Will Roman Catholic Apologists Actually Debate the Issues?

877 -753 -334 on. Here's what I think I'd like to do. Mr. Bellisario is probably still listening.

And so Mr. Bellisario would like to actually discuss something that would be of use. An actual argument that I've made against Roman Catholicism.

That's what I'd like to do. Lines are open. So Mr. Bellisario would like to call in and actually discuss an argument that I've made against Roman Catholicism.

We can discuss my assertion, for example, that the primary source documents that give rise to the

Marian dogmas in Roman Catholicism are non -Christian. That that comes into the church from outside.

We could discuss that. We could discuss the assertion that the Bible knows nothing of the exaltation of Mary in the bodily assumption, in immaculate conception, things like this.

We can discuss the arguments that I've made concerning the papacy, the misunderstanding of Matthew chapter 16, and the context found therein.

We can discuss my assertion that Romans chapter 5 indicates that justification is a past tense.

We can discuss Frank Beckwith's argument that he borrowed from Jimmy Akin and others, and Robert St.

Genes, that justification is a process beginning in Genesis 12, then repeats again in Genesis 15, and continues in Genesis 22.

We can address the meaning of John chapter 6, and this is my body, this is my blood.

I have put in print, since 1990, exegesis of John chapter 6 that demonstrates these things.

These are the arguments that I have presented in debate and in published format against Roman Catholicism.

And they are the arguments that Roman Catholic apologists avoid like the plague.

Instead, what do we have? Remember last June? Remember last June, I posted a picture of some

Muslims, I believe it was in Indonesia, and remember how Jimmy Akin responded to that?

Look at the Catholic Answers web boards, and look at the things that they will focus upon.

They are not the arguments about authority, the papacy, the doctrine of justification, transubstantiation,

Christ is our High Priest, the issue of the priesthood, priesthood, papacy, purgatory.

I wrote to Tim Staples, and we've been going back and forth a little bit.

My emails have been significantly longer than his, but believe it or not, he continues to defend the 33 ,000 number.

He says, oh, it may be a little bit inflated, but not much. He puts it between 26 ,000 and 33 ,000. I keep asking him,

Tim, explain to me how Sola Scriptura is responsible for the

Mormons, for the Jehovah's Witnesses, for the Gnostics.

He actually defended the idea. Well, Mormonism arose out of a milieu where it was thick with Sola Scriptura.

Excuse me? What does that have to do with anything? But I wrote to Tim Staples, and I said,

Tim, you talked about 1 Corinthians 3. You talked about purgatory. Let's discuss it.

Let's debate this. Well, I look forward to debating it someday. I just can't right now. When?

Well, I really can't talk about that. When? 1 Corinthians 3. The Roman Catholic Church has abused it, has twisted it.

These are the arguments I have put in print. They are not passing statements in a

Sunday school class on Matthew 23, based on the reality that you had two major religious denominations in Germany during World War II, and that was the

Catholics and the Lutherans. I really look forward to debating you someday, but, oh, my boss is coming.

I have to go. Don't tell him I said that. When was our last debate with a

Catholic Answers staffer? I'm thinking.

Jimmy Akin, that wasn't a debate. It wasn't breakfast at Denny's with Carl Keating when he was saying,

I don't want to debate you anymore because maybe in writing. I don't think

Madrid had already left Catholic Answers before we did the Veneration of Saints debate on Long Island.

So I would guess the last time that a Catholic Answers staffer debated me would have been 1993 and Patrick Madrid in San Diego.

Because, remember, Jerry left in the early 90s. So it would have to be

Patrick Madrid. And when we went to Denver in 93,

Madrid was already at Steubenville and had been for some time because he had a group of students.

Madrid didn't go to Steubenville. No, no, no. It was Scott Hans. No, he was still with Catholic Answers because, remember, it was he and Keating that did that debate in Denver.

That's right, that we ran into. Well, we ran into them in the streets, but, remember, they set up that solo scriptura debate where they destroyed

Ron Jackson and Nemec for the same night that we were at the Presbyterian Church debating

Jerry Madison. Somehow they just couldn't debate you, but once you got locked in, oh, we can debate now.

That's exactly right. That was 1993. So 1993 was approximately 16 years ago now.

Yeah, 16 years ago is the last time Catholic Answers staffer did a debate. I'm sorry, it seems like they have a no debate policy now.

Now, Tim was able to debate Steve Gregg on Steve Gregg's radio program, but for some reason can't find the time to defend the publicly made statements he's making.

So I'm saying to Mr. Bellisario, the phone line is open right now.

If you'd like to actually debate, here on the program right now, my actual arguments against Roman Catholicism, rather than trying to manufacture stuff about a historical observation that had nothing to do with an argument against Roman Catholicism, which you don't even have the integrity to answer a yes or no question on, and simply admit the reality.

Anybody can go back and listen to that Sunday school lesson, which I put into, it's on the blog, because I, in fact, that's what

I did on the program. I played that. I played the clip. I should have brought it up here. I played the clip from the discussion of what?

Matthew chapter 23. So what I'm saying, Mr. Catholic Champion, sir, is the phone lines are open.

If you'd like to discuss my real arguments against Roman Catholicism, the phone lines are open. But I am sick and tired of the way that Roman Catholic apologists behave.

They seem to think that they can go on the air in their venues, and they can say anything they want.

They will not respond to refutation. They will continually repeat the same errors that other people make.

I started talking to you about Mark Shea. It just seems like he borrowed Gerry Madetik's stuff, which I had refuted in 1995.

He quotes, off the top of my head, I don't have anything for him right now, 1 Kings 8 .10 says it's the exact same term that Luke uses in Luke 1 .35.

In Luke 1 .35, it's episkiadzo. In 1 Kings 8 .10, it is not episkiadzo.

I pointed that out to Gerry Madetik in 1995, and here in brand -new books just put out, almost 15 years later, they repeat the same errors.

They don't care when they're refuted. They don't care. That tells me they don't care about the truth.

All they care about is serving Rome. And yes, that bugs me to no end because you're lying to people about what's in the

Scriptures. And so we've had it open. Maybe he stopped listening because, hey, he took his shot, and so, hey,

I don't care about witnessing to Mormons or whatever other topics you might be talking about. But pick the topic.

Be happy to discuss my real arguments against Roman Catholicism, but I will not waste my time arguing about non -arguments.

I didn't say it as an argument against Roman Catholicism. I said it to point out it wasn't just the atheist youth core.

I was talking about the fact that you can't look at Matthew 23 anymore. Since World War II, since the

Holocaust, in a lot of European theology, without apologizing for the alleged anti -Semitism of Matthew 23.

That's what I was talking about. And that's something that the

Lutherans have had to deal with. That's something that the Catholics have had to deal with. That's the historical reality.

And they, what, of all the things, how many books have I published on Roman Catholicism? How many debates have

I done on Roman Catholicism? And what does Matthew Belisario want to look at but practicing? Unbelievable.

If these people were actually taking the time to do meaningful apologetics, defending their position in a meaningful way, going to depth, not having people like Steve Ray on Catholic Answers Live as if he's an apologetics expert when he doesn't know what he's talking about.

If they were doing serious apologetics, then maybe I could show some respect for them. But they just don't do it.

And I think I have a basis upon which to stand and say, for a person who calls himself a

Christian, that's reprehensible. It's reprehensible. And you know what?

Sitting right here on my desk right now, and you all can affirm it. You can see it in here. What do I have? What's the book? Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock.

What's the book? Crossing the Tiber, Stephen K. Ray. What's the book? From Paul to Valentinus, Christians that Roamed the

First Two Centuries by Peter Lamb. If I'm going to be talking, this is stuff that I put in here a few weeks ago,

I was going to be talking about Steve Ray. I was going to be reading from his own book, talking about Isaiah 22 -22.

And where do I get my information? I have their stuff. First hand. It's called doing research.

Do they do that? No. They don't do that. And that says everything to me about the modern

Roman Catholic apologetics community. So, Mr. Bellisario, why don't you send me an email?

I gave you a whole list of things there. Gave you a whole list of things. Can't do it next Tuesday because I'm doing the unbelievable radio program.

But let's find a time to have you on. Let's do Purgatory. Let's do the papacy. Let's have you on,

Matthew. Let's actually address something I've published on the subject. How does that sound? Let's actually have a real meaningful conversation rather than this silliness that marks the

Roman Catholic apologetics community. We'll let you know what's going to happen here on The Dividing Line. Thanks for listening. God bless.