Closing thought: did Paul really mean that we are actually justified by any type of works? When he says: we are "not justified by works" in Romans 4 - does he actually mean we are, just a different sort? What kind of clear gospel message is that?
Excellent debate, many of my questions were anticipated and answered by White. James 2 is a dead horse beaten to death by the RCC, who can't accept the fact the justification is before men (show me, you see - clearly speaking of men) is in view here. Nonetheless, I found Sungenis's arguments overall well formulated and I as a Calvinist can appreciate that, especially since it's the only way I can learn to respond to these questions myself.
He won't. I don't see why that means Calvinism is right though. If one defines "glory" as having to mean that God does everything, and man has no free will to choose, then of course the Catholic system "robs" God's glory. However, I don't think the definition of "glory" necessarily means God has to do all of it...
I would say it was a pretty even debate. In many points you could really see 2 possible or plausible interpretations, and that's why I'm happy there's such a thing as Tradition, otherwise how could we know who's right...
White is a good preacher and I bet he's committed to Christ and the truth. It bothers me that he isn't given the grace to enter the Catholic Church, or well, all Christian disunity bothers me.
2) He won the point about God's final judgment based on our works. White tried to dismiss it by saying "how will you do", which touches the heart, but in Scripture it's evident that Christians will indeed be judged on that basis, but graciously of course.
3)He clearly won the James 2 interpretation battle.
3) White was more convincing in regard to Romans 4, Paul clearly means believers, not David, as evident from the context.
4) The argument that grace and works are mutually exclusive and that grace should suffice was not addressed satisfactorily, it seems that the Judaizers also believed in grace and his message about the perfection of God's salvific work was strong and challenging.
1) His primary argument from Romans 8 was never addressed and it was quite convincing (justification as sure and as much God's work as calling, predestination, etc)
2) White's explanation and analysis of Romans 2 makes more sense when one reads the context, Sungenis seems to be twisting the passage
just one more evidence. when a man came toJesus and asked Lord wht do i have to do tobe saved. jesus answered honored thy father and mother and obey the commandments. the man said i do all those things, the Jesus go and sell all your possessions and give to the poor.Jesus never said just have faith and be saved. thnk God for Sungenis
Knowall77 I don't think you understand what this passage of scripture means. You see Jesus was using the Mosaic Law (he quoted six of the Ten Commandments) to prove to this man that he was not good in God's eyes. The man tried to justify himself by saying he kept these commandments. Then Jesus brought the first commendment "to have no other god's before me." which he had not kept. Galations 3:24 says the Law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we are justified by faith.
Well well finally I got my hands (or eyes and ears) on this famous debate, many thanks for posting it!!! I'm Catholic and involved in apologetics and would like to bring up the following comments or remarks for discussion, things/points I wrote down during the debate:
shalom, asian r litle aware of this debate. TQ for posting! its not who won that matters becoz human wud owez bias. but what matters is the content of the truth. sungenis make a clear point! the bible becum very contradict with white interpretations.
Dr. Sungenis is one topnotch Catholic apologist. No matter what Dr. White said in this debate, the Catholic position is the most biblical. St. James said that we are saved "NOT by faith alone." How much more simple can you get? If the bible said that we are not saved by faith alone, then it means we are not saved by faith alone. Period. We need to conform to this dictum by James and not the other way around is we want to remain biblical.
Amen, I am glad that wuebbsco and prchdaword have been watching the truth of what the Catholic Church teaches, and not the cut and paste job on James White on site. There is no doubt about it Sungenis beat White in this debate!
I dont know why A & O did not include more questions... I suspect ity is because he ran out of space on the DVD's, and didnt want to make a third DVD...
Did you run out of tape at the end? I notice a lot of people in line to ask questions and we only hear about two of them. Not that it really matters, as it is almost impossible to hear the questions, but i was just wondering.
Closing thought: did Paul really mean that we are actually justified by any type of works? When he says: we are "not justified by works" in Romans 4 - does he actually mean we are, just a different sort? What kind of clear gospel message is that?
ryangatech 4 years ago
Excellent debate, many of my questions were anticipated and answered by White. James 2 is a dead horse beaten to death by the RCC, who can't accept the fact the justification is before men (show me, you see - clearly speaking of men) is in view here. Nonetheless, I found Sungenis's arguments overall well formulated and I as a Calvinist can appreciate that, especially since it's the only way I can learn to respond to these questions myself.
ryangatech 4 years ago
Calvinists are predestined for a bad theology
a depraved theology if you will.
hankhanegraaff 4 years ago 2
Hank, do you still have a radio program?
pacislander4life 2 years ago
James White Got Creamed !
Area0052 4 years ago 6
Are White and Sugenis friends?
sprtslvr1973 4 years ago
You're kidding right? :-)
pacislander4life 4 years ago
No. I ve seen where debaters do change from bitter rivals to friendly counterparts. Flynt and Falwell are an example.
sprtslvr1973 4 years ago
White is right. Amen. God will not be robbed of His glory
John631517 4 years ago
He won't. I don't see why that means Calvinism is right though. If one defines "glory" as having to mean that God does everything, and man has no free will to choose, then of course the Catholic system "robs" God's glory. However, I don't think the definition of "glory" necessarily means God has to do all of it...
pacislander4life 4 years ago
I would say it was a pretty even debate. In many points you could really see 2 possible or plausible interpretations, and that's why I'm happy there's such a thing as Tradition, otherwise how could we know who's right...
White is a good preacher and I bet he's committed to Christ and the truth. It bothers me that he isn't given the grace to enter the Catholic Church, or well, all Christian disunity bothers me.
fineca 4 years ago
It bothered Jesus too :-)
pacislander4life 4 years ago
4) He was more convincing in the analysis of passages dealing with losing one's salvation
5)His closing remarks included many strong points especially the one about what a sovereign God is really like.
fineca 4 years ago
Points for Sungenis:
1) He won the point about biblical language
2) He won the point about God's final judgment based on our works. White tried to dismiss it by saying "how will you do", which touches the heart, but in Scripture it's evident that Christians will indeed be judged on that basis, but graciously of course.
3)He clearly won the James 2 interpretation battle.
fineca 4 years ago
3) White was more convincing in regard to Romans 4, Paul clearly means believers, not David, as evident from the context.
4) The argument that grace and works are mutually exclusive and that grace should suffice was not addressed satisfactorily, it seems that the Judaizers also believed in grace and his message about the perfection of God's salvific work was strong and challenging.
5) 2. Cor. 5:21 was not addressed by Sungenis.
fineca 4 years ago
Points for White:
1) His primary argument from Romans 8 was never addressed and it was quite convincing (justification as sure and as much God's work as calling, predestination, etc)
2) White's explanation and analysis of Romans 2 makes more sense when one reads the context, Sungenis seems to be twisting the passage
fineca 4 years ago
just one more evidence. when a man came toJesus and asked Lord wht do i have to do tobe saved. jesus answered honored thy father and mother and obey the commandments. the man said i do all those things, the Jesus go and sell all your possessions and give to the poor.Jesus never said just have faith and be saved. thnk God for Sungenis
knowall77 4 years ago
Knowall77 I don't think you understand what this passage of scripture means. You see Jesus was using the Mosaic Law (he quoted six of the Ten Commandments) to prove to this man that he was not good in God's eyes. The man tried to justify himself by saying he kept these commandments. Then Jesus brought the first commendment "to have no other god's before me." which he had not kept. Galations 3:24 says the Law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we are justified by faith.
barbapartida 4 years ago
Well well finally I got my hands (or eyes and ears) on this famous debate, many thanks for posting it!!! I'm Catholic and involved in apologetics and would like to bring up the following comments or remarks for discussion, things/points I wrote down during the debate:
fineca 4 years ago
shalom, asian r litle aware of this debate. TQ for posting! its not who won that matters becoz human wud owez bias. but what matters is the content of the truth. sungenis make a clear point! the bible becum very contradict with white interpretations.
caydamien02 4 years ago
Dr. Sungenis is one topnotch Catholic apologist. No matter what Dr. White said in this debate, the Catholic position is the most biblical. St. James said that we are saved "NOT by faith alone." How much more simple can you get? If the bible said that we are not saved by faith alone, then it means we are not saved by faith alone. Period. We need to conform to this dictum by James and not the other way around is we want to remain biblical.
Shambala7 4 years ago
Amen...
pacislander4life 4 years ago
Amen, I am glad that wuebbsco and prchdaword have been watching the truth of what the Catholic Church teaches, and not the cut and paste job on James White on site. There is no doubt about it Sungenis beat White in this debate!
justthefactsmister 4 years ago
He sure did... check back soon...more CAI stuff to come...
Laurence
CAI
pacislander4life 4 years ago
Could you put some of these You Tube videos on the CAI website..These videos deserve a wider audience..
justthefactsmister 4 years ago
They are already on the CAI website... We are trying to move them to a more prominent place. Thanks for your support...
Laurence
CAI
pacislander4life 4 years ago
I dont know why A & O did not include more questions... I suspect ity is because he ran out of space on the DVD's, and didnt want to make a third DVD...
-Laurence
pacislander4life 4 years ago
You're Welcome
pacislander4life 4 years ago
Great debate. Thanks for posting.
prchdaword 4 years ago
I didnt run out of film, Dr. White did...lol
pacislander4life 4 years ago
Did you run out of tape at the end? I notice a lot of people in line to ask questions and we only hear about two of them. Not that it really matters, as it is almost impossible to hear the questions, but i was just wondering.
wuebbsco 4 years ago