Debate: Trent Horn vs Steve Christie (Marian dogmas)

Catholics are honest and admit that scripture alone isn't the final authority. The nCCs are dishonest in claiming that scripture alone is their final authority when in numerous instances it is clearly not. So why don't nCCs admit the truth - that scripture alone isn't their final authority?
Most RCs aren't honest at all. The devalue the word of God and that is dishonest. They cannot defend their false beliefs. You add the word alone and that is dishonest, no nonRC adds the word alone. ONLY RCs who like to think they understand sola scriptura. So why don't R be honest and admit their false Marian doctrines come from the POJ and not scripture? Why aren't they honest and admit they are the only ones who add the word alone to Sola scriptura?
Actually--here I respectfully disagree.

If you read the posts where I have challenged the Protestants on the disunity that plagues the sects, you will notice that they tend to minimalize, gloss over, or otherwise dismiss the disunity as irrelevant. The disunity that exists is simply not a problem for them.

Sure---the Lutheran argues that Christ is truly present in the species of the Eucharist, while the Baptist denies this as a lie from the pit of Hell. Sure the Presbyterians baptize infants while the Baptists believe infant baptism is a lie from the pit of Hell. Sure Reformed Presbyterians believe in TULIP while most other sects believe that to be a lie from the pit of Hell. Sure some sects ordain women, while others believe the ordination of women is a lie from the pit of Hell. On and on the divisions go, where they stop, no one knows. But--for the Protestants on this site, who cares? All that matters is that they aren't Catholic. As long as they aren't Catholic, the disagreements simply do not matter.

Basically--for the Protestants on this site it is sort of a "We don't know what we believe. We just know we do not believe what Catholics believe."

The one thing that unites the Protestants on this site is their hatred for Catholicism. As long as one is not Catholic, but claims to be a "Bible Christian" it does not matter what one believes--just so long as they don't believe what Catholics believe.

So the Protestants do not debate the issues that divide them--becasue they simply don't care about the issues that divide them. The divisions that exist simply isn't an issue for them. Unity and oneness in Faith simply isn't necessary for them--because the Church is this invisible thing that bears no relationship to anything in the material world, Christ, or salvation. The Protestants do not see the connection between the Church, Christ and salvation.
Yes RCs just minimalize, gloss over or otherwise dismiss the disunity as irrelevant in their own numerous sects.

Is that the true Lutheran view, I thought it was slightly different to the RC view, they do not view the bread and blood has changing which the RC do.

More false bearing false witness by an RC, no surprise at all. We do know what we believe. Please link to one non RC who claimed they did not know what they believe. Your are a son of your father the RCC who was founded not by Jesus.

No one hates RCs bearing false witness again, they are against the false teachings of the RCC. That is not hate, that is just showing the truth.

RCs don't acknowledge the issues that divide them either, they just brush them aside.

When you resort to make false claims, it shows you cannot defend your beliefs and that you will resort to any measures to divert from the topic even breaking the commandments.
Au Contraire, Protestants started the argument. For the record we are Catholics, not Romanists. What is a bankrupt theological matter we cannot defend? Name one to start, and I will gladly defend without so much as deflecting, or attacking the Protestantism. You cannot present strawmen, or caricatures, you must present actual theological positions that can be verified.
Yep you are an RCC, true catholics are all real believers from every denomination. Your pope is the bishop of Rome, your headquarters is in Vatican City which truly is part of Rome, your religion started in Rome and was the first breakaway from the real catholic church. If you defend anything at all, you will be the first RC to be able to do so. You must present actual theological positions that can be verified, that also will be a first from an RC, You must not present strawmen, caricatures either that will also be a first. Don't hold out much hope for that happening. But your ego is in good shape. You already have followed the RC defence pattern belittling and bearing false witness against others. Well done.
Interesting stance. Because you believe scripture is silent on the matter it is therefore settled. (A false assertion as I will explain.) Interesting how the Dogma of the trinity was not clearly defined in scripture and had to be "fleshed" out due to the Arian heresy. Scripture is silent on lots of issues. That does not mean it has no relevance. The New Testament is completely silent on what scriptures belong in it. You don't deny the scriptures are relevant. You are making statements that lack critical thought process. Follow your thoughts to the logical end.

The fourth-century Church had the authority to determine that twenty-seven books belonged in the New Testament, I don't know of many Protestants who argue with that, the nineteenth-century Church still had the authority to dogmatically define Mary’s Assumption into heaven, the difference to Protestants is that at some point the authority of the church was corrupted, thus the need for the Protestant Reformation.

Scripture is not silent on the matter of Mary either. Protestants will disagree with the assumption of Mary into Heaven, not necessarily strictly over interpretation but because of the challenge to church authority, (which logically undermines the Catholic interpretation of scripture) which is actually endorsed in scripture. 1 Timothy 3: 15 but [l]in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one should act in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. Matthew 18: 17 And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, he is to be to you as [p]a Gentile and [q]a tax collector.

Scripture is not silent on church authority.
First the actions of your leaders prove it is not the pillar of truth. That is a joke. They lie and they have lied throughout the centuries teaching false doctrines which you still follow. They also lied to authorities about the scandals. They rewrite history, wiping out the stories of Christians who they physically wiped off the map or close to it.

God did not your institution to declare anything. I love the book of Judith, a woman hacking off a man's head is a powerful image for strong woman but it is not scripture in any way, shape or form. It is also historically inaccurate.

No one said scripture is silent on Mary please link to one of us who has ever said that. It is silent on the false Marian doctrines of your institution, these doctrines come from the false writings found in the POJ.
Yes I wondered where the 'Romanist' label came from. I'd never heard it before coming here. My heritage is Irish Catholic and we always understood the Church in Rome to be universal in nature. It's 'headquarters' have to be somewhere in the world and that just happened to be Rome. I'm guessing Romanist is a slur of some sort.
Really when I grew up the RCC was always called the RCC. This new aversion to the name is very recent.
Yep better than being an RC and blindly following false teachings which have come from the false teachings found in the POJ.
Okay, for the sake of argument, I will agree. RCC'ers just blindly follow whatever Rome says without question.

Protestants haven't offered a better solution. Their solution to the problem of blindly following Rome is to just make themselves pope and blindly follow after self. And we see the fruits of this: hundreds of sects all doing whatever they want under the pretext of Sola Scriptura.
Just out of interest I googled 'Romanism' and came up with this explanation.

Romanism is a derogatory term for Roman Catholicism used when anti-Catholicism was more common in the United States.
The term was frequently used in late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century Republican invectives against the Democrats, as part of the slogan "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" (referencing the Democratic party's constituency of Southerners and anti-Temperance, frequently Catholic, working-class immigrants). The term and slogan gained particular prominence in the 1884 presidential campaign and again in 1928, in which the Democratic candidate was the outspokenly anti-Prohibition Catholic Governor of New York Al Smith.

It seems the term has racist overtones as well as bigotry. I'd suggest it shouldn't be allowed on a Christian site.
How can Roman Catholic Church be racist it is referring to a religious organisation, that covers a diverse group of people from many different races. It is not bigotry either. Bigotry is what RCs feel towards non RCs.

RCC it not anti Catholicism at all, but your reference shows that it can manipulate the language very well. In fact the way RCs use protestant is an insult. We are believers we do not protest against God at all. We follow Jesus and not man.
The Protestant position would have more legs if there was at least some recognition of Mary's exalted position in the economy of salvation. It is impossible to read Lukes account of Mary, her song and the words of the angel, and not see her somewhere above the rest of us looking to Christ. Most Protestants I've encountered here try so hard to rip her from the womb of the salvation scripture.
Catholics exalt her miles beyond what scripture says about her. We are the ones truly defending her, not you. The lies of all these dogmas do nothing but take away from Jesus. Elevating the creature above the creator.
Okay, for the sake of argument, I will agree. RCC'ers just blindly follow whatever Rome says without question.

Protestants haven't offered a better solution. Their solution to the problem of blindly following Rome is to just make themselves pope and blindly follow after self. And we see the fruits of this: hundreds of sects all doing whatever they want under the pretext of Sola Scriptura.
That is rubbish no non RC has said they are a pope at all. That is another false claim. This is the RCC threads, try staying on topic. You as an RC cannot go against every infallible declaration, doctrine or teaching of the RCC. You must believe them because of your so called claim of infallibility on certain things.
Last edited:
Okay, for the sake of argument, I will agree. RCC'ers just blindly follow whatever Rome says without question.

Thank you for the admission.

Protestants haven't offered a better solution.

Actually we have.
It's called the BIBLE.

And btw, I'm pretty sure this is STILL not the "Protestantism" forum.
So why do you keep changing the subject, and running AWAY from Romanism?

Their solution to the problem of blindly following Rome is to just make themselves pope and blindly follow after self.

We don't believe in "popes".
So kindly cease projecting your irrational ideas ("pope") onto us.

And we see the fruits of this: hundreds of sects all doing whatever they want under the pretext of Sola Scriptura.

Another false and unsubstantiated claim, which is STILL not the topic of "Romanism".
Jesus said, "....this is my body....this is my blood of the covenant...."

I would think that backing up our beliefs with the actual words of Jesus is a good defense. What do you think?
Jesus said Peter was Satan, they were His actual words. So just because Jesus said something means nothing without context and understanding of how those words are being used. You constantly prove you don't actually believe the actual words of Jesus is a good defence because you ignore the fact that Jesus said Peter was Satan.
So quoting the actual words of scripture is not a good defense?
Not when you ignore context and how they used. Like Jesus said I am a door, Jesus said Peter is Satan, Jesus said many things and He used figurative language.

If you take into account the setting it was said in that helps highlight the meaning of the words as well. All these things you ignore.
I see. What you are saying is that all the biblical evidence has been presented to you and you doubt its veracity. I will present arguments that do not attack Protestantism, and simply support the Catholic position but I suspect you have heard them all. I will answer the first item on your list. "1) The papacy;"

Peter's preeminence is supported by scripture. Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13
Peter spoke on behalf of the others. Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69
On Pentecost, Peter preached to the crowds. Acts 2:14-40, he worked the first healing in the Church age Acts 3:6-7.
Luke 22:32-Peter will strengthen his brethren.
John 21:17- Peter made shepherd over Christ's flock.
Acts 15- Peter leads the first council in Jerusalem.

I could list more but I have no doubt you know all the scripture well enough to see that my point is being logically made.
I will not explain the argument for Matthew 6:18-19 and its immediate context. You have heard it, and already made up your mind about it. I am not here to do that for you. Your argument was that Romanists cannot defend their Bankrupt Theology and resort to attacking Protestants. I have not attacked you or Protestantism at large, with slurs or other types of attacks. I have defended briefly, the papacy using scriptural references.
If you wish to claim that the pope is Peter's successor, then he should act as Peter would act. But they don't.

Sexual sin is always listed first in the list of works of the flesh. So that must make it pre-eminent in sin and supported by scripture. 1 Cor 5:11 tells us what to do with those so called brethren who commit such sins. Your pope ignores that scripture. Being listed first does not mean anything at all.

By the way not interested in rebutting your false claims. They have been made and refuted many times.
The typical response is- but you are not interpreting them correctly.

What confuses me is how they can constantly claim that scripture alone is their final/sole authority but then appeal to interpretations instead of the actual words of scripture.
Misusing sola scriptura once again.