Discussing the Beckwith vs. Koukl debate

[zemi]

Hi is anyone here who listened to the debate?

The link to it is on Jimmy’s site

Will we discuss it a bit?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Hi is anyone here who listened to the debate? The link to it is on Jimmy’s site Will we discuss it a bit?

I think some folks are already discussing the debate on this thread:

Dr. Francis Beckwith

Or did you mean something different for this thread?

 

[zemi]

I think some folks are already discussing the debate on this thread:

Dr. Francis Beckwith

Or did you mean something different for this thread?

Thank you very much. I didn’t notice.

 

[PhilVaz]

In my opinion, it wasn’t a debate. Beckwith expected an interview, but Koukl tried to make it into a debate. But I don’t fault Koukl since he is probably just giving his standard objections to Catholicism, as he does to callers who have questions or challenge him. I found the show very interesting. They are friends and have collaborated in the past.

If you want to hear how Koukl responds to the historical arguments for Catholicism, you should listen to his 06-17-2007 show. You can download it if you simply change the file name to that MP3 file from the current one. Basically, he responds “Just read the Book of Acts” and “The Roman Catholic Church didn’t exist until well after 350 AD” and “Any Christian evangelical can easily claim the first 400 years of the Church.” It is a joke and sad that Koukl thinks that is a good argument after (what) 30+ years as an ex-Catholic, pastor, and radio host.

You can listen to these here

I saved at lower quality but might improve it. I include the Beckwith interview after a couple calls from previous shows leading up to it. This makes for some context for the Interview.

Phil P

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Basically, he responds “Just read the Book of Acts” and “The Roman Catholic Church didn’t exist until well after 350 AD” and "Any Christian evangelical can easily claim the first 400 years of the Church

On the blog linked in the other Beckwith thread, James White puts forward an interesting take on the Church’s non-role in determining Scripture. It’s refutable, but wiley. Take a look.

Also what do folks think about asking the Moderator to merge this thread with the first thread?

 

[zemi]

In my opinion, it wasn’t a debate. Beckwith expected an interview, but Koukl tried to make it into a debate. But I don’t fault Koukl since he is probably just giving his standard objections to Catholicism, as he does to callers who have questions or challenge him. I found the show very interesting. They are friends and have collaborated in the past.

If you want to hear how Koukl responds to the historical arguments for Catholicism, you should listen to his 06-17-2007 show. You can download it if you simply change the file name to that MP3 file from the current one. Basically, he responds “Just read the Book of Acts” and “The Roman Catholic Church didn’t exist until well after 350 AD” and “Any Christian evangelical can easily claim the first 400 years of the Church.” It is a joke and sad that Koukl thinks that is a good argument after (what) 30+ years as an ex-Catholic, pastor, and radio host.

You can listen to these here

I saved at lower quality but might improve it. I include the Beckwith interview after a couple calls from previous shows leading up to it. This makes for some context for the Interview.

Phil P

Yup. I’ll listen to it right awat. I used to listen to every Greg’s show once. Apart from the Catholic issues I quite like him, especially when he has to say something about moral relativism.

 

[zemi]

On the blog linked in the other Beckwith thread, James White puts forward an interesting take on the Church’s non-role in determining Scripture. It’s refutable, but wiley. Take a look.

Also what do folks think about asking the Moderator to merge this thread with the first thread?

I’ll surely look at

I’ll ask the Mods.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread closed. We now rejoin the other thread already in progress.
Dr. Francis Beckwith
MF