Saturday, June 16, 2007

Pacwa vs. Martin

Here's one I'm going to read over in the next few days. It's the transcript from the discussion between Mitch Pacwa and Walter Martin. This discussion took place back in the 1980's, and I recall watching the shows when they aired. I recall also getting the tapes of the broadcast some years later, and noting that some things seemed to be missing.

The transcript may in fact be the unedited version, which I'm interested in reading. I recall Mitch Pacwa doing very well, and Martin not doing very well. I simply don't recall any specifics from this discussion, so i look forward to having my memory refreshed.

I dare say, I don't know how anybody who is not Reformed stands any chance against a true Catholic apologist.

Here is the link.


Churchmouse said...

Thanks for the link Jim. I remember watching the Ankerberg Show back in the 80's when they presented this debate. I'm happy to see the transcripts. From time to time, on the Ankerberg podcast, they'll post mp3s of the debate. Recently, they posted the purgatory piece of the debate. Needless to say, I downloaded them. Thanks again.


Apolonio said...

good debate. i think both did well.

L P Cruz said...

Hmmm, are you saying a Lutheran who is not Reformed has no chance with a true Catholic apologist?

I browsed the discussion particularly in Justification by Faith and Pacwa was running on both tracts against Martin, but was not Martin, Reformed Baptist?


James Swan said...

are you saying a Lutheran who is not Reformed has no chance with a true Catholic apologist?

Actually, I was referring to the fact that Walter Martin was not Reformed. He was not a Reformed baptist.

I think a solid Lutheran could do well against an RC apologist, but I don't know of any who currently take the time to meet with RC's in person and debate them.

L P Cruz said...


Yes, there are probably no Lutheran debaters like that of the calibre of Dr. White. But Lutherans have been doing apologetics informally since 1517. The BoC spells out the Lutheran confession as well as its apologetics.

As to Trent's assertions, this has been addressed by Chemnitz of long ago and it has not moved from there.

No Lutheran I know has debated with any recent RC apologist todate primarily (and I suspect this as an insider to Lutheran thought) because none of them can be taken seriously.

For example - why debate an RC apologist since he is not the Magisterium, what relevant and important thing can he say since he is not sunctioned by the Magisterium as spokes person? Got my idea?

A Lutheran can debate Fr Pacwa but after all is said and done, it is Fr Pacwa's view of what the Magisterium is saying, it is his interpretation of what the Magisterium has pronounced. Even if you prove Pacwa's statements inconsistent you have only found fault in Pacwa's reasoning and not that of the Magisterium. The Magisterium can always turn around and deny Pacwa understood them correctly.

In fact, all the RC apologists combined can give nice points about RC belief, what do we care - he aint the Magisterium and it is his own painting of the Magisterium that just got presented, not the official articulation of what they pronounced.

See here (sorry for the advert)

James Swan said...

You know, I keep forgetting to add your blog to my sidebar- i'm doing it right now, under Lutherans.

zacchaeus said...

Hey, thanks for the link to the debate. I was just reading about it in a book called Surprised by Truth by Patrick Madrid, and was hoping to find the video. You've provided the next best thing. Thanks much!

L P Cruz said...


Firstly thank you.

However having said my previous comment, I do value the work you do specially your specializatio on Luther. Your blog and aomin are the first place I look to when learning what the RC apologists are up to and what the truth really is ;-)

Rhology said...

See here for the mp3s.

Courtesy of PhilVaz, it looks like.

James Swan said...