Steve Gregg V. Tim Staples Debate

[Guest]

I just listened to Friday's show, thus wrapping up the week-long debate. I learned quite a bit through this five-hour dialogue and as you both pointed out, it seemed rather short! Here are my final thoughts:

Tim is an excellent spokesman for the Catholic position. I never heard him panic at any point, even when Steve was pouring it on. I know from experience that it's very hard to keep your cool in that situation! But setting aside his demeanor under pressure, I felt his starting point for analyzing the scriptures was not well argued. He continued bringing up the passage in Peter and tried to use it against private interpretation, even though it was thoroughly rebutted (each day, I think). I don't understand why he kept using that passage after admitting Steve's interpretation was right. It's as if he REALLY wanted it to say what Catholics want it to say but didn't know how to make it work.

I'm glad Steve poured it on a little more in Friday's program. The embarrasing history of the RCC was brought up and Tim definitely had an answer, though not a reasonable one. Steve only mentioned the issue of disobedient Popes but he could've taken this much farther and brought up the Crusades and Inquisitions. I can probably predict what Tim's response would be, but it would've been nice to hit the point home. What he calls THE church tortured and murdered not only their enemies, but also fellow Christians. This doesn't match, even remotely, what the scriptures describe as the kingdom of God.

What I learned this past week is that, in pretty much everything, it all comes down to authority. If people have different starting points, they will not follow the same line of reasoning. Obviously, I feel Steve's starting point is faultless and well-reasoned whereas Tim's starting point is molded and man-made, thus making it less genuine. Since this is the case, Steve made better points and was able to answer the objections raised with better logic than Mr. Staples. I don't care to call Steve the "winner" since it's not a competition. The only competition we should concern ourselves with is the race that Paul alluded to.

[Guest]

Tim seemed to be milking 2 Pet 1:20 quite a bit to establish papal authority over scripture - even saying "Steve Gregg's interpretation of scripture". But Peter is specifically addressing prophecy given to holy men of God in old times - not scripture in general. Peter's purpose in establishing this rule first is to contrast with false prophets who would rise up and bring in damnable heresies. He even subjects his own eyewitness testimony of Christ to this rule. John also agrees in Rev 19:10 that prophecy is the supreme testimony that we have regarding the truth of Jesus.

It would seem that however we apply the teachings of other scripture, our interpretation ought to conform to the revelation that has been already established. This is where Tim's argument fails in trying to establish oral tradition and apostolic teaching with more authority than even Peter's words would allow. Peter has definitely established for us here that scripture ought to be our guide for interpreting scripture.

[Guest]

There was only ten minutes of the show on the podcast for some reason. Did something happen? Anybody hear today's whole show?

Derek, I had the same problem. But I've noticed that the show is in its entirety on the narrowpath website. Here's the mp3 link:

http://www.thenarrowpath.com/archive/TNP061222H.mp3

Listening now

[Guest]

I thought the debate was outstanding and Steve has an incredible mastery of the whole bible wheras i felt Tim is very skilled at defending the Catholic position and anticipates very well the Protestant criticisms. To me the eucharist was the single most important topic because the RCC uses this threat of not having life in Christ unless you participate in it as a club over it's members. The only point about John 6 that i did'nt hear Steve bring up is that Jesus spoke these words a full year before he died and he spoke in the present tense, so would'nt that nail down that it's not literal? And if this eucharist was so essential why did God wait until the last gospel was written to reveal it to the world?
Anyway i thought Tim was good even very good and Steve was better.

[Guest]

One point I seldom seen addressed:

Tim frequently made reference to the Old Testament, in general, and the Jewish "system" in particular to draw a parallel to the RCC. I actually agree it's a good parallel, but sort of proves the point. That system is the type of system God eliminated. If a priest was necessary, then yes the parallels to the Jewish priesthood is appropriate, but it sort of begs the question.

It also illustrates what I see as the fundamental flaw in the RCC system -- they made the same mistakes the jews of the day made, and their looking for systems and rulers and kings and whatnot leads them to miss the greater point of what I believe Christ was doing by turning that old system on its head and spiritualizing what they were looking for in the temporal and human systems.

By requiring priests and pennance or the like, they deny the sufficiency of Christ. By worshiping the Eucharist, they lose focus on the proper subject of that worship. By .... it goes on and on.

[Guest]

I think Tim missed the point Steve was trying to make on his use of the word "clear." I think what Steve meant was not that Scripture wasn't understandable (though he did say that also about some scriptures), but more importantly that it didn't "clearly say" what Tim was saying that it did.

[Guest]

To me you did not seem at all nervous but actually quite relaxed and
spoke in love!

[Guest]

Hi all,

I enjoyed the conversations, and it was great how they always ended with both parties being nice to each other.

However, I was disappointed at the same time. It seemed to me that Tim was "philibustering" the whole time. Steve hardly got to say anything comparatively. It really drove me nuts. I think it would be much more productive to have a more formalized debate. It just always seems like more gets accomplished that way.

God bless,

[Guest]

Due to losing my job and going out to find another one...I've missed TNP radio all week. (I just got a job, btw. Thanks to: God! and all who prayed for me)!

Back on topic: The Debate

In the Poll question I mulled it over if I should ask "Who was more persuative?" as opposed to "Who won?" I chose 'who won' to bring attention to the actual ideas of the debaters as opposed to their style, technique, or "ability to hold their own" so to speak.

What I learned in this debate more than anything is how to really focus on the issues. And the fact that, as in any real debate, the issues are.....THE issues, lol

In Christ,
Rick

[Guest]

In regards to the whole debate; I believe that Steve had the upper hand. However, in some cases it appeared that Tim's answers were authoritative bibilically. Especially in regards to the Catholic Church being founded upon Peter, who was given the keys and authority to bind and loose.

One being familiar with the church or having been part of it for a period of time, is better able to see the inconsistency of the Papacy in regards to adherence to Biblical principals and the emphasis more on traditions which changed dramatically in the past 20-30 years.

For example, as a child we studied a catechism, not the Bible, to get our understanding of God. Memorization was a major instrument to teach us the traditions of the faith, sacraments, and main tenants of the faith. With this approach it is very difficult to gain a personal relationship with the living God. The laws of the church, like eating meat on Friday being a mortal sin and the idea that if you did eat meat and die before you got to confession, you could go to hell for committing a mortal sin.

Years later, however, eating meat on Friday no longer was considered a mortal sin. I always wondered about those who did die with this sin in the past received a pardon of some kind. The rituals. as in Judaism, take supremacy over the teachings of the Bible. I believe that many of these rituals and traditions have taken on a different meaning and consequence because people like myself were blessed to have a relationship with someone who had this personal relationship with the Lord and wanted the same.

I'm aware that these sort of inconsistencies are hard to bring to the surface in a debate like this but I feel that they are instrumental in highliting that ritualistic traditions make a mockery of what the Lord commands and minimizes the importance of how the old testament actually brings this to the surface.

Also, Tim often leaned on the listeners probable sensitivity in pointing out many times that Steve's position of being a lone ranger with a likely tendency to forge a denomination of his own along with many others who may stray from the "One True Church" so to speak.

Thank you much,
Joshua19