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


Check this video. The priest lost the debate.


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

Phil P


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.


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


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

:smiley: 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. :thumbsup:

Enter the Magic Word and see White concede defeat

Phil P


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.


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


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…:smiley:


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.


There is something really funny in James White response.

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,



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?!?!?


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


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.


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.


Sungenis won the debate.

Actually, let me be more specific.

The two had two debates on the Mass, one in 1999 and theother in 2003. In the debate in 1999, Sungenis began on fire and was winning handily in the first half. In the second half, Mr. White began to approach the issue in ways that Mr. Sungenis had not expected and it evened out. In the 2003 debate, it is apparent that Mr. Sungenis intended primarily to finish up what he had left off. He began by addressing all of the issues he stumbled on in 1999, and so it seems that this was his intention. Taken as individual debates, I would say that Mr. Sungenis won by a small margin. Taken together as one bigger debate, I would say that Mr. Sungenis won rather handily.


i heard him say one time that he doesn’t like doing alot of debates because he thinks that it seems to turn into a theatrical peformance more than a tiem to preachb the truth


Well that would make sense then I guess. I find it funny that each video has only 4/5 ratings and they’re 5 star and they’re disabled for you to rate them. You can also read comments about how well White performed and what a gentleman he is, but you can’t write your comments and thoughts because those are disabled as well…odd isn’t it?


As much as I’d love to see Dr. Hahn embarass White, which we all know he could do, I can understand what Dr. Hahn is saying and greatly respect him for it.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit