How anyone can truly believe that James was being “rude” is beyond me. I’m going to assume you have not listened to many well moderated debates. During a cross examination, the individual asking questions….is supposed to ask questions and NOT make statements.
*The debate gets good when both parties are like that especially when no malice intent is involved. Even more so when both parties know each really believes their positions to heart.*
I believe everything that Dr. White stood for. I agree with him completely. I follow Dr. White and appreciate his teaching. My theology is very close to his and I love him as a brother. I also believe he handily won the debate, it wasn’t even a contest. All that said, I do believe there were times that he was being a bit unnecessarily rude or sarcastic. That said, Mr. Riello returned fire and behaved likewise. Dr. White’s behavior does not justify Mr. Riello’s response.
I don't undestand the people who criticize Dr. White for being impatient or rude during cross exam. In asking a "question" Tom started a quote from Calvin at 1:24:00. Read the huge quote, then made his own application. It took until 1:25:40 for him to actually ask a question. He spent 100 seconds making a presentation. We would all be frustrated by that.
@@bretscott2018 What White doesn't like especially by Catholics is his own words being used against him, or showing how the application of a particular scriptural passage contradicts his own understanding or that of one of the reformers. Of course he always jumps back to his subjective view of the scriptures, and his fallible interpretation of the ancient languages, but that's neither here nor there.
He just does that. I listened to a few of his debates and this is how he behaves - especially if he feels threatened by the other person. This is an observation, I am not taking a stand for or against him. Btw, I don't believe he felt threaten at all in this debate, it's just his style.
What White doesn't like us when Catholic's twist his own words and especially when Catholic's twist the interpretation of scripture to make it coincide with their man-made tradition.
@@Silverhailo21you are clearly biased. Follow the rules of the debate. Period. Tom should’ve made himself aware of those rules and abided by them. He didn’t and it was frustrating to anyone listening.
Amen. One of many visible errors that are huge, many saved children of God inside these gatherings who are currently practicing blasphemy and idolatry, my many sins are in need to be crushed , may God have mercy and the spirit stomp them and reveal them more to hatred in my own members as well as open these eyes. I stand in no different aspect, but this is where you come to be in fellowship worship and learn, to give your life and members of Christ to the home and world as well not where you go against what Gods word has said. It matters NONE , what a father says or a formal or former member or a saint not in scripture , God says it , that settles it - sola scriptura
As a former Catholic, I hear the spiritual pride in the things that he said and the tone in which he said them. It makes me sad because I said similar things. The “we have the best and you all have trimmings dropped from our table” attitude is so counter to the gospel.
I was completely astonished at how unprofessional Mr. Riello acted. This was not only seen when he was speaking, but also when Dr. White was making his opening statements and initial rebuttal. God Bless James White!
This was a basic slam dunk for James White. I have to wonder how a better debater would have done in Tom's place. He honestly has no business debating.
I believe this debate will bring many out of Roman Catholicism or at least make them question their allegiance to Rome. Another great debate performance by James. The scriptures couldn’t be clearer. Jesus’ once for all sacrifice perfects all to whom it was made.
The more I unpack the creeds, history, and teachings of Roman Catholicism, the more I realize how they make the Judaizers look tame, in comparison, and Paul anathematized them. How completely appropriate that they would then anathematize those who reject adding all of these traditions to the sufficiency of Christ's saving work on the cross.
AN excellent defense and Biblical polemic on the nature of the true sacrifice of Christ and its benefits - great job Dr. White - praise our Triune God.
1:41:20 is quite embarrassing for Tom. The fact he feels the need to shout over his opponent speaks volumes. Dr White articulated all points in light of Scripture.
The Mass is, indeed, inadequate. This inadequacy becomes evident when we juxtapose the Mass with each and every exposition of the gospel found within the entirety of God's holy Scripture. It is, quite literally, as straightforward as a comparative analysis. Objective hermeneutical principles affirm that Christ perfects us through a singular, definitive act of redemption by His shed blood; conversely, the Mass, as delineated by Rome, renders individuals bereft of real hope and peace.
Riello seems to be under the illusion that if a Protestant agrees with one thing a Church Father wrote, he is obligated to agree with everything that Father wrote.
This is where Dr White is his best I think. I owe a great deal of gratitude to Dr White for I am one who was convinced of Calvinism in part by his interview on the CRI Hannegraff program many years ago . I would have hoped that he would be more inclined to Amilliennialism and 1689 federalist views but can’t have everything in one man I guess :)
I thought I was going to see a serious debate. Only one side was serious and it wasn't on the Roman Catholic side I can assure you. The debate was over before it even began.
This started off with both guys making actual statements and points but Mr Riello just completely gives up During Dr White's Cross Exam. It feels almost like Mr Riello is trying to filibuster with the amount of time he is taking to say almost nothing to White's questions. Very disappointing.
It’s like two mathematicians debating whether or not 2+2 equals 4. One denies it, one affirms it. The denier would of course tend to go on and on with ruck sacks of words, using tangential metaphors and emotional appeals, saying things like, “See, you have to understand,” and, “well, if you just look at it this way, then . . . “ But then, such is necessary if one is to try to convince a crowd that a number other than 4 is the correct one.
I feel that Tom is a genuinely nice guy. And he believes what he says. However, unless you posess the Righteousness of Christ, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. That is Gods gift to you through the Gospel. That is the good news.
I don’t know much about catholic theology, I’m still learning through Dr White’s alpha and omega ministries . But when the other guy said to James white ‘do you accept Mary as the arc of the covenant’ I was fumbled . Do catholics believe that 😟??
yes the Blessed Virgin is a type. most types and shadows in the OT apply to Jesus. a few apply to the Theotokos. This is not an exclusively RC belief either. It was argued by both Protestant Reformers during the reformation and by Eastern Orthodox theologians past and present.
Haha, Mary as the ark of the covenant is one of the tame Marian teachings from the Roman Catholic Church. Wait until you see what else they teach about Mary.
@@SamOwenI you are mistaken when you think Mary as ark of the covenant is a "roman catholic" teaching. it also appears in protestant and orthodox mariology.
The frustration experienced by either side ultimately falls on the moderator, for there was none. And even though James' frustration is warranted, the solution was not for the moderator to jump in and try to explain James' position.
I attend Tom’s bible study and he’s a great guy. The debate was like a destroyer escort going against a battleship. Tom did his best but was punching way above his weight.
Mr. Tom Riello proved exceptionally difficult to regard with any degree of seriousness. His mannerisms, reactions, and overtly perceptible condescension were distracting and diminished the efficacy of his argumentation. His reasoning faltered independently, yet his expressions, so to speak, compounded the detriment.
Having to do the Mass in the first place shows that you don't have faith in the sufficiency of Christ's propitiation once for all sins,for all times for His People.
If you believe God causes Christians to suffer from sins that Christ didn't propitiate,in purgatory, then how can a man,a preist, shorten that time for money?
@@hailholyqueen Going into hostile Muslim countries to tell a bunch of Muslims that Islam is false is “small potatoes”? Interesting take lol Curious, how many debates have you done to the glory of God?
Tom, With all that James has written, discussed and debated surrounding the debate thesis, you should have been FAR better prepared - you allowed your ego to hinder the cross examination segment of the debate.
The Catholic representative needs to take a few courses on Debate Etiquette. Very rude, confrontational, not knowing the rules. Disappointing from the Catholic representative. Shame on him.
Dr. White says Marian dogmas don't develop until much later on but then says Athanasius was influenced by the early development of Marian dogmas. It's hilariously obvious a double standard.
The dogmas such as the bodily assumption and perpetual virginity developed later on, but a Catholic today must believe them to be in fellowship with the church. Just because Athanasius was influenced by developed teachings on Mary, doesn't mean he held to the dogmas taught by the RCC today. Think about it.
Athanasius lived over 250 years after the time of Christ and the Apostles, so the Marian dogmas that were starting to develop in his time WERE doing so much late than the Apostolic era.
Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, in offering himself. - Hebrews 7:27 Jesus Christ offered himself but once in a bloody manner on the cross; but, besides this bloody offering, he still continues to offer himself in an unbloody manner. This he does both in heaven and upon earth; in heaven, by presenting his sacred humanity continually to his Father; and on earth, by daily offering himself, under the appearances of bread and wine, on our altars. Hence this eucharistic sacrifice is both a commemoration and continuation of the sacrifice of the cross. To understand this, it must be observed, that the essence of a sacrifice includes several actions, the principal of which are the immolation of the victim, and the oblation of the victim when immolated. Now the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, ended only as to the bloody immolation; the same victim is still immolated mystically, by the separate consecration of the bread and wine, and continues as the oblation. Jesus Christ, in quality of the eternal high priest, has carried his victim, i.e. his body, into heaven, and there offers it continually to his Father. He continues also his sacrifice here on earth, by the ministry of his priests: who to the end of time will offer to God the same immolated victim, present on our altars under the appearance of bread and wine a sacrifice infinitely perfect, since a God is the priest, and a God the victim. The chief-priest who offers it is a God-man; the victim offered is a Man-God: a God the victim, offered by a God the priest! Behold a sacrifice truly worthy of God a sacrifice capable of atoning not only for our sins, but for the sins of ten thousand worlds. What confidence then ought Christians to have in such a sacrifice! How solicitous ought they to be to assist daily at these awful, or, to use St. Chrysostom's expression, these tremendous mysteries! Let us now examine the sentiments of learned Protestant divines: "It is certain "says Dr. Grabe, "that Iren us and all the Fathers, either contemporary with the apostles, or their immediate successors, whose writings are still extant, considered the blessed Eucharist to be the sacrifice of the new law, and offered bread and wine on the altar, as sacred oblations to God the Father; and that this was not the private opinion of any particular Church or teacher, but the public doctrine and practice of the universal Church, which she received from the apostles, and they from Christ, is expressly shown by Iren us, and before him by Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome. "(Nota in Irenæum. p. 323.) "The elements being really changed from ordinary bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, mystically present, as in a sacrament, and that by virtue of the consecration, not by the faith of him that receives, I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consonant with this truth, viz. that the elements so consecrated are truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, inasmuch as the body and blood of Christ are contained in them. And the sacrifice of the cross being necessarily propitiatory, and impetratory both, it cannot be denied that the sacrament of the Eucharist, inasmuch as it is the same sacrifice with that upon the cross, is also both propitiatory and impetratory. "(Thorndike Epil. p. 44 and 46.) "The holy Fathers frequently say, that in the Eucharist is offered and sacrificed the very body of Christ, as is evident in almost innumerable places. "(Bp. Forbes' de Euch. lib. iii. chap. 2. sect. 10.) "The sacrifice of the supper is not only propitiatory, and may be offered up for the remission of our daily sins, but likewise is impetratory, and may be rightly offered for the obtaining all blessings. Although the Scripture does not plainly and in express words teach this, yet the holy Fathers with universal consent have thus understood the Scripture, as has been demonstrated by many; and all the ancient liturgies prescribe, that in time of the oblation, prayers be offered for peace as is evident to all. "(Bp. Forbes' de Euch. lib. iii. chap. 2. sect. 12.) "The Church, commemorating the sacrifice of Christ with the usual rites and words, in this also sacrificeth and offereth that which is her own, given to her by Christ; that she placeth before the eyes of God; by that she beseecheth God; and it is the same sacrifice that Christ offered; the same one, true, and singular sacrifice, as St. Augustine calls it; a sacrifice of memory according to Eusebius; a spiritual sacrifice, according to others. After that the faithful offer themselves according to the example of Christ In all this what is there new, what deformed, what hurtful? But minds once distracted, distract all things into a depraved meaning, and then are glad to find a hint for it in any of the schools. "(Grotius of Christian sacrifice.) To these we may add the authority of Ed. Burke, in his speech to the electors of Bristol: "The mass is church service in the Latin tongue, not exactly like our liturgy, but very near, and contains no offence whatever against the laws of good morals. "(p. 29.) - George Leo Haydock
But He has sat down at the right hand of the Father indicating His work is finished no? So there is no further offering/sacrifice because it has already been made
His work of appeasing the Father and reconciling humanity was accomplished, but the work of people having that salvation applied to their soul is still ongoing to this day. Christ still presents Himself to the Father in Heaven and we know that Christians offer sacrifices to the Father with Christ, in Christ and through Christ. Here is one example- “I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” Romans 12:1 As for a continuing sacrifice by the Christians, it is prophesied about in the Old Testament.- “For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations,” Says the Lord of hosts.” Malachi 1:11 The Catholic Mass is the only fulfillment of this prophecy, a continuing sacrifice in all places
I can't add much to what others have said, but I would add a couple criticisms of James. He needs to watch his facial expressions a little more, as things devolve and "sir"s come out, the head shakes and giggles, you can really tell he's losing all respect for the opponent as he gets frustrated. As many debates as I've seen, and the comments I read afterword, it's his losing of his cool, sharp remarks, throwing up the hands and giving up ("I'm done") that turns people off. In today's world, you don't "win" by good argument or "most obedient to the debate rules", you win by being the most collected, confident, witty, able to pivot and swing, and cast zingers when needed. You show maturity by centering the topic back to where it needs to be if it falls off course. Falling apart over debate rules is not a good look. Just let the man fall on his face and calmly bring that up at an appropriate time. If he can only ask 2 questions in his entire time, then who cares? My thought here would be instead of fighting about rules and complaining about how long it takes to ask a question, just let the man fall on his sword. What's the quote? "Don't interrupt the enemy while he's making a mistake." I don't mean to say Tom is an enemy, of course he's not. Just let it devolve a little, make mention of it later, "my opponent had 20 minutes to ask me questions, he managed to get out one question and spent 18 minutes making presentations." 9 out of 10 of James' debates seem to eventually devolve into him declaring the debate is over or saying he's done or complaining about if his opponent doesn't follow the rules then he'll just end it, and 10 variations of that theme. It's gotten so bad that I think his opponents intentionally try to trigger him to make him look bad. "Oh look how flustered James is, can't handle the questions, can't handle what I'm saying..." It's tactic. It's rhetoric. It's PR.
As he should. The rules of the debate were agreed upon months in advance. Dr. White’s spends many hours preparing to intellectual battle only to engage in pigeon chess. As one who’s attended a debate, it’s also frustrating and disrespectful to the audience to operate outside the rules agreed upon.
@@SickestDisciple I agree, the rules are important. It just looks bad to act like hall monitor Karen and losing it half the time. I guess really the moderator should have been seeing these things and setting it right before letting the debaters get flustered.
2:04:57 It does not look like Pope Francis is preaching Christ in this link: th-cam.com/video/bRbUTfSds0U/w-d-xo.htmlsi=gzR-zsNsIiRp_RrD People in the R.C. need to leave and come to a God and King who made the sacrifice once and for all.
My guy totally destroyed that other guy. Didn't even answer any of the objections raised. Total eisegesis from the other guy. An absolute win for my camp. Boom roasted.
It sounded like James kept on going on about how the event was for one time. Yet, Jesus informs people to repeat the memorial of the Lord's Supper more than once (I think). And, in the Mass, it's not a new sacrifice being given, it's supposed to be the same sacrifice, an eternal sacrifice, already effective, being presented. So, I feel like some of Jame's criticisms are already answered in Catholic theology. The compliant, about the Mass being ineffective to save is also not really true, unless the person is saying that sin doesn't get in the way of salvation, even then it's only very serious sins that will place the person's soul in danger of perdition. It's not the case that any sin will cost a Catholic soul heaven. So, in the case of venial sin, Jesus' work remains perpetually effective despite the sin in the individual soul. Even Jesus speaks of an unforgivable sin. How is Jesus' sacrifice always effective if there also remains an unforgivable sin?
I think the issue is a confusion of what it's actually DOING then. If the sacrifice of Jesus was already "once for all" and fully accomplished, done, finished, complete, fully satisfied in God, fully applied, etc, then how the RC explains the eucharist becomes quite redundant and unnecessary, appearing to redo what is already done, or re-apply what is already applied. This is especially true if they think without it you cannot actually be saved or receive the sacrifice unto yourself without their church. They answer the charge simply by stating they are not making a "new" sacrifice, but that is distinction without a difference, they still treat it as if they are "applying" the sacrifice to you anew each time you do it, covering your sins all over again, obtaining grace all over again, gaining grace and favor and salvation fresh, making sure you weren't about to die in your sins and be judged unsaved. The RC has a difficult job of telling us how their system is NOT a new or different sacrifice or adding onto Jesus, but is also not memorial, because if it's not memorial, they would be adding to the work of Christ. As if to say "sure, we need what Christ did, but now we ALSO need this thing only our church can do to make it useful for you. Only we can apply this to you or bring it to you, and you have to stay with us and not leave, to receive it a zillion times in your life because if you take it 50,000 times but leave the church at 90 years old to become a protestant, then whoops you might get unsaved again." They can't say it's memorial, and they also can't say it's anything special that Christ already did and doesn't have to be done again, and they can't say it's just the same thing every other church does at the table. They need it to be something unique to them so they can say it's only "valid" if they do it, apparently nobody else can, RC is special, you see. But how? If it's just a matter of doctrine and doing what Jesus said to do, then we have the clear example in scripture, and this is what almost every church does. But it's not a matter of just doctrine, it's a matter of spinning a whole web of RC-specific gotchas so that only they have the "real" thing. "Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive"
The one-minute answer followed by a half minute comment suggested by Dr. White clearly shows his fear of a long walk towards the 25 minutes of eternity, which by the way is appropriate to do when debating debaters like his opponent. Dr. White, though on the right side of the debate, should have changed by now in how he treats his opponents with lack of grace and respect. As of his arguments and answers, there is nothing to comment on, but to simply thank him for his deep knowledge on the topic at hand.
The Q&A session is a courtesy and not really a key component of the debate. They both have also been sitting there for at least 2 hours. The time constraints are to keep both parties from filibustering and both sides agreed to the time parameters. So your complaint is really not valid, nor does it show “fear” on the part of Dr. White.
This contrast between physical food and spiritual food sets the stage for Jesus’ statement that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus explains that it is not physical bread that the world needs, but spiritual bread. Jesus three times identifies Himself as that spiritual bread (John 6:35, 48, 51). And twice He emphasizes faith (a spiritual action) as the key to salvation: “My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life” (verse 40); and “Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life” (verse 47). Jesus then compares and contrasts Himself to the manna that Israel had eaten in the time of Moses: “Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die” (John 6:49-50). Like manna, Jesus came down from heaven; and, like manna, Jesus gives life. Unlike manna, the life Jesus gives lasts for eternity (verse 58). In this way, Jesus is greater than Moses (see Hebrews 3:3). Having established His metaphor (and the fact that He is speaking of faith in Him), Jesus presses the symbolism even further: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh. . . . I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. . . . My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. . . . Anyone who feeds on me will live because of me” (John 6:51-56, NLT). To prevent being misconstrued, Jesus specifies that He has been speaking metaphorically: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life” (John 6:63). Only those who are brainwashed by Rome and lacking common sense literary skills would conclude that Jesus was being literal in John 6... Jesus makes it clear in verse 63... and yet still people are blinded by fables and doctrines of men over scripture in context
@@Silverhailo21 not my problem you don't understand what Jesus is saying... all I can do is laugh at such ridiculous of the Catholic church and its blind followers 😂 😂😂😂
@@adamguy33 does it ever occur to people like you that you just have a made-up religion? Like, it's not real or objective it's just something you kind of concocted in your head?
@SilverRaysBeauty44 This is painfully obtuse and a literally stupid response. It's embarrassing and you should be embarrassed. Now what I would encourage you to do is be willing to be corrected by the scriptures on this. At no point did Christ go up to a door and say this is my body. At no point did Christ put his hands upon a particular shepherd and say you must eat this shepherd in order to have life in you. He did say that he was going to give us bread from heaven, and at the Passover, gave us his body to eat. Have you not read? He multiplied the loaves and fishes. Can he not do so with his body and blood? I'm going to go with the scriptures rather than your particular flawed and fallible interpretation.
White a Jesuit (or coadjutor at the very least) debating a Roman Catholic, who has no clue the opposition is actually on his side.This is nothing more than Kabooki theater at its finest.
Great debate subject, I feel like every time James uses the argument of "developed over time than it's wrong," he contradicts himself since protestants didn't develop post 1,500.
As protestants we don't believe that the protestant viewpoint was formed in 1500ad. Rather, we hold that, because we find the doctrines in scripture itself, that these were the true teachings and traditions of the very apostles. Put simply, we tend to condemn church tradition and the accretion of doctrines because we believe our doctrines come from the original source, not later sources like Luther or Calvin
@@Anglican777 this is the Church I attend. I am a Presbyterian and I don't agree with the catholic stance. But I can express respect towards a man who has boldly spoken up for what he believes in. Don't respond to respect being given to someone stepping out of their comfort zone, with condemnation of them.
This was not a way to go moment, this was an utter embarrassment. I’m not even talking about the outcome of the debate, I am merely speaking of the conduct on the part of Tom. He was belligerent, rude, and completely disinterested in engaging in the PROPER rules of a debate. What a joke.
@douglasmcnay644 The assumptions he is smuggling into the conversation regarding his reformationists theories. The major one is that assuming his perspective is the biblical one. Frankly speaking it's not. He's not defending the scriptures, he's defending his particular subjective reformed understanding of them. Wild.
@@Silverhailo21 even if what you're accusing him of is true, (which it isn't) coming to the text with assumptions has nothing to do with gaslighting. Call it eisegesis, call it question begging, but don't call it gaslighting because it's not.
How anyone can truly believe that James was being “rude” is beyond me. I’m going to assume you have not listened to many well moderated debates. During a cross examination, the individual asking questions….is supposed to ask questions and NOT make statements.
This! Exactly right.
*The debate gets good when both parties are like that especially when no malice intent is involved. Even more so when both parties know each really believes their positions to heart.*
I believe everything that Dr. White stood for. I agree with him completely. I follow Dr. White and appreciate his teaching. My theology is very close to his and I love him as a brother. I also believe he handily won the debate, it wasn’t even a contest.
All that said, I do believe there were times that he was being a bit unnecessarily rude or sarcastic. That said, Mr. Riello returned fire and behaved likewise. Dr. White’s behavior does not justify Mr. Riello’s response.
Absolutely hated Tom’s conduct here. Disgraceful, bullish, obnoxious, and clearly shows he was heavily outmatched and ill-prepared.
A new debate with James White!? Schweet!
I don't undestand the people who criticize Dr. White for being impatient or rude during cross exam. In asking a "question" Tom started a quote from Calvin at 1:24:00. Read the huge quote, then made his own application. It took until 1:25:40 for him to actually ask a question. He spent 100 seconds making a presentation. We would all be frustrated by that.
@@bretscott2018 What White doesn't like especially by Catholics is his own words being used against him, or showing how the application of a particular scriptural passage contradicts his own understanding or that of one of the reformers. Of course he always jumps back to his subjective view of the scriptures, and his fallible interpretation of the ancient languages, but that's neither here nor there.
He just does that. I listened to a few of his debates and this is how he behaves - especially if he feels threatened by the other person. This is an observation, I am not taking a stand for or against him. Btw, I don't believe he felt threaten at all in this debate, it's just his style.
What White doesn't like us when Catholic's twist his own words and especially when Catholic's twist the interpretation of scripture to make it coincide with their man-made tradition.
@@Silverhailo21you are clearly biased. Follow the rules of the debate. Period. Tom should’ve made himself aware of those rules and abided by them. He didn’t and it was frustrating to anyone listening.
@johnmays2486 well yeah of course I'm biased. Any one who claims they're not is lying.
It's also true that white is kind of a douche.
James: *Asks a question*
Tom: *Has no idea how to give a straightforward answer*
That Hebrews 7 contradiction from the Roman Catholic was clear as day. 1:51:05, 1:53:28
Amen.
One of many visible errors that are huge, many saved children of God inside these gatherings who are currently practicing blasphemy and idolatry,
my many sins are in need to be crushed , may God have mercy and the spirit stomp them and reveal them more to hatred in my own members as well as open these eyes.
I stand in no different aspect,
but this is where you come to be in fellowship worship and learn, to give your life and members of Christ to the home and world as well
not where you go against what Gods word has said. It matters NONE , what a father says or a formal or former member or a saint not in scripture ,
God says it , that settles it -
sola scriptura
This guy did not do the RCC any favors. This was a train wreck... for him.
Noone can. It's a cult
As a former Catholic, I hear the spiritual pride in the things that he said and the tone in which he said them. It makes me sad because I said similar things. The “we have the best and you all have trimmings dropped from our table” attitude is so counter to the gospel.
People die for all kinds of reasons, religious and non religious. Where is the biblical support substantiation.
What a great Closing Statement from Dr.White!
Thank you Jesus for your sacrifice!!
You're right for sure. What a closing statement!
God bless you brother James, please continue to uplift the Word of God.
James is extremely prideful and arrogant. He also doesn't rightly divide the Bible.
Excellent Job Dr White... hopefully someone hears and comes out of heresy. Gods word does not return void. 📖✝️👑
Amen sister
I was completely astonished at how unprofessional Mr. Riello acted. This was not only seen when he was speaking, but also when Dr. White was making his opening statements and initial rebuttal. God Bless James White!
This was a basic slam dunk for James White. I have to wonder how a better debater would have done in Tom's place. He honestly has no business debating.
Trent Horn (Counsel of Trent channel) typically debates White on Catholicism and does an excellent jb.
Trent Horn would not be the best example of a RCC debater. I have that opinion after watching hours upon hours of debates.
He did okay and I’m a reformed Presbyterian!
I believe this debate will bring many out of Roman Catholicism or at least make them question their allegiance to Rome. Another great debate performance by James. The scriptures couldn’t be clearer. Jesus’ once for all sacrifice perfects all to whom it was made.
The more I unpack the creeds, history, and teachings of Roman Catholicism, the more I realize how they make the Judaizers look tame, in comparison, and Paul anathematized them. How completely appropriate that they would then anathematize those who reject adding all of these traditions to the sufficiency of Christ's saving work on the cross.
Beautiful opening by Dr White! Made me contemplate the finished work of my Saviour! We should all break in Doxology upon hearing this!🔥
Dr James won this debate easily
AN excellent defense and Biblical polemic on the nature of the true sacrifice of Christ and its benefits - great job Dr. White - praise our Triune God.
once and for all...eternal redemption...period
Don’t know who the Catholic guy was, thank him for trying, but white shows the clear contradiction in the Catholic understanding.
Scriptures are so clear. I'm glad my savior work is sufficient.
LETS GO JAMES WHITE!! You've definitely helped me out in my theological studies.
1:50:15 for the Hebrews 7 Intercession question.
I’m only here for James white😂
James white keep on speaking the truth!!! HALLELUYAH!!!
Like the brother Tassi debate 😊
Sorry I may have missed it but what was the debate thesis?
Did this guy just literally say he "would die for bread.?" Sounds like idolatry to me
James has the gifts of forbearance,
And perseverance.
1:41:20 is quite embarrassing for Tom. The fact he feels the need to shout over his opponent speaks volumes.
Dr White articulated all points in light of Scripture.
1:18:00 for cross exam
Dude you’re clutch.
@@joshuasmith7471you’re even more clutch
@@MitchellSteele-sd8el you are the most clutch
The Mass is, indeed, inadequate. This inadequacy becomes evident when we juxtapose the Mass with each and every exposition of the gospel found within the entirety of God's holy Scripture. It is, quite literally, as straightforward as a comparative analysis. Objective hermeneutical principles affirm that Christ perfects us through a singular, definitive act of redemption by His shed blood; conversely, the Mass, as delineated by Rome, renders individuals bereft of real hope and peace.
Riello seems to be under the illusion that if a Protestant agrees with one thing a Church Father wrote, he is obligated to agree with everything that Father wrote.
You are a patient man Dr White.
I feel so embarrassed for Tom. It was tough listening to.
I live in Mobile! I wish I knew this happened
This is where Dr White is his best I think.
I owe a great deal of gratitude to Dr White for I am one who was convinced of Calvinism in part by his interview on the CRI Hannegraff program many years ago .
I would have hoped that he would be more inclined to Amilliennialism and 1689 federalist views but can’t have everything in one man I guess :)
I thought he was Amill?
@
I did as well . He even recommended the Amill books on his program ( which I read ) then I guess he changed his mind .
I thought I was going to see a serious debate. Only one side was serious and it wasn't on the Roman Catholic side I can assure you. The debate was over before it even began.
James White is a Boss.
This started off with both guys making actual statements and points but Mr Riello just completely gives up During Dr White's Cross Exam. It feels almost like Mr Riello is trying to filibuster with the amount of time he is taking to say almost nothing to White's questions. Very disappointing.
It was so PAINFUL to listen to Riello’s cross x 😫
Rome is so out there. They seem confused.
It’s like two mathematicians debating whether or not 2+2 equals 4.
One denies it, one affirms it.
The denier would of course tend to go on and on with ruck sacks of words, using tangential metaphors and emotional appeals, saying things like, “See, you have to understand,” and, “well, if you just look at it this way, then . . . “
But then, such is necessary if one is to try to convince a crowd that a number other than 4 is the correct one.
I feel that Tom is a genuinely nice guy. And he believes what he says. However, unless you posess the Righteousness of Christ, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. That is Gods gift to you through the Gospel. That is the good news.
I think James won but he lacks patience and just gets visibly upset and says the debate is over.
There’s rules and decorum to follow, Mr. Tom engaged outside of the agreed rules, I would be frustrated too.
I would have been more frustrated.
We need to hold ourselves to the standard we set .
The real crime was the carpet.
Where's the lie??
I don’t know much about catholic theology, I’m still learning through Dr White’s alpha and omega ministries . But when the other guy said to James white ‘do you accept Mary as the arc of the covenant’ I was fumbled . Do catholics believe that 😟??
Learn Catholic theology from Catholics not those who hate them.
yes the Blessed Virgin is a type. most types and shadows in the OT apply to Jesus. a few apply to the Theotokos. This is not an exclusively RC belief either. It was argued by both Protestant Reformers during the reformation and by Eastern Orthodox theologians past and present.
I am not sure why anyone would attempt to learn RC theology from a Protestant apologist. That's simply the wrong source.
Haha, Mary as the ark of the covenant is one of the tame Marian teachings from the Roman Catholic Church. Wait until you see what else they teach about Mary.
@@SamOwenI you are mistaken when you think Mary as ark of the covenant is a "roman catholic" teaching. it also appears in protestant and orthodox mariology.
The frustration experienced by either side ultimately falls on the moderator, for there was none. And even though James' frustration is warranted, the solution was not for the moderator to jump in and try to explain James' position.
How could anyone defend James White and his hairy? The man is an anti-catholic bigot heretic
I attend Tom’s bible study and he’s a great guy. The debate was like a destroyer escort going against a battleship. Tom did his best but was punching way above his weight.
Mr. Ventilacion from the Iglesia ni Cristo cult could have done a better job defending the Roman Catholic faith than Mr. Tom Riello did.
Mr. Tom Riello proved exceptionally difficult to regard with any degree of seriousness. His mannerisms, reactions, and overtly perceptible condescension were distracting and diminished the efficacy of his argumentation. His reasoning faltered independently, yet his expressions, so to speak, compounded the detriment.
I love this debate. Neither debater believes that Christ is sufficient. Limited atonement vs. Purgatory. Very entertaining
Yea, there is one High Priest...so....many subordinate priests?
Having to do the Mass in the first place shows that you don't have faith in the sufficiency of Christ's propitiation once for all sins,for all times for His People.
If you believe God causes Christians to suffer from sins that Christ didn't propitiate,in purgatory, then how can a man,a preist, shorten that time for money?
This man went out from us because he was never of us and he left and became a RC to prove this fact.
People that believe in the RCC teachings when they die will hear,DEPART, I NEVER KNEW YOU.
This debate needed an effective moderator, not a milquetoast amateur.
During the Q&A Riello was very rude and obnoxious. He did himself and his position no favors by his conduct.
How would jw survive without the CC?
Probably by the 150+ other debates he has without them. Just a guess 🤷♂️
Those are small potatoes.
@@hailholyqueen Going into hostile Muslim countries to tell a bunch of Muslims that Islam is false is “small potatoes”? Interesting take lol
Curious, how many debates have you done to the glory of God?
I actually feel sorry for Tom.
Tom Riello. What a complete amateur. Reading text out of its context, and refusing to answer.
Tom, With all that James has written, discussed and debated surrounding the debate thesis, you should have been FAR better prepared - you allowed your ego to hinder the cross examination segment of the debate.
Tom, please don’t enter debate again. This was disgraceful for Roman Catholic theology. I’m not even a Roman Catholic either.
The Catholic representative needs to take a few courses on Debate Etiquette. Very rude, confrontational, not knowing the rules. Disappointing from the Catholic representative. Shame on him.
Dr. White says Marian dogmas don't develop until much later on but then says Athanasius was influenced by the early development of Marian dogmas. It's hilariously obvious a double standard.
The dogmas such as the bodily assumption and perpetual virginity developed later on, but a Catholic today must believe them to be in fellowship with the church. Just because Athanasius was influenced by developed teachings on Mary, doesn't mean he held to the dogmas taught by the RCC today. Think about it.
Athanasius lived over 250 years after the time of Christ and the Apostles, so the Marian dogmas that were starting to develop in his time WERE doing so much late than the Apostolic era.
Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, in offering himself. - Hebrews 7:27
Jesus Christ offered himself but once in a bloody manner on the cross; but, besides this bloody offering, he still continues to offer himself in an unbloody manner. This he does both in heaven and upon earth; in heaven, by presenting his sacred humanity continually to his Father; and on earth, by daily offering himself, under the appearances of bread and wine, on our altars. Hence this eucharistic sacrifice is both a commemoration and continuation of the sacrifice of the cross. To understand this, it must be observed, that the essence of a sacrifice includes several actions, the principal of which are the immolation of the victim, and the oblation of the victim when immolated. Now the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, ended only as to the bloody immolation; the same victim is still immolated mystically, by the separate consecration of the bread and wine, and continues as the oblation. Jesus Christ, in quality of the eternal high priest, has carried his victim, i.e. his body, into heaven, and there offers it continually to his Father. He continues also his sacrifice here on earth, by the ministry of his priests: who to the end of time will offer to God the same immolated victim, present on our altars under the appearance of bread and wine
a sacrifice infinitely perfect, since a God is the priest, and a God the victim. The chief-priest who offers it is a God-man; the victim offered is a Man-God: a God the victim, offered by a God the priest! Behold a sacrifice truly worthy of God
a sacrifice capable of atoning not only for our sins, but for the sins of ten thousand worlds. What confidence then ought Christians to have in such a sacrifice! How solicitous ought they to be to assist daily at these awful, or, to use St. Chrysostom's expression, these tremendous mysteries! Let us now examine the sentiments of learned Protestant divines: "It is certain "says Dr. Grabe, "that Iren us and all the Fathers, either contemporary with the apostles, or their immediate successors, whose writings are still extant, considered the blessed Eucharist to be the sacrifice of the new law, and offered bread and wine on the altar, as sacred oblations to God the Father; and that this was not the private opinion of any particular Church or teacher, but the public doctrine and practice of the universal Church, which she received from the apostles, and they from Christ, is expressly shown by Iren us, and before him by Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome. "(Nota in Irenæum. p. 323.)
"The elements being really changed from ordinary bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, mystically present, as in a sacrament, and that by virtue of the consecration, not by the faith of him that receives, I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consonant with this truth, viz. that the elements so consecrated are truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, inasmuch as the body and blood of Christ are contained in them. And the sacrifice of the cross being necessarily propitiatory, and impetratory both, it cannot be denied that the sacrament of the Eucharist, inasmuch as it is the same sacrifice with that upon the cross, is also both propitiatory and impetratory. "(Thorndike Epil. p. 44 and 46.)
"The holy Fathers frequently say, that in the Eucharist is offered and sacrificed the very body of Christ, as is evident in almost innumerable places. "(Bp. Forbes' de Euch. lib. iii. chap. 2. sect. 10.)
"The sacrifice of the supper is not only propitiatory, and may be offered up for the remission of our daily sins, but likewise is impetratory, and may be rightly offered for the obtaining all blessings. Although the Scripture does not plainly and in express words teach this, yet the holy Fathers with universal consent have thus understood the Scripture, as has been demonstrated by many; and all the ancient liturgies prescribe, that in time of the oblation, prayers be offered for peace as is evident to all. "(Bp. Forbes' de Euch. lib. iii. chap. 2. sect. 12.)
"The Church, commemorating the sacrifice of Christ with the usual rites and words, in this also sacrificeth and offereth that which is her own, given to her by Christ; that she placeth before the eyes of God; by that she beseecheth God; and it is the same sacrifice that Christ offered; the same one, true, and singular sacrifice, as St. Augustine calls it; a sacrifice of memory according to Eusebius; a spiritual sacrifice, according to others. After that the faithful offer themselves according to the example of Christ In all this what is there new, what deformed, what hurtful? But minds once distracted, distract all things into a depraved meaning, and then are glad to find a hint for it in any of the schools. "(Grotius of Christian sacrifice.)
To these we may add the authority of Ed. Burke, in his speech to the electors of Bristol: "The mass is church service in the Latin tongue, not exactly like our liturgy, but very near, and contains no offence whatever against the laws of good morals. "(p. 29.)
- George Leo Haydock
But He has sat down at the right hand of the Father indicating His work is finished no? So there is no further offering/sacrifice because it has already been made
His work of appeasing the Father and reconciling humanity was accomplished, but the work of people having that salvation applied to their soul is still ongoing to this day.
Christ still presents Himself to the Father in Heaven and we know that Christians offer sacrifices to the Father with Christ, in Christ and through Christ.
Here is one example-
“I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.”
Romans 12:1
As for a continuing sacrifice by the Christians, it is prophesied about in the Old Testament.-
“For from the rising of the sun, even to its going down, My name shall be great among the Gentiles; In every place incense shall be offered to My name, And a pure offering; For My name shall be great among the nations,” Says the Lord of hosts.”
Malachi 1:11
The Catholic Mass is the only fulfillment of this prophecy, a continuing sacrifice in all places
You contradicted yourself. The person in Hebrew says he does not offer daily. You just said he offers daily. This is the problem.
Re-read my original comment, it answers the supposed contradiction
@@ChristIsTheKingOfGloryWhat text would you appeal to for support that Christ offers His sacrifice to God continually?
I can't add much to what others have said, but I would add a couple criticisms of James.
He needs to watch his facial expressions a little more, as things devolve and "sir"s come out, the head shakes and giggles, you can really tell he's losing all respect for the opponent as he gets frustrated. As many debates as I've seen, and the comments I read afterword, it's his losing of his cool, sharp remarks, throwing up the hands and giving up ("I'm done") that turns people off.
In today's world, you don't "win" by good argument or "most obedient to the debate rules", you win by being the most collected, confident, witty, able to pivot and swing, and cast zingers when needed. You show maturity by centering the topic back to where it needs to be if it falls off course. Falling apart over debate rules is not a good look. Just let the man fall on his face and calmly bring that up at an appropriate time. If he can only ask 2 questions in his entire time, then who cares?
My thought here would be instead of fighting about rules and complaining about how long it takes to ask a question, just let the man fall on his sword. What's the quote? "Don't interrupt the enemy while he's making a mistake." I don't mean to say Tom is an enemy, of course he's not. Just let it devolve a little, make mention of it later, "my opponent had 20 minutes to ask me questions, he managed to get out one question and spent 18 minutes making presentations."
9 out of 10 of James' debates seem to eventually devolve into him declaring the debate is over or saying he's done or complaining about if his opponent doesn't follow the rules then he'll just end it, and 10 variations of that theme. It's gotten so bad that I think his opponents intentionally try to trigger him to make him look bad. "Oh look how flustered James is, can't handle the questions, can't handle what I'm saying..." It's tactic. It's rhetoric. It's PR.
As he should. The rules of the debate were agreed upon months in advance. Dr. White’s spends many hours preparing to intellectual battle only to engage in pigeon chess. As one who’s attended a debate, it’s also frustrating and disrespectful to the audience to operate outside the rules agreed upon.
@@SickestDisciple I agree, the rules are important. It just looks bad to act like hall monitor Karen and losing it half the time.
I guess really the moderator should have been seeing these things and setting it right before letting the debaters get flustered.
mass can perfect you? is this actually a catholic teaching?
Yes but it’s very temporary, until you sin again or have a sinful thought. (I’m not Catholic though)
2:04:57 It does not look like Pope Francis is preaching Christ in this link: th-cam.com/video/bRbUTfSds0U/w-d-xo.htmlsi=gzR-zsNsIiRp_RrD
People in the R.C. need to leave and come to a God and King who made the sacrifice once and for all.
Rude ? If anything he was patient with him lol
No, Keith Foskey is nice.
This is a frustrating debate to watch
Another evading catholic friend
What a disappointment...catholics yall gotta do better than this....i notice its a common theme with you guys.
My guy totally destroyed that other guy. Didn't even answer any of the objections raised. Total eisegesis from the other guy. An absolute win for my camp. Boom roasted.
Sounds to me like Tom's teaching is laced in catholic teaching
Well he is a Catholic so
It sounded like James kept on going on about how the event was for one time. Yet, Jesus informs people to repeat the memorial of the Lord's Supper more than once (I think). And, in the Mass, it's not a new sacrifice being given, it's supposed to be the same sacrifice, an eternal sacrifice, already effective, being presented. So, I feel like some of Jame's criticisms are already answered in Catholic theology. The compliant, about the Mass being ineffective to save is also not really true, unless the person is saying that sin doesn't get in the way of salvation, even then it's only very serious sins that will place the person's soul in danger of perdition. It's not the case that any sin will cost a Catholic soul heaven. So, in the case of venial sin, Jesus' work remains perpetually effective despite the sin in the individual soul. Even Jesus speaks of an unforgivable sin. How is Jesus' sacrifice always effective if there also remains an unforgivable sin?
I think the issue is a confusion of what it's actually DOING then. If the sacrifice of Jesus was already "once for all" and fully accomplished, done, finished, complete, fully satisfied in God, fully applied, etc, then how the RC explains the eucharist becomes quite redundant and unnecessary, appearing to redo what is already done, or re-apply what is already applied. This is especially true if they think without it you cannot actually be saved or receive the sacrifice unto yourself without their church.
They answer the charge simply by stating they are not making a "new" sacrifice, but that is distinction without a difference, they still treat it as if they are "applying" the sacrifice to you anew each time you do it, covering your sins all over again, obtaining grace all over again, gaining grace and favor and salvation fresh, making sure you weren't about to die in your sins and be judged unsaved.
The RC has a difficult job of telling us how their system is NOT a new or different sacrifice or adding onto Jesus, but is also not memorial, because if it's not memorial, they would be adding to the work of Christ. As if to say "sure, we need what Christ did, but now we ALSO need this thing only our church can do to make it useful for you. Only we can apply this to you or bring it to you, and you have to stay with us and not leave, to receive it a zillion times in your life because if you take it 50,000 times but leave the church at 90 years old to become a protestant, then whoops you might get unsaved again."
They can't say it's memorial, and they also can't say it's anything special that Christ already did and doesn't have to be done again, and they can't say it's just the same thing every other church does at the table. They need it to be something unique to them so they can say it's only "valid" if they do it, apparently nobody else can, RC is special, you see. But how? If it's just a matter of doctrine and doing what Jesus said to do, then we have the clear example in scripture, and this is what almost every church does. But it's not a matter of just doctrine, it's a matter of spinning a whole web of RC-specific gotchas so that only they have the "real" thing.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive"
@@vigilantezack Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
This is easily one of the worst debates ive ever seen
The one-minute answer followed by a half minute comment suggested by Dr. White clearly shows his fear of a long walk towards the 25 minutes of eternity, which by the way is appropriate to do when debating debaters like his opponent. Dr. White, though on the right side of the debate, should have changed by now in how he treats his opponents with lack of grace and respect. As of his arguments and answers, there is nothing to comment on, but to simply thank him for his deep knowledge on the topic at hand.
The Q&A session is a courtesy and not really a key component of the debate. They both have also been sitting there for at least 2 hours. The time constraints are to keep both parties from filibustering and both sides agreed to the time parameters. So your complaint is really not valid, nor does it show “fear” on the part of Dr. White.
The Catholic lost
"This is my body"
"You must eat the flesh of the son of man or else you have no life in you."
I'll take scripture over JW, thanks.
This contrast between physical food and spiritual food sets the stage for Jesus’ statement that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus explains that it is not physical bread that the world needs, but spiritual bread. Jesus three times identifies Himself as that spiritual bread (John 6:35, 48, 51). And twice He emphasizes faith (a spiritual action) as the key to salvation: “My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life” (verse 40); and “Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life” (verse 47).
Jesus then compares and contrasts Himself to the manna that Israel had eaten in the time of Moses: “Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die” (John 6:49-50). Like manna, Jesus came down from heaven; and, like manna, Jesus gives life. Unlike manna, the life Jesus gives lasts for eternity (verse 58). In this way, Jesus is greater than Moses (see Hebrews 3:3).
Having established His metaphor (and the fact that He is speaking of faith in Him), Jesus presses the symbolism even further: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh. . . . I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. . . . My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. . . . Anyone who feeds on me will live because of me” (John 6:51-56, NLT).
To prevent being misconstrued, Jesus specifies that He has been speaking metaphorically: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life” (John 6:63).
Only those who are brainwashed by Rome and lacking common sense literary skills would conclude that Jesus was being literal in John 6... Jesus makes it clear in verse 63... and yet still people are blinded by fables and doctrines of men over scripture in context
@adamguy33 a lot of words to say Christ didn't mean it. Wild dude.
@@Silverhailo21 not my problem you don't understand what Jesus is saying... all I can do is laugh at such ridiculous of the Catholic church and its blind followers 😂 😂😂😂
@@adamguy33 does it ever occur to people like you that you just have a made-up religion? Like, it's not real or objective it's just something you kind of concocted in your head?
@SilverRaysBeauty44 This is painfully obtuse and a literally stupid response. It's embarrassing and you should be embarrassed.
Now what I would encourage you to do is be willing to be corrected by the scriptures on this.
At no point did Christ go up to a door and say this is my body.
At no point did Christ put his hands upon a particular shepherd and say you must eat this shepherd in order to have life in you.
He did say that he was going to give us bread from heaven, and at the Passover, gave us his body to eat.
Have you not read? He multiplied the loaves and fishes. Can he not do so with his body and blood?
I'm going to go with the scriptures rather than your particular flawed and fallible interpretation.
White a Jesuit (or coadjutor at the very least) debating a Roman Catholic, who has no clue the opposition is actually on his side.This is nothing more than Kabooki theater at its finest.
James White is a Jesuit? That's the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. Congrats.
To claim that James White is a Jesuit is to show no understanding whatsoever of Dr White or his view and is absurdly dishonest.
You must be a KJV-onlyist.
Great debate subject, I feel like every time James uses the argument of "developed over time than it's wrong," he contradicts himself since protestants didn't develop post 1,500.
huh?
That isn’t quite the argument…
@delbert372 I'm not saying that's his only argument, but he uses that argument, and im commenting that im not a fan of it.
As protestants we don't believe that the protestant viewpoint was formed in 1500ad. Rather, we hold that, because we find the doctrines in scripture itself, that these were the true teachings and traditions of the very apostles. Put simply, we tend to condemn church tradition and the accretion of doctrines because we believe our doctrines come from the original source, not later sources like Luther or Calvin
@@MCNinjaDJ Help me understand you better. Are you saying your protestant traditions come from the apostles? Just the apostles?
Way to go, Tom!
are you serious? PAY ATTENTION READER...Tom just got it HANDED to him. STOP impugning Christ's FINISHED work. Repent catholics!
@@Anglican777 this is the Church I attend. I am a Presbyterian and I don't agree with the catholic stance. But I can express respect towards a man who has boldly spoken up for what he believes in. Don't respond to respect being given to someone stepping out of their comfort zone, with condemnation of them.
This was not a way to go moment, this was an utter embarrassment. I’m not even talking about the outcome of the debate, I am merely speaking of the conduct on the part of Tom. He was belligerent, rude, and completely disinterested in engaging in the PROPER rules of a debate. What a joke.
Way to go? What debate did you watch? 😂
James white should debate only those who are equipped to do so…
One thing I really don't appreciate about James White is his gas lighting.
Such as...?
@douglasmcnay644 The assumptions he is smuggling into the conversation regarding his reformationists theories.
The major one is that assuming his perspective is the biblical one. Frankly speaking it's not. He's not defending the scriptures, he's defending his particular subjective reformed understanding of them.
Wild.
@@Silverhailo21I don't think you understand what gaslighting means
@@hookoffthejab1 The irony of what you just said it remarkable.
@@Silverhailo21 even if what you're accusing him of is true, (which it isn't) coming to the text with assumptions has nothing to do with gaslighting. Call it eisegesis, call it question begging, but don't call it gaslighting because it's not.