Cringeworthy Debate between James White and Jose Ventilacion

[PRmerger]

This debate. Clearly.

It’s embarrassing how Ventilacion presented his arguments and rebuttals.

One other thing Ventilacion got right: he tells White that Jesus no where talks about the Trinity…

This is true.

That’s a big problem for Bible Alone Folks.

No one can read the Bible, from cover to cover, and come up with the concept of the Trinity.

That concept comes from the Catholic Church.

 

[Perplexity]

One other thing Ventilacion got right: he tells White that Jesus no where talks about the Trinity…

This is true.

That’s a big problem for Bible Alone Folks.

No one can read the Bible, from cover to cover, and come up with the concept of the Trinity.

That concept comes from the Catholic Church.

Where does the Catholic Church teach that one cannot derive the doctrine of the Trinity from the Bible? If it doesn’t, then on what basis do you think that?

 

[PRmerger]

Where does the Catholic Church teach that one cannot derive the doctrine of the Trinity from the Bible? If it doesn’t, then on what basis do you think that?

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#78

Our doctrines do not come from Scripture.

Rather the Scriptures represent what was already professed and proclaimed through Sacred Tradition.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Also, what’s amusing as a Catholic listening to this debate by 2 people who object to the Catholic Church’s position that a magisterium has the authority to define what Scripture means…is to hear both of them assert…

wait for it…

wait for it…

their authority to define what Scripture means.



They tell the Catholic Church: you do not have the right to tell us what’s the correct way to interpret Scripture! We deserve the right to do this ourselves, thank you very much!

But then they tell each other: No, Sir, your interpretation of Scripture is incorrect. THIS [insert their own teaching] is the correct way.

They seize for themselves the right to be a magisterium to their debate opponent.

#irony

Is this a descriptive or prescriptive description?

 

[MichaelP3]

Actually, since this is MY thread that you have joined, YOU should be looking around here, learning a few things, my brother.

You are welcome to post on any of my threads. In fact, I hope you do a search and find where I’ve been posting. Lots of things to learn!

Nah not really the case here? except if it actually (are within the case here)

 

[PRmerger]

Is this a descriptive or prescriptive description?

True, dat.

 

[Perplexity]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a2.htm#78

Our doctrines do not come from Scripture.

Rather the Scriptures represent what was already professed and proclaimed through Sacred Tradition.

So, the only relevant thing I could find in your reference was the statement that the Catholic Church “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone.”

It nowhere says that the Catholic Church doesn’t derive all revealed truths from the Bible alone. It says the Catholic Church doesn’t derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Bible alone. So, the issue here isn’t whether all revealed truths are contained in the Bible (what’s known as material sufficiency), but how clearly they are contained (what’s known as formal sufficiency).

But, none of this is really pertinent to your claim. Has the Catholic Church ever said specifically that the doctrine of the Trinity is not contained in the Bible? Or that it is contained in the Bible, but not clearly? It doesn’t seem like your belief is based on a teaching of the Church.

 

[PRmerger]

So, the only relevant thing I could find in your reference was the statement that the Catholic Church “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone.”

It nowhere says that the Catholic Church doesn’t derive all revealed truths from the Bible alone.

It’s just simple logic, Perplexity. And chronology.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

You have to understand that the Bible was not around for 300 years.

But the Catholic Church was.

Has the Catholic Church ever said specifically that the doctrine of the Trinity is not contained in the Bible? Or that it is contained in the Bible, but not clearly? It doesn’t seem like your belief is based on a teaching of the Church.

No, the CC hasn’t said that the doctrine of the Trinity is not contained in the Bible.

But, again, I haven’t said that the above either.

 

[PRmerger]

So, the only relevant thing I could find in your reference was the statement that the Catholic Church “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone.”

It nowhere says that the Catholic Church doesn’t derive all revealed truths from the Bible alone. It says the Catholic Church doesn’t derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Bible alone. So, the issue here isn’t whether all revealed truths are contained in the Bible (what’s known as material sufficiency), but how clearly they are contained (what’s known as formal sufficiency).

But, none of this is really pertinent to your claim. Has the Catholic Church ever said specifically that the doctrine of the Trinity is not contained in the Bible? Or that it is contained in the Bible, but not clearly? It doesn’t seem like your belief is based on a teaching of the Church.

The Trinity was professed before a single word of the NT was put to writ.

If we read the Bible without the lens of Sacred Tradition, we will NEVER find the dogma of the Trinity there.

But when we use the lens of the Faith which gave us this Bible, then, voila, there it is!

We just can NEVER simply use Scripture Alone to find the Trinity.

 

[PRmerger]

If you go to Pastor Anderson’s website it says he holds no degree but has memorized many bible verses.

From a Catholic POV, this is amusing.

But any non-Catholic Christian who advocates the (non-Biblical) teaching about the “perspicuity of Scripture” should not scoff at anyone who says he has the authority to teach and lead a church because he has “memorized many bible verses”.

After all, Steve Anderson has done simply what these Christians assert–he’s read the Bible and, since it’s so clear, there is no need to pursue a degree.

Indeed, we should be asking all Bible Alone advocates why they have Bible Colleges at all, right?

 

[Perplexity]

It’s just simple logic, Perplexity. And chronology.

The Catholic faith was whole and entire before a single word of the NT was ever put to writ.

You have to understand that the Bible was not around for 300 years.

But the Catholic Church was.

I’m afraid I’m struggling to discern the logic here

You claim that the Catholic faith was whole and entire before the NT was written, and that the Bible wasn’t around for 300 years. How would these show that I can’t read the Bible from cover to cover and come up with the concept of the Trinity?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m afraid I’m struggling to discern the logic here

You claim that the Catholic faith was whole and entire before the NT was written, and that the Bible wasn’t around for 300 years. How would these show that I can’t read the Bible from cover to cover and come up with the concept of the Trinity?

Those are 2 different points you’re conflating, Perplexity.

What’s being asserted here is this:

-you can’t read the Bible and come up with the concept of the Trinity. ***That comes from the Catholic Church’s influence. *** If you dropped the Bible on to a desert island and some guy read it, cover to cover (yes, he can read and speak English ), he’d never come up with, “Oh, yes, there is One God, with 3 eternal, co-equal Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the Son being God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.”

Again, this ^^ comes from the CC.

-the Bible came 300 years (or so) after Pentecost. The Trinity was part of the kerygma from Day 1. So…do the math.

Clearly, the Church couldn’t have used the Bible to get the idea of the Trinity, if she didn’t have the Bible (that is, the NT) until after she was teaching the Trinity.

 

[Perplexity]

Those are 2 different points you’re conflating, Perplexity.

What’s being asserted here is this:

-you can’t read the Bible and come up with the concept of the Trinity. ***That comes from the Catholic Church’s influence. *** If you dropped the Bible on to a desert island and some guy read it, cover to cover (yes, he can read and speak English ), he’d never come up with, "Oh, yes, there is One God, with 3 eternal, co-equal Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the Son eing God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.

Again, this comes from the CC.

-the Bible came 300 years (or so) after Pentecost. The Trinity was part of the kerygma from Day 1. So…do the math.

Well, I mean, if this guy on the desert island read the Bible from cover to cover, he’d read that there is only one God (e.g. Is. 43:10); that the Father is God (e.g. Eph. 4:6); that the Son is God (e.g. Is. 44:24 + Col. 1:16); and that the Holy Spirit is God (e.g. Heb. 3:7-11).

But, I think a more important point to make is that Sola Scriptura does not forbid tradition from functioning as an interpretive aid, it simply denies that tradition is theopneustos. Of those who hold to Sola Scriptura, the Anglicans are particularly well known for looking to the Church fathers for guidance on how to understand Biblical texts.

 

[Perplexity]

Clearly, the Church couldn’t have used the Bible to get the idea of the Trinity, if she didn’t have the Bible (that is, the NT) until after she was teaching the Trinity.

The idea that “the” Catholic Church existed in the 1st century C.E. is extremely contestable, and accepted only by Catholics. But, even if “the” Catholic Church did predate the Bible’s official compilation, that wouldn’t mean that the Biblical authors didn’t teach the Trinity.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I mean, if this guy on the desert island read the Bible from cover to cover, he’d read that there is only one God (e.g. Is. 43:10); that the Father is God (e.g. Eph. 4:6); that the Son is God (e.g. Is. 44:24 + Col. 1:16); and that the Holy Spirit is God (e.g. Heb. 3:7-11).

And then he’d read all the verses Ventilacion presented which state that Jesus is a man.

And then he’d become a Unitarian, or a JW, or a Mormon, or a pagan.

But, I think a more important point to make is that Sola Scriptura does not forbid tradition from functioning as an interpretive aid, it simply denies that tradition is theopneustos.

You’ll have to give us where you get this definition of Sola Scriptura, and why it’s authoritative.

I’ve been discussing SS for a long time, and in that time I’ve received about a dozen different (and often contrary!) definitions of SS.

And, since SS isn’t defined in the Bible, no SS advocate can speak authoritatively about what it means…so…

Of those who hold to Sola Scriptura, the Anglicans are particularly well known for looking to the Church fathers for guidance on how to understand Biblical texts.

And the Iglesia ni Cristo folks, JWs, Assemblies of God, Campbellites, Pentecostals,
SDAs etc etc etc would disagree with that.

 

[PRmerger]

The idea that “the” Catholic Church existed in the 1st century C.E. is extremely contestable, and accepted only by Catholics.

Emm…no. That’s not true at all. Scroll through this forum and you’ll find a whole lot o’ folks who agree that the CC existed in the 1st century. They just feel that it strayed and then their church reformed it.

But, even if “the” Catholic Church did predate the Bible’s official compilation, that wouldn’t mean that the Biblical authors didn’t teach the Trinity.

Again, no one is saying that the Biblical authors didn’t reach the Trinity.

What is being said is that you can’t read the Bible, without the lens of the Faith which gave us the Bible, and come up with the Trinity.

 

[Perplexity]

Emm…no. That’s not true at all. Scroll through this forum and you’ll find a whole lot o’ folks who agree that the CC existed in the 1st century. They just feel that it strayed and then their church reformed it.

Eastern Orthodox will say the CC split from them, entailing that the church of the 1st century didn’t affirm things like papal infallibility. Protestants will similarly deny that the church of the 1st century affirmed things like Mary’s assumption into heaven, or her immaculate conception. Only Catholics will say the 1st century church was Roman Catholic (and even then, they’ve had to incorporate Cardinal Newman’s theory of the development of doctrine in order to account for the silence or ambiguity of early Christians on a number of doctrines).

What is being said is that you can’t read the Bible, without the lens of the Faith which gave us the Bible, and come up with the Trinity.

Sola Scripturists may well agree with this, but simply deny that “the lens of the Faith which gave us the Bible” is the Catholic Church.

And then he’d read all the verses Ventilacion presented which state that Jesus is a man.

And then he’d become a Unitarian, or a JW, or a Mormon, or a pagan.

If he interpreted the Bible as a harmonious whole, he’d conclude that Jesus is both God and man.

You’ll have to give us where you get this definition of Sola Scriptura, and why it’s authoritative.

I’ve been discussing SS for a long time, and in that time I’ve received about a dozen different (and often contrary!) definitions of SS.

And, since SS isn’t defined in the Bible, no SS advocate can speak authoritatively about what it means…so…

I didn’t give a definition of SS, I just said SS is compatible with using tradition as an interpretive aid. The reformers all appealed to the church fathers (especially Calvin), and Protestants continue to do so.

And the Iglesia ni Cristo folks, JWs, Assemblies of God, Campbellites, Pentecostals,
SDAs etc etc etc would disagree with that.

I don’t think this is true, but even if it were, it’s no better a reason to think SS is false than that it is being misapplied.

 

[PRmerger]

Eastern Orthodox will say the CC split from them, entailing that the church of the 1st century didn’t affirm things like papal infallibility.

Well, since the EO teach the Trinity, the above statement is otiose, at least as it applies to this discussion.

Protestants will similarly deny that the church of the 1st century affirmed things like Mary’s assumption into heaven, or her immaculate conception. Only Catholics will say the 1st century church was Roman Catholic (and even then, they’ve had to incorporate Cardinal Newman’s theory of the development of doctrine in order to account for the silence or ambiguity of early Christians on a number of doctrines).

No, Perplexity. The Catholic Church is not Roman, Perplexity, nor was it “Roman Catholic” in the 1st century. It was simply…the Catholic Church.

The Roman, or Latin, rite is only one rite of many in the universal Catholic Church.

Sola Scripturists may well agree with this, but simply deny that “the lens of the Faith which gave us the Bible” is the Catholic Church.

You’ll have to ask them how it is they got their Bible, then. Ask if they believe it floated down from heaven on the wings of a dove.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall of that conversation! I’ve definitely given you a “gotcha!” when you’re in discussion with them. You’re welcome.

If he interpreted the Bible as a harmonious whole, he’d conclude that Jesus is both God and man.

And yet we have Unitarians, Iglesia ni Cristo, JWs, Mormons, who have read the Bible from cover to cover, and yet conclude quite differently from historic Christianity.

I didn’t give a definition of SS, I just said SS is compatible with using tradition as an interpretive aid.

Many SS advocates don’t agree with this. So…shrug.

The reformers all appealed to the church fathers (especially Calvin), and Protestants continue to do so.

And some of today’s Christians may claim they have reformed the reformers’ position on SS.

I don’t think this is true, but even if it were, it’s no better a reason to think SS is false than that it is being misapplied.

Since there is no such thing as a Protestant magisterium, there is no way to decide if one person’s definition of SS is being "misapplied"or is simply false.

This limns quite nicely, doesn’t it, why a magisterium is so necessary!

 

[Perplexity]

PRmerger: I don’t really have a dog in this fight, I think you’re all wrong But, I don’t think you’re representing SS fairly.

People do read the same texts and yet reach different conclusions. But, it does not logically follow from this fact alone that the texts themselves are ambiguous: it could just as easily be that folks aren’t exegeting the texts, but eisegeting them. Perhaps a commitment to exegesis would result in greater harmony (as Protestants like James White insist).

Positing a magisterium does not solve the issue, because we not only have to interpret the texts in order to conclude that there is a magisterium in the first place, but we still have to interpret the magisterium.

Ultimately, we all just do the best we can (or ought to). Some of us find the Catholic Church in the Bible and early church, others find Eastern Orthodoxy. Some of us find Mere Christianity, others find none of it.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger: I don’t really have a dog in this fight, I think you’re all wrong But, I don’t think you’re representing SS fairly.

If you could show me from an authoritative text the correct respesentation of SS, that would be helpful.

(NB: you won’t be able to do this, because…there ain’t no such thing as an authority that can define SS).