Matatics “redeemed” himself on sola scriptura in their 1997 rematch. They’ve actually debated 3 times on that subject (the 1990 one is unavailable).How can I find that Mass one (vs Matatics)? I looked through A&O Ministries and couldn’t find it. Google’s not helping me either.Marco << he gave Matatics a tie on the subject of the Mass/Eucharist in 1992 >>
Yes, that’s another one I forgot. White definitely lost that one. I put it at 7 Matatics vs. 3 White, or could be an 8 to 2. Even White says it was a tie. Matatics didn’t let White get away with anything in that debate, since Matatics was a little timid in their sola scriptura debate from 1992 (held the previous evening I think), wasting precious minutes putting in a “plug” for Vincent Lewis. Those were the days.
Too bad Matatics has been kind of fringe the past 15 years, but what you hear in these debates is standard classic orthodox Catholic apologetics and standard anti-Catholic Reformed baptist (for the most part) teaching.
Phil P
I realize this was posted a while ago, but I do want to clear the air: James White is NOT hesitant to debate Catholic apologists, Catholic apologists are hesitant to debate James White. Anyone who takes the time to read White’s blog would know this. Please understand that. I am a practicing Catholic, I am not saying that becasue I am biased towards White, I am saying that becasue it is true. Now, why they are hesitant to debate White I don’t know, you would have to ask them, but it is the Catholic Apologists who tend not to want to debate White.
Yes, he does, (which I even think White realizes) but that was not a debate, that was a radio discussion which is far different. (White takes great pains to point this out- which is why I think White feels that Akin had the upper hand during the discussion. White continues to challange Akin for this reason to a “real” debate.)
Staples not only lost on the opening, he lost during the Q and A. In debates, the real debate comes during the Q and A. It as in the Q and A that White twisted him up like a Pretzel.
White was very fond of your comments (to a point) in the Staples/Purgatory debate thread earlier this year. I agree that White likes debating anybody (except for Sungenis for a little while there). But I think it is hardly the case that you can blanketly say Catholics are “hesitant” to debate White. Have you ever been to his debates page? He must have like 40 debates there versus Catholics. I don’t get this myth he advances that Catholics are so afraid to debate him—except for 40 times versus variety of opponents.
Ah, you remember that? Actually I had forgotten about that, but yes you are correct. I was rather taken aback when he read those comments on air.
Perhaps I should rephrase: Catholic Answers, the largest, most public and well known organization is hesitant. Staples admitted this to me when I met him back in 2006. Staples claimed that Karl Keating did not want to keep giving White a platform. (Which I take to mean something along the lines of “Let’s ignore him then he will go away.”) White is not going away, in fact his organization seems to be growing, and White seems to be gaining in popularity. Christopher Hitchens was supposed to debate him until he contracted cancer. If White was truly a no body (as Catholic Answers wants to portray) someone of Hitchen’s pay grade (for lack of a better word) would not be taking him on. You think if I challanged someone like Hitchens to debate he would take my up on it? No- even if I had the credentials to do so. Why? Becasue I am a no body, who no one knows.
Yes, but it seems to me most of those debates are from the early 2000’s. Staples debated White on Purgatory- but that was a radio debate wasn’t it? That was not a public moderated official debate.
The problem with Augustine is that in places he seems to anticipate what would become the Calvanist view of the Eucharist, and in places he is very Catholic. It is clear that the terminology and lanquage of Augustine was not refined.
I do not see Catholic Answers in the arena of debate much period. You don’t see them debating Hitchens or R.C. Sproul instead, as if they also consider them all “nobodies” as you suggest. Not debating someone does not mean you must think they are “nobody” even if James White thinks that about you, as you say. There could be any other reasons someone is not interested in debating someone else, the least of which is not the fact that you’ve debated him several times already and don’t have the same rabid obsession for more debates that White does.
Would I ever publicly debate him? Probably not. Could I ever? Probably, with much practice. Do I practice this kind of formal debating? No. Fair point, I am only trying to say that ignoring him does not make him go away.
No, I am not dissuaded, becasue my Faith is stronger (by God’s Grace) then the powers of human intellect. I know that the Catholic Church is the real deal not by intellect alone, but by Faith.
Yes, I have been to that website. I interacted with Phil over email some time ago. At that time he was studying philosophy in college.
Oh, indeed I have! Indeed sir! Let there be no mistake, White’s head is the size of a blimp. But Catholic Answers have taken their fair share of swipes and jabs at him.
Such is the nature of polemical writtings.
Yes, I have to say he made me laugh with his “Steve Ray Jones” bit.
In the end what I am trying to say is this: White is one of the best Protestant apologists around, and what does Catholic Answers do? Waste their time with the Jack Chick type Protestant apologists and then congradulate themselves on how well they do against them. Why? Why waste time with the Jack Chick’s? They are the one’s CA ought to ignore becasue anyone with half a brain would know what idiot’s they are.
That’s fair enough. I wouldn’t spend much on Chick either, although it seems people have been getting his stuff in the mail or something more in the last year or two, so that may be a factor if people are asking CA for rebuttals. Anyway, you’re entitled to your opinion—I’m far less impressed with White’s arguments than you are (and I think he’s been responded to quite thoroughly anyway), but I will say I’ve learned some things in listening to debates in which he participated.
Yes, I agree, he tones it down a lot more when he’s not in front of his core audience. I don’t know if you’ll ever see Hahn do a debate…has he ever? There’s that time on Bible Answer Man in '91 I think? Wasn’t really a debate but more of a sharing of views. Martignoni I like, but I don’t know that his knowledge is vast enough to respond to things White would throw at him in an oral setting. I see Martignoni as a good explainer of basic apologetics.I think you got that right. Most of these kind of negative statements come out in his written material or on his webcast/radio program. It gets annoying. But to be fair, you normally don’t find this in his oral debates. Still reason enough for CA to ignore him for now. But would I very much look forward to a White vs. Hahn or White vs. Martignoni debate? Probably.
