Tim Staples vs. Matt Slick


Did anyone listen to the Tim vs. Matt debate? Tim did great. You can listen to it on carm’s podcast. Just curious if anyone else listened to it. When I lived in Idaho I used to call Matt’s radio show occasionally and debate with him and at one time he invited me on his show. I declined but I did meet with him several times to debate off the air before moving to TN. I’m glad Tim was able to be on the show. It sounds like Tim is going to be on again. I can’t wait to hear round 2.


<< I’m glad Tim was able to be on the show. It sounds like Tim is going to be on again. I can’t wait to hear round 2. >>

Thanks, I don’t keep up with these. Didn’t know Tim Staples was going to be on Matt Slick’s show. Thanks again.

Mark Bonocore was on Matt Slick’s program last year, first two weeks here, Bonocore was actually on six weeks. Not sure if Staples wants to endure that much. :stuck_out_tongue:

Phil P


LOL, this is a first! I get to tell Phil where to find a debate, here is the Staples v Slick debate free to hear:

Im listening to it now, Ill report back when its over.


dude << Im listening to it now, Ill report back when its over. >>

Ah ha thanks. I found the direct download (MP3) here (week 1).

They are saving MP3 at 64 kbps. I will boost volume, re-save at 16 kbps, and combine all weeks (MP3) that Staples does the show, and place on my audio page.

Phil P


spoiler – dont read the rest of my post unless you have listened to the show FIRST

It wasnt really a debate, it was a basic call in radio show discussion. The problem was there wasnt a real focus and so there were a lot of verses tossed around. The example of the man on a deathbed ate up a lot of time and really it was confusion on both sides as to the correct answer. Tim rightly pointed out it is God who judges (1 Cor 4:4) despite Matt insisting that Heaven was a sure thing, but in regards to is it possible to be saved if that is all the man could do that is where the confusion set in. On one hand Matt was correct it could be simply by faith but he failed to realize that those whom are able must do more than that. James 2:24 does teach faith alone justifies, but works also justify as well.

It might have seemed that Tim talked too much, but that was because Matt kept going for “quickies” (eg multiple false “either/or” questions), when the fact is this is a serious issue that should not be oversimplified with one line answers.

Also the Rich Young Man account (Mt 19) did pose a problem for Matt for he was of the wrong opinion that the commandments Jesus gave must EITHER be kept in 100% perfection OR they dont need to be kept at all…NOT realizing Jesus was not demanding 100% perfection (not to mention the Young Man did say he kept them and Jesus agreed) but a striving to follow the teachings of Jesus the best he is capable of (eg Mat 6:10-12).


I have been to Matt Slick’s website at Carm before. He has archives of his previous debates and a library of essays done by him. No offense, but even if I took Matt Slick from a Protestant point of view, I would have to say that I would find him a complete ball - end, analogous to how Enlglnd soccer fans would treat England manager Mc Claren, despite the fact that Mc Claren is a fellow Englishman. I do not mean to be rude (and take note of that) but he relies TOO much on blind faith. As we all know, reliance on blind faith alone will not get you anywhere in an academic debate.

As for Tim Staples, I hope we are not overrating him just because he is a Catholic.


I just listened to it and I’ve listened to the Mark Bonocore Matt Slick debate many times. Matt Slick made the accusation to Tim Staples that both Mark Bonocore and Tim used “verbal carpet bombing” (throwing out many scripture passages) so that he couldn’t respond to them. I guess Matt Slick needed time to look it up on his laptop? The irony is that throughout the Bonocore debate especially in the last week Slick does his own “verbal carpet bombing.”


It gets rather tiring listening to two opponents fire volleys of scriptural verses at each other quoting chapter and verse. I appreciated the relief when Tim cited the canon of the Council of Trent, a very shrewd manoever on his part considering the Council’s proximity to the Protestant Reformation. To succeed in the probogation of our faith while engaging in debate with Protestants, we must not ignore the teachings expounded by the Church Fathers and Councils. Our whole purpose is defeated if we meet non-Catholics strictly on their terms - sola scriptura.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:


Catholics are at a disadvantage to the Matt Slick type - on the one hand, if they do not quote scripture fluently then the other guy makes broad-brush comments about how Catholics don’t know the bible. If he uses scripture then the other side is conceded the Sola Scriptura position.

I think the answer was early on when Tim talked about “take it to the church” - Matt Slick was calling Tim a heretic all through the debate rather than taking him to the church - Matt Slick is really the one who has conceded the other side. I would have liked to hear Tim challenge him when he called him a heretic and ask him by what authority he was making that judgement without the church.


Strat << I would have liked to hear Tim challenge him when he called him a heretic and ask him by what authority he was making that judgement without the church. >>

Matt Slick called Mark Bonocore an apostate and heretic last year, and Bonocore challenged him “by what authority do you do that?” and Slick responded “by the authority of Matt Slick.”

You can hear that MP3 here (just a couple minutes in)

Phil P


Well, Slick is at least honest in identifying what authority he recognizes…and it apparently isn’t Sola Scriptura :).


In everything I’ve heard from Matt Slick, I can only conclude that he just crashes into his personal intellectual wall every time. Going back to the deathbed scenario (are baptism and good works necessary), he could not comprehend Tim’s explanation that it is necessary to follow the faith to the degree it is possible.

He thinks if there is an “exception” then necessarily all obligations under normal circumstances are out the window. I have to question Slick’s intelligence.

It was also really fun when Slick insisted the Catholic Church doesn’t teach a salvation by faith. :slight_smile:

I also think that Romans could be the most misunderstood book of the Bible with regard to use of the word “works” among self-identified “Calvinists” like Slick.

Slick is also a factory of false dichotomy. He thinks we can’t repent because in one spot in Scripture it says repentance comes from God.

And finally may I suggest praying for Slick? His apparent confidence that he’s going straight to heaven if he dies is not only presumptive, but would seemingly make him vulnerable to devilish diversion. As well, his utter denial that the Spirit cannot work through the Catholic Church seems perilously close to a blaspheme. I’ll be praying for him.


I’ve been praying for Matt ever since I met him. I used to live in the same town and we met several times for coffee and debate/discussion. He even had my wife and I over to his house for dinner. We had some interesting talks. My favorite thing that he ever said to me was “Man you are driving me crazy! You can’t be a Catholic because I think you are saved”.
I just chuckled and said that I’m saved everyday.


Looking forward to Round 2 :stuck_out_tongue:


Do we know when this is?


I’m curious. Have distinguished American Catholic theologians like Dr.Scott Hahn ever condescended by appearing on Matt Slick’s radio show? :shrug: Probably not. :nope: We’re talking major league baseball.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella :cool:


<< … like Dr.Scott Hahn ever condescended by appearing on Matt Slick’s radio show … >>

No, but it would go something like this:

Slick: You do understand I consider you an unbiblical, apostate, heretic, demonic, satanic, and just plain “heathen slime dog” ™ scum for rejecting justification by faith alone? You do understand that, no offense intended.

Hahn: OK. By what authority do you say that?

Slick: By the authority of Matt Slick of course. If it ain’t slick, it’s cr–. :doh2:

Phil P


The “no offense intended” part is what makes this SO real:rotfl: …


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.


Now that response was - dare I say - Slick. Pun intended. :rolleyes:

I have spoken with Mr. Slick(ster) before.

When faced with works, salvation and scripture he abdicated to anger and became illogical and wound up pitting the Council of Trent against Vatican II in an aside, last ditch and anti-catholic -derailing rhetoric where I conceded hope for him.

His web-site claims Catholics aren’t Christians but that some of them are saved even though they remain Catholic.

Me thinks he must be a fan of Jack Chick and take his authority from David Koresh. I say beware of the Jim Jones syndrome there. He already has a constituent of conspiracy theorists sending him money. :eek:

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