As I'm listening, first impression is that Matt is rude. Second impression is that he is entirely ignorant of Catholic doctrine. Third, he really doesn't know how to debate. Sungenis clearly knows his subject. Slick is a joke. NO offense. But he is.
Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace/Reformed Theology are from the pit of Hell.....they are heresies that make God Almighty a sinner and not just a sinner but the Author of ALL sin.
Every child raped....every women beaten...every person murdered...every deceitful business deal...every cruelty man has done, was authored by God. It is a blasphemous false religion and many otherwise fine Bible teachers are promoting it today. MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, are some of them. Flee and Repent of Calvinism!!
Any Calvinist that engages in apologetics or evangelism is a heretic to their beliefs.
The fundamental teachings of Calvinism is that one can not reason their way into salvation, and that election is unconditional... some are saved "from the beginning" and others are condemned. There is no point in evangelism (if you are a Calvinist... which includes Presbyterians, Episcopals, Anglicans, and others).
Hmm. To piggy back on what Slick says: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteous, so that the man of God may be THOROUGHLY equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
You'll admit that nowhere in this passage is it taught that ONLY Scripture may be used for teaching, rebuking, correcting, training; or even that only Scripture thoroughly equips Christian charity. Sola scriptura isn't even close to being taught in 2 Tim 3.
Really can't believe all the hatred for Matt Slick. I have watched and listened to many of his debates, and have yet to see his views invalidated, period. From his many LOGICAL arguments, to his scriptural one here trumping the "traditional" arguement, he wins again.
Please tell me someone else cracked up when he said "He manifested Himself to me while I was receiving Him, and He actually came in His presence." That's what he said... while taking it in the ass.
It anyone has seen the CARM forums, it's not dissimilar from Slick's brand of thinking. I would not recommend going on there, especially not to the "Roman Catholicism" section (there is also Eastern Catholicism, you know).
"Don't go beyond what's written" (1 Cor 4:6). And what was written? How about reading towards the end of the previous chapter. The answer is there, in Paul's quotation of Scripture passages that encourages us to be humble.
In simpler words, St. Paul was merely encouraging the Corinthians to be humble by reminding and showing them what God says to us in a specific sacred text regarding worldy wisdom..
As an atheist, and therefore an objective voice in this debate because I believe they are both wrong, I would say that in terms of what is being argued here that Robert Sungenis has the better argument. I called this debate for Robert Sungenis.
What's with Matt's interpretation of 'Sola Scriptura'? He says it 'doesn't mean we don't look at tradition or councils'. Well, what's the literal translation from the Latin? "Only Scripture". His interpretation contradicts the definition.
17:47, Doesn't Matt realize that if his interpretation was correct, than most of the New Testament is "exceeding that which is written"? Matt Slick just slickly refuted himself.
Well I'm not exactly "promoting" him, I did make this video of their debate which Sungenis clearly dismantles some fundie protestant claims. And, I'm well aware of this rather unfortunate piece of background information-- though I think its obvious that it didn't affect this conversation. I've tried to disagree and reason with Sungenis about this..to no avail.
@myladyschild Don't worry, Matt is a prick to us atheist as well. I used to think he had something against atheist and now I realize he is just an asshole to everyone that disagrees with him.
@myladyschild Because there is no evidence that any gods exists and the proposition is not at all believable. I used to be a Christian, but I was always a doubter and when I studied a little I realized I couldn't believe in any religion. I can honestly say I am much happier for it. Its rather liberating actually. But I didn't want to talk about that.
If you wake up tomorrow & believe that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes magically turns them into the body of Elvis, then you are an insane nutbag.
But if you believe essentially the same thing about a priest muttering some Latin over a wafer causing it to turn into the flesh of Christ, well then your just a Catholic!!!
@LetReasonPrevail1 Unfortunately Sam Harris has no real authority to make discussion about doctrines of any faith. He has no background in the study of doctrines. All he is doing is simply offering funny rhetoric to make something sound bad. Ray Comfort and company do all the same thing when discussing evolution or anything. A person can minimize anything but re working the words. It's very typical of people with no real training as Comfort and Harris are. So Harris has no credibility.
It is laughable and ironic to listen to religious people argue with each other to see whose got the "truth." Now, can't you understand why us atheists don't believe any of their fairy tales?
continued...including the Apocryphal Books, as well as unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the word of God.” H. S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction: From God to Us (1960)
“At one of the sessions of the notable Council of Trent (1546) after a prolonged and stormy session, with only 53 prelates present, not one of whom was a German nor a scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who had made any special study of the subject from the standpoint of antiquity, the decree was passed that the entire Old Testament, ...Continued
Dr. Sungenis is right when he states that the Catholic Church gave us the Trinity. That is why Protestants and Reformers should research on this matter. God did not give the Trinity to the Christians, the Reformers simply kept it after they left the Catholic Church. Those that argued this point were burned at the stake.
Matt Slick is an obnoxious retard!. His denomination should force him to go back to school!. I have never listend to a more irritating jack ass in my entire life!. Slick is a humiliation to the body of Christ. He should quite debating people, until he is educated enough to do so!.
the church may not have directly interpreted it, but it has by defult interpreted it- by atleast saying what it cant mean... I.e- the verse at 12:45 or whatever- can NOT mean ANY interpretation which would contradict any other dogmas.
26:18, OK Matt, so "Full of Grace" was used to describe Jesus and Stephen. So in Matt Slick's argument, Stephen is equal to Jesus. Matt, you are the biggest jackass. You should have quit while you were be behind.
hilarious, Paul wrote Corinthians decades before the gospels or any of Johns writings. According to this guy they are all invalid since they were written after 1 corinthians.
Mormons have no proof of pedigree going back to john the baptist we Catholics have proof of pedigree. ignorance is bliss. Matt 12:14"Did they do it by laying on of hands."Sungenis "yes they did." Matt moving on cause he wont accept scripture12:18 Ok and so. Matt 12:36"i have authority" Sungenis "where did you get it" Matt 12:39"from Jesus". Sungenis "I need some proof that jesus gave you authority"Matt 13:03 " I didnt say he gave me authority". Wow!!! lying wit a straight face. unbelievable.
@SuperMounstro Mormons do accept the need of the pedigree. I am LDS (who also really enjoyed and agreed with Sungenis' "Not By Faith Alone"). The LDS have as much "proof" of pedigree back to Christ as the Church was restored. Slick just wants to deny the need for a Church with authority. LDS and Catholics agree there is a need for priesthood authority and it was given by Christ to the Church. Slick wants to take it upon himself without being called "as was Aaron".
I love listening to two deluded people arguing.lol. Hilarious.
I believe more than you. No i believe more that you. God loves me more that you. No, he loves me more than you. I can recite more bible passages than you. No, i can recite more than you. My church has been deluded longer than yours. No, mine has been deluded longer than yours. blah blah blah........
As a calvinist myself I must say Robert S made Matt look really bad.Robert is a good man.I like his debates.Robert even gave James White a hard time which is the best debater hands down
hmmmm, im a baptist and im gonna make this point. I dont believe roman catholic theology that states sacred tradition is equal to that of scripture. I just dont. having said that, i dont really think matt slick won this one. I must admit this catholic apologists has done his homework. Also, as a side note i dont appreciate when people say that catholics are heretics. Its quit infuriating. Just because they are of a different denomination than me, Im not gonna dismiss them as that. Its wrong :(
I think it's funny how both of them become Atheists when they debate each other, asking the other one questions atheists ask them all the time. Like, "how do you know"? ..."well because the bible says so" ..."well, because the roman church tells me" ... "how do you know the bible is the word of god" ..."because it says that it is" ... "how do you know the roman church is right"? ... "because they say that they are"
What does pedigree have to do with anything. The Catholic church with it's pedigree has drifted from what the Bible says over the centuries to achieve self serving purposes. Putting the Bible in the common man's hands in his own language has freed them from the corrupt Roman Catholic church .
If by "freed" you mean creating a cult-like anarchy which splits into thousands of different denominations (literally) and proceeds to add words to key texts in scripture while taking books out of it, then yes.
@Theologica37 I presume your accusation to adding words to key texts would be the translators adding words in italics to clean up the translation from Greek to English and the taking out of books to be the uninspired apocryphal books that weren't added to cannon until the Council of Trent in 1546 by the Jesuits in an attempt to counter the shakeup by Martin Luther 28 years earlier.
Most of the Catholic Churches false teachings come from the 12 apocryphal books added then.
Luther, in a vein search of the new testament for the sola fide heresy, added to Romans 3 the word "only".
Furthermore, you are absolutely incorrect on the ratification of the duterocanonicals. The dueterocanonical books falsely removed by protestants in the 17th century were ratified at Hippo 382, Carthage 397, Nicaea II and Florence. In fact, before they were falsely removed, they appeared in both Luther's original translation and the first King James.
@Theologica37 Then why did Jerome in his Vulgate classed the Apocrypha in a separated category. He differentiated between the canonical books and ecclesiastical books, which he did not recognize as authoritative Scripture. This is admitted by the modern Catholic church: They write “St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. Cont/
@Theologica37 Cont/.. "The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. ...Cont/
@Theologica37 Cont/.. "The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)." The practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish canon.
@14alonso88 It is historic. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit. The apocryphal books are not inspired by God, were not written in Hebrew, were rejected by the Church for the first 4 centuries, and was never quoted by Jesus or any of his apostles.
@clockguy2 Do your research Bud....Sirach, Tobit and Baruch scrolls were found in Qumran and they were written in aramaic and Hebrew. Canon of 46 books of OT and 27 of NT were decided 1st Council of Rome 382 AD, ratified by the Council of Hippo (393), Carthage(397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442) and finally Council of Trent (1546). Martin Luther even included them in his first German translation long before Trent.Luther even wanted to remove books of Peter and James to prove his doctrine.
@clockguy2 REA:LLY? Why do y'all believe stuff someone just "told" you as fact? Yea, too bad the Church didn't just call up Mr Barnes -Nobles and get those Bibles out there? The real truth is Bibles as books in general were copied....let me know if just maybe I don't have to go any further, maybe there is more to the story......go research it and read things on both sides....google Scott Hahn
@ReDiserio I Googled Scott Hahn and went to his website. Everything I found pertaining to the subject on hand was for sale in his books. I don't have the $34.95 to spend on that. Got any sources that are free?
We owe the Catholic Church for copying the bible through the centuries, but it is also damned for keeping it out of the hands of the common person by not allowing it to be translated and also for allowing the apocryphal books to be included.
@clockguy2 You just called Jesus a liar. And I tell you Pete, you shall be the rock on which I shall build my church, and the gates of hades shall not overcome it Mathew 16;18. common sense man
@myladyschild I say also unto thee [to Peter], That thou art Peter [petros, masculine gender], and upon this Rock [petra, feminine gender] I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The text indicates clearly that the church of Christ is built on petra and not on Petros. "They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock [petra, in the Greek] was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4). Petra refers to Christ, and not to Peter, petros.
@myladyschild If Peter is the rock on which Christ was to build His church, Peter could not be overcome and the gates of hell could not prevail against him. But, Peter was overcome, and the gates of hell did prevail against him. Didn't he deny his Lord after Christ told him that the Rock was not to be overcome? Jesus told Peter on one occasion: "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matthew 16:23).
It doesn't say "Peter, you shall be the rock on which I shall build my church" It Really says, "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church," Peter ( petros in the Greek) means a rolling rock or moveable rock and is masculine. This Rock that the church is built on is (petra in the Greek) which is feminine and means an immoveable rock. The two are not the same if you study it in the original Greek. It is a pun.
@clockguy2 As Greek scholars even non Catholic ones admit, the words petro and petra were synonyms in 1st century Greek poetry, centuries before the time Of Christ, but the distinction had disapered from the language by the time Mathew was rendered in Greek,The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek both Petros, and Petra simply meant "rock" if Jesus wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek Lithos would have been used
@clockguy2 Yea. It is not true that in Greek Petros means Petra. These are two dinstict words standing for different meanings and Jesus used them as that. "Your are Peter, & upon this rock I will build my Church" NOT You are Peter, & upon YOU I will build my Church. Since N/T was given in Greek, the translation would have been You are Petros & upon Petros I will build my Church! But it does not say that. It say on this Petra I will build my Church.
@clockguy2 "If Peter is the rock on which Christ was to build His church, Peter could not be overcome and the gates of hell could not prevail against him. But, Peter was overcome, and the gates of hell did prevail against him. Didn't he deny his Lord after Christ told him that the Rock was not to be overcome? Jesus told Peter on one occasion: "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me: ..."
Exactly. Peter was still human & humans have no power over the devil. Only Christ has.
This is why human history is filled with religious wars. When two people believe nonsense, there can be no logical resolution. There inevitably is no possible way to resolve the conflict except for one side to kill the other.
In Acts 4:7 Peter is asked of his healing of the impotent man “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?” His answer is the name of Jesus of Nazareth. No ecclesiastical or Magisterial reference here. No empirical proof.
@drakeshelton Isn't the ecclesiastical/Magisterial authority founded on Christ and his apostles? Why would Peter need to reference a Magisterial authority to these Jewish leaders when healing someone? The Apostles and their successors derive their authority from the risen Christ.
They could not tell. I ask you the same question sir: Was John the Baptists Baptism from heaven or from men? If it was from heaven what empirical proof did John offer? None. Where did John get the authority to do these things. Obviously it was not from the Jewish Magisterium.
This is an interesting question because the Pharisees probed John’s authority to act in an ecclesiastical manner as well in John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
The Jewish Chief priests and elders said to Jesus,
Mat 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
I am a protestant and shall remain so; but Slick was embarrassing in this encounter. It's as if he did no preparation at all for this. Sungenis is too smart and well prepared himself to be dealt with like this.
Sounds to me for all the world that Sungenis ducked dodged and avoided at every point. EG no scripture evidence for the assumption of Mary. Just one of many dodges. Slick for his part excelled. If anyone was humiliated it was Sungenis. How is the foundation of a church built on tradition? Answer, Its not. Its built on scripture alone. Theologica37 if you think Slick was humiliated you my friend are delusional. Be well. Bye.
You both make valid points but I would give it to the Dr. for maintaining his composure. I use to be a Catholic and there is no way that I will ever go back and I don't believe that all Catholic will go to hell as Matt stated.
mr sungenis ir very intelligent man and also so polite.i not so think matt was relaxing i mean he arguments are not so good in my thinking..but i am roman catholic and it sholud not be fight between us all who love jesus..the mr sungenis man was use very strong arguements and he seem like a very nice man to listen to,sorry for terrble english,may the peace of jesus be alwys with all for you..god bless you..
What an immature debate.This has to be a joke!!Who is this so called christian to say whos going to hell or not.And then the catholic man doesnt even want to hear what the bible has to say.
The Assumption of the Blessed Mother can be found in Revelation Chapter 12. It describe her body and her head crowned with 12 stars. Every Dogma of the HRCC can be found in the bible...
The Church is not the final authority because it is made of men who can make mistakes or be led into error, the Scripture is the final authority because it derives it's authority in God Himself and not a mere man.
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Confessing sins to a priest, petitioning saints and Mary. I just wanted to point out that we are to confess our sins and needs to God alone. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope]
@AnglicanApologist72 But what you fail to see is Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus, not the mother of GOD and Mary also had other children. Venerating/worshipping images is another traditional failure of the Catholic Church. The Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches.
Purgatory, nuns, and popes are not even in the Bible. Proverbs
30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. One does not need the pope to determine what God's will is. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He (the Holy Ghost) guides and leads us into all truth. All a believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of the Lord.
This is the first time I've heard Matt Slick. Did he lose his cool during this debate or does he always act like this? The part where he claims to be writing down Sungenis' words is very odd. Putting aside the theological arguments, Slick's behavior was, at best, childish.
"I hope I don't offend you" means that you're about to be offended.. Matt seems like a genuinely miserable human being who's boiling over with anger and insecurity. He hides his personal hang ups behind that smug and insincere exterior. The Muslim suicide bombers also believed that they had a direct line to the almighty. Fortunately, Slick's antisocial personality will ensure that he always remains on the fringe
@ritter89 No offense to my Protestant brethren, but most anti-Catholic protestants (aka Fundamentalists) are like Matt Slick. Angry, critical, self-righteous human beings.
It is obvious there are many flaws in the Catholic Church, like all the child molesting priests, and the Pope (who I think looks evil!) covers it up and protects them. I just seen a documentary about Catholic child molesting priests, it's horrible!
You've got to be kidding right? More Protestant pastors are involved with molestations than Catholic priests and everyone knows it. As a matter of fact even school teachers have tons more cases... take a look at the Department of Education's own website and you'll see that there are 29,000 cases of molestation as compare to 290 by priests. Of course the media blows it out of proportions and you have swallowed the Kool Aide!
@romgtr It is actually spelled Kool Aid and no I don't follow others, I do the research and make up my own opinions. There are no correct statistics on these priests because the Catholic Church has hidden many of these cases of child molestation and just relocated some priests that have been charged with child molestation. We will never know how many of these so-called servants of God have molested children and that in itself is a blight against the Catholic Church.
@DiatonicSoul I believe the Roman Catholic "Church" is not Christian. Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. People call the Pope "Father" and priests father. Forbidding the priesthood to marry is also another human made tradition in your religion. Wasn't Peter himself married? (remember the Pope is supposedly continuing the apostolic line through Peter).
Sorry for the miss spelling. I was typing too fast... We if for you there are no correct statistics then you shouldn't be making such a bold face slander against the priests. As for me I believe the Department of Education's website when they said the there are 29,000 cases. Studies have shown that more protestant ministers are involved with molestations that Catholic priests. Of course this is a blight but it's nothing compare to teachers, parents and protestant ministers.
Btw why don't you compare YOUR best people to OUR best people? Tell me who on your side are like Mother Teresa of Calcutta or Saint Maximillian Kolbe?
What facts? You got nothing on the Catholic church. Just bogus slander hearsay passed on by heretics like Luther and Calvin. Where does it say there are 27 books in the new testament? The table of contents is not inspired! Where does it say that Matthew wrote Matthew? Where are the original documents? The chapter, verses and punctuations are not insipred. They were put in there by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. You are cutting the off the the branch you are sitting on my friend.
We cannot judge his heart but in principle if Slick continues in his path of rejecting the Catholic Church then he would wind up in hell if he doesn't repent. God sets up the Holy Roman Catholic Church as the only mechanism to save mankind.
I listened to this live a while back. I wasn't too impressed with Matt Slick. As a matter of fact, I happened to catch Matt Slick in a Paltalk room a few weeks ago (maybe a month ago) and he admitted that he lost this particular discussion with Sungenis.
Slick is a condescending, fundamentalist asshat. While I thought Sungenis was very cordial, I did not find his arguments for the integrity of the dogma of Mary's assumption or the continual necessity of apostolic succession very persuasive. The Orthodox claim such a pedigree as well, but this does not seem to have prevented significant doctrinal disputes between East and West. That being said, I still do not think Slick handled himself very well.
Slick frequently goes off into meaningless tangents. His use of "Roman Catholic Church" is typical. I can't believe he claimed authority from a vision only to back off and pretend that he didn't do that when backed against the wall.
Sungenis is engaging Slick with an actual dialectical and polite method. It may just be a conversation, but at least Sungenis is disagreeing with professionalism. Slick is polite for the most part, but continually resorts to a dodge and weave tactic and on a half dozen occasions blatantly tries to change the subject when he couldn't respond. I think childish is an overly strong conclusion even for Slick.
@Theologica37 Matt Slick is doing the typical fundamentalist argument. If he can't rely on an intellectual argument, he goes to the "God done told me". Ironically he'll condemn the Mormons for doing the same thing. Kids can someone say "Hypocrite?"
As I'm listening, first impression is that Matt is rude. Second impression is that he is entirely ignorant of Catholic doctrine. Third, he really doesn't know how to debate. Sungenis clearly knows his subject. Slick is a joke. NO offense. But he is.
westsidewarrior1972 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace/Reformed Theology are from the pit of Hell.....they are heresies that make God Almighty a sinner and not just a sinner but the Author of ALL sin.
Every child raped....every women beaten...every person murdered...every deceitful business deal...every cruelty man has done, was authored by God. It is a blasphemous false religion and many otherwise fine Bible teachers are promoting it today. MacArthur, Sproul, Piper, are some of them. Flee and Repent of Calvinism!!
willpower242 1 month ago
Any Calvinist that engages in apologetics or evangelism is a heretic to their beliefs.
The fundamental teachings of Calvinism is that one can not reason their way into salvation, and that election is unconditional... some are saved "from the beginning" and others are condemned. There is no point in evangelism (if you are a Calvinist... which includes Presbyterians, Episcopals, Anglicans, and others).
kcdad2806 1 month ago
@kcdad2806 The regenerated Calvinist obeys Christ. Christians are told to take Scripture to all the ends of the church.
n8ssavedbygrace 3 weeks ago
Hmm. To piggy back on what Slick says: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteous, so that the man of God may be THOROUGHLY equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
jfreakbol 1 month ago
@jfreakbol
You'll admit that nowhere in this passage is it taught that ONLY Scripture may be used for teaching, rebuking, correcting, training; or even that only Scripture thoroughly equips Christian charity. Sola scriptura isn't even close to being taught in 2 Tim 3.
Theologica37 1 month ago
@Theologica37 Rev 22:19....doesn't the Catholic church believe the the words of the pope are inspired by God?
n8ssavedbygrace 3 weeks ago
Really can't believe all the hatred for Matt Slick. I have watched and listened to many of his debates, and have yet to see his views invalidated, period. From his many LOGICAL arguments, to his scriptural one here trumping the "traditional" arguement, he wins again.
jackspell8 1 month ago
@jackspell8 Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
Stitchman3875 1 month ago
Please tell me someone else cracked up when he said "He manifested Himself to me while I was receiving Him, and He actually came in His presence." That's what he said... while taking it in the ass.
SongADayChallenge 1 month ago
It anyone has seen the CARM forums, it's not dissimilar from Slick's brand of thinking. I would not recommend going on there, especially not to the "Roman Catholicism" section (there is also Eastern Catholicism, you know).
SorokChyetirye 2 months ago
"Don't go beyond what's written" (1 Cor 4:6). And what was written? How about reading towards the end of the previous chapter. The answer is there, in Paul's quotation of Scripture passages that encourages us to be humble.
In simpler words, St. Paul was merely encouraging the Corinthians to be humble by reminding and showing them what God says to us in a specific sacred text regarding worldy wisdom..
CristianoUniversal 2 months ago
As an atheist, and therefore an objective voice in this debate because I believe they are both wrong, I would say that in terms of what is being argued here that Robert Sungenis has the better argument. I called this debate for Robert Sungenis.
thesparitan 2 months ago
What's with Matt's interpretation of 'Sola Scriptura'? He says it 'doesn't mean we don't look at tradition or councils'. Well, what's the literal translation from the Latin? "Only Scripture". His interpretation contradicts the definition.
TraditionalistThomas 2 months ago
Damn dr sungenis you the man!
phatbimmer 2 months ago
17:47, Doesn't Matt realize that if his interpretation was correct, than most of the New Testament is "exceeding that which is written"? Matt Slick just slickly refuted himself.
Stitchman3875 3 months ago
Sungenis is a geocentrist, Theologica. Be careful who you promote, because people will jump on that like they did with venomfangx.
TheFunkyTheist 3 months ago
@TheFunkyTheist
Well I'm not exactly "promoting" him, I did make this video of their debate which Sungenis clearly dismantles some fundie protestant claims. And, I'm well aware of this rather unfortunate piece of background information-- though I think its obvious that it didn't affect this conversation. I've tried to disagree and reason with Sungenis about this..to no avail.
Theologica37 3 months ago
15:30 Matt got caught with his pants down quote mining.
Stitchman3875 3 months ago
I guess nobody has ever heard of the coptic church huh?
TheDeLaKore 3 months ago
@TheDeLaKore I did
newtochrist 3 months ago
How many times does Matt Slick clear his throat in this debate?
ClockworkOrangeABC 4 months ago
Matt, is just wonderful he makes me proud to be Catholic lol
myladyschild 4 months ago 7
@myladyschild Don't worry, Matt is a prick to us atheist as well. I used to think he had something against atheist and now I realize he is just an asshole to everyone that disagrees with him.
thesparitan 2 months ago 2
@thesparitan Why not believe
myladyschild 2 months ago
@myladyschild Because there is no evidence that any gods exists and the proposition is not at all believable. I used to be a Christian, but I was always a doubter and when I studied a little I realized I couldn't believe in any religion. I can honestly say I am much happier for it. Its rather liberating actually. But I didn't want to talk about that.
thesparitan 2 months ago
Oh, I wouldn't get too content with yourself.
If you wake up tomorrow & believe that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes magically turns them into the body of Elvis, then you are an insane nutbag.
But if you believe essentially the same thing about a priest muttering some Latin over a wafer causing it to turn into the flesh of Christ, well then your just a Catholic!!!
Now don't you feel just a bit foolish?
Analogy courtesy of Sam Harris
LetReasonPrevail1 1 month ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 Unfortunately Sam Harris has no real authority to make discussion about doctrines of any faith. He has no background in the study of doctrines. All he is doing is simply offering funny rhetoric to make something sound bad. Ray Comfort and company do all the same thing when discussing evolution or anything. A person can minimize anything but re working the words. It's very typical of people with no real training as Comfort and Harris are. So Harris has no credibility.
Stitchman3875 3 weeks ago
It is laughable and ironic to listen to religious people argue with each other to see whose got the "truth." Now, can't you understand why us atheists don't believe any of their fairy tales?
phoenixbrew 4 months ago
Hmm, you must have uploaded the wrong audio, because it certainly sounds the other way around to me.
clint25n 4 months ago
continued...including the Apocryphal Books, as well as unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the word of God.” H. S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction: From God to Us (1960)
clockguy2 4 months ago
“At one of the sessions of the notable Council of Trent (1546) after a prolonged and stormy session, with only 53 prelates present, not one of whom was a German nor a scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who had made any special study of the subject from the standpoint of antiquity, the decree was passed that the entire Old Testament, ...Continued
clockguy2 4 months ago
Dr. Sungenis is right when he states that the Catholic Church gave us the Trinity. That is why Protestants and Reformers should research on this matter. God did not give the Trinity to the Christians, the Reformers simply kept it after they left the Catholic Church. Those that argued this point were burned at the stake.
aaa4all2000 4 months ago
Slick-No no no I trapped you.
Sungenis- No no no I trapped you.
The end.
rawrock24 5 months ago
Matt Slick is an obnoxious retard!. His denomination should force him to go back to school!. I have never listend to a more irritating jack ass in my entire life!. Slick is a humiliation to the body of Christ. He should quite debating people, until he is educated enough to do so!.
morrisondan 5 months ago 2
Comment removed
morrisondan 5 months ago
God is so good at communication. That's why there are thousands of denominations. =p
Zentz29 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zentz29 Its not God who has communication problems...its the ones who are listening lol
TheDeLaKore 3 months ago
the church may not have directly interpreted it, but it has by defult interpreted it- by atleast saying what it cant mean... I.e- the verse at 12:45 or whatever- can NOT mean ANY interpretation which would contradict any other dogmas.
SempirVeritas 5 months ago
26:18, OK Matt, so "Full of Grace" was used to describe Jesus and Stephen. So in Matt Slick's argument, Stephen is equal to Jesus. Matt, you are the biggest jackass. You should have quit while you were be behind.
Stitchman3875 5 months ago
hilarious, Paul wrote Corinthians decades before the gospels or any of Johns writings. According to this guy they are all invalid since they were written after 1 corinthians.
TRUSSELLMARKD 5 months ago
Dumb and Dumber
Roper122 6 months ago
Comment removed
shimwah 6 months ago
Comment removed
shimwah 6 months ago
Comment removed
greglee20 5 months ago
Like all people at CARM, this guy is absolutely pompous, arrogant and presumptuous. This is like listening to a FOX news interview.
agentjs09 6 months ago 2
It's always funny to see christians fight over which sect is the "true" christianity.
If your god is to stupid to "inspire" a book that all you retards can agree on, I'll take my chances. lol
Matt Slick is a fucking moron...
Zentz29 7 months ago
Mormons have no proof of pedigree going back to john the baptist we Catholics have proof of pedigree. ignorance is bliss. Matt 12:14"Did they do it by laying on of hands."Sungenis "yes they did." Matt moving on cause he wont accept scripture12:18 Ok and so. Matt 12:36"i have authority" Sungenis "where did you get it" Matt 12:39"from Jesus". Sungenis "I need some proof that jesus gave you authority"Matt 13:03 " I didnt say he gave me authority". Wow!!! lying wit a straight face. unbelievable.
SuperMounstro 7 months ago
@SuperMounstro Mormons do accept the need of the pedigree. I am LDS (who also really enjoyed and agreed with Sungenis' "Not By Faith Alone"). The LDS have as much "proof" of pedigree back to Christ as the Church was restored. Slick just wants to deny the need for a Church with authority. LDS and Catholics agree there is a need for priesthood authority and it was given by Christ to the Church. Slick wants to take it upon himself without being called "as was Aaron".
trencher7 6 months ago
Matt sounds rather arrogant! Slick is trying to be slick but it failed.
sgal88 7 months ago
I love listening to two deluded people arguing.lol. Hilarious.
I believe more than you. No i believe more that you. God loves me more that you. No, he loves me more than you. I can recite more bible passages than you. No, i can recite more than you. My church has been deluded longer than yours. No, mine has been deluded longer than yours. blah blah blah........
Crazy bastards
LowdenFretter 7 months ago
Matt Slick molested my dog.
MrSupernova890 7 months ago
14:17-14:22 Was a good moment by Slick.
patrckhh20 7 months ago
"You're better than that"
"No, you're better than that"
masteroftheobvious86 8 months ago 9
As a calvinist myself I must say Robert S made Matt look really bad.Robert is a good man.I like his debates.Robert even gave James White a hard time which is the best debater hands down
ctsfinestjon 8 months ago
hmmmm, im a baptist and im gonna make this point. I dont believe roman catholic theology that states sacred tradition is equal to that of scripture. I just dont. having said that, i dont really think matt slick won this one. I must admit this catholic apologists has done his homework. Also, as a side note i dont appreciate when people say that catholics are heretics. Its quit infuriating. Just because they are of a different denomination than me, Im not gonna dismiss them as that. Its wrong :(
jamaicanification 8 months ago
I think it's funny how both of them become Atheists when they debate each other, asking the other one questions atheists ask them all the time. Like, "how do you know"? ..."well because the bible says so" ..."well, because the roman church tells me" ... "how do you know the bible is the word of god" ..."because it says that it is" ... "how do you know the roman church is right"? ... "because they say that they are"
Aphex217Twin 8 months ago
Matt:You dont need the word of God to make your position valid?
dr sungenis: No
I think this sum's up your own embarrasment.
taco1010 8 months ago
What does pedigree have to do with anything. The Catholic church with it's pedigree has drifted from what the Bible says over the centuries to achieve self serving purposes. Putting the Bible in the common man's hands in his own language has freed them from the corrupt Roman Catholic church .
clockguy2 8 months ago
If by "freed" you mean creating a cult-like anarchy which splits into thousands of different denominations (literally) and proceeds to add words to key texts in scripture while taking books out of it, then yes.
Theologica37 8 months ago 8
@Theologica37 I presume your accusation to adding words to key texts would be the translators adding words in italics to clean up the translation from Greek to English and the taking out of books to be the uninspired apocryphal books that weren't added to cannon until the Council of Trent in 1546 by the Jesuits in an attempt to counter the shakeup by Martin Luther 28 years earlier.
Most of the Catholic Churches false teachings come from the 12 apocryphal books added then.
clockguy2 8 months ago
@clockguy2
Luther, in a vein search of the new testament for the sola fide heresy, added to Romans 3 the word "only".
Furthermore, you are absolutely incorrect on the ratification of the duterocanonicals. The dueterocanonical books falsely removed by protestants in the 17th century were ratified at Hippo 382, Carthage 397, Nicaea II and Florence. In fact, before they were falsely removed, they appeared in both Luther's original translation and the first King James.
Theologica37 8 months ago 8
@Theologica37 Then why did Jerome in his Vulgate classed the Apocrypha in a separated category. He differentiated between the canonical books and ecclesiastical books, which he did not recognize as authoritative Scripture. This is admitted by the modern Catholic church: They write “St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. Cont/
bulyabalive 3 months ago
@Theologica37 Cont/.. "The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. ...Cont/
bulyabalive 3 months ago
@Theologica37 Cont/.. "The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon)." The practice of the Church up to the time of the Reformation was to follow the judgment of Jerome who rejected the Old Testament apocrypha on the grounds that these books were never part of the Jewish canon.
bulyabalive 3 months ago
@clockguy2 really added in Trent? 12 books? thats not historic
14alonso88 5 months ago
@14alonso88 It is historic. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit. The apocryphal books are not inspired by God, were not written in Hebrew, were rejected by the Church for the first 4 centuries, and was never quoted by Jesus or any of his apostles.
clockguy2 4 months ago
@clockguy2 didnt theologica37 already disprove your claim??
14alonso88 4 months ago
@clockguy2 Do your research Bud....Sirach, Tobit and Baruch scrolls were found in Qumran and they were written in aramaic and Hebrew. Canon of 46 books of OT and 27 of NT were decided 1st Council of Rome 382 AD, ratified by the Council of Hippo (393), Carthage(397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442) and finally Council of Trent (1546). Martin Luther even included them in his first German translation long before Trent.Luther even wanted to remove books of Peter and James to prove his doctrine.
76nonoy 4 months ago
@clockguy2 REA:LLY? Why do y'all believe stuff someone just "told" you as fact? Yea, too bad the Church didn't just call up Mr Barnes -Nobles and get those Bibles out there? The real truth is Bibles as books in general were copied....let me know if just maybe I don't have to go any further, maybe there is more to the story......go research it and read things on both sides....google Scott Hahn
ReDiserio 6 months ago
@ReDiserio I Googled Scott Hahn and went to his website. Everything I found pertaining to the subject on hand was for sale in his books. I don't have the $34.95 to spend on that. Got any sources that are free?
We owe the Catholic Church for copying the bible through the centuries, but it is also damned for keeping it out of the hands of the common person by not allowing it to be translated and also for allowing the apocryphal books to be included.
clockguy2 6 months ago
@clockguy2 You just called Jesus a liar. And I tell you Pete, you shall be the rock on which I shall build my church, and the gates of hades shall not overcome it Mathew 16;18. common sense man
myladyschild 4 months ago
@myladyschild I say also unto thee [to Peter], That thou art Peter [petros, masculine gender], and upon this Rock [petra, feminine gender] I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The text indicates clearly that the church of Christ is built on petra and not on Petros. "They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock [petra, in the Greek] was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4). Petra refers to Christ, and not to Peter, petros.
clockguy2 4 months ago
@myladyschild If Peter is the rock on which Christ was to build His church, Peter could not be overcome and the gates of hell could not prevail against him. But, Peter was overcome, and the gates of hell did prevail against him. Didn't he deny his Lord after Christ told him that the Rock was not to be overcome? Jesus told Peter on one occasion: "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men" (Matthew 16:23).
clockguy2 4 months ago
@clockguy2 I guess you know more then Jesus. that is not what Jesus said read Mathew 16:18 again.
myladyschild 4 months ago
@myladyschild Jesus wasn't a liar. You are misquoting Mathew 16:18.
It doesn't say "Peter, you shall be the rock on which I shall build my church" It Really says, "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church," Peter ( petros in the Greek) means a rolling rock or moveable rock and is masculine. This Rock that the church is built on is (petra in the Greek) which is feminine and means an immoveable rock. The two are not the same if you study it in the original Greek. It is a pun.
clockguy2 4 months ago
@clockguy2 As Greek scholars even non Catholic ones admit, the words petro and petra were synonyms in 1st century Greek poetry, centuries before the time Of Christ, but the distinction had disapered from the language by the time Mathew was rendered in Greek,The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek both Petros, and Petra simply meant "rock" if Jesus wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek Lithos would have been used
myladyschild 4 months ago
@clockguy2 Yea. It is not true that in Greek Petros means Petra. These are two dinstict words standing for different meanings and Jesus used them as that. "Your are Peter, & upon this rock I will build my Church" NOT You are Peter, & upon YOU I will build my Church. Since N/T was given in Greek, the translation would have been You are Petros & upon Petros I will build my Church! But it does not say that. It say on this Petra I will build my Church.
bulyabalive 3 months ago
@clockguy2 "If Peter is the rock on which Christ was to build His church, Peter could not be overcome and the gates of hell could not prevail against him. But, Peter was overcome, and the gates of hell did prevail against him. Didn't he deny his Lord after Christ told him that the Rock was not to be overcome? Jesus told Peter on one occasion: "Get thee behind Me, Satan: thou art an offense unto Me: ..."
Exactly. Peter was still human & humans have no power over the devil. Only Christ has.
bulyabalive 3 months ago
11:58 Sungenis: How did they do it in the old Testament? Slick: The President?
ha Slick you fail so hard. lol
PaperNun 8 months ago
This is why human history is filled with religious wars. When two people believe nonsense, there can be no logical resolution. There inevitably is no possible way to resolve the conflict except for one side to kill the other.
EGarrett01 8 months ago
Not so slick now are ya Slick?
Childinfaith 8 months ago
Still waiting for a response.
drakeshelton 8 months ago
I had heard this before.
DR. SUNGENIS DESTROYED SLICK!!
ClockworkOrangeABC 8 months ago
In Acts 4:7 Peter is asked of his healing of the impotent man “By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?” His answer is the name of Jesus of Nazareth. No ecclesiastical or Magisterial reference here. No empirical proof.
drakeshelton 9 months ago
@drakeshelton Isn't the ecclesiastical/Magisterial authority founded on Christ and his apostles? Why would Peter need to reference a Magisterial authority to these Jewish leaders when healing someone? The Apostles and their successors derive their authority from the risen Christ.
greglee20 8 months ago
They could not tell. I ask you the same question sir: Was John the Baptists Baptism from heaven or from men? If it was from heaven what empirical proof did John offer? None. Where did John get the authority to do these things. Obviously it was not from the Jewish Magisterium.
drakeshelton 9 months ago
@drakeshelton Wasn't John the baptist a descendant of Levi. He was part of the priestly authority wasn't he?
greglee20 8 months ago
This is an interesting question because the Pharisees probed John’s authority to act in an ecclesiastical manner as well in John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
drakeshelton 9 months ago
Matthew Pool humiliates Dr. Sungenis
The Jewish Chief priests and elders said to Jesus,
Mat 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?
drakeshelton 9 months ago
Run Matt ruuuuuuuuuuuuun!
redeemerslove 9 months ago
I am a protestant and shall remain so; but Slick was embarrassing in this encounter. It's as if he did no preparation at all for this. Sungenis is too smart and well prepared himself to be dealt with like this.
the13thof12 9 months ago 2
Comment removed
CitizenIreland 9 months ago
Comment removed
CitizenIreland 9 months ago
Sounds to me for all the world that Sungenis ducked dodged and avoided at every point. EG no scripture evidence for the assumption of Mary. Just one of many dodges. Slick for his part excelled. If anyone was humiliated it was Sungenis. How is the foundation of a church built on tradition? Answer, Its not. Its built on scripture alone. Theologica37 if you think Slick was humiliated you my friend are delusional. Be well. Bye.
CitizenIreland 9 months ago
You both make valid points but I would give it to the Dr. for maintaining his composure. I use to be a Catholic and there is no way that I will ever go back and I don't believe that all Catholic will go to hell as Matt stated.
gigiisd1 9 months ago
mr sungenis ir very intelligent man and also so polite.i not so think matt was relaxing i mean he arguments are not so good in my thinking..but i am roman catholic and it sholud not be fight between us all who love jesus..the mr sungenis man was use very strong arguements and he seem like a very nice man to listen to,sorry for terrble english,may the peace of jesus be alwys with all for you..god bless you..
SuperKiera22 10 months ago
What an immature debate.This has to be a joke!!Who is this so called christian to say whos going to hell or not.And then the catholic man doesnt even want to hear what the bible has to say.
ctsfinestjon 10 months ago
The Assumption of the Blessed Mother can be found in Revelation Chapter 12. It describe her body and her head crowned with 12 stars. Every Dogma of the HRCC can be found in the bible...
romgtr 10 months ago
The Church is not the final authority because it is made of men who can make mistakes or be led into error, the Scripture is the final authority because it derives it's authority in God Himself and not a mere man.
parakeethands 10 months ago
HI, I'm also a total tool that likes to debate topics in which I know nothing. Matt Slick is my sensei. Our code:
1. If you have no reply, say, "So" and then remain silent; also, claim you don't understand and ask your opponent to incessantly repeat the question.
2. Demand evidence from opponent. Claim Jesus spoke to you as your evidence.
3. If frustrated: a) call opponent a name (e.g. cultist, Muslim), b) mumble exasperations under your breath, c) tell opponent he is better than that.
gusnkc 10 months ago 15
This has been flagged as spam show
CATHOLIC TRADITION - Confessing sins to a priest, petitioning saints and Mary. I just wanted to point out that we are to confess our sins and needs to God alone. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope]
DiatonicSoul 10 months ago
@AnglicanApologist72 But what you fail to see is Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus, not the mother of GOD and Mary also had other children. Venerating/worshipping images is another traditional failure of the Catholic Church. The Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches.
DiatonicSoul 10 months ago
@DiatonicSoul In other words you are implying that Jesus is not God.
Stitchman3875 8 months ago
Purgatory, nuns, and popes are not even in the Bible. Proverbs
30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. One does not need the pope to determine what God's will is. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He (the Holy Ghost) guides and leads us into all truth. All a believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of the Lord.
DiatonicSoul 10 months ago
This is the first time I've heard Matt Slick. Did he lose his cool during this debate or does he always act like this? The part where he claims to be writing down Sungenis' words is very odd. Putting aside the theological arguments, Slick's behavior was, at best, childish.
gusnkc 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Matt,
Know when you have been beaten
ChristianEastern 10 months ago
oh my goodness, how embarassing!
myladyschild 11 months ago
"I hope I don't offend you" means that you're about to be offended.. Matt seems like a genuinely miserable human being who's boiling over with anger and insecurity. He hides his personal hang ups behind that smug and insincere exterior. The Muslim suicide bombers also believed that they had a direct line to the almighty. Fortunately, Slick's antisocial personality will ensure that he always remains on the fringe
ritter89 11 months ago
@ritter89 No offense to my Protestant brethren, but most anti-Catholic protestants (aka Fundamentalists) are like Matt Slick. Angry, critical, self-righteous human beings.
ClockworkOrangeABC 4 months ago 2
It is obvious there are many flaws in the Catholic Church, like all the child molesting priests, and the Pope (who I think looks evil!) covers it up and protects them. I just seen a documentary about Catholic child molesting priests, it's horrible!
DiatonicSoul 11 months ago
You've got to be kidding right? More Protestant pastors are involved with molestations than Catholic priests and everyone knows it. As a matter of fact even school teachers have tons more cases... take a look at the Department of Education's own website and you'll see that there are 29,000 cases of molestation as compare to 290 by priests. Of course the media blows it out of proportions and you have swallowed the Kool Aide!
romgtr 10 months ago
@romgtr It is actually spelled Kool Aid and no I don't follow others, I do the research and make up my own opinions. There are no correct statistics on these priests because the Catholic Church has hidden many of these cases of child molestation and just relocated some priests that have been charged with child molestation. We will never know how many of these so-called servants of God have molested children and that in itself is a blight against the Catholic Church.
DiatonicSoul 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DiatonicSoul I believe the Roman Catholic "Church" is not Christian. Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. People call the Pope "Father" and priests father. Forbidding the priesthood to marry is also another human made tradition in your religion. Wasn't Peter himself married? (remember the Pope is supposedly continuing the apostolic line through Peter).
DiatonicSoul 10 months ago
Sorry for the miss spelling. I was typing too fast... We if for you there are no correct statistics then you shouldn't be making such a bold face slander against the priests. As for me I believe the Department of Education's website when they said the there are 29,000 cases. Studies have shown that more protestant ministers are involved with molestations that Catholic priests. Of course this is a blight but it's nothing compare to teachers, parents and protestant ministers.
romgtr 10 months ago
@romgtr mispelling
myladyschild 10 months ago
Btw why don't you compare YOUR best people to OUR best people? Tell me who on your side are like Mother Teresa of Calcutta or Saint Maximillian Kolbe?
romgtr 10 months ago
@romgtr I don't need to compare anything to you, I just bring facts to the table adhering to Biblical Christianity.
DiatonicSoul 10 months ago
What facts? You got nothing on the Catholic church. Just bogus slander hearsay passed on by heretics like Luther and Calvin. Where does it say there are 27 books in the new testament? The table of contents is not inspired! Where does it say that Matthew wrote Matthew? Where are the original documents? The chapter, verses and punctuations are not insipred. They were put in there by the Holy Roman Catholic Church. You are cutting the off the the branch you are sitting on my friend.
romgtr 10 months ago
Every dogma of the HRCC can be found in the Bible including the word Catholic.
romgtr 10 months ago
This Slick guy lives up to his name.
jmkeller 11 months ago
This is the most entertaining debate that I've ever heard! I'd pay money to hear another one of these debates between Dr. Sungenis and Slick.
Matt, I'll keep you in my prayers my brother, and I hope you've had a change of heart since this debate took place.
rockstar103070 1 year ago
Matt Slick and God can judge people and condemn sinners to hell hehehe
myladyschild 1 year ago
0:00 to 3:55
Slick: 'you're going to hell'
Sungenis: 'no you're going to hell'
Slick: 'no you're going to hell'
...
Some part of me wants them both to be right.
Chopstewie 1 year ago
@Chopstewie Sungenis never said Slick was going to Hell.
Stitchman3875 1 year ago
We cannot judge his heart but in principle if Slick continues in his path of rejecting the Catholic Church then he would wind up in hell if he doesn't repent. God sets up the Holy Roman Catholic Church as the only mechanism to save mankind.
romgtr 10 months ago
Dr. Sungenis all the way!!!!!
nrizzo70 1 year ago
Score one for the Papists :)
Childinfaith 1 year ago
I don't think Sungenis can lose a debate
PistisIasis 1 year ago
Slick is such a burk. Plus his TAG argument fails hard.
SecularNumanist 1 year ago
this is ridiculous
calm0down0people 1 year ago
I know I said it once but I'll say it again, Matt Slick = Bitchslapped!!!
Stitchman3875 1 year ago
I have my pedigree from Jesus. LOL
reafdaw01 1 year ago
its hard taking a geocentrist seriously
manutdfan4321 1 year ago
@manutdfan4321
Wait, Matt Slick is a geocentrist? Seriously?
yermomsboxx 1 year ago
@yermomsboxx Sungenis published the book Galileo Was Wrong
viewerone1 1 year ago
@yermomsboxx sungenis although i will say sungenis won the debate
manutdfan4321 1 year ago
I listened to this live a while back. I wasn't too impressed with Matt Slick. As a matter of fact, I happened to catch Matt Slick in a Paltalk room a few weeks ago (maybe a month ago) and he admitted that he lost this particular discussion with Sungenis.
Mkvine 1 year ago
In one sentence, this seems to be what slick is doing:
I don't want to be offensive, but I am going to tell you your belief is wrong.
That is the strongest contradiction I have come across yet.
RidgeofEternity 1 year ago
Slick is a condescending, fundamentalist asshat. While I thought Sungenis was very cordial, I did not find his arguments for the integrity of the dogma of Mary's assumption or the continual necessity of apostolic succession very persuasive. The Orthodox claim such a pedigree as well, but this does not seem to have prevented significant doctrinal disputes between East and West. That being said, I still do not think Slick handled himself very well.
Is it true that Sungenis is a geocentrist? x_o
ElasticGiraffe 1 year ago
Comment removed
DangeloM27 1 year ago
I listened to this debate. sungenis definately won. wasnt sungenis on this show on more than one occasion after this?
OneTrueChurch 1 year ago
Matt Slick is a dumbass.
thunderbolt94 1 year ago
Slick frequently goes off into meaningless tangents. His use of "Roman Catholic Church" is typical. I can't believe he claimed authority from a vision only to back off and pretend that he didn't do that when backed against the wall.
BeingBob 1 year ago
This slick guy is the classic side-swiping hit and run fundamentalists. And what an appropriate name, Matt Slick.
tumbleweedjoe 1 year ago
Matt Slick bitchslapped himself.
Stitchman3875 1 year ago
i think they're both childish.
bslinkymi112 1 year ago 4
Sungenis is engaging Slick with an actual dialectical and polite method. It may just be a conversation, but at least Sungenis is disagreeing with professionalism. Slick is polite for the most part, but continually resorts to a dodge and weave tactic and on a half dozen occasions blatantly tries to change the subject when he couldn't respond. I think childish is an overly strong conclusion even for Slick.
Theologica37 1 year ago 7
@Theologica37 Matt Slick is doing the typical fundamentalist argument. If he can't rely on an intellectual argument, he goes to the "God done told me". Ironically he'll condemn the Mormons for doing the same thing. Kids can someone say "Hypocrite?"
Stitchman3875 1 year ago