Narito ang ika-pitong bahagi ng diskusyon sa pagitan ng Katoliko at Iglesia ni Cristo sa pamamagitan ng http://www.pinoyexchange.com
Muli, hinihingi ko na po ang paumanhin ninyo sapagkat di ko po ito isasalin sa wikang Filipino ang kabuuan ng debate.
Rejoinder/Conclusion by the Negative (Catholic)
My RoTer friends, I believe by now you have already seen how empty, deceiving and irrelevant the points that my dear counterpart have raised throughout this debate were. Arguments that up until his rejoinder were basicallyincoherent and lacking in logic at the very least. We could feel the desperate tone of his conclusion in trying to appeal the futility of his position. Let’s review the points he raised during the entirety of this debate.
Was, Completely and Totally:
The affirmative’s position from the beginning was basically centered on semantics and not on logic. If everyone could remember it right, he eloquently argued in his first constructive that “completely” doesn’t mean “totally” to which my subsequent post was able to effectively refute using the common standards of the English vocabulary. No matter how hard the Affirmative tries to twist the definition of those two words, he can’t and wasn’t able to extract one independently of the other.
Seeing that the “completely doesn’t mean totally” argument he raised was flawed, my counterpart shifted gears by completely abandoning the initial semantics argument that he raised and strangely appealed to “verb tenses” in his conclusion. Clearly, the Affirmative has run out of logical arguments that he tries so hard to argue based on semantics alone.
Unfortunately, it’s too late for that.
Whether the proposition was “The first century church WAS completely apostatized” or “The first century church completely apostatized”, it all boils down to the same thing. That the bible itself doesn’t teach, support nor prophesied about a total or complete apostasy. As a matter of fact, I am of the firm belief that I was able to prove to everyone that the bible itself, from the Old Testament to the New Testament shows that a total or complete apostasy will never ever happen.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
The affirmative, in assuming that a “complete apostasy” took place simply because of verses talking about a “great apostasy”, was being fallacious. The verses from the bible that I’ve presented clearly contradicted the Affirmative’s position by proving the following points:
– That the Church which was built by Jesus can’t be overcome by the gates of hell
– That the Prophet Daniel prophesied that the Kingdom to be established by God cannot be destroyed
– That Jesus promised the in-dwelling of the Paraclete to His Church forever
– That the Apostle Paul confirmed that the Church will be with Jesus forever
The Affirmative, in his succeeding posts, failed to refute any of the above arguments directly and has been content in advancing another fallacy by focusing on the “non-existent” pre-conditions of the guaranteed presented.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
The Affirmative vehemently argued that there were “conditions” that came with the “Jesus Christ guarantee” that I’ve presented in my first constructive. The problem with his point was that, no one outside of the INC circle agrees with the said position.
By arguing that the said “conditions” were present, the Affirmative assumed that it was true simply because no one has proven it false yet the biblical exegesis I’ve presented in my argument clearly refutes that somehow strange position.
The Affirmative, in his haste to try and salvage a losing position, resorted to raising multiple, again, not just one but multiple irrelevant facts concerning the proposition just to try and sway the discussion into a different direction. These were very much evident with the questions he raised during cross-examinations which, thanks to the fair assessment of our moderator-judges, were corrected appropriately after an objective appeal.
Let me list them down.
– focused on the interpretation of Daniel 7:14 rather than the prophesy that God would build a kingdom that can’t be destroyed
– probed into the Rock of Matthew which is clearly not connected to the proposition
– the question on the 5 kingdoms of the Book of Daniel was clearly and unmistakably irrelevant to the proposition
– the semantics issue on the words “kepha, petros and petra” was clearly out of scope
It seems to me that the Affirmative has already run out of relevant points to raise to affirm the proposition that’s why he came up with such completely irrelevant points.
Clasping on Straws
As the pressure of the negating arguments mount during the debate, the Affirmative slipped and tried to bounce back by clasping on straws which, obviously, was a big failure. Let me enumerate them.
– He argued that by failing to record the exact birth date of Jesus, my argument was wrong that all significant events in the Church’s history had been accounted for. Yet everybody knows that Jesus was born ahead of the foundation of the Church thus, Jesus’ natal day isn’t covered by the Church’s history
– That the 4th kingdom in the book of Daniel is the Catholic Church although it’s pretty clear that we are not trying to prove which kingdoms were being prophesied by Daniel
– That I have abandoned the Pope in my rebuttals yet the last time I checked, the proposition wasn’t about the Pope nor was it anywhere near it
– That I erred when I admitted that the “Great Apostasy” happened though I never, not even once in the whole debate, equated the “great apostasy” to a “complete apostasy”
The Affirmative’s lack of relevant arguments led to him creating a caricatured version of my primary points to which he happily struck continuously until his rejoinder. A sad fate that summarizes his dismal failure to affirm his position.
The Affirmative’s continuing insistence that the Orthodox Church submitted itself to the Primacy of Pope is anArgumentum ad nauseam. He was also guilty of stereotyping the Orthodox when he wrote the following
The Affirmative, in his insistence, may have forgotten the fact that the EAST and WEST schism was actually rooted primarily on the rejection of the Orthodox Church to be under the primacy of the Pope in Rome.
To quote Fr. Patrick Keyes, he said that “The Great Schism, or divide between the East and West happened in 1054, when Pope Leo IX and Eastern Patriarch Michael I excommunicated each other. The primary cause was a dispute over papal authority. The Eastern churches denied that the pope had any unique authority over them.”
A crucial blunder on the side of the Affirmative which he tried to recover in the latter part of the debate without any success.
My Counterpart also raised the issue about The Church giving in to the “Greek Spirits”. In fact, he even quoted the New Advent’s article about it but he intentionally left this part
“It is on this connection that modern rationalists have brought all their learning and research to bear in the effort to show that the whole later intellectual system of Christianity is something more or less alien to its original conception.”
Clearly, my counterpart, in trying to assert his point, left off an important part when he tried to show that The Catholic Encyclopedia conceded that the Greek Spirit was unionized with The Church. Further reading would reveal how The Church refuted this.
“Abandoning the Apostolic Age, Harnack, in his “History of Dogma”, ascribes the hellenization of Christianity to the apologists of the second century (1st German edit., p. 253). This contention can best be refuted by showing that the essential doctrines of Christianity are contained already in the New Testament Scriptures, while giving, at the same time, their due force to the traditions of corporate Christianity.”
No matter how the Affirmative plays around with semantics, the fact is up to this point, my counterpart hasn’t clearly and convincingly shown any compelling evidence that the First Century Church was completely apostatized.
The Affirmative argued that the “Jesus guarantee” was voided yet he wasn’t able to prove beyond doubt that there were indeed conditions tied to those guarantees. He also insisted that The Church apostatized by the virtue of the Pope yet he failed to substantiate his claim that the Orthodox submitted to the Papal Primacy.
My counterpart’s conclusion begs the question “did the Church completely apostatized or did it not”?
The answer is very simple my friends.
If The Church did apostatized, then Jesus, Paul and Daniel were all wrong when all of them wrote and taught that The Church and Kingdom of God can never be destroyed.
The Bible, from the Old Testament to the New Testament, had painted a vivid picture of a powerful, indestructible and lasting Church of God.
This can never ever be denied.
“To him be glory in the church, and in Christ Jesus unto all generations, world without end. Amen.” Ephesians 3:21
God bless us all!
All is done except for the judging
b. They are gentlemanly debaters and wholeheartedly accepted the rulings made by the mods. They are even more gentlemanly and charming to us in the PMs. Contrary to what some people might think, making the rulings was not a burden to me; it was actually a privilege to add value to the debate. That leads to the third point.
c. Debates are an effective way to advocate one’s position. Unlike in normal threads, one cannot run away from an ongoing debate; and the questions are very pertinent and the answers very relevant. The constructives are so well made that I won’t be surprised if some saved them for future reference. I urge all of us therefore to learn the skills of debate and do it. We are all advocates of our beliefs, we should know how to defend them. Try to debate at least once — it is like virginity, it is only difficult in the first time.
d. The debaters are having fun and want more. And the rest of us enjoyed it too.
Let me quote the first part of Equis’ sincere words posted in the gallery: