Interesting Debate Between Matt Slick and Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ever since Slick refused to debate Dave Armstrong over the topic of “How do you define Christian” I didnt think Slick could really handle much.

Ill try to hear this debate a little bit later.
 
I met Matt for coffee several times before moving and even had dinner at his house. He is an interesting fellow. He said I was “confusing” to him because I was Catholic and yet he got the impression that I was saved.
He was never rude to me but he seemed like a different person “in person” than he did on his radio show.
 
Ever since Slick refused to debate Dave Armstrong over the topic of “How do you define Christian” I didnt think Slick could really handle much.

Ill try to hear this debate a little bit later.
Hi

So, how did the debators conclude about the definition of “Christian”? Did both sides include JWs, the only true christians, in the definition of “Christian” or not?

I am interested.

Thanks
 
I also have a question to ask after listening to that debate. The Catholic side argued that apostasy means the “total renunciation of the Christian religion;” and since the Catholic Church had not done that, it couldn’t be apostate. So here is a question for the Catholics: Is not Protestantism an apostasy from Catholicism—the true from of Christianity? Well, they haven’t “totally renounced Christianity” either—or at least, they wouldn’t say that they have. On the contrary, they claim to be the true form of Christianity, and Catholicism the false version. So how can they be apostates, without having “totally renounced Christianity” (at least on the face of it)?

How about the Jewish church or religion at the time of Christ? Were they not in a state of apostasy? Did they not, en-mass, institutionally, as a religious establishment, after witnessing all the evidence, reject Jesus who was their God, and meant everything to them and their religion? Does not that amount to an apostasy, not just of individuals, but of the entire religious establishment? But the Pharisees wouldn’t have said so. They would have said that they had the true form of the religion, and Jesus and His followers were outcasts!

So it looks like it is possible for a church or religion to claim or pretend to be the real thing, and even act and look like the genuine article, but without actually being such. Jesus explained it to the Jews in this way:

Mark 7:

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

So it looks like it is possible for a church to outwardly make a show of piety, and pretend to be the real thing; but inwardly to be apostate.

The Apostle Paul gave a prophecy about the condition of religion in the last days, which is pretty close to what Jesus said about the Jews. This is how he described it:

2 Timothy 3:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” means that they look like the real thing, without actually being such. They have the looks, shape, form, and appearance of the genuine article; and make all the claim and pretence to be such; but lack the necessarily divine power and authority that must go with it to be the real thing—i.e. the priesthood power to communicate directly with God, and lead and direct the Church by revelation from God, as the ancient church used to be able do. Well, this is an accurate description of the state of the Christian world today—not just of Catholic, but Protestant and Orthodox and all the rest. That is what we mean by the Apostasy of the Christian church.

That of course does not mean that there are no more good, sincere Christians left in the world. There are many in all denominations. But the institutionalized establishment is not longer a valid one. That is what we mean by the Apostasy.

So if you know the names and addresses of those Catholics who were debating with Matt Slick, and had him nicely tongue tied, you can invite them to come here and see if they can answer my questions for me! 😃

zerinus
 
Hi

So, how did the debators conclude about the definition of “Christian”? Did both sides include JWs, the only true christians, in the definition of “Christian” or not?

I am interested.

Thanks
The problem was Matt Slick did NOT want to have the debate regarding the definition of “Christian” but Slick says Catholics are NOT Christian. Dave Armstrong (Catholic) wanted to have a debate with Slick but Slick said ‘no’.

I believe if they did have the debate Slick would be forced to admit that Catholics are Christian.
 
I also have a question to ask after listening to that debate. The Catholic side argued that apostasy means the “total renunciation of the Christian religion;” and since the Catholic Church had not done that, it couldn’t be apostate. So here is a question for the Catholics: Is not Protestantism an apostasy from Catholicism—the true from of Christianity? Well, they haven’t “totally renounced Christianity” either—or at least, they wouldn’t say that they have. On the contrary, they claim to be the true form of Christianity, and Catholicism the false version. So how can they be apostates, without having “totally renounced Christianity” (at least on the face of it)?

How about the Jewish church or religion at the time of Christ? Were they not in a state of apostasy? Did they not, en-mass, institutionally, as a religious establishment, after witnessing all the evidence, reject Jesus who was their God, and meant everything to them and their religion? Does not that amount to an apostasy, not just of individuals, but of the entire religious establishment? But the Pharisees wouldn’t have said so. They would have said that they had the true form of the religion, and Jesus and His followers were outcasts!

So it looks like it is possible for a church or religion to claim or pretend to be the real thing, and even act and look like the genuine article, but without actually being such. Jesus explained it to the Jews in this way:

Mark 7:

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

So it looks like it is possible for a church to outwardly make a show of piety, and pretend to be the real thing; but inwardly to be apostate.

The Apostle Paul gave a prophecy about the condition of religion in the last days, which is pretty close to what Jesus said about the Jews. This is how he described it:

2 Timothy 3:

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

“Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” means that they look like the real thing, without actually being such. They have the looks, shape, form, and appearance of the genuine article; and make all the claim and pretence to be such; but lack the necessarily divine power and authority that must go with it to be the real thing—i.e. the priesthood power to communicate directly with God, and lead and direct the Church by revelation from God, as the ancient church used to be able do. Well, this is an accurate description of the state of the Christian world today—not just of Catholic, but Protestant and Orthodox and all the rest. That is what we mean by the Apostasy of the Christian church.

That of course does not mean that there are no more good, sincere Christians left in the world. There are many in all denominations. But the institutionalized establishment is not longer a valid one. That is what we mean by the Apostasy.

So if you know the names and addresses of those Catholics who were debating with Matt Slick, and had him nicely tongue tied, you can invite them to come here and see if they can answer my questions for me! 😃

zerinus
So nobody wants to debate with me then. :crying:

Don’t blame you though. You can’t, cuz it’s true! 😃

zerinus 😛
 
So nobody wants to debate with me then. :crying:

zerinus 😛
The “Adventist” or “Latter-day” churches arose during the same period as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and share some comparable features of doctrine and history, but there is no conclusive evidence that the Millerites and Mormons directly influenced one another. The two movements do have in common some connection with the Restoration Movement. Many Millerites and Mormons including prominent Millerite and Mormon leaders, were Campbellites or belonged to other Restoration Movement sects before converting…

The Millerite tradition is a diverse family of denominations and Bible study movements that have arisen since the middle of the 19th century, traceable to the Adventist movement sparked by the apocalyptic teachings of William Miller. Miller was a profitable farmer, a Baptist layman and amateur student of the Bible, living in northern New York, in the region of that state which has come to be known as the Burned-over district.

Anti-traditional tendencies
Jesus did not appear as expected. Following this Great Disappointment, although many adherents returned to their traditions, a number of followers continued to believe in the accuracy of Miller’s date, or recalculated to arrive at a new date. Sometimes with the help of visions and visitations by angels, or reformers whose message was identified with Bible prophecy, post-Disappointment Millerites arrived at various reinterpretations of the meaning of the Disappointment, often constructing alternative history, theology, politics and science, sometimes showing openness to rejected knowledge and conspiracy theories; and to the extent that these developed in a particular group, a concomitant tendency toward withdrawal also developed.

The Millerite movement originally had adherents across denominational lines, especially from Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist and Campbellite churches, forming distinct denominations only after the Great Disappointment. Some modern Millerite branches identify themselves as Evangelical Protestant Christians, although others teach that their latter-day church is the only faithful remnant, and the replacement of Protestantism, Catholicism, and Jewish Israel. Typical of the post-Disappointment Millerite perspective is the belief that genuine Christianity had been lost to the world through a Great Apostasy knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Millerite

The Seeker Movement
Seekerism existed at the radical end of the Reformation spectrum. Scholars have generally emphasized “the primitive gospel movement” in ante-bellum America, but diverse versions of Christian primitivism already existed in post-Reformation Europe and in England after Henry VIII severed the English churches from the papacy. Justification for reform was usually couched in Primitivistic rhetoric, accusing the Roman church of corrupting the pure gospel, for example. Thus Seekerism–whether in Europe, England, or America–existed within a larger primitive gospel movement.

Although the Primitivist movement began in Europe and England, it flourished in the freer environment of post-Revolutionary America.

At first widely scattered, by 1850 the American Primitivists had produced two sects with significant followings: the Disciples of Christ and the Mormons. However, these two groups shared competing approaches to the problem of the perceived apostasy from primitive Christianity.

Those in Europe and England who held more radical views–such as Anabaptists, Seekers, Familiests (those in “The Family of Love”), Ranters, and Quakers–were entirely overshadowed by the state churches. The leading Reformers–Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin–attacked the views of the Anabaptists (literally “rebaptizer”), who repudiated infant baptism and Calvinistic predestination, and believed in new revelations, the imminent appearance of Christ, and the establishment of the New Jerusalem.6

The use of Primitivist theology by one Church of England divine demonstrates how those in the “right-wing” incorporated radical tenets. When Charles II married the Portuguese princess, Catherine of Braganza, for political purposes, English churchmen were outraged by the alliance with a Catholic nation. In 1662 Charles’s chaplain, Thomas Pierce, delivered a sermon before the king in which he defended the Protestant church and attacked Catholicism

When their goal to transform the Church of England was frustrated, some Puritans formed their own “Separatist” congregations. These Separatist Puritans were eventually driven from England to Holland. However, those who carried the Puritan vision to the shores of New England in 1620 were nonseparating Puritans who had little tolerance for Separatist dissenters.13
signaturebookslibrary.org/seekers/chapter1.htm#movement
 
The “Adventist” or “Latter-day” churches arose during the same period as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and share some comparable features of doctrine and history, but there is no conclusive evidence that the Millerites and Mormons directly influenced one another. The two movements do have in common some connection with the Restoration Movement. Many Millerites and Mormons including prominent Millerite and Mormon leaders, were Campbellites or belonged to other Restoration Movement sects before converting…

The Millerite tradition is a diverse family of denominations and Bible study movements that have arisen since the middle of the 19th century, traceable to the Adventist movement sparked by the apocalyptic teachings of William Miller. Miller was a profitable farmer, a Baptist layman and amateur student of the Bible, living in northern New York, in the region of that state which has come to be known as the Burned-over district.

Anti-traditional tendencies
Jesus did not appear as expected. Following this Great Disappointment, although many adherents returned to their traditions, a number of followers continued to believe in the accuracy of Miller’s date, or recalculated to arrive at a new date. Sometimes with the help of visions and visitations by angels, or reformers whose message was identified with Bible prophecy, post-Disappointment Millerites arrived at various reinterpretations of the meaning of the Disappointment, often constructing alternative history, theology, politics and science, sometimes showing openness to rejected knowledge and conspiracy theories; and to the extent that these developed in a particular group, a concomitant tendency toward withdrawal also developed.

The Millerite movement originally had adherents across denominational lines, especially from Baptist, Prebyterian, Methodist and Campbellite churches, forming distinct denominations only after the Great Disappointment. Some modern Millerite branches identify themselves as Evangelical Protestant Christians, although others teach that their latter-day church is the only faithful remnant, and the replacement of Protestantism, Catholicism, and Jewish Israel. Typical of the post-Disappointment Millerite perspective is the belief that genuine Christianity had been lost to the world through a Great Apostasy knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Millerite

The Seeker Movement
Seekerism existed at the radical end of the Reformation spectrum. Scholars have generally emphasized “the primitive gospel movement” in ante-bellum America, but diverse versions of Christian primitivism already existed in post-Reformation Europe and in England after Henry VIII severed the English churches from the papacy. Justification for reform was usually couched in Primitivistic rhetoric, accusing the Roman church of corrupting the pure gospel, for example. Thus Seekerism–whether in Europe, England, or America–existed within a larger primitive gospel movement.

Although the Primitivist movement began in Europe and England, it flourished in the freer environment of post-Revolutionary America.

At first widely scattered, by 1850 the American Primitivists had produced two sects with significant followings: the Disciples of Christ and the Mormons.4 However, these two groups shared competing approaches to the problem of the perceived apostasy from primitive Christianity.

Those in Europe and England who held more radical views–such as Anabaptists, Seekers, Familiests (those in “The Family of Love”), Ranters, and Quakers–were entirely overshadowed by the state churches. The leading Reformers–Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin–attacked the views of the Anabaptists (literally “rebaptizer”), who repudiated infant baptism and Calvinistic predestination, and believed in new revelations, the imminent appearance of Christ, and the establishment of the New Jerusalem.6

The use of Primitivist theology by one Church of England divine demonstrates how those in the “right-wing” incorporated radical tenets. When Charles II married the Portuguese princess, Catherine of Braganza, for political purposes, English churchmen were outraged by the alliance with a Catholic nation. In 1662 Charles’s chaplain, Thomas Pierce, delivered a sermon before the king in which he defended the Protestant church and attacked Catholicism

When their goal to transform the Church of England was frustrated, some Puritans formed their own “Separatist” congregations. These Separatist Puritans were eventually driven from England to Holland. However, those who carried the Puritan vision to the shores of New England in 1620 were nonseparating Puritans who had little tolerance for Separatist dissenters.13
signaturebookslibrary.org/seekers/chapter1.htm#movement
Irelevant, long, copy and paste. I told you before, I don’t read such posts.

zerinus
 
Jesus did not appear as expected.
Hi

Could you please elaborate your above comments. When and who expected Jesus to appear? Why Jesus did not appear, when he was supposed to appear and people were waiting for him? The Jews are a very small numbers these days and Christians are the majority, I think. What was Jesus afraid of now, that he did not come, if all the signs of his secong coming have been fullfilled?

I am interested to know.
I respect your faith.

Thanks
 
Hi

Could you please elaborate your above comments. When and who expected Jesus to appear? Why Jesus did not appear, when he was supposed to appear and people were waiting for him? The Jews are a very small numbers these days and Christians are the majority, I think. What was Jesus afraid of now, that he did not come, if all the signs of his secong coming have been fullfilled?

I am interested to know.
I respect your faith.

Thanks
See The Great Disappointment

rossum
 
So nobody wants to debate with me then. :crying:

Don’t blame you though. You can’t, cuz it’s true! 😃

zerinus 😛
zerinus,

It is clear that your specialty is red herrings.

Do you want to discuss the diatribe earlier? Easy. Catholicism is where the fullness of truth is found. All other examples stated were something less than this.
 
So nobody wants to debate with me then. :crying:

Don’t blame you though. You can’t, cuz it’s true! 😃

zerinus 😛
zerinus,
We’ve all heard your particular brand of mormon snake oil. You are merely tedious.😛
 
I dont think Matt Slick should be an approved topic here.

It almost promotes his forums and this is not the time to do that considering the financial crisis going on here.

I vote this thread be removed in entirety. And all further topics about mr. slick be banned until the mods decide it is appropriate.

Suggestion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top