If you choose to refect christ are you still saved? No! So was his sacrifice not for all? But wait it can't save he who does not choose to be saved, so are you not displeasing god through your rejection? And if you are not allowed to reject it and be condemned are you also not allowed to accept it?
Luke 10:21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
pacislander4life the problem is not with the Bible to problem is with the person. I am a Calvinist because the Bible is clear on its teaching of election and God's working out all things according to the council of his will. To simply place your faith in Rome makes you have a bigger problem than the person holding to Sola Scriptura because Rome has been misleading people...Pope Honorius is simply one example of this.
God is satisfied in atonement and Mr White is correct you cannot undue God being satisfied by man's behavior Once God is satified by Christ for me He cannot be unsatisfied by me. He honors His Son's death the elect being a gift from God to the Son John 17 So basically according to Catholic doctrine Christ has perfected nothing by His death work. It can be undone, temporary and disgraced. Catholic doctrine undermines Christ Nature asbeing insufficient.
Protestant teachigs think that the Message of Jesus Gospel is "doctrinal", or intelectual. The Gospel is not "doctrine" but a way of Living your life. You are in Jesus Kindom if you LIVE THE GOSPEL. Jesus oped for free the gates of heaven, you and i have to GET IN.. but Jesus will not force you to get in.
Catholic Churc makes a dogma to answer common "heresis" that raised
Sungenis had a good point at the end in that we don't build doctrine off of one scripture and White's contention is "once saved always saved" due to his presupposition concerning reformed theology. The sacrifice was perfect but those who are sanctified may not stay with the Faith. I like how Calvinist interpret scripture one way and then another to suit their purposes. White lost that debate.
When Jesus said, "I am the door," was He a "Door" Or was he speaking symbolically?
Well when Jesus said I am the door did disciples start leaving him saying this man is insane He thinks He is a door? no! they did not for they were not stupid men by no means,but when Jesus said to eat His flesh and drink His blood they knew well what He was saying, and like Protestants today they called this cannabalism!
It is a logical fallacy to say that unless all Protestants agree on interpretation that we have no legitimacy, your agrument that because we have disagreements among evangelicals THEN the Magisterium MUST be the TRUE interpretor of scripture, is another logical fallacy, that's exactly how cults reason. "how can the Bible lead you to two different understandings of the Bible" "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? Jeremiah 17:13.
Sungenis used to get mad and lash out in his debates especially with Dave Hunt and White on a seperate occasion, you Romanist of course show him in his best light, probably took plenty of Prozac beforehand.
no really, I'm not a James White fan, he's a Calvinist, I'm a Bible believing Christian, I dont care for his arrogant attitude, but all Catholic apologists are arrogant as well, at least he believes in Sola Scriptura, and doesn't need some Nazi Pope to tell him what it means :)
So, you are saying that Calvinism is not biblically based? How can both of you, James White and yourself, disagree... after all both of you are "at least", sola scripturists? How can the Bible lead you to two different understandings of the Bible?
@pacislander4life very simply, their is plenty of divisions in your own Catholic church, you have liberals, pre-Vatican 2 types, new agers, charismatic catholics, need I go on? yet they all believe in the Pope and the Magisterium how is that possible? now you get a taste of your own medicine, how does it taste?
@pacislander4life Sola Scriptura has nothing at all to do with this idea that anyone who reads the bible will arrive at the precise same theology and doctrines as anyone else who does the same.
The problem with questions like the ones that you raise, is that they seem to be utterly ignorant of the above. Rather than repeating the same objections you hear, and which seem to be sensible to your ears, you should learn to criticise things for yourself, based on understanding them properly.
@cbat36 It's not good to resregard James White just becasue he's a Calvinist... that isnt even what the debate is about... And it's also not good to denounce brothers as "arrogant" You should pray for him if you beleve that is the case, but whay would you blurt out such hatred in public?
"he's a Calvinist, I'm a Bible believing Christian"
Wow... And you call Dr White arrogant? I am also a Bible believing Christian who has in the last few months embraced Reformed Theology. Sadly, one thing I have had to get used to is that I barely have to make any comment at all before I'm faced with some of the most arrogant, condascending, presumptuous, scripturally ignorant, and downright hostility from "brothers" that I've ever had to deal with in my entire Christian walk.
@Keruaran so you've been a "christian," for a few months and your going to bad mouth other believers? What is arrogant about saying I'm a bible believing christian? Obviously you haven't heard Mr. White very often, listen to his radio program, anyone who disagrees with him is in error, but he is always right? that is arrogance, I dont claim to always be right, but I know Calvinism is not biblical, If you were to die tonight are you 100% sure you would go to heaven?
I said I embraced Reformed Theology a few months ago. I've been a Christian for 24 years. What you did was differentiate 'Calvanist' from 'Bible believing Christian', the implication being that anyone who's theology is Reformed isn't a Bible believing Christian. But I shouldn't have to explain. Your wording was quite deliberate; You know exactly what you said and what you implied by it.
@Keruaran "Reformed," there were other Reformers that weren't Calvinist, how about the Anabaptists? You've been brainwashed to believe you have to be a Calvinist or your an Arminian, both systems cast doubt on their Salvation, I believe if you Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ you will be saved and it's Eternal period. How do you KNOW you are one of the elect?
I am also well familiar with Dr White's program, his writing, the debates he has engaged in, and speak to him directly from time to time in his IRC channel. Most people I've encountered who "know Calvinism is not biblical" can't offer any strong scriptural exegesis to support their argument. If you can then I'm all ears. My faith is in Jesus Christ whom I know is a perfect Savior who shall lose not one whom the Father gives. Why are you seeking to cast doubt on my salvation?
@Keruaran "can't offer any strong scriptural exegesis"I can disprove Calvinism just by reading 1 Timothy "God our Saviour; Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth...Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for ALL." 1Tim 2:3-4,6. "we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of ALL men, specially of those that believe." 1Tim 4:10 so God wants All men to be saved who gave himself a ransom for ALL and is the saviour of all men, how is the Atonement limited?
@cbat36 I'm curious: would you be able to address the verses you cited from a Calvinistic perspective? Surely, you don't assume any and all Calvinists simply refuse to address the famous proof-texts against their position. Have you taken the time to fairly understand their responses, then? If so, what do they say, and how do you criticise their response?
Unfortunately, too many people are satisfied with surface-level rebuttals; and so long as things seem sensible, they assume them as true.
John 6, first of all. I'm not going to quote the whole passage, but basically Jesus says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you will not have life within you", and then many of His disciples abandon him (The Greek word used in the passage is trogon, which means to literally eat or gnaw). Would'nt Jesus have clarified if He was speaking in symbolic terms?
"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY eats and drinks judgment upon himself." (1 Cor 11:27-29)
The scriptural evidence for the real presence was so strong that even Martin Luther, who was willing to tear books from the Bible to suit his own ends, could not deny it.
why did Jesus say "flesh" than instead of "spirit"? Jesus did NOT say: "unless you eat the spirit of the Son of Man you will not have life within you", he said: "unless you eat the FLESH of the Son of Man you will not have life within you".
The Greek word used here for flesh is sarx. Sarx can either mean flesh, the body, or human nature apart from God. (in the context it obviously doesn't mean the latter definition). Sarx does not mean spirit, and it cannot mean spirit. It means flesh.
Read Matthew 26. When Jesus gave the disciples the bread and wine it was given as a symbol of His broken body and His shed blood. It was not transubstantiated
29 "But I say to u, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine 4m now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom.
He did not say "I wil not drink my blood in the kingdom but I wil not drink of the fruit of the vine!!!
The idea of transubstiantiation is blasphemy. u cannot make God out of wafer and fruit juice
So when Jesus said that the bread He was holding was "His body" your saying that it wasn't His body, but just a symbol?
Can you prove that He was talking symbolically? Or are you going to pidgeon hole God and tell us that it is impossible for Jesus to actually accomplish this?
Also, there is no need for the Eucharist in Heaven, thats why Jesus will not drink blood in the kingdom. Or anyone for that matter.
In verses 27-28 it was His blood that was in the cup, not wine.
So when Jesus said that the bread He was holding was "His body" your saying that it wasn't His body, but just a symbol? Can you prove that He was talking symbolically? >>>
When Jesus said, "I am the door," was He a "Door" Or was he speaking symbolically?
Jesus was using 'Hyperbole' when He said "I am the door" . But if you read John 6 in kione Greek, Jesus does not use this, as crafter111 rightly points out. The reaction of those listening show that it wasn't hyperbole.
"I am the door," is not a hyperbole but rather a metaphor, a symbol.
Likewise, "This is my blood," a metaphor, a symbol.
Protestants today they called this cannabalism! >>
transubstiantiation would only be canibalism if the priest were able to create Christ by his mummery but seeing this is just an abuse of Scripture anyone with any commonsense will know this is just nonsense!!
All the more reason to believe that Jesus was not using a metaphor in John 6. The one time that Jesus lets those He is preaching to walk away with the wrong message. If He was speaking metaphorically , would He let that happen when He doesn't do it anywhere else in the gospels? No, not a chance, especially as He repeats Himself over and over again in John 6
Those walking away did not walk away with the wrong message. Check Vs 26 "Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill."
The reason they were offended was because they were seeking temporal blessings and Jesus was offering them spiritual.
They were after food and Jesus was offering the Word of Life.
Like the disciples they understood but rejected the offer
60many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" 61Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him 67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. 68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
This is from a long time ago, but I will respond to it anyway.
In John 6:63 Jesus says, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you are spirit, and they are life"
It has never been taught that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper ever gave man's flesh life- it has been taught that Christ's body and spirit in the bread and wine give man's spirit life and that the sacrament if given for the forgiveness of sins.
As an excerpt from the Douay-Rheims Bible explains:
"'The flesh profiteth nothing'... Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing.
(cont) But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. "
(cont) ""Are spirit and life"... By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain. " -Douay-Rheims Bible commentary excerpt
Also, those that walked did not walk away because they were not going to be fed or anything else temporal. They walked away because they said that what He was saying was too hard to hear. Thats why they walked away. Your adding to Scripture now.
You must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
Jesus said "My flesh is REALLY food and my blood is drink"
the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." There was nothing symbolic about the language Jesus uses.
John 6:37 Jesus says He would not drive anyone away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe. That is why they left and Jesus let them go. They did not believe in what He said.
Jesus did NOT say: "unless you eat the spirit of the Son of Man you will not have life within you">>
Doesn't commonsense tell you that He could not have said "unless you eat the Spirit?" Can "Spirit "be eaten?
The wine is a representation, the bread is a representation, it is not literal! No one should have to be explaining the obvious unless you insist on distorting the meaning to support this heresy!!
You eat the flesh, but it is the spirit of the flesh that gives life, and the spirit of man which receives benefits. It does not physically nurture us.
If the wine and bread are merely representations, than why did Paul make such a big deal about not participating in the sacrament unless you discern the body, for if you do not you drink judgment on yourself?
If Jesus' flesh is worthless, than why did He have to suffer on the cross in the flesh?
I am not distorting scripture. The Bible clearly states that Christ is present in the bread and wine, though it does not clarify the way in which he is present. To say that the Lord's Supper is merely a representation is the utmost of blasphemy. It is a sacrament, not a thanksgiving meal.
"...the power of the priest is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world. ...thus the priest may be called the creator of the Creator..." -The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori, p. 33
THIS IS THE UTMOST BLASPHEMY!
If Jesus' flesh is worthless,>>
The denial of your mass does not make the flesh of Jesus worthless but rather says that the Eucharist is a sacrilege!!
I'm not Catholic (I attend a Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod, not the liberal ELCA), though I cannot say I agree with all the Lutheran doctrines), nor am I Liguori, so your quote means nothing. However, I don't think Catholicism teaches that anyway. The priest is not creator of the creator, they are just the instrument which God uses for the Eucharist. Augustine was a doctor of the church as well but not all Catholics agree with him about everything.
Perhaps- but in this instance I was defending Lutheranism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy- all believe in the real presence, though they think it occurs in different ways (Lutherans say Christ is "in, with, and under the bread and wine", Catholics teach transubstantiation, and Orthodox Christians say that the body of Christ is truly present but they do not know the way in which it is present).
I just go to a Lutheran Church because I was born a Lutheran, and figure that for the moment, as I sort through the different denominations, I should at least go to some sort of church and thus decided I'd stick with a Lutheran Church for the time being- plus Lutherans are the closest to an "in-between" denomination.
I called myself "TheAmazingImbecile" before I ever began defending Catholicism- because I originally created this channel to spread imbecilic-ness throughout youtube in an amazing fashion, but then I decided that it would be better to discuss serious topics with a comical name.
I have to admit as a Catholic that White did get Sungenis at the last few seconds. Sanctification is obviously meaning justification in this verse and you can't have it both ways. Sungenis's answer was lame. The problem with Sungenis's view of salvation is that he is not taking into consideration different phases of salvation. We are sanctified and perfected but through free will we can loose it. Even N.T. Wright indicates that there is a parodox here.
Sungenis made the comment that we don't interpret on passage and build a doctrine on it. Which is true but honestly pretty weak. However Sungenis did hand White his lunch throughout the debate, but Sungenis looks as though he ran out of steam toward the end. Hebrews 10 is easy to answer, because this is not a Catholic issue this is a Arminian vs Calvinist issue. But White got him on that because Sungenis ran out of time. I will give White that one.
Hebrews 10 is not easy to answer for Arminians or Papists. Rome has never had a leg to stand on Biblically. Remember it was your own people who claimed that Papal authority trumps the Scripture. I respond to that as my forefathers did; sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, soli Deo Gloria.
manleybeasley, the scripture is easy to answer, Sungenis ran out of time. Sola scriptura has given you guys 33000 differing denominations. So go ahead and have your sola scriptura.
It may not be easy to answer however Calvinists cannot answer 2nd Peter 2:1
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
This one verse destroys reformed theology's bogus idea of limited atonement.
It does nothing of the sort. The verse is not speaking to soteriology but to sovereignty. "Despotes" (Master) is not used for salvific ownership but God's sovereign ownership over His creation. The price of what was "bought" in this text is not mentioned. Every other time "bought" is used in the NT it mentions the sacrifice of Christ. This is not speaking of salvation but God's rightful ownership over all things.
Your forefather was Martin Luther or Lauder which means devil in german which is why he changed it. He didnt just change his name he also changed words in the bible itself.
What were these bible words he changed? If you're referring to the difference between his (and almost all other translations) from the vulgate then they were needed corrections since the vulgate had some real translation problems. Papal authority is antichrist (read 2 thess chap 2).
Papal authority is anitchrist. Your taking 2 Thess 2, to mean what you mearly want it to mean. Hes referring to the anit-christ, who isent born yet.
How do u know hes not refering to benny hinn, or jimmy swaggert? Protestants always seems to take the bible out of context because they have no divine leadership, that is sent by christ himself.
The protestant view is that the papacy (the position not the individual man) is the antichrist or "man of sin" to use the language of 2 Thess 2. You are presuming your view (futurism) on the text. The text clearly says the "man of sin" was existent but being restrained in Paul's day and would not be destroyed until the return of Christ. This is a "seat" (ie position) not an individual set up in the apostate church.
Hmmmm thats all nice if you read the Bible out of context. There is a site on the net called "Unity Publishing" the apostlate of Fatima. If you google this, then you can read a section called "The bible and the Mass".
Most protestants have never read anything about the mass that was written by a catholic and not a catholic hater.
spartacus your a Papal kool aid drinker, completely brainwashed, what is "anitchrist," you know spelling words backwards is Satanic! you switched the T and the i, explain?
LOL that is the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen, "Papal authority is scripture," where in the Bible is their Papal authority? that statement is a Mantra, anyone can SAY, what they say is scripture, Muhammed, Joe Smith, numerous other false prophets did the same, The Pope is just another example of that.
Google "Unity publishing" Click under "The Mass The Bible".
If you have the courage to read at least the 1st half. I'd love to know how your going to refute it. Its also full of Biblical quotes and I know you like that.
Sungenis got White on Hebrews 10 when he caught White in a lie when White said that he did not say that sanctification is an ongoing process. White is contradicting his own theology because White doesn't even believe that sanctification has anything to do with justification. Sanctification is a process according to White when the believer is made holy but has nothing to do with salvation. White is in essence arguing the Catholic position.
The problem is you aren't understanding the doctrine. A person is justified by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2). The God who justifies the sinner apart from works then produces the works through the life that He changed by His grace. This is His work of sanctification which is the evidence of justification.
Major problem with that being that Abraham was saved in Genesis 12 and not just 15 where it says Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as rightousness. Hebrews 11:8 says that Abraham was a man of faith in Gen 12. So which one was it. Was he justified in 12 or 15. Justification is not a one time event. Works are produced by God's grace and not by the law. " A man is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24.
1. Trying to say that justification is a process just because Abraham's faith is mentioned in 2 passages is eisogesis. Abraham had faith from the time of God's call. This is proven by his works that gave evidence to his faith. Chap 15 may be the evidence given to us to show that had faith by which he was justified but it doesn't mean it was progressive.
2. Check out the context of James 2. Is this passage talking about justification before God or men? "Someone will say.."I will SHOW you" my emph
The issue is that in Rome there is never justification; your "salvation" falsely called is all a work of what you do in total, complete and absolute fidelity not to Jesus and his word, but rather the Catholic religion. One big "IF" is all one can be "guaranteed" in Rome and even then you will have a few thousand years of the fires of purgatory - equal in intensity and suffering to hell. All I can say is repent, believe the gospel and come of out her, or pack suntan lotion for the purging fires
seriously fellas. White smokes him. Sungenis' argument on sanctification in the Hebrews passage is destroyed. He's trying to argue that the passage is refering to progressive sanctification when the word is past tense! And within the context "once for all". This means the use of sanctify here is something that happened once in the past. You don't have to be a scholar to get that.
The Young Literal Translation of Heb 10:14: "for by one offering he hath perfected to the end THOSE SANCTIFIED." This is also found in the Amplified Bible. Jay Green's Literal Translation: "For by one offering He has perfected in perpetuity the ones being sanctified." Contemporary English Version: "By his one sacrifice he has forever set free from sin the people he brings to God." It isn't necessarily past tense.
Are you joking? White smoked him? Give me a break, if anything Sungenis held his own at worst. You obviously are looking at this through a reformed tinted glasses. No Sungenis ripped White on the issue of free will and White was not able to even get past that.
Manelybeasly, you are a Calvinist, and don't rely on the Bible. The problem is that you don't understand the doctrine. You are in bondage because as someonne who holds to reformed theology there is not possible way that you can even know that you are saved.
Sungenis always puts this guy in his place and I love that. White bothers me, I can't say why, maybe it's because he so puffed up with pride. I think he may have a Narcissistic personality disorder :-P
@MTLFAN11 Dude. What, ever. Have you seen the way Sungenis behaved in his other debates with White? He is insulting and childish, while White keeps his cool and does not sink to his level.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hi Timothy, wondering where you are? you make this claim of a false gospel of Calvinism, and when I ask for a doctrine of Calvinism to debate you go into hiding? Or maybe your just busy? I will give you the benefit of the doubt! Get back soon, and pick a subject, or else I will pick a heretical doctrine of RC for us to debate!
Thanks for posting! James White did an excellent job!
sjennings86 2 months ago
@candiceevans1
No! This channel is an attack on Christianity by Roman Catholics!!
rev2214 9 months ago
Aww man Robert got toasted in this one.If it weren't for the time running out Robert would have been humiliated
ctsfinestjon 9 months ago
If you choose to refect christ are you still saved? No! So was his sacrifice not for all? But wait it can't save he who does not choose to be saved, so are you not displeasing god through your rejection? And if you are not allowed to reject it and be condemned are you also not allowed to accept it?
jpop1321 10 months ago
Luke 10:21 At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
So that's all I have to say!
YeshuaPhreak 1 year ago
pacislander4life the problem is not with the Bible to problem is with the person. I am a Calvinist because the Bible is clear on its teaching of election and God's working out all things according to the council of his will. To simply place your faith in Rome makes you have a bigger problem than the person holding to Sola Scriptura because Rome has been misleading people...Pope Honorius is simply one example of this.
berrytc44 1 year ago
God is satisfied in atonement and Mr White is correct you cannot undue God being satisfied by man's behavior Once God is satified by Christ for me He cannot be unsatisfied by me. He honors His Son's death the elect being a gift from God to the Son John 17 So basically according to Catholic doctrine Christ has perfected nothing by His death work. It can be undone, temporary and disgraced. Catholic doctrine undermines Christ Nature asbeing insufficient.
polopowers1 2 years ago
polopowers1
Protestant teachigs think that the Message of Jesus Gospel is "doctrinal", or intelectual. The Gospel is not "doctrine" but a way of Living your life. You are in Jesus Kindom if you LIVE THE GOSPEL. Jesus oped for free the gates of heaven, you and i have to GET IN.. but Jesus will not force you to get in.
Catholic Churc makes a dogma to answer common "heresis" that raised
mjmenjivar 2 years ago
Sungenis had a good point at the end in that we don't build doctrine off of one scripture and White's contention is "once saved always saved" due to his presupposition concerning reformed theology. The sacrifice was perfect but those who are sanctified may not stay with the Faith. I like how Calvinist interpret scripture one way and then another to suit their purposes. White lost that debate.
doggysector 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
When Jesus said, "I am the door," was He a "Door" Or was he speaking symbolically?
Well when Jesus said I am the door did disciples start leaving him saying this man is insane He thinks He is a door? no! they did not for they were not stupid men by no means,but when Jesus said to eat His flesh and drink His blood they knew well what He was saying, and like Protestants today they called this cannabalism!
crafter111 2 years ago
Protestantism is ILLOGICAL!!!
iotaunam1 2 years ago
It is a logical fallacy to say that unless all Protestants agree on interpretation that we have no legitimacy, your agrument that because we have disagreements among evangelicals THEN the Magisterium MUST be the TRUE interpretor of scripture, is another logical fallacy, that's exactly how cults reason. "how can the Bible lead you to two different understandings of the Bible" "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? Jeremiah 17:13.
cbat36 2 years ago
Sungenis used to get mad and lash out in his debates especially with Dave Hunt and White on a seperate occasion, you Romanist of course show him in his best light, probably took plenty of Prozac beforehand.
cbat36 2 years ago
that may be so... but it must be painful to see White squirm in this video...
pacislander4life 2 years ago
no really, I'm not a James White fan, he's a Calvinist, I'm a Bible believing Christian, I dont care for his arrogant attitude, but all Catholic apologists are arrogant as well, at least he believes in Sola Scriptura, and doesn't need some Nazi Pope to tell him what it means :)
cbat36 2 years ago
So, you are saying that Calvinism is not biblically based? How can both of you, James White and yourself, disagree... after all both of you are "at least", sola scripturists? How can the Bible lead you to two different understandings of the Bible?
pacislander4life 2 years ago 5
@pacislander4life
I'm a calvinist. Some people twist the text of the Bible because they love their traditions more.
ahumblechosenservant 1 year ago
@pacislander4life very simply, their is plenty of divisions in your own Catholic church, you have liberals, pre-Vatican 2 types, new agers, charismatic catholics, need I go on? yet they all believe in the Pope and the Magisterium how is that possible? now you get a taste of your own medicine, how does it taste?
cbat36 3 months ago
@pacislander4life Sola Scriptura has nothing at all to do with this idea that anyone who reads the bible will arrive at the precise same theology and doctrines as anyone else who does the same.
The problem with questions like the ones that you raise, is that they seem to be utterly ignorant of the above. Rather than repeating the same objections you hear, and which seem to be sensible to your ears, you should learn to criticise things for yourself, based on understanding them properly.
LiNQ1689 12 hours ago
@cbat36 It's not good to resregard James White just becasue he's a Calvinist... that isnt even what the debate is about... And it's also not good to denounce brothers as "arrogant" You should pray for him if you beleve that is the case, but whay would you blurt out such hatred in public?
ArminianMorningTea 1 year ago
@cbat36
"he's a Calvinist, I'm a Bible believing Christian"
Wow... And you call Dr White arrogant? I am also a Bible believing Christian who has in the last few months embraced Reformed Theology. Sadly, one thing I have had to get used to is that I barely have to make any comment at all before I'm faced with some of the most arrogant, condascending, presumptuous, scripturally ignorant, and downright hostility from "brothers" that I've ever had to deal with in my entire Christian walk.
Keruaran 4 months ago
@Keruaran so you've been a "christian," for a few months and your going to bad mouth other believers? What is arrogant about saying I'm a bible believing christian? Obviously you haven't heard Mr. White very often, listen to his radio program, anyone who disagrees with him is in error, but he is always right? that is arrogance, I dont claim to always be right, but I know Calvinism is not biblical, If you were to die tonight are you 100% sure you would go to heaven?
cbat36 3 months ago
@cbat36
I said I embraced Reformed Theology a few months ago. I've been a Christian for 24 years. What you did was differentiate 'Calvanist' from 'Bible believing Christian', the implication being that anyone who's theology is Reformed isn't a Bible believing Christian. But I shouldn't have to explain. Your wording was quite deliberate; You know exactly what you said and what you implied by it.
Keruaran 3 months ago
@Keruaran "Reformed," there were other Reformers that weren't Calvinist, how about the Anabaptists? You've been brainwashed to believe you have to be a Calvinist or your an Arminian, both systems cast doubt on their Salvation, I believe if you Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ you will be saved and it's Eternal period. How do you KNOW you are one of the elect?
cbat36 3 months ago
@cbat36
I am also well familiar with Dr White's program, his writing, the debates he has engaged in, and speak to him directly from time to time in his IRC channel. Most people I've encountered who "know Calvinism is not biblical" can't offer any strong scriptural exegesis to support their argument. If you can then I'm all ears. My faith is in Jesus Christ whom I know is a perfect Savior who shall lose not one whom the Father gives. Why are you seeking to cast doubt on my salvation?
Keruaran 3 months ago
@Keruaran "can't offer any strong scriptural exegesis"I can disprove Calvinism just by reading 1 Timothy "God our Saviour; Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth...Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for ALL." 1Tim 2:3-4,6. "we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of ALL men, specially of those that believe." 1Tim 4:10 so God wants All men to be saved who gave himself a ransom for ALL and is the saviour of all men, how is the Atonement limited?
cbat36 3 months ago
@cbat36 I'm curious: would you be able to address the verses you cited from a Calvinistic perspective? Surely, you don't assume any and all Calvinists simply refuse to address the famous proof-texts against their position. Have you taken the time to fairly understand their responses, then? If so, what do they say, and how do you criticise their response?
Unfortunately, too many people are satisfied with surface-level rebuttals; and so long as things seem sensible, they assume them as true.
LiNQ1689 12 hours ago
How do you justify transubstiantiation?
rev2214 2 years ago
by reading the Bible
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
show me!
rev2214 2 years ago
John 6, first of all. I'm not going to quote the whole passage, but basically Jesus says "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man you will not have life within you", and then many of His disciples abandon him (The Greek word used in the passage is trogon, which means to literally eat or gnaw). Would'nt Jesus have clarified if He was speaking in symbolic terms?
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
Secondly, Paul wrote:
"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY eats and drinks judgment upon himself." (1 Cor 11:27-29)
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
The scriptural evidence for the real presence was so strong that even Martin Luther, who was willing to tear books from the Bible to suit his own ends, could not deny it.
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
There is nothing in the Bible about transubstantiation an the spiritual presence of the HOLY SPIRIT is not a manifestation in the flesh!
rev2214 2 years ago
why did Jesus say "flesh" than instead of "spirit"? Jesus did NOT say: "unless you eat the spirit of the Son of Man you will not have life within you", he said: "unless you eat the FLESH of the Son of Man you will not have life within you".
The Greek word used here for flesh is sarx. Sarx can either mean flesh, the body, or human nature apart from God. (in the context it obviously doesn't mean the latter definition). Sarx does not mean spirit, and it cannot mean spirit. It means flesh.
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
Read Matthew 26. When Jesus gave the disciples the bread and wine it was given as a symbol of His broken body and His shed blood. It was not transubstantiated
29 "But I say to u, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine 4m now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom.
He did not say "I wil not drink my blood in the kingdom but I wil not drink of the fruit of the vine!!!
The idea of transubstiantiation is blasphemy. u cannot make God out of wafer and fruit juice
rev2214 2 years ago
So when Jesus said that the bread He was holding was "His body" your saying that it wasn't His body, but just a symbol?
Can you prove that He was talking symbolically? Or are you going to pidgeon hole God and tell us that it is impossible for Jesus to actually accomplish this?
Also, there is no need for the Eucharist in Heaven, thats why Jesus will not drink blood in the kingdom. Or anyone for that matter.
In verses 27-28 it was His blood that was in the cup, not wine.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
So when Jesus said that the bread He was holding was "His body" your saying that it wasn't His body, but just a symbol? Can you prove that He was talking symbolically? >>>
When Jesus said, "I am the door," was He a "Door" Or was he speaking symbolically?
rev2214 2 years ago
Jesus was using 'Hyperbole' when He said "I am the door" . But if you read John 6 in kione Greek, Jesus does not use this, as crafter111 rightly points out. The reaction of those listening show that it wasn't hyperbole.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
"I am the door," is not a hyperbole but rather a metaphor, a symbol.
Likewise, "This is my blood," a metaphor, a symbol.
Protestants today they called this cannabalism! >>
transubstiantiation would only be canibalism if the priest were able to create Christ by his mummery but seeing this is just an abuse of Scripture anyone with any commonsense will know this is just nonsense!!
rev2214 2 years ago
I stand corrected, "I am a door" is a metaphor.
All the more reason to believe that Jesus was not using a metaphor in John 6. The one time that Jesus lets those He is preaching to walk away with the wrong message. If He was speaking metaphorically , would He let that happen when He doesn't do it anywhere else in the gospels? No, not a chance, especially as He repeats Himself over and over again in John 6
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Be corrected again, my friend.
Those walking away did not walk away with the wrong message. Check Vs 26 "Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill."
The reason they were offended was because they were seeking temporal blessings and Jesus was offering them spiritual.
They were after food and Jesus was offering the Word of Life.
Like the disciples they understood but rejected the offer
rev2214 2 years ago
What was the spiritual that Jesus was offering in John 6?
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
60many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" 61Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. 66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him 67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve. 68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
rev2214 2 years ago
This is from a long time ago, but I will respond to it anyway.
In John 6:63 Jesus says, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you are spirit, and they are life"
It has never been taught that the Eucharist/Lord's Supper ever gave man's flesh life- it has been taught that Christ's body and spirit in the bread and wine give man's spirit life and that the sacrament if given for the forgiveness of sins.
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:>>
so what are you responding to?
rev2214 2 years ago
As an excerpt from the Douay-Rheims Bible explains:
"'The flesh profiteth nothing'... Dead flesh separated from the spirit, in the gross manner they supposed they were to eat his flesh, would profit nothing. Neither doth man's flesh, that is to say, man's natural and carnal apprehension, (which refuses to be subject to the spirit, and words of Christ,) profit any thing.
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
(cont) But it would be the height of blasphemy, to say the living flesh of Christ (which we receive in the blessed sacrament, with his spirit, that is, with his soul and divinity) profiteth nothing. For if Christ's flesh had profited us nothing, he would never have taken flesh for us, nor died in the flesh for us. "
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
(cont) ""Are spirit and life"... By proposing to you a heavenly sacrament, in which you shall receive, in a wonderful manner, spirit, grace, and life, in its very fountain. " -Douay-Rheims Bible commentary excerpt
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
Also, those that walked did not walk away because they were not going to be fed or anything else temporal. They walked away because they said that what He was saying was too hard to hear. Thats why they walked away. Your adding to Scripture now.
And what did Jesus keep repeating in John 6?
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
There is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this "new" bread which must be consumed>>
Hang on a minute.
If Jesus was making a contrast between physical and spiritual what was the contrast?
Physical food is chewed and swallowed, right?
If Spiritual food is also chewed and swallowed then it cannot be SPIRITUAL food, can it?
You see where you are getting confused.
Far better if u allow the Bible to say what it means: "The WORDS are Spirit and Life"
rev2214 2 years ago
No confusion here my friend.
You must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
It is you who is confused.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
I did not say spirit was symbolic. Bread, blood and flesh are symbolic.
It was the unconverted Jews who like u thought flesh and blod was literal: "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?"
It is the same problem Nicodemus had when Jesus told him he must be born again: "How can a man be born when he is old?"
Nothing to do with the literal, was it?
God gave mana to fil their belies now he again gives bread 4m heaven to fil their minds and harts but u stil tink it is about or stomachs!
rev2214 2 years ago
""Bread, blood and flesh are symbolic""
According to who?
Jesus said "My flesh is REALLY food and my blood is drink"
the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." There was nothing symbolic about the language Jesus uses.
John 6:37 Jesus says He would not drive anyone away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe. That is why they left and Jesus let them go. They did not believe in what He said.
TheManGadoosh 2 years ago
If you wish to keep living life in the flesh without any spiritual understanding no one is going to force you to do otherwise. It is your call!!
rev2214 2 years ago
Jesus did NOT say: "unless you eat the spirit of the Son of Man you will not have life within you">>
Doesn't commonsense tell you that He could not have said "unless you eat the Spirit?" Can "Spirit "be eaten?
The wine is a representation, the bread is a representation, it is not literal! No one should have to be explaining the obvious unless you insist on distorting the meaning to support this heresy!!
rev2214 2 years ago
You eat the flesh, but it is the spirit of the flesh that gives life, and the spirit of man which receives benefits. It does not physically nurture us.
If the wine and bread are merely representations, than why did Paul make such a big deal about not participating in the sacrament unless you discern the body, for if you do not you drink judgment on yourself?
If Jesus' flesh is worthless, than why did He have to suffer on the cross in the flesh?
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
I am not distorting scripture. The Bible clearly states that Christ is present in the bread and wine, though it does not clarify the way in which he is present. To say that the Lord's Supper is merely a representation is the utmost of blasphemy. It is a sacrament, not a thanksgiving meal.
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
"...the power of the priest is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world. ...thus the priest may be called the creator of the Creator..." -The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori, p. 33
THIS IS THE UTMOST BLASPHEMY!
If Jesus' flesh is worthless,>>
The denial of your mass does not make the flesh of Jesus worthless but rather says that the Eucharist is a sacrilege!!
rev2214 2 years ago
I'm not Catholic (I attend a Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod, not the liberal ELCA), though I cannot say I agree with all the Lutheran doctrines), nor am I Liguori, so your quote means nothing. However, I don't think Catholicism teaches that anyway. The priest is not creator of the creator, they are just the instrument which God uses for the Eucharist. Augustine was a doctor of the church as well but not all Catholics agree with him about everything.
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
So let me get this straight. You belong to the Lutheran Church but speak as a Roman Catholic apologist?
Is this the reason you regard yourself as an amazing imbecile?
rev2214 2 years ago
Perhaps- but in this instance I was defending Lutheranism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy- all believe in the real presence, though they think it occurs in different ways (Lutherans say Christ is "in, with, and under the bread and wine", Catholics teach transubstantiation, and Orthodox Christians say that the body of Christ is truly present but they do not know the way in which it is present).
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
I just go to a Lutheran Church because I was born a Lutheran, and figure that for the moment, as I sort through the different denominations, I should at least go to some sort of church and thus decided I'd stick with a Lutheran Church for the time being- plus Lutherans are the closest to an "in-between" denomination.
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
I called myself "TheAmazingImbecile" before I ever began defending Catholicism- because I originally created this channel to spread imbecilic-ness throughout youtube in an amazing fashion, but then I decided that it would be better to discuss serious topics with a comical name.
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
You cannot expect to be taken seriously with a name like Theamazingimbecile.
Imagine you tell somebody you have a channel on youtube and they say, "Yea," who are you? "THEAMAZINGIMBECILE!!"
Look, when you have changed it and come back we will talk!!
rev2214 2 years ago
Name-ist, you're no better than a racist.
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago 3
If you call yourself TheAmazingImbecile
How would you know?
What's wrong with bit of self respect?
rev2214 2 years ago
I have to admit as a Catholic that White did get Sungenis at the last few seconds. Sanctification is obviously meaning justification in this verse and you can't have it both ways. Sungenis's answer was lame. The problem with Sungenis's view of salvation is that he is not taking into consideration different phases of salvation. We are sanctified and perfected but through free will we can loose it. Even N.T. Wright indicates that there is a parodox here.
doggysector 2 years ago
Sungenis made the comment that we don't interpret on passage and build a doctrine on it. Which is true but honestly pretty weak. However Sungenis did hand White his lunch throughout the debate, but Sungenis looks as though he ran out of steam toward the end. Hebrews 10 is easy to answer, because this is not a Catholic issue this is a Arminian vs Calvinist issue. But White got him on that because Sungenis ran out of time. I will give White that one.
doggysector 2 years ago
Hebrews 10 is not easy to answer for Arminians or Papists. Rome has never had a leg to stand on Biblically. Remember it was your own people who claimed that Papal authority trumps the Scripture. I respond to that as my forefathers did; sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, soli Deo Gloria.
manleybeasley 2 years ago
manleybeasley, the scripture is easy to answer, Sungenis ran out of time. Sola scriptura has given you guys 33000 differing denominations. So go ahead and have your sola scriptura.
doggysector 2 years ago
It may not be easy to answer however Calvinists cannot answer 2nd Peter 2:1
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
This one verse destroys reformed theology's bogus idea of limited atonement.
doggysector 2 years ago
It does nothing of the sort. The verse is not speaking to soteriology but to sovereignty. "Despotes" (Master) is not used for salvific ownership but God's sovereign ownership over His creation. The price of what was "bought" in this text is not mentioned. Every other time "bought" is used in the NT it mentions the sacrifice of Christ. This is not speaking of salvation but God's rightful ownership over all things.
manleybeasley 2 years ago
Your forefather was Martin Luther or Lauder which means devil in german which is why he changed it. He didnt just change his name he also changed words in the bible itself.
Papal authority is scripture.....
spartacus6839 2 years ago
Wow...amazing argument. His name means devil!
What were these bible words he changed? If you're referring to the difference between his (and almost all other translations) from the vulgate then they were needed corrections since the vulgate had some real translation problems. Papal authority is antichrist (read 2 thess chap 2).
manleybeasley 2 years ago
Papal authority is anitchrist. Your taking 2 Thess 2, to mean what you mearly want it to mean. Hes referring to the anit-christ, who isent born yet.
How do u know hes not refering to benny hinn, or jimmy swaggert? Protestants always seems to take the bible out of context because they have no divine leadership, that is sent by christ himself.
spartacus6839 2 years ago
The protestant view is that the papacy (the position not the individual man) is the antichrist or "man of sin" to use the language of 2 Thess 2. You are presuming your view (futurism) on the text. The text clearly says the "man of sin" was existent but being restrained in Paul's day and would not be destroyed until the return of Christ. This is a "seat" (ie position) not an individual set up in the apostate church.
manleybeasley 2 years ago
Hmmmm thats all nice if you read the Bible out of context. There is a site on the net called "Unity Publishing" the apostlate of Fatima. If you google this, then you can read a section called "The bible and the Mass".
Most protestants have never read anything about the mass that was written by a catholic and not a catholic hater.
Good luck... and god bless
spartacus6839 2 years ago
spartacus your a Papal kool aid drinker, completely brainwashed, what is "anitchrist," you know spelling words backwards is Satanic! you switched the T and the i, explain?
cbat36 2 years ago
LOL that is the most ridiculous statement I've ever seen, "Papal authority is scripture," where in the Bible is their Papal authority? that statement is a Mantra, anyone can SAY, what they say is scripture, Muhammed, Joe Smith, numerous other false prophets did the same, The Pope is just another example of that.
cbat36 2 years ago
Its easy if you know where to look.
Google "Unity publishing" Click under "The Mass The Bible".
If you have the courage to read at least the 1st half. I'd love to know how your going to refute it. Its also full of Biblical quotes and I know you like that.
spartacus6839 2 years ago
Sungenis got White on Hebrews 10 when he caught White in a lie when White said that he did not say that sanctification is an ongoing process. White is contradicting his own theology because White doesn't even believe that sanctification has anything to do with justification. Sanctification is a process according to White when the believer is made holy but has nothing to do with salvation. White is in essence arguing the Catholic position.
doggysector 2 years ago
The problem is you aren't understanding the doctrine. A person is justified by grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2). The God who justifies the sinner apart from works then produces the works through the life that He changed by His grace. This is His work of sanctification which is the evidence of justification.
manleybeasley 2 years ago
Major problem with that being that Abraham was saved in Genesis 12 and not just 15 where it says Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as rightousness. Hebrews 11:8 says that Abraham was a man of faith in Gen 12. So which one was it. Was he justified in 12 or 15. Justification is not a one time event. Works are produced by God's grace and not by the law. " A man is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24.
doggysector 2 years ago
1. Trying to say that justification is a process just because Abraham's faith is mentioned in 2 passages is eisogesis. Abraham had faith from the time of God's call. This is proven by his works that gave evidence to his faith. Chap 15 may be the evidence given to us to show that had faith by which he was justified but it doesn't mean it was progressive.
2. Check out the context of James 2. Is this passage talking about justification before God or men? "Someone will say.."I will SHOW you" my emph
manleybeasley 2 years ago
The issue is that in Rome there is never justification; your "salvation" falsely called is all a work of what you do in total, complete and absolute fidelity not to Jesus and his word, but rather the Catholic religion. One big "IF" is all one can be "guaranteed" in Rome and even then you will have a few thousand years of the fires of purgatory - equal in intensity and suffering to hell. All I can say is repent, believe the gospel and come of out her, or pack suntan lotion for the purging fires
stmcgarret 3 years ago
seriously fellas. White smokes him. Sungenis' argument on sanctification in the Hebrews passage is destroyed. He's trying to argue that the passage is refering to progressive sanctification when the word is past tense! And within the context "once for all". This means the use of sanctify here is something that happened once in the past. You don't have to be a scholar to get that.
manleybeasley 3 years ago
The Young Literal Translation of Heb 10:14: "for by one offering he hath perfected to the end THOSE SANCTIFIED." This is also found in the Amplified Bible. Jay Green's Literal Translation: "For by one offering He has perfected in perpetuity the ones being sanctified." Contemporary English Version: "By his one sacrifice he has forever set free from sin the people he brings to God." It isn't necessarily past tense.
PWitness 3 years ago
No, it is past tense. That's not in question. It's right there in the Greek text. Sungenis doesn't even debate that.
manleybeasley 3 years ago
Are you joking? White smoked him? Give me a break, if anything Sungenis held his own at worst. You obviously are looking at this through a reformed tinted glasses. No Sungenis ripped White on the issue of free will and White was not able to even get past that.
doggysector 2 years ago
No sir, I'm looking through biblical glasses which does not teach freedom of the will but the bondage of it.
manleybeasley 2 years ago
Manelybeasly, you are a Calvinist, and don't rely on the Bible. The problem is that you don't understand the doctrine. You are in bondage because as someonne who holds to reformed theology there is not possible way that you can even know that you are saved.
doggysector 2 years ago
"seriously fellas. White smokes him", who are you trying to kid?????
dangerousdan71 2 years ago
Dan, at least try to argue your point.
manleybeasley 2 years ago
Sungenis, even in his offense just bakes Jim white into Hot bread. LOL...go sungenis!
incadish 3 years ago 2
Sungenis always puts this guy in his place and I love that. White bothers me, I can't say why, maybe it's because he so puffed up with pride. I think he may have a Narcissistic personality disorder :-P
MTLFAN11 3 years ago 7
@MTLFAN11 Dude. What, ever. Have you seen the way Sungenis behaved in his other debates with White? He is insulting and childish, while White keeps his cool and does not sink to his level.
patrckhh20 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hi Timothy, wondering where you are? you make this claim of a false gospel of Calvinism, and when I ask for a doctrine of Calvinism to debate you go into hiding? Or maybe your just busy? I will give you the benefit of the doubt! Get back soon, and pick a subject, or else I will pick a heretical doctrine of RC for us to debate!
wuebbsco 3 years ago
Typical arrogant Calvinist insinuate something and then act like the good guy. Yes I am busy, unfortunately I dont hang out all day on You Tube.
timothyprescott 3 years ago
Good work Dr.Sungenis for exposing the false gospel of Calvinism.
timothyprescott 3 years ago 2