james white debates

[6glargento]

hey, i listened to some of the debates between catholic apologists and james white on “the best of philvaz CD”

I think that the catholic apologists won most of the time. however white seems to be convinced that the catholic church is wrong and that the early church fathers were protestants. but i hear his sister converted to catholicism. I also listened to the bible answerman debate and i think that jimmy akin did a great job defending the catholic position. Which catholic apologist do u think did the best job against him? i think that gerry matatics beat him pretty bad in the sola scriptura debate and robert sungenis beat him pretty bad in the papacy debate.

 

[jimmy]

hey, i listened to some of the debates between catholic apologists and james white on “the best of philvaz CD”

I think that the catholic apologists won most of the time. however white seems to be convinced that the catholic church is wrong and that the early church fathers were protestants. but i hear his sister converted to catholicism. I also listened to the bible answerman debate and i think that jimmy akin did a great job defending the catholic position. Which catholic apologist do u think did the best job against him? i think that gerry matatics beat him pretty bad in the sola scriptura debate and robert sungenis beat him pretty bad in the papacy debate.

Well, I haven’t listened to those debates for several years but my favorite is the video of the matatics/whilte debate on sola scriptura. It is just a short video when matatics asks white whether Christ and his apostles teach sola scriptura. It is on phil vaz’s website.

 

[MooCowSteph]

Well, I haven’t listened to those debates for several years but my favorite is the video of the matatics/whilte debate on sola scriptura. It is just a short video when matatics asks white whether Christ and his apostles teach sola scriptura. It is on phil vaz’s website.

Do you have a direct link? I combed the site but couldn’t find it. A search for “matatics” didn’t bring up anything.

 

[DNS]

Do you have a direct link? I combed the site but couldn’t find it. A search for “matatics” didn’t bring up anything.

Here it is.

Follow the instructions on the page and you will find the clip.

DISCLAIMER:
Mr. White has objected to this clip. He wants everyone to know that he is not denying the truth (at least that’s what he thinks it is) of Sola Scriptura because Sola Scriptura, he says, is a normative condition of the Church and does not apply to times when scripture is being written. However, the fact that White admits that Jesus and the Apostles did not practice Sola Scriptura makes it pretty much impossible for him to find a verse that supports Sola Scriptura, since scripture is always written when scripture is being written .

 

[MrS]

There is a 5-debate CD set available from www.catholicintl.com

In each debate, I was amazed at the patience Robert Sungenis showed to “Dr” White. Truth always trumps lies. And Sungenis has been open to more debates… White says no for a different reason every time.

Truth be told, I think White has run out of lies that Sungenis hasn’t already refuted,.

.

 

[jimmy]

Here it is.

Follow the instructions on the page and you will find the clip.

DISCLAIMER:
Mr. White has objected to this clip. He wants everyone to know that he is not denying the truth (at least that’s what he thinks it is) of Sola Scriptura because Sola Scriptura, he says, is a normative condition of the Church and does not apply to times when scripture is being written. However, the fact that White admits that Jesus and the Apostles did not practice Sola Scriptura makes it pretty much impossible for him to find a verse that supports Sola Scriptura, since scripture is always written when scripture is being written .

So in other words, it is a doctrine of men and it is not scriptural. In other words he has defined the ‘normative of the Church’. It was not the normative in the second century or at any time up to the reformation. Neither scripture nor tradition supports sola scriptura, therefore it is not to be accepted.

 

[DNS]

So in other words, it is a doctrine of men and it is not scriptural. In other words he has defined the ‘normative of the Church’. It was not the normative in the second century or at any time up to the reformation. Neither scripture nor tradition supports sola scriptura, therefore it is not to be accepted.

Exactly.

By White’s definition 2 Timothy 3:16-17 cannot teach Sola Scriptura because it was written before all the books of the Bible had been completed.

And yet White still uses 2 Tim 3:16-17 to support his view.

 

[6glargento]

Here it is.

Follow the instructions on the page and you will find the clip.

DISCLAIMER:
Mr. White has objected to this clip. He wants everyone to know that he is not denying the truth (at least that’s what he thinks it is) of Sola Scriptura because Sola Scriptura, he says, is a normative condition of the Church and does not apply to times when scripture is being written. However, the fact that White admits that Jesus and the Apostles did not practice Sola Scriptura makes it pretty much impossible for him to find a verse that supports Sola Scriptura, since scripture is always written when scripture is being written .

Since when does James White have the authority to decide what is ans isn’'t a “normative condition of the church”

 

[3sonsasa]

There is a 5-debate CD set available from www.catholicintl.com

In each debate, I was amazed at the patience Robert Sungenis showed to “Dr” White. Truth always trumps lies. And Sungenis has been open to more debates… White says no for a different reason every time.

Truth be told, I think White has run out of lies that Sungenis hasn’t already refuted,.

MrS, please check your facts before you post them. White will not debate Sungenis because of what you said. White has already given the reason why he will not debate Sungenis anymore. I believe if you put ‘Sungenis’ in the word search at aomin.org, you will find the reason why White has refused to debate Sungenis.

 

[Malachi4U]

James White NEVER debates fact - he debates style! James White relies on his wordsmith skills to win his debates. When you listen to him he avoids though questions, he just preaches his own truth. His logic is full of holes.

James is proof that winning a debate has nothing to do with facts and truth, it has everything to do with influencing people with oratory skills to believe you. Hitler lied to Germany and they loved him. Proof that good speakers can sell you a pile of horse pooh and make you think you’re eating pot roast. When you slice through James Whites speaking prowess that you think is filet mignon, you’ll find he’s feeding you a bit of Satans schismatic pooh. Yuk! What a foul taste I still have in my soul for listening to Protestant preachers for 27 years feeding me nonsense and thinking I was being fed the Word of God.

FOREVER EX-Baptist and proud of it!

 

[DNS]

MrS, please check your facts before you post them. White will not debate Sungenis because of what you said. White has already given the reason why he will not debate Sungenis anymore. I believe if you put ‘Sungenis’ in the word search at aomin.org, you will find the reason why White has refused to debate Sungenis.

White’s reason for not debating is that, to use White’s terminology, Sungenis is too “out of mainstream” in the area of Catholic apologetics.

Sungenis has in the past responded to White’s reasons for not debating him, but I’m not sure the paper is still online. To my recollection, Sungenis came to the conclusion that White was “afraid” to debate and so came up with the “out of mainstream” excuse. (On the surface, charging White of being “afraid” of Sungenis sounds silly. If you read Sungenis’ response to White, however, it will make more sense. Even though I won’t go so far as to say White was afraid of Sungenis, and even though I’m not sure it’s right to charge White of being afraid, Sungenis’ article at least shows that White was a bit inconsistent.)

In any case, White’s “out of mainstream” reason for not debating Sungenis might become less effective, since Sungenis is now distancing himself from radical traditionalists. Just recently he removed some of his criticisms of John Paul II from his website, admitting that they were too harsh. He’s also removed some of his responses to folks like Jimmy Akin, Karl Keating, Mark Shea, and Tim Staples.

 

[3sonsasa]

DNS, Still not the main reason that White will not debate Sungenis. Yes, White has said that Sungenis has distanced himself from the mainstream of Catholicism, but not the main reason for not debating him. If you check White’s archive of Dividing Line programs from 2003 April or May, he tells why he will no longer debate Sungenis. It had to do with CAI saying on its website that the authors of the 3 volume set on Holy Scripture edited by William Webster accusing the authors of ‘doctoring’ or changing the actual quotes of the Church Fathers to fit there doctrine. Not true and Sungenis ended up only giving a half-hearted apology.

SOLI DEO GLORIA!!!