MATT SLICK EXPOSED

[epostle1]

Refuting Matt Slick's "Did the Roman Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?"

On his CARM website, Matt Slick argues that the Catholic Church did not give us God’s Word. And so, the Church would agree, because we believe the source of God’s Word is God. He also is the source of authority in His Church. However, Mr. Slick seems willing to misrepresent the Church’s claims and teachings, and so is willing to engage in deception in order to make his point. This deception will be evident throughout his article, and will show itself no more than two sentences into his argument.
"A Humble Servant's Catholic Blog": Refuting Matt Slick's "Did the Roman Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?"

 

[OzSpen]

Matt Sllick doesn't lie about everything - just where he disagrees with the Catholic Church. And his lies are easily refutable - as are ALL lies.

I have NO respect for a person who has to resort to lies to support his positions.
I also have NO problem with people who simply "disagree" with Catholic teaching - as long as they are honest about it.

Please provide the evidence of dishonesty.

Assertions prove nothing.

 

[epostle1]

Please provide the evidence of dishonesty.

Assertions prove nothing.

Evidence of dishonesty is found in the previous 21 posts....no, wait...22 posts.

 

[OzSpen]

Evidence of dishonesty is found in the previous 21 posts....no, wait...22 posts.

That's avoidance.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Please provide the evidence of dishonesty.

Assertions prove nothing.

Okay - for starters . . .
In his list of "False Teachings in the roman Catholic Church" - we see the misuse of the term "Roman Catholic Church". He repeatedly uses this term to describe the entire Catholic Church at large, which is a LIE.
"Roman Catholic" simply refers to ONE of TWENTY Rites that comprise the "Catholic Church".

Secondly - in this list, he states:
Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture
He then goes onto quote the Catechism, which says NOTHING of the "Roman" Catholic Church
1. CCC 100, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."

In his list, "Are Roman Catholicism and Christianity the same thing?" - he LIES again:
#1 on his list says:
There is only one God, and you are to serve no other gods (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6, 8).
Then, he goes on to make THIS asinine claim:
"Roman Catholicism violates two of them (#1 and #4). First of all, by its practice of promoting Mary (and the Saints) to the level of God-like capabilities, they break the commandment to have no other gods before the true and living God."

This is a flat out LIE as Mary and the saints are NOT worshiped.
In fact, the Church condemns the worship of ANYBODY other than God Himself.
CCC 2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.

CCC 2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46

I can continue - but I will do so on further posts.
Otherwise - I'll run out of room . . .

 

[epostle1]

That's avoidance.

This is your second stupid zinger that denies my evidence that Slick is a liar. Denial is worse that avoidance. and how do I avoid my own posts? You haven't made any rebuttals or comments on the content of my posts and you accuse me of avoidance?

 

[aspen]

Matt Slick.....lol

Perfectly named

 

[Truth7t7]

Matt Slick makes a mockery of Catholic teaching by abusing the catechism. He tries to "summarrize" one or a few CCC paragraphs that he cherry picks. Carnival barking ridicules what he thinks Catholicism is. No page to the paragraphs are ever linked. No footnotes, and no context. Then he compares it to his Calvinistic interpretation of scripture. Oddly, he is not a full Calvinist. Matt doesn't understand what the catechism if for nor does he understand it's proper use.

The Catholic Church is the one true church (CCC 2105), Infallibility of the Catholic Church, (CCC 2035), Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture (CCC 100), The Pope is the head of the church and has the authority of Christ (CCC 2034), The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation (CCC 846), Sacred Tradition equal to scripture (CCC 82), Forgiveness of sins, salvation, is by faith and works (CCC 2036 CCC 2080 2068),...
Some of Matt's carnival barking is just misrepresentations, and some are blatant lies.
Let's take the first one.
The Catholic Church is the one true church (CCC 2105) but not the way Slick puts it.
Here's what it really says:
2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33
footnotes:
30 DH 1 § 3.
31 AA 13 § 1.
32 Cf. DH 1.
33 Cf. AA 13; Leo XIII, Immortale Dei 3,17; Pius XI, Quas primas 8,20.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The first commandment

If you are going to cite a paragraph, that is how it should be done. Matt preaches sound bytes, not Catholic teaching.

Matt doesn't understand what "subsists" means. If the CC cannot define itself, then Matt's brand of Calvinism can't be defined on the same basis. "...one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church..." does not mean it is the only church with truths. There is a lack of context with other paragraphs. For example:

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
CCC - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 9 PARAGRAPH 3

So the CC recognizes other churches as a means of salvation, even the ones that don't like us. Context is Matt's enemy. Matt would never cite this paragraph.

Dear Catholic, do you know for sure if you are going to heaven?
by Matt Slick
John Martignoni
Dear Matt Slick,

Since you go by the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura), I have to ask: Is this little salvation quiz of yours in the Bible? If not, why are you asking it? Also, do I have to answer your question in a certain way as a requirement for getting into Heaven?

Matt Slick
As a Protestant, I can say that I know I am going to heaven. This isn't arrogance. It is confidence in the work of Christ and not my own work. It is confidence in the ability of Jesus to save me completely, to have fulfilled all of the Law perfectly, and to have cleansed me from my sin totally. Therefore, because all my hope and trust are in him and not what I can do, I know I am going to heaven.


John Martignoni
Matt Slick says, “I know I am going to Heaven.”

God says, “Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed, lest he fall,” (1 Cor 10:12). You might want to read that over a few times, Slick.

Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says, “I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes...” (1 Cor 4:3-5).

Matt Slick says, “I do indeed judge myself before the time, before the Lord comes, and even though I am aware of all sorts of things against myself, I am thereby acquitted.”

Sorry, Slick, but your words do indeed seem to indicate just a wee bit of arrogance on your part.

Oh, and one other thing: If Jesus has cleansed you from your sin “totally,” then how come you still sin?

see the rest of the debate here

I find Matt Slick to be a sound reliable teacher, possibly it's because you are a catholic, and the truth has been exposed.

I studied every Catechism on your list, to be just as Matt Slick put it.

I believe the fact of the matter is, you can't receive the truth of the CCC teachings.

 

[epostle1]

Early Church Fathers' Quotes on Scripture Alone is final Authority
Early Church Fathers' Quotes on Scripture Alone is final Authority | CARM.org
Matt Slick actually claims this. He gives walls of quotes on more than one page. For example:

Athanasius (300?-375),
“The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Athanasius, Exhort. ad Monachas).

Athanasius reveres scripture as the Church reveres Our Lord's Body, and he doesn't isolate scripture from tradition. The difference between material sufficiency and formal sufficiency is like night and day. This difference has been explained to Matt 1000 times, he just doesn't care.

A list Scripture Alone is not final Authority appears on the same page. It's standard Calvinist dichotomous tactics: if A is true, then B must be false.

Athanasius (300?-375), “But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept." (Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28).

NOWHERE in these quotes does Athanasius say that Scripture Alone is the final authority. Nor does any other ECF.

St. Athanasius Was a CATHOLIC, Not a Proto-Protestant
Counter-Reply to Protestant anti-Catholic Apologist James White on Athanasius, Tradition, etc.

​

 

[epostle1]

“But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicaea, abides for ever.” Athanasius, To the Bishops of Africa, 2 (A.D. 372).

“And therefore, first in the holy Synod of Nicaea, the gathering of the three hundred and eighteen chosen men, united by the Holy Ghost, as far as in him lay, he [St. Athanasius] stayed the disease. Though not yet ranked among the Bishops, he held the first rank among the members of the Council, for preference was given to virtue just as much as to office.”
Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 21:14 (A.D. 379).

“This gave occasion for an Ecumenical Council, that the feast might be everywhere celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was springing up might be anathematized. It took place then; and the Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pronounced the Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist, and drew up a suitable formula against it. And yet in this, many as they are, they ventured on nothing like the proceedings of these three or four men. Without pre-fixing Consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter, ‘It seemed good as follows,’ for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, ‘It seemed good,’ but, ‘Thus believes the Catholic Church;’ and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.”
Athanasius, Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia, 5( A.D. 362).

If St. Athanasius was a sola scripturist, then sola scriptura is meaningless.

 

[Enoch111]

Refuting Matt Slick's "Did the Roman Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?"

There's no need to refute Matt Slick on this point. We know that the RCC did NOT give us the Bible. Also since the Apocrypha is not inspired, the Catholic Bible cannot be the true Bible.

The OT canon was well established by the time of Christ, and Jesus put His stamp of authority on the Hebrew Tanakh (24 books = 39 books in the Protestant Bibles). The NT canon was well established by the end of the 1st century, and almost every NT book was listed within the Muratori Canon of the 2nd century.

Christian churches were circulating the books of the Bible long before the RCC came into existence.

 

[OzSpen]

Okay - for starters . . .
In his list of "False Teachings in the roman Catholic Church" - we see the misuse of the term "Roman Catholic Church". He repeatedly uses this term to describe the entire Catholic Church at large, which is a LIE.
"Roman Catholic" simply refers to ONE of TWENTY Rites that comprise the "Catholic Church".

Secondly - in this list, he states:
Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture
He then goes onto quote the Catechism, which says NOTHING of the "Roman" Catholic Church
1. CCC 100, "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him."

In his list, "Are Roman Catholicism and Christianity the same thing?" - he LIES again:
#1 on his list says:
There is only one God, and you are to serve no other gods (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6, 8).
Then, he goes on to make THIS asinine claim:
"Roman Catholicism violates two of them (#1 and #4). First of all, by its practice of promoting Mary (and the Saints) to the level of God-like capabilities, they break the commandment to have no other gods before the true and living God."

This is a flat out LIE as Mary and the saints are NOT worshiped.
In fact, the Church condemns the worship of ANYBODY other than God Himself.
CCC 2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them."42 God, however, is the "living God"43 who gives life and intervenes in history.

CCC 2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon."44 Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.46

I can continue - but I will do so on further posts.
Otherwise - I'll run out of room . . .

Please document your quotes from Matt Slick. I need to know the source and the context.

I'm not a fan of Matt Slick but I think you are making general statements without giving specific sources from Slick. This is unfair on someone you seem to be wanting to decimate.

 

[OzSpen]

There's no need to refute Matt Slick on this point. We know that the RCC did NOT give us the Bible. Also since the Apocrypha is not inspired, the Catholic Bible cannot be the true Bible.

The OT canon was well established by the time of Christ, and Jesus put His stamp of authority on the Hebrew Tanakh (24 books = 39 books in the Protestant Bibles). The NT canon was well established by the end of the 1st century, and almost every NT book was listed within the Muratori Canon of the 2nd century.

Christian churches were circulating the books of the Bible long before the RCC came into existence.

Enoch,

Who gathered the books of the NT canon?

The first historical reference listing the exact 27 writings in the orthodox New Testament is in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 AD. His reference states that these are the only recognized writings to be read in a church service. The first time a church council ruled on the list of "inspired" writings allowed to be read in church was at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD. No document survived from this council - we only know of this decision because it was referenced at the third Synod of Carthage in 397 AD. Even this historical reference from Carthage, Canon 24, does not "list" every single document. For example, it reads, "the gospels, four books…" The only reason for this list is to confirm which writings are "sacred" and should be read in a church service. There is no comment as to why and how this list was agreed upon (How the New Testament Canon was Formed).​

Which 'church' was involved in collecting these 27 writing? Or was that the work of a few pastors with no connection with a local church?

Oz

 

[epostle1]

Enoch,

Who gathered the books of the NT canon?

The first historical reference listing the exact 27 writings in the orthodox New Testament is in the Easter Letter of Athanasius in 367 AD. His reference states that these are the only recognized writings to be read in a church service. The first time a church council ruled on the list of "inspired" writings allowed to be read in church was at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD. No document survived from this council - we only know of this decision because it was referenced at the third Synod of Carthage in 397 AD. Even this historical reference from Carthage, Canon 24, does not "list" every single document. For example, it reads, "the gospels, four books…" The only reason for this list is to confirm which writings are "sacred" and should be read in a church service. There is no comment as to why and how this list was agreed upon (How the New Testament Canon was Formed).​

Which 'church' was involved in collecting these 27 writing? Or was that the work of a few pastors with no connection with a local church?

Oz

Links to the CARM forum are posted whenever it is quoted. If I am not quoting Slick directly, I am not obligated to link to every page for every concept that Slick publishes, but I do quote my sources to anything that is not mine. If I fail to quote Slick, then you go to the CARM forum where everything he says is published, and find it for me.
Between the 33 AD, and the close of the canon in 397 AD, a "pastor" with no connection to the institutional Church did not exist, up until the 15th century.