CHNI Forums Home

Search
   
Members

Calendar

Help

CHNI Home
Search by username
Not logged in - Login | Register for Posting Access 
CHNI Forums > Fellowship Area > Fellowship Hall > This Forum is For INQUIRY, Not Debate and Challenges to Catholicism


This Forum is For INQUIRY, Not Debate and Challenges to Catholicism
 Moderated by: Rob, Marcus, LauraN., Jim Anderson, Dave Armstrong  

New Topic

Reply

Print
AuthorPost
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist


Joined: Fri Nov 2nd, 2007
Location: Melvindale, Michigan USA
Posts: 1627
First Name: Dave
Gender: Male
Faith History: Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 06:32 pm

Quote

Reply
All new members (as well as those who don't recall what was in them) are urged to read the Forum Guidelines. Among the statements found therein, are the following:

If you are here to debate Catholic doctrine or to tell us why we're wrong, go elsewhere.  Our reason for existence is to answer sincere questions from those seeking information about the Catholic faith.  If you cannot seek information with an open mind and accept honest answers, then you belong somewhere else.

We are here to answer questions about Catholic dogma, doctrine, teaching, and practices.  We are not here to debate them.  We answer questions; we do not argue about the answers.
Recently, the thread on ear-piercing involved clear violations of these guidelines, on the part of member Simple_Bible_Christian (Ben). It has been removed from public view and will be discussed by moderators and helpers. Ben has been placed on probation, meaning that he can't post on the board, but can discuss things with the moderators, who will attempt to veer him onto a course where he can participate without doing so. He can see how he plainly violated the guidelines by reading this post

The thread degenerated into a spirited defense of standard Protestant sola Scriptura principles by Ben. David Emery provided solid "Catholic answers" and then I jumped in and gave some of my many arguments against sola Scriptura. But Ben wanted to continue arguing the point, which is a violation of the rules here.

This already violated the guidelines, because we're not here to debate. Protestants and other non-Catholics who come (and who presumably read the guidelines) are not here in order to lecture Catholics about how they are in error, as that is not inquiry.Debate and vigorous discussion is a wonderful thing. I am an enthusiastic advocate of it (with over 400 posted debates of my own up on my blog). But it is not the purpose of this board.

Here are some of the many statements by Ben that violate the guidelines:

You have already read the undeniable truth as evidenced by the passages presented—there is nothing inherently sinful/wrong in the wearing of earrings or nose-rings. It is not necessary for me to delve into all the various customs of the day for each verse in which they are mentioned. For the third time, I will refer you to Ezekiel 16:12-14. It is unquestionable what God’s view of His own gift was to Jerusalem. That is enough. You can deny it again and again; however, the verse is still there for all time – the word of the Lord endures forever (1 Pet. 1:25).

Your claim here is simply false. The verses are explicitly plain enough for anyone of average intelligence with a little time and a Bible to understand. They do not require “my interpretations,” yours, or those of the Catholic church. See Ephesians 3:3-4.

I will show how Dave's arguments are erroneous, . . .

The verse has not changed. It is eminently clear in what it says. You, sir, are directly disagreeing with God here.

You continue to deny the Holy Spirit’s accuracy in these three passages: Acts 17:11, Ezekiel 16:11-13, and 1 Corinthians 6:18-20. I urge you to accept the biblical truths as they are written and not to change them or insert other ideas into the text. God knew what He was saying when He wrote it, and we can know how He feels about anyone changing His word—remember Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; and Revelation 22:18-19.

You see, this is why I cannot call you a fellow believer in Christ. Christ said, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word" (Jn. 14:23). Line up your beliefs of Catholicism with the Bible passages here and see if they match up. I suggest to you that if you do that you will discover they do not. Check it out; see for yourself. The Bible says to test all things. What can it hurt? Since you profess Catholicism you have not yet “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered” (Rom. 6:17). I sincerely urge you to please consider these things and make your life right with the Almighty.

Well, Dave, I appreciate and hail your enthusiasm to answer my challenge to David, but I figured David was sharp enough to answer for himself. I mean, the challenge was for him. I didn’t think he needed someone else to give a response for him. I understand your wanting to help him out, but he seems like a pretty intellectual man; I think perhaps he can meet the challenge himself.

Now, where is the idea of magisterium presented in the sacred writings of God? In fact it is proven to be a falsity in multiple passages. First of all, there is absolutely no authority for “the pope” whatsoever. In fact, Peter himself denied such type of office in his own inspired writings! See the article entitled “Peter Vs. the Papacy” mentioned below. Furthermore, there is no mention of “the bishops” having authority to interpret Scripture any way they so choose. In fact, the office of a bishop found in the Bible is not at all as the Catholic church holds it to be. Bishops are “elders,” “shepherds,” “overseers” of local churches, and they certainly do not have the authority that you give them over the Scriptures. See Titus 1:9-14; they must absolutely hold to the sound doctrine which was delivered to man by God’s Holy Spirit through man and confirmed by miracles.

No, my friend. Your conclusion here on the infallibility of the Catholic church is presumptuous at best.

Next, to answer his presumptuous affirmation . . .

  "The so-called “infallible teaching church” (Conway 62) has shown itself to be very fallible on many occasions. There are many examples but just one will be given here: that church affirms that “Mary was always a virgin” as being “di fede” that is “of the Faith,” that is, it has the status of dogma (Bartmann 632). However, even Catholic versions of the Bible like the Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition (1966) show that Joseph had other children by Mary (see Matt. 13:55-56).
Ben also tried to link to several articles that are of an anti-Catholic nature.



____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/

Quote

Reply

 Current time is 04:48 am
CHNI Forums > Fellowship Area > Fellowship Hall > This Forum is For INQUIRY, Not Debate and Challenges to Catholicism




Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez