James White Debate

[c0achmcguirk]

Johnny, I’ll start with you tonight. Hope I get to bed earlier than the other night.

JohnDeP:

c0ach, you seemed to change your definition of sola scriptura somewhere in the middle: “Sola Scriptura, plainly stated, is that the Bible is infallible and I can trust that it says what it’s supposed to say.” Did you drop the “sola” part? Meaning, that in it “alone” must you depend for matters of faith?

Sola Scriptura is often understood to mean that it is the only authority. But that’s missing a word…it is the only infallible authority. There are numerous other authorities for the Christian: Pastors, tradition, creeds, church fathers, etc.

Sola Scriptura allows us to read and often submit to all these other authorities, but forbids us from believing that which contradicts Scripture. These other authorities are relative to Scripture and must find their roots in Scripture. Nor are we to add to Scripture like the Pharisees did when they required many rituals that weren’t in the Bible. Jesus scolds the teachers of the law: And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. (Luke 11:46)

Their crime? Adding requirements to Scripture that weren’t there. Requirements that they supposedly thought were divine traditions, like Rome feels hers are today.

Didn’t you say that “God …puts Pastors over us to help explain the Bible to us.” Are you depending on Pastors instead of the Bible “alone”? Also, where in Scripture does God “put” Pastors over us (but not Popes)?

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. --Hebrews 13:17

By listening to my pastor and submitting to the authority of my church I am not violating sola Scriptura. I allow that my pastor and church and her creeds are some rules of faith for me…but they are not infallible rules of faith and could and will err. Where these other rules of faith contradict the Bible, I will accept the Bible.

As far as the Scripture’s mentioning the Papacy. It doesn’t. Or the concept of a Roman Catholic priesthood, for that matter. But I’ll save that debate for another thread, another day.

You seem to confuse infallibility with impeccability (Catholics only claim the former, never the latter, regarding Popes).

I don’t know where I seemed to confuse them, would you elaborate a bit? I am aware of the difference and know that Rome does not teach that Popes are infallible except in the case when they speak on matters of faith and morals.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

(continued)

Did Christians exist between the death of the last Apostle and the formation of the written Bible (various dates used in this thread)?

First, the Christian Church has always had a written Bible. When Jesus walked among us, the Old Testament formed the God-breathed Scriptures. And as the apostles wrote letters to the Churches and the Gospels were written, the Bible expanded.

In 68 A.D., Peter referred to Paul’s writings as being included among the Scriptures. Paul quotes Luke’s Gospel in 1 Timothy 5:18. So it’s not as if the Christians were wondering around without a Bible until the late fourth century.

In 2Timothy2:8, what “gospel” is Paul saying is his (and preached)? Were any of the 4 written down and promulgated at that point?

Not even the most zealous supporter of sola Scriptura would say that the Apostles didn’t teach the early Church orally. The point in contention between Roman Catholics and Evangelicals is whether or not these oral teachings were preserved infallibly outside of Scripture. The mere mentioning of “oral teachings” is irrelevant to the topic, unless a passage teaches that these oral teachings were recorded infallibly somewhere else.

Also, 2Timothy3:14-16, what sacred writings and scripture is Paul referring to at this point, wouldn’t it be only OT?

The thrust of the passage is the origin and resultant nature of Scripture, not the extent of the canon! It’s saying that that which is God-breathed is able, by its very nature, to give us the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. That’s evidient where it says “which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim 3:15).

It also says that Scripture is able to make the man of God “thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

Do you agree that the New Testament is God-breathed?

I assume you would agree with me that yes, the New Testament is God-breathed (theopneustos in the Greek).

When you raise the argument that 2 Tim 3:16-17 is only referring to the Old Testament, are you saying that the Old Testament is adequate for the promises in 2 Timothy 3, but the New Testament isn’t?

If you agree with me that the promises of the passage apply to the Old Testament and the New Testament then your argument loses it value.

Note, too, that he says profitable, not sufficient.

But the Greek verb exartizo, means “be fully equipped” and adjective artios means "fitted, complete, capable, proficient, able to meet all demands."

A wise man once told me the story of a bike shop. A bike shop that could thoroughly equip me for every single bike trip I could embark upon. It had water bottles, pedals, new seats, helmets, gloves, US Mail Jerseys like Lance Armstrong wears, and spandex as far as the eye could see. It had bar ends, toe clips, clipless pedals, and everything else you could imagine a biker to need. It was able to fully equip me as a biker.

Now, if this bike shop, could fully equip me for every good single bike-related activity I could possibly do, **wouldn’t it be sufficient for me as a biker? **

And similarly, if 2 Tim. 3:16-17 tells me that the Scripture can fully equip me, making me complete for every good work, does it not follow that Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Hi preyoflove, hope you are well.

preyoflove:

You will have to forgive us too, however, if we also believe in these words from the same Augustine you quoted: “I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not oblige me to believe”).

So what are you saying? That a fallible Church Father is inconsistent? And can contradict himself? Well, then, I would agree with you.

Does one quote cancel the other out? No, it just means that the fathers were fallible men and you can’t pin them all to one position. Augustine is no exception:

“Let us not hear: This I say, this you say; but, thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the church, there let us discuss our case.” --Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae

Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: Why do you want to remove these things from the midst? Because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by divine oracles. –Ibid.

The fact that Church Fathers can and do contradict each other and themselves makes the case for sola Scriptura stronger.

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all…But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine.

I note that your sources skirt the actual words of the 6th, 7th, and 8th eccumenical councils. Certainly you’ve heard about Honorius’s letters to Sergius, Cyrus, and Sophronius where he teaches the one-will heresy: “Therefore we confess one will (qevlhma, voluntas) of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

If you still hold to Honorius being condemned for his negligence, then what is your response to what the sixth ecumenical council said of Honorius’s letters (in 680): “After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.”

The “as well as” puts the letters in the same category as Honorius and Sergius–heretical and hurtful to the soul. And then it continues:

“But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine…all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.”

There you have it–plain as day. Honorius was condemned as a heretic by three ecumenical councils because of his teachings–not because of negligence.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

AngelicDoctor:

I am not sure what you mean here. I am not talking about “organizational unity” like a corporation.

I’m just pointing out that comparing Rome against all the other churches is an invalid comparison–apples to oranges. This is because you are trying to compare the Roman Catholic rule of faith (All the Papal Decrees, Councils, Authoritative Teachings culminating in the Catechism) against a bunch of churches. A valid comparison for unity would be one of either:

(1) Compare the Roman Catholic Church against one Church that adheres to sola Scriptura, like the Reformed Baptist Church. Compare the organizational unity among the believers in each church. I don’t hesitate to say that the Reformed Baptists would be much more unified than the Roman Catholic laypeople.

(2) Compare, say 5 of the churches that adhere to Bible + Infallible Interpreter (Roman Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Branch Davidians, etc.) to 5 of the churches that adhere to sola Scriptura (Evangelical Free, Reformed Baptists, United Methodists, Lutherans, etc.). Look for unity between the churches in each group. Again, it’s plain to see that those who adhere to Bible plus Infallible Interpreter aren’t unified at all–they call each other heretics. But those who adhere to sola Scriptura embrace each other as brothers.

I don’t care whose fault it is, what I am concerned about is that the fault is rampant. I am not blaming the Bible, all that I am saying is that if the Bible is to be the Christian’s sole rule of faith (without any interpretive tradition or body outside of the Bible), then it better be clear enough so that every good-intentioned Christian can believe what is necessary for salvation.

But it is clear enough. The fact that some misinterpret it doesn’t mean it is the Bible’s fault.

Assume there is a printer manual that is perfect. It is clear, it lays out exactly what you need to know about your printer. It has an extensive troubleshooting section. I mean, this manual is exactly what you need.

Suppose a man buys the printer, takes it home, and just reads the “Getting Started” section of the manual, then skims the rest. He starts printing, and against the advice of the manual loads the paper wrong and damages the paper loader.

Where is the fault? With the manual? Does the misuse of the printer manual now make it imperfect?

Of course not. Misuse of the Bible does not make it insufficient as a rule of faith either.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

“almost any cult out there…” I am sorry, but, that is as insulting of an argument as it is lame. Trying to tie bizarre cults to the 2,000 year traditions of Latin and Eastern Christians by guilt through association (in denying Sola Scriptura) is just not worthy of a serious apologetic debate.

I don’t mean to insult you, and I don’t place Roman Catholics in the same company as cults on many many issues. But any church or organization that teaches that they have an infallible interpreter or binding authority outside of the Bible denies sola Scriptura. Whether you like to be listed next to them as a church that rejects sola Scriptura is a non-issue because Catholics and these other groups deny that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith.

Besides, how many cults follow Sola Scriptura (even if they have a carismatic leader) since many of them often come of the American Protestant tradition?

Again, this is a non-issue. If any church teaches that you must follow their interpretation of the Bible and that they are the true church–they reject sola Scriptura. Regardless of whether their roots are in the Protestant tradition or not. (The term “Protestant” is used very loosely nowadays, and most of those who would call themselves Protestant do not come close to the first Protestants in terms of beliefs.)

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

AngelicDoctor:

You can cite what is the basis for your rule of faith–but can you cite precisely doctrines that are found in Scripture that are necessary for salvation? There are a lot of great truths found in those 66 (plus) books, and indeed it is all truth, but how do you know which truths to take from there so that one can be saved?

You’re moving the goalposts on me, AngelicDoctor.

We’re talking about rules of faith here. I’d love to talk about Justification and Soteriology in another debate, but I note that you’ve proven my point for me. You haven’t listed or defined your rule of faith, nor can you. I don’t envy Catholics because their rule of faith is confusing.

And while Catholics bicker over whether or not Humanae Vitae is infallible or not (see catholic-pages.com/morality/hvinfallible.asp ), and over what Tradition is infallible and binding, and what parts of eccumenical councils are infallible…I’m over here with my rule of faith. Defined clearly, I might add.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Maccabees]

I must say James White must be a very very rich man for every protestant on this board uses all his arguments.
To beleive James White though is a bigger leap of faith than most will admit too. That the true faith is of the very fine variety of Calvnist Baptist. Now this is a small sect as most Clavinist are not Baptist nor most Baptist Calvinist. So he will argue among the very traditions he agrees with he doens’t beleive in sacraments ala Calvin he rather beleives in Baptist symbolic ordiances and he doesn’t beleive in Calvins’ infant baptism so right there he’s disagreeing with most Calvinist most noteably Calvin a man he adores in most dogma he White puts himslef above his hero and declares Calvnist wrong and the Baptist and the radical ferormation fixed some things Calvin got wrong years later. But that free will baptist are wrong when the accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior by their choice. Oh boy.
CHrist did not give the truth to his church rather to a samll sect of american protestants which adhere to some mishmash of Calvinism and Baptist traditions. The Super Pope James WHite himself who himself is infalliable he will debate any sect including other protestants that his opinion alone is right right right. SO lucky to be the first infaliable human being. Of course he denies any pope was given this charism God waited to give it to WHite.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

What a charming post.

Maccabees:

I must say James White must be a very very rich man for every protestant on this board uses all his arguments.

He’s not rich at all, otherwise he wouldn’t have to travel so much to support his family. His ministry can only afford to hire one other person. Methinks you’d have a problem if I made the same bold, ad hominem claim against Jimmy Akin or Karl Keating.

To beleive James White though is a bigger leap of faith than most will admit too. That the true faith is of the very fine variety of Calvnist Baptist.

Could you quote from one of White’s many debates and radio programs either:

(1) White claiming that he is infallible

(2) White claiming that the Reformed Baptists are the one true church

(3) White claiming he is himself a super pope

Otherwise, please don’t clog up the Internet with useless, baseless charges.

PS: For one who dislikes James White for his strong opinions–you seem to have some pretty strong opinions yourself. Maybe you think that you are infallible and a super pope?

 

[Maccabees]

**

PS: For one who dislikes James White for his strong opinions–you seem to have some pretty strong opinions yourself. Maybe you think that you are infallible and a super pope?

**
Nope only the holy father is pope and he is a super pope and human being!

And yes the tone of White leads one to think he is right in all things.
Has he ever admitted that he is wrong?
That the thing he says are only his opinion?
He knows what the catholic church fathers were really saying (despite being cut off from them) and not the Catholic patristic scholars who are in the same religion.
That a another protestant point of view might be right and not his?
No he claims scripture supports all of his views above all else and that he knows more than all of his opppents.
He does have super pope syndrome.
Luther had it and Clavin had it neither admitted they had only opinions and might be wrong.
Get White to admit that and I will drop my allegations.

And Yeah Mr. Keating could be rich too. I don’t care.
I was just saying as a matter of fact that he must be selling a lot of books and tapes since he has big following. Nothing wrong with that. But you in your puritan attitude thinks that is an insult its not.
I believe in Captitalsim is Mr White and Mr Keating can make a buck so be it. In My opinion I don’t Mr White is the pauper you make him out to be. But I could be wrong no bad intent was meant so chill. Heck I am sure Mr White wants to sell you his tapes and books for money.

 

[MrS]

c0achmcguirk:

Could you quote from one of White’s many debates and radio programs either:

(1) White claiming that he is infallible

(2) White claiming that the Reformed Baptists are the one true church

(3) White claiming he is himself a super pope

Otherwise, please don’t clog up the Internet with useless, baseless charges.

PS: For one who dislikes James White for his strong opinions–you seem to have some pretty strong opinions yourself. Maybe you think that you are infallible and a super pope?

I like James White. I think he is sincere… just sincerly wrong. But no one should deny that his mission in life is not pro. He is anti. Anti-Catholic. The ones who do more than like the man… that is, accept his views, and thrive on his distain for Catholics (see I did not use the word hate), are generally those easily persuaded.

The only reason one leaves the Catholic Church is because they don’t know what they are leaving.

MrS

 

[fulloftruth]

Coach

And if you can show me a God breathed oral teaching that cannot be found in the Bible (it hasn’t been done yet), I will “hold fast” to that oral teaching

.

Why would anyone need to show you a God Breathed oral teaching that cannot be found in the Bible, you don’t even hold fast to what is found in the Bible. I can show you where God breathed on the apostles and said “recieve the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you retain are retained.” Sounds Like the term God Breathed is not restricted to the Printed page but to an Act of commisioning the Church and endowing them with power to do something that was before restricted to God alone, the power to forgive sins, the greatest Act of mercy ever done by God. This Commision alone is enough reason for having succesorship, I hardly think that only the generation that was alive at the time of Christ was to recieve this great gift. You will probably say I don’t see anywhere where God says to confess your sins to a priest. But I would say, How would an Apostle know what sins to forgive or retain if they were not first told what sins were committed. Acts 1:20 tells us that these “offices” were meant to be filled when there was a vacancy. Common sense tells us and the Spirit of all of scripture tells us that in order to have this great gifty as well as the rest of the saving gospel to go into the future undulterated by man then faithful presbyters(priests) would have to be commisioned and ordained into public service of serving Christs Church, which is what he came to start, He said it. The bottom line is Chrst came to save us all and to fulfill the ancient kingdom of David, and he as the New King did just that by reinstituting the Prime Minister so that in his physical absence we would not be left without an authority to guide us, with the help of Scripture, into all truth. This is why you cannot claim to disagree with one moral teaching of the Catholic Church, because she is the only church that holds fast to all moral truths and will do so until the end of time.Join Us!!!

 

[Maccabees]

And if you can show me a God breathed oral teaching that cannot be found in the Bible (it hasn’t been done yet), I will “hold fast” to that oral teaching

WElcome to the church! I found your answer.
Its’s the canon of scripture that is an entirely catholic tradition not from the Bible. There are no table of contents in the Bible. Sorry someone told you what books belonged where.

 

[fulloftruth]

From Coach:

Because this verse(John 21:25) does not violate Sola Scriptura. SS does not apply during periods of inscripturation, the Apostles were inspired, no doubt.

Where does it say in the bible that Scripture is the only inerrant authority, or that it would become the final authority after inscripturation, and the Authority that compiled and decided between inspired and non-inspired writings, would then lose its authority. Where does it say that after inscripturation that the oral traditions would become non-binding, or that everything that was in the oral tradition was in the written tradition, and if so why the differentiation or clarification of the two types of revelation. Why would it be necessary to command the diciples to hold fast to oral tradition if everything was going to be included in the writings. Seems redundant.

Originally Posted by AngelicDoctor
if Sola Scriptura was an important part of Paul’s theology, then this “or oral” option would have hung out there as a source of potential confusion
From Coach:
One could counter and say if Paul was concerned that Thessalonians would understand the Magisterium and Papal Infallibility he would have put that in the letter to them as well. Or anywhere in the Bible, for that matter.

Actually Christ did tell the Apostles who was the final authority on earth (Matt 18:15-18). It was not the Scriptures, it was the Church, it was them in Union with Peter the Shepard. Did he not tell Peter alone that he would pray for him so that he could lead the others and did not God himself tell Peter to tend his sheep and feed his lambs. Did he not give Peter the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and also the Power to make rules and decisions that would be bound on Heaven and earth. Why can’t you see that Christ came to start a church and that Church has his authority and that that Church lives today because He said it would. Do you not trust that God could do all of these things for his children. If you could get past your dislikes and disagreements with the church and just focus on the fact that no other church meets the description of the church Christ described that he would start. His church has his authority and has the power to forgive and retain sins, the power to baptise and the power to ordain and pass on the gospel and the power to stand up to false teachings and say with authority, “that is not what God meant by that verse, and this is what God meant.” No other church even claims to weild such authority.

 

[hlgomez]

2 Thess 2:15 says no such thing. Paul says the teachings we passed on to you, the “we” being Paul, Silas, and Timothy (not the Church). Nowhere does Paul say, “and you must listen to us because the Church is authoritative and infallible.”

c0achmcguirk,

Pardon if I reply to your argument. I quoted the above with reference to your post#102.

Now, what sort of “we” are you trying to emphasize? Is Paul, Silas, and Timothy not speaking in behalf of the Church? Who are they? Are they speaking just for themselves? Or are they laymen or ordinary members of the Church? This only shows that you don’t know of their status in the Church. --They are all bishops of the Church, so the question is why would we listen to them? If they are there speaking for themselves only–then we have nothing to busy ourselves with them. But since they are bishops or “overseers” of the Church–then we have to be attentive to what they say. It’s because they have the authority from Christ himself following apostolic tradition where they were all ordained by the apostles. Without valid laying on of the hands from the apostles, they cannot even preach with authority. But since they receive ordination by laying on of the hands, then we are assured that they are sent, and that when they preach, we should listen attentively.

The “we” that they are referring to is the Church itself being at work in the world. Why? Is the Church mum? Can’t she not speak? Is she therefore useless since she can’t speak? We are the Church, and the Church is the Body of Christ. Now you may agree, but since the Church is the Body of Christ, then is Christ silent? Certainly Christ is at work in the Church, and the Church is us, believers, being watch over by her bishops and priests so that the believers will not be lead astray.

Further, with so many thousands of Protestants with various and often contradicting doctrines, all the more that we should cling to the authority of the Catholic Church to assure us of true guidance and doctrine. She is the only true guardian and house of the faithful for almost 2000 years now. The Catholic Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15). Sola Scriptura is a Luther-made doctrine.

Pio

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Coach sez I am playing the blame-game with the Bible? No, sir.
-my response said clearly that I was not blaming the Bible for the fact that it is interpreted in a plethora of ways–many that contradict each other. I said “I don’t care whose fault it is” means that the point is that it does not work, not “whose fault it is.” I cannot blame the Bible for failing to do something that it does not promise to do. Perhaps it is a common technique of Sola Scriptura advocates to try to charge Catholics with not believing that Scripture is inspired “God-breathed! God-breathed!” (is it really necessary for me to say that we do believe this!) or that they try to blame the Bible for doctrinal diversity. I will admit that the Bible is unclear on many impiortant things and that it can be distorted by heretics (2 Pt 3:15-16), but I do not “blame” the Bible for this. I believe that God never intended the Bible for Sola Scriptura. The Bible is his living inspired word, that is to be interpreted in the context of the authoritative church that he founded. I love the Bible and read it every day: in the readings at Mass, in praying the psalms during the Liturgy of the Hours, in private prayer. We incense the book of the gospels at Mass because it shows our reverence for it. I just want to make sure that this discussion is about what role the Bible has as a rule of faith (by itself, or with Tradition and infallible interpretive church) and not about who “finds fault” with the Bible or who denies its inspired nature. I will say it one last time: I do not blame the Bible for the fact that it is read in a myriad of ways by different people. I do not blame the Bible for not being able to function in a way that God never intended it to function.
Incidentally, I can turn the same argument on you. “Don’t blame Sacred Tradition and the authoritative Church God founded just because people misinterpret them or fail to follow them.”

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Coach: "Again, this is a non-issue. If any church teaches that you must follow their interpretation of the Bible and that they are the true church–they reject sola Scriptura."

Is it a non-issue now? Would Martin Luther or John Calvin have taught that I must follow their interpretation of the Bible? Do I have to follow your interpretation of the bible? You interpret the Bible to imply Sola Scriptura–do I have to agree with you? Do not most proponents of Sola Scriptura essentially say that, if you do not believe in their chruch’s interpretation of scripture, then you are not in the true church? Would you or I be accepted as a fellow Christian by Pentecostals who believe that one must speak in tounges in order to be a true Christian? Or, what if, like most Protestant churches, I believed that infants could be baptized. What if I share with Methodists the idea that salvation could be lost? Would your church accept me as part of the true church? Do fundamentalists accept liberal mainline Lutherans as members of the same church? Do all protestants agree that just in virtue of a common profession of Sola Scriptura you are part of the same church?–if so, then why did they carve up the body of Christ? I hope they had a good reason for doing so. Or do you write this based on the abstract ecclesiology that says that the true church is based on some very minimal criteria, and that there is no visible church?
Protestant pastors function as the interpreters of scripture among Protestant communities. That is fine if you do not consider them infallible, because they are not. However, without an infallible interpreter, how do you resolve challenges of heresy and competing claims to what Scripture means. I have never heard you answer this. It sounds like you cannot solve the different claims, and you must remain content to let division persist and spread.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Coach: "I’m over here with my rule of faith. Defined clearly, I might add."

I should say it was clearly defined–by the Catholic Church. When a Catholic hears the arrogant confidence of a Protestant smiling about the rule of faith they have at hand, we cannot help but wonder about whether you all would agree on that canon had the decision not already been conveniently made for you by the various canons produced by the Church culminating with the Council of Trent. This thread is not on the canon of the Bible, but it is at the heart of the matter. It is true that there were different letters read at different times by different local churches–letters that are not accepted were read (letters of Clement, Barnabas, etc.) and those now accepted were not read (Hebrew, Revelation, etc.). I know your position is that it is somehow self-evident to the believer that these books were inspired. The fact of the matter is, we will never know if that was how the canon was recognized, because the truth is that it was worked out, through time, by the written decrees of the Church. The Gospel of Thomas is a bizarre book, obviously not inspired says James White, but then again St. John’s Revelation can also be considered a strange book. Protestants accept so many doctrines that developed over time and were worked out by the Church in ecumenical councils, they selectively accept from 1500 years of certain tradition (while rejecting other things based on the theological projects of the various reform founders and their subsequent leader), that their condescension and confidence about their faith being based on Sola Sriptura alone is suspect to me. (And, after generations, the beliefs that some Protestant leaders shared with Catholic traditions–such as Luther’s defense of Mary as mother of God and perpetual virginity, we dumped my later successors in order to distance their church from Rome).
You might say that the teachings on the nature of the person and will of Christ, of the nature of the Trinity, the primacy of grace vs. Pelagianism (via St. Augustine and Synods of Carthage and Orange), etc. are rooted in the Bible. Of course they are. But they are doctrines which unfolded gradually based in part on the essential ingredient of the dialogue of tradition and the magisterium. The Bible alone does not insure that these doctrines would be accepted and believed. I cannot be sure that you would not have been an Arian in the 4th century if you did not have recourse to St. Athanasius and the Council of Nicea (the later being an infallible interpreter, a decisively authoritative source–not just one option among many pastors/councils/etc. to choose to listen to or not). It is very easy to take for granted those questions which are non-issues to us today, 1700 years removed from the crisis.
You view of the church and pastors is that they are authorities which are not infallible. So, you can take them or leave them and they are virtually tootheless and useless in a debate such as that which waged at Nicea.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Apples and Oranges, Coach?

I am comparing the Catholic church, which believes has Sacred Scripture and Sacred tradition as its rule of faith with Protestant churches that take only Sola Scriptura as its claim. If SS advocates say that Scripture alone (apart from a magisterium or infallible interpreter) is all one needs for salvation, then I just would expect that most people who apply this in practice come to generally the same conclusions about beliefs necessary for salvation. Otherwise, the doctrine seems to fall apart in practice. So, if the only difference between churches was that you had different organizational heads, different “bishops” or elders, but whom nevertheless taight the same thing, then fine, Sola Scriptura seems to ensure the unity that Christ desired and expected of his Church (Jn 17). However, if you disagree on seemingly important teachings–teachings that make a diffence for whether one is saved (along with important differences in disciplines), then that means that this doctrine does not work in practice. So, if I see differences regarding: belief in the nature of the eucharist/Lord’s Supper (transubstantiation–real presense, consubstantiation, or pure symbol), how often do you celebrate the Eucharist (Acts says breaking of bread happened every week, some Protestant churches do once a month, some once a year!, and some probably not at all–though JC commanded this to be done in his memory), who can be baptized (infants or no), baptism by immersion or pouring, whether women can teach and be pastors (Scripture implies no–practice shows yes?), baptism by Trinitarian formula (Gospels) or in name of Jesus (Acts), can you lose your salvation, does one need to speak tongues to conduct true worship, do sacraments exist (Lutherans say baptism and eucharist, many others say there are none), eschatology (do you believe in the rapture or not–are you pre-trib, post-trib, etc.), should one wear a veil when worshipping God? I will not include other things which seem obvious in Scripture but are not all shared by SS-advocates (morality of abortion and homosexual acts). All of these differences are the fruit of just 500 years with Sola Scriptura. There does not seem to be any end to the division, either (especially with new theology crazes like the Rapture, etc.). In view of this, I would say that Catholics have a lot in common with regard to teaching/worship of Orthodox–especially considering we have 2,000 years to look at and not 500.
James White’s bicycle analogy for explaining the “all scriptures are God-breathed and useful…” is flawed. I can go to a bicycle shop and buy a bike and helmet, etc. but if I do not know how the gears work, or what surface to ride what bike on, or what direction to sit in, or what accessories would be the most helpful, then what good is the bike. In fact, I need a bike shop owner and perhaps bike expert to give me advice. In addition, you still then must explain the practical reality of how so many people can emerge from the same bike shop with so many different ways of riding (or crashing?) the bike? Pat Madrid brought this up, and Dr. White did not give a suitable reply. DO you question whether these men are righteous? Are they all “ignorant and unstable” as 2 Peter 3 says?

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Apples/Oranges? part two

There is greater inner unity (among not just teaching, but also authority–bishops, etc., and worship–sacraments) within the Catholic Church that believes in a given rule of faith (SS and STradition) vs. those that profess just SS. If you want to throw the Orthodox in the mix, fine, Catholics share a vast wealth of teachings with the East due in lage part to a common tradition (real presence of the Eucharist, Mary is mother of God, Mary is perpertually virgin, priesthood, sacraments of annoining, matrimony, confession, eucharist, holy order, baptism and confirmation; notion of sacrament and liturgy, belief in veneration and intercession of saints, belief in the validity of iconographic veneration, etc.). SO, I would say that Catholics and Orthodox have a lage amount of shared teachings and form of worship. In fact, under dire neccesity, the Catholic Church permits Orthotodox to receive the sacraments from a Catholic Church if no Orthodox ministers are available to them (because it is the same thing substantially in both churches). Of course, we no longer have shared authority structure or magisterium–they have a valid priesthood and eucharist, but our respective bishops are not in communion. (therefore differences on purgatory, papacy, etc.) I say all of this in order to say that Catholics and the Orthodox do have a real communion–shared truths and means of sanctification–though the communion is imperfect, to be sure (and though it is being reapproached through ecumenism). Jesus Christ is alive in both churches (as He is in Protestant churches as well).
Early fathers such as St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Cyprian said that the way to know whether you were in communion with the true Church was to look to the bishops–whether or not they were they a bishop in the apostolic church–successors to the apostles. This seems to go in line with what Jesus did–he commissioned the apostles to go out and preach and baptize, he said–those who hear you hear me, he gave the apostles the power to bind and loose, he called the church the pillar and foundation of the truth, etc.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Apples/Oranges? part 3

Furthermore, Catholics acknowledge that a Christian is a Christian in virtue of baptism and their professed belief in Jesus Christ as savior. Thus, we call non-Catholic Christians “our separated bretheren.” We acknoweldge that they are in some real way part to the church (through baptism they are inserted into the body of Christ–which is the Church), though they have an imperfect communion. We do not say that one must be in the visible church in order to be saved. Some protestants and sola scriptura advocates deny that Catholics are Christians and this is based on misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine (or just willful hatred). Catholics do believe, however, that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of faith. I do not think that all of Protestant Christianity are holding hands singing about common brotherhood. In history there have been vicious battles and splintering. (Come one, I know there are vehement debates about the “King James Only” issue). I have heard mutual excommunications among Protestant to rival anything fired off between East and West in the 11th century.
Of course, Protestants do share more among each other than they possess differences. But then again, so do Catholics and Othodox, and (though you might not like to admit it, Catholics and Protestants). Because of our common tradition and recourse to Scripture, the Orhotodox and Catholics share a lot of teachings and formsof worship. We also have differences since the split. But the same goes with Catholics and Protestants–we all believe in Jesus Christ as the one savior, who was made incarnate, we believe in one God in three persons, we believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit has spoken through the prophets, and that he has spoken to us through his inspired Word, we believe that Jesus’ death on the cross reconciled mankind to God and redeemed the human race, etc. In fact, look at the Nicean, many Christians could recite that in common (though they would differ on its interpretation on some parts).

In SUM: what system produces more unity of doctrine and worship; who can tell? I see strong communion with also disagreements between Caths and Orth (and Anglicans, as well) over 2,000 year; I see the unity and diversity among Protestants over 500 years. One difference exists: with authority and tradition, schism and heterodoxy can be contained. Sola Scriptura has no mechanism for preventing it or for an authority to serve as definitive arbitrator.