What do you know about InPlainSits.org?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GerardPaul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GerardPaul

Guest
A friend of mine from Calvary Chaple put [www.(name removed by moderator)lainsite.org](http://www.(name removed by moderator)lainsite.org) on his Defensive Training web page under his favorite links. I spent some time on the site but it is very extensive. It is like Catholic Answers only from a Bible Only Christians views. Some of our best arguements against them are covered. On page 11 the Catholic Church is under Heresies,Cults etc. They do a good job with their refutation of our views using the Bible and a kind of conspiracy theory view that appeals to Protestant preconceived ideas. Please tell me if you have a good answer for this site. My friend does not seem to be open to any Catholic Truth in the two years I have known him. He has quoted from this site.

Thank You, Jeffrey
 
Jeffrey,

I’ve not been there before; it looks quite impressive. I note that they regard Campus Crusade for Christ as a “questionable organization;” they seem to be of the school of “There is none righteous but thee and me, and I am not so sure about thee.”

One thing that jumped out at me in their write-up on “Roman Catholic Apologists” was the charge that we “mis-define terms.” That is a serious canard; speaking objectively, Catholics and Evangelicals have different meanings for terms. It’s not that we mis-define the terms, it’s that we have different definitions. The important part of this is to ask, what was the meaning of the original writer, and how do you know? That usually comes down to “proof by assertion.”

Beyond that, I haven’t really sat down to think of “a good answer for this site.” I probably could if I put the time and effort and prayer into it; is it important?
  • Liberian
 
To be honest, this is the best written anti-Catholic site I have ever seen. It’s still nothing but the proverbial one-sided apologetics. The Bible, without an authority, says anything the quoter wants it to say, and, of course, anyone who disagrees is wrong. They know Catholic doctrine well enough to build better straw men, but they are still just straw men.

Also, they have a section on the Catechism, that may come from “The Gospel According to Rome” by James McCarthy (not sure on that one)… The Catholic response to that book is another book called, “The Gopel According to James McCarthy.” - Lots of value added to Christianity going on there…
 
Peace be with you!

I just browsed a couple pages very quickly. I was expecting them to argue the “Apocrypha” in a better way than they did. But it was the same old thing–Jerome was against them at first (with no mention of his later defense of the books) and Jamnia. I also looked at the review of The Passion by a man who didn’t even watch it…and yet he seems to believe he is qualified to right a review of it.

From what I’ve seen, this is not the best-written and/or researched anti-Catholic site.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Here is my favorite claim from their site:

There are no explicit references to a papacy in the earliest centuries of Christianity.
So using this logic, I will prove that the United States Marine Corps is a false military branch.

The USMC claims it was founded in 1775. Today, the Marine Corps is led by the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The first commandant was Samuel Nicholas. But the Marine Corps admits that Nicholas never technically held the title of commandant! Proof positive that the Marine Corps today cannot trace its roots back to 1775!

Of course that is a bunch of hooey. This protestant claim is based solely on semantics. As the protestants acknowledge, there were bishops. The pope is the Bishop of Rome. In the intervening time, we have come to understand the role he held. Just like the first person to lead the USMC is now considered the first commandant although he would not have called himself that.
 
I looked it over and some of the others that have been cited and they ALL have the same essential flaws. The most glaring of which being that they espouse Sola Scriptura, which IMO disqualifies almost everything else that they attempt to say.

If that errant doctrine were true then we’d all be in the same theological interpretative mess that the n-Cs are. That is the primary place to begin with the refutation of their comments. I disagree that that is the best presented site, since they borrow extensively from other sources and anyone who would believe the rhetoric of Mary Ann Collins (the supposed nun :rolleyes: ) was predisposed to anti-Catholicism to begin with.

The only thing that I found refreshing was that there seems to be a bit less vitriol in their pages, but their positions are errant and factually inaccurate. History does not support the things that they allege.

For instance, Was the early church Catholic? ABSOLUTELY!

When the bishop of the church at Antioch, who was discipled by St. John the apostle himself writes. "CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils." That tells you that they believed the Catholic teaching on the real presence. Anyone who rejects that is not in line with either the New Testament or the teachings of the early church.

When that same St. Ignatius of Antioch then writes. "CHAP. VIII.–LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." That tells you that the bishop of the church in the very city “where we were first called Christians” (Acts 11:26) shows that even at that time the church called itself “the Catholic Church”.

The “information super highway” sadly has many bad maps that lead to factually inaccurate side roads…especially where religion is concerned.

In conclusion “Calvary Chapel” is one of the most anti-Catholic bunches out there and the ones in my area, (less than 5 miles from my house, and people that I used to go to church with) are pretty "smiley, but they wouldn’t know an early church writing from a Chick tract.
Pax tecum,
 
I’ll be honest, after reading the descriptions in here, I literally couldn’t wait to see the site. Part of it was the ancipation of seeing arguments I hadn’t seen before and part of it was nervousness about seeing arguments I hadn’t seen before.

Then … well … nothing much.

Don’t get me wrong - there were a couple clever arguments, but, as has been expressed, they were mind games and semantics gymnastics. I’d seen them, or variations, before and they pretty easily refutable once one sees through the fallacies.

If someone does visit the site and finds an argument that seems pretty convincing, please post in here. There was was too much silly stuff to refute point-by-point, but I think there’s plenty of us who’d be willing to assist with something that is otherwise “convincing”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top