Debate: Trent Horn vs Steve Christie (Marian dogmas)

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.

No, it's not the least bit "impossible" for anyone who hasn't been brainwashed by Rome.
 
You can claim that God's word is final for you, but it is not. When you have a doctrinal difference with other Christians your only appeal is to the actual words of scripture. But you don't do that.

Wrong.

Romanists can't defend their bankrupt theology, so all they can try to do is try to attack Protestantism. Attacking Protestantism doesn't make Romanism true.
 
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.
This is why there are so many Christians that will never recognize you or the rcc as true Christians.

Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
 
The issue has been settled; neither Scripture, Jesus, nor his apostles spoke of Mary's perpetual virginity, Immaculate Conception, or assumed Assumption.
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.
 
This is why there are so many Christians that will never recognize you or the rcc as true Christians.

Acts 4:12 “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”
Acts 4 doesn't diminish Luke 1:48 "From now on, all generations will call me blessed." This makes sense when you read Lukes account of how Mary was called apart from all other women. She wasn't just a random womb that served a utility purpose in the salvation story. She was a special and blessed woman, chosen by God. How can we possibly justify burying that fact in the Jesus story?
 
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.
Nice post. Thanks.

Scripture is silent on Scripture alone being the final/sole authority for the Christian faith.
 
Wrong.

Romanists can't defend their bankrupt theology, so all they can try to do is try to attack Protestantism. Attacking Protestantism doesn't make Romanism true.
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.
 
Au Contraire, Protestants started the argument. For the record we are Catholics, not Romanists.
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.
 
Interesting how the Dogma of the trinity was not clearly defined in scripture and had to be "fleshed" out due to the Arian heresy.

If you really believe that, then I am sorry for your incredible ignorance of Scripture, for Scripture PLAINLY teaches the Trinity.

But my fault for assuming Romanists were familiar with Scripture.

Just because someone comes up with a heresy doesn't mean that it isn't clearly taught in Scripture. For instance, Mormons believe in "plural gods" (polytheism). Are you going to likewise claim that monotheism is "not clearly defined in scripture"?

You are making statements that lack critical thought process. Follow your thoughts to the logical end.

No, we are FAR BETTER at "critical thinking" than Romanists are.
And "critical thinking" leads to the undeniable conclusion that Romanism is false.

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

Another false claim by you.
All you're doing is spewing worthless Romanist propaganda.
The NT was RECOGNIZED (not "defined") by the church from the moment it was written.

So not only do you demonstrate that you are ignorant of Scripture, but you also demonstrate that you are ignorant of the ECF's.

Btw, since you seem to be new here, you are probably ignorant of the fact that the ECF's taught "sola Scriptura":


They also taught "Sola Fide", and coined the term LONG before Luther:


, the nineteenth-century Church still had the authority to dogmatically define Mary’s Assumption into heaven,

Wrong again.
All you're doing is vomiting up worthless Romanist propaganda.
 
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.
 
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.

1) The papacy;
2) "Bishop of bishops";
3) The head of the church being Rome;
4) Purgatory
5) indulgences;
6) Immaculate conception of Mary;
7) Perpetual virginity of Mary (which came from Gnosticism);
8) Bodily assumption of Mary;
9) Transubstantiation;
10) the Apocrypha being Scripture;
11) Explain why the ECF's taught sola Scriptura;
12) Explain why the ECF's taught sola fide;
13) Explain why the ECF's taught that the church was built on Peter's CONFESSION, not on Peter himself.

Just so you know, I've been doing this for 30 years.
And Gerry Matatics, Scott Hahn, Robert Sungenis, Dave Armstrong, Art Sippo, Peter Stravinskas, Mitch Pacwa, Gary Michuta, and countless others have been unable to do so.

So please forgive me if I have my doubts that you will be able to do any better.
 
Last edited:
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.
Defend the Immaculate conception. That is one of their favorites. It has already been defended, but any defense we offer is rejected.
 
It seems the term has racist overtones as well as bigotry. I'd suggest it shouldn't be allowed on a Christian site.

If you choose to take offense over a term that it is not offensive, that you didn't find offensive until a website TOLD you to be offended by it, then I respectfully suggest that the fault is yours, for choosing to take offense.

But if we're going to play the "let's be offended" game (which I don't particularly care for), then we can compile a list of terms that Romanists are not allowed to use either. Are you up for that?
 
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.
I will call you almost anything you would like me to. EXCEPT----->Christian.
 
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.

I have to disagree with you. I love Catholics because Gods Word tells me to. God doesn,t love me anymore than He loves you. I love Catholics enough to tell them the Truth of Gods Word. Most are on their way to hell and they don,t even know it. I was one of them until God removed the blinders from my eyes and set me free from the bondage I was under as a devout Roman Catholic. If you saw one in a house that was burning down wouldn,t your desire be to save them. Thats how I feel about Catholics. So its a lie to assume many christians have hatred in their hearts towards catholics. If that is true they will not see heaven and need to repent for they have commited murder in their hearts.
 
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.
You can not offer one new shred of evidence on any false romanist belief that has not already been refuted.
 
Back
Top