I am going to respond to this one but, I would like to hear some other ideas in response to this? Thanks.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

The poster who said “Catholic material is long and boring” said this in response:

I know how I am going to respond to this one but, I would like to hear some other ideas in response to this? Thanks.

I would say, “I’m sorry you feel that way about the Holy Scriptures.” And then give them a link to Where We Got the Bible, or send them a copy of the book.

 

[Sanctus_Paladin]

That argument only works if the Protestant in question believes sincerely that Jesus Christ was the son of the goddess Tammuz.

Lawl

 

[DylanO]

One of these Protestants said:

Catholic Europe butchered any Christian who didn’t toe the line with the Vatican. Research about what the Book of Revelations has to say about the church dripping with the Blood of the Saints.

and

Protestantism is a return to the pure Christianity of the first century, before it was corrupted by the Traditions of Men (Catholicism-Orthodoxy).

Its a return to non-Catholic, pure, Christianity.

He didn’t say this to me but, I feel like I should answer it. He seems to be one of those people who believe that the Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon”.

 

[DylanO]

Now I’m discussing Sola Scriptura with this Protestant. One of them linked this article into the discussion.

The link clearly says, at the bottom of the page:

Roman Catholic and Orthodox “oral tradition” defenders attack the Bible and we defeat them with the sword of the Spirit!

Protestant:

Me:

Catholics do not attack the Bible as that article implies

I wouldnt say they attack it, but i would say they try to denigrate it and reduce its importance because they know their church authority is threatened by its words.

Me:

Catholics know that the Bible is the perfect, infallible, inerrant Word of God.

Then you have no excuse.

How should I respond to these statements? Thanks.

 

[Church_Militant]

Catholic Europe butchered any Christian who didn’t toe the line with the Vatican. Research about what the Book of Revelations has to say about the church dripping with the Blood of the Saints.
and

He didn’t say this to me but, I feel like I should answer it. He seems to be one of those people who believe that the Catholic Church is the “whore of Babylon”.As always ask for his sources and if he cannot or will not provide them so you can check and respond then blow him off and don’t respond to anything else that he says. As the saying goes…talk is cheap, but in a discussion like this facts are what it’s all about.

In fact there’s a rather long leap from Revelation’s WoB prophecies and the Catholic Church and if you search the CA Library for just that term you’ll find some excellent articles that deal with this.

His other remark that,

Protestantism is a return to the pure Christianity of the first century, before it was corrupted by the Traditions of Men (Catholicism-Orthodoxy).

Its a return to non-Catholic, pure, Christianity.

is a load of rhetorical propaganda that he cannot support from scripture and from Christian history. For instance the Eucharistic Real Presence is plainly taught in the New Testament. The modern n-C error is not. Eucharist not a symbol and The Eucharist IS Scriptural will show that the earliest church fathers, (Ignatius of Antioch in this case.) were downright vehement in agreeing with St. Paul and Our Lord.

Now I’m discussing Sola Scriptura with this Protestant. One of them linked this article into the discussion.

The link clearly says, at the bottom of the page:

Quote:

Roman Catholic and Orthodox “oral tradition” defenders attack the Bible and we defeat them with the sword of the Spirit!

How should I respond to these statements? Thanks.

“Sword of the Spirit”…refers to Ephesians 6:17 And take unto you the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God). , but in this case all he’s saying is that he supposedly defends it using the Bible, which is essentially true, though saying that they “defeat” our refutations is just cheer leading because if it were true then their case would be better than it is, when in fact it is not. He’s declared victory when in fact he hasn’t won.

Make him prove that the Bible specifically says that it is the sole authority. He can’t do it. Also, there is a lot of scripture that teaches that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth and that St. Paul does not tell Timothy to only study the scriptures to show himself approved unto God and rightly dividing the word of truth. (2nd Tim 2:15)

Scripture and Tradition

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).

“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15)

“You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1-2).

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

“‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 12). (Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

Originally Posted by Protestant:I wouldnt say they attack it, but i would say they try to denigrate it and reduce its importance because they know their church authority is threatened by its words.

This is propaganda. The FACT is that we reject SS for the simple reason that it is not taught in the Word of God and even if I were someone who used the Bible exclusively to support what I believe, I couldn’t believe SS because it’s not a Biblical doctrine but a modern post reformation errant misinterpretation.

Originally Posted by Me
Catholics do not attack the Bible as that article implies

You’ll need to offer more substantive arguments than this. You’re better off to ask for some authentic and authoritative Catholic document that shows that that is taught by the church. They may offer some CCC quotes that speak of the place of Sacred Tradition in Catholic teaching, but that’s okay (and a different issue), but they cannot offer anything anywhere where the church teaches anything that denigrates the Word of God. It’s just not there…

Originally Posted by Me
Catholics know that the Bible is the perfect, infallible, inerrant Word of God.

Don’t engage in rhetoric like this. It makes your case weak and no better than theirs, leaving you open to their response that follows.

Then you have no excuse.

Dylan, you rather desperately need to invest some time and money in some serious apologetics study materials before continuing your debates. these are very fundamental issues that are dealt with by many very good authors.

I urge you to invest in the San Juan Catholic Seminars basic Apologetics series and sit down with a ruler, highlighter and a pen or pencil and really study these booklets. (I keep them near to hand even now and mine are all marked up.)

I strongly recommend (at least) # 1, 3, 6, 7, & 8 and they are only about $6.00 a piece, so it can’t get much more reasonable than that. Listening to (and studying) John Martignoni’s excellent MP3 Catholic Bible studies is another great asset you can take advantage of, and you can burn them to CDs (or order them from BCS) and do it again as you please.

You’ve got the heart for it…now you need to study to build on that.

 

[DylanO]

This other Calvinist sent me this message:

There is no set standard to identify oneself as a Catholic because Catholic doctrine keeps changing. The RCC claims the ecf while rejecting them. The ecf denounced as heresy marcionism, univeralism, pelagianism yet this is what the RCC has taught for the last 1000+ years amongst many other things that are not in scripture. The RCC claims scripture while rejecting the sovereignty of God and establishing the sovereighty of popery.
I don’t have to understand anything about it because it is all a lie, from beginning to end. If it is not in scripture it is not from God. Perod. The RCC is simply a cover for jewry. The jews entered the church from the beginning but could not gain control till the emperor in Constantinople appointed the bishop of Rome as the “bishop of bishops” in 605 AD. Till that time all bishops referred to each other as patriarchs.

The Reformed faith is based on standards established by the Canons of Dort, further confirmed in the Westminister Confession. When there is a departure from these teachings then one can say that the professor is no longer Protestant. For this reason the self-professed Protestant churches of today are not Protestant, they are apostate, all of them, because they ALL reject Dort and the Wesminister Confession.

I know this relies on a lot of BS but, what would be a good Catholic response to this?

 

[justinthemartyr]

Quote:
There is no set standard to identify oneself as a Catholic because Catholic doctrine keeps changing. The RCC claims the ecf while rejecting them. The ecf denounced as heresy marcionism, univeralism, pelagianism yet this is what the RCC has taught for the last 1000+ years amongst many other things that are not in scripture. The RCC claims scripture while rejecting the sovereignty of God and establishing the sovereighty of popery.
I don’t have to understand anything about it because it is all a lie, from beginning to end. If it is not in scripture it is not from God. Perod. The RCC is simply a cover for jewry. The jews entered the church from the beginning but could not gain control till the emperor in Constantinople appointed the bishop of Rome as the “bishop of bishops” in 605 AD. Till that time all bishops referred to each other as patriarchs.

The Reformed faith is based on standards established by the Canons of Dort, further confirmed in the Westminister Confession. When there is a departure from these teachings then one can say that the professor is no longer Protestant. For this reason the self-professed Protestant churches of today are not Protestant, they are apostate, all of them, because they ALL reject Dort and the Wesminister Confession

---

Response:

Where does Catholic doctrine keep changing? please give me an example of where catholic doctrine on faith and morals has changed to mean something contrary to what was originally taught.
Where are those heresies taught?

Jesus established the papacy and commanded Peter(cephas) to feed his sheep and tend his sheep, making him the earthly shepherd of His flock. Nothing wrong there.

Catholic teaching is in scripture, just not from a reformers lens. Start from the beginning of Church history and then come forward, and you will see that the early church taught entirely different from what the reformers and their disciples preached.

Your theory concerning the jewish aspect of the Church is amusing, but baseless.

The reformed faith is based on individual men’s interpretation of scripture which has caused widespread division and chaos is Christian realms, making it ultimately confusing as to where to go to church and what to believe since there are sop many denominations(splits and sects) no one can keep up with the constantly changing doctrine and practices.

 

[DylanO]

Here is something a Protestant asked:

If Jesus Christ was born poor, fought for the poor, and hated the abusers of money and the rich… Then why do you adhere to a system who’s leaders is one fo the wealthiest in the world (the pope). Not only that, but would Christs Church establish its own banks charging interest and not allow the general public to know anything about this money? Money hasn’t helped the rcc’s IQ.

How should this be answered?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Here is something a Protestant asked:

If Jesus Christ was born poor, fought for the poor, and hated the abusers of money and the rich… Then why do you adhere to a system who’s leaders is one fo the wealthiest in the world (the pope). Not only that, but would Christs Church establish its own banks charging interest and not allow the general public to know anything about this money? Money hasn’t helped the rcc’s IQ.

Ask for sources for these allegations. When John Paul the Great passed on, he had virtually NOTHING to leave anyone in his will, from what I understand.

Also, this article might help.

 

[justinthemartyr]

I am seeing a lot of allegations by non Catholics in here, yet I do not see those making these allegations responding to our questions back to them. I see responses from catholics and almost no response in regards to them. Is this civil discourse and true skepticism at work, or propogandism at it’s worst?

I would like to see those who made allegations, respond to our responses and answer our questions.

This is not a one way street.