New Arguments from Protestants

I have seen a person named Chris White make anti-catholic material,specifically,trying to debunk Catholicism.

Now,I have ignored this for a few months since I didn’t really see anything noteworthy in his presentations,but after watching it in detail I noticed his material against Catholicism seems to be really different then the normal protestant.

He seems to have learned a method to easily escape some of the dillemas put against Protestants as well as come up with more arguments.

I would like to see how people can respond to his presentations that use new

What do you mean by “new” and not like regular Protestant rebuttals?

If you mean that he actually did a fine job, then you’d be correct. Often Catholics present good arguments or bad ones; all this man did here was present solid arguments based on Biblical text. He did so respectfully and didn’t cherry pick passages.

I presume that they can be refuted, just like any other argument against catholic doctrine.
But, my first language is not english and I cant understand him. My bad browser and youtube only made matters worse. Can anyone post their written form in this thread?

I’m under the impression people with posts on YouTube are paid per view.

Because I’m under that impression, I won’t give Chris White the pleasure of a paycheck generated by Catholics.

However, if you can post some “new” argument he made here, that would be interesting since I haven’t seen a new argument being made against the Church in almost 500 years. It seems to me, all arguments against the Church were handled as heresies over the centuries, and new heresies seem to be retreads of old heresies.

It is curious to me that anti-Catholicism still exists and that people make money off of it.

i, too asked for the arguments to be written,albeit for a different reason. but i say, youtube is not paid per view. even if 1000000000000000000000000000 people see it, he wont get a penny. the main way to make money in youtube is through ads.

If this is his site, ( this is how he defines Heresy:

Any doctrine that deviates from the historical, orthodox, and biblical position of the Christian Church, throughout Church history, as judged from a Protestant perspective. There are heresies that are damnable (denying the Deity of Christ, denying Christ’s physical resurrection, denying justification by grace through faith, etc.). There are heresies that are not damnable (advocating women pastors; practicing polygamy, divorce for convenience sake, etc.) There are also teachings within Christianity that are debatable whereas differences of opinion are not heresy (eating or not eating meat, worship on Saturday or Sunday, etc.) See Rom. 14:1-12.

I’m sorry, but that’s just amusing.

He also says Jesus rose AFTER being buried three days.

I wouldn’t give him any more attention.

it is amusing

When protestants start:
1.- Performing miracles (Saints) and
2.- Having Incorruptible dead bodies lasting even hundreds of years
as Catholics do and have, I will start to listen to them seriously.
If ONE protestant sect had “fixed” the Church as they claimed for the Reformation, I might study the details, but after 8,000 protestant sects, I stopped paying attention.:smiley:

You might just want to focus your reading and learning endeavors on solidly Catholic material. That will do you much more good in the long run, for your own salvation, and as need for apologetics. There’s plenty of it out there.

=NormalBeliever;12331183]I have seen a person named Chris White make anti-catholic material,specifically,trying to debunk Catholicism.

Now,I have ignored this for a few months since I didn’t really see anything noteworthy in his presentations,but after watching it in detail I noticed his material against Catholicism seems to be really different then the normal protestant.

He seems to have learned a method to easily escape some of the dillemas put against Protestants as well as come up with more arguments.

I would like to see how people can respond to his presentations that use new

The ASSUMPTION HERE is that “apostolic Succession” is a man-made {like all Protestant positions} teaching. But ITS NOT:D

Here’s how to prove it:
Mt. 10:1-8 :“And having called his twelve disciples together, he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities.*** And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simo***n who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, [4] Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not.[6] But go ye rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [7] And going, preach, saying: The kingdom of heaven is at hand. [8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out devils: freely have you received, freely give”

Notice that Peter is identified as THE FIRST by Matthew, one of the 12 Apostles.
Now notice the change on this COMMAND to the 12:

Mt. 28:16-20 "And the eleven disciples {Apostles} went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. *** Going therefore, teach ye all nations;*** baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] ***Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: ***and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world".

Because CHRIST changed their MANDATE fron “Only the Jews” to the ENTIRE WORLD; logically and practically; it is Christ Himself who MANDATES and thus created} papal succession as it is the ONLY way Christ mandate and command to “Teach the ENTIRE WORLD what I TAUGHT TO YOU” can and shall be completed.:thumbsup:

This argument is just sharing wishful thinking" and . Its not biblical and its not logical:thumbsup:


I don’t see anything new about what he is saying.

He points out the Catholic teaching that Church teaching is authoritative alongside Scripture. He then says that if we are to accept this, it must be proved from Scripture. Well, in doing so he’s taking his position sola scriptura for granted. If he were being consistent, he would need to establish the authority of Scripture first which cannot be established on the testimony of Scripture alone, but also external historical evidence. However, I’m guessing that he would not admit any extra-scriptural evidence to establish apostolic succession or the authority of the Church. Then, of course there are the usual difficulties with the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura, especially for someone such as him who believes that the Catholic Church was a Church in total apostasy (since to deny the Protestant dogma of justification by faith alone is in his words a “damnable heresy,” akin to denying the divinity of Christ), because the canon of Scripture was determined by the Church’s authority and they accepted as inspired books that Protestants reject.

He says that the Apostles didn’t have any “power” to pass on at the time of Matthias’ election, which is inconsistent with the Catholic view. For example, the Council of Trent links the ordination of the Twelve to the priesthood with the Last Supper. So he cannot take it for granted that even Catholics say that the Apostles did not posses any holy orders prior to Pentecost, when that is not actually what Catholics say.

He points out that Matthias was not appointed as a successor to the Apostles, but as one of the Twelve Apostles proper. That may be so, but at least it demonstrates the principle at work that the Apostles were endowed with divine authority and that they had a definite office, and that this office was not personal, i.e. that it was bigger than them as individuals (otherwise Matthias could not succeed to Judas’ office). Moreover, it shows their replacement was at least necessary at this time of the book of Acts. I think if anything, he would need to prove explicitly from Scripture that the Apostles did not have any successors to their offices, since the usual pattern in Scripture is that offices have successors. Why should Catholics always have to bear the burden of demonstrating everything they believe unambiguously (an impossible criterion) from Scripture when we’re not even the ones that believe that everything must be demonstrated from Scripture alone in the first place?

He says that the image of the Church being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets is in fact an evidence against the view of Apostolic succession. He does this by extrapolating from the qualities of a foundation in a way he feels is consistent with his views. However, it must be admitted that images can be read in multiple ways. They are not unambiguous. Secondly, his interpretation is not a satisfactory reading of the image of a foundation because he says that foundations are laid and then are not ever touched or added to after the building is already built on top of it. However, the foundation must be maintained and repaired if it is damaged. And if the foundation is pulled out from underneath it, the building collapses. This is the case with his own “church” which is not built on any divinely instituted foundation, but personal whimsy.

I’m sure he goes on to deal with other passages in the following two videos, but nothing he says is “new.” The New Testament clearly speaks about appointing pastors over the Church beyond the Apostles.

Matthias was not an Apostolic Successor. He was uniquely chosen by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles, lead by Peter, to be one of the twelve.

Other men, who were not strickly among the twelve were also considered Apostles in a wider sense. They were sent out by Jesus, but were not appointed to the core 12.

This shows that there are levels of authority among leaders. Peter excercised authority among the 12. Yet he was still an equal in faith.

There is a danger in trying to pit leadership within the Church against the general priesthood of the people and vice versa. The bible shows a unity among the two which worked in harmony. Catholicism does not contradict that, but we learn that there is leadership and structure for a reason. We learn that Confirmation can only come from a singular source. The Church was founded by Jesus with a singular office. The office of Papacy upholds the core Teachings of the Church.

Bishops were appointed by the apostles, and the place which they themselves had authority over where replaced by bishops after their death. We don’t only have 12 Bishops in the Church, because it is not dependent on only continuing one office. The Church grew and more bishops were appointed by existing Bishops to the expanding areas. Nowhere in Scritpure do we see evidence of men becoming leaders in the Church without being appointed by an existing leader.

St Paul Taught Timothy, whom he handed on authority to, to appoint bishops and deacons.

Also, concerning the Holy Spirit and appointing and sending men, it was not done outside the Church.

Acts 13 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

Barnabas and Saul Commissioned

13 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Symeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyre′ne, Man′a-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit,] they went down to Seleu′cia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus.

Even Paul knew that he needed to be Confirmed through the Apostles. He laid his gospel before them so there was no doubt that he was preaching something different than the Church. He did not seek Peter’s confirmation, but Jesus’ Confirmation through Peter.

It’s always been bewildering to me that Sola Scriptura is taken for granted, without lending a moment to consider how Sacred Scripture even came into their hands. Guided by the Holy Spirit, with Church as steward. They didn’t just dig up the NT from the ground, whole and perfectly compiled, 1,500 years after the ministry of Jesus. In reality, they preach Apostolic succession and Sacred Tradition by the acceptance of Sacred Scripture.

Sorry my post was a little all over the place.:smiley:

I wanted to comment on some of this stuff, but really my mind isnt focussed. Alot of other stuff going on. Also, that tends to happen when I try to listen to alot of content thrown against the Church. It’s hard to focuss on a specific point.

In one of his videos,recent videos,he says people need faith as well as repentance and love of god.

Which would mean he is somehow making Sola Scriptura valid even though he obviously shows more then faith is needed.

Basically,it looks like he managed to find a loophole within Sola Scriptura so that he can avoid Catholic arguments.

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