Debating with protestants who just won't listen


Are you calling men teachers here?


What did Paul say,?

“I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

This points to what was said earlier, there has to be an authority to tell us what scripture means else we become our own Pope are own god.


Two things here. Firstly you know as well as I do that the apostles never caught the Virgin birth and life and death and Resurrection of Mary. Any reformer believe this they didn’t get it from the apostles. Just because you repeated over and over doesn’t mean you can find it in New Testament teaching.


Agreed. The apostle Paul is one of my favorite foundational teachers. I love to ingest all that he has said. So what is your point?


Paul was either defying Jesus by calling himself father are you misunderstood the scripture. My money’s on you not understanding scripture.


I think you are saying “taught”? While the vast majority of Apostolic teaching is not in the written record, I don’t feel a need to defend them teaching it. At the time, they were focused on the message that Peter gave at Pentecost. It seems pretty clear that Luke was familiar with Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, and he most likely got that from Paul. The Marian doctrines became clarified as a result of heresies about the person of Christ that did not arise until later.

Only John, in his Gospel and in Revelation, demonstrates Mary in a significantly different light, and this may have been as much as 70 yrs after the death of Christ.

Well, they didn’t get Sunday worship from them either, or the table of contents of the Bible, or the word Trinity. As you can see, they accepted many elements of Sacred Tradition, just as you do.

This is true, but the Catholic faith is not extracted from the text, as is the Reformed faith, so we are not pre-occupied with finding everything that was taught to us from the Apostles within the pages.

It has been pointed out that Paul claimed the role of father to those he brought into the life of faith through the Gospel. If what Jesus said about not calling anyone “father” or “teacher” is to be taken with a literalist mindset, then you have accused the Apostles unjustly.


Well since the word of God is sufficient for doctrine and reproof, and all manner of life, the oral tradition can only confirm and be a carbon copy to all that was said. If it said anything contrary to holy scripture, it then would fall into the category Jesus called “traditions of men.”. This is exactly what has happened within the CC.


So this explains how you process theology. I am under no law to worship on Sunday, I don’t necessarily need a table of context, but why reinvent the wheel and I except the concept of Trinity because it was actually taught in scripture. The Virgin life of Mary and the so-called sinless life is contrary to apostolic teaching as evidenced in the infallible scripture.


Contrary means opposite. However your problem is there is nowhere that says Mary sinned. Don’t give me the scripture all have sinned we know that is not true. If there is one exception than your all is gone. Of course, there are exceptions. It was not taught that Mary sinned. When you state apostolic, that means to me one of the twelve apostles. There is not scripture that supports this. That she was a virgin is supported by scripture. That Jesus was an only child is supported by scripture. He wouldn’t have given her to John if He weren’t. Not one scripture says she was the mother of anyone else. If you weren’t so determined that the Catholic Church is wrong, it would be plain obvious. Here again we see the evil of trying to interpret Scripture without competent authority.


This is in scripture where?


Is that your purpose in being here, tgG? Are you calling us all to repentance, because we have not accepted Calvin’s doctrines?


The angel Gabriel declared in Scripture that Mary was “full of grace”. You and I are not that way.


Scripture is materially sufficient, but not formally sufficient. If it were, Jesus would not have established a Church, and appointed teachers and overseers. You yourself have admitted that you greatly value the leaders of your community that break open the Word of God for your instruction.

There is no evidence in scripture to support your assertion that Sacred Tradition must be a “carbon copy” of Scripture. I know you would like this to be true, but it is not possible. Sacred Tradition has more to do with how the scriptures are interpreted.

How could the lectures of St. Paul at Tyrannus be a “carbon copy” of the epistles? Do you have any idea how much space that would require?!

Scripture itself refutes your premise, along with your own experience.

Eph. 4: 7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it… 11So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ. 16From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work."

Scripture is “useful” to equip the saints, but the task of equipping them was given to persons, not texts.

I agree, but as it happens, it is only your perceptions that are contrary.

It is only natural that you would feel this way. You are part of an ecclesial tradition that has been separated from the Apostolic faith for 500 some years. There is bound to be some drift from the original!

No, tgG. These are examples of the Sacred Tradition you accept. They have nothing to do with how I “process theology”.


Of course not! But why do you? Sacred Tradition!

Perhaps you don’t realize how much you need this. There is a reason that the hundreds of other documents floating around were not selected for inclusion. Sacred Tradition! But if, as you say, such a thing does not exist, then how can you trust that Bible you are so fond of using to what us Catholics over the head?

I know you have professional and personal/family responsibilities, and your time on CAF is limited, but consider putting the reading of the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabus on your reading list. Perhaps we could have a discussion about why they should not be in the NT?

You see it there because you have received the Sacred Tradition that the passages are to be understood in this way. But if it were so clear, then we would not have Oneness Pentecostals and Mormons who read the same text, and understand it differently. We would also not have had the Arian heresy in the early church.


Mary is “ever virgin”, and her only child was Jesus. She led a sinless life just as we all can, by the grace of God.

Scripture, tgG, cannot be “infallible”. Scripture is inerrant, and inspired, but fallibility requires the ability to fail. It requires a will, and an intellect. This is a quality that can only be applied to persons, not text, however Holy.

This is one of the greatest problems created at the Reformation. The leaders attempted to thrust the Holy Scriptures into a role they were never meant to take, and a character that they cannot possess. Unfortunately, what occurred is that the people (who do have the capacity for fallibility) interpreted the Scriptures according to their own experience and education (or lack of it) and became their own “pope”. This practice has resulted in uncounted denominations, as each one interprets as best he is able.

Yes, we have been there, and done that. He pretty much gave up the argument when it came to light that he could not prove infants and children before the age of reason had sinned.

Don’t be too hard on @tgGodsway. He has been steeped for decades in anti-Catholic doctrine and rhetoric.

I fear that @tgGodsway might think that someone can be “full of grace” and still sin!

Are you really saying that you don’t believe Mary was a virgin when the angle Gabriel came to her? I think you are just trying to answer too many posts too fast!

Surely you are not saying that Mary did not “live” and was not at the foot of the cross when Jesus died?

Are you saying that the Apostles did not “teach about” Mary’s death? That would stand to reason if she outlived many of them or moved away with John to Ephesus.

The CC does NOT teach that Mary was “resurrected”. I am not sure where you are getting that.

The Reformers accepted the Teaching that was handed down from the Apostles, that Mary was “ever virgin” and was taken to heaven by Jesus when she completed this life. Do you not expect that you will also go to heaven at the end of this life?


The one Church founded by Jesus Christ (who wrote no books) does have authority to bind its adherents to obligations (like Mass, Eucharist, Confession, fasting, observance of seasons like Advent and Lent). It’s a good and powerful thing that the Catholic Church does that.


If we love God, the question becomes not how little must we do for God but how much can we do for God.


What about debating with Catholics who just won’t listen?

A debate is two-way, right?


Sadly, I have met some here at CAF. Fundamentalism and bigotry is an equal opportunity affliction.


Totally agree. It is a two way street.

I think the first problem we might have though is we could start a debate thread on what the phrase “Who just won’t listen” means.:wink:

I’m sure the people we think just won’t listen have a different definition of that phrase they we do.

Personally, I think the best we can do is to charitably keep asking questions. In my opinion, the person who refuses to answer simple questions is usually the one who just won’t listen.

Which I’m sure this opinion is debatable. :smiley:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit