Debate: Trent Horn vs Steve Christie (Marian dogmas)

<sigh>
I've already answered this question a hundred times.

If you have to resort to trying to BRAINWASH people by repeating the same falsehood over and over again, that's pretty good proof that it is NOT a valid argument.
So quoting the actual words of scripture is not a good defense?
 
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 Anderson, 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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
No, of course not.
We need to EXEGETE them.
And that's a skill that Romanists lack.
That makes no sense - if we need to exegete them then how is scripture alone the final authority?

So scripture alone is not a good defense for a scripture alone Christian. Hummm.
 
do you believe He is an actual door? and actual vine? why not continually post those verses?
Mod comment. Your post is deleted.

Rule 12.7
No negative comments of any sort concerning a board user,
do not quote or misquote a poster in signature or body of message unless linked to the full context of the quote as a copyright issue, since only Super Members may link in the signature, quoting of users in signatures not permitted for the average poster. Feel free to quote posters in the body of messages to a thread as usual to using quote feature responses with context, do not misquote users, do not discuss or gossip about a forum poster.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see. What you are saying is that all the biblical evidence has been presented to you and you doubt its veracity.

I see why you can't read Scripture for understanding, since you can't even read my posts for understanding.

All you're doing here is IMPLYING that there is Biblical evidence for those teachings (spoiler alert: there isn't), and then personally attacking me by falsely suggesting I reject the Bible.



I will present arguments that do not attack Protestantism, and simply support the Catholic position but I suspect you have heard them all.

I have heard them all, and NONE of them teach Romanism.


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

You need to actually DEMONSTRATE that they allegedly teach "Peter's preeminence".
If you're simply going to make bald assertions without exegesis, then I've already read those passages hundreds of times, and they don't teach anything of the sort.

Btw is that what your priest does at mass? Simply yell out Bible citations, without any explanations? No wondere you never learn anything at mass.

Peter spoke on behalf of the others. Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69

Again, all you're doing is quoting random citations, without any exegesis.
Do you really expect me to do your work for you?

If you want to learn how to debate, watch some of James White's debates against Sungenis, Matatics, Michuta, Pacwa, Stravinskas. While they didn't make very good arguments (IMO), at least they were able to quote verses and try to explain how they though the text supports their position. I was especially entertained by the Boston College debate with White and Zins against Bob Sungenis and Scott Buttler.


On Pentecost, Peter preached to the crowds. Acts 2:14-40, he worked the first healing in the Church age Acts 3:6-7.

So preaching to crowds makes you a pope?!
Whaddya know? I'm a pope!

Luke 22:32-Peter will strengthen his brethren.

Where does it say he ALONE will strengthen the brethren?!
You are REALLY reaching here.
You are the one who clearly doesn't have any edit per mod

John 21:17- Peter made shepherd over Christ's flock.

That's not what it says.
This doesn't raise Peter "above" the rest of the Apostles.
It merely RESTORES Peter to the level of the other Apostles after he FELL by thrice denying Christ.


Acts 15- Peter leads the first council in Jerusalem.

Wrong.
It was clearly led by JAMES, not Peter.
So James was the first pope?!

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.

You "logically made" NOTHING.
You didn't even PRESENT any argument.
All you've done is ASSUME the papacy.
Edit per mod

I will not explain the argument for Matthew 6:18-19 and its immediate context.

Of course not.
Because it doesn't support your false claim.

You have heard it, and already made up your mind about it.

What a convenient excuse for refusing to present an argument.


Your argument was that Romanists cannot defend their Bankrupt Theology

And you have now proved I was right!
Thank you!


I have defended briefly, the papacy using scriptural references.

No, you have not.
You have simply cited random verses (some incorrectly, like "Matt. 6:18"), and ASSUMED a meaning without properly exegeting the text.

You made unsubstantiated ASSUMPTIONS.
That is NOT a "defense".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"And Judas went out and hanged himself. And Jesus said, go and do thou likewise."

Are you going to obey Jesus?
Or are the actual words not good enough for you?
So if you are not appealing to the actual words of scripture, but to exegeting of scripture, then why do you claim that scripture alone is your final/sole authority?
 
<sigh>
Your question continues to be off-topic, since I'm not a Romanist.
But thank you for admitting that Romanism is indefensible.
To you it is indefensible, but most Christians would consider using the actual words of scripture to be a good defense.

You are placing your interpretation of scripture above the actual words of scripture.
 
To you it is indefensible, but most Christians would consider using the actual words of scripture to be a good defense.

You are placing your interpretation of scripture above the actual words of scripture.

I'll present an "actual text" of "actual words" in the way Scripture came to us.

LETSEATGRANDMA!

Your argument is like someone arguing that the "actual words" above mean that we should eat our grandmother.

So yes, we need more than the "actual words".
We need to PROPERLY interpret them.

And Romanism does NOT properly interpret them.
 
Peter's preeminence is supported by scripture. Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13

Peter wasn't "pre-eminent".
He was impetuous.
Not a good trait for a "pope".

Peter spoke on behalf of the others. Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69

He was impetuous.
Not a good trait for a "pope".

On Pentecost, Peter preached to the crowds. Acts 2:14-40, he worked the first healing in the Church age Acts 3:6-7.

So did the other apostles.
Big whoop.

Luke 22:32-Peter will strengthen his brethren.

So did the other apostles.
Big whoop.

John 21:17- Peter made shepherd over Christ's flock.

Wrong.
Jesus RESTORED Peter to the SAME level as the other Apostles after he denied Christ three time (because he was impetuous).

Acts 15- Peter leads the first council in Jerusalem.

Wrong.
JAMES led the council in Jerusalem.




Admit it, there is absolutely NO reason to hold the absurd interpretations you put forth above unless you ALREADY hold to a doctrine of papacy that you are forced to 'defend" by twisting Scripture.
 
Correct; if one is Protestant, the issue cannot be settled. This is becasue in Protestantism, there is no mechanism that speaks with the authority of God that may judge the Scriptural evidence for or against a position, and the arguments for or against the position and then issue a definitive and binding decision.

If you are Catholic, however, these issues have been definitively settled and thus no more reason to debate them. The Church has spoken, the case is closed. Mary is IC, PV and Assumed in to heaven. The Church says so, therefore Scripture says so and Scripture says so, therefore the Church says so. A circle has no beginning.
Yep better than being an RC and blindly following false teachings which have come from the false teachings found in the POJ.
 
Back
Top