Tim Staples vs. Matt Slick

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pete99
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholic_Dude said:
While it is good that he point out that he considers Catholic not to be Christian, he should take care so that his words dont “poison the well” for the audience before the discussion takes place.
Click to expand...
If anyone reads Slicks self proclaimed dogam of “essentials” I would say that its already too late. No need to pander to those who are definitly against us. Only much prayer and fasting or divine intervetion itself will win that battle.
 
Yeah I’ve spoken with Tim a couple times. He’s probably good at debating Protestants seeing as he was one, but he’s really going to need practice if he wants to debate with the atheist/agnostic big guns.
 
MarcoPolo said:
This thread is closed, but you ever read this on CARM’s essentials?
Click to expand...
Hadn’t read that thread no.

Yes I have been aware of Slicks self proclaimed essentials since there were 12 of them. Not just 4 like now.

I guess all 12 didn’t work out. Especially the ones about justification and sanctification.

They are simply self proclaimed in ignorance of orthodox hermenutics.

You can’t descern correctly what sripture means by denying all that has been said since Christ died. God bless them though, they try. Father forgive them for they know not what they do. I don’t believe they realize they are indoctrinated in the protests of a revolt.

I’ve heard it said that Satans greatest victory is to convince someone he doesn’t exists. Surely then his next greatest must be to convince a soul that Jesus didn’t found a Church before Luthers revolt.
 
Joab_Anias said:
If anyone reads Slicks self proclaimed dogam of “essentials” I would say that its already too late. No need to pander to those who are definitly against us. Only much prayer and fasting or divine intervetion itself will win that battle.
Click to expand...
It might be too late for him but nice to see a solid Catholic perspective on his show. He continually beats down Catholics and unfortuately he is from my area (Boise, ID).
 
I had to laugh at the part where Matt insisted that all his past, present, and future sins have been forgiven because of Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross.

I would have asked, “So, if I proclaim Jesus as my Savior, I can go cheat on my wife and it’s already been forgiven? Wow!”

I imagine Slick’s reply would be: “No, you’re not a TRUE Christian if you’d cheat on your wife.”

“Really? So true Christians never sin? Never yield to temptation? What about [insert names of famous evangelicals here] who have been caught cheating on their spouses? Where they really saved, and if not, how did they manage to fool so many people into thinking they were?”
 
mschauble said:
It might be too late for him but nice to see a solid Catholic perspective on his show. He continually beats down Catholics and unfortuately he is from my area (Boise, ID).
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean to imply that I thought it was to late for him per se’ but only that it may be to late to expect he will listen to human and intelligent reason from a Catholic.

Last year I tried for weeks to reason with him through e-mail. In that private setting he showed his true colors too.

We must pray for the Lord to work that out. Legion wasn’t able to be expelled even by the apostles. It took Jesus himself or the prayer and fasting of the aflicted.
 
Joab_Anias said:
We must pray for the Lord to work that out. Legion wasn’t able to be expelled even by the apostles. It took Jesus himself or the prayer and fasting of the aflicted.
Click to expand...
One thing that may open his eyes is that you can bet over the last week, he has listened to every verse that Tim quoted to see if he took it out of context. If he thinks that he found one then he will bring it up and Tim will show him the true Catholic teaching. Prays are definitely needed.
 
Joab_Anias said:
Yes I have been aware of Slicks self proclaimed essentials since there were 12 of them. Not just 4 like now.
Click to expand...
And at one point he had 3. 😃
If you visit his “essentials” page now, the header of the the window still says “3”, although it lists the current “4”. :rolleyes:

Surely an infallible teacher would not change “essentials.”… :eek:
And yet he told Tim Staples, infallibly, that he Matt was going to heaven for sure… 🤷
 
Last night, Matt Slick on his show mentioned that tonight’s show will be a lot more interesting then last weeks show. Should be fun.
 
MarcoPolo said:
Maybe he plans to announce his conversion. 🙂
Click to expand...
LOL 😃

On a serious note though, the problem here is the format of the “discussion” (I wont even call it a debate), there is no main issue to focus on and it is basically a free for all.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
LOL 😃

On a serious note though, the problem here is the format of the “discussion” (I wont even call it a debate), there is no main issue to focus on and it is basically a free for all.
Click to expand...
On equal ground he cannot win. That’s why he wont venture ourside of his own controls. For him its most important to look good to his cult following.
 
Joab_Anias said:
On equal ground he cannot win. That’s why he wont venture ourside of his own controls. For him its most important to look good to his cult following.
Click to expand...
I heard his show today, it turns out Staples was stuck in traffic and had to reschedule, but it was a pretty sad display.

The first half he spent comparing the Catholic Church to Jehovas Witnesses, saying the Church kept the Bible away from the average man, saying the Church fully supported the selling of indulgences, etc blah blah blah.
(first 20 min)

He then went on about how many Protestants werent being faithful to the gospel (next 10 min)

Then for the last 30 min he had a LDS guy call in and toss back a few ideas of this and that, then the LDS man brought up Acts 2:38 in support of Baptism and this is ROUGHLY how Slick responded:

Slick: Do you consider Acts 2:38 to be a teaching on Baptism being necessary for salvation?
LDS: Yes.
Slick: Let me ask you, is faith required for salvation?
LDS: Yes.
Slick: How come Acts 2:38 doesnt mention faith then?
LDS: (stunned at such a question) faith is implied in v37.
Slick: I set a trap for you and you fell for it. Since faith is not mentioned then that verse cannot be used as a proof for Baptism being necessary for salvation.

No joke, that was the general idea of what he said about Acts 2:38. :eek:
Imagine what would happen if a Catholic explained away a verse in the Bible. He would be shouting how clear the Bible is in its teaching and that Catholics refuse to accept it.
 
Catholic_Dude said:
I heard his show today, it turns out Staples was stuck in traffic and had to reschedule, but it was a pretty sad display.

The first half he spent comparing the Catholic Church to Jehovas Witnesses, saying the Church kept the Bible away from the average man, saying the Church fully supported the selling of indulgences, etc blah blah blah.
(first 20 min)

He then went on about how many Protestants werent being faithful to the gospel (next 10 min)

Then for the last 30 min he had a LDS guy call in and toss back a few ideas of this and that, then the LDS man brought up Acts 2:38 in support of Baptism and this is ROUGHLY how Slick responded:

Slick: Do you consider Acts 2:38 to be a teaching on Baptism being necessary for salvation?
LDS: Yes.
Slick: Let me ask you, is faith required for salvation?
LDS: Yes.
Slick: How come Acts 2:38 doesnt mention faith then?
LDS: (stunned at such a question) faith is implied in v37.
Slick: I set a trap for you and you fell for it. Since faith is not mentioned then that verse cannot be used as a proof for Baptism being necessary for salvation.

No joke, that was the general idea of what he said about Acts 2:38. :eek:
Imagine what would happen if a Catholic explained away a verse in the Bible. He would be shouting how clear the Bible is in its teaching and that Catholics refuse to accept it.
Click to expand...
I have never listened and see it as a waste of time. The sad thing is that some are taken in by such tactics.

Wolf in sheeps clothing comes to mind. Of course we know that those setting traps don’t have anyones salvation in mind but only preserving thier own pride or worse.

All in all, without a concept of proper hermenutics its very easy to play angel of light and twist scripture to suit ones purpose. Even with proper hermenutics it can be difficult sometimes to descern the truth as it pleases God to leave much to mystery.

I think basically Mr Slick is bigotted and more than likely has no mirrors in his house but self portraits instead. If there is a renownd catholic out there that can dispell his blindness I would be suprised. God bless them for trying though.
 
Actually, people like this don’t make me angry anymore… just sad. I am sad for the state of his soul. While I know none of us should judge anyone else, by your fruits you will know them. “Setting Traps” is not a sign of a Christian by any stretch of the meaning of the word.

I also feel sorry for those that put their trust in these false teachers. They are being led to destruction and do not even know it…

Pray for Slick, and those that follow him…

His is a Gospel of Anger, Arrogance and Hate, and he may not even know it

In Christ
 
Catholic_Dude said:
Slick: I set a trap for you and you fell for it. Since faith is not mentioned then that verse cannot be used as a proof for Baptism being necessary for salvation.
Click to expand...
Am I the crazy person in this room or does Slick’s comment have no coherent meaning whatsoever?
 
<< 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.

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.

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

Phil P
 
Good stuff Phil. I’m not sure how that “Satan’s favorite verse” author can write an article denying the necessity of Baptism without ever addressing 1 Peter 3:21, but stranger things have happened… 😃

So do we know when Slick and Staples will square off again? Or is that still up in the air at this point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top