Wising to debate.

[Joshua Patrick]

Hi wishing to debate verse a Protestant, who opposes Catholic teaching on the following;

Catholic Tradition.
Mother Mary ( Rosary, Immaculate Conception, Assumption or anything else ).
The Eucharist

Or state anything else you wish to debate against.


I would also like debate against someone who upholds Sola Scriptura if anyone is interested.

God Bless.

[Slopeshoulder]

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but this is a debate forum, so your beliefs don't matter, only your arguments do. And you've not made any that I can see. So far, I see a lot of exclamation points, one where there should be a period, and two where there might be one (would you stop that please, it's very distracting and raises my heart rate). Preaching is against the rules. Also, I'm a seminary grad, so I know the history.

I have put before you the case that interests and persuades me and others of my ilk. That it doesn't stir you is no surprise but that is your business. Note I've missed out the exclamation points. But I enjoy them!

1. no, you've merely preached a creed.
2. how can you presume to know what stirs me?

Are you saying that you believe that the attendees of the early councils had some sort of special magical insight or divine guidance that today's theologians lack? Kindly provide evidence or reasonable but specific reasons that supports that claim. Again, statements of belief are circular and disallowed.

Yes. As for evidence it is the tradition of my Anglican faith! As we do say in the Creed,'I believe.'

Creeds do not constitute evidence in this forum; perhaps you'd prefer the holy huddle or random ramblings, perhaps the doctrine forum. In this forum however, if someone claimed here that their faith preached that god is a squirrel, you'd be right to ask for evidence, and sending a copy of the squirrel god creed wouldn't suffice. Repeated recitation of creeds without evidence is against the rules nd is likley to get you infracted or eventually banned. You are honor and rule bound to engage my questions or remain silent. Glibness only makes it worse.
You should really read the rules of this forum.
And once again you ignored my request for evidence that the fathers had special gifts the rest of us don't have, making the councils "infallible."

Further, are you suggesting that 1. bible is the revealed word of god, 2. that it is infallable, and 3. that we cannot add to it? That Paul got everything right? Kindly provide evidence that this is so, or at least non-circular reasons.

Yes!

Again, no evidence, no reasonable arguments, no debate.

A few final questions, for background, not debate, if you don't mind: are you a recent convert? are you clergy? do you associate with contemporary paleo-orthodoxy? Are you influenced by the 19th century Oxford or Tractarian movements? What is your opinion of NT Wright? Does your "Anglican faith" differ from american Episcopal religion as taught in places like Episcopal Divinity School and General Theological Seminary?

[otseng]

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but this is a debate forum, so your beliefs don't matter, only your arguments do. And you've not made any that I can see. So far, I see a lot of exclamation points, one where there should be a period, and two where there might be one (would you stop that please, it's very distracting and raises my heart rate). Preaching is against the rules. Also, I'm a seminary grad, so I know the history.

I have put before you the case that interests and persuades me and others of my ilk. That it doesn't stir you is no surprise but that is your business. Note I've missed out the exclamation points. But I enjoy them!

Moderator comment:

I would agree that the use of exclamation marks should be used sparingly, not in almost every single sentence. Also, the proper use of bbcode would make the posts more readable.

Though the use of the Bible and creeds in the TD&D subforum is certainly allowed, they should be used in a relevant fashion.

[fredonly]

May I add an additional question for the non-Roman Catholics? What is your basis for accepting the canonicity of the New Testament?

The Roman Catholic position is that canonicity was affirmed at Trent. Obviously, Anglicans and Protestants reject the authority of this council. So what IS your basis?

[Coldfire]

May I add an additional question for the non-Roman Catholics? What is your basis for accepting the canonicity of the New Testament?

The Roman Catholic position is that canonicity was affirmed at Trent. Obviously, Anglicans and Protestants reject the authority of this council. So what IS your basis?

The Council of Trent affirming the canonicity of the New Testament was about 13 centuries after the books went from an oral tradition to being recorded. The 27 books that are included in the NT were only affirmed by the Council of Trent because they were already accepted in the church as being divinely inspired. In other words, they did not become authoritative because the church accepted them but because they were already accepted by the people at that time to be from God.

Protestants have a large amount of history essentially being Catholic. The purpose of the Protestant Reformation wasn’t to deny the legitimacy of scripture already accepted in the church, it was to reestablish God as the primary source of authority through his divine word, and to take fellow man, (fellow sinner) out of a position higher than God. The Catholics who started the Protestant Reformation were against the church’s malpractices such as simony, selling of indulgence, and false doctrines.

Yes, Protestants reject the authority of the Council of Trent because one of its main intentions was to condemn the principles of Protestantism. The Council of Trent was used in the counter-reformation of the Catholic Church. Are we to assume that the New Testament was not taught at the church before this time if it wasn’t “affirmed� as legitimate biblical canon until the mid 16th century?

[fredonly]

May I add an additional question for the non-Roman Catholics? What is your basis for accepting the canonicity of the New Testament?

The Roman Catholic position is that canonicity was affirmed at Trent. Obviously, Anglicans and Protestants reject the authority of this council. So what IS your basis?

The Council of Trent affirming the canonicity of the New Testament was about 13 centuries after the books went from an oral tradition to being recorded. The 27 books that are included in the NT were only affirmed by the Council of Trent because they were already accepted in the church as being divinely inspired. In other words, they did not become authoritative because the church accepted them but because they were already accepted by the people at that time to be from God.

Protestants have a large amount of history essentially being Catholic. , and to take fellow man, (fellow sinner) out of a position higher than God. The Catholics who started the Protestant Reformation were against the church’s malpractices such as simony, selling of indulgence, and false doctrines.

Yes, Protestants reject the authority of the Council of Trent because one of its main intentions was to condemn the principles of Protestantism. The Council of Trent was used in the counter-reformation of the Catholic Church. Are we to assume that the New Testament was not taught at the church before this time if it wasn’t “affirmed� as legitimate biblical canon until the mid 16th century?

At least the Roman Catholic Church affirmed a canon, albeit belatedly. From that point forward, a Roman Catholic can assert that he trusts the Bible to be the inspired word of God based on the authority of the Church - an authority rooted in a tradition (they assert) going back to apostolic times. What do non-Roman Catholics have to go on, today? It seems to me it's nothing more than the conventional wisdom - "everyone knows what's in the Bible." But how do you know the Shepherd of Hermas is not equally as divinely inspired as the Gospel of Mark? How do you know Revelations should be included? There were controversies about both in the early years - without assuming an authority, how can you know the conventional wisdom was correct?

Pre-Trent, you might say that all Christians (including Roman Catholics) were in the same boat. But even then, the Roman Catholics can point to the authority of their Church and insist that it WOULD have spoken up about the Canon had it needed to; had the Canon not correctly evolved - it (in theory) would have.

You said, "The purpose of the Protestant Reformation wasn’t to deny the legitimacy of scripture already accepted in the church, it was to reestablish God as the primary source of authority through his divine word." But logic dictates the very legitimacy of scripture MUST be challenged if you challenge the very authority that gave it to you.

[Coldfire]

May I add an additional question for the non-Roman Catholics? What is your basis for accepting the canonicity of the New Testament?

The Roman Catholic position is that canonicity was affirmed at Trent. Obviously, Anglicans and Protestants reject the authority of this council. So what IS your basis?

The Council of Trent affirming the canonicity of the New Testament was about 13 centuries after the books went from an oral tradition to being recorded. The 27 books that are included in the NT were only affirmed by the Council of Trent because they were already accepted in the church as being divinely inspired. In other words, they did not become authoritative because the church accepted them but because they were already accepted by the people at that time to be from God.

Protestants have a large amount of history essentially being Catholic. , and to take fellow man, (fellow sinner) out of a position higher than God. The Catholics who started the Protestant Reformation were against the church’s malpractices such as simony, selling of indulgence, and false doctrines.

Yes, Protestants reject the authority of the Council of Trent because one of its main intentions was to condemn the principles of Protestantism. The Council of Trent was used in the counter-reformation of the Catholic Church. Are we to assume that the New Testament was not taught at the church before this time if it wasn’t “affirmed� as legitimate biblical canon until the mid 16th century?

At least the Roman Catholic Church affirmed a canon, albeit belatedly. From that point forward, a Roman Catholic can assert that he trusts the Bible to be the inspired word of God based on the authority of the Church - an authority rooted in a tradition (they assert) going back to apostolic times. What do non-Roman Catholics have to go on, today? It seems to me it's nothing more than the conventional wisdom - "everyone knows what's in the Bible." But how do you know the Shepherd of Hermas is not equally as divinely inspired as the Gospel of Mark? How do you know Revelations should be included? There were controversies about both in the early years - without assuming an authority, how can you know the conventional wisdom was correct?

Pre-Trent, you might say that all Christians (including Roman Catholics) were in the same boat. But even then, the Roman Catholics can point to the authority of their Church and insist that it WOULD have spoken up about the Canon had it needed to; had the Canon not correctly evolved - it (in theory) would have.

You said, "The purpose of the Protestant Reformation wasn’t to deny the legitimacy of scripture already accepted in the church, it was to reestablish God as the primary source of authority through his divine word." But logic dictates the very legitimacy of scripture MUST be challenged if you challenge the very authority that gave it to you.

I see where you’re coming from. In order for one to understand an opposing point of view, one should first understand what the opposing beliefs are, so thank you for explaining it to me.

In my opinion, the placement of authority in the church is where the Protestant differs from their historical predecessors, the Catholics, who continue in the same traditions to this day. Understandably so, for acceptance of a reformation in any form would declare them to be acknowledging that they “had it wrong.� And whos to say if they did or didn't?

Protestants deny the authority of the church, or Church if you prefer. Protestants find no authoritative power in the church as a dominion and instead place the authority of God above all.

So if you are asking for a source of authority in which a Protestant can undeniably use the NT as legitimate Biblical canon, the Protestant has none save for God. And as expected, the affirmation of scripture based on the sole reason that “God inspired the writers� has no real evidence of its validity to those who don't believe you. In that case, it would be perfectly acceptable to add text to the Bible as scripture as long as it was on a general consensus that the work was inspired or granted directly from God, but there would still be those that oppose it. So it would make sense to me that a man made authority be established to address a problem such as this: When several groups are arguing about whether or not books be added as scripture, the Church can have the final say.

This is where Protestantism runs into a problem, as you mentioned. With no real, tangible, authority or council, how can they know that what they deem scripture is legitimate save for "faith in God?�

I agree with your last comment regarding my quote, however; in the point of view of a Protestant, “the authority that gave it� is not the Church, but God. And it wasn’t God who the Protestants were challenging but the Church that was accused (by Martin Luther and his followers) of malpractice.

I hope that clears some confusion up between the opposing views of the two groups in question. I would sincerely like to clear up any confusion so if I misinterpreted your response please advise me.

I would also like to point out that I, in most cases, would fall under ones label of a Protestant. I speak for myself though, regarding my beliefs, and I would be respectful to someone who doesn’t want their choice of faith to define them. I would appreciate the same consideration. Not that I feel that I have been disrespected but just for a future indication.

[fredonly]

Coldfire: If you are asking for a source of authority in which a Protestant can undeniably use the NT as legitimate Biblical canon, the Protestant has none save for God. And as expected, the affirmation of scripture based on the sole reason that “God inspired the writers� has no real evidence of its validity to those who don't believe you.

In addition to making authoritative, dogmatic statements about the composition of the Biblical canon, the Roman Catholic Church also lays out guidelines about interpreting scripture. They provide some specific required interpretations (e.g. Jesus is the messiah, is God, and and is part the Trinity), but generally support (but do not require) liberal, non-literalist interpretations (Genesis creation and the nativity stories can be regarded as myths).

Aren’t Protestants on their own regarding interpretation of Scripture? Lacking an authority, it seems to me that there are no uncrossable lines.

What about post-Biblical dogma? The most important one that comes to mind is the Trinity. The Roman Catholic Church dogmatically asserts the truth of the Trinity, despite the fact that this is not explicitly stated in the Bible. Can’t a Protestant draw other conclusions?

A Roman Catholic asserts that the body of the Church is essential to correct faith, and that this works because there is an ongoing inspiration from the Holy Spirit to keep the Church correct (correct in matters of faith and morals; which does not preclude other errors from being made, from selling indulgences to the molestation of children by priests). But couldn’t a Protestant devise his own theology from the Bible? i.e. isn’t any interpretation of the Bible, as long as it is logically consistent with Scripture, be as valid as any other interpretation? And returning to the canon itself, isn’t an individual Protestant free to reject any particular books of the Bible that fail to ring true, or that historical research suggests are actually forgeries? e.g. some of the Pauline epistles are regarded by critical scholars to have not been written by Paul. Can a Protestant accept this analysis and reject these?

Inside the mind of an individual Protestant, there are apparently boundaries – internal dogma, lines that are not crossed. Despite some divergences of belief, there’s a great deal of commonality among various Protestants. But what’s the source of this commonality? Externally, it appears to be the passing along of beliefs from one generation to the next – without questioning. If this is all there is, then it appears the family and the community replace the Vatican as definer of faith boundaries; it’s less overt – but almost equally controlling.

I hope this doesn't come across as badgering you; I'm an agnostic, but former Catholic - and I have a pretty good grasp of the the Catholic viewpoint. I'm trying to get a better understanding of the Protestant viewpoint.

thanks

[Coldfire]

Coldfire: If you are asking for a source of authority in which a Protestant can undeniably use the NT as legitimate Biblical canon, the Protestant has none save for God. And as expected, the affirmation of scripture based on the sole reason that “God inspired the writers� has no real evidence of its validity to those who don't believe you.

In addition to making authoritative, dogmatic statements about the composition of the Biblical canon, the Roman Catholic Church also lays out guidelines about interpreting scripture. They provide some specific required interpretations (e.g. Jesus is the messiah, is God, and and is part the Trinity), but generally support (but do not require) liberal, non-literalist interpretations (Genesis creation and the nativity stories can be regarded as myths).

Aren’t Protestants on their own regarding interpretation of Scripture? Lacking an authority, it seems to me that there are no uncrossable lines.

Yes, Protestants are on their own concerning making the interpretation of the scripture, they have no way to “set in stone� what certain verses teach and as a result a multitude of interpretations can be made which might explain the broad range of denominations.

However, in defense of the Protestant beliefs: 1. Protestants don’t follow the authority of the Church, so really anything they (the Church) claim as the “true interpretation� of scripture is waved away with a free hand. And 2. It is a common belief in Protestantism that anyone who is “filled� or “Baptized� with the Holy Spirit can interpret the Word of God. And in some cases I’m sure the Holy Spirit doesn’t even have to play a part in it. As I mentioned there is a broad range of denominations.

What about post-Biblical dogma? The most important one that comes to mind is the Trinity. The Roman Catholic Church dogmatically asserts the truth of the Trinity, despite the fact that this is not explicitly stated in the Bible. Can’t a Protestant draw other conclusions?

It would seem to me (and this is my opinion) that a Protestant can pick which dogma he or she chooses, as long as it can be explained why. Generally this would have to be accepted by the majority as true or it would be refuted. Also, the mention of God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are all very much evident in the Bible, one would only have to simple combine them to one God to keep true to a monotheistic standard.

Considering the phrase “Holy Trinity� is not in the Bible and only the concept, it now seems very peculiar to me how many protestant religions teach of the Holy Trinity. Protestantism, whos origin was based on the Five Solas as the basic theological beliefs, being challenged in this particular instance with the Sola Scriptura doctrine. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

If the concept is there, I suppose Protestants would be adopting the phrase from Catholicism out of pure convenience rather than necessity, but this is my opinion.

A Roman Catholic asserts that the body of the Church is essential to correct faith, and that this works because there is an ongoing inspiration from the Holy Spirit to keep the Church correct (correct in matters of faith and morals; which does not preclude other errors from being made, from selling indulgences to the molestation of children by priests). But couldn’t a Protestant devise his own theology from the Bible? i.e. isn’t any interpretation of the Bible, as long as it is logically consistent with Scripture, be as valid as any other interpretation? And returning to the canon itself, isn’t an individual Protestant free to reject any particular books of the Bible that fail to ring true, or that historical research suggests are actually forgeries? e.g. some of the Pauline epistles are regarded by critical scholars to have not been written by Paul. Can a Protestant accept this analysis and reject these?

Who is the one to be the judge on whether or not the same Holy Spirit that granted knowledge to the Catholics isn’t the same Holy Spirit that granted knowledge to the Protestants? The Catholics may claim that they are the one and only true church, but if they are the only ones that claim it, how can they really prove it to someone who doesn’t believe them? If there was undisputable proof, wouldn’t every Christian be Catholic?

With the Bible as a guide and with upholding Sola Scriptura one would be incapable of devising any other theology than what is present in the Bible. Considering the fact that there are many denominations with different theologies, it would be logical to accept that most Protestants, if not all, can and do devise their own theology. This would certainly lead to the notion that they do not follow the Sola Scriptura doctrine, however if challenged; the Protestant would back his or her theologies with their interpretation or translation of what the Bible teaches. Whether the interpretation is right or wrong? Well I suppose the only way to challenge their way of thinking is to point out scriptural evidence that proves them wrong plain and clear. A harder process than I expect when I make these attempts.

Could a Protestant reject Books that have been proven as forgeries? I would expect that yes; they can and would if they knew it was a fact. However I think a lot of people would deny that it was a proven forgery or claim that it holds valuable information regardless of who wrote it.

Inside the mind of an individual Protestant, there are apparently boundaries – internal dogma, lines that are not crossed. Despite some divergences of belief, there’s a great deal of commonality among various Protestants. But what’s the source of this commonality? Externally, it appears to be the passing along of beliefs from one generation to the next – without questioning. If this is all there is, then it appears the family and the community replace the Vatican as definer of faith boundaries; it’s less overt – but almost equally controlling.

The majority of Christians, regardless of sect, are not willing to research anything on the subject. They go to worship on the day specified by whatever church they attend be it Sunday, Saturnday or the occasional Odinsday and get spoon fed whatever the man or woman in front tells them. So it’s easy for them to deny whatever facts somebody presents to them even if it is blatantly clear in the Bible.

Might I add that it isn’t only the “passing along of beliefs from one generation� but also: each person who gets taught these beliefs processes it differently in their own mind and makes his or her own interpretation of it and then sometimes passes that on to the next generation as well.

I see what you mean about how “the family and the community replace the Vatican as definer of faith boundaries� and yes it is less overt , but on the contrary, I believe it is far less controlling than that of the Vatican because the faith boundaries are less evident. If there was an established position of authority to affirm what is and isn’t regarded as a particular religion’s dogma, then there wouldn’t be so many different theologies within Protestantism. This would most likely never be implemented because in order to give someone a position of authority in a religious position such as this you would have to claim that he or she was ordained by God and that wouldn't sit well with the doctrine of Soli Deo gloria. But I will admit that there is a similar concept of control in the faith boundaries.

I hope this doesn't come across as badgering you; I'm an agnostic, but former Catholic - and I have a pretty good grasp of the the Catholic viewpoint. I'm trying to get a better understanding of the Protestant viewpoint.

No, I don’t feel badgered. I would more closely fall under the category of being an agnostic, but former Protestant. I suppose that is why I feel that this isn’t really a debatable topic with me, I don’t provide any clear argument because I’m no longer a Protestant and feel no need to oppose any position. Most would consider me to fall under the label of Protestant because there are a few things I do not agree with in my Catholic side of the family, and question (I made a previous post in the thread about this that hasn’t been responded to.) I would be glad to provide a Protestant view and also learn from a Catholic point of view considering they have a far longer history, but I think there would be more of a debate from someone who feels a need to defend themselves from a Catholic view on them. Since this is a debate forum, I would like to see that, if only anyone would step up to the challenge.

[fredonly]

Coldfire: Who is the one to be the judge on whether or not the same Holy Spirit that granted knowledge to the Catholics isn’t the same Holy Spirit that granted knowledge to the Protestants?

That is a very important point. Why indeed wouldn't every individual get the exact same guidance from the Holy Spirit?

On a related note, the Catholic Church elects their Pope by a vote of the College of Cardinals. Supposedly, the Holy Spirit is guiding them...but if so, why don't they get a near unanimous vote on the first ballot?

I'm all for some of the Protestant principles - especially their challenge to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. I just tend to think the reformers didn't take their thoughts to their logical conclusion - the makeup and interpretation of Scripture should have been challenged in addition to challenging specific pronouncements of the Vatican's. They were, in fact, constrained by their internalized faith - faiths that were based in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which they left. Their mistake was in challenging nothing more than the superficial elements. (I sense that I'm dancing perilously close to the boundaries of acceptability for this particular subforum.

[Joshua Patrick]

Hello Joshua,
I have a question for you if you don't mind. Is the reason for your request to debate anyone to prove that you are not wrong in any view that you hold or is it because you want to grow in the knowledge and grace of God's word? If it is the first, then I will bow out now. But if the latter, then I would certainly like to learn more about your faith and maybe share some of mine. However I would like to do this with the understanding that we are not here to beat each other up with words, but rather to edify one another and perhaps learn more about what God has to say in His word. Lord bless you.

I wish to express my own beliefs, also to grow in God's word. I am also not up for beating each other up with words but rather to express why we belief in the certain doctrine.

For Example: The Church and did Christ Establish it upon St.Peter or did he establish it on himself, I believe he established it on St.Peter. I would love to debate.