Відео

So what if Peter was married Irrelevant

If Christ is head of the church why thousands of Protestant denominations

Thank you. I was worried all copies of this sermon had been deleted.

a debate about papal infallibilty? the pope is not established in the bible in the first place. Christ is the head of the church.

Man, you’d have to be a gymnast to defend Catholicism

The idea of your body coming back to life after death (bodily resurrection) is far more metaphysically absurd.

White knows more about Catholic history than does TS!!

Imagine having to defend Catholicism !!!

W for Staples

Evolution is still a demonstrated fact

An argument for common sense is that the 'incantation of theories' and the reification of words (e.g. Being, Thing In Itself, Will) entirely derive their meaning from common sense as a starting point, and perhaps what the common sense realists stated that problems in philosophy ought to be resolved by being more precise in language rather than subverting the very source of our understanding. It could be argued that problems in philosophy must necessarily be solvable by common sense, since if people do possess knowledge of any kind whatsoever, then they must already have all the epistemological concepts/categories/faculties/undestanding needed to describe reality, and an argument for common sense realism is just to say we must return to such that sense we have implicitly and which we share in common, not simply because it is common per se, but because it is from common sense that words first get their meaning, and solutions to the problems that arise from common sense must necessarily be in getting more precise in our knowledge rather than arriving at elaborate deductions which is deeply paradoxical, as it would suggest we use words without them having a meaning already.

+De Veritate Apologetics and Philosophy do you happen to have the debate with Geisler vs the calvinist was it Gerstner, or whoever was RC Sprouls teacher, where Geisler and Turek note he agreed that man does what he desires and God gives the desires?

Biblical argument for the canon of Scripture Hebrews 12:1“Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience: the race that is set before us,” Jude 1:3“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Notice" so many witnesses e.g., Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Latin, and other churches in the majority have received 27 books once delivered, so the 27-book canon agrees with Scripture. Paul, say we received the oracles of God from the Jews, so the Protestant OT books agree with Scripture. The mayor of Vatican City not so much. And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. Exodus 24:12

How does the presupp know that revelation has happened, while accounting for the fallibility of human perception?

New to this discussion but anyone still supporting Francis or an unbroken chain of Pope's after his statement about how his hope is in the goodness of man.

James white was wrong

The winner of the debute was the Catholic church

James White is the Tobias Fünke of theology

I’m sorry, but I could not listen to all of your talk so please dismiss this comment as unjustified if you wish. When you say that scientific knowledge is truth you are displaying a misunderstanding of science. Scientists may talk about observed data as facts because these are regarded as certain truths, but the ideas about how reality generated this particular data set are never certain. Those ideas are referred to as a scientific theory, something that is always liable to change, but seems to be at least close to the truth. Science can never discover ‘The Truth’ but is always searching, and instead, as you briefly mentioned, settles on ‘what works’. Science does not demand that a theory is the truth, it demands that a theory makes predictions that can be observed to comport with reality; the theory must work, and while it works we are justified in accepting it as something close to the truth of reality.

Exposing modern sophistry

James White says the Bible alone Then quotes 20 Greek scholars not in the Bible. Proving the Catholic position

Church Fathers is a oxymoron 😅😅😅 . Let me put it easy . I was Born in 1971 . My father in 1944 😅😅

Very different the way the letters to the different churches ..like in.corinth. galatia . Philipi . Rome. Etc etc . That how the new testament was spread 😅😅

To be affected by another in greek thought is weakness. And I say it is not? Meaning that it takes us by surprise and off control, it controls us and brings us down as a slave to it. This is weakness to greek thought, yea to human thought. And it is this what is meant that God is not passible.

46:08

I know the other channel uploaded the entire retreat but I wanted to ask if it were possible perhaps if you uploaded them on your channel in its parts. It's hard to find certain conferences of the retreat on the other channels video since it's all together. I hope you understand what I mean?

The last part is legendary

James gets smashed as always lol

Now I see why James white ducked for so long and has refused to debate Jimmy again after repeated requests.

Easy victory by Aikin.

Akin won this debate.

How do angels suffer the pains of the dammed?? Suffering is physical and/or emotional, even the pain of despair is ultimately felt as an emotion of hopelessness and loss, but angels do not have an emotional dimension they are pure spirit, so how do they suffer?? I can imagine how a human could suffer the fire of god cause burning is a physical-emotional feeling but again angels as pure spirits and do not have those dimensions in their experience!!

The question INCORRECTLY assumes that people are good. They are not. The Bible teaches that all have sinned, which means NO-ONE IS GOOD. So there are only SINNERS OF DEGREE, some very evil and some less evil. Even the most innocent baby grows up to tell lies, without ever being taught to lie by either parent. A baby grows up and lies because it is not intrinically good, but intrinsically evil. There is no other explanation. A Baby is a sinner who has not YET exhibited the full potential of its sin nature. The Rabbi has not read the Scripture, "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 All. Babies and adults alike. ALL are born with sin potential. Babies' shortcomings are simply not fullblown like that of adults'. God's way of ending evil is by giving the sinner a new life in Jesus Christ, the sinless one. The whole New Testament is dedicated to teaching converted sinners to live their new lives free from the past, free from evil and in newness of life imparted by the Holy Spirit. To the degree that sinners are willing to let themselves be changed by God into His likeness, to that degree evil loses its power in the Individual and in society, and in the world. It truly lies in mankind's power to end evil NOW. But, how many are willing to accept God's cure: complete forginess in Jesus, then submitting to Him as Saviour and Lord? İt should be evident: someone for whom Jesus is Lord, is not rude to their neighbour, doesn't steal from their boss or employee, doesn't murder, and won't sexually violate others. This Person instead loves their neighbour, looks out for their needs and well-being, spiritual and physical. That is love. Of the Jesus variety.

The Moderator needs to intervene and give Robert equal time.

There are no contradictions in the gospels, only apparent ones. Read "Why Are There Differences in The Gospels," by Licona.

What is Provisionism? The terms Provisionism and Provisionist are new by the standards of Christian theology. These labels have only been formally defined and used in the past few years. In broad terms, a Provisionist-someone who holds to Provisionism-holds a generally Arminian view of free will and salvation, with notable differences such as positive belief in eternal security. The main gist of Provisionism is the idea that the gospel is the Word of God, which is sufficient in itself, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to enable a response in all who hear God’s appeal to be reconciled to Him (John 6:63; Hebrews 4:12). The clearest differences between Provisionist doctrine and classical Reformed theology are seen in the concepts of total depravity and limited atonement. The doctrine of total depravity suggests all people are inherently sinful, such that they could not even want to be saved without a direct, predestined act of God. Provisionism counters that all people are sinful and responsible for their sin, but they are also responsible for answering God’s universal call for men to be saved (Titus 2:11). Limited atonement is a doctrine teaching that Christ only died for those God had designated as the elect. A Provisionist would reject this, saying that the Bible teaches that Christ died for all people (1 John 2:2), which is why God promises to save any who come to Him in faith (Romans 10:11-13; Revelation 22:17). The Provisionist holds that Christ genuinely desires all of humanity to be saved (Luke 5:32; 19:10; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; ). In effect, this means a Provisionist would also reject other Reformed doctrines such as irresistible grace. The main use of the term Provisionism comes from the writings of theologian Leighton Flowers. The term is also meant to describe the general approach to salvation held by most Southern and Independent Baptists. So far as Reformed doctrine is concerned, this means narrow disagreement on the subjects of total depravity and limited atonement, as well as the exact meaning of words like predestined and elect. Similar to the TULIP in Calvinism, Provisionism can be summarized with the acrostic PROVIDE Responsible: Able-to-respond to God’s appeals for reconciliation. Open door: For anyone to enter by faith. Whosoever will may come to His open arms. Vicarious atonement: Provides a way for anyone to be saved by Christ’s blood. Illuminating grace: Provides clearly revealed truth so that all can know and respond in faith. Destroyed: For unbelief and resisting the Holy Spirit. Eternal security: For all true believers.

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. -Matthew 23:9

James White - the snake in the grass. Staples did a commendable job putting the snake back in its box

It sounds so good to say "let us let Scripture be the judge of controversies". After all, Scripture is infallible. But it never seems to dawn on these people that there is a problem with this approach. What is the problem? WHOSE INTERPRETATION? Oh, they will say that this issue can be resolved by letting Scripture interpret Scripture and letting the difficult passages be made clear by the clearer passages. Amen, amen. But that is not the question. It is not HOW we are to interpret Scripture, but who is to be the judge, for when each person uses this method, they still disagree. The next move is to appeal to the secret inspirations of the Holy Ghost. And this seems so reasonable. Yes! Let us have God Himself decide. But the problem here is that the secret inspirations of the Holy Ghost are not perceptible to anyone else. Millions claim the secret inspiration and they still disagree. So, we really need a visible infallible Church. Otherwise, it is everyone and his Bible and chaos is the result.

A true Prophet 😇

We got our Apostolic Succession from Gregory the Great, and we have the AV Bible, the Prayer Book 1662/1928, and the 39 Articles, so we don't have to worry what Welby or Francis are saying or doing.

Who puts 10 ads on a video of someone else’s material?

I wish I had known Till earlier.

What a warrior. God ever bless him. ❤

ua-cam.com/video/qRYumgiW5ik/v-deo.html I think that this is the same debate, just here to help.

There's always the one insufferable know it all that takes a class to learn something but wants to argue and prove the teacher wrong. Half the lecture wasted by this guy trying to draw attention to himself. Sooo frustrating!

No idea who won this debate but the guy Tim Staples sucks at asking questions. If you can only ask 2 questions in 12 minutes then you don’t know how to ask questions. This debate was pretty pointless. Either the guy was anathematized because he taught heresy on the church or because he was negligent. I don’t really know what the difference is but imagine Jesus saying something totally false and is Christians dancing around it saying that Jesus was simply negligent as God he wasn’t outright wrong. I would’ve simply asked Tim staples… if you are infallible how then can you be negligent? Are Catholics and non Catholics supposed to accept infallible negligence? How is that even possible? Seems like a terrible idea.

IMO, FWIW... I agree with Geisler to a point: the meaning intended by the original authors, especially as it relates to Jesus, is "inerrant" (Spirit-inspired) and that meaning would not exist without specific terms, however, I find it hard to believe that rabbits once chewed cud... "the bible can never mean what it never meant" would be a good guideline IMO, and the meaning is what I believe to be Truth -- I'm happy to hear that Truth, (and believe it to be divine authority) within the trappings of an ancient worldview and not get hung up on whether Jesus was entering or leaving Jerusalem when a thing happened (and so on), which are never the author's point to begin with. Modernists tended to use & view the specific terms of the texts as "inerrant," ignoring author's meaning, in order to wield terms to their own, modernist ends in arguments of circular perpetuity. This opened the door for many liberal abuses of scripture's intended use. Thanks for posting this - I always enjoy hearing Geisler! I appreciate how his brain works.

ST.FULTON SHEEN PLEEZ JEUS

Ha. From these comments, its obvious this crowd is Catholic. Sorry but James White smoked Akin here.