Tim Staples vs. Matt Slick

[Catholic_Dude]

Am I the crazy person in this room or does Slick’s comment have no coherent meaning whatsoever?

Keep in mind I was paraphrasing, but I listened to that part of the show again here:
carmpodcasting.blogspot.com/2007/10/matt-slick-teaching-on-reformation-and.html

It starts at about time 45:43 and this is virtually word for word:
“If it [acts 2:38] is a doctrinal statement of what is required to be saved and faith is not included in this doctrinal statement, then it cannot be comprehensively stated as being a doctrinal statement of what is required to be save. I set you up, and you fell right into it.”

<< Am I the crazy person in this room or does Slick’s comment have no coherent meaning whatsoever? >>

Not crazy, even I who am not a phone person would reply to Slick immediately: faith may not be mentioned, but repentance is – “repent, and be baptized” – and repentance implies and requires faith. You don’t repent if you don’t believe.

The LDS guy tried something similar to that.

But you’re right, his objection doesn’t make much sense. Normally folks try to argue the “for” (Greek eis) means not “in order to” but “because of” or “because you already have…” For example:

Be baptized in order to receive remission of sins
vs.
Be baptized because of (you have) remission of sins

Or as Hank Hanegraaff explains this, “you take an aspirin for a headache” means you take an aspirin “because you have” a headache.

They get this from other uses of “for” such as Matthew 12:41 “…because they repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonas…” See Acts 2:38 – Satan’s Favorite Bible Verse which argues this.

The problem is that Acts 2:38 isn’t the only verse in the Bible which deals with salvation. While many claim to “speak where the scriptures speak and remain silent where the scriptures are silent,” they practically ignore most of the New Testament teaching on salvation. The only verses that such false teachers quote and reference are the ones they feel they can use to promote their “water gospel.” The fact is that most of what the New Testament says about salvation doesn’t include baptism at all! (John 5:24, John 11:25-26, John 14:6, Romans 4:5, Romans 10:9-13, Eph. 2:8-9, etc.), and the few places that do mention water baptism do not include it as part of one’s salvation.
LOL! How do you like “most of what the NT says”?

Needless to say, none of the Fathers saw the need to argue away baptismal regeneration with such grammatical gymnastics.

What happened to Scripture being so clear the average man can understand it? What about the Nicene Creed “I acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins”?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Keep in mind I was paraphrasing, but I listened to that part of the show again here:
carmpodcasting.blogspot.com/2007/10/matt-slick-teaching-on-reformation-and.html

I know you were paraphrasing, but it’s just Slick’s style. He just doesn’t make sense.

Sadly, if you do a google search for the phrase “1 Peter 3:21”, the first site that comes up is Matt Slick’s explanation of how it doesn’t mean it’s necessary. Now how do you suppose he got that primacy???

 

[adam_in_ohio]

I’m gona have to here this

 

[Joab_Anias]

Now how do you suppose he got that primacy???

Ahhh, he stole the keys to the internet!

 

[Larry_B]

I understand that they are supposed to get together again on Matt’s show on Tuesday, November 13th.

Larry

 

[Manphibian]

Matt Slick is the absolute worst debater I have ever heard. Catholic Apologists wipe the floor with him.

I don’t know why he even bothers, especially seeing as how he is a calvinist.

As Chesterton said, “If there is no free will, well, there is no reason to discuss it.”

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Matt Slick is the absolute worst debater I have ever heard. >>

Oh? I’ve heard worse. Is the right room for a debate? I told you once. When? Just now.

Phil P

 

[cranster]

“Setting Traps” is not a sign of a Christian by any stretch of the meaning of the word.

It reminds me of mark 8:11 “The Pharisees came to Jesus and began to ask him questions. Hoping to trap him.”

It’s interesting who he thinks like.

 

[Good_Fella]

It reminds me of mark 8:11 “The Pharisees came to Jesus and began to ask him questions. Hoping to trap him.”

It’s interesting who he thinks like.

Meanwhile, faith and baptism are not mutually exclusive. Baptism is an act of faith. And Baptism is the sacrament of faith, although the faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith - but a beginning that must develop in time. The Calvinistic notion of faith amounts to a complete form of knowledge which is required for one’s salvation. This sort of theology is a brand of gnosticism. :yup:

“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved.”
Mark 16:16

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Ziggy]

They debated again last night. The podcast is available for download on CARM’s website.

 

[mschauble]

How did the debate go? What were your thoughts?

 

[Ziggy]

How did the debate go? What were your thoughts?

It was very messy. Tim talked over Matt a lot but I think he was trying to be clear since Matt seemed to misunderstand/interpret/present (whatever isn’t offensive) what Tim was saying. I felt Matt focused on semantics to make a point but never got to it IMO. I think it would go better if they introduced structure into the talk. They argued over baptism vs “water” baptism for a bit and then they were all over the place. I have to say though, I found it interesting. Now if they could get structure and more time, it might go better.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It was very messy. Tim talked over Matt a lot but I think he was trying to be clear since Matt seemed to misunderstand/interpret/present (whatever isn’t offensive) what Tim was saying. I felt Matt focused on semantics to make a point but never got to it IMO. I think it would go better if they introduced structure into the talk. They argued over baptism vs “water” baptism for a bit and then they were all over the place. I have to say though, I found it interesting. Now if they could get structure and more time, it might go better.

I have only heard half of the show but you are pretty much right so far. There was no structure so it turned into a free for all. While I think Tim talked too much he made some solid arguments which Matt had no answer for.

And yes there was a lot of semantics going on in that “talk”.

 

[Pete99]

Did anyone hear #3? I just listened to it. I’m not sure if anything was accomplished. I do think Tim should have asked Matt what Matt believes is necessary for salvation.

 

[Alexius]

Faith in Christ: Doesn’t Tim Staples believe in Christ? So how is he going to hell? Because he is Roman Catholic? Isn’t that a work?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Alexius]

I just listened to the first “debate” and I’m not too impressed…Matt Slick was borderline nasty at times and the justification by faith was confusing. I understand, though, that the on-the-spot questions are difficult to answer, but the whole justified by faith and how the Law applies was misleading me. It seems that the argument of misinterpretation could go either way, but I would tend to put more weight on Tim Staples. His argument for the dual natures of Christ was a very good argument, IMHO. I know when I was in grade school, I would challenge my Reformed teachers with passages such as the passage of the rich man and Jesus telling him to obey the commandments. The teacher couldn’t/wouldn’t give me an answer other than I was wrong. He said we’d discuss it later, but I never heard him mention it again…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Did anyone hear #3? I just listened to it. I’m not sure if anything was accomplished. I do think Tim should have asked Matt what Matt believes is necessary for salvation.

I didnt even know it was out, thanks for the tip.