Side stepping questions?

[ErricFiggy]

Hello everyone

I have a question, and I’d like your guys(and girls ) advice. I’m talking to a friend, and I keep asking him what the Bible says is the pillar and foundation of the truth. He avoids answering the question and keeps trying to change the topic to Mary’s Immaculate Conception. It’s apparent to me that he’s not interested in actually talking, but simply trying to “enlighten” me. He switched topics and immediately started throwing verses at me. So my question is, should I continue asking him to answer my question? I’ve refused to go on until he stops dancing around it. Is this right? Or shoud i go on and talk about the Immaculate Conception?

 

[PerfectTiming]

If he’s skipping around it then he probably doesn’t know how to respond to you. There are certain Christian groups that are almost trained to attack certain pieces of Catholic doctrine and regurgitate Bible verses but not much else - resulting in exactly what your friend is doing, dancing around topics he can’t answer with the rehearsed party line. If you can refute his misinformations then that could open him up to realising the other errors in what he has been taught.

 

[po18guy]

Christ said that all things (which includes the immaculate conception) are possible with God. That is fact. And, man did not cause the immaculate conception, God did. As to the Church, Saint Paul wrote that only one thing is the pillar and foundation of truth. Jesus Himself said that He founded a Church (Matthew 16:18) and that the Church was the ultimate authority in resolving disputes (Matthew 18:17).

Ask him to meditate on the Church and its authority, as that is primary. Keep him focused, as he will try to shotgun you with a wide array of disagreements. It is an uncomfortable subject for him - that is clear. Give him some time to meditate on it.

 

[agnes_therese]

Since he’s obviously side-stepping it, I’d keep bringing it up. Tell him you can move on to the Immaculate Conception after this topic is done.

 

[St_Francis]

I have found in most of my conversations with Protestants that the central issue is that of authority, which the verse you are citing is a clear speaking of in the Bible.

Carry on! Your refusal to discuss anything else is the right thing to do.

 

[JRKH]

Hello everyone

I have a question, and I’d like your guys(and girls ) advice. I’m talking to a friend, and I keep asking him what the Bible says is the pillar and foundation of the truth. He avoids answering the question and keeps trying to change the topic to Mary’s Immaculate Conception. It’s apparent to me that he’s not interested in actually talking, but simply trying to “enlighten” me. He switched topics and immediately started throwing verses at me. So my question is, should I continue asking him to answer my question? I’ve refused to go on until he stops dancing around it. Is this right? Or should I
go on and talk about the Immaculate Conception?

Did the conversation start over the subject over the “pillar and foundation” or did it start over something else?? The only reason I ask is because it might be that he feels it is you who are trying to change the subject.

That said - I believe that you should stick to your guns re: discussing authority for ultimately this is what it is going to boil down to no matter what course the conversation takes.
You might talk a bit about the Immaculate Conception as a way to placate him and also to provide an opening for discussing how differences are resolved when two people have different understandings of Scripture etc…

So perhaps you can take the verses he tosses at you and toss a couple back in support of the IC. Once it is apparent that you each have “biblical support” for your position, THEN you can ask him what the Bible says about resolving such matters when both sides are true, sincere Christians who have deep and troubling disagreement…(the answer is in Mt 18:15-18 - and note that “sin” in that passage can certainly include the teaching of a false doctrine)

Peace
James

 

[1ke]

I have a question, and I’d like your guys(and girls ) advice. I’m talking to a friend, and I keep asking him what the Bible says is the pillar and foundation of the truth. He avoids answering the question and keeps trying to change the topic to Mary’s Immaculate Conception.

This is a typical tactic in fundamentalist/evangelical circles, especially on verses they cannot defend. I used to encounter it a lot on some other boards I no longer visit. In fact, when forced into a corner, several of them just simply stopped posting when I would not respond to the “change the subject” tactics and kept pressing. They literally vanished off the board.

I’ve refused to go on until he stops dancing around it. Is this right?

Yes. Be a broken record. Keep repeating until they answer or simply give up.

Or shoud i go on and talk about the Immaculate Conception?

No.

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi all,

I am a tad unsure why they won’t accept the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth?
m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom43.iii.v.iii.html

I’m happy enough to heartily agree with Paul I just don’t reach the same conclusions on this verse as Catholics do.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[jschutzm]

… I’m talking to a friend, and I keep asking him what the Bible says is the pillar and foundation of the truth. He avoids answering the question and keeps trying to change the topic to Mary’s Immaculate Conception. It’s apparent to me that he’s not interested in actually talking, but simply trying to “enlighten” me. He switched topics and immediately started throwing verses at me. So my question is, should I continue asking him to answer my question? I’ve refused to go on until he stops dancing around it. Is this right? Or shoud i go on and talk about the Immaculate Conception?

To actually answer your question: YES, you SHOULD keep bringing that up… if and ONLY if that is what the original topic of conversation was. IF, however, he started with the immaculate conception and where evidence for that is in the bible, then answer HIS question first, THEN say: “now that I answered your question, would you mine answering one of mine?”

But if the original conversation was about ‘authority’ - and you’ve answered one of his questions on that topic, then you have EVERY right to ask that he in turn answer yours as part of your dialogue.

I see the Catholic Answer LIVE radio hosts do this all the time. Tim Staples is a master at answering a question and then turning it around and making them examine their faith.

So it is NOT unchristian to politely insist that they reciprocate or stay on topic. In fact you need to be firm, often times, to keep them from shotgunning you with 4 ro 5 topics at once.
If you want… you can always take the line that you aren’t able to focus on multiple topics at once… so if they could help you stick to just 1, that would help YOU.
OR
That you appreciate your zeal or enthusiasm, so you want to take time to answer each topic in turn.
OR
Have them write down their questions and then go through them 1 by 1 – maybe by getting it ALL out of their system…they’ll feel heard and calm down.

Often times when a Non-Catholic runs up against a Catholic who seems to be able to hold their own… they do what Catholics refer to as “the doctrinal dance” – they start jumping from topic to topic, never letting you truly answer the question. Many times ending up simply using ad-hominum attacks (attack the man) and ‘guilt by association’

Ask him what denomination he is, if you haven’t already. That sometimes helps you to know his faith background - what his biases or assumptions are.

Don’t be afraid to say “You know what…that is a really good question and I will get you an answer” - then research it and GET BACK TO HIM - worse thing is to say “let me get back to you” and then never do. - credibility killer.

Keep hammering on 4 points.

1. no where does the bible say it is the sole source of authority - the closest is a verse which says it is profitable for reproof and instruction - but not “only” or “sole” source
2. Paul tells his followers to take their differences to “the church” not his writings or scripture. So final authority to settle matters is vested in an organization and NOT scripture when 2 Christians disagree on what Scripture means.
3. Jesus vests authority in MEN, not a book. Grants authority to forgive sins to the Apostles not their literature
4. Paul urges Christians to hold fast to their “traditions” both written and oral - NOT the bible alone.

Just keep re-iterating these points until he answers each one and stops dancing around the doctrines of the church.

God Bless

 

[JRKH]

Hi all,

I am a tad unsure why they won’t accept the church as the pillar and foundation of the truth?
m.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom43.iii.v.iii.html

I’m happy enough to heartily agree with Paul **I just don’t reach the same conclusions on this verse as Catholics do.
**
Kind regards

Lincs.

At one time I would have agreed with this…Until the bible showed me how wrong my previous conclusions were.

Peace
James

 

[Lincoln7]

At one time I would have agreed with this…Until the bible showed me how wrong my previous conclusions were.

Peace
James

Hi James,

We follow different teachers I suppose… Anyway, to stay on topic; I posted simply to demonstrate that this verse poses neither a problem to reformed theology, nor is ‘uncomfortable’ for us.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[jschutzm]

… Another suggestion…

John Martigoni often starts by agreeing with them on whatever bible verse they bring up.
He’ll sometimes say “Amen! Brother!.. as a Catholic I agree with that verse 100%”

But then go onto show them how he interprets it differently and how they MIGHT be reading into it.

Often times non-Catholics read into verses and insert an extra “alone” or “only” into the verse.

So ‘scripture is useful for reproof and instruction’ becomes ‘scripture [alone] is useful for reproof and instruction’

…We are saved by faith apart from works of the law, becomes “faith [alone] apart from works of the law”

But as a Catholic… we 100% agree with the bible. We just don’t read into it, things which are not there or add our own interpretation on top of the author’s intent.

If you can at least get the person to concede that there is even room for another interpretation or a different take on that verse…then you’ve cracked the door open a bit and created room for the Holy Spirit to enter. That would be the BEST outcome.

OH, and lastly… always say a short prayer before hand or as you start to talk about it… give glory to God and remember to say: “not thy will be done but YOURS, God” - give me the words to speak

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,
We follow different teachers I suppose…

Well my teacher is the Holy Spirit and Christ’s own words…

Anyway, to stay on topic; I posted simply to demonstrate that this verse poses neither a problem to reformed theology, nor is ‘uncomfortable’ for us.

Fair enough…It’s good to stay on topic.

Of course - as I mentioned in my earlier post, ALL of these questions are bound to come back to authority. Two people - each trying to be good sincere disciples of Christ - hold different and irreconcilable beliefs. Each uses Scripture to support their position…How does Scripture instruct us to deal with this so that we may fulfill Christ’s wish that we be “One” as He and the Father are one. (John 17:20-21)?

Peace
James

 

[constantconvert]

Hello everyone

I have a question, and I’d like your guys(and girls ) advice. I’m talking to a friend, and I keep asking him what the Bible says is the pillar and foundation of the truth. He avoids answering the question and keeps trying to change the topic to Mary’s Immaculate Conception. It’s apparent to me that he’s not interested in actually talking, but simply trying to “enlighten” me. He switched topics and immediately started throwing verses at me. So my question is, should I continue asking him to answer my question? I’ve refused to go on until he stops dancing around it. Is this right? Or shoud i go on and talk about the Immaculate Conception?

I personally would not go with 1 Tim. 3:15. It is sometimes used as a proof text or a “gotcha” by Catholics and may appear disingenuous-- the same way you would want him to avoid protestant “gotchas”

The Immaculate Conception can not be proved from the Bible, it can only be supported by the Bible. The real issue is the authority of the Church. I would try to talk about that. It’s the biggest obstacle for protestants, no matter what they might say about Mary. If they realize that the Church is the authority Jesus has established, everything else falls into place.

I would **insist **that he not jump around from subject to subject machine-gunning verses at you. That’s no way to have a discussion. Both people need to stay on topic.

 

[Lincoln7]

James,

Of course - as I mentioned in my earlier post, ALL of these questions are bound to come back to authority. Two people - each trying to be good sincere disciples of Christ - hold different and irreconcilable beliefs. Each uses Scripture to support their position…How does Scripture instruct us to deal with this so that we may fulfill Christ’s wish that we be “One” as He and the Father are one. (John 17:20-21)?

indeed, I have a thread going on this over in the non catholic forum. Your unwritten point being I need the infallible discernment of the church to guide me? (before going any further, I should mention I do quite happily adhere to the church as authoritative) With infallible guides though, the same argument seems to work: two guides - each trying to be good sincere disciples of Christ - hold different and irreconcilable beliefs. Each uses Scripture and Tradition to support their position… Which one do I follow?

To add of course, this argument also implies that scripture does not possess perspicuity, or that one of the differing parties in the dispute could in fact be correct in its understanding.

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[JRKH]

James,

indeed, I have a thread going on this over in the non catholic forum. Your unwritten point being I need the infallible discernment of the church to guide me? (before going any further, I should mention I do quite happily adhere to the church as authoritative)

Actually I don’t think that it needs to be “unwritten”. The Bible actually demonstrates this fact.
Of course if yourunwritten point is that my unwritten point is the “Catholic Church”, then I would say - not necessarily. In these kinds of discussions, I prefer to let the bible speak for itself.

With infallible guides though, the same argument seems to work: two guides - each trying to be good sincere disciples of Christ - hold different and irreconcilable beliefs. Each uses Scripture and Tradition to support their position… Which one do I follow?

Well we can have another whole thread on this one…(More below)

To add of course, this argument also implies that scripture does not possess perspicuity, or that one of the differing parties in the dispute could in fact be correct in its understanding.

The Bible possesses words. The perspicuity of those words will depend upon other factors.
As to the differing parties possessing Truth…I would say that in most cases BOTH possess elements of Truth. The Church (ekklesia) in council prayerfully seeks to discern what is true and what is error in each position so that it may publish (as it is written) what, “…seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”(Act 15:28)

As a wonderful example - you and I have differing views, but each contains elements of truth. Even though I do not know for sure, I suspect that my view of the application of ekklesial (Church) authority is somewhat more comprehensive than yours…

Peace
James

 

[Lincoln7]

James,

Actually I don’t think that it needs to be “unwritten”. The Bible actually demonstrates this fact.
Of course if yourunwritten point is that my unwritten point is the “Catholic Church”, then I would say - not necessarily. In these kinds of discussions, I prefer to let the bible speak for itself.

As do I

As to the differing parties possessing Truth…I would say that in most cases BOTH possess elements of Truth. The Church (ekklesia) in council prayerfully seeks to discern what is true and what is error in each position so that it may publish (as it is written) what, “…seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”(Act 15:28)

Indeed it does, but as a Protestant I don’t affirm the infallibility of said councils. Many of them were correct in what they said though of course! Trent for example, I naturally don’t agree with it on many things.

As a wonderful example - you and I have differing views, but each contains elements of truth. Even though I do not know for sure, I suspect that my view of the application of ekklesial (Church) authority is somewhat more comprehensive than yours…

Comprehensive? I generally view the model presented by the CC as Sola Eclessia, I mean this as no insult, it’s simply a descriptive term, please don’t take that the wrong way

Lincs

 

[JRKH]

James,

As do I

A great basis for discussion - So often I run into cases where, as soon as someone finds out I am Catholic" they start assuming “unwritten motives” to what I propose…

Indeed it does, but as a Protestant I don’t affirm the infallibility of said councils. Many of them were correct in what they said though of course! Trent for example, I naturally don’t agree with it on many things.

And this is where I believe that you depart from the biblical truth. I find no biblical support for the placing of one’s personal view above the decision of the Holy Spirit in council…

Comprehensive? I generally view the model presented by the CC as Sola Eclessia, I mean this as no insult, it’s simply a descriptive term, please don’t take that the wrong way

No insult taken…I find it to be an interesting term…I had not heard it before…
Is it fair to say that you and I agree that there needs to be a “middle ground” between the two extremes?? (Bible w/no authoritative Church vs Church with no authoritative bible)

Peace
James

 

[Lincoln7]

James, thanks for a good discussion.

And this is where I believe that you depart from the biblical truth. I find no biblical support for the placing of one’s personal view above the decision of the Holy Spirit in council…

I have no issue with councils to discuss doctrines. I simply don’t think they are protected from all forms of error… I affirm say, Chalcedon, because it draws it’s authority from sacred scripture.

No insult taken…I find it to be an interesting term…I had not heard it before…
Is it fair to say that you and I agree that there needs to be a “middle ground” between the two extremes?? (Bible w/no authoritative Church vs Church with no authoritative bible)

I see Sola Scriptura as said middle ground. It does not preclude church authrotiy, far from it. Or ignore all Traditon, again far from it. What it does is say that scripture is the only infallible guide we have, and as such the only thing that can bind conscience.

The Westminister Confession:

1. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.y
   Acts 15:15; John 5:46; 2 Pet 1:20-21
2. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.z
   (z) Matt 22:29,31; Acts 28:25; 1 John 4:1-6

Kind regards

Lincs.

 

[JRKH]

James, thanks for a good discussion.

No problem. Thanks for the references to the Westminster confessions.

I have no issue with councils to discuss doctrines. I simply don’t think they are protected from all forms of error… I affirm say, Chalcedon, because it draws it’s authority from sacred scripture.

But in truth ALL councils draw their authority from Sacred Scripture.

I see Sola Scriptura as said middle ground. It does not preclude church authority, far from it. Or ignore all Tradition, again far from it. What it does is say that scripture is the only infallible guide we have, and as such the only thing that can bind conscience.

I see that, by referring to the Westminster confessions, you are showing that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura holds that Scripture is the only infallible guide…But - does Scripture itself say that it is the only infallible guide? I have never seen such a verse. - and by Scripture I mean the collected books of the biblical canon.

Even if I start from a position of “Sola Scriptura” I cannot but help finding myself seeing within Scripture a call to unity - one with the other - in one mind - avoiding dissension - together in a single, visible and authoritative church…It is, quite frankly - what Scripture says.

What I find in Scripture is that we refer things (as needed) to “The Church” and that we “Listen to the Church”.
I mean we have the instruction in Mt 18:15-18
Likewise we have Jesus, in the same passage, giving authority to the Church to “Bind and Loose” - Whatever".
We have a demonstration of that instruction and that binding and loosing in Acts 15.
We have Paul telling Timothy that The Church is the “pillar and foundation” in 1 Tim.
Paul tells the Ephesians that it is through The Church that “the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places”. (Eph 3:10)
We have multiple exhortations in the NT for the faithful to be one to avoid dissensions, to be at peace, etc.

And of course this comes back around to the idea of two people (or groups) holding contradictory ideas about just what “the only infallible guide we have” is “infallibly” telling them…and what can be done to resolve the matter.
Just how “infallible” can the bible be - if different people can get different meanings from it? Inerrant - yes certainly - but infallible??
So - then how does the ekklesia deal with such dissension - such disagreement?
Scripture tells us to “Tell it to the Church” and to “Listen to the Church”…

P.S. Please don’t take my bolding etc as yelling…just some emphasis…

Peace
James