James White Debate

[AngelicDoctor]

Finally:
Our union with cults?

I will not entertain your plea for me to show communion with Mormons and JW’s because that is absurd. Just because they claim to base their faith on Sacred Scripture and a “tradition” does not put them in the same league as Catholics and the Orthodox, because they do not resort to the same type of Tradition. When we speak of following Tradition, we mean that which comes from the apostolic fathers and the traceable line apostolic succession–the bishops (not just any goof ball who has a compound in Texas!). The East has a valid line of succession of bishops and a valid store of writings by the apostolic fathers. Their tradition is credible–they are linked to the early followers of the apostles. No Catholic disputes that St. Basil is a legitimate church father.

The mormons and JW’s created a make believe tradition which is removed from anything that is grounded in a history that predates the 18th century. Furthermore, you would then have to compare yourself with sola scriptura cults. They may have a charismatic leader (like Bob Jones or any TV evangelist–Benny Hinn, that Brother Camping guy who commands a huge following and $, and tells people that we are no longer in the “age of the church”, whatever that means, etc.), but they are still just a “pastor” who is teaching his flock based on the Scriptures (and not making a claim to follow also a sacred tradition).
Some characteristics of a cult: charismatic leader, your going and coming is not your own decision, contact with the outside world is limited if not pervented entirely, brainwashing and manipulation is often involved.

As a Catholic, I can enter and leave the Church as I please, I am encouraged to evangelize the outside world, their teachings are based on Scripture, tradition, and appeals to reason and not brainwashing, and I am free to accept them and remain in communion, or reject them and leave the Church.

DO me a favor, and please drop the cult thing. It is just weak and irrelevant.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

I will post later about the “how/where do you identify your rule of faith?” question (where is Tradition?, in other words). I just wanted to get the rest of that stuff out.

 

[fulloftruth]

preyoflove

"You’ll have to forgive me, however, if I’m cautious as to what I accept as inspired and what is a tradition of men. I agree with Augustine when he said:

Whdddxxzdat more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought…Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the Teacher.
–Augustine, De bono viduitatis, 2. See NPNF, Series I III:442 for alternate translation."

Do you agree with Augustine, a Catholic Bishop, when he said “where ever the successor to Peter is, there is the church”

Does anyone else find it at all telling that there was only one Christian Church for 1000 years and then after the Eastern split two Apostolic Churches of Christ until the time of Martin Luther. All of the reformers were Catholic, proving where they recieved there faith from. After reading what is published of Martin Luthers works. one sees that he was very Catholic and struggled with insanity. May I ask all the Protestants here if even the reformers agreed that the Catholic Church was the church Christ started, and that instead of being patient enough to wait for God to Clean House in his Church, which he said would last until the end of time, that they decided to leave the One Holy Apostolic Church, the one they were ordained in, And we are all to believe that the Holy Spirit followed them, the reformers, and not the Successor to Peter that even Luther himself claimed held the keys to the Kingdom, and spoke so highly of the Pope. Does this sound absurd to anyone else.

 

[TobyLue]

To c0achmcquirk

Hmm, sorry for the delay but I’m a slow reader and cant spend too much time on these forums. I get a crick in the neck and besides my tri-focals are pretty old. Your reply to me has me more than before.!! I have a Teflon brain, - nothing sticks…

God gave us the Church to help us believers come together in fellowship and he puts Pastors over us to help explain the Bible to us

Do you mean that we have to be believers before we can be in the Church and the purpose of the church is to “fellowship”? I believe that Pastors i.e. priests, bishops, the Pope are to help but where did God say “Here is the Bible, now let my pastors explain it to you and have fun fellowshipping”? Where in scripture does God order any of his apostles to put the Bible together?. Your reply leaves me confused…

Even the Catholic must fallibly interpret what they’ve fallibly decided was infallible.

I as a catholic, and I don’t know of any other catholic, have ever decided for myself what is infallible or not infallible. I have the Church to tell me that and Gods promise (which has been pointed out many times before) that the Church would not err and I and Catholics as a whole have faith in God and his Church and not on ourselves. \

We will stand before God and have to give an account for what we believe someday. God won’t accept “I was only following so-and-so” as a valid excuse.

By the same token what are we to answer God when he tells us that he left HIS Church to guide us and we tell him “ But, I know better because I decide for myself what I am to follow because all I have to do it read scripture and I can determine by myself what is true and not true”

Do you become infallible when you tell your friend the Pope is infallible?

?” ??? It matters none what I think or say regarding the Pope. What matters is what the Church tells me. “….if he will not listen to the Church let him be as the heathen”…

I believe the Bible teaches that it is infallible in many places, but the clearest place is 2 Tim 3:16-17 which tell us that all Scriptures are God-breathed (infallible) and are able to fully equip the man of God for every

good work I don’t think that means what you want it to mean. It does not say that only Scripture can fully equip etc., I believe the Bible is inerrant but what scriptures was Paul talking about. He did tell us there would be more books to come at a later date. Which books is he talking about? How about the Gospel of Peter, or Thomas, or The Didache, etc., etc.? Who determined that those would not be part of the Canon. Would you say that somebody with the gift of infallibility would have to do that? Or does scripture somewhere in scripture infallibly claims what books are inerrant?

 

[TobyLue]

c0ach-- contd-
Various people have tried to describe it in different ways, but they all mean the same thing. I’m not sure why someone would need authority to recognize that we only have one God-breathed rule of faith

.” I’m sure you are talking about the Bible, but what Bible did the early Christians go by? What did those early Christians tell God when they stood before Him? “Hey, don’t blame me for following the Church. Your Church hadn’t compiled the Bible yet, so what was I to read? Besides you know that I could not read?”

That’s like asking me to say when this “doctrine” of the Trinity was formulated. It’s a truth that has been true since God left us with Scripture, any Scripture.

To this I can only answer … W O W. Nothing can compare SS with The Trinity. The doctrine was defined by the Council of Nicaea (some of you guys correct me if I’m wrong) to combat the Arian heresy. The early Church who learned it from the Apostles taught it. The Church had to define the doctrine of the Trinity because of heresies. Now, when has the early Church taught SS? Did any of the apostles teach SS? Surely if that was the case we would see evidence that the Early Church Fathers taught it. On the contrary St. Basil, St. Gregory, St. Cyril, Tertullian, Ireneaus, etc, some of the early Fathers teach Tradition and Scripture. If this was a truth that God left us with, it surely would have been taught by The Church He left behind. There surely would be some claim that this was passed on down from the Apostles. If so please supply us with proof. Incidentally you had asked before of somebody what tradition was not in scripture that is taught now. Hmm, how about “infant baptism”? Nowhere in the Bible will you find the words “infant Baptism”, however it was taught by the apostles and is taught by the Church now. Just one example (there are others) St. Augustine :“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]). . I had a guy one time pestering me that just because the Bible talks about “all in households” were baptized, we just assume infants were in those households. He wanted to see exactly the words “infant baptism” because he believes SS. I don’t know if you believe in infant baptism or not, but then again, that’s the dilemma of SS. I can say yes, and you can say no till we are blue in the face, as we can interpret scripture differently. So to whom do we go to when this happens? I go to my Church who can show me by Tradition, what the apostles taught. And let’s not confuse tradition with Sacred Tradition. What about the Gospels? That’s another Tradition passed on down by the Apostles. This is the way it was explained to me. The Bible when compiled had to comply with Tradition. If it was not taught traditionally, it was rejected. This is my opinion, for what it’s worth: The Holy Spirit guided the Church through Tradition what to teach, and what Gospels, and letters were inspired. The Church looking back at what was taught by Apostolic Succession was able to compile the Bible and claim it to be Truth. But I can’t believe that once the Church had the Bible, she discarded all Tradition.

 

[TobyLue]

to c0ach–contd and the end

Well, it’s 3:20 AM, and I have to work tomorrow at 8… but there is a great debate between Apolonio Latar and Julie Staples on sola Scriptura

. Read Julie’s opening statement to see a good proof for it from Scripture.

3:20 AM.!!! MY GOSH c0ach, how in the world do you function? I go to bed by 11 and up by 6:30 and still run into walls. I cannot even imagine what would happen to me if I were to go to bed at 3:20 am. You must be from Krypton. And I must give you high compliments and praise that you take the time to answer all questions posed to you. And also in such a kind, gentlemanly and Christian manner. I have read other forums where some resort to all kinds of name calling and posting in HUGH FONTS to make their point loudly. I think you deserve a very, very loud :clapping: :clapping: and also a .I started reading that debate but I’m afraid its going to take me a little time. You don’t have to reply to this BTW. There are more interesting replies that you can debate on. Thanks and God Bless

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Locating Tradition
-Coach asked how I define Tradition as a rule of faith (that is, where is it found). The Catechism states that “through Tradition, ‘the Church, in her doctrine, life, and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all she herself is, all that she believes.’” (CCC 78). So do note that not only doctrine, but worship is included. It also states that apostolic tradition is found in the institutions that the apostles established, in addition to their preaching and example. Institutes would include the sacraments–instituted by Christ and handed down through the apsotles (if you want to talk Scriptural basis for the sacramental priesthood, for example, I can add something to that in another thread). So, Catholics, like our Orthodox brothers, recognize that the liturgy of the Church is an expression of the life of the Church and, as it is a way of understanding the Church and all sacred mysteries, is also a resource for theology and doctrine. (So, when faced with the question of whether or not women should be priests, one way of answering the question is that the Church looks back on its history of celebrating the Eucharist and notes that we have never had women priests before when certainly, if it was the will of the Holy Spirit, we could have).

Tradition, as a rule of faith, also includes the teachings of the fathers of the Church and the councils. Now, as far as I know, sacred Tradition is not cataloged in a single volume of books as Sacred Scripture is (and I do not know why it would have to be). My understanding is that whenever there was a general consensus among the fathers on a given doctrine, that this was part of tradition. The development of doctrine has to be kept in mind, of course, when we say this. Thus, you need not have to see every father give witness to a doctrine that was not at the stage of unfolding yet. I would not look for the doctrine of purgatory in the writings of St. Ignatius of Loyola (because at his time, revelation was being applied to and reflected upon with regard to issues of church structure and the office of the bishop as the means of communion with the true Church). If, later, the doctrine of purgatory gradually developed after a series of questions and theological reflections on a specific problem of eschatology (though all of this reflection still has its roots in Scripture and the necessity to be pure before the vision of God, etc.), then we look at the relevant theologians and councils discussing this issue.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

I grant that this is a thornier issue. Theologians and fathers disagreed over certain doctrinal questions (especially early in their development when nothing had been defined yet, when they were freely “doing theology”). The Church looks to its tradition when a question arises, and applies that tradition to figure it out. However, while the boundaries of Tradition may be harder to define than the canon of Scripture, Tradition is still used to answer more specific and nuanced questions that are beyond the scope of Scripture alone (though the truths of Scripture are always at the heart of what is interpreted and taught through Tradition). Tradition is how the magisterium interprets Scripture to arise at an answer when the evidence from Scripture alone in inconclusive or contested among various parties. So, when a certain issue comes up, the Church consults Scripture, and then Tradition–what have past councils said about this?, the fathers of the Church?, etc. So, it can be thorny, but then so can Scripture (just because the books are clearly defined does not mean that their contents are always clear, and that they do not need something external to help interpret them).

It is important to note that the salvific truths of Tradition, like Scripture, have to be summarized in formulas and creeds. It is necessary on the practical level to take divine revelation and synthesize it into summaries (creeds are also called “symbols” of the faith) so that they can be used for teaching the main principles necessary for salvation and also so that the correct interpretation of that revelation (be it of Scripture or Tradition) can be codified so as to preserve unity in the truth. When I look to my rule of faith, I look to summaries such as found in the creeds, in the canons of councils, and in such summaries as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (or any local catechisms approved by the magiesterium).

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Hi Maccabees (are you just one Maccabee or several Maccabees?)

Maccabees:

And yes the tone of White leads one to think he is right in all things.

Now this is unfair. What “tone” does White have that is different than all other apologists? What is the difference between James White’s tone and Jimmy Akin’s tone? They both seem equally sure of their positions and are both gentlemanly about it, so why do you think that White feels he is infallible, while Akin doesn’t? Or Patrick Madrid, Karl Keating, et al.?

Has he ever admitted that he is wrong?

Of course. But he’s usually right so this is rare.

That the thing he says are only his opinion?

“I don’t know the exhaustive teachings of the Bible. I don’t have infallible knowledge of what the Bible teaches on any subject. But I do have sufficient knowledge of what the Bible teaches on the central subjects. The difference between infallibility and sufficiency is vitally important to recognize.”
–James White aomin.org/JimmyJoeJSaga.html

“I do not claim infallibility in anything. And I deny it to Mr. Akin as well. And since I continue to grow in my sanctification and therefore in the assurance of my salvation on an experiential basis, I do not use the term “infallible” of my certainty. I say it is sufficient, and it is part of saving faith.”
–James White aomin.org/BlogArchives0404.html

I could go on…but it’s clear you are badly misrepresenting White on insufficient evidence.

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.

This is nonsense. There is disagreement among Catholic patristic scholars on what the Church Fathers were saying too, so I don’t know how being a Catholic scholar gets you a ticket to better knowledge. I’m still scratching my head over this one.

That a another protestant point of view might be right and not his?

Anyone who says they are not infallible is saying this. For the record, though, you seem to want White to just give all these disclaimers before he speaks (“Well, guys, thanks for coming to this debate, first off, I want to say that everything I’m about to say is just my opinion, and I could be wrong…”). Do you expect every Roman Catholic to start off that way? Should Catholic Answers Live start out “And now, Catholic Answers Live…by the way, we’re not infallible so we could be wrong…Hi, I’m Jerry Usher.”

Seems a pretty huge double standard if you don’t apply the same criteria to Catholic apologists.

No he claims scripture supports all of his views above all else and that he knows more than all of his opppents.

Citation(s)?

But you in your puritan attitude thinks that is an insult its not.

I apologize. It seems you meant it in the spirit of love and I misunderstood it to be a cheap dig.

But I could be wrong no bad intent was meant so chill.

I am chillin’ like a villain. I am always in a state of constant chill.

Heck I am sure Mr White wants to sell you his tapes and books for money.

I’m sure this, like the previous comments about White, was not meant as a snide comment, and so I will continue to chill.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

MrS:

But no one should deny that his mission in life is not pro. He is anti. Anti-Catholic.

So you will sum up the man’s entire work based solely on his approach to Rome? You won’t grant that he is Pro-Reformed Theology, or Pro-Sola Scriptura, or Anti-Mormon or Anti-Jehovah’s Witness or Pro-Trinity, or Anti-Islam, or any of the many issues that face Christianity? He has written phenomenal works on the KJV Only controversy, Mormonism, and the Trinity–many Catholics have benefited from his work and these areas.

I’m not so blind and unfair as to call Catholic apologists Anti-Protestant apologists. I recognize that Catholics preach to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Regardless, you can use the terms you like, it doesn’t bother me. You can follow your peers and play word games by calling me an “Anti-Catholic” (so I sound mean and nasty) instead of calling me a “Reformed Apologist”.

While you’re coming up with the worst terms to apply to me and apologists far better than I am, I will use the terms you wish to be called, because I’m above this sort of behavior.

God bless,
c0ach (Pro-Trinity, Pro-Christianity, Pro-Reformed, Pro-Bible Apologist)

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Hullo fulloftruth, good to hear back from you.

fulloftruth:

Why would anyone need to show you a God Breathed oral teaching that cannot be found in the Bible,

Because, if you assert there are other God-breathed rules of faith for the Church today, you must demonstrate it.

you don’t even hold fast to what is found in the Bible.

I’m sure I don’t. I am a fallen being. But I try my best and am always looking for correction from the Scriptures.

I can show you where God breathed on the apostles…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.

Nowhere do I deny this. Let me be clear: 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.

I hardly think that only the generation that was alive at the time of Christ was to recieve this great gift.

So you believe there are still apostles? How would you begin to demonstrate this?

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.

How one could demonstrate such a lofty claim is beyond me. Especially in light of the contradicting Church Fathers and councils.

Where does it say in the bible that Scripture is the only inerrant authority

Why do I feel like I’m retreading old ground? I can only assume that you’re reverting back to this question because you can’t demonstrate another God-breathed rule of faith that exists outside of Scripture for the Church today. And, truth be told, I don’t blame you.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[GoodSamaritan]

Check out Dave Armstrong’s blog for more of James White’s act. Dave regularly has updates on Mr. White’s arrogant and completely inadequate ramblings. James prefers to espouse personal attacks, ignore issues, and then claim victory even as his very own head has been handed to him.

Tim Staples soundly answers Mr. White in a debate just like Armstong soundly answers Mr. White in written debate. If White is the Goliath of anti-Catholicism, color me unimpressed.

GS

 

[c0achmcguirk]

hlgomez:

Pardon if I reply to your argument.

You are pardoned. And encouraged to do so.

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?

Paul wrote what he did in 2 Thess 2:15 because he was an apostle. As an apostle he had the unique authority given specifically to the apostles to bind and loose and teach inerrantly. That is his authority. Not because he is an overseer or bishop. Bishops are never taught to be inerrant or infallible in the Bible…although apostles are.

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.

This is an apples to oranges comparison, as I pointed out above to AngelicDoctor.

The Catholic Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15).

Before you run away with what 1 Tim. 3:15 is trying to say, stop and ask yourself, “What does a pillar do?”

It holds a roof up. So a pillar is not a roof, just like the Church is not the truth.

Do not commit the exegetical fallacy that so many RC apologists make and confuse the Church with the truth itself. Protestants love and affirm 1 Tim 3:15, and I agree that the Church holds up the truth. But we don’t take the logical leap to say that the Church is the truth. You just can’t read that into the text.

Sola Scriptura is a Luther-made doctrine.

Funny how people like Athanasius, Wyclif, Hus and others believed in it far before Luther came along.

“For indeed the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth.” --Athanasius, Contra Gentes 1:1

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Hello AngelicDoctor…you must be a fast typer!

AngelicDoctor:

Coach sez I am playing the blame-game with the Bible? No, sir.

Regardless of your denials, if you point to disagreements and then say that proves sola Scriptura is false–then you are saying the Bible is insufficient as a rule of faith. This is an invalid argument because I could just as easily point to disagreements among Catholics, and then say Bible + Magisterium is insufficient. This “blaming the Bible” diatribe is a red herring.

Perhaps it is a common technique of Sola Scriptura advocates to try to charge Catholics with not believing that Scripture is inspired

Surely aren’t referring to me. You aren’t building up a straw man, are you?

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.”

I don’t and haven’t. I don’t make the argument that the Roman rule of faith is invalid because of disagreements. My position from the start has been: if you point to disagreements among Protestants to discount sola Scriptura, then you must then turn around and discount your own rule of faith because of disagreements among Catholics.

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?

No, those who adhere to sola Scriptura would say that you have one rule of faith–Scripture, and churches who hold to SS never claim to be able to infallibly interpret it.

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

I’ve answered this before in post #57 on this very thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=178057&postcount=57

It’s an invalid question (begging the question) because you first assume that such an infallible authority exists to set out to prove that an infallible authority exists.

It sounds like you cannot solve the different claims, and you must remain content to let division persist and spread.

I’m not content with division, I abhor it. But just because there is division I throw up my hands in frustration and go out and attach myself to one of the thousands of churches that claim to be able to interpret the Bible infallibly. Rather, I must be convinced, historically and scripturally that such an infallible interpreter exists.

(continued)

 

[c0achmcguirk]

(continued)

I should say it was clearly defined–by the Catholic Church

Yes, I thank the early (small “c”) catholic Church for discerning the canon. Again, how does this change my question? My rule of faith has been defined and yours is…? Where is the list of every document, council, encyclical, and teaching that is infallible and binding on the Catholic. Is Humanae Vitae binding and infallible? What verses have been infallibly interpreted by Rome? What traditions are God-breathed?

When a Catholic hears the arrogant confidence of a Protestant smiling about the rule of faith they have at hand

AngelicDoctor, this is a red herring because it doesn’t have anything to do with defining your rule of faith. Good soundbite, though.

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.

Do all Catholics have the same conclusions about what beliefs are necessary for salvation? If you answer correctly, you’d say no. But then if you did that, your argument refutes the Roman Catholic rule of faith, too. Your premise that a valid rule of faith will result in complete or even near-complete unanimity is faulty. Whoops. You got caught using an invalid argument again.

Can we move away from the “disagreements” argument. It just won’t stick no matter how hard you try…and you’ve had a noble go at it, too, I might add.

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

One who goes this route isn’t reading the passage. 2 Tim 3:16-17 lays out promises for the “man of God.” The Bike Store is able to fully equip bikers–you have to be a biker when you walk in the door in order for it to fully equip you. Bikers know how to work their gears, can ride on many surfaces, and know how to sit on a bike already.

If you want to throw the Orthodox in the mix, fine, Catholics share a vast wealth of teachings with the East…I will not entertain your plea for me to show communion with Mormons and JW’s because that is absurd.

AngelicDoctor, please permit me to point out that you are engaging in the “No True Scotsman” fallacy:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Roman Catholics, and Branch Davidians all reject sola Scriptura and claim to be true churches that have an infallible interpreter. This is fact and I’m prepared to demonstrate it, if need be.

Whether or not you are offended by being on the list does not change the factuality of the above sentence. Don’t be like the Scotsman.

See, rejecting sola Scriptura results in much less unity, doesn’t it?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

TobyLue:

Hmm, sorry for the delay but I’m a slow reader and cant spend too much time on these forums. I get a crick in the neck and besides my tri-focals are pretty old.

Toby, no problem…I would never want you to get “ForumNeck” from too much time here.

Do you mean that we have to be believers before we can be in the Church and the purpose of the church is to “fellowship”?

There are believers and non-believers alike in the church, and there are many purposes God plans for his Church. Fellowship is a term that encompasses many of the primary purposes for the church.

I believe that Pastors i.e. priests, bishops, the Pope are to help but where did God say “Here is the Bible, now let my pastors explain it to you and have fun fellowshipping”?

Forgive me for being unclear, here. I don’t think that only pastors are there for explaining the Bible, but God uses people in the church (often pastors) to explain His word. Yes, many times they are wrong, but there is no way someone can be sure they are getting infallible information.

Where in scripture does God order any of his apostles to put the Bible together?

Doesn’t their act of writing the Bible show that they felt it was important? Peter tells us in 2 Peter 1:19 And now we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it… Surely you’ll admit that the Apostles wrote Scripture inspired by God (therefore commanded by God)?

I as a catholic, and I don’t know of any other catholic, have ever decided for myself what is infallible or not infallible.

But it’s not always so clear cut. For example there is dispute in the Church on whether or not Humanae Vitae is infallible and binding on the Catholic. This is one example among many.

Gods promise (which has been pointed out many times before) that the Church would not err and I and Catholics as a whole have faith in God and his Church and not on ourselves.

Where is that promise that the Church would not err? I see people in the Church erring all over the place in the New Testament.

By the same token what are we to answer God when he tells us that he left HIS Church to guide us and we tell him “ But, I know better because I decide for myself what I am to follow because all I have to do it read scripture and I can determine by myself what is true and not true”

Several problems with this statement.

(1) His Church is the Church of believers on earth. See Matthew 13:23-30,36-43.

(2) Catholics have the same problem, because they must fallibly interpret everything they read from Rome. They are in the same boat with Protestants.

(3) The Bereans in Acts 17:11 were praised for testing everything the Apostle Paul taught against Scripture. God would be pleased that you would follow this example.

(continued)

 

[c0achmcguirk]

(continued)

It matters none what I think or say regarding the Pope.

I think you missed my point…You said I become infallible if I say the Bible is infallible. I said this is not true, or else you become infallible when you say the Pope is infallible. Obviously this is silly, and so I don’t become infallible if I say the Bible is infallible.

(on 2 Tim 3:16-17) It does not say that only Scripture can fully equip etc.

It also doesn’t say that the Book of Mormon isn’t God breathed, but I don’t just assume it is infallible because the Bible doesn’t say “The Book of Mormon is False.” That’s why I ask for another God-breathed rule of faith taught in the Bible. Remember, it is the Catholic claiming there is another infallible rule of faith outside the Bible.

I believe the Bible is inerrant but what scriptures was Paul talking about.

Does it matter? Do you think the promises of 2 Tim 3:16-17 are only talking about some of the Scriptures? Or do you agree with me that all the Scriptures are God-breathed? If you agree, then this argument is invalid.

How about the Gospel of Peter, or Thomas, or The Didache, etc., etc.? Who determined that those would not be part of the Canon. Would you say that somebody with the gift of infallibility would have to do that?

Those false gospels are very easy to throw out. Their gnostic roots, their late date of authorship, their inconsistency with the rest of Scripture are plain to see. Now, from there I don’t need an infallible person to determine these things because I don’t believe the canon is infallible. I have a high level of assurance that it is correct, and I believe it is a sufficient canon, just like the Jewish man 20 years before Christ had.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

AngelicDoctor:

I grant that this is a thornier issue.

AngelicDoctor, I appreciate your stab at this. I have to admit, however, I remain unconvinced that the Catholic rule of faith is definable. It is a hodge-podge of teachings and documents that sometimes contradict each other and are difficult to understand and have been interpreted different ways by Roman theologians throughout the Centuries.

Not only that, you’ve given no verifiable list of encyclicals, canons, council proceedings, and other stuff that is comparable to the Evangelical’s 66-book canon.

I do appreciate the attempt though.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Maccabees]

c0achmcguirk

Funny how people like Athanasius, Wyclif, Hus and others believed in it [Sola scriptura] far before Luther came along.

“For indeed the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth.”

–Athanasius, Contra Gentes 1:1

Well here is what I find funny no one believed in Sola Scrptura for 1350 years till John Wycliff invented it and no one believed both heresies Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide until Martin Luther. We don’t find anyone teaching this doctrine till about 1380 when Wycliff proposed it as the only rule of faith. John Hus was his spiritual heir and believed in many of the same things as Wycliff. Interestingly neither believed in Sola Fide. Luther was the first significant theologian to invent this doctrine. No church fathers when viewed in their entirety of their work believed in either. So you would have us believe that the whole church just missed these very doctrines that are the basics of the Christian faith till the middle ages? I mean no one missed the divinity of Christ for 1350 years why would truth be so elusive for those who followed the apostles and then the bishops who followed them? You propose the truth was to be had in midevil heretics yet accuse the catholic church of inventing midevil doctrine yet her beliefs can be documented to the fathers of the church, far before the heretics.

Well what Athanasius says is classic catholic teaching that the scriptures are (material sufficiency) self sufficient in providing the truth necessary for our salvation. The catholic church agrees with Athansius. The protestant postion is absolute sufficiency as in Wycliff and Hus - later codified by Luther as sola scriptura.

Catechism CC 107

The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

 

[Maccabees]

Like Athanasius the Catholic Church does not believe it is soley a relgion of the book (sola scriptura) but a faith led by the Holy Spirit that teaches through a living church truth passed down from the beginning with the apostles and preserved by the fathers.

Remember this Jesus left the world the apostles and the church not the Bible. He gave the church the power to bind and loose and Peter the keys of the kingdom. Translation the Bible while it contains the truth necessary for our salvation cannot self interpret itself. The very fact that there are thousands of protestant churches testify to this. Many of these truths are implicit some are explicit and while obvious to the early church have been denied by many Bible believing Christians.

Catechism CC 107 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living."73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

Athanasius

Writing the same Contra Gentes that you have taken out of context also says:

‘But the sectaries, who have fallen away from the TEACHING of the CHURCH, and made SHIPWRECK concerning the faith’
Contra Gentes6

Consider this if Athansius was claiming only the sufficiency of scripture (of course he wasn’t). We could take him out of context and say that he also taught only the sufficiency of Church Councils. In reality both are sufficient provided that they follow the same rule of faith that included the “TRADITION, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and PRESERVED by the FATHERS.” But of course if you take out the churches authority to interpret the scriptures and councils that she herself originated you have anarchy.

The confession arrived at Nicea was, we say more, sufficient and enough by itself for the subversion of Irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church (Ad Afros 1)

But the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicaea, abides for ever."
Athanasius,To the Bishops of Africa,2(A.D. 372),in NPNF2,IV:489

This gave occasion for an Ecumenical Council[ie Nicea]
’Thus believes the Catholic Church;’ and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles."
Athanasius,Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia,5(A.D. 362),in NPNF2,IV:453