Cringeworthy Debate between James White and Jose Ventilacion

[PRmerger]

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.

Annnnnddd that’s why a magisterium is so critical.

Perhaps a commitment to exegesis would result in greater harmony (as Protestants like James White insist).

This sounds like you’re advocating the Catholic position here: there is a correct way to interpret Scripture.

Yeah?

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.

That’s why the magisterium is living, and not a static book, like the Bible.

Ultimately, we all just do the best we can (or ought to).

But of course.

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.

Those who have deviated from the Church Christ established do not have the fullness of truth, sadly.

 

[Perplexity]

Gah, you can do better than this PRmerger. E.g. the question begging assertions about the Catholic Church, the sheer speculation about Protestant denominations, the double standard against Protestant hermeneutics, the argument against SS “definitions” that’d ruin dictionaries if taken to its logical conclusion, etc.

If you really want to show that SS is false, honestly and sincerely try to prove that it is true. If you can’t, then you’ll have an argument to contend with.

 

[PRmerger]

Gah, you can do better than this PRmerger. E.g. the question begging assertions about the Catholic Church, the sheer speculation about Protestant denominations, the double standard against Protestant hermeneutics, the argument against SS “definitions” that’d ruin dictionaries if taken to its logical conclusion, etc.

If you really want to show that SS is false, honestly and sincerely try to prove that it is true. If you can’t, then you’ll have an argument to contend with.

You’re getting frustrated because you can’t argue against what’s being presented here, Perplexity.

Would that you could just digest what’s been proferred here and come to a closer grasp of truth.

 

[Duane1966]

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).

Agreed. Different conclusions does not mean the texts in question are ambiguous. Those texts were never meant to be authoritative, nor do they claim to be. They were meant as a witness. Those texts cannot excommunicated someone, but Jesus clearly says His Church can.

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.

So you are saying it us easier to interpret texts that are 2000 years old, where if you do not understand something you cannot ask the original authors, than interpreting a Magisterial statement, where if something is unclear, the authors are alive to clarify. Okaaaay.

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.

Sola scriptura, is always, in reality, solo scriptura.

Tell me, if I belong to a sola scriptura practicing community, and my reading of scripture differs from theirs, should I stay in that community? Interestingly enough, the great Turrentin said no. So solo trumps sola.

The minute anyone says prove to me from Scripture as Luther did, you are practicing solo scriptura, As anyone can always say, I don’t believe yours or their interpretation proves what you say. The many denominations of Protestantism proves this.

One last thing. St. Athanasius at Nicaea said the Arians could quote more bible verses in their favor than those in favor of the Trinity could. No appeal to Scripture was of any use, as the Arians came back with solid Scriptures in their favor. He said finally the bishops at Nicaea went outside of Scripture, and appealed to the writings of the fathers to swing some of the Arian bishops to the Trinitarian side.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the bullet that can be taken from this short discourse is this:

no one can offer an authoritative definition of Sola Scriptura.

Why?
Firstly, of course, because the Bible never offers a definition of SS.
Secondly, because the nature of Protestantism is that it rejects authority (outside of the Bible), so…it leaves itself essentially* headless*…when it comes to making such definitions.

It’s a sad predicament that SS advocates find themselves in.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Agreed. Different conclusions does not mean the texts in question are ambiguous. Those texts were never meant to be authoritative, nor do they claim to be. They were meant as a witness. Those texts cannot excommunicated someone, but Jesus clearly says His Church can.

So you are saying it us easier to interpret texts that are 2000 years old, where if you do not understand something you cannot ask the original authors, than interpreting a Magisterial statement, where if something is unclear, the authors are alive to clarify. Okaaaay.

Sola scriptura, is always, in reality, solo scriptura.

Tell me, if I belong to a sola scriptura practicing community, and my reading of scripture differs from theirs, should I stay in that community? Interestingly enough, the great Turrentin said no. So solo trumps sola.

The minute anyone says prove to me from Scripture as Luther did, you are practicing solo scriptura, As anyone can always say, I don’t believe yours or their interpretation proves what you say. The many denominations of Protestantism proves this.

One last thing. St. Athanasius at Nicaea said the Arians could quote more bible verses in their favor than those in favor of the Trinity could. No appeal to Scripture was of any use, as the Arians came back with solid Scriptures in their favor. He said finally the bishops at Nicaea went outside of Scripture, and appealed to the writings of the fathers to swing some of the Arian bishops to the Trinitarian side.

True.

I’d say Sola Scriptura always morphs into selective Scriptura. People over emphasize certain passages and neglect others based on the filter that he or she possesses. And that’s why we have so many differing opinions…this methodology just does not work if we want the fullness of Christian truth.

Now if we just want some essentials such as Jesus being divine and crucified, rose from the dead, etc. Then it’s a decent practice for that. A overwhelming majority agree on those things.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the bullet that can be taken from this short discourse is this:

no one can offer an authoritative definition of Sola Scriptura.

Why?
Firstly, of course, because the Bible never offers a definition of SS.
Secondly, because the nature of Protestantism is that it rejects authority (outside of the Bible), so…it leaves itself essentially* headless*…when it comes to making such definitions.

It’s a sad predicament that SS advocates find themselves in.

As a Catholic I want to know whose definition of SS is the correct one:

This person’s?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4955792&postcount=10??

If it can not be found in or proven clearly from God’s Word, then it must be rejected as false doctrine or false writing.
There is a genius to all Scripture that man can not imitate. A serious student of God’ Word will notice when something false is trying to pass for the real thing. There is a deadness to man’s word that contradicts true Scripture.
The Holy Spirit’s role is to make it possible for even the simple to hear and understand true Scripture.
Those who think Scripture can only be interpreted and understood by the world’s version of “the wise and prudent” have not read God’s Word with the Holy Spirit’s help. God hides His Truth from those who rely on their own wisdom and righteousness.

Or James White’s?

vintage.aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Or this person’s?
angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.kiefersolascriptura.html

(1) Sola Scriptura = “All true propositions are stated in Holy Scripture.”

 

[Duane1966]

Agreed. Different conclusions does not mean the texts in question are ambiguous. Those texts were never meant to be authoritative, nor do they claim to be. They were meant as a witness. Those texts cannot excommunicated someone, but Jesus clearly says His Church can.

Just realized I had omitted something that I had originally intended to type into this paragraph (thinking faster than typing, and in to much of a hurry), causing what I had typed to be in error (won’t be the first time).

It should read:

Those texts were never meant to be authoritative, when interpreted in opposition to the hierarchy, nor do they claim to be.

If their is a question about the texts, the hierarchy has the final say. If I held an opposite position, I know I was in the wrong. This is what happened at the Council of Jerusalem. Obviously many held to a different reading than the final decision, and most likely some sort of schism happened because of the decision (Ebionites), some obviously submitted their wills to the hierarchy, which is what we are called to do as Christians.

A big mea culpable for the faulty posting.

 

[Fiasco]

A big mea culpable for the faulty posting.

Another one!
Whatever glass was in my house has long gone.
{i like the GKC quote!)

CA founder Karl Keating recalls debating some Iglesia ni Cristo folks in the Philippines many years back. He remembers feeling palpable fear as the eyes of the gathered InC “true believers” began to glaze over and their next move was unpredictable.

Three or four years ago, i came across a debate between Jose Ventilacion and Jesse Romero (Catholic apologist) More than once, Jesse was knocked over, not by Ventilacion’s brilliance, but by the unexpected silliness of some of his claims. In one place Ventilacion quoted Scripture to “prove” that the InC sect was/is the true Church: “The Church of Christ!”. Jesse shot down! Supposedly. [From memory: Thanks to the moderator, Ventilacion got away with it.]
Etc.
Not sure of the glazed eyes, but the place was full of InC members. A lot of them were ex-Catholics (including Ventilacion?).
They just blindly supported him.
Sad! So much for catechesis in this supposedly Catholic country. It can be shallow, with a bit of superstition thrown in.

This is Part 1, but the audio quality’s bad:

youtube.com/watch?v=PKFzi1eMoP8

 

[MichaelP3]

And I would like to know which one you adhere to when you make a comment regarding this? Not that I actually expect that!

 

[PRmerger]

And I would like to know which one you adhere to when you make a comment regarding this? Not that I actually expect that!

Well, since James White is defending the Trinity…that’s the position I adhere to.

 

[MichaelP3]

Well, since James White is defending the Trinity…that’s the position I adhere to.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ohb3w7GL1qa6ipw.gif

Actually I honestly made a mistake here not referring to the quote.

Good so we both refer to Dr White’s case. Have you read his book on the Trinity?

 

[MichaelP3]

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…

.

And you will find an equal amount of people who say otherwise! On this forum… YUP

 

[MichaelP3]

Well, since James White is defending the Trinity…that’s the position I adhere to.

https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9ohb3w7GL1qa6ipw.gif

And you will need to explain your impressive memes/GIFS!

second time you used the same one

Okay! Maybe just say why?

Glad to see you here!

 

[PRmerger]

Have you read his book on the Trinity?

Nope.

 

[PRmerger]

And you will find an equal amount of people who say otherwise! On this forum… YUP

The above is a nonsequitur, Michael.

Please try to follow the segue.

The original post to which I was responding was this:

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

Perplexity is clearly mistaken.

 

[PRmerger]

And you will need to explain your impressive memes/GIFS!

second time you used the same one

I thought about using this one:

Okay! Maybe just say why?

Why I side with James White on the Trinity? Because he’s right. God is indeed a Trinity.

His apologia for it is a bit lacking, because he’s “fighting with one arm tied behind his back”.

If Ventilacion were to debate a knowledgeable Catholic, he’d have to argue against the full brunt of Jesus’ Word, not just a partial one, as White presented.

 

[MichaelP3]

The above is a nonsequitur, Michael.

Please try to follow the segue.

The original post to which I was responding was this:

Perplexity is clearly mistaken.

No Merger. You clearly mistaken the posters of “non-Catholic” forum that all… maybe not even half actually agree with you you there (…which does prove my point … hint hint…)

 

[MichaelP3]

Nope.

EVEN YOU

Will find this very interesting. Let go of the “fullness” of the truth for even a second and just read… read read and read!

 

[PRmerger]

EVEN YOU

Will find this very interesting. Let go of the “fullness” of the truth for even a second and just read… read read and read!

I have no need to read a non-Catholic’s apologia of the Trinity when he has based all of his arguments on something my Church gave him.