Foundation

[Fredricks]

Mickey:

Hmmm? Ad hominem?

Not at all Mickey
I boils down to this:
Does God need a council?

If yes, that is against Catholic doctrine. That is not what the First Vatican Council said about the Bible.

If no, we agree. WHY ARE WE ARGUING THIS POINT THEN?

Awful, wants proof that is more than Catholic doctrine, which he is supposed to believe. I think he must question it or why would we be arguing something we agree on. I am not attacking
Awful, since I have narrowed my debate to Sola Awful, I have been very respectful, for me.

 

[Mickey]

montanaman:

I don’t think so, necessarily. I’ve encountered many Protestants who think my arguments against SS were arguments against the Bible. Whenever I’d post rhetorical questions like “How do you KNOW the Bible is inspired,” they’d assume I was coming from the swamp of relativistic theological goo–a close cousin of agnosticism. This may simply be Frederick’s perception.

Understood.

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

Not at all Mickey
I boils down to this:
Does God need a council?

If yes, that is against Catholic doctrine. That is not what the First Vatican Council said about the Bible.

If no, we agree. WHY ARE WE ARGUING THIS POINT THEN?

Awful, wants proof that is more than Catholic doctrine, which he is supposed to believe. I think he must question it or why would we be arguing something we agree on. I am not attacking
Awful, since I have narrowed my debate to Sola Awful, I have been very respectful, for me.

And so it begins.

Two things have happened in the last couple posts by Fredericks. I think everyone was perceptive enough to pick up on them.

For one, he is questioning my trust in the truth as I know it, which means that he is ignoring the reason behind all of my questions, which I have stated over and over and over again … which is to show him that the burden of proof that he has placed on Tradition, when applied to his sola-Scriptura foundation, destroys it. Rather than admit this, he has chosen to try to portray me as a repressed agnostic. I think that he is perceptive enough to realize this but is choosing to pretend otherwise. Once again the whole “we agree, so let’s move on” argument will not work on these questions. We agree, Fredericks, but for different reasons. The questions are about the reasons for the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.

The second thing that has happened is that, growing frustrated with the line of questions - to which he has no answer - he has expressed frustration with our “narrowed” focus. He has set himself up to begin a renewed attack on “Tradition” with this line: “I boils down to this: Does God need a council?”

Prepare, later in the week, for a quick reply to my questions and a renewed attack on Tradition in order to distract us from the fact that his theology fell apart under scrutiny.

 

[awfulthings9]

Mickey:

Hmmm? Ad hominem?

You know, I read a great anti-abortion book recently by Kreeft called the Unaborted Socrates, in which Socrates comes to modern day times and, through his trade-mark questioning, shows the errors of the pro-choice mentality held by an abortion doctor, a secular philosopher, and a psychiatrist.

If I had approached that book with Frederick’s attitude, I would have concluded that, because the fictionalized Socrates had “questioned” life principles, he must, himself, be shaky in his opposition to abortion.

Knowing how Socratic questioning works, however, I understood differently.

 

[Fredricks]

awfulthings9:

And so it begins.

Two things have happened in the last couple posts by Fredericks. I think everyone was perceptive enough to pick up on them.

For one, he is questioning my trust in the truth as I know it, which means that he is ignoring the reason behind all of my questions, which I have stated over and over and over again … which is to show him that the burden of proof that he has placed on Tradition, when applied to his sola-Scriptura foundation, destroys it. Rather than admit this, he has chosen to try to portray me as a repressed agnostic.

“You’ve convinced me of nothing but the fact that, should I reject the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, according to your defence, Scripture is so weak a foundation that I might as well drop back into agnosticism.”

I think that he is perceptive enough to realize this but is choosing to pretend otherwise. Once again the whole “we agree, so let’s move on” argument will not work on these questions. We agree, Fredericks, but for different reasons. The questions are about the reasons for the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.

Official Catholic doctrine does not have a different reason that I stated.

The second thing that has happened is that, growing frustrated with the line of questions - to which he has no answer - he has expressed frustration with our “narrowed” focus. He has set himself up to begin a renewed attack on “Tradition” with this line: “I boils down to this: Does God need a council?”

Could I kindly ask you to answer the one tiny question. I have spent time on your questions.
You could have answered that tiny question instead of spending time talking about me. You choose not to.
Why?

Prepare, later in the week, for a quick reply to my questions and a renewed attack on Tradition in order to distract us from the fact that his theology fell apart under scrutiny.

You can declare it such friend but that is not the case.
My replies are not quick either, I am a slow typer.
Tell you what. Answer my tiny question.
Did God need a council?
Is that Catholic doctrine?
Ok two tiny questions.

 

[Mickey]

Fredricks:

Not at all Mickey
I boils down to this:
Does God need a council?

If yes, that is against Catholic doctrine. That is not what the First Vatican Council said about the Bible.

If no, we agree. WHY ARE WE ARGUING THIS POINT THEN?

That is not what Awful is asking. You have twisted this out of context. I think Awful has been quite clear on what he is asking you. However, you continue to evade.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

You can declare it such friend but that is not the case.
My replies are not quick either, I am a slow typer.
Tell you what. Answer my tiny question.
Did God need a council?
Is that Catholic doctrine?
Ok two tiny questions.

Did God need authors?

 

[Mickey]

Fredricks:

Tell you what. Answer my tiny question.
Did God need a council?
Is that Catholic doctrine?
Ok two tiny questions.

More evasion. You have been asked specific questions. One does not answer a question with a question.

 

[Fredricks]

Mickey:

More evasion. You have been asked specific questions. One does not answer a question with a question.

Mickey
I am going to answer the questions. I have answered the question and will continue to do. It takes time.
I asked two tiny questions, surely that is not too much. I will answer the 8 questions. Goodness gracious, I have other responsibilites and it takes time,
I am not being evasive at all. That accusation is why I agreed to debate Awful in the first place

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

Did God need authors?

“God is the author of Sacred Scripture”
Catechism

 

[Eden]

“God is the author of Sacred Scripture”
Catechism

Exactly. He didn’t need people to write the scriptures. But He did use people! Just like He used people to set the Canon.

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

Exactly. He didn’t need people to write the scriptures. But He did use people! Just like He used people to set the Canon.

Not official Catholic doctrine

1. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical
   o not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill,
   o nor simply because they contain revelation without error,
   o but because,
    being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
    they have God as their Author,
    and were as such committed to the Church.

 

[Mickey]

Fredricks:

Mickey
I am going to answer the questions.

I am looking forward to that.

Fredricks:

I have answered the question and will continue to do.

I do not believe that you have.

Fredricks:

I asked two tiny questions, surely that is not too much. I will answer the 8 questions.

I think if you answer Awful’s questions, (even just the primary ones), then he will surely answer your “two tiny questions”.

Fredricks:

Goodness gracious, I have other responsibilites and it takes time

I understand.

Fredricks:

I am not being evasive at all. That accusation is why I agreed to debate Awful in the first place

No need to become defensive. It just appears to me that you are being evasive–this is only my opinion. I am but a lowly by-stander with an occasional observation.

 

[djrakowski]

Fredricks:

being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit

Yes, exactly… written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not Holy Spirit putting pen to paper. How does this contradict Eden’s post on the subject?

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

Not official Catholic doctrine

1. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical
   o not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill,
   o nor simply because they contain revelation without error,
   o but because,
    being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
    they have God as their Author,
    and were as such committed to the Church.

Firstly, I have already shown in another post that you GED’ed this quote as in GREATLY EDITED DOCUMENT.

Secondly, this is a non-argument argument. Of course the books were inspired from the moment they were being written. But God used people to discern that.

 

[awfulthings9]

Fredricks:

You can declare it such friend but that is not the case.
My replies are not quick either, I am a slow typer.
Tell you what. Answer my tiny question.
Did God need a council?
Is that Catholic doctrine?
Ok two tiny questions.

I was wrong. The diversion did not wait until the end of the week.

By the way, since you are having so much fun throwing in logical fallacies to see if we can spot them, you are “begging the question” here: “Did God need a council?”

Can you cite where any of us have ever, ever said that God “needs” a council?

Nor does God “need” Scripture.

It is a matter of what he “chooses”.

But, since you choose to “beg the question” like this, can you answer your own question, only flipped back on your foundation: “Does God “need” Scripture?”

See, not a very fair question, is it? Kind of tricky and slippery, isn’t it?

Now, can we get back to your promise to justify your foundation before we return to the examination of ours?

 

[Fredricks]

Mickey:

I am looking forward to that.

I do not believe that you have.

I think if you answer Awful’s questions, (even just the primary ones), then he will surely answer your “two tiny questions”.

I understand.

No need to become defensive. It just appears to me that you are being evasive–this is only my opinion. I am but a lowly by-stander with an occasional observation.

I have answered them, yes I gave him some extra questions that I have not addressed but I have answered him. Catholics, according to the sources I provided, and Protestants AGREE on this. There is nothing from official Catholic doctrine that says that a council was needed to set the Bible. If it does, it contradicts the First Vatican council.
I answered his personal interpretation by clearly showing what the Bible says and REFUSING to add to it. I cannot make up something up. He even suggested I drop scripture and give him an answer that makes sense, which I will not do. He does not like my answers, even though some of them are what he is supposed to officially believe.

 

[awfulthings9]

Eden:

Secondly, this is a non-argument argument. Of course the books were inspired from the moment they were being written. But God used people to discern that.

And Fredericks has failed to demonstrate how this was done.

 

[Eden]

The only answer left for Fredericks now is that the Bible just dropped from the heavens.

 

[Fredricks]

awfulthings9:

I was wrong. The diversion did not wait until the end of the week.

By the way, since you are having so much fun throwing in logical fallacies to see if we can spot them, you are “begging the question” here: “Did God need a council?”

Can you cite where any of us have ever, ever said that God “needs” a council?

Nor does God “need” Scripture.

It is a matter of what he “chooses”.

But, since you choose to “beg the question” like this, can you answer your own question, only flipped back on your foundation: “Does God “need” Scripture?”

See, not a very fair question, is it? Kind of tricky and slippery, isn’t it?

Now, can we get back to your promise to justify your foundation before we return to the examination of ours?

You cannot show me from official Catholic doctrine that the council was required. I can, and did, show you that it was not.
What exactly do we disagree about on inspiration? I do not see it. What are the “reasons” you sited?