Protestant apologist can't answer the question

[teeboy]

The caller in did well but could have done better. The Youtube video helps to clarify the original call in.

As we know, lack of authority on Truth is what we call moral relativism.

One Truth, because only one truth is acceptable as legitimate. More than one truth is illegitimate.

 

[KEP1983]

Listening again, Hank seems to say that the point he made was: ‘If the laity cannot rightly interpret the scriptures, then how can the laity rightly interpret the Pope’?

That wasn’t my question though. And that’s exactly my point. He wouldn’t answer my question and brought up irrelevant points (the immaculate conception and the laity).

The question I asked was how you can compare the need to interpret with the scriptures to needing an interpreter of the pope, because the pope can clarify when he is misunderstood whereas the bible cannot. I wanted to know how he could even compare the two.

I thought the question was just the old one about why do you think that the pope is infallible. But it wasn’t clear, and Hank himself said he didn’t remember what the point was, so lots of confusion here regarding what the question is?!?

Perhaps you guys are just talking past each other answering different questions.

I was very clear about my question in the beginning, before he started bringing up the Immaculate Conception and other irrelevant topics such as aquinas and papal infallibility

 

[KEP1983]

I disagree with you. The OP’s point is that if the Pope says X, and a priest starts teaching Y, the Pope himself can show that priest where he said X and not Y. The Bible can’t physically say “John 6 teaches about the Eucharist, so quit not believing!”

There needs to be a central body to read the texts and decipher what they mean, whereas a Pope can just say “This is what I meant when I said X” and that was his point.

Exactly.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Exactly.

In that case, I take back what I said above since I didn’t understand what question you were addressing. Perhaps though he did not understand your question the same way I didn’t.

Great point.

Of course he cannot answer that. I mean it’s his show so he has to be the smartest guy in the room.

I would take your point even further and say that it boosts the whole rationale why Jesus left his teachings in the hands of people and didn’t write them down in a book. We NEED interpreters who can speak and respond and make sure we have got it right, and these folks need to have their heart in the right place.

 

[exnihilo]

Hank Hanegraaf hosted a Jimmy Akin vs. James White debate. He was very gracious in that debate. He seems like a fair man. Also he has twelve kids!

I think Ed Feser brings up the point the caller made in The Last Superstition. It is a good point. If all we need are documents why do we have teachers? Why not once a man can read just hand him books? Everyone can learn Chemistry or Medicine from just reading books. Obviously this would be disastrous for learning. Not that no one would learn anything. Rather there would be more mistaken ideas and as a whole less people would have less knowledge. I don’t see why the Faith would be any different.

Hank does assert that the notion derives from the idea the laity can’t rightly interpret scripture. I’m not sure what he is talking about. Exactly what notion? Whose notion? It seems to me the point being made by the caller was that there is a difference in a living source of information and a non-living source. The difference is you can’t seek clarity from a non-living source. I can’t imagine Hank would disagree with that. And he didn’t. He just avoided addressing it. He also has to agree that the laity can’t rightly interpret Scripture since he himself believes he has right beliefs that others don’t have. So some people clearly do misinterpret it. Pointing to the clear meaning of Scripture doesn’t help when others disagree that it is in fact clear.

 

[iohannes13]

Talking past one another happens a lot between Fundamentalist Protestants and Catholics because, even if they use the same words they mean very different things. And that’s only one obstacle. The other is a completely different world view. To put it simply, from the Fundamentalist’s way of seeing things, only that which is specifically stated in the Bible can be believed true. From the Catholic’s point of view anything is open to belief unless it is definitely prohibited by Scripture within the context of Sacred Tradition. These two issues alone make for much misunderstanding and miscommunication. Besides these, there are other factors that contribute to it, as well. It’s no surprise then that a man wholly committed to Fundamentalist beliefs isn’t going to be able to answer a question from the Catholic understanding. It simply isn’t possible for him to do so. This is why it’s really an exercise in futility to engage Fundamentalists with questions that proceed from the Catholic understandning because they are meaningless to him. He hasn’t a clue where the questioner is coming from and can only answer within his own context.

I think you are right. Like they said in the Geronimo movie, it takes an Apache to track an Apache. Cradle Catholics are usually bad apologists because they have no clue of the other’s world and spiritual views. Where as a convert to Catholism came from that world and can discuss and understand what the non-Catholic is really asking and what he really means. The Convert Catholic can then speak with them using their language to teach the Catholic view.

Many, if not all, of the apologists that we recognize today as being the best are converts to Catholism. Is Mr. Akin a convert? I don’t recall his story right now.

 

[Della]

I think you are right. Like they said in the Geronimo movie, it takes an Apache to track an Apache. Cradle Catholics are usually bad apologists because they have no clue of the other’s world and spiritual views. Where as a convert to Catholism came from that world and can discuss and understand what the non-Catholic is really asking and what he really means. The Convert Catholic can then speak with them using their language to teach the Catholic view.

As a convert myself I try to aid Evangelical/Pentecostal understanding from their point of view, which I once held, as well. For many Catholics our beliefs seem obvious and our terminology crystal clear, but it’s not to those who have no understanding of the Catholic faith, and indeed, were brought up very much against their perception of Catholic beliefs and practices, if they even bothered with them at all. So, it can be hard to break through the misunderstanding barrier. If we Catholics actually want to help non-Catholics, especially Fundamentalists, understand what we mean we have to approach our discussion from the other person’s understanding and not our own. :yup:

Many, if not all, of the apologists that we recognize today as being the best are converts to Catholism. Is Mr. Akin a convert? I don’t recall his story right now.

This is true. JA’s conversion story can be found here: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AKINSTOR.htm.

 

[iohannes13]

As a convert myself I try to aid Evangelical/Pentecostal understanding from their point of view, which I once held, as well. For many Catholics our beliefs seem obvious and our terminology crystal clear, but it’s not to those who have no understanding of the Catholic faith, and indeed, were brought up very much against their perception of Catholic beliefs and practices, if they even bothered with them at all. So, it can be hard to break through the misunderstanding barrier. If we Catholics actually want to help non-Catholics, especially Fundamentalists, understand what we mean we have to approach our discussion from the other person’s understanding and not our own. :yup:

This is true. JA’s conversion story can be found here: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/AKINSTOR.htm.

Thanks for the link. You are right, that is the only way that you can discuss the Catholic view, by starting out with their point of view. When Non-Catholics approach me to evangelize me, their approach is usually for me to prove to them that my view is correct. And that is where everything gets lost in translation and we end up speaking on our point of view. But I turn it around on them and ask them questions that 1) places the burden of proof on them 2) gives me an idea of what they are talking about. They usually leave me alone afterwards and don’t accept invitations to continue the conversation.

I’m a cradle Catholic. A fallen one though.

 

[Della]

Thanks for the link. You are right, that is the only way that you can discuss the Catholic view, by starting out with their point of view. When Non-Catholics approach me to evangelize me, their approach is usually for me to prove to them that my view is correct. And that is where everything gets lost in translation and we end up speaking on our point of view. But I turn it around on them and ask them questions that 1) places the burden of proof on them 2) gives me an idea of what they are talking about. They usually leave me alone afterwards and don’t accept invitations to continue the conversation.

Yes, they don’t like to be challenged because they have a set formula that’s supposed to shut down others. They don’t know what to do when they come up against a person who knows their faith. It throws them for the loop.

I’m a cradle Catholic. A fallen one though.

That’s okay. We’re all fallen Catholics to one degree or another. Thank God for confession, yes.

 

[iohannes13]

Yes, they don’t like to be challenged because they have a set formula that’s supposed to shut down others. They don’t know what to do when they come up against a person who knows their faith. It throws them for the loop.

That’s okay. We’re all fallen Catholics to one degree or another. Thank God for confession, yes.

.