Wow are protestant apologists really THAT dishonest?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 6glargento
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi,
I’m new to this forum and stumbled on it and I’m a little surprised at the tone.
I realize that this is kind of a “like minded believers” club and that you all are probably familiar with each other and probably dont really see the need to validate your comments, much like what my dad would call “shooting the breeze”…you know.

I’m wondering about the comments about saying that the “best” protestant apologist’s would spend their time arguing against atheists instead of Catholics, and the other remark that everyone seems to understand is the Jack Chick remarks.

My questions are these:
Who (which apologist are you referring to) is being deliberately dishonest?
What remark did (this same apologist) they make that caused you to believe that they are?
What did Chick pubs say that was incorrect about the Catholic faith?

And last: You can’t be serious that you believe that “They just hate catholics more than they love Jesus” right??

If you do love someone, and we are commanded to love everyone, and we think that you are wrong and we are right, then the most loving thing we could possibly do is to tell you right?

Thanks,
bob
 
Lak611,
Thanks for the speedy reply.
I checked out the link and looked at the footnotes. I had a hard time negociating around the chick site to find anything but I did manage to see and verify that at least the nazi quote in the “godfather” tract was accurately stated…

My question is: is their any verification that Chick tracts is incorrect about their assertions?

I see that the “tone” of the tracts is less than “loving” and I would say that I’d not use them for that reason, but my question is: did they state untruths?

I’m not baiting anyone, just trying to keep on track on this…
thanks,
bob
 
mark_a said:
Well, I read Jimmy Akin’s account of meeting the Jack Chick guy and his cartoonist drawer illustrator guy, and he says they were nice fellers and not disrespectful in the least.

Maybe you are interpteting them all wrong.
Click to expand...
No, we have them right. Don’t be fooled by nice and respectful, anyone can be that (Hitler, Stalin, Satan.)

IMO, it doesn’t matter if Protestant propaganda and errors are intentional or mere negligence. I also believe that there are many who simply do not care whether or not their facts are correct.

We’ve all seen vicious propaganda lists of supposed Catholic errors circulated by various Protestants. Most of these Protestants mindlessly repeat these alleged errors with no critical thought or inquiry whatsoever. IMO, that’s more than mere negligence.
 
Does anyone have any credible evidence that what’s stated in the tracts is incorrect?

Again, I realize that the tone is rather nasty, but is the information contained therein false?

I’m trying to keep this on the track of “is the information incorrect?” because it’s easy to get bent out of shape and completely get off of the subject and forget what the original question was…
Thanks,
bob
 
6glargento said:
i was looking at Philip Porvaznik’s (“Philvaz”) website and saw an interesting quote from protestant apologist william webster and david king in their book “The Holy Scripture: Pillar and Foundation of our faith”

" The patristic evidence for sola Scriptura is, we believe, an overwhelming indictment against the claims of the Roman communion. " (volume 1 by David King, page 266)

" Such statements [regarding the unhistorical nature of sola Scriptura] manifest an ignorance of the patristic and medieval perspective on the authority of Scripture. Scripture alone as the infallible rule for the ongoing life and faith of the Church was the universal belief and practice of the Church of the patristic and medieval ages. " (volume 2 by William Webster, page 84-85)

" When they [the Church Fathers] are allowed to speak for themselves it becomes clear that they universally taught sola Scriptura in the fullest sense of the term embracing both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. " (volume 3 by Webster/King, page 9)

obviously this is a blatant lie since we can see through reading the church fathers in context that they did not teach sola scriptura at all! Now if webster’s argument was that there are certain passages from the church fathers which can be used to support his argument that is one thing (allthough i highly dissagre with it) but to say that there was a universal consesus for sola scriptura seems like these heretics are intenionally trying to misslead people. What do you think?
Click to expand...
My outlook on this whole thing is this…if the RCC doctrine was in-line with scripture, then let us discuss this. But, until then, this is a non-issue for me.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 **That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

I AM FULLY SATISFIED WITH SCRIPTURE.
 
rpavich said:
Does anyone have any credible evidence that what’s stated in the tracts is incorrect?

Again, I realize that the tone is rather nasty, but is the information contained therein false?

I’m trying to keep this on the track of “is the information incorrect?” because it’s easy to get bent out of shape and completely get off of the subject and forget what the original question was…
Thanks,
bob
Click to expand...
You mean other than the fact that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach any of what Chick says they do? What specifically are you referring to? Feel free to include links or paste some specific questions.
 
OneForTruth said:
My outlook on this whole thing is this…if the RCC doctrine was in-line with scripture, then let us discuss this. But, until then, this is a non-issue for me.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 **That the man of God may be perfect, *throughly furnished ***unto all good works.

Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

I AM FULLY SATISFIED WITH SCRIPTURE.
Click to expand...
You might want to visit one of the many Sola Scriptura threads for refutation of that belief…there are plenty of them.
 
OneForTruth said:
My outlook on this whole thing is this…if the RCC doctrine was in-line with scripture, then let us discuss this. But, until then, this is a non-issue for me.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 **That the man of God may be perfect, *throughly furnished ***unto all good works.

Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

I AM FULLY SATISFIED WITH SCRIPTURE.
Click to expand...
Then the Catholic Church accepts your “Thanks” because it is vehicle which God chose to provide us with the scripture which you are fully satisfied with.

When your ready, we also have what it called the fullness of Truth. God would like for you to have that as well. Again he is using Christ Church, the Catholic Church to deliver that Truth. Just ask for it, we’ll introduce you to it if you like…
 
rpavich said:
Does anyone have any credible evidence that what’s stated in the tracts is incorrect?

Again, I realize that the tone is rather nasty, but is the information contained therein false?

I’m trying to keep this on the track of “is the information incorrect?” because it’s easy to get bent out of shape and completely get off of the subject and forget what the original question was…
Thanks,
bob
Click to expand...
The thing about Propaganda (are we speaking of the Chick tracts?) is that it’s a mixture of truth, half-truth, misrepresentation and outright lies, always presented in the worst possible light as against your opponent, and attempts to engage the reader on a sub-rational level.
 
rpavich said:
Does anyone have any credible evidence that what’s stated in the tracts is incorrect?

Again, I realize that the tone is rather nasty, but is the information contained therein false?

I’m trying to keep this on the track of “is the information incorrect?” because it’s easy to get bent out of shape and completely get off of the subject and forget what the original question was…
Thanks,
bob
Click to expand...
Can you be specific? Jack Chic makes so many off the wall statements against so many different religions that it is difficult to keep track. If I remember correctly, he blamed the Church for the Holaucaust is that what you are referring to? If so, yes that is wrong.
 
I’m trying to be as specific as I can…

Let me try again…

When speaking of Chick tracts, a comment was made about Jack Chick as if everyone was in on something that I didn’t know…

I’ll restate the question as specifically as I can:

Does anyone have a direct cut-paste quote from any chick track that they can verify through a reputable source that the information contained in the tract is false?

I don’t know how I can restate it any clearer than that…

I realize that the hateful tone of the tract that I read was not good at all but that wasn’t my question…

bob
 
I’ll try again…

A statement was made here about Jack Chick and him spreading falsehoods.

I’m asking for a direct quote of one and a direct refutation of one from a credible source…

is that so hard? I keep reading here that “protestant apologists are dishonest”…well…I’ve asked the same question over and over and can’t get any “catholic apologist” to take my question seriously…

bob
 
Many Chick Publications have been banned in Canada as “hate literature.”
 
rpavich said:
I’ll try again…

A statement was made here about Jack Chick and him spreading falsehoods.

I’m asking for a direct quote of one and a direct refutation of one from a credible source…

is that so hard? I keep reading here that “protestant apologists are dishonest”…well…I’ve asked the same question over and over and can’t get any “catholic apologist” to take my question seriously…

bob
Click to expand...
Start a new thread!😃 You’ll get plenty of responses.

This is getting to be a long thread and not everyone wants the hassle of reading through so many responses. So, starting something fresh would help.
 
rpavich said:
I’ll try again…

A statement was made here about Jack Chick and him spreading falsehoods.

I’m asking for a direct quote of one and a direct refutation of one from a credible source…

is that so hard? I keep reading here that “protestant apologists are dishonest”…well…I’ve asked the same question over and over and can’t get any “catholic apologist” to take my question seriously…

bob
Click to expand...
No problem.

Let’s start with the documented fact that Alberto Rivera hoaxed Chick and yet Chick continues to print and distribute the tracts and comics.

Documentation? Who Was Alberto Rivera?
“Booksellers’ Group May Expel Chick,” Christianity Today, October 23, 1981, 62.
Gary Metz, “Jack Chick’s Anti-Catholic Alberto Comic Book Is Exposed as a Fraud,” Christianity Today, March 13, 1981.

An honest man would pull all those tracts and comics.
Has Chick done so? No.
 
OneForTruth said:
My outlook on this whole thing is this…if the RCC doctrine was in-line with scripture, then let us discuss this. But, until then, this is a non-issue for me.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 **That the man of God may be perfect, *throughly furnished ***unto all good works.

Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have lif through his name.

I AM FULLY SATISFIED WITH SCRIPTURE.
Click to expand...
Hi There!
Code: 
  I have a question for you. Please do not take it as a condemnation or anything like it I'm just trying to understand Sola Scriptura. Here is the question:

 I have heard and read many protestants apologists that refer to some passages of scripture are symbolic and others passages are literal, could you tell me (Or direct me to a place that explains this)  who determines which one is which? Does scripture provides a way of discriminating between them. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about:
John 6:52-53, “The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.’” => Symbolic

“Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” => literal"

In His love

A Catholic Deacon
 
Catholicdeacon said:
Hi There!
Code: 
  I have a question for you. Please do not take it as a condemnation or anything like it I'm just trying to understand Sola Scriptura. Here is the question:

 I have heard and read many protestants apologists that refer to some passages of scripture are symbolic and others passages are literal, could you tell me (Or direct me to a place that explains this)  who determines which one is which? Does scripture provides a way of discriminating between them. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about:
John 6:52-53, “The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus therefore said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.’” => Symbolic

“Is not this the carpenters son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?” => literal"

In His love

A Catholic Deacon
Click to expand...
What you and I could do is spend some hours talking about the doctrine of justification and election…basically Soteriology and I could very easily show you that the Catholic position is not biblical. The question is whether or not you would be willing to see it…🙂 How critical are the teachings surrounding salvation!
 
OneForTruth said:
What you and I could do is spend some hours talking about the doctrine of justification and election…basically Soteriology and I could very easily show you that the Catholic position is not biblical. The question is whether or not you would be willing to see it…🙂 How critical are the teachings surrounding salvation!
Click to expand...
“See that a man is jsutified by works and not by faith alone.”
(james 2:24)

yea the protestant position on justification is the biblical one…right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top