Armstrong Challenges White

[PhilVaz]

<< Just a quick question…does anybody out there know whether White has ever debated Scott Hahn !!! >>

No, and it will probably never happen, although Hahn did moderate the first “Papacy debate” between Matatics vs. White from 1990. Dr. Hahn has had two “public” formal debates that I am aware of:

vs. Robert Knudsen of Westminster on Bible/Tradition and Salvation/Justification (1989 I think)

vs. Robert Bowman (formerly of Christian Research Institute) on Justification (1997)

The second one is still available from St. Joe Comm (and others) and re-titled “The Ultimate Challenge” debate (with two other debates, Fr. Pacwa vs. Ken Samples on sola scriptura, and Fr. Groeschel vs. an australian anti-Catholic on the Eucharist).

from St. Joe Comm
from Catholic company

Hahn was also on the “Bible Answer Man” back in 1990 (available on my site).

Phil P

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Well, for those who dont know there is going to be a debate between Armstrong and Matt Slick. Matt is Reformed and runs a protestant apologetics page. While he isnt rabidly anti-Catholic he doesnt consider Catholics to be Christian (thats how he stays in business).

Anyway, Armstrong and Slick are going to debate the definition of “Christian.” The details arent in stone yet but it will be a written e-debate in a chat room. Also the transcripts will be posted on Dave’s page at the end.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Apparently none as long as he sides with Rome!

Give me a break Randy! You have created a small cottage industry out of slamming White and his doctorate and yet DM gets a pass with NO relevant degree!?!?

Kaycee-

First of all, I’m sorry you didn’t appreciate the humor in my comment about Dave. I wouldn’t give him a pass just because he is Catholic.

Second, this subject has already been discussed at length at Patrick Madrid’s forum, and I can assure you that I was not the only one questioning White’s “doctorate”. :nope:

If you visit that site you should be able to find the post where I made similar comments about Robert Sungenis’ questionable “doctorate”, also. So you see, I can and have been even-handed on this issue, and my comments are in the public domain for all to see.:tiphat:

Finally, I’ll just leave this in the hands of the experts. If any nationally recognized accreditation board accepts Columbia, then so be it. That won’t change the fact that Jimmy’s “degree” was granted under non-accredited circumstances.

But for now, it is inarguably true that the people who take this accreditation stuff seriously apparently don’t take Columbia seriously at all.

 

[PhilVaz]

dude << Well, for those who dont know there is going to be a debate between Armstrong and Matt Slick. Matt is Reformed and runs a protestant apologetics page. While he isnt rabidly anti-Catholic he doesnt consider Catholics to be Christian (thats how he stays in business). >>

Ah ha, should be interesting. Mark Bonocore did very well against Matt Slick on his radio program last year, that was fun. First two programs available on my audio page.

BTW, another debate to be aware of, for those “into” debates, is Fr. Mitch Pacwa vs. Eric Svendsen on sola scriptura and Church authority, in May 2007. That one should be fun, once it is made available. Although I hope Fr. Pacwa doesn’t let Svendsen walk all over him, as was the case in some of the latter Pacwa-White debates. If you’re gonna debate, be prepared, study your opponent’s position, and challenge the other guy.

Phil P

 

[Catholic_Dude]

dude << Well, for those who dont know there is going to be a debate between Armstrong and Matt Slick. Matt is Reformed and runs a protestant apologetics page. While he isnt rabidly anti-Catholic he doesnt consider Catholics to be Christian (thats how he stays in business). >>

Ah ha, should be interesting. Mark Bonocore did very well against Matt Slick on his radio program last year, that was fun. First two programs available on my audio page.

BTW, another debate to be aware of, for those “into” debates, is Fr. Mitch Pacwa vs. Eric Svendsen on sola scriptura and Church authority, in May 2007. That one should be fun, once it is made available. Although I hope Fr. Pacwa doesn’t let Svendsen walk all over him, as was the case in some of the latter Pacwa-White debates. If you’re gonna debate, be prepared, study your opponent’s position, and challenge the other guy.

Phil P

You realize that now you have mentioned this you have an obligation to get me the audio file of that debate (free of charge) once it comes out?

And yes, I hope Fr Pacwa does study up on the most recent attempts by Protestants to define/“defend” SS. (its impolite to burst out laughing during a public debate)

 

[bibleapologist]

Both of these guys are doing the same thing WWF wrestlers do to muster up an audience to their debate… and you guys have been sucked right into it.

Don’t you see, that’s why they post their conversations on their website? They want this stuff posted on forums, and talked about. They want everyone to argue about who’s hero can beat the other one’s hero in a debate.

I THINK IT ALL STINKS!!!

Tell me how this is different than the money changers in the temple when Jesus turned over the tables…

The only difference is… It’s the job of Christians to turn over the tables. But instead, I see Christians spending money on this junk and enabling Christianity to become a commodity.

SHAME ON YOU!

Maybe I should challenge White AND Armstrong on the topic of Biblical Christianity, and the Biblical method of preaching the gospel.

BA

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Both of these guys are doing the same thing WWF wrestlers do to muster up an audience to their debate… and you guys have been sucked right into it.

Don’t you see, that’s why they post their conversations on their website? They want this stuff posted on forums, and talked about. They want everyone to argue about who’s hero can beat the other one’s hero in a debate.

I THINK IT ALL STINKS!!!

Tell me how this is different than the money changers in the temple when Jesus turned over the tables…

The only difference is… It’s the job of Christians to turn over the tables. But instead, I see Christians spending money on this junk and enabling Christianity to become a commodity.

SHAME ON YOU!

Actually what is going on is good, though it has been taken too far in some cases.

For TOO LONG Protestants have been bashing the Church for what are in reality empty attacks and double standards. Now with the help of technology there is no place to run or hide anymore because the truth is out in the open and people are being called to the carpet.

The idea that “all Protestants are Christian” while “Catholics are not Christian” is a double standard when one considers the different doctrines different denominations are allowed to accept. That position is maintained for one reason, to keep the business open. Dave Armstrong was very wise to call a debate on this specific issue.

Maybe I should challenge White AND Armstrong on the topic of Biblical Christianity, and the Biblical method of preaching the gospel. BA

No offense but that is simply unrealistic and oversimplified.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Both of these guys are doing the same thing WWF wrestlers do to muster up an audience to their debate… and you guys have been sucked right into it.

Don’t you see, that’s why they post their conversations on their website? They want this stuff posted on forums, and talked about. They want everyone to argue about who’s hero can beat the other one’s hero in a debate.

I THINK IT ALL STINKS!!!

Tell me how this is different than the money changers in the temple when Jesus turned over the tables…

The only difference is… It’s the job of Christians to turn over the tables. But instead, I see Christians spending money on this junk and enabling Christianity to become a commodity.

SHAME ON YOU!

Maybe I should challenge White AND Armstrong on the topic of Biblical Christianity, and the Biblical method of preaching the gospel.

BA

Then you could sell that CD on your website.

Along with your book.
[gideonsword.net/v-web/productpage/images/thumbs/ttccover.gif](javascript:void(0))
And the advertising.

 

[bibleapologist]

Actually what is going on is good, though it has been taken too far in some cases.

For TOO LONG Protestants have been bashing the Church for what are in reality empty attacks and double standards. Now with the help of technology there is no place to run or hide anymore because the truth is out in the open and people are being called to the carpet.

The idea that “all Protestants are Christian” while “Catholics are not Christian” is a double standard when one considers the different doctrines different denominations are allowed to accept. That position is maintained for one reason, to keep the business open. Dave Armstrong was very wise to call a debate on this specific issue.

I agree, a debate by learned persons on the subject could be a good thing… the arguing is rediculous. It is not uncharitable as much as it is advertising.

No offense but that is simply unrealistic and oversimplified.

Why? The tactics they are using to get you to fall all over them is not the way to spread the gospel. It’s hollywood-ism.

BA

 

[bibleapologist]

Then you could sell that CD on your website.

Along with your book.
[gideonsword.net/v-web/productpage/images/thumbs/ttccover.gif](javascript:void(0))
And the advertising.

If I sold the CD on my website, I would only sell it for what it took to make it… Just like the book I have for sale (thanks for the advertisement).

I didn’t start a website, write a book, publish tracts or anything else for profit. I have spent more money on these things that I will probably ever make back with them.

BA

 

[Legal_Eagle]

Both of these guys are doing the same thing WWF wrestlers do to muster up an audience to their debate… and you guys have been sucked right into it.

I THINK IT ALL STINKS!!!

:bowdown2: :bowdown2:

The only difference is… It’s the job of Christians to turn over the tables. But instead, I see Christians spending money on this junk and enabling Christianity to become a commodity.

:clapping: :clapping:

SHAME ON YOU!

:tsktsk: :tsktsk:

Maybe I should challenge White AND Armstrong on the topic of Biblical Christianity, and the Biblical method of preaching the gospel.

 

[BrianH]

If I sold the CD on my website, I would only sell it for what it took to make it… Just like the book I have for sale (thanks for the advertisement).

I didn’t start a website, write a book, publish tracts or anything else for profit. I have spent more money on these things that I will probably ever make back with them.

BA

I like your style BA. Well done.

 

[CommonMan]

Latest news from James Swan’s blog on DA.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/

 

[Randy_Carson]

How do you suppose Athanasius, Ireneaus and other Fathers of the Church handled the heretics of their day? Or for that matter, what does the Bible say about Paul’s debating with the Jews and Greeks?

1. 
   *]Acts 9:29
   He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him.
   *]Acts 15:2
   This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
   *]Acts 18:28
   For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
   I have to disagree with you on this…Protestants who attack the Catholic Church in public must be refuted in public.
   
   And if you think it’s about money, you might want to take a closer look. These guys aren’t getting rich selling tapes on a book table in the back of a fellowship hall at a debate venue.

 

[Mannyfit75]

How do you suppose Athanasius, Ireneaus and other Fathers of the Church handled the heretics of their day? Or for that matter, what does the Bible say about Paul’s debating with the Jews and Greeks?

1. 
   *]Acts 9:29
   He talked and debated with the Grecian Jews, but they tried to kill him.
   *]Acts 15:2
   This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
   *]Acts 18:28
   For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
   I have to disagree with you on this…Protestants who attack the Catholic Church in public must be refuted in public.
   
   And if you think it’s about money, you might want to take a closer look. These guys aren’t getting rich selling tapes on a book table in the back of a fellowship hall at a debate venue.

1. 
   AMEN! Anyone who attacks the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth ought to be refuted. Protestants with Anti-Catholic views must be refuted. Any Catholic with a weak faith or poorly catechized will be deceived and will leave the Catholic Church.
   
   That is why Catholics who know their faith must debate and refute the Protestant objection of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[CommonMan]

Please define “Anti-Catholic”.

 

[rr1213]

Nothing at all wrong with a theological debate…as long as both sides keep their comments fair, clean and charitable. Shouldn’t be problem with two Christians debating…

Seriously, it is a good idea as long as both sides remember that they are brethern as should treat each other as such even in the hottest moments of the debate.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please define “Anti-Catholic”.

Anti-Catholicism is religious or political opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, particularly of a kind employing alleged mischaracterizations, stereotypes and negative prejudices. Anti-Catholicism typically applies only to those instances in which Roman Catholics are persecuted or discriminated against for their beliefs by other Christians; Roman Catholics may also be the target of persecution of Christians generally.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholic

anti-
a prefix meaning “against,” “opposite of,” “antiparticle of,” used in the formation of compound words (anticline); used freely in combination with elements of any origin (antibody; antifreeze; antiknock; antilepton).

I would add my own thought that anyone who disagrees with the theology of the Catholic Church and seeks to save me out of the “Roman system” is anti-Catholic. Anti-Catholics frequently use words such as “Romish”, “Roman Church”, “Papist”, “anti-Christ” and of course, “Whore of Babylon” when referring to Catholics, the Catholic Church and the Pope. They also deny that Catholics are Christians at all.

There are other Christians who disagree with Catholic theology but do not deny the validity of our faith in Christ.

Hope this helps.

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

Actually what is going on is good, though it has been taken too far in some cases.

For TOO LONG Protestants have been bashing the Church for what are in reality empty attacks and double standards. Now with the help of technology there is no place to run or hide anymore because the truth is out in the open and people are being called to the carpet.

The idea that “all Protestants are Christian” while “Catholics are not Christian” is a double standard when one considers the different doctrines different denominations are allowed to accept. That position is maintained for one reason, to keep the business open. Dave Armstrong was very wise to call a debate on this specific issue.

No offense but that is simply unrealistic and oversimplified.

I agree… …for centuries protestants have had their way in telling us where we have erred , now it’s time to debate and challenge them in a respectful manner. I know they are going to learn a great deal from this site…a lot of which will be conflict with what they ‘parrott’ learned from past generations. If it’s all done with love then christianity will be the winner !!!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Latest news from James Swan’s blog on DA.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/

I read the entry and it wasnt that big of a deal, I posted this comment but it didnt show up.Here are the advantages of written debate over live debate:

1)Written debate has the advantage of being reviewable, each side can follow at their own pace and review previous comments easily and accurately. In written debate you can send an ordered list of specific questions. In live debate there is only so much the opponent (and audience) can remember. If your going to talk for 10 minutes most of that information is going to be forgotten and as a result the real issues wont be addressed sufficiently by the time the opponent gets a chance to respond.

2)Written debate keeps things focused and on topic. In live debate its too easy to ramble and worse yet not even address the issues. This is too common in live debates, its really annoying hearing live debates where most of debate was wasted breath due to the fact one or both were often rambling searching for something to say and trying to remember what needed to be addressed.

3)Written debates maximizes substantive dialog while minimizing distraction. The point of these types of debate is to get a point across, important teachings about Christianity that arent a joke and deserve thoughtful response. In live debate its more about who is a better speaker, not about how good or bad their argument is. The way a “win” is often measured is by who didnt trip up, not who had the best argument.

It was disappointing that you looked to the political system as support for live debates. The political debates are about hype, smearing, spin, appearance and who is better at pulling out answers off the top of their head. I cant remember a Republican vs Democrat debate that was worth squat.

Also, this isnt about “chat debating” wife, family or friends. You dont “debate” against people like that. When talking to those people it is on a more intimate and friendly level, nothing to do with debating.

4)Written debates are available to more people due to the fact it is online and people need only to log in, not travel the country. Further the transcripts can be posted easily and without cost to whomever wants to read them.

5)Another huge advantage of written debates is the fact the is no travel involved. If people live on the opposite ends of the country, then one or both has to shell out a few hundred in expenses. Whats worse, much of the preparation time is spent begging for money for air and hotel costs. The debate can be done at little to no cost online/written.

The advantages of written debate are undeniable.