Monday, July 21, 2008

Trinity vs. Oneness Debate (1999) White vs. Sabin - Part 1

The following video is part of a Trinity vs. Oneness Debate held in 1999, between James White (Trinitarian) vs. Robert Sabin (Oneness). This is the first part of the debate, including the introduction and Dr. White's opening presentation. Even though it is only the first part, it is about 51 minutes long. One particularly nice feature is that one can see Dr. White's projected presentation that accompanies the debate.



This presentation may be helpful for Oneness Pentacostals who happen to stop by, as well as for Unitarians and the like. It may also be helpful for dealing with Muslims who like to borrow the arguments of the Oneness Pentacostals and (other) Unitarians (Oneness folks tend not to use the "Unitarian" label for themselves).

I hope that additional segments of the debate will become available in time.

To the glory of our Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,

-TurretinFan

21 comments:

natamllc said...

TF,

will my anticipation be realized?

Will they post the rest of the debate?

Dr. White, younger, lighter and having more hair!

:)

Turretinfan said...

I'm told that they plan to post the rest, piece by piece.

Anonymous said...

Turretin, You actually think this was a debate? Ask James White to whom I do not believe is much of a debater in the first place, why he debates others three, and four times but Finds a nice man who is no debater either, why he only debates Once the Oneness believers... I would be embarrassed if I were you, and hey, it helps me more if you think white's arguemnts actually work send them to me using those so called arguments.

Anonymous said...

Oh by the way, it is me Manuel Culwell that sent the last message. Trinity doctrine is unscriptural doctrine. Please send those using such arguments to me using the arguments James White used. I know he will not debate because he thinks himself above everyone else(Like a pope) he uses Lame excuses Like;" he wants scholarly debate"(Code for; he thinks himself above everyone else because of his much learning) But he is a physician of no account.

Turretinfan said...

Anonymous:

a) Yes, it was actually a debate.

b) Dr. White is actually quite an accomplished debater (see this list, which is already out of date, as he has done several additional debates since link to list.

c) I'm not sure why debating Oneness folks has captured such a small percentage of his attention, but his call-in webcast "radio" program provides you with a chance to call in and discuss the matter with him, if you like. I have heard him engage in a discussion in that format with at least one Oneness person within the last year.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"Oh by the way, it is me Manuel Culwell that sent the last message."

Then you should recall Dr. White responding directly to you on his radio program, since you called in.

"Trinity doctrine is unscriptural doctrine."

That is both a lie and blasphemy.

"Please send those using such arguments to me using the arguments James White used."

LOL

"I know he will not debate because he thinks himself above everyone else(Like a pope) he uses Lame excuses Like;" he wants scholarly debate"(Code for; he thinks himself above everyone else because of his much learning) But he is a physician of no account."

He has proved his willingness to debate people time and time again. He's even taken on your comments on his "radio" program. See the link to the partial list above for more details on the fact that he debates.

-TurretinFan

Anonymous said...

I debated him twice there and when I got the best of him, he claimed I had "anger issues",it is his show and I know I will not be able to get my points across sucessfully. You better believe I have righteous indignation against false doctrine,I had toilet flushing sounds over layed my voice on another program when the host did not like what I had to say James White is no debater!

Anonymous said...

Links to trinity vs. Oneness debates
for free.


http://www1.freewebs.com/onenessresource/audiodebate.htm

http://www.goodpreaching.com/media/index.php?q=f&f=%2FDebates

http://www.freewebs.com/onenessresource/

Turretinfan said...

Manuel, if you really believe that you got booted from his show after "getting the best" of him, and not because you were insufferably rude, I suggest you relisten to the show.

It is interesting, though, that you now characterize those events as debates - whereas a minute ago ...

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

And I really was amused by your links - which not only include the White vs. Sabin debate but also two other debates involving James White.

LOL

-TurretinFan

luvvom said...

I really wish I could listen to this! However, this video has to buffer for about 7 sec after every third word he says. I did turn down the volume to let it play out/buffer so that when it was done I could listen to it without it having to buffer in between his speaking. I began this process at 530pm and at 845pm when it had only buffered 25min into the debate I realized it was going to take more time than I had to buffer it out to the end! Maybe there is a better media on which the debate can be found? I really would like to hear it. Especially the oneness doctrine. I don't know what they believe really except that they don't believe in the Trinity. I really don't understand how they could miss that teaching which is throughout the Bible. It would be interesting to hear how they twist Scripture.

Anonymous said...

TF, was not even honest enough to submit my last posts to him concerning his last replies.

luvvom said...

Here is a link to buy this debate in MP3 form for those who cannot get the video to work

Anonymous said...

why would anyone want to buy that lousy debate when you can get it for free ( at least to listen) on my debate group?

Turretinfan said...

Manuel,

I'm not sure why. There could be a lot of reasons - one would be to support Dr. White's defense of the faith.

-TurretinFan

Anonymous said...

On my group you can hear White and David Bernard go at it On the Oneness Vs. Trinity questions something he does not offer on his site, plus more Oneness Vs trinity debates, Not Just the single debate he has put up on that issue.

luvvom said...

Well, I just got through listening to the whole debate. I must congratulate Dr. White. He did an awesome job. I'm not sure who the other guy is, but he would have done better to defend his position instead of telling a story with which everyone is familiar. That story doesn't prove this idea of "oneness". At any rate, I might not agree with how he handled his side of the debate and no one has to agree with me on that issue...it's of no consequence.

I do have a question that I wish I could ask of that man and it is this. Do Oneness folks believe that God is a holy God? Do they believe that when we sin our sin carries an infinite charge of guilt? Do they believe that sin is only a minor offense or do they believe it is an infinite offense against an infinite God? If one truly believes that God is perfectly holy, then that same person must agree any sin committed against Him is infinitely wicked and deserves infinite punishment. Now if sin isn't infinitely wicked, then that means at some point in time people will get out of hell. If there is no infinite price tag to pay for sin, God cannot punish people in hell forever. I don't know if the oneness folks believe that. I'm going to assume they don't. I'm going to assume that they do believe sin has infinite consequences which will be administered to people in hell forever. Considering what I have just said, how is it that they can believe a mere human (who isn't divine and therefore isn't infinite but only a man through whom God manifests Himself) could ever pay an infinite price tag...in three hours no less? If a human could pay for millions of infinite price tags to save those millions of people, then why couldn't God just manifest Himself in those same millions and allow them to pay their own price tag? Why would I need a purely human man at all? Why would God show more favor for this one man (especially since Scripture says God is no respecter of people) and give him the authority and power to pay for everyone of God's children's sins? It indeed would be an honor for a mere man!! That indeed is powerful. To say that a mere man could pay that high of a price tag is great power. Yet we know that Scripture says He humbled Himself and became man to die for our sins. It would be humbling for God the Son to come down here with us and impute our wicked sin upon His innocent and holy Self. Only an infinite God could pay the price an infinite God demands! He is infinitely holy and any sin commented against Him requires an infinite payment. No mere man is infinite. It would have been impossible for Jesus to be merely a man and still pay an infinate price tag. I don't believe the Oneness folks have studied the doctrine of God and His attributes.

Turretinfan said...

Sarah,

Thanks for those thought-provoking questions.

-TurretinFan

Anonymous said...

"Thought provoking" she simply denied Jesus was a real man and has given us the true colors of the false doctrine of the trinity: that is you deny Jesus humanity and make him a hybrid mixture of God and man!
she wrote:
"Why would I need a purely human man at all?"

Have you not read the scriptures? There is one Mediator between God and man the man Christ Jesus. (Not the God Christ Jesus or you herculean mixture version of a false christ) This reveals how false your doctrine of the trinity is.


I told you this was not a debate she said he told stories that is what I got out of it that is why James White feels satisfied with this debate

Turretinfan said...

Manuel,

Your inability to grasp Trinitarian doctrine continues to amaze me.

As you ought to know by now, the Trinitarian position is not that Jesus was a Human-divine "hybrid mixture" but rather both fully God and fully man, two distinct natures in one person.

It is because Jesus is both God and man that the atonement is possible. I do find it interesting, though, that you don't have any answers for Sarah's questions regarding the atonement, though.

Christ is needed as a mediator, but he is also needed as a redeemer, something that it would appear there is no room for in your theology.

-TurretinFan

Turretinfan said...

"TF, was not even honest enough to submit my last posts to him concerning his last replies. "

MC, I invite you to check out the guide to comments, which may help you see why your comments don't always get published.

-TurretinFan