Formal Debate Proposed

I am not a debater. I am an average cradle Catholic, defending my faith in Jesus Christ. I also suspect no matter how good a debate was to be put on, the anti-Catholics will declare the Catholic the loser. The testing was biased and rigged in its evaluation (no category for Justification by Grace) and the debate most likely would be also. I would be surprised if any Catholic here would trust to be treated fairly.

God Bless

 

Edna,

I find it intersting that you would think Bob is an acceptable candidate for the Protestant side. He does not hold to Sola Scriptura (if he is a good SDA) because he holds to scripture + Ellen G. White. He (if he is a good SDA) is definitely on the legalist side of Protestantism, he believes in soul sleep, believes you MUST worship on Saturday or your violating the commandements, and if he is like most SDA's I know (including a couple who have been on this board) the trinity is up for debate.

From CRI

"http://www.equip.org/free/CP0602.htm"

Here is another article on them:


http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/s18.html

"Whether the Seventh-day Adventists are a sect, a cult or a denomination is a matter of intense controversy. Some evangelical scholars have insisted they that are cultic. Others have claimed that they are not. Some scholars have reviewed the institutional developments of the Seventh-day Adventists and asked whether this onetime sect has now become a denomination. "

In the final anlysis it matters little on this board as long as they are not Catholic.

Blessings

 

I agree with thess wholeheartedly. Bob believes in keeping the old testament laws and wouldnt be one to debate justification.

 

I would be happy to assist if my services are required.

Hello Kathryn -

The nature of a formal debate is that the "peanut gallery" is eliminated, bringing the discussion down to two participants. By structuring the format in this way, each participant has an equal chance of presenting their case.

The only formal debate to ever occur on this board was between Post-it, a moderate, left-wing Baptist and David Gould, a bright, articulate atheist, over the Existence of God. The debate was moderated by me, a moderately conservative Southern Baptist. I think that all participants felt that this unjudged dialogue was handled in a fair, impartial manner. In fact, David (the atheist), wrote me toward the end of the debate and said that he appreciated the effort and the handling of the discussion.

If the debate were to be judged, the judges would be selected from as wide a cross-section of this board as we coulod muster. It would be done as fairly as humanly and technically possible. Nothing would be proven by impartial treatment. We would have nothing to gain.

It's the same logic I use in being so light handed in this forum. The cry of "partiality" sometimes arises from this forum, but over all I think you will agree that everyone has their chance to speak their mind without the fear of being edited, excepting, of course, bad behavior.

The moderator in a formal debate is not really a participant. He is merely a time keeper / post submitter / rule guardian / code editor. It is not the same function as one who moderates these "real time" discussions.

I believe that most of us here (hopefully) are more concerned with seeking the Truth than we are conforming to a philosophical school. Bear in mind that if such a debate occured, Bob Ryan is Seventh-day Adventist, his opponent would be Catholic and the moderator would be Baptist.

A study of the concept of Justification would be of great benefit to the board, in my humble opinion.

 

Defending a position on Justification by use of the Law is a contradiction in terms.

Galatians 3:11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."

If* Justification through the Law were, however, Mr. Ryan's position, it would add a new dimension to the parallel public discussion in that both positions would be seeking Justification through an addition to faith.

* Bob, I am not attempting to define your position for you, but, rather, I am speaking hypothetically.

 

Iam sure that Bob Ryan's position on the old testaments laws as an SDA are the same as the Roman Catholics on the sanctifying graces. They are not necessary for salvation and have nothing to do with justification. Correct?

 

I find it interesting that God established the Law as the means by which man could be "Justified" through obedience of the law, (disobedience being man's downfall). Yet we, who are Justified by Jesus' obedience of the Law, are so willing to throw out the law because God gave us His only begotten Son to complete or Fulfill that law, thereby becoming our Justification.

God did not throw out the law, nor did Jesus negate the law. We still recognize sin for what it is in accordance with the law. Remember the "Thou Shall Not's? Well they still exist! We are reminded of them throughout our civil laws! If we disobey them, regardless of what we believe about Jesus, Grace, Atonement, etc., we are still subject to the consequences of those laws.

So, Let's not hear any more of this trash talk about the Law of God no longer applying to mankind. The Law remains, what you do with it is entirely up to you!

 

I am mainly referring to the Jewish ceremonial laws found in the Torah. You dont keep all those in order to get to heaven do you?

 

edna,

I woulds step up on a different debate. I'm simply not familiar enough yet with the minute differences expressed between the justification/sanctification arguements to express either view properly.

If you have another topic sometime that you want to put forward for a debate, I'd be more willing.

God bless,

Grant

 

I appreciate that Clint.

My position in a debate with the common Catholic application would be the Romans 3:28 position "we maintain that man is justified by faith Apart from the works of the Law" as well as the Romans

And to a lesser extent -- Rom 3:20 "By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified".

Although - my guess is that many Catholics would argue in favor of those same texts at one level and against them at another level.

However if I were debating someone on the opposite end of that fence - I would probably be taking the Romans 2:11-16 and Jame 2:24 position.

Basically the Bible clearly identifies the ditches on both sides of that narrow road and all of Christianity seems to have fallen into one or the other.


To add to Kathryn's post "I am a cradle Adventist and though I have no formal religious training aside from church school basic Bible classes" I enjoy exchanging views with Christians my own denomination as well as Christians of other Christian denominations such as Baptist and Catholic.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Just a minor slip of the finger.

God bless you,

Grant

 

There have been a number ofvdebates on this subject, many are available online here is one.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/debatejust.html

 

I resemble that remark!

...I mean I RESENT that remark! I aint no peanut! I'm a FULL GROWN nut!

Mike, sinking back into "lurk" mode

 

The debate is pointless then! Catholics don't say that the works of the law justify anyone.

I am putting my brief explanation of the supposed contradiction between James and Paul in the "Catholic or Protestant ? : Take the Test" thread.

[ June 17, 2003, 02:50 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]