Matt Slick: Catholic Church didn't give us the New Testament

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lenten_ashes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeT777 said:
Had any of you considered participating in the Catholic forum at Slick’s web site? Reasoned responses from Catholics voices might cause a few of his minions to use reason instead of ridicule. The primary philosophy is fundamentalism and Calvinism; how will they know if you don’t tell them the error.

All I’m hearing is complaints hurt feelings and no solutions.

JoeT
Click to expand...
You get banned over there before you can blink.
 
JoeT777 said:
Don’t blink.

JoeT
Click to expand...
A number of us on here have been over to the Catholic forum on his website and as soon as you try to combat anything they say with sound Catholic doctrine, you get banned. Even if you try to say something as simple as “Catholics don’t pray to Saints” you’ll get the ax. They want nothing to do with an informed Catholic over there.

I’ve even had the privilege of discussing something with Matt himself and couldn’t get a straight answer. I usually agree with the “boycott” of the website, but every now and then I get super bored and feel like a good laugh.
 
JoeT777 said:
Had any of you considered participating in the Catholic forum at Slick’s web site? Reasoned responses from Catholics voices might cause a few of his minions to use reason instead of ridicule. The primary philosophy is fundamentalism and Calvinism; how will they know if you don’t tell them the error.

All I’m hearing is complaints hurt feelings and no solutions.

JoeT
Click to expand...
Nope, I tried. According to Our Lord’s own words…Matthew 10: Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. 15 Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
 
ShanPO said:
A number of us on here have been over to the Catholic forum on his website and as soon as you try to combat anything they say with sound Catholic doctrine, you get banned. Even if you try to say something as simple as “Catholics don’t pray to Saints” you’ll get the ax. They want nothing to do with an informed Catholic over there.

I’ve even had the privilege of discussing something with Matt himself and couldn’t get a straight answer. I usually agree with the “boycott” of the website, but every now and then I get super bored and feel like a good laugh.
Click to expand...
As John Martignoni says, Matt isn’t intetested in learning what the CC teaches…he’s intetested in throwing stones.

And that’s how the site is run, so it’s a total waste of time posting there imo.
 
Matt isn’t interested in learning about the Catholic Church, in fact he probably hopes it would blow up and turn to dust. His minions probably are the same. Their debate tactics are low life, hurtful and ashamedly wrong both in fact and in spirit. But, they are smart, smart enough to make truth untrue, light darkness and how to explain their own darkness as light (to the blind and to themselves). If in fact these were the only people participating it wouldn’t be worthwhile. However, there are a number who read the posts who never submit a post themselves; looking for answer or support for their own belief systems.

These unseen and unheard are can be detected in the number of views, the number of posts and the number of posters. Sometimes, it is easy to detect during a conversation that there is a large interest among these unheard voices. With Catholic participants they are confronted with two view points, one reasoned the other … well not so reasoned. Without Catholic participants the non-Catholic respond for Catholic in a most unflattering way; we are pagans, eat human flesh, and pedophiles, etc. - the vitriol is horrific. This is all the unheard voices hear, and of course they hear it in the most perverse logic.

Those Catholics that participate don’t do so for ‘work points’ or to save sinners, we do it so that truth can be heard; at least once. A voice not heard in not a voice of truth; a voice that cowers is in fear of deprivation. A good many of our Early Church Fathers participated in debates with some of the foulest of heretics. In so doing they painted grew a beautiful flower of faith and reason in a desert.

JoeT
 
I thought I had read somewhere he was raised Catholic, but left the church. Does anyone know?
 
As someone who avidly listened to Matt Slick’s radio show for a number of years (before returning to the Catholic Church), I have heard his salvation testimony and he wasn’t raised Catholic. He was involved in the occult, though. He said he felt the presence of Christ but couldn’t see Him, and that resulted in his conversion to Protestantism.

I have listened to him rip the Catholic Church an number of times. He says he tries to accurately represent the viewpoints of the groups he attacks (Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons as well as Catholics and a small section on Eastern Orthodoxy), but he confused the terms “venerate” and “adore”, claiming that Catholics adore Mary instead of worshipping her.
 
Michael85 said:
As someone who avidly listened to Matt Slick’s radio show for a number of years (before returning to the Catholic Church), I have heard his salvation testimony and he wasn’t raised Catholic. He was involved in the occult, though. He said he felt the presence of Christ but couldn’t see Him, and that resulted in his conversion to Protestantism.

I have listened to him rip the Catholic Church an number of times. He says he tries to accurately represent the viewpoints of the groups he attacks (Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons as well as Catholics and a small section on Eastern Orthodoxy), but he confused the terms “venerate” and “adore”, claiming that Catholics adore Mary instead of worshipping her.
Click to expand...
Same here - listened to “faith and reason” radio show for years.

He is one of the reasons I’m Catholic today. So I guess I should be thankful lol.
 
JoeT777 said:
Matt isn’t interested in learning about the Catholic Church, in fact he probably hopes it would blow up and turn to dust. His minions probably are the same. Their debate tactics are low life, hurtful and ashamedly wrong both in fact and in spirit. But, they are smart, smart enough to make truth untrue, light darkness and how to explain their own darkness as light (to the blind and to themselves). If in fact these were the only people participating it wouldn’t be worthwhile. However, there are a number who read the posts who never submit a post themselves; looking for answer or support for their own belief systems.

These unseen and unheard are can be detected in the number of views, the number of posts and the number of posters. Sometimes, it is easy to detect during a conversation that there is a large interest among these unheard voices. With Catholic participants they are confronted with two view points, one reasoned the other … well not so reasoned. Without Catholic participants the non-Catholic respond for Catholic in a most unflattering way; we are pagans, eat human flesh, and pedophiles, etc. - the vitriol is horrific. This is all the unheard voices hear, and of course they hear it in the most perverse logic.

Those Catholics that participate don’t do so for ‘work points’ or to save sinners, we do it so that truth can be heard; at least once. A voice not heard in not a voice of truth; a voice that cowers is in fear of deprivation. A good many of our Early Church Fathers participated in debates with some of the foulest of heretics. In so doing they painted grew a beautiful flower of faith and reason in a desert.

JoeT
Click to expand...
Here’s some of Matt’s logic on display:

“I don’t know if Osteen and Duplantis are saved, I’m not saying they’re not. I believe the pope is not saved, but I don’t know the status of them, I can’t judge, it’s not my place.”

So Matt can judge the pope, but not Joel Osteen or Jesse Duplantis? This is why I had to stop going over there.
 
ShanPO said:
Here’s some of Matt’s logic on display:

“I don’t know if Osteen and Duplantis are saved, I’m not saying they’re not. I believe the pope is not saved, but I don’t know the status of them, I can’t judge, it’s not my place.”

So Matt can judge the pope, but not Joel Osteen or Jesse Duplantis? This is why I had to stop going over there.
Click to expand...
Well good grief, I never said the man was logical!

JoeT
 
Slick has his own list of essential Christian doctrines (see carm.org/doctrine-grid). One is salvation by faith alone. So he judges the Catholic Church against his own list of doctrines and concludes that we’re not Christian (as well as accusing us of idolatry)
 
Well, that was…unsurprising coming from Matt Slick. His response reminds me of something Dave Hunt said in his hatchet job, “A Woman Rides the Beast”. Basically, Hunt said that he knew which Scriptures were inspired based on how they made him feel. Yup. Seriously, people like Matt Slick ultimately have very little difference between themselves and Mormons. It’s only a matter of time before a splinter group arises that makes up a new book of “scripture” to add to their canon.

Without historical proof of where something came from, without testimony of others going back to the Apostles, how can anyone know what Scripture is? (This is reason #582 why I am no longer in Calvary Chapel.)

I propose Matt Slick do a “Pepsi Challenge” study. Give new converts snippets of sayings that look like they could be scriptures, and see if they can tell which ones are actually inspired Scripture vs. fabricated. I mean, the new converts will have the Holy Spirit and will totally be able to tell the difference between fake and real Scripture texts using the butterfly-in-tummy method, right?
 
BibleBullet said:
Well, that was…unsurprising coming from Matt Slick. His response reminds me of something Dave Hunt said in his hatchet job, “A Woman Rides the Beast”. Basically, Hunt said that he knew which Scriptures were inspired based on how they made him feel. Yup. Seriously, people like Matt Slick ultimately have very little difference between themselves and Mormons. It’s only a matter of time before a splinter group arises that makes up a new book of “scripture” to add to their canon.

Without historical proof of where something came from, without testimony of others going back to the Apostles, how can anyone know what Scripture is? (This is reason #582 why I am no longer in Calvary Chapel.)

I propose Matt Slick do a “Pepsi Challenge” study. Give new converts snippets of sayings that look like they could be scriptures, and see if they can tell which ones are actually inspired Scripture vs. fabricated. I mean, the new converts will have the Holy Spirit and will totally be able to tell the difference between fake and real Scripture texts using the butterfly-in-tummy method, right?
Click to expand...
👍 Very good post.
 
BibleBullet said:
Well, that was…unsurprising coming from Matt Slick. His response reminds me of something Dave Hunt said in his hatchet job, “A Woman Rides the Beast”. Basically, Hunt said that he knew which Scriptures were inspired based on how they made him feel. Yup. Seriously, people like Matt Slick ultimately have very little difference between themselves and Mormons. It’s only a matter of time before a splinter group arises that makes up a new book of “scripture” to add to their canon.

Without historical proof of where something came from, without testimony of others going back to the Apostles, how can anyone know what Scripture is? (This is reason #582 why I am no longer in Calvary Chapel.)

I propose Matt Slick do a “Pepsi Challenge” study. Give new converts snippets of sayings that look like they could be scriptures, and see if they can tell which ones are actually inspired Scripture vs. fabricated. I mean, the new converts will have the Holy Spirit and will totally be able to tell the difference between fake and real Scripture texts using the butterfly-in-tummy method, right?
Click to expand...
Very well said.

He basically holds to the position that bibles fell from the sky and he/they hear his voice so they know it’s inspired.

As if there were no human process involved.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

What about the blood of all the martyrs who helped preserve it so that he could have it? And all those monks sitting in monasteries for years on end making copies of the scriptures so that he could have it?

It’s astonishing to me that a guy with a Master’s degree in Divinity can hold these sort of juvenile positions. People let their hatred of the CC get the best of them.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
It’s astonishing to me that a guy with a Master’s degree in Divinity can hold these sort of juvenile positions. People let their hatred of the CC get the best of them.
Click to expand...
It makes you wonder how low the bar is for these accredited seminaries, eh? Don’t they require church history courses or something? Shouldn’t they start from the beginning and not skip 1500 years?

Ugh.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
It’s astonishing to me that a guy with a Master’s degree in Divinity can hold these sort of juvenile positions. People let their hatred of the CC get the best of them.
Click to expand...
What’s astonishing to me is the millions of Christians in the world that have no way of correcting this Christian and his misguided views, save the Catholic church, allowing this Christian’s falsities to continue corrupting other Christians.🤷

Peace!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top