Tim Staples debating Mike Gendron

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Hey guys I from time to time check out this very anti-Catholic web-site to get a heads up on the different and newest attacks agaisnt the church called Slice of Laodicea.

sliceoflaodicea.com/

Any ways I noticed that they blogged about six posts downs that Mike Gendron will be debating Tim Staples. Here is what it says:

Tomorrow at 4:30 PM, Mike Gendron of Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries has the unique opportunity to proclaim the true gospel on a national Catholic radio station. Finally someone who challenged Mike agreed to his conditions for debate:

1. “What must I do to be saved?” is the only topic.

2. Only the Bible will be used as a source for truth.

1. The debate will be in a Catholic medium or a neutral place. (Mike will not perpetuate their false doctrine in evangelical churches)

Very interesting. Why would Staples agree to do a debate against a rabid anti-catholic and use only the Bible? I mean the second guideline of the debate isn’t even biblical

Here is the web-site that the debate will be on:

relevantradio.com/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=275&srcid=809

And in case no one knows who Gendron is here is what the web-site says:

Mike Gendron is the Founder and Director of Proclaiming the Gospel Ministry. He has taught the students and faculty at The Master’s Seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody Bible and Tyndale Theological Seminary. Mike is the author of Preparing Catholics for Eternity, Which Jesus Will You Trust, Have You Ever Been Deceived and Roman Catholicism: Scripture vs. Tradition, along with other resources that make the Gospel clear to those who are trapped in religious deception. Since graduating from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1991, Mike has conducted short-term mission trips and taught in hundreds of churches throughout the world.

Notice the titles of his books. I was hoping someone with a faster internet connection could listen to this debate and tell me how it goes. My ant-catholic father in law goes to Gendron for his authority on Catholicism so I am very interesting in seeing what happens.

God bless

 

[TheApologist]

There are probably two things which could have occurred.
They could’ve lied about what they agreed to, or Tim could have agreed to use only the Bible because there’s enough evidence in it to defend our belief.

I’m interested in listening to it, though.

 

[Church_Militant]

Doesn’t look like it’s ready yet. :coffeeread:

BTW R_C, we know what’s up w/ your FIL don’t we?

 

[SamDash]

I’m sure we all remember in the Bible when the rich young man aked Jesus, “What must I do to be saved?”

Jesus responded, “Just accept me as your personal Lord and Saviour.”

Wait a minute, that doesn’t sound right…

 

[Church_Militant]

I’m sure we all remember in the Bible when the rich young man aked Jesus, “What must I do to be saved?”

Jesus responded, “Just accept me as your personal Lord and Saviour.”

Wait a minute, that doesn’t sound right…

Wonder why?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hey guys I from time to time check out this very anti-Catholic web-site to get a heads up on the different and newest attacks agaisnt the church called Slice of Laodicea.

sliceoflaodicea.com/

Any ways I noticed that they blogged about six posts downs that Mike Gendron will be debating Tim Staples. Here is what it says:

Very interesting. Why would Staples agree to do a debate against a rabid anti-catholic and use only the Bible? I mean the second guideline of the debate isn’t even biblical

Here is the web-site that the debate will be on:

relevantradio.com/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?&pid=275&srcid=809

And in case no one knows who Gendron is here is what the web-site says:

Notice the titles of his books. I was hoping someone with a faster internet connection could listen to this debate and tell me how it goes. My ant-catholic father in law goes to Gendron for his authority on Catholicism so I am very interesting in seeing what happens.

God bless

PTG can without unfairness (IMO anyway) be described as, shall we say, disinclined to bend over backwards in order to be friendly with Catholics ​

So if a poster says “Popes are ten-headed monsters from Venus”, it’s not a good idea to post a correction - it will be deleted, & the poster very likely banned.

Though, I did have a very friendly exchange - off the board, by e-mail - with one of the posters; it’s Catholicism they are against, not the “precious Catholics” (as PCs are referred to on a different site)

Sites like that may not be very pro-Catholic - but they aren’t dull either

 

[bighodag]

The biggest reason for agreeing to using the Bible alone is that under sola scriptura a Catholic can never do worse than a draw and the non-Catholic can never do better than a draw. Sola Scriptura gives the advantage to the Catholic by default.

Secondarily, Catholic doctrine is founded on scripture and never goes against scripture. Other than some personal interpretations that seem to counter Catholic doctrine, there is nothing in the Bible that actually counters Catholic doctrine.

Tim’s in a can’t lose situation. If anything, we should maybe chastise Tim for taking advantage of a a sola scriptura Christian. Doesn’t seem like a fair fight to me.

 

[YinYangMom]

I heard the first question/answer/rebuttals as I was running errands yesterday. My husband, who usually the one who debates with me about church teachings (siding with science) wouldn’t leave the car so he heard more.

From what I heard and what hubby recapped, Tim won, of course.

Bottom line is that Tim was showing that Jesus requires us to cooperate with His saving grace through our works in order to remain steadfast on our journey into heaven.

Mike’s position was that Jesus saved us already, that He promised He would never let us fall from His clutch, basically.
What he couldn’t grasp, even though Tim spells it out clearly, is that Jesus won’t let us fall because of His own doing, but because of free will we can always choose to jump out of His hands at any time. Jesus will never force us to remain in His care and that’s why Paul cautions everyone not to rest in that one moment but to continue hanging in there.

Those weren’t the words used, of course, there were lots of scriptures being volleyed, but it was the gist of it.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Why would Staples agree to do a debate against a rabid anti-catholic and use only the Bible? I mean the second guideline of the debate,2. Only the **Bible **will be used as a source for truth. isn’t even biblical

HUH??? Your comment when read sounds rather ridiculous, doesn’t it

 

[Black_Jaque]

1. The debate will be in a Catholic medium or a neutral place. (Mike will not perpetuate their false doctrine in evangelical churches)

Too Cool! Now there will be thousands of non-Catholics tuning into Catholic radio stations around the country! Not a bad thing.

1. “What must I do to be saved?” is the only topic.

And on the Judgement Day, Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats. And to the goats He will say, “begone from me! You did not accept me as your personal Lord and Savior…”

Wait. That’s not right either…

 

[Black_Jaque]

myfavoritmartin,

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the Bilble is the ONLY source of Truth. The Bible is an infallible source for Truths pertaining to Faith and Morals to which other sources of Truths can be double checked.

For example: Science may reveal a truth that the Earth revolves around the Sun. This, as a truth pertaining to the natural world, goes beyond the competence of the Bible. However, if because of this newly revealed natural truth, man begins to conclude that he is insignificant in the universe, just cosmological accident - that falls into the realm of Faith and Morals. That conclusion, extrapolated from physical evidence, when checked against the Bible would be found erroneous.

 

[pprimeau1976]

He can also use Newman’s argument regarding Paul’s instructions to Timothy that “scripture is profitable for Church teaching.” According to Paul, there was only the Hebrew Scriptures. Revelation hadn’t even been written yet.

Staples is great. He convinced me (not personally) that the Marian dogmas were scriptural. And he did it using scripture.

 

[tz620q]

To MyFavoritMartin,
First, great screen name.

Second, I think the poster responding to the criteria
“2. Only the Bible will be used as a source for truth. isn’t even biblical”
was commenting on three aspects of this statement.
First, as the basis of an apologetics debate, which of necessity, will use the rules of philosophy to establish arguments and prove or disprove them. It is a logical fallacy. Saying “only the Bible will be used as a source for truth” is the equivalent of saying that “the Bible contains all truth”, because if the Bible did not contain all truth, there would be other sources that contain the remainder.

Now, in John 21:25, the Bible says, “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

So the Bible states it is not meant to be an exhaustive biography of Jesus. This begs the question of whether the things left out of the Bible about Jesus are true. Since Jesus says he is the truth, it can be stated that whatever Jesus did was a source of the truth. The modern “Sola Scriptura” minimalist way of thinking has restricted the meaning of this to “Yea, but all that is important is there.” and the proponent of this is left sitting on a one-legged stool of truth.

The second aspect that the poster was pointing to I think was the following:
1 Timothy 3:15 “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

So to say that the Bible is the source of all truth, one must acknowledge the church as the pillar and foundation of the Bible.
To do this is to add a second leg to the stool of truth and now we have a stool with both Scripture and the church.

Finally, the verses most quoted to prove Sola Scriptura is the following:
2 Timothy 3:14-17 “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

So Paul is exhorting Timothy to remain faithful to his Apostolic teaching (Latin: traditio - handed down) and to use the sacred scriptures as well. This adds the third leg to the stool of truth. Within the Catholic viewpoint on truth, you will see Apostolic Tradition, Scripture, and the Church. I know you probably don’t agree with this viewpoint, but it is the one in which Catholic doctrine must be viewed to get an accurate picture of why we believe what we believe. To argue about Catholic doctrine using the criteria, “2. Only the Bible will be used as a source for truth.” is to argue a belief held in one paradigm from the viewpoint of a different paradigm. If one believes Thomas Kuhn’s theories on paradigm’s, (from Wikipedia) “The language and theories of different paradigms cannot be translated into one another or rationally evaluated against one another.”

Once you see the different paradigms that we come from, it is easier to understand why we seem to talk at each other and not with each other.

With all of God’s blessings

 

[myfavoritmartin]

To MyFavoritMartin,
First, great screen name.

So to say that the Bible is the source of all truth, one must acknowledge the church as the pillar and foundation of the Bible.

Of course this is not just your church! I am part of Christ church. I am one of those living stones that we see the church is. I am His and He is mine. I claim that Gods word is the truth. Like I have said. I have the very Spirit of Christ in me. He leads me into all truth through Gods written word…

 

[estesbob]

Of course this is not just your church! I am part of Christ church. I am one of those living stones that we see the church is. I am His and He is mine. I claim that Gods word is the truth. Like I have said. I have the very Spirit of Christ in me. He leads me into all truth through Gods written word…

Only if Christ waited 1500 years to found his Church. You have settled for a pale shadow of the Truth and have made yourself the final arbititor of what Gods word is. You need to come home.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Only if Christ waited 1500 years to found his Church. You have settled for a pale shadow of the Truth and have made yourself the final arbititor of what Gods word is. You need to come home.

How dare you call Christ’s church a pale shadow of truth.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

How dare you call Christ’s church a pale shadow of truth.

I can see through reading the scripture that There is no Rock other than God. Peter being a small moveable stone matches up with What we are told in scripture and how we are living stones being bult up into a spiritual house. This being the Church of Christ the Body

 

[myfavoritmartin]

I can see through reading the scripture that There is no Rock other than God. Peter being a small moveable stone matches up with What we are told in scripture and how we are living stones being bult up into a spiritual house. This being the Church of Christ the Body

Therefore if Christ is the Rock then Peter cannot be the rock. Simple as that. My question is to to you who is right? Scripture or mens teaching of scripture? This is what it all boils down to. Peter was one of the Living stones that was built up in Christ His rock. Same as any other believer. With Christ alone being the Chief Cornerstone. You tell me How God can say that He knows of no other rock than Himself? Is God true and the teachings of man not? Therefore the rock that The church was built on was none other than Christ being the Messiah… Not peter…
Therefore we are the church, not Rome alone.

 

[estesbob]

I can see through reading the scripture that There is no Rock other than God. Peter being a small moveable stone matches up with What we are told in scripture and how we are living stones being bult up into a spiritual house. This being the Church of Christ the Body

Per your personal interpertation. And of course no one gave you the authotiy to interpert Scripure for the rest of us. I did not, BTW, call the Catholic Church a pale shadow of the Truth-I commented that you have settled for a pale shadow of the truth, A truth you personally discerned via you personal interperation of scripture. When one makes themselves the sole arbitor of what Gods word means is impossible for them to arrive at the Truth.

 

[estesbob]

Therefore if Christ is the Rock then Peter cannot be the rock. Simple as that.** My question is to to you who is right? Scripture or mens teaching of scripture?** This is what it all boils down to. Peter was one of the Living stones that was built up in Christ His rock. Same as any other believer. With Christ alone being the Chief Cornerstone. You tell me How God can say that He knows of no other rock than Himself? Is God true and the teachings of man not? Therefore the rock that The church was built on was none other than Christ being the Messiah… Not peter…
Therefore we are the church, not Rome alone.

My question to you is who is right? The Church Christ founded or you personal interperation of Scripture?