The Narrow Path Ministries

I've been listening to the debate this week and thought, Why not start a thread about it? I didn't take notes though the discussion/debate was well worthy of it, imo! (I may take notes later after downloading them).

I'm including a Poll though it might be better to wait on it as the debate isn't over (we can only vote once, etc.). I'll go ahead and vote on what has been debated so far.

Comments, imo's

Overall, I feel Steve is "winning" so far. Of course, this week-long debate is really a discussion--and--debate between two Christians who have radically differing opinions on what can be called: non-essentials. So I don't suppose it's necessarily a matter of "the victor & defeated" as it is two brothers in Christ coming together to reason about the Scriptures.

Speaking of the Scriptures....

Thus far, I think Bro Steve has done an excellent job of going by "what the Bible really says" and has refuted several points brought up by Bro Staples (yes, I consider Mr. Staples to be a Brother too).

I don't think any of us can lay claim to being fully objective, all the time, when we approach the Bible and study it (I know I don't always do it). However, and especially with we Protestants; we certainly make it our goal! (I do, anyway).

Bro Steve mentioned at one point that Bro Staples was "importing" a Roman Catholic worldview (exact wording forgotten) to the Bible. Frankly speaking, I felt that Bro Staples was almost, if not, "prooftexting" in a manner that is often seen in other erroneous theological systems (see, Calvinism, imnsho). Also, the plain meanings of certain texts had other ideas "imported" onto them (see, eisegesis).

Like Bro Steve & Bro Tim...I wish the show could go on for 2 or 3 more hours! So, anyway, here's my vote for: Steve Gregg (cast for sound exegesis and not importing ideas onto the text)....
Rick

I've listened to the first two shows and it feels like I've heard this debate before. The Catholic guy (Tom) that used to regularly phone in would bring up the same exact points as Mr. Staples. So far Steve has shown a bit too much restraint when Tim mentions the glorious history of the Roman Catholic church. I cringe whenever he makes such statements and Steve has yet to call him on it, except for a brief retort on Monday.

I'm hoping Steve will bring up the embarrasing history of the RC church, since Tim's main argument is that they have an unbroken record of 2000 years of unity. Perhaps, by unity, he actually means "murdering people who disagree with us." I'm also hoping Steve will ask him why several Popes throughout history have disagreed with one another on important issues. If they are speaking for Christ, does this mean the mind of Christ is divided? What of those Popes who committed adultery, robbery and murder? History, I feel, is the very thing which proves the RC church is not what Christ instituted. Rather, it's a man-made system of power and control. Tim seems very much like a true Christian, but the blinders are definitely on regarding his assessment of history. To make the history of the RC church his main argument is suicidal, in my opinion. Steve has yet to take advantage of this for some reason.

JC, (Merry Christmas),

So far Steve has shown a bit too much restraint when Tim mentions the glorious history of the Roman Catholic church.

On Monday especially, Tim interrupted Steve often. And while I wasn't keeping track, it seemed Tim got more time. (I could be wrong on that).

....I'm hoping Steve will bring up the embarrasing history of the RC church, since Tim's main argument is that they have an unbroken record of 2000 years of unity....

Today's topic is going to be "Mary" and it looks like they may not get back to this; perhaps not till Friday (?) in summaries?

I can't speak for Steve but I think the format is "Scriptural." In other words, the actions of Popes, RCC history, and so on, may be outside of the realm of debate; perhaps due to time limits. Or, since it is the Scriptures that are being discussed, it could be that RCC history, etc., may be considered Ad Hominem (I don't know). Tim did bring up the "many Protestant denominations" as an argument for RCC unity. Steve seemed to agree the many denominations aren't necessarily good but that this argument offered no evidence that the RCC is the only true church (it surely doesn't at all, imo).

Tim's repeated quoting from Matt. 18:15 ff. as a kind of "proof" for RCC ecclesiological authority was sufficiently rebutted, imo (more than once).

Though I'm sure Tim would have had an answer I would have liked it if the leadership of James (Acts 15) could have been addressed. If I'm not mistaken, tradition says that Peter, James (the Less), and his brother John "voted" James into the leadership (according to Eusebius). Peter's primary leadership in Jerusalem wasn't all that long. Of course, RCC's would probably say that Peter had to leave Jerusalem to "be the first Pope in Rome."

(a sidebar, re: Mary)

Recently, Scot McKnight, author of "The Real Mary" had an online seminar @
Converse With Scholars
(free download, interesting stuff).

Be well in the Lord (and I wonder if Steve will vote here, lol),
Rick

Hi JC (and Rick),

My reasons for not bringing up the scandalous history of the RCC as a main argument is two-forld:

1. The Catholics feel that the legitimacy of the papacy is independent of the character of any given occupant of the office, just as the institution of the Jewish priesthood remained legitimate even when the high priest and his cronies were all crooks. The Catholics acknowledge that many of the popes were wicked men, but they do not think that downward spikes in the dignity of the the institution are sufficient grounds for discounting a divinely-ordained hierarchy. I certainly agree with you that the character of the leadership is a very compelling argument against the legitimacy of the the claims of the RCC, but such historical information makes no more impression on most Catholics than a true exposure of Joseph Smith's fraudulent dealings makes on a Mormon. The claims of the Catholic Church are cultic, even as are the claims of Mormonism. Cult followers tend to be immune to criticism of their leaders.

2. I would at least point out more details about the papal history than I have, if only there was sufficient opportunity. Tim Staples' approach to debating from scripture is called "proof-texting." Mine is called "exegesis." The former approach allows a debater (this happens when debating Calvinists also) to fire off twelve scriptures to prove his point in a two-minute diatribe. None of them are exegeted. They are treated as if they have no context and must be understood to teach what the presenter is asserting them to teach. When I get my two minutes, I want to exegete the verses he raised, but have only time to address one or two of them before it's his turn again. Also, he tends (it seems to me) to speak for five minutes to my two or three minutes, so that he makes six major points without taking a breath, and I have opportunity to address only one or two of them in my segment. I hope to address this problem on today's program.

I heard a segment of yesterday's program after the airing, and it was obvious to me that I sounded nervous. I was not aware of being nervous while speaking, but I think that I was feeling the oppression of time constraints, knowing that I was not going to be able to address every issue he raised. I am going to request today that we take one issue at a time and dialogue on each issue before moving to another.

One of the points Tim kept hitting on was his belief in that the keys were given to Peter and that by extension Peter is the first pope. I would like to hear Steve address this as well.

Steve (who is probably busy right now), et al,

I'm supposing if Tim Staples signs up for FBFF...we might get votes from you guys, lol

Commenting on Steve's post
I can't agree any more about exegesis/prooftexting: two different animals. The only real similarity are the words of the texts being cited!

"Cult", from Free Online Dictionary:
1] A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
b. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2] A system or community of religious worship and ritual.

I imagine we all (Protestant and RCC) could say we are in a "cult" in the meaning of #2, above. We have our developed theologies and patterns of worship & ritual. With definition #1 is where we, obviously, shall I say?: put more emotion into it. Here we are assessing other groups as being unorthodox to whatever degree from our standard(s) of truth. I agree with Steve that the RCC is "cultic" in the negative sense of adding unbiblical doctrines. Btw, at one time I considered converting to the RCC but found I couldn't reconcile its extra-biblical teachings with the Scriptures (and I really tried, too, lol).

What I'm learning from my studies, including listening to Steve's lectures, is to be aware and wary of any "system" of theology (or thought) that I, or anyone else, may be bringing to the text. As an ex-dispensationalist of the Hal Lindsay type...I managed to, somehow, get de-programmed. Nothing short of lots of study and prayer accomplished this.

Anyway, I'm really enjoying the debate and am learning new things about exegesis!, how to have a real-debate, and common courtesy....Thanx.
Rick

Hi Rick,

I think Steve has a different definition of "cult" than what you provided.

I believe I've heard him say that he defines a "cult" as any group of two or more people that believe ALL the same things. It indicates that someone is doing all the thinking and the others are blindly following. I would agree with that definition. (Correct me if I misrepresented your definition Steve).

Where freedom of thought and expression (based on an authoritative source) are suppressed and not included as a core value of an organization, I believe you have "cultic" qualities present in that group. This defines many Protestant denominations as well IMO.

Steve, your style of debate is not suited for short segments in my opinion. Proof-texing allows one to spout off a laundry list of passages rapid-fire, allowing several of the weaker points to fall through the cracks before they are rebutted . This appears awfully impressive to the average Joe on the street but anyone familiar with the arguments won't be impressed in the least. To properly exegete a given scripture takes time and a three-minute segment is not the best venue for such discussions. I do enjoy the debate but I'd be seriously confused had I not previously been exposed to the arguments from both sides.

Regarding the history of the RCC as an argument, I'd simply offer it to contradict Mr. Staples' own claim that it's the greatest proof of their legitamacy, as he claimed on Tuesday's show. He said, "The fact that the Catholic church has been around and united for two thousand years is the greatest proof!" I now understand why you hesitated to rip that claim apart, since Mr. Staples wouldn't be affected, but an audience not well-aquainted with the arguments could've been informed by it.

I originally had other plans for Friday's broadcast, but perhaps I should set the last day aside for tying-up loose ends and answering points ignored on previous days.

Hello Christopher (Merry Christmas),

I believe I've heard him (Steve) say that he defines a "cult" as any group of two or more people that believe ALL the same things. It indicates that someone is doing all the thinking and the others are blindly following. I would agree with that definition. (Correct me if I misrepresented your definition Steve).

Thanx much, Christopher. Whew, I'm safe! (as I don't even agree with myself 100% of the time).....

Where freedom of thought and expression (based on an authoritative source) are suppressed and not included as a core value of an organization, I believe you have "cultic" qualities present in that group. This defines many Protestant denominations as well IMO.

Agreed. Either that or a "religious club" of some sort....Thanx.
Rick