POSTED BY on 9:02 PM under , ,
DISCLAIMER: Fred wrote in and wants us to know that while the old Gerry Matatics debates are a good listen, at minute 3:10 of the 7th audio (Matatics's Third Negative) Gerry Matatics brings out heretical traditionalist slant for about a minute and twenty seconds. Forewarned is forearmed:



Flyer For Debate Download

Introductory Remarks Listen

Donahue's First Affirmative Listen

Matatics's First Negative Listen

Donahue's Second Affirmative Listen

Matatics's Second Negative Listen

Donahue's Third Affirmative Listen

Matatics's Third Negative Listen

Donahue's Rejoinder Listen

Matatics's Rejoinder Listen

Closing Remarks Listen
4 comments so far:
    Frederick Manligas Nacino February 11, 2009 at 7:46 PM , said...

    Old Gerry Matatics debates are a good listen, however minute 3:10 of the 7th audio (Matatics's Third Negative) Gerry Matatics brings out heretical traditionalist slant for about a minute and twenty seconds. You probably should put a disclaimer. The rest is generally the same old arguments, but has a couple new arguments I haven't heard (on both sides).

    Fred

     
    Drake Shelton August 8, 2009 at 4:51 PM , said...

    Just another example of how Roman Catholicism refuses to acknowledge Protestantism and goes after anabaptist fringe groups that were not even allowed public assembly in Protestant nations. Gerry never addresses Duet 4 or Duet 12 nor the regulative principle 1. Because it was never mentioned by that imposter wanna be Protestant
    2. Gerry does not address the defintion of sola scriptura as it is given in the historical reformed confessions. The definition is that the scripture is the sole rule of faith and practice AND WHATEVER MAY BE DEDUCED BY NECCESSARY INFERENCE FROM THE SCRIPTURE OR BY APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE. Gerry along with many romanists is good at making American relgion look bad. They never deal with the Puritans in Scotland during the 17th century or their regulatrive principle which is sola scriptura applied to worship. Gerry is American Clergy it is top be expected.

     
    Anonymous January 29, 2010 at 12:52 AM , said...

    Mr. Shelton said:

    The definition (of sola scriptura) is that the scripture is the sole rule of faith and practice AND WHATEVER MAY BE DEDUCED BY NECCESSARY INFERENCE FROM THE SCRIPTURE OR BY APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE.

    And I am saying this statement is not found in Sacred Scripture. It’s a tradition of men that makes void the word of God.

    Who’s “necessary inference” Mr. Shelton? Your’s? Your minister’s?

    Who say’s what is and is not “Apostolic example”? Which “Protestantism” is correct in it’s interpretation?

    With all due respect Mr. Shelton, your whole point is a self-contradiction.

     
    Chris Campbell May 19, 2010 at 12:33 PM , said...

    "Fred wrote in and wants us to know that while the old Gerry Matatics debates are a good listen, at minute 3:10 of the 7th audio (Matatics's Third Negative) Gerry Matatics brings out heretical traditionalist slant for about a minute and twenty seconds."

    the heretical traditionalist slant is?? what??

     

Copyright Sonitus Sanctus | Using the GreenTech Theme | Bloggerized by Falcon Hive.com