This video is that of the debate between Tony Costa (Reformed Protestant) and Robert Sungenis (Roman Catholic) on the Immaculate Conception of Mary:
Debate: Mary: Sinless Queen of Heaven or Sinner Saved by Grace?
I just finished this debate. On paper, one should expect that Costa should have mopped the floor with Sungenis on this issue as this is a doctrine that lacks any biblical and patristic support. However, Costa was incredibly weak in this debate, engaging in eisegesis of texts such as Isa 8:20 to support the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura and was clearly ignorant of Sungenis' writings before this debate (e.g., he admitted that he never read any of his books including Not by Scripture Alone). What was annoying is that Tony Costa seems to be rather ignorant of a lot of Catholic dogmatic theology, such as being unaware that one is only condemned for rejecting a doctrine once it is elevated to a dogma which is why one could be a Catholic in good standing and reject the Immaculate Conception prior to 1854 (e.g., Aquinas). The moderator was pretty lousy during the cross-examination periods, it has to be acknowledged.
Notwithstanding, Sungenis argued for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in almost the same way he did for the Bodily Assumption against James White in September 2010, by focusing on Peter's role at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, although he did go "Christological" too on Costa.
Overall, one has to score this one a draw, which is pretty impressive for a Catholic to be able to pull off on the Marian Dogmas.
For those wishing to see how I would discuss the Immaculate Conception from the Bible and the patristics, see, for example:
Answering Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception
Luke 1:28 and κεχαριτωμενη: Evidence for the Immaculate Conception of Mary?
Debate: Mary: Sinless Queen of Heaven or Sinner Saved by Grace?
I just finished this debate. On paper, one should expect that Costa should have mopped the floor with Sungenis on this issue as this is a doctrine that lacks any biblical and patristic support. However, Costa was incredibly weak in this debate, engaging in eisegesis of texts such as Isa 8:20 to support the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura and was clearly ignorant of Sungenis' writings before this debate (e.g., he admitted that he never read any of his books including Not by Scripture Alone). What was annoying is that Tony Costa seems to be rather ignorant of a lot of Catholic dogmatic theology, such as being unaware that one is only condemned for rejecting a doctrine once it is elevated to a dogma which is why one could be a Catholic in good standing and reject the Immaculate Conception prior to 1854 (e.g., Aquinas). The moderator was pretty lousy during the cross-examination periods, it has to be acknowledged.
Notwithstanding, Sungenis argued for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in almost the same way he did for the Bodily Assumption against James White in September 2010, by focusing on Peter's role at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, although he did go "Christological" too on Costa.
Overall, one has to score this one a draw, which is pretty impressive for a Catholic to be able to pull off on the Marian Dogmas.
For those wishing to see how I would discuss the Immaculate Conception from the Bible and the patristics, see, for example:
Answering Tim Staples on Patristic Mariology and the Immaculate Conception
Luke 1:28 and κεχαριτωμενη: Evidence for the Immaculate Conception of Mary?
