Protestant Response to Catholic Answers


#1

As a devoted fan of Catholic Answers, I wanted to know what the response was in Protestant circles…I was pleased to see that after months of visiting this Forum, I am now able to identify many of the gaping holes in the logic presented in the articles linked below.

For anyone looking to test/sharpen their apologetics skills, click on any link and point out the flaws!

“These are links to articles which specifically refute certain Roman Catholic apologists popular in the public and Internet forums.***”

Catholic Answers***

Catholic Answers Reaches New Lows - James White responds to an example of poor scholarship and mockery of Protestants.
Failure to Document - Catholic Answers tries to provide a defense of Honorius that drops to new lows in misrepresenting history. (Article by James White)-
Catholic Answers: Myth or Reality? - An article by James White.
Mirror Mirror: The Decline of Catholic Answers - An article by James White.

James Akin
The Believer’s Security - James White Responds to James Akin from This Rock Magazine.
Steve O’Reilly
Whitewashing Church History - James White responds to an attempt by This Rock to insert Papal supremacy into the early Church. A response to Steven O’Reilly’s article, The Attempt to Whitewash Peter’s Primacy in the February, 2000 issue.Serving Up Circular Arguments - The July/August 2000 This Rock magazine contains yet another attempt to get around biblical truth. James White replies to Steve O’Reilly once again. *
Mark Shea*-
A Dialogue Between James White and Mark Shea - Mark Shea, Author of By What Authority? and James White (and others) Attempt to Discuss Sola Scriptura.


#2

Just on the first link.

[font=‘Times New Roman’]“And what is also clear is that the canon used by Jesus and His apostles did not include the apocryphal books.”[/font]

How about:
Luke 14:13-14 vs Tobit 4:7 &10 & 17
Mat 7:12 vs Tobit 4:16
1 Cor 10:9 vs Judith 8:24-25
1 Cor 6:2 vs Wisdom 3:8
Mat 7:27 vs Wisdom 4:4
Heb 1:3 vs Wisdom 7:26
Rom 9:21 vs Wisdom 15:7
2 Tim 3:12 vs Ecclesiastus 2:1
John 14:23 vs Ecclesiastus 2:18

There is more but this should suffice.

"[font=‘Times New Roman’]Not only did it take quite some time for the unbiblical concept of a priesthood to develop (it is absent from many of the earliest Christian writings, let alone the New Testament),"[/font]
[font=‘Times New Roman’][/font]
[font=‘Times New Roman’]Then what is St. Paul talking about in Romans 15:16.[/font]
[font=‘Times New Roman’][/font]
[font=‘Times New Roman’]There’s heaps more but it’s so … so … long winded. :yawn: [/font]
[font=‘Times New Roman’][/font]
[font=‘Times New Roman’]God bless[/font]


#3

25 posts


#4

[font=Times New Roman]>>“And what is also clear is that the canon used by Jesus and His apostles did not include the apocryphal books.”<<[/font]

I wouldn’t waste my time with Mr. White’s rubbish. The above line pretty much says it all. The canon used by Jesus and His apostles? There was no established canon, Jewish or Christian, at that time. The Sadducees and Pharisees had two entirely different ideas as to what constituted Scriptures, and not one letter of the New Testament was even written yet during the life of Jesus.

The Jewish canon was not set until 90 AD, and the Christian canon was not set until around 390 AD.

Mr. White demonstrates beautifully the inability of the Protestant mind to understand reality and history in context. He perfectly validates Cardinal Neumann’s theory that “to be full in history is to cease to be Protestant,” as well as the counter-point that to be incompetent in history is to be full in Protestantism.

Thal59


#5

I’ve read some of Mr White’s stuff before. He’s off the mark in so many ways.


#6

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