James White Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter fulloftruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**Apostolic Tradition **According to Athanasius

‘But what is also to the point, let us note that the very TRADITION, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and PRESERVED by the FATHERS. On this the CHURCH was founded; and if anyone departs from THIS, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.’
Ad Serapion 1,28

“Again we write, again keeping to the apostolic traditions, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord. Thus giving thanks unto him, and being followers of the saints, ‘we shall make our praise in the Lord all the day,’ as the psalmist says. So, when we rightly keep the feast, we shall be counted worthy of that joy which is in heaven” (*Festal Letters *2:7 [A.D. 330]).

“But you are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from apostolic tradition, and frequently accursed envy has wished to unsettle it, but has not been able” (ibid., 29).

You know what he doesn’t sound like the sola scriptura adherent like Wycliff and Luther that you made him out to be.
Stop spinning the facts bro.
 
  1. Those who reject sola Scriptura have disagreements among themselves, too. Roman Catholics aren’t the only ones who deny SS: Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and almost any other cult out there reject SS. In each one of these groups people disagree with each other vehemently on core issues.
Click to expand...
Bud you need to study a little comparative relgions before you make such off the cuff remarks that have no bearing on the subject we are discussing.
First of All Anglicans do beleive in sola scriptura. Here’s a clue protestants don’t agree on the defintion on this obvious truth to you anyway. The Anglcian defintion of the doctrine that supposedly unites protestanst is different that that of say a Baptist or evangelical.
Your point on the Orthodox and Catholic Schism is a valid one but any honest person would admit the divide is not that far in comparision to those protestant bodies in comparisoin to apostolic churches.
As far as the Mormans and Jehovhs witnesses the comparison in not valid first of all Mormans have a variety of books that supposedly inspired ie Book of Mormon, etc etc that catholic deem as nonsense and we both have differnt governing bodies so how in the world are we going to agree on much. The JW’ even you will admit have a butchered Bible and have put on par the writings of Charles Taze Russel as prophecy much the same way Mormons treat Joseph Smith also their governing body is totally differnt than ours. How are we supposed to be unified with these cults with differnt holy scriptures and governing bodies your comparison is idiotic and uneducated.

If anything catholics could make the same claim for you guys (evangelicals) are alike in rejecting sacraments as either symbolic or non-existing. THe Sacraments as a means of conferring grace was affirmed by all the early christians. But not for the EVANGELICALS and the cults like the MORMONS AND JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES. :rotfl:

And of course the ultimate comparision as people of the book with no unillaterl authority is Islam. Now I see a lot of comparison with evangelicals there. Cursing statues and destroying them beleiving them to be idols when no catholic with any understanding worships statues. And everything is Bible this or in this case Quran this Quran that. People of the Book - Islam and Evangelicals your two of a kind! :rotfl:

I could go on and on but evangelicals have more in common with these cults than you have with the catholic church. Of course what keeps you Christian is the very tenet of faiths that you stole from the catholic church. The trinity, hypostatic union, neither of which the cults believe in. And of course the New Testament which most cults have either added their own holy books too or butchered beyond recognition ie Book of Mormon or the Quran. etc
 
40.png
Maccabees:
Well here is what I find funny no one believed in Sola Scrptura for 1350 years
Click to expand...
Wow Maccabees, you’re up late…or early. :bigyikes:

Hey, I was wondering if you had a response for my post to you last night? I had a few questions in there that you may have missed.

God bless,
c0ach

PS: I’ll respond to these posts about Athanasius when I have a little more time.
 
There is not much to say regarding you last post to me.

Catholic apologist appeal to the church as infalliable they themselves don’t claim to be infalliable. James White on the other hand claims to be right per his understanding of scripture. Which is far more problematic. If you don’t see the obvious in the contradiction why am I going to go point by point and waste my time on such trivial post.
I have an opinion of White and am entitled to have it. I am not going to debate that opinion. Your marginalizing the bigger topic of sola scriptura when debating such things move on man.
 
Coach: 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.

OK, then answer the question that I posed: **which one of the Protestants is the “man of God”–the Sola Scriptura advocate who believes that infants can be baptized or the one who thinks only adults or mature children can? **Which one is the biker? If you both profess to know how to read Scripture so as to know truths necessary for salvation (and sola scriptura would seem to imply then any one can and should be able to know how to read and interpret the bible since an infallible interpreter is not necessary). Which one is the “man of God,” and how do they know it? That’s all I want to know.
 
**"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."**

I agree they all reject Sola Scriptura (so do atheists, communists, Unitarians!), but they do not have the same the same rule of faith: Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.

Regarding your “no true Scotsman” fallacy charge:
The relevant part of this fallacy is, I am assuming: “if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.”

Yes, I am adjusting the definition of the subject to make it reflect a relevant reality. I deny that Mormons and JW’s believe in Scripture and the specific form of apostolic tradition (which includes the theological founts of the sacred liturgy, the apostolic fathers, the teaching of the magisterium, and as theses are passed on through the line of apostolic tradition–valid bishops). The tradition of JW’s and mormons would not be based on the liturgy instituted by Christ, nor would it boast of the church fathers, nor any magisterium that has traceable links to the early church. Their traditions would include the opinions of church leaders from the 19th and 20th centuries. Not even close.

You can call me a Scotsman (I am Italian, actually, lok that one deserves a smily face! :)), but you still did not answer my objection to your comparing Catholics with Branch Davidians. I will state it again: JW’s, Mormons, and Branch Davidians do not refer to anything remotely close to the Tradition that Catholics and Orthodox do. They do not maintain an aposolic tradition, based on the fathers of the Church, and passed on by a valid line of recognized bishops who are successors of the apostles. Nor do they have tradition as it is passed down through the historic liturgy. I will certainly add the Orthodox to the Catholics on those who suscribe to Scripture and Tradition as a rule of faith. But these other groups do not suscribe to apostolic tradition, NOR DO THEY CLAIM TO. When Catholics talk about Tradition they have a very specific phenomena in mind (fathers, liturgy, handed down through bishops–line of apostolic succession, meaning there is a direct historical continuity with the first generation of Christians), it sounds like you read Tradition and think it is just “tradition of men” and so you compare it with things that have no link historically to the early church. Show me where Mormons base their faith on apostolic fathers, the Eucharist and other sacraments, and that this expression/interpretation has been passed down through validly ordained bishops traceable to the early Church (therefore, I need evidence of pronouncements on the tradition from the first centuries–not the 1900’s looking back on any of these fonts). What ecumenical councils did they meet in (chaired by the Bishop of Rome and the other ancient patriarchs)?

If I were to use your way of defining the subject, I could say that Evangelicals are like Muslims because you believe that the inspired scripture alone is the rule of faith. You would then say, but wait!, we do not believe in the same Scripture. I say the same–Catholics and Mormons do not believe in the same Tradition (meaning the same definition/ form of tradition). Protestants are comparable on Sola Scriptura because you agree on the Scriptures that you accept as your sole rule of faith (thus, I expect some better uniformity of belief than what I see).

I know that you have no intention of answer my objection fairly and show how Catholics and Mormons base their faith on a same form of tradition (it is easier to charge me with a violation of logic and then type a smiley face), so I have rebutted your point and will drop it.
 
**Coach: 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.
**
“a hodge-podge of teachings and documents”…
“that sometimes contradict each other”
“difficult to understand”
“have been interpreted [differently] by [Roman/I add: Lutheran/Calvinist/Methodist/etc./etc.] theologians throughout the centuries”

That sounds familiar. Sounds kinda like the Bible. (I refer again to 2 Peter 3:15-16, that Paul’s “letters contain some things in them that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.”
That was one of my points: just because you have a clearly defined rule of faith, does not mean that it will be understood correctly by those who consult it (especially without an infallible interpreter!).

-Secondly, I am not convinced of the need for the question. The magisterium inteprets Tradition–not individuals. So, I am not running around in a panic that I have to investigate all the “canonical” fathers so as to contruct the truth for myself from the ground floor up (you are assuming that Catholics use Tradition like Protestants use the Bible, to “rediscover” historic Christianity every time a new church breaks off). When a problem or question arises, the magisterium (bishops in union with the Pope) consults its living history to find the answer (they often will do this in an ecumenical council the seminal form of which is found in Acts 15). It is a more organic entity, it is the continual life of the Church–all that she is and has–so boundaries are harder to draw than with canonical written scripture. As I also said, tradition is also summarized in creeds and symbols of the faith.
 
Coach: you said that you answered my question about how various SS protestants resolve competing claims on how Scripture should be interpreted. You said that you answered that on #57 of this thread. That link shows the following:

"It [Sola Scriptura] is a very simple doctrine, but easily confused. I recommend reading the section on sola Scriptura in the Roman Catholic Controversy by Dr. White. It does a good job explaining it. But perhaps this will help:

Sola Scriptura is not a:
  1. claim that the Bible contains all knowledge
  2. claim that the Bible is an exhaustive catalog of all religious knowledge
  3. denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth
  4. denial that God’s Word has, at times, been spoken
  5. rejection of every kind or use of tradition
  6. denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church
sola Scriptura says:
  1. Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith.
  2. No other revelation is needed for the Church.
  3. There is no other infallible rule of faith outside of Scripture.
  4. Scripture reveals those things necessary for salvation.
  5. All traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture."
Help me out here. Where do you answer my question? If two people believe all of these things about Sola Scriptura, and yet come to a different interpretation on a key biblical teaching, then how is the dillemma resolved? For example, they are both saying that there is no infallible rule outside of Scripture, they both say Scripture reveals things necessary for salvation. They both say all traditions are subject to the higher authority of Scripture–which is why they are appealing to the Scriptures to defend their contradictory beliefs. They are not denying the authority of God’s church(es) to teach the truth, in fact, they have received different teachings–and so, how does this system as it is defined by you above, resolve a conflict over intepretations as we see evidenced in the real world of Christianity?
 
‘He is very adept at avoiding the answer to the question: To whom do we turn to decide a disagreement in scriptural interpretation?’

Coach: “Maybe because the question is begging the question? It assumes (there is an infallible authority outside the Bible) what it seeks to prove.”

Actually, it is not begging the question. I will even allow you to answer the question without recource to an infallible authority. So, for example, if the Holy Spirit inspired all Christians to interpret Scripture so as to take from it the same necessary truths for salvation, then you have done the job. However, as long as I see significant disagreements over these verses, then it does suggest the need for an infallible authority outside the Bible (because, if strife is inevitable and rampant, then you need a final judge to resolve the matters). If interpretation of Scripture is necessary (as I see it obviously is), then so is an authoritative interpreter. If the truths of the inerrant Word of God need to be interpreted/understood/received/applied, then this interpretation/reception/application needs to also be the true one–and thus, infallible.

Sometimes in apologetics, we are too quick to hastily throw around logic fallacy labels: ‘that’s a straw man!, you are performing the long-nose will technique!’, etc. Let’s just look at the necessity of the question being asked.
 
**Yes, I thank the early (small “c”) catholic Church for discerning the canon. **

Funny that you accept the small c catholic Church’s canon of Scripture… the same catholics who believed in the veneration and intercession of the saints, the Eucaristic liturgy, purgatory (Augustine, etc.), the sacraments, the authority of bishops linked through apostolic succession, etc. It sounds like you are cherry-picking from Tradition.
 
Catholics, Mormons, JW’s, etc. (a few more points)

-another point about Mormons that distinguish their rule of faith from Catholics (and Orthodox):
  1. They accept an an entirely different form of tradition from that of Catholics and Orthodox: Mormons accept a non-apostolic/historically disconnected tradtion–little t–that is not handed down from apostolic succession–indeed, they believe that those bishops, fathers, and councils of the church that Catholics and the Orthodox point to were part of an apostate church!
  2. They have a secret temple form of worship that is nothing remotely similar to the Eucharist, as it exists as a liturgical font for theology/tradition for the East and West.
  3. Mormons also accept other sacred books! In addition to the Scriptures that Protestants and Catholics accept, they also point to other books as inspired: Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon, etc.
    **Catholics, on the contrary, along with Protestants say that there is no more new inspired writings. Revelation ended with the last apostle **(though the doctrinal understanding/reflection/application of that revelation can continue to develop/unfold through time in the life of the Church).
Mormons side step at least 17-18 centuries of Christian history and magisterial teaching. Indeed, not only did they have a new magisterium beginning with Joseph Smith, he is called a new prophet–and thus new revelation.

-JW’s also use a different form of Scripture from Catholics and Protestants because they use their own form of innacurate, unauthorizied, manipulative translation of the Bible.

SO, how again do Mormons and JW’s and all these cults have the same rule of faith as Catholics and Orthodox? Just because we are similar in our disagreement on Sola Scriptura (this is irrelevant as atheists, agnostics, unitarians, followers of Baha’i universal religion, etc. also reject Sola Scriptura; and indeed, they also reject Sacred Tradition as defined above!), does not mean we share the same rule of faith. Our rule of faith is not Sacred Scripture and any-old interpretive tradition. It is SS and Sacred/Apostolic tradition as grounded in the history and authority of the hierarchical Church founded by Christ.

-I compare Sola Scriptura Protestants on the basis of their same rule of faith (not their rejection of Tradition): Sacred Scripture alone [the SAME canon of inspired texts recognized by all, that is].
-I think it faith to compare Catholics with Orthodox as well, becase we share same basic (or part of same basic) form of a rule of faith: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (liturgy/fathers/councils/passed on by magisterium through apotolic succession).
 
To put it short: why do Mormons and JW’s believe differently than Catholics and Orthodox?–it is simple, because they do not believe in our Sacred Tradition and do not obey the magisterium (to them it is an unauthoritative tradition of men of an apostate Church). They choose to follow other inspired texts, and another stream of tradition (not our Tradition).

-The other question: why does a Baptist and a Lutheran disagree on infant baptism? … they, in contrast, DO rely on the same rule of faith (Sacred Scripture alone)… they both say that they came to their answer through consulting this common rule of faith (the same 39 books of the Bible).
 
c0achmcguirk,

How come you only quote St. Athanasius writings like one or two statements to justify your argument? C’mon, don’t just quote the father’s particular statement to justify your belief. He’s very Catholic so why just quote something out of context? Try to read ALL of his writings and you will see that he is not a “protestant thinker.” Be fair and balanced to the truth, don’t distort the meaning of it. It seems that you have a “cafeteria catholic syndrome” that if you don’t like the other writings you just throw it in the garbage can. Just like what the founders of protestantism did to the Holy Bible where they threw the other Sacred Writings away because it didn’t fit their distorted doctrines.

Pio
 
**Coach: Do all Catholics have the same conclusions about what beliefs are necessary for salvation? **Yes, all Catholics who obey the teachings of the magisterium do. Those who disagree with the magisterium are free to do that, but they know that they are dissenting and are placing themselves outside of communion with the Church. They may not like what the Church teaches and they may feel that they are right in their beliefs (as Luther no doubt did) and the Church is wrong, but they are still refusing to follow the Catholic rule of faith (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as interpreted and defined by the Magisterium) and are no longer Catholic by definition. If someone refuses to consult Scripture alone, then they are not following the rule of faith known as Sola Scriptura. If somone fails to accept Sacred Tradition as defined/interpreted and handed down by the magisterium, then they are not following the SS and Sacred Tradition rule of faith. Even if you say you are “Catholic,” to be so, by definition (note: not the Scotsman fallacy) means that you subject yourself in obedience to the magisterium in faith/worship/and practice. This is not the “No true Scottsman” fallacy. I am simply defining what it means to be a Catholic Christian. Someone who did not believe in Jesus Christ would not really be a Christian, even if he preferred to keep calling himself that.
 
Coach: If you answer correctly, you’d say no. But then if you did that, your argument refutes the Roman Catholic rule of faith, too.

Why would it be correct to answer no? Give me an example of a Catholic who is in communion with his local bishop and the bishop of Rome, a Catholic who obeys the definitions of the Magisterium, who believes different teachings about what is necessary for salvation. Say a man who calls himself a Catholic thinks that the Holy Spirit is not divine. He heard this from some heretic, and he never learned that the Church teaches that the HS is in fact divine. He believes that the HS is a creature out of ignorance. He has not been able to make a choice of assent between the truth as the Church very clearly teaches and a lie. This would put this man in what is called material heresy–but not formal heresy. Say his bishops talks with him for an hour and instructs him on Scripture, the Church’s Tradition and council teachings on the divinity of the Holy SPirit. He points out that this belief is not a theological speculative opinion, but a defined dogma that he must believe. The man then has a choice–he either accepts the teaching as derived from the Catholic rule of faith (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition under guidance of magisterium) or he chooses to believe the teaching of the heretic’s personal opinion. I he did the latter, he would move from mere material heresy (meaning what he believed or expressed was objectively wrong) to formal heresy (what he believed and taught was wrong, and he purposely did this in spite of the fact that he knows it to be contrary to the teaching of the Church). In this case, if he was a theoligian, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would ask him to clarify his questionable teachings. They would show him where they were in contrast to the teaching of the Magisterium (not in accord with accepted rule of faith), and would give him the chance to reform his position, or he would be censured, and if needs be–excommunicated.

Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition does not negate each individual’s freedom to submit to this norm of faith. One still can choose (one can choose to listen to or deny Christ’s Church just like one can listen to or deny Christ). However, it is clear when one refuses to follow Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition–it is clear when one is out of communion or in communion as the Church defines it. With Sola Scriptura, however, 2 people can be obediently following the same rule of faith (they are using Scripture alone for their doctrine) and yet, they come to 2 different conclusions–meaning they are not in communion of truth and practice with each other. No one is in a clear position to say you are wrong and I am right.
 
My main point is this: Sacred Scripture and Tradition (w/ Magisterium) has a mechanism of interpretation so as to resolve conflicts of contradictory Scriptural interpretation. Sola Scriptura does not. At that time you would have no ground to stand on if you called the Arians heretics. You would say, Christ’s divinity is clear from Scripture. They would say, no it is not, I can point to verses about Christ’s being elevated/exalted to a state higher than he had (meaning he was born a creature and was somehow divinized to a higher degree than he had initially). You could debate the Scriptures, but you would have no binding authority so as to resolve the debate. In deed, you could point to no infallible authoritative interptretation. The Arians say, 'well, you could be right, but you could also be in error there, so, we will trust ourselves, but thanks a lot for your (name removed by moderator)ut!" Your two churches would split, and we would probably have had a lot more Arian Christian churches in the world then we do now. The Church was torn over this issue, and the teaching of the council is what forced a resolution–the correct interpretation–the preservation of the faith handed down by the apostles–not only was the Council’s decisions infallibly correct, but it also had the weight of authority such that it was able to be implemented throughout the Church (in a far more effective manner than just yet another subjective interpretation of Scripture that is fallible, as SS could give).

What is necessary, is for people to agree that the Magisterium does have the authority of Christ’s Church. This system was in play for nearly 1,000 years before it suffered its decisive hits–and this is why we share so much teaching/practice/worship with the East. The schism had political as well as doctrinal causes. And, now the Eastern churches have fallen into a national church mode without a means of meeting in ecumenical council. I do not know whether or not they could dialogue amongst themselves to come to an authoritative moral teaching on embryonic stem cell research or contraception (new technologies that present a challenge to the definition of a human person that may not be clear in Scripture). We have, however, brought many Eastern Christians back into communion with Rome–these are the various Eastern rites Catholic Churches. Also, we have had an increasing number of ecumenical dialogues with the Eastern Orthodox–which are very hard because of the bad blood of history and a few tough doctrinal stand-offs. Still, the dialogue occurs with the aid of a recognized hierarchical authority in each local church.

The problem with Protestantism is that it blew away all familiarity with the notion of an authoritative teaching magisterium. Protestants do not consult Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture; they follow various interpretive traditions to be sure (Lutheran–presence of Christ throgh Consubstantiation, Methodist, Calvinisit–double predestination denying human freedom, etc.) but seeing no one as infallible,… in other word, as authoritative or final, or ultimately true. Well, one could be true, but we have no way of saying for sure, because none are fallible?
 
More to the point: as Protestantism lacks a final interpretive authority, the system itself allows for and almost encourages an endless process of splintering–and you cannot blame the different denominations and interpretations, they are following what they believe is the right interpretation (whether they call it fallible or not–they have to believe that they are in some way righ and the other guy wrong, or why disagree,…why break off?).

The Catholic Church is no small local denomination on par with the African Methodist Episcopal Church, or something like that: it is vast in number and is spread throughout the globe and throughout the centuries. So, it is not enough to say that I am comparing my close-knit little church to all of the Protestant churches.

One final point to reiterate: not all diversity in the Catholic Church implies a lack of communion. We have a movement of Carismatic Catholics, for example, who have different aspects of worship, still centered around the same Eucharistic Liturgy. Though different in this regard, they are obedient to their local bishop and the Pope, they still are obligated to follow the liturgical rubrics of the local and universal church, and they cannot make a heretical or schismatic statement–such as ‘one must speak in tongues to be a true Christian.’ If they did this, they would be investigated by their bishop, corrected, and excommunicated if they refused to obey defined Church teaching. Various Eastern rites, also, are an example of acceptable diversity in the context of communion.

There are other people who have preferences, such as those who prefer the liturgy in Latin rather than the vernacular. However, as long as these people do not deny the authority of the Second Vatican Council to institute such a change in the liturgy, than they are not heretics (though they may be malcontents). If they disobey the magisterium on this one, they may join a sedevacantist group who say that there is no valid pope on the throne (making them schismatics outside the Church).

I have already spoken about schismatic groups that deny the authority of the Church (St. Pius V Society, Sedevacantists, Catholics for a Free Choice, etc). While they may still site Scripture and fathers, and old popes, they have denied the authority of the living magisterium as it speaks to them today, and so they are not “Catholic” and have set themselves outside of communion (and most admit this–sedevacantists, etc., some remain dishonest because they want to use the name Catholic for their own purposes and authority to deceive).
 
Coach: 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.

Thanks for the encouraging pat on the back, but, I have thought about it… and,…No, sorry,…I will not move away from the “disagreements” argument, because it is something which demands answering by Sola Scriptura advocates. It is a scandal and shows the breakdown of Sola Scriptura in practice:
  1. Does Scripture need to be interpreted or is it meaning always obvious and clear to every one who reads it?
(Catholics say–it is at times unclear and needs to be interpreted and balanced, applied, etc.)
  1. Do you need a mechanism for determining the correct interpretation among competing interpretations?
(Catholics say yes)
  1. Do you have such a mechanism that can give a final resolution and minimize schism and hersesy (even if it does not result in 100% conformity)**
**(Catholics say yes)

Catholics do deny that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith. Scripture is materially sufficient–it has all of the “stuff” (even if just in seed form) necessary to believe in revelation, but it lacks formal sufficiency (it is not in the proper form of doctrinal statements needed to be presented so that we can assent… nor does it interpret itself, or judge between competing interpreters).
This is what Athanasius means when he speaks of Scripture as being sufficient as a rule of faith.
 
**Coach: "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…?

AngDoc: “Funny that you accept the small c catholic Church’s canon of Scripture… the same catholics who believed in the veneration and intercession of the saints, the Eucaristic liturgy, purgatory (Augustine, etc.), the sacraments, the authority of bishops linked through apostolic succession, etc. It sounds like you are cherry-picking from Tradition.”
So, in other words, it changes your question because your rule of faith was defined by Catholic tradition which negates the principles of Sola Scriptura. Do you recognize the canon in virtue of a non-Scriptural tradition (as RC Sproul admits he does), or are you sticking with your original argument that the inspired books of the Bible are self-evident? If you agree with (C)atholic traditions resolution on what books are in the Bible, and they are fallible, then maybe the canon is not right. And do you trust this (C)atholic tradition if it also shows evidence of other beliefs that you reject?

**
 
Somewhere Coach, you wrote that you remain unconvinced that you need any infallible authority or tradition outside of Scripture. I respect that. However, I hope you see how a Catholic does not see the need to “go Sola Scriptura.” For one thing, where would he go?.. what manifestation?.. what denomination?.. would he have to reconstruct for himself Christianity from the bottom up, from scratch with the bible alone?

And anyways, I do see a need for interpretation of Scripture (and how doctrine develops) and a final and decisive way to resolve competing interpretations. Scripture itself speaks of a church given authority by Christ to teach, forgive sins, etc. I would say that a Church was meant to go hand-in-hand with the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top