Debate between a priest and James White - 1 Cor 3:10-15.

Mannyfit75 · #1 Mar 7, '07, 9:48 pm

Check this video. The priest lost the debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27ANt7L12qI

PhilVaz · #2 Mar 8, '07, 7:25 am

<< Check this video. The priest lost the debate. >>

I agree, it was a poor showing. But Fr. Stravinskas' opening and closing statements were OK. He just needed a little practice for the cross-exam, rebuttals, etc and should have had his own Palm Pilot with the Bible and all this information stored on it.

Sungenis did much better against White on purgatory and 1 Corinthians 3 in a radio debate from 2000.

Phil P

llowwelll · #3 Mar 8, '07, 7:26 am

I don't know that I would say that the priest lost this debate. I'd say that the priest did not shine as a stellar example of oratory skill, but I'd say it'd be a very long stretch to say the priest lost the debate.

It appeared to me that the priest was enagaged in a debate held in front of an obviously unfriendly audience. James White seemed to be very condescending. If you say that the priest lost the debate because James White condescendingly led the priest through his interpretation of 1 Cor 3:10-15, then I'd have to disagree. I also logically don't agree with White's interpretation of the passage; just as the priest did not agree with it.

godsent · #4 Mar 8, '07, 7:45 am

Has anyone got a video where a priest and protestant are debating this subject and the priest wins the debate?

PhilVaz · #5 Mar 8, '07, 7:56 am

<< Has anyone got a video where a priest and protestant are debating this subject and the priest wins the debate? >>

Well, its a tough one, in my opinion both Fr. Stravinskas (a 2 hour formal debate against White) and Fr. Pacwa (about 1 hour program against Walter Martin from John Ankerberg) lost their debates on the topic. What you need to do to win such a debate is be prepared with some detailed exegesis to counter White's interpretation. That's what Fr. Sungenis did and he in fact won. Order thru White or Sungenis sites.

There is a video clip (pre-You-Tube days) where White loses the Sola Scriptura debate, but you've already seen that one.

Enter the Magic Word and see White concede defeat

Phil P

japhy · #6 Mar 8, '07, 8:03 am

I think White is missing the meaning of 1 Cor 3:14-15. Here are a bucket-load of translations:

(RSV) If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. / If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
(NAB) If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. / But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.
(KJV) If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. / If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
(DR) If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. / If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
(LV) si cuius opus manserit quod superaedificavit mercedem accipiet / si cuius opus arserit detrimentum patietur ipse autem salvus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem
(BNV) Si cuius opus manserit, quod superaedificavit, mercedem accipiet; / si cuius opus arserit, detrimentum patietur, ipse autem salvus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem.

Where is the confusion? All who go through the "fire" of purgatory are cleansed and are saved, and thus rewarded, whether their works perish or not. The Greek word is sozo, which Strong's indicates is never translated as "preserved", so Paul did not mean that the fire would destroy the works but preserve the person, so as to receive Hell or Heaven. Paul meant that the person would be saved -- that is, receive final salvation.

6glargento · #7 Mar 8, '07, 11:25 am

i love how the guy who posted this video on youtube only has videos of white talking but never his opponent

junostarlighter · #8 Mar 8, '07, 2:42 pm

dr. white reminds me of my philosophy professors. they're very very clever men. does that mean they're right? of course not! it just means they're very good at hiding....

japhy · #9 Mar 8, '07, 4:27 pm

After a bit of a study of the Greek of several passages in the New Testament, I'm even more sure that Paul wrote sozo meaning saved in the sense of "receiving salvation", not in the sense of "preserved".

Compare Rom 10:9-13, 1 Cor 5:5, and 2 Cor 6:2 (which use sozo or soteria (which is derived from sozo) for "saved" or "salvation") with 2 Pet 2:4, 2 Pet 3:7, Jude 1:1, and Jude 1:6 (which use tereo for "reserved" or "kept" or "preserved"). Paul and the other writers of the New Testament used sozo for being saved by Jesus, and they used tereo for being preserved or kept for something.

El_camino · #10 Mar 8, '07, 5:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilVaz

There is a video clip (pre-You-Tube days) where White loses the Sola Scriptura debate, but you've already seen that one.

Enter the Magic Word and see White concede defeat

Phil P

There is something really funny in James White response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by James White

In case the name doesn't ring a bell, he's the one who took 15 seconds from a cross examination with Gerry Matatics on sola scriptura where Matatics asked if the Apostles practiced sola scriptura and I answered they did not (sola scriptura to the normative condition of the church, not to times of enscripturation, of course), and touts this as my "admission" that sola scriptura is not true, etc. I suppose I could ask a Roman Catholic opponent someday if Peter functioned as the Pope during Christ's ministry, and when he said, "Well, no, of course not" I could cut him off, make a clip, and tout it as an admission that Peter wasn't the Pope, but that kind of argumentation is only effective upon those who are not interested in the truth to begin with.

Well there are two things that strike as wrong here

Sola Scriptura, to be valid, had to had been clearly taught and maintained by the Apostles and Christ in scripture, otherwise, it self-refutes, that is, it itself cuts its own roots. Al least, if the apostles and Christ intended us to follow Sola Scriptura, but themselves did not follow it, they would have warned VERY CLEARLY, saying TODAY do not follow it, but after we are gone follow it. Such thing is NOT found in scripture.

If Peter did not act or functioned as the Pope during Christ's ministry is not a good comparison, because HE DID act, according to Scripture, as the Pope, so Peter acting as the POPE is more scriptural than Sola Scriptura, but even IF IT WASN'T, it does not CONTRADICT itself like Sola Scriptura does.

Many regards,

E.C.

**NotWorthy** · #11 Mar 8, '07, 6:09 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_camino

If Peter did not act or functioned as the Pope during Christ's ministry is not a good comparison, because HE DID act, according to Scripture, as the Pope, so Peter acting as the POPE is more scriptural than Sola Scriptura, but even IF IT WASN'T, it does not CONTRADICT itself like Sola Scriptura does.

Besides, how could Peter act as the representative of Christ in Christ's absence ("Vicar of Christ" to be more precise) when Christ was not absent yet?!?!?

6glargento · #12 Mar 9, '07, 3:18 pm

i was looking at some of the other white debates that that same guy posted. I looked at the one where white debates sungenis on the mass. wow the white supporters are really bashing sungenis, but i think that sungenis won the debate by alot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT4Vx3zq9JI

mark a · #13 Mar 9, '07, 3:48 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mannyfit75

Check this video. The priest lost the debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27ANt7L12qI

I salute any Catholic who would defend the faith by "debating" someone with a style like James White. These debaters do not enter these debates blindly. They are putting personal pride aside in the hope that reasonable folk will be able to know the truth when they hear it.

junostarlighter · #14 Mar 9, '07, 9:20 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6glargento

i was looking at some of the other white debates that that same guy posted. I looked at the one where white debates sungenis on the mass. wow the white supporters are really bashing sungenis, but i think that sungenis won the debate by alot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT4Vx3zq9JI

I love it how the DrOakley1689 disabled comments for the video too. I love it how Sungenis rips into him. I wonder what would happen if White went off against Scott Hahn.

Lazerlike42 · #15 Mar 9, '07, 9:33 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by junostarlighter

I love it how the DrOakley1689 disabled comments for the video too. I love it how Sungenis rips into him. I wonder what would happen if White went off against Scott Hahn.

Dr. Oakley is a pseduonym that Mr. White uses.

While I do not wish to speak for him, my understanding is that Dr. Hahn will not debate him because of what some would consider to be an oftentime uncharitable spirit.