Why won’t the Protestant non-Catholic Christians here, argue with the real Catholic Apologists at CAF?

[Steadfast]

What does this have to do with anything?

Go and read the articles on the home page here and then come back and tell me what you think. BTW, I’m not a staff apologist.

Peace

I have, and again, CAF doesn’t exist to argue with non-Catholics. I know several of them have engaged in formal debates and that’s wonderful, but again, CAF isn’t here to argue with us, though I realize that you are.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I have, and again, CAF doesn’t exist to argue with non-Catholics. I know several of them have engaged in formal debates and that’s wonderful, but again, CAF isn’t here to argue with us, though I realize that you are.

Why can’t you use the term “debate” to describe what I do? I’m not here to argue.

As a fellow Christian, am I not deserving of the same charity?

Why don’t you post something here that you disagree with…something that a “real’’ Catholic Apologist wrote and we can “debate” it.

Peace

 

[happilycatholic]

Why won’t the Protestant non-Catholic Christians here, argue with the real Catholic Apologists at CAF?

Over the years here at CAF, I have seen countless self-proclaim “experts” on Christianity who will argue with Catholics on these forums until they are blue in the face, writing things like, “I have a Master’s in Divinity” but I don’t ever see a Protestant response from these individuals to a real Catholic Apologist.

Why won’t our Protestant friends take on some of the real Catholic Apologists from our time? Catholics here, take on Calvin and Luther all the time.

Why won’t they take on the Apologists from our time or even from this web site, the home page here at CAF?

It’s easy, for example, a Protestant can go here and cut and past a comment from a Jimmy Akin or Karl Keating article and provide the Protestant response.

This way, they can they show all of us, “non-informed Catholics”, how and why we are wrong in our defense of Catholicism.

I’m waiting, tell me what Catholic Apologist got it “wrong” and why and provide a real Protestant response….If you can.

It’s simple, they’re skeerd.

 

[ckempston]

I have a challenge that no Catholic (doctorate holder or otherwise) can answer:

Catholics use personal interpretation to determine that the Catholic church is the true church. The statements of the Magesterium also require personal interpretation. Catholics are simply once-removed from personal, Biblical interpretation, but are no different from Protestants.

Solved: Catholics have no grounds for condemning Protestants for using personal interpretation.

 

[happilycatholic]

I have a challenge that no Catholic (doctorate holder or otherwise) can answer:

Catholics use personal interpretation to determine that the Catholic church is the true church. The statements of the Magesterium also require personal interpretation. Catholics are simply once-removed from personal, Biblical interpretation, but are no different from Protestants.

Solved: Catholics have no grounds for condemning Protestants for using personal interpretation.

You know the counter argument here, you simply refuse to believe it. The magesterium of the Church has the gift of infallibility given them through Apostolic Traditition. We let them interpret Scripture. We do not personally interpret Scripture.

It doesn’t take a doctorate to know your faith’s doctrine.

G.K. Chesterton said it best:

“…a real messenger refusing to tamper with a real message.” ~By G. K. Chesterton: Why I am a Catholic

 

[ckempston]

You know the counter argument here, you simply refuse to believe it. The magesterium of the Church has the gift of infallibility given them through Apostolic Traditition. We let them interpret Scripture. We do not personally interpret Scripture.

It doesn’t take a doctorate to know your faith’s doctrine.

G.K. Chesterton said it best:

“…a real messenger refusing to tamper with a real message.” ~By G. K. Chesterton: Why I am a Catholic

How do you know the Magesterium has the gift of infallability???

It’s your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION!

My point stands.

 

[happilycatholic]

How do you know the Magesterium has the gift of infallability???

It’s your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION!

My point stands.

No sir, …faith. I have faith in what the Church tells me. I don’t hear what the Church says then go read Scripture and decide it’s true. I have faith when they say it that it’s the truth.

The Church tells me that it has absolute infallibility in matters of faith and doctrine.

But if you want to go to the Scripture:

“He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Jesus wasn’t speaking to the wind here. Jesus wasn’t speaking to vague denominations that might come to pass. Jesus was speaking to His Apostles.

You can choose to believe or not. Whether you do does not negate the truth.

Your point fails.

 

[happilycatholic]

How do you know the Magesterium has the gift of infallability???

It’s your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION!

My point stands.

Further, the need to find “proof” in Scripture is a non-catholic point-of-view. Catholics do not have this need. We automatically know that because it is said, it is contained in the full Deposit of Faith. In exactly the same way the Apostles believed Christ without Scriptural proof.

Your need to find Scriptural proof for everything is negated by the fact that just because the Scripture exsists does not mean God exsists or Christ ever walked the earth. That is left to faith. And the fact that you claim YOU have the ability to infallibly interpret the Scripture is a matter of faith.

See, we could lose our Bibles. They could be taken away and burned and we’d still have the promise Christ left us with. The Bible is not God. It is the Word of God. The gates of hell can prevail against it. It can be destroyed. By that I mean “Bibles”, not the actual Word of God. (before I get beat up)

The Church…never.

 

[ckempston]

No sir, …faith. I have faith in what the Church tells me. I don’t hear what the Church says then go read Scripture and decide it’s true. I have faith when they say it that it’s the truth.

The Church tells me that it has absolute infallibility in matters of faith and doctrine.

But if you want to go to the Scripture:

“He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Jesus wasn’t speaking to the wind here. Jesus wasn’t speaking to vague denominations that might come to pass. Jesus was speaking to His Apostles.

You can choose to believe or not. Whether you do does not negate the truth.

Your point fails.

This is one big case of special pleading. You allow that Catholics can have faith in the church’s interpretation (which requires a person interpretation/faith on the part of the individual), but that Protestants’ faith in being led personally by the Spirit is false.

This is not about what I believe, but you are right that it is about truth. It is not a matter of personal belief that you (and all Catholics) resort to special pleading and inconsistency when you level this accusation against Protestants; it is a fact that you do this.

 

[ckempston]

Further, the need to find “proof” in Scripture is a non-catholic point-of-view. Catholics do not have this need. We automatically know that because it is said, it is contained in the full Deposit of Faith. In exactly the same way the Apostles believed Christ without Scriptural proof.

You don’t know, you believe, based on your personal interpretation.

Your need to find Scriptural proof for everything is negated by the fact that just because the Scripture exsists does not mean God exsists or Christ ever walked the earth. That is left to faith. And the fact that you claim YOU have the ability to infallibly interpret the Scripture is a matter of faith.

More special pleading. The same arguments can be used against the Catholic church:

Your need to believe THE MAGESTERIUM for everything is negated by the fact that just because THE MAGESTERIUM exsists does not mean God exsists or Christ ever walked the earth. That is left to faith. And the fact that you claim THE MAGESTERIUM has the ability to infallibly interpret the Scripture is a matter of faith.

See, we could lose our Bibles. They could be taken away and burned and we’d still have the promise Christ left us with. The Bible is not God. It is the Word of God. The gates of hell can prevail against it. It can be destroyed. By that I mean “Bibles”, not the actual Word of God. (before I get beat up)

The Church…never.

Let’s try to stay on track.

 

[happilycatholic]

You don’t know, you believe, based on your personal interpretation.

You are confusing interpretation, which requires an outside source, and faith, which requires no outside source.

I have faith, which requires no interpretation of anything except the english lanquage.

More special pleading. The same arguments can be used against the Catholic church:

Your need to believe THE MAGESTERIUM (you fudged a little here, but I’ll let that go) for everything is negated by the fact that just because THE MAGESTERIUM exsists does not mean God exsists or Christ ever walked the earth. That is left to faith. And the fact that you claim THE MAGESTERIUM has the ability to infallibly interpret the Scripture is a matter of faith.

Let’s try to stay on track.

Can you say, “circular argument”.

You’ve just basically restated everything I said. I already stated that it was a matter of faith. Do you know why those are interchangeable? Because Christ said they were. It was in the verse I pasted right here on this thread. Here it is again:

“He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Thanks for making my point.

And to stay on track why aren’t you asking a catholic apologist these questions?

 

[ckempston]

Can you say, “circular argument”.

You’ve just basically restated everything I said. I already stated that it was a matter of faith. Do you know why those are interchangeable? Because Christ said they were. It was in the verse I pasted right here on this thread. Here it is again:

“He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).

Thanks for making my point.

And to stay on track why aren’t you asking a catholic apologist these questions?

You apparently do not know the definition of circular argument. Where are the Catholic apologists? I’ll be glad to ask. I’m sure they’ll be less likely to use fallacious reasoning, and will know what a circular argument is.

 

[happilycatholic]

You apparently do not know the definition of circular argument. Where are the Catholic apologists? I’ll be glad to ask. I’m sure they’ll be less likely to use fallacious reasoning, and will know what a circular argument is.

An argument which commits the logical fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove.

The whole argument, not just your side of it. The whole thing.

Go, please do ask the aplogists. They’ll say the same thing. It’s catholic doctrine, whether you belive it or not.

 

[ckempston]

An argument which commits the logical fallacy of assuming what it is attempting to prove.

The whole argument, not just your side of it. The whole thing.

Go, please do ask the aplogists. They’ll say the same thing. It’s catholic doctrine, whether you belive it or not.

I know it’s Catholic doctrine, the problem is whether or not it’s true.

So, you’re admitting that your argument about personal interpretation is circular? I’m not following.

My point all along has been that it is a matter of personal faith/belief/interpretation for both Catholics and Protestants as to what is Truth. Therefore, either group attacking the other using this approach is special pleading.

 

[Steadfast]

ckemp,

Good work.

HapCath proved your point.

She knows the Church is true because she believes its claims which, again, she believes to be founded on divine mandate. This puts her in EXACTLY the same boat as the Protestant who claims the same for the Bible, on precisely the same grounds.

 

[ralphinal]

Everyone’s faith is a matter of personal interpretation of something. Otherwise, it would not be personal at all.

What can be discussed is if personal interpretation of Scriptures is supposed to lead to different faith systems. It should also be discussed if Jesus founded a Church, if so which one, and if that CHurch has authority over anything.

 

[sambos671]

My guess at this is because Catholic Apologist used a lot of latin and greek to prove their points. Plus how many protestants know what Mystagogy is? Or many other accepted Catholic phrases. And since they don’t understand many of the terms they Lable them as mysterious words that act like magic for the catholics. And why debate a person who is using magic? Its not like they’re arguing from rational point of view. Anyway I believe thats the protestant perspective

 

[ckempston]

Everyone’s faith is a matter of personal interpretation of something. Otherwise, it would not be personal at all.

What can be discussed is if personal interpretation of Scriptures is supposed to lead to different faith systems. It should also be discussed if Jesus founded a Church, if so which one, and if that CHurch has authority over anything.

Amazingly, I agree with much of Catholic interpretation of scripture, which may not be obvious from my posts.

I agree that you have hit the heart of the matter. I think the answer to your questions are as follows:

if personal interpretation of Scriptures is supposed to lead to different faith systems.

Since we’re human, different intepretations will invariable lead to different conclusions. The questions are, how do we resolve them? and can we come up with a method to maintain consistency?

It should also be discussed if Jesus founded a Church,

I’d say every Protestant would answer yes to this. The difference is, of course, on the definition and structure of the church.

if so which one, and

Is it appropriate to point to one and say “that’s it!” I think that is the heart of the matter. The church is visible in the sense that it is made up of all Christians, but invisible because you cannot define a Christian on the basis of church membership, especially if said Christian is not living out the gospel.

if that CHurch has authority over anything.

Of course, again, by “church” you mean the Magesterium, and by “church” Protestants mean the entire assembly. That may not be 100% accurate statement, but I believe it is a close approximation.

 

[ckempston]

My guess at this is because Catholic Apologist used a lot of latin and greek to prove their points. Plus how many protestants know what Mystagogy is? Or many other accepted Catholic phrases. And since they don’t understand many of the terms they Lable them as mysterious words that act like magic for the catholics. And why debate a person who is using magic? Its not like they’re arguing from rational point of view. Anyway I believe thats the protestant perspective

And nobody but Catholic Apologists know Latin or Greek, of course!

 

[ralphinal]

Amazingly, I agree with much of Catholic interpretation of scripture, which may not be obvious from my posts.

I agree that you have hit the heart of the matter. I think the answer to your questions are as follows:

if personal interpretation of Scriptures is supposed to lead to different faith systems.

Since we’re human, different intepretations will invariable lead to different conclusions. The questions are, how do we resolve them? and can we come up with a method to maintain consistency?

And there is the rub. I would agree that humans will mess things up. Sometimes, intentionally, more often by accedent. So, how do we resolve them? How do we maintain “consistancy”

It should also be discussed if Jesus founded a Church,

I’d say every Protestant would answer yes to this. The difference is, of course, on the definition and structure of the church.

Then perhaps this is where we should start

if so which one, and

Is it appropriate to point to one and say “that’s it!” I think that is the heart of the matter. The church is visible in the sense that it is made up of all Christians, but invisible because you cannot define a Christian on the basis of church membership, especially if said Christian is not living out the gospel.

I do not disagree. However, if there is a “visible” church, what does it mean to be visible?

Of course, again, by “church” you mean the Magesterium, and by “church” Protestants mean the entire assembly. That may not be 100% accurate statement, but I believe it is a close approximation.

Yes and no. It is possible to have an authoritative church without a Magisterium. I guess my question is if Jesus intended his church to have authority