Interesting Debate Between Matt Slick and Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hellisreal said:
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.
Click to expand...
The topic of the thread is not Slick. It is the discussion he had with a number of Catholics.

zerinus
 
Hellisreal said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t worry too much about Mr. Slick’s forums; they currently are in a state of ruins and the panic is palpable there. Their current scheme is that only financially contributing members are allowed to send/receive personal messages among many other self-serving ventures and their software is crumbling. What they want is a herd of evangelicals over there spewing hatred against the Catholic Church and to exclude all Catholics (what Catholic in his/her right mind would financially contribute to that ministry?) I could go on and on about Mr. Slick’s ‘kingdom’, but have already wasted enough bandwidth here on the topic.
 
😊

You are most likely correct, but I have read his forum is rated number 4 and ours is not even close. Maybe it was a biased source of info.

I still think, based on what you just said now- he ought not be an allowed topic.

Z, is there any way you can do this without naming him? I really do think it does promote him.
kell0618 said:
I wouldn’t worry too much about Mr. Slick’s forums; they currently are in a state of ruins and the panic is palpable there. Their current scheme is that only financially contributing members are allowed to send/receive personal messages among many other self-serving ventures and their software is crumbling. What they want is a herd of evangelicals over there spewing hatred against the Catholic Church and to exclude all Catholics (what Catholic in his/her right mind would financially contribute to that ministry?) I could go on and on about Mr. Slick’s ‘kingdom’, but have already wasted enough bandwidth here on the topic.
Click to expand...
 
zerinus said:
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)?
Click to expand...
It depends upon the intent of the person renouncing Christianity. If they do so with full knowledge of what they are doing, then it would be apostacy. Protestantism cannot be the true form of Christianity, in that the fullness of truth does not subsist in the Protestant faith. As to the quote “totally” I would say that one can reject less than all, and still lack the fullness of truth.
zerinus said:
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
Click to expand...
, 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!

They did not, enmass, reject Jesus. Many did, including those who walked away in John 6, from aspects of Jesus’ teaching, because they could not accept eating the Body of Christ. The position you state supports a problem that many Protestants have today. They have become modern day Pharisees. First century Judaism was not centralized. There were many sects, that were critical of each other. Jesus, in reply to this established the Church in Matt 16.
zerinus said:
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:
Click to expand...
True, it is frequently seen with Protestants. There are those that place their own pride ahead of obedience. It was seen in the Jewish faith, where followers attempted to follow Jewish dietary and cleaning regulations, but forgot why they were doing these things.
zerinus said:
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:
Click to expand...
zerinus said:
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
Click to expand...
OK, so people will show godlessness. I agree. I disagree, however, with your feeble attempt to apply it to the Church. There The Protestant “churches” rejected physical apostolic succession, sacraments, and the Eucharist as celebrated in the Catholic Church, after the Reformation. Therefore, they do not possess apostolic succession, nor do they even claim that their ministers have all been ordained, in an unbroken, physical line back to the apostles, by the laying on of hands. And, except for Lutherans and Anglicans most do not believe they are receiving the real body and blood of Christ in communion. For this reason, the Church calls them Ecclesial Communities. But these communities are related to the Catholic Church and Christ.
zerinus said:
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
Click to expand...
is not longer a valid one. That is what we mean by the Apostasy.

I agree about your conclusion about Christians, but not that the institutionalized establishment, the Catholic Church, is no longer valid. Jesus promised us that would not happen. Apostacy is only dreamed about in groups such as the Mormons.
 
Hellisreal said:
I still think, based on what you just said now- he ought not be an allowed topic.
Click to expand...
As I said before, he is not the topic. In any case, why shouldn’t he be a topic? He has had a lot to say about Catholicism, and people have a right to want to discuss that; and it is not possible to discuss what he has said without mentioning who has said it.
Z, is there any way you can do this without naming him?
Click to expand...
Not really. You would have to talk in a roundabout way with a lot of ambiguity to do that, which is not to the point.
I really do think it does promote him.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. That is like saying that we shouldn’t talk about the devil because it tends to promote him! I am not comparing him to the devil; but what you are saying is like that.

zerinus
 
Fine Z.

Happy posting.

By the way, are there any mormon sponsored forums I can go to that allow me to speak my mind as you do here?:confused:
 
zerinus said:
Irelevant, long, copy and paste. I told you before, I don’t read such posts.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Hmmm… You do not read them, but you expect us to read yours and even debate you over them… What is wrong with this picture???

A Catholic Deacon
 
Catholicdeacon said:
Hmmm… You do not read them, but you expect us to read yours and even debate you over them… What is wrong with this picture???

A Catholic Deacon
Click to expand...
Z will have to get back to you His Holy Spirit is on vacation and when He called Mormon Central they put him on hold
 
Thank you Gene. At long last somebody has been adventurous enough to reply to my post! Glad to be able to discuss it with you. I hope we can have a nice and meaty discussion!
Gene_Church said:
It depends upon the intent of the person renouncing Christianity. If they do so with full knowledge of what they are doing, then it would be apostacy. Protestantism cannot be the true form of Christianity, in that the fullness of truth does not subsist in the Protestant faith. As to the quote “totally” I would say that one can reject less than all, and still lack the fullness of truth.
Click to expand...
I think you are being deliberately vague, ambivalent, or evasive. “Individuals” is not the focus of attention here, but the organization, institution, or movement as a whole. Don’t forget that I am raising this discussion in response to the debate that Matt Slick had with a group of Catholics. In that debate the Catholic side were not focusing on “individuals” in the church, but on the Catholic Church as a whole. They were saying that the Catholic Church could not have apostatized because they had not “totally renounced the Christian religion,” not just a few individuals. I mentioned Protestantism as a counterpoint to that argument. I was likewise not focusing on “individuals,” but on the institution itself—i.e. Protestantism as a movement (or as Protestant churches, if you prefer), not as individuals. You are trying to change the terms of the argument, which is a falacious debating tactic.
They did not, enmass, reject Jesus. Many did, including those who walked away in John 6, from aspects of Jesus’ teaching, because they could not accept eating the Body of Christ. The position you state supports a problem that many Protestants have today. They have become modern day Pharisees. First century Judaism was not centralized. There were many sects, that were critical of each other. Jesus, in reply to this established the Church in Matt 16.
Click to expand...
Again, you are trying to change the terms of the argument here by focusing on individuals instead of the religious establishment as a whole. Just as the focus of attention of Catholic debaters with Matt Slick was the religious establishment and not individuals; my focus here is also the religious establishment of the Jews, not individuals. The “religious establishment” of the Jews did en-mass reject Jesus. It was the Sanhedrin and the chief high priests that met in private council and plotted His murder. They were the ones who (in a mock trial) sentenced Him to death, and afterwards had Him crucified. Furthermore, it was the Jewish nation as a whole (representatively speaking) that at the instigation of their high priests and religious leaders shouted, “Crucify Him!” So it is correct to say that it was the entire religious establishment of the Jews that rejected Jesus, not just some individuals. It is true that there were a small group of people that didn’t, but that consideration becomes insignificant in the context of the broader picture that we are focusing on.

zerinus

Continued/. . .
 
. . . Continued
True, it is frequently seen with Protestants. There are those that place their own pride ahead of obedience. It was seen in the Jewish faith, where followers attempted to follow Jewish dietary and cleaning regulations, but forgot why they were doing these things.
Click to expand...
Thank you; that was my point. Just as it is possible for Judaism and Protestantism to be apostate forms of a true religion, without at the same time (appearing to) having “renounced” true religion; the Catholic Church can also, in theory at least, be in the same situation—i.e. it can be an apostate form of true religion without (apparently) having “renounced” true religion. Therefore the argument that the Catholic side were bringing against Matt Slick was logically flawed and invalid.
OK, so people will show godlessness. I agree. I disagree, however, with your feeble attempt to apply it to the Church. There The Protestant “churches” rejected physical apostolic succession, sacraments, and the Eucharist as celebrated in the Catholic Church, after the Reformation. Therefore, they do not possess apostolic succession, nor do they even claim that their ministers have all been ordained, in an unbroken, physical line back to the apostles, by the laying on of hands. And, except for Lutherans and Anglicans most do not believe they are receiving the real body and blood of Christ in communion. For this reason, the Church calls them Ecclesial Communities. But these communities are related to the Catholic Church and Christ.
Click to expand...
You appear to have misunderstood what Paul said, or what I had said. Paul’s message is very simple: he is saying that in the last days religion will have a “form” (i.e. appearance) of godliness, but will deny the power thereof”. That perfectly describes the state of the Christian religion in the world today, including the Catholic Church. They all have a “form” (i.e. appearance) of godliness (or religiosity) about them; but they deny the power thereof, which consists of the ability to communicate directly with God, and guide the church by revelation from God. Is the Catholic Church capable of doing that? Does she even claim to? The answer is no, it does not; and that is what makes her (and all other Christian churches for that matter), apostate forms of true religion.
I agree about your conclusion about Christians, but not that the institutionalized establishment, the Catholic Church, is no longer valid. Jesus promised us that would not happen.
Click to expand...
I assume you are referring to Matthew 16:18. There is an answer to that, which I have already discussed in this post here.
Apostacy is only dreamed about in groups such as the Mormons.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it is not. It is prophesied in scripture and can be observed within the Christian world today.

zerinus
 
I will assume, that mormons sponsor no such forums.

Z declined to answer, so I will make the wild leap and say he cant provide proof of any such venue available to me to converse as He does here.😉
 
Hellisreal said:
I will assume, that mormons sponsor no such forums.

Z declined to answer, so I will make the wild leap and say he cant provide proof of any such venue available to me to converse as He does here.😉
Click to expand...
Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. Let’s assume that there isn’t. What do you want me to do about it?

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. Let’s assume that there isn’t. What do you want me to do about it?

zerinus
Click to expand...
I am not asking you to do anything except to direct me to some place I can be as free as you are here, with mormons running the show.

Dont be so defensive, I am not your enemy.

Your posts speak for themselves.👍
 
Hellisreal said:
I am not asking you to do anything except to direct me to some place I can be as free as you are here, with mormons running the show.
Click to expand...
I don’t accept that Mormons are “running the show” here; therefore the answer to your question is negative.

zerinus
 
Hellisreal said:
I am not or have ever been a mormon, nor will I ever be.

I hope you did not intend for this to come off that way.

Mormons deny the trinity.

:eek:
Click to expand...
Not at all - Mormons are not allowed to speak for themselves You have to find an Ex Mormon for that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top