Really? I thought he was kind of weak. But, he seems like a really nice guy. It was a very civil debate.There is an excellent debate on salvation between John Martignoni and Dr. James Saxon right here
biblechristiansociety.com/download
Dr Saxon does a GREAT job of stating his case. Almost had me convinced…almost.
Enjoy and God Bless.
Saxon is indeed an exceedingly nice guy–he’s on the staff at mine & my wife’s church. (We even debated civilly over predestination once.) If he seemed weak, you must have caught him on a bad day–the man knows his stuff, even if I don’t agree with much of it.
Well, essentially, the debates I’ve heard have protestant representatives who just toss around fallacies of argument, amateurish logic, and the “absolutization” of single passages, and I feel like I’m not getting the best of what non-Catholics have to offer. If a non-Catholic wants to hear the Catholic position, I would want them to hear the best of Catholics who can explain the faith. Ruckman and others are just wastes of time. I’d like to hear from honest protestants. He’s just an anti-Catholic, and I’ve heard too many like him. Not too many of them get into the Greek, or actually address passages that Catholics cite regarding Catholic teaching. I might consider James White as was suggested in this thread, but I read Pat Madrid’s article here and was hesitant because he sounded like an anti-Catholic, waste of time.
I heard this and I have to agree with leonie that Dr. Saxon was quite poor in his debate. He doesn’t address the Catholic “passages” on works, and when he finally tackled the one on “what good is faith without works”, he went on a personal feelings soliloquy of sorts. And his final thought on sola fide was a personal testimony of his own feelings. I learn nothing from this kind of “exegesis” except that it’s irrational. As for John Martignoni in that debate, he was at his best.
Generally speaking reasonable and moderate Protestants don’t go around debating Catholics. They have better things to do with your time.
Then do you know of any of these reasonable Protestants who, not in a debate format, can give better explanations of Protestant doctrines or why they don’t accept Catholic doctrines in the way I’ve described? I’d like to think there are some Protestant leaders who can do so in a charitable way.
Sorry, meant to include that I’m most interested in MP3s of these folks in post #11. But a web link would help too, if you know of any. Thx!
He’s independent Baptist, KJV-only, and most independent Baptists think he’s way off in left field (or right field, if you prefer).
yep youve been there. sometimes I wanna pull my hair out and its a very good thing Im not God (Bruce Almighty) all I can say is its strengthened God to me, Im surprised He doesnt have a headache THIS BIG putting up daily with all our little minds.Yeah, I agree with Kitty Chan, debate atheists then. Here’s a great site for it:
whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/
Many are ex-pastors, etc, know the Hebrew and Greek ,all that sort of stuff. Some will be arguing the Christian side, and some the atheistic side. Often times both will be trained in theolgy, hermeneutics, exegesis, church history, higher criticism, etc. Beware you will be personally attacked. Give out as little about yourself as possible, and keep it about the argument, because when they get frustrated they will attack you personally. I actually found it quite addictive and learned a lot.
Most Prots that I know tend to be preachers rather than debaters, and if you don’t want to be swayed, then there is no point me searching evangelical sites for you, although I’d tend maybe towards Anglican scholars. In fact, one of the reasons that Catholics have it so good is that the theology, exegesis and tradition has developed over 2,000 years. You can’t expect a 100 year old church like the AOG to compete with that. It is one of the reasons we are converting.
However, at the forum listed above you will not be bored, I can assure you!
Kitty, Satanists are even better (more fun), they already believe in God too. Although I think it is considered rude to invade their sites now though.
If that’s true, it bodes poor for the non-Catholic debaters. Beyond the article by Patrick I cited earlier, I’ve browsed James White’s site. Karl’s description of him (as quoted by White) as someone who wants “to draw attention to himself” seems quite plausible. He has a strange, victimhood-esque tendency to highlight when someone won’t debate him (example 1 and example 2)…the implication, I suppose, is that those who won’t debate him won’t do so because they know James White is right and they are wrong. What kind of nonsense is this? No wonder some people won’t debate him.
I would second what Edwin says; reasonable Protestants see no reason to debate fellow Christians in the faith, especially in a high school debate-type (i.e.,“forensics”) format. Nothing wrong with apologetics, but it has its place.