Does James White have something to say?

[Vincent]

It almost seems like a “ticking timebomb” theory. In other words, the sola Scriptura interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 didn’t “go off” until after the last apostle died.

Interesting, but a little odd.

 

[Maccabees]

Vincent you brought up a good point it is almost as if the oral traditions and apostolic authority had an expiration date. The Bible never points to this interpretation.

 

[JPrejean]

Just had a good discussion with Pastor White on the Dividing Line. He was very reasonable, and I think he gave me a good opportunity to explain my position and a reasonable defense of his own. I’m not sure that he was convinced by my position, but at least I gave it the old college try. And he’s sending me the DVDs of his debates with Pacwa, which I thought was a kind gesture. At any rate, I haven’t changed my mind on the fact that the civility of the discourse would be much improved by dropping a line to the person with whom he is disputing when that is easily possible. However, I can at least understand what he perceives as the difficulties, and those are matters upon which reasonable people can disagree.

One thing that he mentioned several times, with which I entirely agreed, is that there are many attempts to dehumanize him and ascribe negative personal characteristics to him, most of which are simply inaccurate. That is really beneath any standard of civility, and I would argue that it should never be part of any reasonable person’s repertoire. I, for one, will retract my statement that he is “yellow-bellied,” as it now occurs to me that it could be viewed as a personal attack, where that was strictly my opinion of the style of argument (much as I might say that it’s yellow-bellied not to go for it on fourth and inches in the opposing team’s territory). As regards the statements I made about “whining” and “crying,” it seems clear to me now that his responses are not offered in lieu of a substantive argument (in order to avoid substantive engagement, which is what I meant by “throwing down the gauntlet,” as I explained on the DL), but rather because he feels that the substantive argument has already been made in one of his books and his opponent has given an insubstantial response. The only criticism, assuming that he does believe the answers are in his books, is that he’s not plugging his own books as well as he should. At any rate, my characterizations were inaccurate based on a misunderstanding of the facts, and now that the misunderstanding has been corrected, I retract them.

I hope this illustrates that it is possible to reasonably misconstrue someone’s meaning, but as long as you aren’t stubborn in adhering to such a misconception when the mistake is pointed out, then there is hope yet for charity and truth to win the day. So long as we aren’t omniscient or mind-readers, these kinds of misunderstandings will happen, and that’s fine, so long as they don’t needlessly create strife.

 

[Exporter]

I have listened for about three hours to James White via audio from a website. He is a glib speaker, full of energy. But the bottom line is that he is just another Professional Anti-Catholic who has his transmitter button on all the time, and never turns on his reciever. He talks but doesn’t listen.:bounce:

 

[c0achmcguirk]

PhilVaz:

Yeah, to defend James, he’s probably tired.

Phil, Malachi, bengal_fan, and JPrejean (after calling into the Dividing Line), thanks for being fair or at least semi-fair to White. These discussions are so much more fruitful when ad hominem is left out of it.

Here he would be overwhelmed quickly, and he knows that,

Heck the forum would be overwhelmed, probably. The server would be spitting out 405 Service Unavailable Errors as soon as people tried to reply.

but he’s got his capable defenders who copy his arguments verbatim (Coach McGuirk comes to mind).

Ahh, you referred to me. But I’m thinking this was not a kind reference, perhaps I’m wrong?

To point out here that, yes, I use a lot of White’s arguments because they are easy to understand and are, IMHO irrefutable. I also read, listen to and use arguments from Svendsen, Webster, King, Sproul, Horton, Beckwith, Gerstner, Lou Sloger (my pastor), and sometimes even Church Fathers like Augustine. (Coach is doin’ himself some name-droppin’!)

Please don’t paint me as a copycat robot apologist. Maybe that’s not what you were trying to do, but that’s how I took it.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

PhilVaz:

Well he used to believe apparently Jesus and His apostles taught sola scriptura, or at least that SS is a “biblical teaching” since he used to argue from 2 Tim 3:15-17 and other texts for SS.

Phil, you’re a bright guy, so I’m left scratching my head why you are still holding onto this bag.

Jesus and His apostles effectively taught SS for the normative condition of the church with the way he handled things like Jewish “divine” traditions, by praising those who would test teachings with Scripture, and how Scripture calls itself God-breathed, able to thoroughly equip.

Obviously, when Scripture was being revealed, and when God was walking on Earth, SS cannot possibly be in effect. There were other God-breathed rules of faith at the time: Jesus and the Apostles.

However, these passages that White and other Protestants use do in fact teach sola Scriptura for us today, unless someone could demonstrate another God-breathed rule of faith outside of Scripture.

Here James White Tell the Truth About Sola Scriptura

Again, Phil, this argument does not hold water: Has the Roman Catholic Rule of Faith always been valid, or has it “developed” over time? Were Adam and Eve bound to the Roman Catholic rule of faith?

Your argument, more or less is:

(1) A Rule of Faith is only valid if it remains constant and unchanging throughout time.
(2) Jesus and the Apostles didn’t practice Sola Scriptura
(3) Therefore, Sola Scriptura is invalid.

The problem is with the premise (#1) because it would make your rule of faith invalid too.

If you say the Roman Catholic rule of faith developed (which it did) then you must admit that this silly argument is invalid–because it destroys your position too.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[PhilVaz]

A couple of points for the Coach, its late.

Catholics do not claim the “Roman Catholic rule of faith” was in effect from the time of Adam and Eve. There was no Pope, nor any Scripture, etc at that point. That’s an argument you stole from Jason Engwer, admit it. At least he’s the first one I’ve seen come up with that crazy idea as a “counter-response.”

What we would claim is that the “Catholic rule of faith” (for want of a better term) was in effect from the time of Jesus and remains in place. That is, Jesus (the Word and revelation of God, John 1:1ff) appointed apostles (Matt 10), He chose Peter as the leader of His visible Church (Matt 16, Acts, etc), the apostles gave relevation both as Scripture and apostolic tradition (2 Thess 2:15), and the apostles’ successors (the early Catholic bishops) continued to guard, perserve and maintain that Scripture and tradition faithfully (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:13-14; Heb 13:7,17; etc). That’s in the Bible and the early Fathers, clear and explicit. There was development both for the NT canon, and for the Papacy. Same development, same Catholic Church. Okay, that’s another debate.

Protestants do claim the “Protestant rule of faith” (according to White at least circa 1997) was not in effect nor valid during the time of Jesus or His apostles (the first century, “during times of revelation”), that neither Jesus nor His apostles taught sola scriptura (defined as the full 66-book canon of Scripture is “the only infallible rule of faith”), but that it became true sometime after the apostles died (2nd century?), or sometime after the NT canon was generally recognized (3rd or 4th century?), or maybe after the NT canon was officially closed (late 4th century, early 5th century?) or when enough true apostolic tradition was supposedly “forgotten” by the early Church. Besides, according to this view, the only thing we have left to fall back on as a rule of faith is Scripture alone (defined as the 66 books in the Protestant Bible).

That’s my summary of the “two sides.” Maybe I’ll get to the rest later, but let’s summarize more clearly and accurately as I have done.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Coach << Jesus and His apostles effectively taught SS for the normative condition of the church >>

This “normative” and I guess “non-normative” condition of the church is an UNbiblical concept. Where did you get this from? Besides White’s book The Roman Catholic Controversy or his debates of course. White has already admitted (since circa 1997) that neither Jesus nor His apostles taught sola scriptura since the 66-book canon did not exist. So 2 Tim 3:15-17 cannot possibly teach it since it wasn’t valid then.

Give me the Biblical references to this “normative condition of the church” in the New Testament, or the Biblical references for this normative vs. non-normative distinction. I can’t find them, and yes I have been looking ever since I saw that in White’s books. You’re the guy who accepts Scripture as the only infallible rule, so the “normative condition of the church” concept has to be in there. Right?

I see one Church there, it’s normative, and that is the Catholic Church.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

To quote White again, and to bother Coach a little more, p(name removed by moderator)oint when you think Sola Scriptura “became true” in the history of the Church. You’ve defended White on this point, and said I should not be holding this bag or whatever, and that I have totally misunderstood the awesome logical Protestant evangelical or fundamentalist position. I’ve quoted White before on this, here it is again:

“…the doctrine [of sola scriptura] speaks of a rule of faith that exists. What do I mean by this? …You will never find anyone saying, ‘During times of enscripturation – that is, when new revelation was being given – sola scriptura was operational.’ Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being? One must have an existing rule of faith to say it is ‘sufficient.’ It is a canard to point to times of revelation and say, ‘See, sola scriptura doesn’t work there!’ Of course it doesn’t. Who said it did?” (White 1997 article on Steve Ray and Bereans)

And in his 1997 debate with Gerry Matatics on sola scriptura:

Matatics: “Did the people of Jesus’ day practice sola scriptura, the hearers of Our Lord?” and “Did the apostles practice sola scriptura?”

White: “NO.” (see video clip above)

In summary: If sola scriptura is not a valid concept during times of revelation, when did it become valid? If sola scriptura was not taught by Jesus nor His Apostles as White admits, then who was the first to teach it? Which Father, bishop, or saint of the early Church would you point to? Who taught it first?

Did St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD) first teach sola scriptura?
Did St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD) first teach sola scriptura?
Did St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 180 AD) first teach sola scriptura?

We know it wasn’t taught by Jesus or His apostles since White has already admitted that. We can also be sure that 2 Timothy 3:15-17 does not teach sola scriptura nor that Scripture is “sufficient” according to that text since the rule of faith at that point was coming into being. And one must have an existing rule of faith to say it is “sufficient.” Exactly what White says above.

I am defining sola scriptura of course as “Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.” Don’t worry about the NT canon as such, but just the concept of “Scripture” (whatever it was at whatever point) being “the only infallible rule of faith.” Who taught it first?

Answer when you have time, and it appears from your other massive threads you do have a lot of time.

Phil P

 

[c0achmcguirk]

PhilVaz:

Catholics do not claim the “Roman Catholic rule of faith” was in effect from the time of Adam and Eve. There was no Pope, nor any Scripture, etc at that point. That’s an argument you stole from Jason Engwer, admit it. At least he’s the first one I’ve seen come up with that crazy idea as a “counter-response.”

Phil, I’ll admit I don’t come up with every argument I use. I tried to deceive everyone into thinking that I don’t read the works of other apologists–and I almost convinced everyone that I was a super-mega-apologist–if it weren’t for your meddling! (Cue Scooby Doo music).

Okay, you identified the source of the argument. Then you concede that a rule of faith doesn’t always have to be in effect to be valid–that’s what Evangelicals are saying.

What we would claim is that the “Catholic rule of faith” (for want of a better term) was in effect from the time of Jesus and remains in place.

Did Jesus ever submit to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church? Did the apostles recognize that Peter was to settle their disputes when they were arguing about who would be first in heaven? Did Jesus visit Peter when he was Bishop of Rome? Did Peter write any encyclicals when Jesus walked the earth? Could you name some eccumenical councils from Jesus’ day? Did Peter send prelates or did he attend himself? Did Jesus attend these councils? In what capacity?

You have quite a bit to prove to show that the Roman Catholic rule of faith was “in effect” during the time of Jesus. Sola Scriptura wasn’t in effect and neither was the Roman Catholic rule of faith.

Give me the Biblical references to this “normative condition of the church” in the New Testament, or the Biblical references for this normative vs. non-normative distinction.

Evangelicals say “normative condition” to point out the uniqueness of the apostolate and the time during Jesus’ ministry. Why was the apostolate unique and who were they? They were men sent by Jesus, given authority to teach divine truth. Is that authority on some continuing basis and the basis for further revelation today?

Ephesians 2:19b-20 says the Church is

"…God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone "
–Ephesians 2:19-20

Notice that the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. If one thinks there are still apostles today, one is saying that the foundation of the Church is not finished!

Christ is still building His Church, but He’s building it upon a foundation that has already been established.

2 Corinthians 12:12 identifies

"The things that mark an apostle–signs, wonders and miracles. "
–2 Cor 12:12

The early church fathers also recognized the uniqueness of the apostolate–they made it clear that what they wrote was trumped by what the earlier apostles wrote. For example, Ignatius said in AD 117:

"I do not, like Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles. "
–Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

The Apostles and their unique authority are no more for the Church today. This is the “normative” condition of the Church.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

PhilVaz:

To quote White again, and to bother Coach a little more, p(name removed by moderator)oint when you think Sola Scriptura “became true” in the history of the Church.

When the apostolate was no more and Scripture was no longer being written. Then there were no other “God-breathed” rules of faith.

Do I need to prove to you the exact month, day, year, minute, second, and millisecond (we’re only going for 3 sig figs here ) to prove that SS is true?

Not any more than you need to prove the exact month, day, year, minute, second, and millisecond the Earth was created to prove God created the world.

We know it wasn’t taught by Jesus or His apostles since White has already admitted that.

I think there’s a disconnect here.

1. Jesus did teach that all traditions were subject to Scripture
2. Paul, an apostle, called Scripture “God-breathed” able to fully equip for every good work
3. Scripture speaks of no other God-breathed rule of faith outside of Scripture for us today…the “normative” condition if you will.

Jesus and the apostles did teach Scripture was a “God-breathed” rule of faith, without giving us any other God-breathed rules of faith. I say that this means they taught Sola Scriptura, even though it didn’t apply until the Apostolate ceased to exist.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[JPrejean]

Phil, Malachi, bengal_fan, and JPrejean (after calling into the Dividing Line), thanks for being fair or at least semi-fair to White. These discussions are so much more fruitful when ad hominem is left out of it

Thanks. I try to be fair and to avoid jumping to conclusions about any individual’s character, but nobody’s immune to misunderstandings, least of all myself. I am quite happy to have such a misunderstanding corrected, particularly when it would allow me to take a better view of someone. As I mentioned on the show, I think some of the things people say about Pastor White are ridiculous and just plain mean.

Did Jesus ever submit to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church? Did the apostles recognize that Peter was to settle their disputes when they were arguing about who would be first in heaven? Did Jesus visit Peter when he was Bishop of Rome? Did Peter write any encyclicals when Jesus walked the earth? Could you name some eccumenical councils from Jesus’ day? Did Peter send prelates or did he attend himself? Did Jesus attend these councils? In what capacity?

You have quite a bit to prove to show that the Roman Catholic rule of faith was “in effect” during the time of Jesus. Sola Scriptura wasn’t in effect and neither was the Roman Catholic rule of faith.

I don’t quite see where those questions would be relevant to whether the Catholic rule of faith was in effect, since the operative question would be “did Peter and the Apostles have the authority to do X?,” not “Did they actually exercise the authority to do X?” (hence making the second, fourth, fifth, and sixth questions irrelevant). The first question inverts the claim of the Catholic rule of faith; the Magisterium is in utter submission to Christ, not vice versa. The third, seventh, and eighth questions are also irrelevant, since according to the Catholic rule of faith, the grant of authority specifically allowed Peter and the Apostles to exercise the authority in Christ’s absence.

But generally, I concur with your position that a demonstration that sola scriptura wasn’t in effect doesn’t buy much for us Catholics if there isn’t any reason to think that the Catholic rule was in effect. I think that most Catholics who think about the question have reached that conclusion to their satisfaction; hence, they are Catholic.

Edit – Oh, BTW

Scripture speaks of no other God-breathed rule of faith outside of Scripture for us today

Just depends on how you interpret it. See, e.g.,
John 20
[21] Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Guess it depends on pneumatology, but because of passages like this, the procession of the Spirit from the Father has traditionally been described as a spiration, making His action literally God-breathed. While no other writing is considered God-breathed, it doesn’t seem obvious to me that no other authority or rule is God-breathed.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

JPrejean:

As I mentioned on the show, I think some of the things people say about Pastor White are ridiculous and just plain mean.

Great job on the Dividing Line, by the way. I thought you sounded quite articulate and you didn’t sound nervous, either. Did you participate in Speech by chance?

But generally, I concur with your position that a demonstration that sola scriptura wasn’t in effect doesn’t buy much for us Catholics if there isn’t any reason to think that the Catholic rule was in effect. I think that most Catholics who think about the question have reached that conclusion to their satisfaction; hence, they are Catholic.

Thanks Jonathan. Maybe Phil will see what you see and will stop trotting out his pet clip of White. I appreciate the time Phil spent encoding the video, so I’m sure it’s tough to give up on using it.

Guess it depends on pneumatology, but because of passages like this, the procession of the Spirit from the Father has traditionally been described as a spiration, making His action literally God-breathed.

Ha! Love the reference to pneumatology.

But I want to be clear on this–I readily accept and agree that Jesus breathed on the Apostles. No one who holds to sola Scriptura denies that the teachings of the apostles were inerrant and binding on those who heard them. Moreover, if it could be demonstrated from Scripture that the exact words or full sense of what the apostles taught orally was to be preserved without error through an unbroken line of bishops then all Christians would be bound to these oral teachings.

Sadly, oral transmission is far more subject to change, deviation, corruption, and cultural influence than written transmission. We can go back and compare manuscripts against each other all seeking to get back to the original message itself. You can’t do this with oral transmission.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[beng]

c0achmcguirk:

Sadly, oral transmission is far more subject to change, deviation, corruption, and cultural influence than written transmission. We can go back and compare manuscripts against each other all seeking to get back to the original message itself. You can’t do this with oral transmission.

God bless,
c0ach

First, do you think that God can not preserve oral tradition? Do you think there was corruption between the time of Adam till Moses?

Second, do you think that if we have everything written than there would be no corruption, none at all? Protestant who practice Sola Scriptura, have 2479164871 denominations, so I guess they have the manuscript but do not compare it correctly.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

beng:

First, do you think that God can not preserve oral tradition?

God could if He wanted, that’s not the issue. The issue is did God preserve oral tradition infallibly, fully, and perfectly. The onus is on the Roman Catholic to prove that God did this.

Do you think there was corruption between the time of Adam till Moses?

This is a loaded question, but my answer is irrelevant. The important thing is that Moses was a prophet, inspired by God to write Scripture.

For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. --2 Peter 1:21

Second, do you think that if we have everything written than there would be no corruption, none at all?

None at all? Textual criticism shows us that not all the manuscripts are identical–there was no Xerox machine back then. However, we do have written evidence of teachings that come pretty close to the original autographs. We can see minor corruptions in about 1% of the text, and luckily no theological doctrine rests on disputed parts of the MSS.

Which proves my point. We can verify, compare, and test different manuscripts against each other. We can’t do that with the fluid “oral tradition.”

Could you demonstrate from Scripture that the exact words or full sense of what the apostles taught orally was to be preserved without error through an unbroken line of bishops?

Protestant who practice Sola Scriptura, have 2479164871 denominations, so I guess they have the manuscript but do not compare it correctly.

Wow, 2479164871 denominations, now, huh? Refuted many times earlier:

ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm
ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm

God bless,
c0ach

 

[beng]

c0achmcguirk:

God could if He wanted, that’s not the issue. The issue is did God preserve oral tradition infallibly, fully, and perfectly.

Good

The onus is on the Roman Catholic to prove that God did this.

Why should we? You can’t even proof that God did not do this. If you want us to proof it, you also have to proof yours.

This is a loaded question, but my answer is irrelevant. The important thing is that Moses was a prophet, inspired by God to write Scripture.

For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. --2 Peter 1:21

How is your answer irrelevant?

Let me add another question while we’re at it. How did God protect his message from Adam incoorupted till Moses?

None at all? Textual criticism shows us that not all the manuscripts are identical–there was no Xerox machine back then. However, we do have written evidence of teachings that come pretty close to the original autographs. We can see minor corruptions in about 1% of the text, and luckily no theological doctrine rests on disputed parts of the MSS.

After all the scriptures were written, not every Christian have all the books in the canon. Some have writings that are not in the canon and of questionable origin. And since no one knows what book is in the canon then their bible is corrupted by the addition of non-canonized book or the absent of canonized book. But they survived and kept the faith.

Which proves my point. We can verify, compare, and test different manuscripts against each other. We can’t do that with the fluid “oral tradition.”

Well, we would just have to find another way beside comparing this and that to preserve oral traditions wouldn’t we?

Maybe the same way from the time of Adam to Moses.

Could you demonstrate from Scripture that the exact words or full sense of what the apostles taught orally was to be preserved without error through an unbroken line of bishops?

2Thess 2:15

Wow, 2479164871 denominations, now, huh? Refuted many times earlier:

God bless,
c0ach

Why, don’t you know that if a person ask you (on the net) about the number of Protestant denominations all you have to do is go wild on the number pad of your keyboard?

If he so ask, “but it’s not that much”

One should reply, “It will be.”

 

[c0achmcguirk]

beng:

Why should we? You can’t even proof that God did not do this. If you want us to proof it, you also have to proof yours.

You’re asking for the impossible. I cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof rests with the positive claimant. You are claiming that God preserved oral tradition infallibly, fully and perfectly. I reject your claim and am asking for proof.

How is your answer irrelevant?

Because Moses didn’t rely on oral tradition to write Scripture. He relied on the Holy Spirit, which is what 2 Peter 1:21 is talking about.

Let me add another question while we’re at it. How did God protect his message from Adam incoorupted till Moses?

He didn’t rely on oral tradition. God used the Holy Spirit to write Scripture. Scripture is God speaking to us, not some man’s thoughts on what God may have done or said.

But about the resurrection of the dead–have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’–Mathew 22:31-32

It’s interesting to note that Jesus quotes from Exodus 3:6 and says that it is God speaking, not Moses.

2Thess 2:15

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. --2 Thess 2:15

Hmmm, I see a command to hold fast to the teachings from the apostles, which I have no objection to. I seem to have missed where it says that the oral teachings will be infallibly, fully, and perfectly preserved until the end of time. Could you help me out here? Remember, I asked:

Could you demonstrate from Scripture that the exact words or full sense of what the apostles taught orally was to be preserved without error through an unbroken line of bishops?

Why, don’t you know that if a person ask you (on the net) about the number of Protestant denominations all you have to do is go wild on the number pad of your keyboard?

Oh, I missed the memo about arbitrariness is okay when trying to discuss objective truth. I guess I try to use figures that have sources to back them up when trying to prove my points. I find that I have much more fruitful dialogue when we both stick to verifiable facts.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[beng]

c0achmcguirk:

You’re asking for the impossible. I cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof rests with the positive claimant. You are claiming that God preserved oral tradition infallibly, fully and perfectly. I reject your claim and am asking for proof.

In my position I think you’re arguing a negative. Not me.

Because Moses didn’t rely on oral tradition to write Scripture. He relied on the Holy Spirit, which is what 2 Peter 1:21 is talking about.

The Holy Spirit whispered what to write to Moses? Hmmm kinda like the Quran.

Can you prove that Moses didn’t rely on oral tradition?

He didn’t rely on oral tradition. God used the Holy Spirit to write Scripture. Scripture is God speaking to us, not some man’s thoughts on what God may have done or said.

Even James White assert that there’s no Sola Scriptura during Apostolic age and there weer oral Tradition there, for a simple reason that the NT was not formed.

And you boldly imply that all the inspiration to write scripture is from the “whisperingt” of the Holy Spirit?

2Peter 1:21 is consistent with 2Tes 2:15. Your theory does not.

But about the resurrection of the dead–have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’–Mathew 22:31-32

It’s interesting to note that Jesus quotes from Exodus 3:6 and says that it is God speaking, not Moses.

Figure of speech.

Hmmm, I see a command to hold fast to the teachings from the apostles, which I have no objection to. I seem to have missed where it says that the oral teachings will be infallibly, fully, and perfectly preserved until the end of time. Could you help me out here?

Remember, I asked:

Could you demonstrate from Scripture that the exact words or full sense of what the apostles taught orally was to be preserved without error through an unbroken line of bishops?

The part that mention that the oral teaching is infallible and will be preserved till the end of time by valid episcopal sucession is in the oral teaching.

Oh, I missed the memo about arbitrariness is okay when trying to discuss objective truth. I guess I try to use figures that have sources to back them up when trying to prove my points. I find that I have much more fruitful dialogue when we both stick to verifiable facts.

God bless,
c0ach

Well, it’s not arbitrary, it’s almost a fact.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Hi Beng, you reply quickly!

beng:

In my position I think you’re arguing a negative. Not me.

That’s what I’m saying. I’m asserting a negative, you’re asserting a positive. You have the burden of proof.

The Holy Spirit whispered what to write to Moses? Hmmm kinda like the Quran.

I have no idea what you are referring to here.

Can you prove that Moses didn’t rely on oral tradition?

See above about proving a negative.

Even James White assert that there’s no Sola Scriptura during Apostolic age and there weer oral Tradition there, for a simple reason that the NT was not formed.

I don’t see the relevance, could you clarify?

And you boldly imply that all the inspiration to write scripture is from the “whisperingt” of the Holy Spirit?

I’m confused here. (looks for smiley–oh here we go)

I quoted from 2 Peter 1:21 and Matthew 22:31-32, both speak of Scripture being written by God (Holy Spirit). I didn’t “boldy” imply anything other than what Scripture teaches.

2Peter 1:21 is consistent with 2Tes 2:15. Your theory does not.

Yes, the Bible is consistent with itself. Where did I imply that the Bible contradicts itself? And what does my theory not do? What theory are you referring to? Sorry, I have a lot of questions, but I’m trying to understand what you’re trying to say.

Figure of speech.

Okay, so Matthew 22:31-32 is a figure of speech. Could you elaborate? Has Rome infallibly interpreted the verse, or can you give contextual reasons for rejecting the idea that God wrote the Bible?

The part that mention that the oral teaching is infallible and will be preserved till the end of time by valid episcopal sucession is in the oral teaching.

Since my whole argument is that oral teaching is unverifiable and more subject to error that written teachings, could you start by using Scripture?

Well, it’s not arbitrary, it’s almost a fact.

“Almost a fact.” (No source for the number given)

The very definition of arbitrary. Maybe you were joking?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[beng]

c0achmcguirk:

Hi Beng, you reply quickly!

That’s what I’m saying. I’m asserting a negative, you’re asserting a positive. You have the burden of proof.

From MY position, it’s YOU that asserting a negative.

I have no idea what you are referring to here.

How Mohammad got Quran.

See above about proving a negative.

See above about “from my position”

I don’t see the relevance, could you clarify?

That the inspired writer does not have to get his inspiration by Holy Spirit whispering at His ear. It could just be that oral tradition have been told by them and they put it in writing.

I’m confused here. (looks for smiley–oh here we go)

I quoted from 2 Peter 1:21 and Matthew 22:31-32, both speak of Scripture being written by God (Holy Spirit). I didn’t “boldy” imply anything other than what Scripture teaches.

Why discount oral tradition as measn whereby the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible writers?

Is the only way that something is inspired by the Holy Spirit is that the writers got a whisper in his ear?

Yes, the Bible is consistent with itself. Where did I imply that the Bible contradicts itself? And what does my theory not do? What theory are you referring to? Sorry, I have a lot of questions, but I’m trying to understand what you’re trying to say.

That hearing oral tradition than put it in scripture can not be the way how the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible writers.

Okay, so Matthew 22:31-32 is a figure of speech. Could you elaborate? Has Rome infallibly interpreted the verse, or can you give contextual reasons for rejecting the idea that God wrote the Bible?

Because God only wrote on those two tablets containing the 10 commandmends.

Since my whole argument is that oral teaching is unverifiable and more subject to error that written teachings, could you start by using Scripture?

1. 2Thes 2:15 prove that there’s oral traditions
2. Hebrews 13:7; Hebrews 13:17; Acts 16:4. These proves that there’s authority to be obeyed that will teach the believers.

“Almost a fact.” (No source for the number given)

The very definition of arbitrary. Maybe you were joking?

God bless,
c0ach

The source is me. Why is that invalid source.