Debate: Trent Horn vs Steve Christie (Marian dogmas)

no He doesn't. the men of the rcc do.
If they followed Jesus and believed in the truth of scripture then they would not ignore the leadership requirement in Timothy and Titus, they would not ignore 1 Cor 5:11, they would not ignore Eph 2:8+, you would not ignore Mtt 23:13 which is clearly reveals where their leaders are taking them. And that is just for starters.
 
Christ does rule over our lives.
Oh, really? Then why does He take a back seat to His mother, in your church? Why did JPII call out to her, when he was shot, instead of to Jesus Christ? IF Christ ruled over HIS life?

Why does your church have prayers to Our Lady of Perpetual Help, pleading to her for mercy, help, care, etc.--and even pleading for her to appease the divine wrath of her Son--if Jesus Christ rules over Catholic lives?
 
"Elevate" in the sense of increasing our capacity for the indwelling of Grace.

No, elevating Mary to the status of a near goddess.
Fine. I believe this position is compatible with Trent and Catholicism.

You believe wrongly.
YEs, Bonnie. But "for salvation" doesn't mean "individual salvation." It means in a general, relative sense.

Sorry, but what Boniface's Bull says is still unbiblical and wrong.
I can agree with Christ alone, and Grace alone. I do not understand why you insist on divorcing works from Faith and works from Grace.

I don't divorce the two. Stop accusing me falsely of that. Good works flow out of a true and living faith, but they do not justify, maje us righteous.
For salvation. Not "to be saved."

Pure semantics on your part. If one is saved, one has salvation.
If you mean "saved" as in "Come to Christ" the Bible says it nowhere. But that isn't what Boniface is maintaining.

Sure it is. He said being subject to the pope was necessary for salvation (paraphrasing). You can attempt to justify what he declared all you want to, but NOWHERE does the Bible state obeying some human leadership in the church is necessary for our salvation.
Sigh...

Documents must be read IN CONTEXT not just with the document but the HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES that gave rise to the document.

and Boniface STILL stated that it is necessary for every human creature to be subject to the pope for salvation (paraphrasing). Deny it all you want to, but it is still perfectly clear, in and outside of context. So....that means we Protestants are DOOMED, eh?
The same reason the early Christians obeyed the Apostles who were mere men. What reason is that you ask? The Apostles were commissioned by Christ to preach the Gospel. They in turn ordained successors to carry on that work. Those successors are the bishops and pope.

The apostles knew Jesus personally and had worked with Him for over 3 years. They witnessed His glorious resurrection.

The popes and bishops your church has had over the centuries have often taught errors and lies--who is the father of lies, romish?
You can't tell the difference between poetry, pious musings, and otherwise over-the-top, exaggerated piety?

Sure I can--but what diLiguori wrote wasn't poetry but blatant heresy and blasphemy! It is incredibly sad that you find it necessary to attempt to justify such a hideous and unbiblical idea, by declaring it "poetry." I read what he wrote about this in context and it wasn't poetry. OR pretty!
I am not a fan of DiLigouri, but, the analogy in modern times might help. What DiLigouri is doing is the spiritual equivalent of "I would swim a thousand oceans for you." "I would climb the highest mountain for you" "Your face would launch a thousand ships" "Every breath you take, every move you make" etc.

Oh, more baloney from the Catholic deli! No fan of diLiguori, yet here you are, attempting to justify the unjustifiable! Declaring that Jesus' blood will not be efficacious to us UNLESS Mary first recommends us to her Son is blasphemy! "IF we confess our sins, God, Who is faithful and just, will forgive us our sins, and cleanse us of ALL unrighteousness".(1 John 1). NO need to go through Mary at all!
Bonnie, how many times, in how many ways does it have to be explained to you that YOU are the Bible Only Christian.

For good reason! NOWHERE does God make human teachings equal to what God actually has written in His holy word! Jesus lambasted teachings of men being taught as doctrines.
YOU are the one who derives the certainty of her Faith from the Scriptures alone.

For good reason! We ONLY need the Scriptures from which to derive the "certainty" of our faith! Why would we need anything other than the holy inerrant word of God?
YOU, Bonnie, YOU are the one who will not accept the testimony of the Church or Tradition as evidence that some doctrine is Apostolic and therefore Biblical. YOU. Got it?

I won't accept it because I can compare what your church teaches on many things--justification, Mariology, purgatory, celibate and unmarried priesthood, etc.--by comparing it with what the Bible actually says, to see that all these things ARE FALSE TEACHINGS. Human traditions do NOT trump what the Bible actually says!
For Catholics, the testimony of the Church is sufficient evidence that a doctrine is Biblical and Apostolic. If the Church teaches it, it is, by definition, Biblical.

Yes--for Catholics. It is arrogant in the extreme for your church to declare that if it teaches something, it is by definition, Biblical. So, in order to be "biblical" then a teaching should be found in the Bible. But some Catholic teachings ARE extra-biblical:

Purgatory, Mariolotry, celibate and unmarried clergy, salvation by grace through faith plus our works AND by being subject to the Pope; praying to saints dead in the Lord....the list goes on.

But that is NOT what Jesus said, quoting Isaiah: "In vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the precepts of men." And that was what the religious leaders did in Jesus' day and since Isaiah had written about them. So does this "tradition" continue in the Roman Catholic church.
Stop holding me and other Catholics to YOUR standards of evidence; standards we do not accept.
I am not holding you to MY standards, but to the standards of Jesus Christ Himself and what His holy word actually says! And it says to "test the spirits" and "do not go beyond what is written" and that it is "better to obey God than man." And that "in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrine the precepts of men."

Whom should we listen to? YOUR popes and bishops or Jesus Christ and His apostles? And what the Bible actually says?
 
Last edited:
...which looks very similar to what the people were doing with that gaudily-dressed statue of Mary, in Seville, Spain. BOTH are idolatry. Just because Mary actually existed makes it no less idolatry.
No. Ask the people in Spain if Mary is God. What would they say? Ask the Hindus if their statue is god. What would they say?

Be careful of false accusations.
 
You believe wrongly.
Excuse me? Yeah--you aren't in a position to tell me anything about Catholicism.
Sorry, but what Boniface's Bull is still unbiblical and wrong.
So then what--you prefer Joe Biden to be head of the Church or some other government? The Queen of England?
I don't divorce the two. Stop accusing me falsely of that. Good works flow out of a true and living faith, but they do not justify.
Who said they justify?
Pure semantics on your part. If one is saved, one has salvation.
Yes. One has salvation. Boniface isn't talking about how one is justified; he is talking about who the spiritual head of the Church is.
Sure it is. He said being subject to the pope was necessary for salvation (paraphrasing). You can attempt to justify what he declared all you want to, but NOWHERE does the Bible state obeying some human leadership in the church is necessary for our salvation.
Again, you are in no position to teach me or otherwise attempt to tell me what our documents mean or do not mean.
and Boniface STILL stated that it is necessary for every human creature to be subject to the pope for salvation (paraphrasing). Deny it all you want to, but it is still perfectly clear, in and outside of context. So....that means we Protestants are DOOMED, eh?
No position Bonnie...
The apostles knew Jesus personally and had worked with Him for over 3 years. They witnessed His glorious resurrection.
The authority of the Apostles was based on their commission.
The popes and bishops your church has had over the centuries have often taught errors and lies--who is the father of lies, romish?
Martin Luther
 
The "why was that" comment mica made holds true for every former RC I have seen on this board. Bible reading was actually discouraged. We were apt to get confused without a priest to tells us what we were reading.

Also told never to attend a non-Catholic church service (weddings/funerals were allowed). Those folks taught from the Bible.

This is what we have encountered. Things may have changed recently, but only recently. I wonder what parish priests would think of parishioners who meet together to read and study the Bible at home without a priest or Deacon.

In the early 1970s, my folks were very worried when I brought a Bible home (an approved Catholic NAB translation at that) and was reading it. Our family Bible was basically a dust collector. It was never opened in my memory. One of several religious items in the house.
This is exactly what I, and every former RC that I personally know has encountered also. Changes began occurring for me when I started reading the Bible in my mid-twenties. This was a new experience for me - one that answered all of my many questions and also raised areas of conflict with the Roman Catholic beliefs I had been taught as an innocent child, by the ordained Roman Catholic promoters in parochial school and by RC parents at home.
The Word of God was challenging me to return to the apostolic belief and practices of the early church and providing me with the perfect starting place for examining the original meaning of the Lord's words. I discovered that none of us has to fear exposing our beliefs to the teachings of God's Word. If what we believe as was taught to us by the Roman Catholic Church was correct, then the Bible would confirm it. And if what we believe is in conflict with the Word, then we must decide which to follow.
 
Excuse me? Yeah--you aren't in a position to tell me anything about Catholicism.

So then what--you prefer Joe Biden to be head of the Church or some other government? The Queen of England?

Who said they justify?

Yes. One has salvation. Boniface isn't talking about how one is justified; he is talking about who the spiritual head of the Church is.

Again, you are in no position to teach me or otherwise attempt to tell me what our documents mean or do not mean.

No position Bonnie...

The authority of the Apostles was based on their commission.

Martin Luther
father of catholic dogma and doctrines would be satan!
 
This is exactly what I, and every former RC that I personally know has encountered also. Changes began occurring for me when I started reading the Bible in my mid-twenties. This was a new experience for me - one that answered all of my many questions and also raised areas of conflict with the Roman Catholic beliefs I had been taught as an innocent child, by the ordained Roman Catholic promoters in parochial school and by RC parents at home.
The Word of God was challenging me to return to the apostolic belief and practices of the early church and providing me with the perfect starting place for examining the original meaning of the Lord's words. I discovered that none of us has to fear exposing our beliefs to the teachings of God's Word. If what we believe as was taught to us by the Roman Catholic Church was correct, then the Bible would confirm it. And if what we believe is in conflict with the Word, then we must decide which to follow.
The Catholics that get saved out of Rome are set free when they start to read the Bible, as the Holy Spirit himself reveals the true doctrines of the lord to them now, apart from Rome!
In my Baptist church, the senior pastor and some elders and many members were former Catholikcs, and believe that the Church pastored by Dr MacArthur has over 20000 members now, and many of them were ex Catholics also!
 
Excuse me? Yeah--you aren't in a position to tell me anything about Catholicism.

Oh, but I am, especially its many false teachings.
So then what--you prefer Joe Biden to be head of the Church or some other government? The Queen of England?

Off topic rant. I prefer Jesus Christ as the head if the church.
Who said they justify?

Trent says they increase salvation (paraphrasing). That means they help to save us, justify us.
Yes. One has salvation. Boniface isn't talking about how one is justified; he is talking about who the spiritual head of the Church is.

He could have done THAT without saying it is necessary for SALVATION for every human creature to be subject to the Pope. Like saying, "the Pope is the spiritual head of the church, not the Emperor."

See the difference?
Again, you are in no position to teach me or otherwise attempt to tell me what our documents mean or do not mean.

Apparently there is a need, since some Catholics refuse to see what their leaders have taught over the centuries, and the implications--like Boniface's "Bull".
No position Bonnie...

The authority of the Apostles was based on their commission.

The authority of the Apostles was based upon Jesus Christ and what He taught them, and commissioned them to do. But religious leaders lose that authority when they teach contrary to God's word--which your church has been doing for centuries.
Martin Luther
Prove it. What did he teach specifically that was error? That would affect eternal salvation? (Mods may want this part taken to the Lutheran board)
 
Back
Top