Trinitarians vs. Unitarians debate

Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown debate two who reject both the deity and preexistence of Christ. 

Some helpful videos: 'A Biblical Case for the Trinity in 5 minutes' : http://bit.ly/1TQ5awo 'The Trinity in a nutshell' : http://bit.ly/1Rnq0Q8 'Acts 2:38: Baptism for salvation? No!' : http://bit.ly/1ogIaIZ 'An Easy Way to Refute Oneness Pentecostalism' : http://bit.ly/1sGaDui 'The original Nicene Creed, modern translation with Scripture references' : http://bit.ly/1XGpajc 'Was the early church mostly oneness?' : http://bit.ly/20o6vdg 'A Brief History of Oneness Pentecostalism' : http://bit.ly/1TteUbh 'The apostle John was a Trinitarian' : http://bit.ly/1UBBF03 'Demonstrating the eternal Son from Scripture': http://bit.ly/1X6Ak4u 'Three persons in one context (verses)' : http://bit.ly/1UPK28f 'Does "Let Us Make Man" Prove the Trinity?' : http://bit.ly/1TUoFBw 'Debate: Trinity vs. Oneness (Smith vs. Ritchie)' : http://bit.ly/25uMkBi 

 Please support me and my ministry on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/trinityapolog... ANY amount would go a long way especially since I live in the Philippines. Even $1! And it's easy to sign up :-) I have plans to get married and enter full time ministry some day.

DEBATE: Dr. Michael Brown Versus Dr. James R. White

Youtube Video: Dr. Michael Brown vs. Dr. James White - Predestination, Election and the Will of God

Dr. Michael L. Brown vs. Dr. James White at Southern Evangelical Seminary, February 14, 2013.

For whom did Christ die?

Dr. James White v. Dr. Michael Brown

In reflecting on this "debate" Dr. White wrote:

First, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the term “debate” in this instance, for a number of reasons. This might be one of those times where “discussion” is really the better term. The actual interaction time was limited, only about 53 minutes total, after which time our discussion was driven by the audience in the main. And though we both attempted to be as brief and concise as possible, still, without specific time controls, complete equality was not possible to obtain. And particularly in the second discussion we (I think quite properly) had more actual personal interaction on a pastoral level.

Whatever term we choose to describe the discussions, they were most certainly unusual for most of Christian television anywhere in the world, and in Europe in particular. While there may be lots of panel discussions recorded for broadcast, this kind of open and honest disagreement based upon the highest view of Scripture and inspiration, by two participants, both of whom have studied the biblical languages (Michael being the expert in Hebrew, and I having the advantage in Greek), is certainly not your normal fare on what is called Christian television. On that level alone I am very pleased that these programs will be available for viewing for at least the foreseeable future.

This is not the first time Michael and I have demonstrated that you can disagree strongly and still do so respectfully...

Regarding the Atonement Discussion

I did all I could to start the debate on the right foot, which is hard to do in less than five minutes. But I focused upon what must be the heart of any such discussion: the vital relationship between the extent of the atonement and the divine intention of the atonement. This element, together with 1) the covenantal nature of the death of Christ as the very ground and source of the New Covenant and, 2) the intimate, necessary, and glorious nature of Christ’s high priestly role and hence the connection of atonement and intercession, formed the heart of my argument. I believe a fair analysis of the encounter would confirm that these arguments were not undercut by anything Michael offered. Instead, it was plain to me that his opening arguments were based not on the provision of a biblical doctrine of atonement, but upon a general denial of particularity in salvation itself. He focused far more upon emphasizing “all” passages than upon providing any kind of positive doctrine of intentionality or accomplishment in atonement. This was not a failure on Michael’s part, it is the nature of non- Reformed soteriology in general. It simply does not go deeply into the biblical revelation at this point, for the deepest most illuminating texts on this topic (Romans 8, the Hebrews chapters) are all connected to sovereignty, election, priesthood and intercession. This is why Michael was forced (and this, to me, was the deciding moment in the debate) to divide, conceptually and practically, the atoning work of the High Priest and the intercessory work. So, Christ dies for every individual, even for those already under God’s judgment, but Michael sees how impossible it is to keep that priestly work unified, so he denied that Christ is interceding for those who are already under judgment. Now if he could just follow that thought to its conclusion and see the power of it! Instead, he seemed to wish to deny the fact that even in Israel you had the physical offspring of Abraham and the spiritual offspring of Abraham, and that it is the remnant (λεῖμμα), those who are of faith, who were in view in the sacrifices and the priestly ministrations. So he wished to insist that the sacrifice of atonement on the day of atonemente was for all of Israel, and hence potential in nature. I disputed this on a few accounts, but time did not allow an in-depth discussion.

I would simply point out that 1) the offering in Leviticus 16 is limited to the covenant people of God; it did not make atonement for the Egyptians or Moabites or Assyrians. It was, by nature, covenantal and hence “limited”;

2) there is good ground for arguing for a limitation even within the Old Covenant context based upon the obedience and faith of the remnant of Israel (many bore in their bodies the covenant sign but were not of the remnant as they were not of faith); but most importantly

3) the New Testament text makes the limitation explicit in the phrase τους προσερχομενους δι αυτου τω θεω, those drawing near to God through Him (Hebrews 7:25). In any case, the powerful argument based upon Christ’s high priestly ministry, together with the inarguable fact that the ones for whom the sacrifice is offered and the ones for whom the High Priest intercedes are identical, was clearly presented and defended. I truly wonder how many who heard that program heard about these wondrous truths for the first time? What a privilege to have the opportunity to proclaim them!

Of course, if someone in the audience does not remain focused upon the topic, they may well be distracted by the other issues raised, especially by the audience interaction. Texts such as 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, etc., which I have discussed in depth in my published works, again show that the primary objection to particular redemption is found in a rejection of particularity as a whole, i.e., in objections to election. I can only hope that those who found those objections weighty will take the time to dig into the interactions Michael and I had previously on those topics.

Here then is Part 1:

Part 2: Questions and Answers



Taken from Reformation Theology. For more similar articles pls click HERE.

CODEX SINAITICUS A FORGERY?

There was a debate last year beween Dr. James R. White and Mr. Chris Pinto on Dec 11, 2013 care of PIRATECHRISTIANRADIO.COM. This is one of 2013's most taked about live radio debates in the Reformed Cirlce in the US of A entitled "IS CODEX SINAITICUS A Jesuit Forgery?" however after the debate, and many conclusions had been made by many reformed blogster in USA, the title was changed to "Is Codec Sinaiticus A MODERN FORGERY?"  Well, what do you think? If you will ask me I would say there are many good things in the Documentary Movie of Mr. Chris Pinto and very interesting facts Dr. James R. White have brought forward about the Simonides role in connection with the manuscripts, however, still there are still unmber of things to find out behind all of these presentations. Over all the debate is a must for reformed believers. Christian Ministers must be guided what version they are using and there is a danger in using ONLY one version of the Scripture. Below are some of the data (I copy and pasted) I haved gathered from the web in connection to the said debate. God bless!


  James White Comments on Chris Pinto’s Conspiracy Theory on Codex Sinaiticus Being a Forgery - july 27, 2013

At 27:51, James White, author of The King James Only Controversy on his Dividing Line show comments on Pinto’s conspiracy: http://www.aomin.org/podcasts/20130725.mp3 White comments, here is an excerpt:

There is so much stupidity on the Net that what are you suppose to say? That kind of accusation, especially in light of all the other manuscripts that are clearly related to the text type of Sinaiticus that have a completely different provenance than Sinaiticus does. It is so absurd that it is sort of like I need to respond to the people who say we did not land on the moon.

White responds a second time to Pinto in the same show at 44:45 as it relates to conspiracy theories with Islam and the Jesuits. Pinto has zero training in the New Testament textual tradition and is not able to even read the very manuscript he claims is a forgery. I do not believe that Pinto would know even how do respond to White’s point: “in light of all the other manuscripts that are clearly related to the text type of Sinaiticus that have a completely different provenance than Sinaiticus.” The answer would require a competent knowledge of the textual history of the New Testament, which Pinto does not possess. Dan Brown of The Da Vinci Code would be proud of him. One wonders if Brannon Howse is even aware of the fact that Pinto is undermining the trustworthiness in the Bible versions that the vast majority of Howse’s followers use (e.g. NIV, ESV, NASB, NET, etc). (Source: http://www.alankurschner.com )

____________________________________________________________________________

Hiram's Review of the White vs. Pinto Debate SATURDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2013 AT 7:00AM NOTRADIO DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE WHITE VS. PINTO DEBATE
By Hiram Diaz

  Although I enjoy listening to debates, I’m not a big fan of them. This may sound contradictory, so let me explain. On the one hand, debates are a great way to become familiar with different points of view, be they non-Christian or Christian. In this respect, I appreciate the knowledge that can be gained from assessing each point and counterpoint making up the debate. However, on the other hand, personality can often take the place of sound reasoning. The more aggressively one pursues his debate opponent, for instance, the stronger he appears to the audience, as one who is in the right. Why? Because his personality trumps the weakness of his argumentation. Thus, debates can swing in the favor of men who present well, as opposed to presenting their case well. The debate over whether or not Codex Sinaiticus is a modern forgery, a debate between James White and Chris Pinto was, unfortunately, one that made me dislike debates even more. Before I listened to the background information that Pinto presented in his documentary and on his podcast/radio show, I was pretty sure James White’s statements about Pinto’s ideas being far-fetched and based on loose threads woven together by conspiracy were right. But when the debate took place a couple nights ago, I saw that Dr. White was wrong. Pinto presented documented history that challenged the official story regarding Simonides (i.e. the man who claimed to have penned Codex Sinaiticus); Dr. White, however, did not refute Pinto’s challenge.

Dr. White appealed to authority, asking Pinto if he had ever collated manuscripts of the Bible or if he was competent in Greek, in an attempt to show that Pinto’s ignorance was the only justification he had for believing that the case of Simonides was not a closed case. But this kind of reasoning is fallacious. Pinto was not arguing from the standpoint of one who knew either the collation process or was competent in, if not a scholar of, koine Greek. His credentials in these two fields (i.e. manuscript collation and ancient Greek) is completely irrelevant. Pinto’s argument was drawn from historical records regarding the events and persons surrounding Codex Sinaiticus. Dr. White, therefore, had no reason to ask for such credentials. If the historical data Pinto presented are to be jettisoned, then Dr. White should have presented an argument in favor of ditching the historical sources to which Pinto made reference. But Dr. White did no such thing. Also, Dr. White reduced Pinto’s cogent reasoning to a “conspiracy theory,” a term which is often used in American media to dismiss viewpoints that contradict the official story. And Dr. White used it in just that way. In other words, Dr. White uncritically dismissed Pinto’s argument to a “conspiracy theory.”

In short, here are the problems I had with the debate:
  1. Dr. White argued fallaciously, appealing to authority when no such appeal was relevant to the matter at hand.

2. Dr. White made assertions, central to his argument, that cannot be empirically verified. For instance, he claimed that the task of manuscript collation could not be done by a nineteen year old. This is not an argument, nor is it an empirically verifiable fact, as it is a universal proposition. There are many people in history who have accomplished great things at even younger ages. Are these people historical fictions? If they are real people, then are the historical accounts of their great abilities to be dismissed as “conspiracy theories” or overblown accounts of otherwise “normal” individuals? This is not a point that can be taken very seriously, moreover, considering the renown that Simonides had for his unusual intellectual gifts as a young man. Whether or not he was a prodigy, I don’t know. However, when there is evidence of men speaking highly of Simonides’ superior intellectual endowments, and there is no evidence to prove that a nineteen year old cannot collate biblical manuscripts and form a unique copy of the Bible from those collated texts, the testimony of writers contemporaneous with Simonides actually holds weight, where Dr. White’s assertion has none. Chris Pinto presented a logically cogent case for his position. 

Dr. James White neither presented a logically cogent case, nor did he succeed in refuting Pinto’s position. Again, Pinto presented actual historical documentation that drills numerous holes into the “official” story regarding Simonides, whereas Dr. White simply dismissed Pinto’s sources, failing to provide counter evidence to Pinto’s argument. Consequently, it is Pinto, in my opinion, who won the debate. And what is troubling to me is that many will not (i.)be able to identify Dr. White’s fallacious reasoning and (ii.)will depend on personalities in their assessment of the debate. (Source: http://www.noiseofthunder.com )

 ______________________________________________________________________________ James White responds to Chris Pinto December 14, 2013 | Filed under: Featured,History | Posted by: SeekTheos

By Madison Rupper

Author and apologist James White recently debated radio host and filmmaker Chris Pinto on Pinto’s claim that Codex Sinaiticus is actually a modern century Jesuit forgery. The debate, which was held on Chris Rosebrough’s Pirate Christian Radio, can be heard here. White chose to debate Pinto on the subject after Pinto released “Tares Among the Wheat,” a nearly 3-hour-long documentary promoting the theory. Essentially, Pinto claims that Codex Sinaiticus was forged as part of a grand Jesuit conspiracy to undermine the Bible, specifically the King James Version. Pinto regularly promotes King James Onlyism in his films, including “A Lamp in the Dark,” the prequel to “Tares Among the Wheat.” In the latest episode of “The Dividing Line,” James White’s podcast, White takes about 35 minutes to respond to an article written by Hiram Diaz and published on Pinto’s website after the debate along with some interactions on Twitter. Pinto also produced a post-debate radio show on Dec. 13, which can be heard here. Watch the Dec. 13 episode of “The Dividing Line” below, which includes the full audio of the debate between White and Pinto following White’s comments on the interactions following the debate. 12/13/2013 The Dividing Line In Response to Chris Pinto (Source:http://seektheos.com/james-white-responds-to-chris-pinto/ )

Roman Catholicism VS Biblical Christianity

Dr. Walter Martin Debates Fr. Mitchell Pacwa of EWTN of the Catholic channel on the Doctrine of Penance. Taken from John Ankerberg Show.

From this debate you will undderstand how erroneous is the position of Roman Catholcism based on what the Bible teach us plainly. No wonder why Roman Catholcism dont recognized the Bible as the Word of God and if we look back in the corridors of history we will find Roman Catholicism not only persecuted Bible believers but also burn them at stake including burning of the Holy Scriptures.