This was a basic slam dunk for James White. I have to wonder how a better debater would have done in Tom's place. He honestly has no business debating.
I don't undestand the people who criticize Dr. White for being impatient or rude during cross exam. In asking a "question" Tom started a quote from Calvin at 1:24:00. Read the huge quote, then made his own application. It took until 1:25:40 for him to actually ask a question. He spent 100 seconds making a presentation. We would all be frustrated by that.
@@bretscott2018 What White doesn't like especially by Catholics is his own words being used against him, or showing how the application of a particular scriptural passage contradicts his own understanding or that of one of the reformers. Of course he always jumps back to his subjective view of the scriptures, and his fallible interpretation of the ancient languages, but that's neither here nor there.
He just does that. I listened to a few of his debates and this is how he behaves - especially if he feels threatened by the other person. This is an observation, I am not taking a stand for or against him. Btw, I don't believe he felt threaten at all in this debate, it's just his style.
What White doesn't like us when Catholic's twist his own words and especially when Catholic's twist the interpretation of scripture to make it coincide with their man-made tradition.
@@Silverhailo21you are clearly biased. Follow the rules of the debate. Period. Tom should’ve made himself aware of those rules and abided by them. He didn’t and it was frustrating to anyone listening.
How anyone can truly believe that James was being “rude” is beyond me. I’m going to assume you have not listened to many well moderated debates. During a cross examination, the individual asking questions….is supposed to ask questions and NOT make statements.
I believe this debate will bring many out of Roman Catholicism or at least make them question their allegiance to Rome. Another great debate performance by James. The scriptures couldn’t be clearer. Jesus’ once for all sacrifice perfects all to whom it was made.
1:41:20 is quite embarrassing for Tom. The fact he feels the need to shout over his opponent speaks volumes. Dr White articulated all points in light of Scripture.
I attend Tom’s bible study and he’s a great guy. The debate was like a destroyer escort going against a battleship. Tom did his best but was punching way above his weight.
I thought I was going to see a serious debate. Only one side was serious and it wasn't on the Roman Catholic side I can assure you. The debate was over before it even began.
Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, in offering himself. - Hebrews 7:27 Jesus Christ offered himself but once in a bloody manner on the cross; but, besides this bloody offering, he still continues to offer himself in an unbloody manner. This he does both in heaven and upon earth; in heaven, by presenting his sacred humanity continually to his Father; and on earth, by daily offering himself, under the appearances of bread and wine, on our altars. Hence this eucharistic sacrifice is both a commemoration and continuation of the sacrifice of the cross. To understand this, it must be observed, that the essence of a sacrifice includes several actions, the principal of which are the immolation of the victim, and the oblation of the victim when immolated. Now the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, ended only as to the bloody immolation; the same victim is still immolated mystically, by the separate consecration of the bread and wine, and continues as the oblation. Jesus Christ, in quality of the eternal high priest, has carried his victim, i.e. his body, into heaven, and there offers it continually to his Father. He continues also his sacrifice here on earth, by the ministry of his priests: who to the end of time will offer to God the same immolated victim, present on our altars under the appearance of bread and wine a sacrifice infinitely perfect, since a God is the priest, and a God the victim. The chief-priest who offers it is a God-man; the victim offered is a Man-God: a God the victim, offered by a God the priest! Behold a sacrifice truly worthy of God a sacrifice capable of atoning not only for our sins, but for the sins of ten thousand worlds. What confidence then ought Christians to have in such a sacrifice! How solicitous ought they to be to assist daily at these awful, or, to use St. Chrysostom's expression, these tremendous mysteries! Let us now examine the sentiments of learned Protestant divines: "It is certain "says Dr. Grabe, "that Iren us and all the Fathers, either contemporary with the apostles, or their immediate successors, whose writings are still extant, considered the blessed Eucharist to be the sacrifice of the new law, and offered bread and wine on the altar, as sacred oblations to God the Father; and that this was not the private opinion of any particular Church or teacher, but the public doctrine and practice of the universal Church, which she received from the apostles, and they from Christ, is expressly shown by Iren us, and before him by Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome. "(Nota in Irenæum. p. 323.) "The elements being really changed from ordinary bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, mystically present, as in a sacrament, and that by virtue of the consecration, not by the faith of him that receives, I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consonant with this truth, viz. that the elements so consecrated are truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, inasmuch as the body and blood of Christ are contained in them. And the sacrifice of the cross being necessarily propitiatory, and impetratory both, it cannot be denied that the sacrament of the Eucharist, inasmuch as it is the same sacrifice with that upon the cross, is also both propitiatory and impetratory. "(Thorndike Epil. p. 44 and 46.) "The holy Fathers frequently say, that in the Eucharist is offered and sacrificed the very body of Christ, as is evident in almost innumerable places. "(Bp. Forbes' de Euch. lib. iii. chap. 2. sect. 10.) "The sacrifice of the supper is not only propitiatory, and may be offered up for the remission of our daily sins, but likewise is impetratory, and may be rightly offered for the obtaining all blessings. Although the Scripture does not plainly and in express words teach this, yet the holy Fathers with universal consent have thus understood the Scripture, as has been demonstrated by many; and all the ancient liturgies prescribe, that in time of the oblation, prayers be offered for peace as is evident to all. "(Bp. Forbes' de Euch. lib. iii. chap. 2. sect. 12.) "The Church, commemorating the sacrifice of Christ with the usual rites and words, in this also sacrificeth and offereth that which is her own, given to her by Christ; that she placeth before the eyes of God; by that she beseecheth God; and it is the same sacrifice that Christ offered; the same one, true, and singular sacrifice, as St. Augustine calls it; a sacrifice of memory according to Eusebius; a spiritual sacrifice, according to others. After that the faithful offer themselves according to the example of Christ In all this what is there new, what deformed, what hurtful? But minds once distracted, distract all things into a depraved meaning, and then are glad to find a hint for it in any of the schools. "(Grotius of Christian sacrifice.) To these we may add the authority of Ed. Burke, in his speech to the electors of Bristol: "The mass is church service in the Latin tongue, not exactly like our liturgy, but very near, and contains no offence whatever against the laws of good morals. "(p. 29.) - George Leo Haydock
White a Jesuit (or coadjutor at the very least) debating a Roman Catholic, who has no clue the opposition is actually on his side.This is nothing more than Kabooki theater at its finest.
The one-minute answer followed by a half minute comment suggested by Dr. White clearly shows his fear of a long walk towards the 25 minutes of eternity, which by the way is appropriate to do when debating debaters like his opponent. Dr. White, though on the right side of the debate, should have changed by now in how he treats his opponents with lack of grace and respect. As of his arguments and answers, there is nothing to comment on, but to simply thank him for his deep knowledge on the topic at hand.
The Q&A session is a courtesy and not really a key component of the debate. They both have also been sitting there for at least 2 hours. The time constraints are to keep both parties from filibustering and both sides agreed to the time parameters. So your complaint is really not valid, nor does it show “fear” on the part of Dr. White.
@@Anglican777 this is the Church I attend. I am a Presbyterian and I don't agree with the catholic stance. But I can express respect towards a man who has boldly spoken up for what he believes in. Don't respond to respect being given to someone stepping out of their comfort zone, with condemnation of them.
This was not a way to go moment, this was an utter embarrassment. I’m not even talking about the outcome of the debate, I am merely speaking of the conduct on the part of Tom. He was belligerent, rude, and completely disinterested in engaging in the PROPER rules of a debate. What a joke.
This contrast between physical food and spiritual food sets the stage for Jesus’ statement that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus explains that it is not physical bread that the world needs, but spiritual bread. Jesus three times identifies Himself as that spiritual bread (John 6:35, 48, 51). And twice He emphasizes faith (a spiritual action) as the key to salvation: “My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life” (verse 40); and “Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life” (verse 47). Jesus then compares and contrasts Himself to the manna that Israel had eaten in the time of Moses: “Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die” (John 6:49-50). Like manna, Jesus came down from heaven; and, like manna, Jesus gives life. Unlike manna, the life Jesus gives lasts for eternity (verse 58). In this way, Jesus is greater than Moses (see Hebrews 3:3). Having established His metaphor (and the fact that He is speaking of faith in Him), Jesus presses the symbolism even further: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh. . . . I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. . . . My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. . . . Anyone who feeds on me will live because of me” (John 6:51-56, NLT). To prevent being misconstrued, Jesus specifies that He has been speaking metaphorically: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life” (John 6:63). Only those who are brainwashed by Rome and lacking common sense literary skills would conclude that Jesus was being literal in John 6... Jesus makes it clear in verse 63... and yet still people are blinded by fables and doctrines of men over scripture in context
@@Silverhailo21 not my problem you don't understand what Jesus is saying... all I can do is laugh at such ridiculous of the Catholic church and its blind followers 😂 😂😂😂
@@adamguy33 does it ever occur to people like you that you just have a made-up religion? Like, it's not real or objective it's just something you kind of concocted in your head?
@SilverRaysBeauty44 This is painfully obtuse and a literally stupid response. It's embarrassing and you should be embarrassed. Now what I would encourage you to do is be willing to be corrected by the scriptures on this. At no point did Christ go up to a door and say this is my body. At no point did Christ put his hands upon a particular shepherd and say you must eat this shepherd in order to have life in you. He did say that he was going to give us bread from heaven, and at the Passover, gave us his body to eat. Have you not read? He multiplied the loaves and fishes. Can he not do so with his body and blood? I'm going to go with the scriptures rather than your particular flawed and fallible interpretation.
Great debate subject, I feel like every time James uses the argument of "developed over time than it's wrong," he contradicts himself since protestants didn't develop post 1,500.
As protestants we don't believe that the protestant viewpoint was formed in 1500ad. Rather, we hold that, because we find the doctrines in scripture itself, that these were the true teachings and traditions of the very apostles. Put simply, we tend to condemn church tradition and the accretion of doctrines because we believe our doctrines come from the original source, not later sources like Luther or Calvin
@douglasmcnay644 The assumptions he is smuggling into the conversation regarding his reformationists theories. The major one is that assuming his perspective is the biblical one. Frankly speaking it's not. He's not defending the scriptures, he's defending his particular subjective reformed understanding of them. Wild.
@@Silverhailo21 even if what you're accusing him of is true, (which it isn't) coming to the text with assumptions has nothing to do with gaslighting. Call it eisegesis, call it question begging, but don't call it gaslighting because it's not.
This was a basic slam dunk for James White. I have to wonder how a better debater would have done in Tom's place. He honestly has no business debating.
Excellent Job Dr White... hopefully someone hears and comes out of heresy. Gods word does not return void. 📖✝️👑
I don't undestand the people who criticize Dr. White for being impatient or rude during cross exam. In asking a "question" Tom started a quote from Calvin at 1:24:00. Read the huge quote, then made his own application. It took until 1:25:40 for him to actually ask a question. He spent 100 seconds making a presentation. We would all be frustrated by that.
@@bretscott2018 What White doesn't like especially by Catholics is his own words being used against him, or showing how the application of a particular scriptural passage contradicts his own understanding or that of one of the reformers. Of course he always jumps back to his subjective view of the scriptures, and his fallible interpretation of the ancient languages, but that's neither here nor there.
He just does that. I listened to a few of his debates and this is how he behaves - especially if he feels threatened by the other person. This is an observation, I am not taking a stand for or against him. Btw, I don't believe he felt threaten at all in this debate, it's just his style.
What White doesn't like us when Catholic's twist his own words and especially when Catholic's twist the interpretation of scripture to make it coincide with their man-made tradition.
@@Silverhailo21you are clearly biased. Follow the rules of the debate. Period. Tom should’ve made himself aware of those rules and abided by them. He didn’t and it was frustrating to anyone listening.
@johnmays2486 well yeah of course I'm biased. Any one who claims they're not is lying.
It's also true that white is kind of a douche.
God bless you brother James, please continue to uplift the Word of God.
That Hebrews 7 contradiction from the Roman Catholic was clear as day. 1:51:05, 1:53:28
James: *Asks a question*
Tom: *Has no idea how to give a straightforward answer*
How anyone can truly believe that James was being “rude” is beyond me. I’m going to assume you have not listened to many well moderated debates. During a cross examination, the individual asking questions….is supposed to ask questions and NOT make statements.
This guy did not do the RCC any favors. This was a train wreck... for him.
I believe this debate will bring many out of Roman Catholicism or at least make them question their allegiance to Rome. Another great debate performance by James. The scriptures couldn’t be clearer. Jesus’ once for all sacrifice perfects all to whom it was made.
once and for all...eternal redemption...period
1:41:20 is quite embarrassing for Tom. The fact he feels the need to shout over his opponent speaks volumes.
Dr White articulated all points in light of Scripture.
I attend Tom’s bible study and he’s a great guy. The debate was like a destroyer escort going against a battleship. Tom did his best but was punching way above his weight.
1:50:15 for the Hebrews 7 Intercession question.
Don’t know who the Catholic guy was, thank him for trying, but white shows the clear contradiction in the Catholic understanding.
I thought I was going to see a serious debate. Only one side was serious and it wasn't on the Roman Catholic side I can assure you. The debate was over before it even began.
This is a frustrating debate to watch
Sounds to me like Tom's teaching is laced in catholic teaching
Well he is a Catholic so
Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, in offering himself. - Hebrews 7:27
Jesus Christ offered himself but once in a bloody manner on the cross; but, besides this bloody offering, he still continues to offer himself in an unbloody manner. This he does both in heaven and upon earth; in heaven, by presenting his sacred humanity continually to his Father; and on earth, by daily offering himself, under the appearances of bread and wine, on our altars. Hence this eucharistic sacrifice is both a commemoration and continuation of the sacrifice of the cross. To understand this, it must be observed, that the essence of a sacrifice includes several actions, the principal of which are the immolation of the victim, and the oblation of the victim when immolated. Now the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, ended only as to the bloody immolation; the same victim is still immolated mystically, by the separate consecration of the bread and wine, and continues as the oblation. Jesus Christ, in quality of the eternal high priest, has carried his victim, i.e. his body, into heaven, and there offers it continually to his Father. He continues also his sacrifice here on earth, by the ministry of his priests: who to the end of time will offer to God the same immolated victim, present on our altars under the appearance of bread and wine
a sacrifice infinitely perfect, since a God is the priest, and a God the victim. The chief-priest who offers it is a God-man; the victim offered is a Man-God: a God the victim, offered by a God the priest! Behold a sacrifice truly worthy of God
a sacrifice capable of atoning not only for our sins, but for the sins of ten thousand worlds. What confidence then ought Christians to have in such a sacrifice! How solicitous ought they to be to assist daily at these awful, or, to use St. Chrysostom's expression, these tremendous mysteries! Let us now examine the sentiments of learned Protestant divines: "It is certain "says Dr. Grabe, "that Iren us and all the Fathers, either contemporary with the apostles, or their immediate successors, whose writings are still extant, considered the blessed Eucharist to be the sacrifice of the new law, and offered bread and wine on the altar, as sacred oblations to God the Father; and that this was not the private opinion of any particular Church or teacher, but the public doctrine and practice of the universal Church, which she received from the apostles, and they from Christ, is expressly shown by Iren us, and before him by Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome. "(Nota in Irenæum. p. 323.)
"The elements being really changed from ordinary bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, mystically present, as in a sacrament, and that by virtue of the consecration, not by the faith of him that receives, I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consonant with this truth, viz. that the elements so consecrated are truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, inasmuch as the body and blood of Christ are contained in them. And the sacrifice of the cross being necessarily propitiatory, and impetratory both, it cannot be denied that the sacrament of the Eucharist, inasmuch as it is the same sacrifice with that upon the cross, is also both propitiatory and impetratory. "(Thorndike Epil. p. 44 and 46.)
"The holy Fathers frequently say, that in the Eucharist is offered and sacrificed the very body of Christ, as is evident in almost innumerable places. "(Bp. Forbes' de Euch. lib. iii. chap. 2. sect. 10.)
"The sacrifice of the supper is not only propitiatory, and may be offered up for the remission of our daily sins, but likewise is impetratory, and may be rightly offered for the obtaining all blessings. Although the Scripture does not plainly and in express words teach this, yet the holy Fathers with universal consent have thus understood the Scripture, as has been demonstrated by many; and all the ancient liturgies prescribe, that in time of the oblation, prayers be offered for peace as is evident to all. "(Bp. Forbes' de Euch. lib. iii. chap. 2. sect. 12.)
"The Church, commemorating the sacrifice of Christ with the usual rites and words, in this also sacrificeth and offereth that which is her own, given to her by Christ; that she placeth before the eyes of God; by that she beseecheth God; and it is the same sacrifice that Christ offered; the same one, true, and singular sacrifice, as St. Augustine calls it; a sacrifice of memory according to Eusebius; a spiritual sacrifice, according to others. After that the faithful offer themselves according to the example of Christ In all this what is there new, what deformed, what hurtful? But minds once distracted, distract all things into a depraved meaning, and then are glad to find a hint for it in any of the schools. "(Grotius of Christian sacrifice.)
To these we may add the authority of Ed. Burke, in his speech to the electors of Bristol: "The mass is church service in the Latin tongue, not exactly like our liturgy, but very near, and contains no offence whatever against the laws of good morals. "(p. 29.)
- George Leo Haydock
The Catholic lost
1:18:00 for cross exam
Dude you’re clutch.
@@joshuasmith7471you’re even more clutch
@@MitchellSteele-sd8el you are the most clutch
The real crime was the carpet.
White a Jesuit (or coadjutor at the very least) debating a Roman Catholic, who has no clue the opposition is actually on his side.This is nothing more than Kabooki theater at its finest.
James White is a Jesuit? That's the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. Congrats.
To claim that James White is a Jesuit is to show no understanding whatsoever of Dr White or his view and is absurdly dishonest.
The one-minute answer followed by a half minute comment suggested by Dr. White clearly shows his fear of a long walk towards the 25 minutes of eternity, which by the way is appropriate to do when debating debaters like his opponent. Dr. White, though on the right side of the debate, should have changed by now in how he treats his opponents with lack of grace and respect. As of his arguments and answers, there is nothing to comment on, but to simply thank him for his deep knowledge on the topic at hand.
The Q&A session is a courtesy and not really a key component of the debate. They both have also been sitting there for at least 2 hours. The time constraints are to keep both parties from filibustering and both sides agreed to the time parameters. So your complaint is really not valid, nor does it show “fear” on the part of Dr. White.
Way to go, Tom!
are you serious? PAY ATTENTION READER...Tom just got it HANDED to him. STOP impugning Christ's FINISHED work. Repent catholics!
@@Anglican777 this is the Church I attend. I am a Presbyterian and I don't agree with the catholic stance. But I can express respect towards a man who has boldly spoken up for what he believes in. Don't respond to respect being given to someone stepping out of their comfort zone, with condemnation of them.
This was not a way to go moment, this was an utter embarrassment. I’m not even talking about the outcome of the debate, I am merely speaking of the conduct on the part of Tom. He was belligerent, rude, and completely disinterested in engaging in the PROPER rules of a debate. What a joke.
Way to go? What debate did you watch? 😂
"This is my body"
"You must eat the flesh of the son of man or else you have no life in you."
I'll take scripture over JW, thanks.
This contrast between physical food and spiritual food sets the stage for Jesus’ statement that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Jesus explains that it is not physical bread that the world needs, but spiritual bread. Jesus three times identifies Himself as that spiritual bread (John 6:35, 48, 51). And twice He emphasizes faith (a spiritual action) as the key to salvation: “My Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life” (verse 40); and “Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life” (verse 47).
Jesus then compares and contrasts Himself to the manna that Israel had eaten in the time of Moses: “Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die” (John 6:49-50). Like manna, Jesus came down from heaven; and, like manna, Jesus gives life. Unlike manna, the life Jesus gives lasts for eternity (verse 58). In this way, Jesus is greater than Moses (see Hebrews 3:3).
Having established His metaphor (and the fact that He is speaking of faith in Him), Jesus presses the symbolism even further: “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and this bread, which I will offer so the world may live, is my flesh. . . . I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. . . . My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. . . . Anyone who feeds on me will live because of me” (John 6:51-56, NLT).
To prevent being misconstrued, Jesus specifies that He has been speaking metaphorically: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you-they are full of the Spirit and life” (John 6:63).
Only those who are brainwashed by Rome and lacking common sense literary skills would conclude that Jesus was being literal in John 6... Jesus makes it clear in verse 63... and yet still people are blinded by fables and doctrines of men over scripture in context
@adamguy33 a lot of words to say Christ didn't mean it. Wild dude.
@@Silverhailo21 not my problem you don't understand what Jesus is saying... all I can do is laugh at such ridiculous of the Catholic church and its blind followers 😂 😂😂😂
@@adamguy33 does it ever occur to people like you that you just have a made-up religion? Like, it's not real or objective it's just something you kind of concocted in your head?
@SilverRaysBeauty44 This is painfully obtuse and a literally stupid response. It's embarrassing and you should be embarrassed.
Now what I would encourage you to do is be willing to be corrected by the scriptures on this.
At no point did Christ go up to a door and say this is my body.
At no point did Christ put his hands upon a particular shepherd and say you must eat this shepherd in order to have life in you.
He did say that he was going to give us bread from heaven, and at the Passover, gave us his body to eat.
Have you not read? He multiplied the loaves and fishes. Can he not do so with his body and blood?
I'm going to go with the scriptures rather than your particular flawed and fallible interpretation.
Great debate subject, I feel like every time James uses the argument of "developed over time than it's wrong," he contradicts himself since protestants didn't develop post 1,500.
huh?
That isn’t quite the argument…
@delbert372 I'm not saying that's his only argument, but he uses that argument, and im commenting that im not a fan of it.
As protestants we don't believe that the protestant viewpoint was formed in 1500ad. Rather, we hold that, because we find the doctrines in scripture itself, that these were the true teachings and traditions of the very apostles. Put simply, we tend to condemn church tradition and the accretion of doctrines because we believe our doctrines come from the original source, not later sources like Luther or Calvin
@@MCNinjaDJ Help me understand you better. Are you saying your protestant traditions come from the apostles? Just the apostles?
One thing I really don't appreciate about James White is his gas lighting.
Such as...?
@douglasmcnay644 The assumptions he is smuggling into the conversation regarding his reformationists theories.
The major one is that assuming his perspective is the biblical one. Frankly speaking it's not. He's not defending the scriptures, he's defending his particular subjective reformed understanding of them.
Wild.
@@Silverhailo21I don't think you understand what gaslighting means
@@hookoffthejab1 The irony of what you just said it remarkable.
@@Silverhailo21 even if what you're accusing him of is true, (which it isn't) coming to the text with assumptions has nothing to do with gaslighting. Call it eisegesis, call it question begging, but don't call it gaslighting because it's not.