Post
by _Mark in South Dakota » Sat Dec 23, 2006 10:48 am
Steve, thank you for doing the debate. It was very interesting and informative. I have not had a chance to listen to Friday's show, so these comments are through Thursday's show. Any comments I make are not at all meant as criticisms of Steve. I have never debated a Roman Catholic before, much less one as knowledgeable and articulate as Tim.
In terms of who won the debate, I think it depends on how you define "won". So often after political debates the press will talk about who "won" the debate, and most of it focuses on who seemed more confident or who had the better sounds bites, rarely focusing on who had the better arguments. Tim came across as very confident and articulate. Not that Steve didn't, but many Protestants have the opinion that the Catholics don't care at all about the Bible, so Tim's knowledge of and use of the Bible probably surprised many listeners.
During the debate, I think Tim came across as very polished and confident. Tim would say things like "The Bible says very plainly ..." or "You are absolutely wrong ..." while Steve would say things like "In my opinion ...". I prefer Steve's approach, because I think it is much more humble and meek, but the undecided listener might have been swayed by how Tim presented his arguments, not necessarily the substance of the arguments. There were so many passages or verses that Tim used that I think were not saying the point he was trying to make. I realize that could be my Protestantism coming through. Steve did a good job of trying to cover many of those verses, but based on the format of the shows, and Steve being very gracious in trying to give equal time, it did not lend itself to having time to adequately looking at all of the passages.
I also got the sense while listening to the debate that Tim was more closely anticipating what Steve would say. Again, this is not a criticism of Steve. Due to the nature of Tim's job and where he works, there probably isn't much that has been brought up against Catholics that Tim hasn't heard. I also got the sense that the analogies that Tim used were very rehearsed, or have been used many times previously by Tim. However, I think the analogies that Steve used were what Steve was thinking of off the top of his head.
I think where Steve could have pushed further was the times that Tim would say that just because the Bible doesn't directly talk about a subject doesn't mean it's not in the Bible (or something like that, that is a very rough paraphrase). He said this several times, and when he said this he would bring up the Trinity as an example. However, for example, comparing the Biblical evidence for the Trinity is much different than comparing the Biblical evidence for the adoration of Mary. The Trinity is a formulation based on a large number of different passages. The adoration of Mary is based on just a small handful of passages taken out of context. However, by bringing up the Trinity, Tim did a good job of making it seem that by "limiting" yourself to the plain words of the Bible you would in effect be denying the Trinity.
I think Tim's weakest day (at least of the first 4 days) was the time spent on Mary. It seemed like Tim had to go quite frequently to very symbolic portions of Revelation to back his case. Steve did a good job of pointing of Tim's reliance on literal interpretations of portions of Revelation. I thought it interesting that the following day, when discussing the Eucharist, Steve brought up the thousand years being mentioned in Revelation 20 a number of times, and even Tim agreed that all of those references were symbolic. Tim then said in response to Steve that Revelation was an apocalyptic book, and that it isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally, while John 6 was written differently. This might have been a chance for Steve to remind Tim of Tim's previous reliance on some more literal interpretations of Revelation the day before.
As it should have been, there was a fair amount of time spent discussing authority and who or what is the basis for authority. Tim indicated that authority is in the position, not the person in the position. I know Catholics have this position regarding the periods of times when there were very wicked Popes and leaders in the Catholic church. Tim then brought up the idea of church discipline as a proof of his idea of the church. However, I think this might actually go against the Catholic position. Paul indicates very strongly that we are not to associate with immoral people who claim to be Christians. What would Paul say about associating with immoral leaders who claim to be Christians? I think the same thing would apply. We should not associate with any immoral person who claims to be a Christian, regardless of that person being a Pope or Priest or layman.
Tim also indicated on Thursday's show that Jesus said parables so that the people would have better understanding. Steve did point out that this was wrong, but I was still surprised to hear Tim keep defending that position. However, I think Tim must have felt like he had to take that position because he seemed to be saying that Jesus would never want to hide any truth from any of his hearers. I think Steve might have been able to even push Tim further on this point because the Bible seems pretty clear about why Jesus spoke in parables.
I don't know if this was brought up on Friday's show, but I think some of the best points against Catholicism is the nature of what it means to be saved. In the New Testament, were people saved by believing, or by joining the church? The Holy Spirit came on the family of Cornelius before he would have ever taken the Eucharist or joined a church. In Acts ch. 8, Philip preached in Samaria, and people were believed and were saved. This seemed to have occured outside of the "supervision" of the apostles. When we consider what it means to be a Christian, we must be born again. All throughout the Bible his is done by believing in Jesus and being born anew by the Holy Spirit. Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, not Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord and takes the Eucharist.
All in all, I think both Tim and Steve did a very good job. I think Tim did an especially good job of sterring the debate away from positions he was most weak in and to positions he was more strong in. I think Steve did a very good job of of pointing back at the Scriptures. I think the more the two were in a conversation mode discussing the Scriptures the better Steve did. Tim is a very good representative of the Catholic position, and I would like to hear more debates with Tim and Steve in the future.
Also Steve - thank you for all you do. I am not trying to second guess you. These are my observations after having time to reflect on the debates. Both you and Tim would absolutely smoke me in a debate, and I think you did a very good job with Tim. If it wasn't for you ministry, I would not have had even a basis to know how to critique the arguments Biblically, your ministry has grown my knowledge of the Scriptures probably 50-fold.
Mark in South Dakota
Last edited by
Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
