Wow are protestant apologists really THAT dishonest?

6glargento · #1 May 17, '07, 8:29 pm

i was looking at Philip Porvaznik's ("Philvaz") website and saw an interesting quote from protestant apologist william webster and david king in their book "The Holy Scripture: Pillar and Foundation of our faith"

" The patristic evidence for sola Scriptura is, we believe, an overwhelming indictment against the claims of the Roman communion. " (volume 1 by David King, page 266)

" Such statements [regarding the unhistorical nature of sola Scriptura] manifest an ignorance of the patristic and medieval perspective on the authority of Scripture. Scripture alone as the infallible rule for the ongoing life and faith of the Church was the universal belief and practice of the Church of the patristic and medieval ages. " (volume 2 by William Webster, page 84-85)

" When they [the Church Fathers] are allowed to speak for themselves it becomes clear that they universally taught sola Scriptura in the fullest sense of the term embracing both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. " (volume 3 by Webster/King, page 9)

obviously this is a blatant lie since we can see through reading the church fathers in context that they did not teach sola scriptura at all! Now if webster's argument was that there are certain passages from the church fathers which can be used to support his argument that is one thing (allthough i highly dissagre with it) but to say that there was a universal consesus for sola scriptura seems like these heretics are intenionally trying to misslead people. What do you think?

Margita · #2 May 17, '07, 9:09 pm

There is nothing new under the sun. Go read some stuff from sixteenth century controversial literature and you will end up with a heart attack.
These guys do nothing else but get on along a well-trodden path, too cheap and down-trodden to bother about.

**NotWorthy** · #3 May 17, '07, 9:25 pm

Please don't mistakenly lump "All Protestant Apologists" together. There are some that are really sincere in their faith and apologetic works. Any blinders that they may have are often not to their knowledge. And the love that many of them have for Christ would put many a Catholic to shame.

By the same token, please don't think Protestant Apologists have a monopoly on dishonesty.

Now Jack Chick on the other hand.............

RevDrNorth · #4 May 17, '07, 9:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotWorthy

By the same token, please don't think Protestant Apologists have a monopoly on dishonesty.

Now Jack Chick on the other hand.............

Unfortunately, I have had discussions on another forum with some fundamentalists who think Chick Publications are akin to Theological Academic Journals

Oy vey

Rev North

**NotWorthy** · #5 May 17, '07, 9:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevDrNorth

Unfortunately, I have had discussions on another forum with some fundamentalists who think Chick Publications are akin to Theological Academic Journals

Oy vey

Rev North

Sadly, Jack Chick would have been in another line of work a long time ago, if he didn't have a willing audience.

porthos11 · #6 May 17, '07, 11:43 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotWorthy

Sadly, Jack Chick would have been in another line of work a long time ago, if he didn't have a willing audience.

Well, I'm part of that willing audience

I need some good entertainment now and then, you know.

Anyway, we must keep in mind that some Catholics can be dishonest too.

**NotWorthy** · #7 May 18, '07, 4:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by porthos11

Well, I'm part of that willing audience

I need some good entertainment now and then, you know.

Anyway, we must keep in mind that some Catholics can be dishonest too.

Yes, he is entertaining. But to the un-catechized, he does gain a foothold.

And yes, it is sad that Catholics can be dishonest. I'm more disappointed in them than guys like Jack Chick.

**Zooey** · #8 May 18, '07, 5:07 am

William Webster seems to be

appearing with

ominous regularity lately....From what I've seen, he apparently

claims anything that he thinks will bolster his opinions.
Not really an "apologist" at all, IMHO.

deb1 · #9 May 18, '07, 5:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevDrNorth

Unfortunately, I have had discussions on another forum with some fundamentalists who think Chick Publications are akin to Theological Academic Journals

Oy vey

Rev North

If a person use really thinks that Jack Chick is a reliable theologian then such a person isn't being dishonest, just highly mistaken.

There are some people though, whose pride creates a desire to win the arguement regardless of the facts. Such a person will lie or twist facts to win a convert or create confusion.

mommyof4 · #10 May 18, '07, 5:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotWorthy

Please don't mistakenly lump "All Protestant Apologists" together. There are some that are really sincere in their faith and apologetic works. Any blinders that they may have are often not to their knowledge. And the love that many of them have for Christ would put many a Catholic to shame.

By the same token, please don't think Protestant Apologists have a monopoly on dishonesty.

Now Jack Chick on the other hand.............

Yep. I agree. Look at C.S. Lewis - one of the best non-Catholic apologist out there.

**NotWorthy** · #11 May 18, '07, 6:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by mommyof4

Yep. I agree. Look at C.S. Lewis - one of the best non-Catholic apologist out there.

I consider C.S. Lewis probably the best non-catholic Catholic Apologist out there!

cleargospel99 · #12 May 18, '07, 11:26 am

You really can't credibly lump Webster with Chick.

William Webster is a thorough going researcher and knows what he is saying. He backs up his claims with documentation of his sources, and is not in the habit of repeating hearsay or falsehoods. Nor does he over-reach.

Now it is possible to disagree with his conclusions. However, he sets a very high bar with the integrity of his writing. So you'd better come with your best stuff.

His critique of Gary Michuta's attempts to resolve the issue of 1 Esdras between Hippo and Trent is worth reviewing.

Chick by comparison is a reclusive kook who bites at every salatious story thrown his way.

You may dismiss Chick with a wave of the hand, but Webster is a serious critic and worthy of respect for the effort he puts into his work.

For people who value the truth over predjudice, William Webster needs to be taken seriously.

SORROWS · #13 May 18, '07, 11:39 am

All I can say is THANK GOD I'M CATHOLIC!!

Carlus Magnus · #14 May 18, '07, 11:52 am

Yes most of them are that dishonest, but to see the real thing check out reformation.org

**Contarini** · #15 May 18, '07, 12:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by cleargospel99

You really can't credibly lump Webster with Chick.
.

I agree. He is not blatantly stupid or dishonest. Unlike you, I do not consider this a "very high bar." Webster is not a very good apologist, but he's as good as many of his RC counterparts. I have a low opinion of apologists in general--I think that the best apologists (like Lewis) are people who have some rigorous intellectual discipline that they pursue for its own sake. This keeps their minds sharp and reminds them that truth matters in and of itself, not just to score a point.

Edwin