Wow are protestant apologists really THAT dishonest?

[Stewart42]

But “Sola Scripturalists” (If I may call them this) only depend on scripture itself. So the question is in what do you depend to interpret scripture? And if you depend on an external source, isn’t it wrong to say that you solely depend on scripture, since you are also depending on the interpretation of this scripture?

This is not a accurate representation of Sola Scriptura. Just because we assert that the bible is the final authority in matters of doctrine, doesn’t mean we are exempt from the testimony of the church and its history.

The Westminster Confession explains it this way:

1. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

1. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

1. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

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.

1. 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.

 

[Stewart42]

If you notice, paragraph 10 says that we are to heed decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men. We just believe that the final authority is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

 

[papalheart]

If a person use really thinks that Jack Chick is a reliable theologian then such a person isn’t being dishonest, just highly mistaken.

There are some people though, whose pride creates a desire to win the arguement regardless of the facts. Such a person will lie or twist facts to win a convert or create confusion.

Hi Deb,
Peace be with you.
I couldn’t agree more with your statement!
I have been reading, and trying to post on another forum, Topix, with a few very devout Catholics that love the Faith.
However, there have been some of these very difficult Protestant posters that have exhausted me, with their twists and lies. Apparently in the very pride that you speak of.
I don’t post here often, but have enjoyed reading. Now I’ve invited these faithful friends to come here, and hope we can all enjoy these wonderful Catholic forums.
Thanks for your post!
Dominus vobiscum,
Theresa

 

[DallasCatholic]

This is not a accurate representation of Sola Scriptura. Just because we assert that the bible is the final authority in matters of doctrine, doesn’t mean we are exempt from the testimony of the church and its history.

The Westminster Confession explains it this way:

Well, this creates a problem in and of itself. Not all protestants abide by the Westminster Confession. Can you speak for OneForTruth? Do you know that s/he abides by the Westminster Confession? You can only speak to your particular group of protestants or even Sola Scripturalists (sp?). I know that what you say is not true for the particular Baptists in my family. I’m not trying to be uncharitable but I hope you can see why we need to define terms upfront.

 

[DallasCatholic]

If you notice, paragraph 10 says that we are to heed decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men. We just believe that the final authority is the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Yes, Catholics believe the same thing. Yet the question from CatholicDeacon remains…who decides (for your denomination of Protestants) what the Holy Spirit is saying in any particular scripture.

 

[Church_Militant]

RPavich,
What happened?

No response to this post?
Pax tecum,

 

[Catholicdeacon]

Hello Steward,

Peace and blessings to you my brother in Christ. Thank you very much for the reference. There is much to discuss in the Westminster Confession (Like the Cannon of Scripture for example), however if you allow me, for the sake of space I would like to stay with what is to me the most important point. How scripture should be interpreted. Catholics believe in the authority of the church, inspired by the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture. I said:

But “Sola Scripturalists” (If I may call them this) only depend on scripture itself

Which seems to be confirmed by #9. (If I’m wrong please explain to me how these two statements contradict each other, I fail to see this contradiction)

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

So if the rule of interpretation is scripture itself, where does scripture teaches us that “Passages with these characteristics are to be interpreted as symbolic (such as when John tells us, "The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 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.’ John 6:52-53)

You said:
Just because we assert that the bible is the final authority in matters of doctrine, doesn’t mean we are exempt from the testimony of the church and its history.

By testimony of the church and history do you mean by what the Early Fathers taught and by what the church in history discerned through the Holy Spirit? (As is implied in #7) If you mean this then we are in agreement as the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states.

CCC 11: This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”

In His love…

A Catholic Deacon

 

[rpavich]

All,
thanks for the reminder about the references…no, this wasnt from chick…it was from a document called “the Catholic Chronicles” by Keith Green.

To cut to the chase…

It’s pretty obvious that nobody wants to address the original questions as stated in my original post. I’m also fairly certain that although I’m not any sort of psychic, that after this thread is over then forum members will remark about how another “dishonest protestant” apologist was “shut down”…

I hope that you read back to the original post and see that nobody directly refuted with credible sources, anything that was asked or asserted by myself, or by Chick. A lot of innuendo was used, and some broad sweeps taken but try as I might to keep it on tract to the two original questions…nobody wanted that…

God bless,
bob

 

[deb1]

All,
thanks for the reminder about the references…no, this wasnt from chick…it was from a document called “the Catholic Chronicles” by Keith Green.

To cut to the chase…

It’s pretty obvious that nobody wants to address the original questions as stated in my original post. I’m also fairly certain that although I’m not any sort of psychic, that after this thread is over then forum members will remark about how another “dishonest protestant” apologist was “shut down”…

I hope that you read back to the original post and see that nobody directly refuted with credible sources, anything that was asked or asserted by myself, or by Chick. A lot of innuendo was used, and some broad sweeps taken but try as I might to keep it on tract to the two original questions…nobody wanted that…

God bless,
bob

One of the problems is that you need to start a new topic on a seperate thread. To answer your questions would change the topic of this thread and you can imagine how confusing that would be to newcomers.

In the normal flow of conversatioin we can jump from subject to subject but on the internet that gets confusing because new comers might have just read the old topic and want to still talk about it. So, forums have to work different then regular conversation.

you can be answered in depth more properly on new thread.

Those of us who have been here a longer time then you are simply used to respecting the rules about not derailing threads.

You don’t want the discussion to get interesting and the moderators to shut it down because we didn’t follow the rules. I’ve had one of my posts on a different thread deleted because I accidentally derailed the thread with a different subject.

So, start a new thread.

We generally do just one topic each thread.

Don’t worry about being shut down. If you aren’t rude, and stick to the rules, you will be welcome to ask difficult questions.

 

[Catholicdeacon]

By testimony of the church and history do you mean by what the Early Fathers taught and by what the church in history discerned through the Holy Spirit? (**As is implied in #7**) If you mean this then we are in agreement as the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states.

Hello Steward,

 Blessings to you. I just realized I made a small mistake in my post I meant to say #10 and not #7

In His love…

A Catholic Deacon

 

[DallasCatholic]

All,
thanks for the reminder about the references…no, this wasnt from chick…it was from a document called “the Catholic Chronicles” by Keith Green.

To cut to the chase…

It’s pretty obvious that nobody wants to address the original questions as stated in my original post. I’m also fairly certain that although I’m not any sort of psychic, that after this thread is over then forum members will remark about how another “dishonest protestant” apologist was “shut down”…

I hope that you read back to the original post and see that nobody directly refuted with credible sources, anything that was asked or asserted by myself, or by Chick. A lot of innuendo was used, and some broad sweeps taken but try as I might to keep it on tract to the two original questions…nobody wanted that…

God bless,
bob

Bob,
I asked in Post 47 for you to clarify your question, as did another poster. Your question is so broad as to be impossible to answer. I am sure that after this post is over you will remark “poor reactionary Catholics, not able to rationally defend a Chick Tract.”. It cuts both ways.

Give me a specific question from one of Chick’s tracts that you would like to see refuted (on a new thread) and I will happily oblige. The reason no one has responded so far is because you asked such a broad and general question and because no one (the Baptists, Lutherans and Episcopalians) that I know actually take these tracts seriously. I will even start a new thread for you and post the link in my next message.

 

[DallasCatholic]

Bob,
Here is a link to the new thread. Please, please, please respond to that thread with specific questions.

I titled the thread “A Rational Defense of Chick Tracts”…I probably should have come up with a better title but oh well.

In Him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hello Steward,

Peace and blessings to you my brother in Christ. Thank you very much for the reference. There is much to discuss in the Westminster Confession (Like the Cannon of Scripture for example), however if you allow me, for the sake of space I would like to stay with what is to me the most important point. How scripture should be interpreted. Catholics believe in the authority of the church, inspired by the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture. I said:

But “Sola Scripturalists” (If I may call them this) only depend on scripture itself

Which seems to be confirmed by #9. (If I’m wrong please explain to me how these two statements contradict each other, I fail to see this contradiction)

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

So if the rule of interpretation is scripture itself, where does scripture teaches us that “Passages with these characteristics are to be interpreted as symbolic (such as when John tells us, "The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 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.’ John 6:52-53)

That quotation, of section 1.9, is only a part of what the WCF says; for the full context, it is necessary to read sections 4to 7** too, which can be read here: bpc.org/resources/wcf/wcf_01.html - see in particular section 5:​

• We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole, (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
  Calvinists place great emphasise - & surely rightly - upon the inward work of the Holy Spirit; as the quotation shows.

It is a mistake to imagine they acknowledge no other authorities - they do; but the Bible is supreme, as the Word of God by which all other words, whether of councils, Fathers, theologians, or others, are to be tried & weighed.

You said:

Just because we assert that the bible is the final authority in matters of doctrine, doesn’t mean we are exempt from the testimony of the church and its history.

By testimony of the church and history do you mean by what the Early Fathers taught and by what the church in history discerned through the Holy Spirit? (As is implied in #7) If you mean this then we are in agreement as the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states.

CCC 11: This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”

In His love…

A Catholic Deacon

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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?

A lot of untruths - which has the very bad effect of casting doubt on​

• Chick’s moral character
• the case which he is trying to get across
• the sort of Christianity he represents

• which does not help Catholics to think well of Protestants.

Some examples:

• Hitler never trained for the priesthood
• Kaiser Wilhelm II was never an RC - he was a Protestant of some kind: Lutheran, I think.
• The persecution of Scottish Protestants in the 16th century has not “been covered up” - chick.com/reading/books/153/graphics/153_11.gif - some of us have heard of Patrick Hamilton & Walter Millar; we just don’t agree with them.
• Several tracts state that Catholic things such as the Mass, the veneration of the BVM, & much much more, are derived from the religion of Babylonia: such as this: chick.com/tractimages14423/5023/5023_07.gif

• but this is not the case; Chick’s source is full of mis-statements, for which many excuses can be offered; yet they are still mis-statements.

• Despite this, the Emperor Constantine was not, & could not have been, the first Pope: for the very simple reason that
• • 1. He was a layman;
• • 1. He was never ordained;
• • 1. He was not baptised until the day of his death
• • 1. men with blood on their hands could not be ordained, then, or later;
• • 1. there is a succession of named & dated Popes at Rome both before & after his lifetime.
• • 1. there was a Pope Constantine, the only one of that name: who died in 715 AD
• Cardinal Newman was not a Jesuit
  I agree with Contarini whole-heartedly on this matter of honesty: I don’t believe Chick is a deliberate liar; I do think he is badly mis-informed. As for his failure to remove the misleading stuff: maybe he thinks Catholics are so deceived,that they are deceived into thinking that he is mistaken.

I’m not baiting anyone, just trying to keep on track on this…
thanks,
bob

Understood ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

OK rpavich, real quick.

Chick condemns Catholics going to a priest, using the Scripture, “Only God can forgive our sins”, even giving the Scripture verse. What Chick ignores is that this verse is issued by a Scribe trying to condemn Jesus for forgiving the paralytic’s sins (when the four lowered him through the roof). Meanwhile, Chick ignores the verse in John where Jesus breathes on the 11 and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit, those sins you forgive they are forgiven…”.

Chick also presents false teaching about the Church. He intreprets Catholics praying in front of a statue as worship.

He claims the Church teaches that Purgatory is your second chance to get to heaven.

He mis-represents the teachings of so many other doctrines.

• Confession - invented in the 3rd or 4th century so that Priests can have damning information on important people.
• Transubstantiation of the Eucharist (regarding the Real Presence - invented in the 12th century.
• The Catholic Church added 7 books to the Bible in Trent to justify Purgatory teachings.

And the biggest problem is, these comics are designed to influence the person who doesn’t know much about their faith, so they don’t understand the mis-representations.

As for IHS on the Host standing for the names of the Egyptian gods​

• Isis
• Horus
• Seb

• this is impossible, for several reasons; including this: there was no god called Seb. His name was read that way until the early 1900s: it should be Geb; which is what he is now called.

Chick’s source was finally revised in 1863.

The Egyptian writing of S is almost indistinguishable from that for G - both are pictures of ducks.

 

[Protestant101]

Unfortunately, I have had discussions on another forum with some fundamentalists who think Chick Publications are akin to Theological Academic Journals Oy vey

Rev North

Hey, I’ll roll my eyeys with you! The only question I have is who said that Jack Chick was a “Christian?” Probably just him and his “friends.”

 

[Black_Knight]

Hey, I’ll roll my eyeys with you! The only question I have is who said that Jack Chick was a “Christian?” Probably just him and his “friends.”

Entirely possible…

I’ll say this. He turns out some weird stuff.

 

[Catholicdeacon]

Hello G!

    Peace and all good! It is so fitting that we are discussing this  topics in this must joyous feast of Pentecost!

You said:

*Calvinists place great emphasise - & surely rightly - upon the inward work of the Holy Spirit; as the quotation shows. *

In deed they do! The problem is that many “Sola Scripturalists” do not realize that in fact they can only go so far with what is written in scripture. Eventually they need to rely on somebody else’s interpretation. Of course they believe that this person is inspired by Holy Spirit for this interpretation. However when confronted with the historical record of the Christian Church… well …On this point we Catholics have about 1500 years more of inspiration and understanding.

If they depend not on a person but a body of persons, then they are depending on (Gasp!) their own traditions and magistrium (Of course we return to the circular argument “well our traditions and magisterium are subordinated to scripture”, But how can this be? How can they be subordinated to that which they where constituted to interpret in the first place? God does not operate in such convoluted ways i’m afraid.

Or to put it more bluntly tradition and magisterium (what we Catholics recognize as the agents that manifest Gods authority to interpret scripture correctly) is something they can not escape.

You said:

It is a mistake to imagine they acknowledge no other authorities - they do; but the Bible is supreme, as the Word of God by which all other words, whether of councils, Fathers, theologians, or others, are to be tried & weighed.

 I apologize if I miss-represeted the Calvinistic position. After all I do not claim myself an expert. However the question still remains. On interpreting passages such as John 6:56, a passage that for 1500 years the Holy Spirit has clearly guided the Christian Church to interpret as a literal statement, why all of the sudden it is considered by this camp a symbolic statement? More importantly what kind of rational have the Holy Spirit provided to change this interpretation? Furthermore Can this rational be applied to passages considered by this camp as literal?

In His love…

A Catholic Deacon

 

[Stewart42]

On interpreting passages such as John 6:56, a passage that for 1500 years the Holy Spirit has clearly guided the Christian Church to interpret as a literal statement, why all of the sudden it is considered by this camp a symbolic statement? More importantly what kind of rational have the Holy Spirit provided to change this interpretation? Furthermore Can this rational be applied to passages considered by this camp as literal?

I’m not sure it can be shown that the Holy Spirit guided this interpretation. On the other hand, I can’t disprove it.

I will say that Calvinists do believe in “real presence.” We don’t take the passage as completely figurative. We believe Jesus is spiritually present in the elements. I can’t speak for other protestant demonintions, however.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hello G!

Peace and all good! It is so fitting that we are discussing this topics in this must joyous feast of Pentecost!

You said:

*Calvinists place great emphasise - & surely rightly - upon the inward work of the Holy Spirit; as the quotation shows. *

In deed they do! The problem is that many “Sola Scripturalists” do not realize that in fact they can only go so far with what is written in scripture. Eventually they need to rely on somebody else’s interpretation. Of course they believe that this person is inspired by Holy Spirit for this interpretation. However when confronted with the historical record of the Christian Church… well …On this point we Catholics have about 1500 years more of inspiration and understanding.

If they depend not on a person but a body of persons, then they are depending on (Gasp!) their own traditions and magistrium (Of course we return to the circular argument “well our traditions and magisterium are subordinated to scripture”, But how can this be? How can they be subordinated to that which they where constituted to interpret in the first place? God does not operate in such convoluted ways i’m afraid.

Or to put it more bluntly tradition and magisterium (what we Catholics recognize as the agents that manifest Gods authority to interpret scripture correctly) is something they can not escape.

You said:

It is a mistake to imagine they acknowledge no other authorities - they do; but the Bible is supreme, as the Word of God by which all other words, whether of councils, Fathers, theologians, or others, are to be tried & weighed.

I apologize if I miss-represeted the Calvinistic position. After all I do not claim myself an expert. However the question still remains. On interpreting passages such as John 6:56, a passage that for 1500 years the Holy Spirit has clearly guided the Christian Church to interpret as a literal statement, why all of the sudden it is considered by this camp a symbolic statement? More importantly what kind of rational have the Holy Spirit provided to change this interpretation?

Maybe custom is responsible, & not the Holy Spirit. Why should simple inertia not be involved ? I don’t see how it can be excluded a priori.​

Furthermore Can this rational be applied to passages considered by this camp as literal?

In His love…

A Catholic Deacon

Has that chapter - that verse, even - always been regarded as referring to the Eucharist ? I don’t know. As for changes in interpretation - Proverbs 8.22 is just one passage to be interpreted differently by different Fathers. They are not unanimous in their exegesis of all the passages they all interpret, nor do they need to be.​

I don’t trust statements of the “The Church has always taught X” kind - simply because X has often not been taught always. There is far too much confusion of unity in faith with uniformity understood as total absence of variety, too little attention to the detail of the past, too much defensiveness.

There is nothing “literal” in the Eucharist Presence - if people are going to talk about the details of Eucharistic theology & metaphysics, they need to master the appropriate terminology: theology is discussed with an imprecision & lack of care that would never be tolerated in discussing less important things such as mathematics or medicine. But everyone is an instant expert in theology, even if they know nothing about it That’s one of the great evils of the WWW.