Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Sola Fide Debate - William Albrecht
William Albrecht and I recently debated the topic of Sola Fide (link to mp3). I hope it will be edifying. I ended up sticking pretty closely to my previously planned affirmative constructive (link to text of affirmative constructive). I only used a little material from my previously planned affirmative rebuttal, because although Mr. Albrecht threw out a few unsupported assertions regarding the historical record, he claimed he was not going to address the issue (link to text of planned affirmative rebuttal).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Thanks for the link and debate.
Thanks for listening to it, and for your comments on your blog!
Mr Albrecht makes a partially good point about you TF having to bear the proof that the Scriptures teach Salvation comes by Their Faith alone through Their Grace alone. This is not true, of course. God hasn't placed the burden on your shoulders, mine or anyone's shoulders but on the Shoulders that bore the proof. Whose Shoulders then is it but none other than Christ's? And of course, no one would even know about this but for the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification.
The "substance" of things, the inheritance, the full inheritance, "hoped" for; and the evidence of things not seen eliminate the need for the things the Roman Catholics teach we are to shoulder, like partaking of the Sacraments according to their teaching of the transubstantiation or praying to Mary, the mother of Jesus or having to agree in advance to as yet rulings ex cathedra and the list grows with every passing Pope and Cardinal. These things kind of give a "sense" of the Resurrection and the Life, that Christ Is. These RCC teachings do not bring you face to face with God in that fellowship the earliest Disciples of Christ wrote about. The early disciples wrote about a personal relationship with the Living God when they exhorted that we are walk in Truth.
I liked your genius in your opening. It took be a bit to get on board with it though because it led me into an area that didn't at first make sense. Crafty fellow you are TF! Not bad if I might say so myself? "So" !
I have only listened to the first 40 minutes, the two openings and decided to pause and make these comments before continuing to listen to the remainder of the debate.
And as Ryan has said, I want to thank you for providing us the links, audio and the texts and I agree, as he, so far, this has been a good debate.
When will Mr. Albrecht learn? I guess he fits the profile of one glutton for punishment debating you? :) He to be admired for his courage and zeal, albeit courage and zeal for the wrong Gospel and God!
Just finished listening to the debate. Ironic the endings. One, Mr. Albrecht, charging TF that he used references to the ECF's to establish what the Scriptures teach and rarely used the Scriptures himself.
Quite a contrast in that TF uses the Scriptures opening and closing and you can hear His voice, the voice of the Spirit through the exchanges.
I felt on edge with Mr. Albrecht, though. He was far milder in manors than the other debates that I have listened to, which is good. However, I was getting a sense in this debate he was only looking for the gotcha moments to discredit TF all the while TF was proclaiming the Faith with exceptional Grace and Peace, all a manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit, which is evident in the life of this man caught up with the Glories and Blessings that one enjoys sojourning through this life on a steady trek to the Eternal Glory in Christ he has been called to!
This wasn't an exceptional debate. The realities of it were!
It was a pretty mild debate. I think the biggest weakness is that there wasn't much "depth" to it, which could have occurred simply by debating the Westminster Confession's definition of justification and whether it is Biblical. Instead, the debate was a 'surface level' exegesis (if that term can be used) and verse-slinging.
You had the upper hand during the cross-examination, particularly during the Romans 3:28 talk. Albrecht didn't seem that organized and was hard to follow because he seemed to contradict himself at times. He didn't seem aware of the pretty standard Reformed thought on many of the questions and verses.
If I had to pick a winner, you won during the cross examination by forcing him to concede what is effectively faith alone, even though when cornered he would simply say "I accept that as fine". That said, Albrecht did a poor job throughout, and I don't say that to be mean because he has had better days. There are better Catholic defenses than what was proposed.
TF, Great job in your debate ! :) I enjoyed it very much.
Post a Comment