James White Debate

[preyoflove]

"Let’s all calm down about the 'ol Jesus and the Apostles didn’t practice sola Scriptura so therefore SS is false argument. This is not a valid argument, and those who understand SS properly don’t use the argument. Why? Did the Apostles or Jesus recognize Papal Infallibility? Using the same logic you undermine your own position. One shouldn’t use arguments that refute your own position."

Since when? Says who? Just because you always get stump with this obvious fact and could never get around it, doesn’t mean you have to deceive yourselves into thinking it’s got to be invalid.

Don’t you find it disturbing that White went through the entire debate on Sola Scriptura refusing to cite passages from the Bible itself-- even just one --to defend Sola Scriptura. What does he do? He runs to the writings of the Church fathers, twisting these writings to say what he wants them to say. Some debater White is.

Compare him to Tim. Tim chose to use the Bible primarily to prove the Bible teaches there’s no such thing as Sola Scriptura. Heck, he even said he could debate just with the Bible alone to prove some of the Marian dogmas.

“He (James White) is more Catholic than he thinks.”

And by the way, who said that these are the books which belong to the Old Testament and these are the books which belong to the New Testament and that each of these books are infallible and that all of the Old Testament together is infallible and that all of the New Testament together is infallible and that both the Old and the New Testaments together are infallible?

Shalom, amen.

 

[Xenon-135]

I would like to see Kimberly Hahn debate Joyce Meyers or Paula White, or even Beth Moore.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

1. Let’s all calm down about the 'ol Jesus and the Apostles didn’t practice sola Scriptura so therefore SS is false argument. This is not a valid argument, and those who understand SS properly don’t use the argument. Why? Did the Apostles or Jesus recognize Papal Infallibility? Using the same logic you undermine your own position. One shouldn’t use arguments that refute your own position.

God bless,
c0ach
This is not the main topic, and it is discussed in numerous other threads, but, I must note: Actually, there is a disctinction here. Proponents of Sola Scriptura cannot really believe that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura developed (because, as Cardinal John Henry Newman notes, for doctrine to develop there must be a Church/magisterial body with authority to ratify that a particular development of doctrine–even one based on Scripture–is an authentic development). Therefore, Sola Scriptura must be clearly taught in Scripture, and it must have been the norm all along (which would mean that Jesus and the apostles would have had to believed in it and taught it).
Catholics do not deny tradition and the development of doctrine. They do not have to prove that Jesus and the apostles taught papal infallibility as it is taught in its fully-developed form today. (Doctrine develops through the Church, through the ages, examining Scripture and tradition and applying it to changing historical circumstances and needs).

 

[c0achmcguirk]

The Old Road:

Since these debates between White and Catholics center around biblical issues as they relate to Christianity, it would seem obvious to me that it would be proper to get Catholic New Testament scholars to debate these issues.

I would love a debate featuring a man with the qualifications you list. We should be so lucky to witness one someday!

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

preyoflove:

Just because you always get stump with this obvious fact and could never get around it, doesn’t mean you have to deceive yourselves into thinking it’s got to be invalid.

Honestly, I don’t get stumped by the question, and I don’t see it as a problem. I noticed you didn’t answer the question I asked which demonstrated that you should agree with me: Has the Roman Catholic Rule of Faith always been valid, or has it “developed” over time? Were Adam and Eve bound to the Roman Catholic rule of faith?

Your argument, more or less is:

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

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

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

preyoflove:

Don’t you find it disturbing that White went through the entire debate on Sola Scriptura refusing to cite passages from the Bible itself-- even just one --to defend Sola Scriptura. What does he do? He runs to the writings of the Church fathers, twisting these writings to say what he wants them to say. Some debater White is.

He actually did cite from the Bible to demonstrate SS: at 9:30 in the first part of the debate he clearly cites from 2 Tim 3:16-17, where he talks about Scripture being Theopneustos.

But White’s argument in this particular debate was subtle, so you may have to go back and listen again…He wasn’t focusing on Bible verses that prove there are no additional God-breathed rules of faith, instead he recognized one important point:

(1) Both the Catholic and the Protestant recognize the Scriptures as God-breathed (gr. Theopneustos) and inerrant.
(2) The Protestant believes there is no other, outside, infallible authority.

(3) Therefore, the burden of proof is on the Catholic to prove that there exists an extra-Biblical infallible rule of faith.

It’s Logic 101: You can’t prove a negative, but you can assert one. The Protestant is asserting a negative: there are no other infallible rules of faith…The Catholic is asserting a positive: that there is an outside infallible authority, and that is Rome.

It is the Catholic’s Responsibility to prove that there is an outside authority.

Compare him to Tim. Tim chose to use the Bible primarily to prove the Bible teaches there’s no such thing as Sola Scriptura. Heck, he even said he could debate just with the Bible alone to prove some of the Marian dogmas.

And this is just one of many places where Staples lost–and James White pointed out. Staples made hay with 2 Tim 3:16-17, saying that White is like a Jehovah’s Witness using only one verse from which to base his theology from (when anyone who follows the SS debate closely knows there are far more than one verse to base SS on). But then Staples talked about how he could defend Marian dogmas from the Scripture alone. Are you aware of the Scriptural “proof” for the Assumption of Mary, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the Immaculate Conception?

You guessed it–they’re based on strained interpretations of single verses. Whoops…Staples was caught there.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

AngelicDoctor:

Actually, there is a disctinction here. Proponents of Sola Scriptura cannot really believe that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura developed (because, as Cardinal John Henry Newman notes, for doctrine to develop there must be a Church/magisterial body with authority to ratify that a particular development of doctrine–even one based on Scripture–is an authentic development).

I don’t follow. First, I reject your claim that SS is a doctrine that developed. Rather it is a statement that there is only one God-breathed rule of faith the normative Church.

Protestants have always maintained and readily assert that sola Scriptura did not apply when Jesus was walking the earth and when Prophets are inspired to write Scripture. Obviously there would be other, God-breathed, infallible rules of faith during those times! This isn’t a problem for Protestants, we readily accept this.

However, once there is no more revelation (and Catholics Theology is right when it says that revelation has ceased) there isn’t any more God-breathed rules of faith for Scripture to serve beside. The Bible stands alone, the only God-breathed revelation that we still possess.

Therefore, Sola Scriptura must be clearly taught in Scripture, and it must have been the norm all along (which would mean that Jesus and the apostles would have had to believed in it and taught it).

This is silly, if you don’t mind my saying. Jesus couldn’t have followed SS–He was God Almighty, and everything He said was infallible and God-breathed. You’re imposing impossible demands in order to discount what I’m saying…

AngelicDoctor, I appreciate your civil tone and your reasoned response. Do you know where the Bible teaches another God-breathed rule of faith?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[RobNY]

He actually did cite from the Bible to demonstrate SS: at 9:30 in the first part of the debate he clearly cites from 2 Tim 3:16-17, where he talks about Scripture being Theopneustos.

But White’s argument in this particular debate was subtle, so you may have to go back and listen again…He wasn’t focusing on Bible verses that prove there are no additional God-breathed rules of faith, instead he recognized one important point:

(1) Both the Catholic and the Protestant recognize the Scriptures as God-breathed (gr. Theopneustos) and inerrant.
(2) The Protestant believes there is no other, outside, infallible authority.

(3) Therefore, the burden of proof is on the Catholic to prove that there exists an extra-Biblical infallible rule of faith.

It’s Logic 101: You can’t prove a negative, but you can assert one. The Protestant is asserting a negative: there are no other infallible rules of faith…The Catholic is asserting a positive: that there is an outside infallible authority, and that is Rome.

It is the Catholic’s Responsibility to prove that there is an outside authority.

Good evening c0ach. This is my first attempt at apologetics on these boards, so please be nice! ))

Now, your position is that Sola Scripture is operative starting after the formation of the Bible, I would guess?

So, I get to skip the arguments about 1. where in the Bible is says there are exactly 27 books, and 2. where in the Bible it states which 27 books are the correct books? (Please don’t mind this if it sounds redundant, I’m setting up the groundwork.)

What we both agree on is that, namely, an infalliable source infalliably defined what Scripture is infalliable. (I don’t think I said infalliable enough times!)

If the early Church was not infalliable, then the current construction of the Bible is not infalliable either, and we cannot agree on the first proposition of your argument, correct? So, I’d say we have to agree on that.

My question is namely this: the (early) Church was clearly infalliable in setting authoritative canon. We agree on at least that much. Where in the Bible does it state that the Church lost this power after the Bible was formed?

Let me recap.

1. We both accept the Bible as inerrant.
2. In order to accept the Bible as it is, we must accept that the institution that formed it was infalliable.
3. The early Church formed the Bible, and thus the early Church was infalliable.

So, c0ach, please prove, using Sola Scripture, that the early Church’s power of being an infalliable authority disappear/ was revoked after the formation of the Bible.

Hence, **it is Protestant’s Responsibility to prove that the Catholic Church is no longer an infalliable authority.

**Thanks for taking the time to read my post! God bless!

 

[c0achmcguirk]

RobNY:

Good evening c0ach. This is my first attempt at apologetics on these boards, so please be nice! ))

Welcome Rob. Thanks for your civil response, I appreciate it. Dude, I just noticed that we have the same birthday: May 28…'cept I was born in 1977.

Now, your position is that Sola Scripture is operative starting after the formation of the Bible, I would guess?

Correct. Sola Scriptura does not apply when Scripture is being revealed. But it was in effect 20 years before Christ was born, so I wouldn’t say that SS started after the New Testament was written.

So, I get to skip the arguments about 1. where in the Bible is says there are exactly 27 books, and 2. where in the Bible it states which 27 books are the correct books? (Please don’t mind this if it sounds redundant, I’m setting up the groundwork.)

It doesn’t.

What we both agree on is that, namely, an infalliable source infalliably defined what Scripture is infalliable.

Well, I would part ways with you here. One doesn’t need an infallible canon to say that Scripture is infallible.

How did the Jewish man twenty years before Christ know what was Scripture and what wasn’t? He didn’t have an infallible canon then, and yet Scripture was still infallible, correct?

Actually, the canon wasn’t “infallible” (from the Roman Catholic perspective) until November 1546, when Trent officially made it so. One can have an infallible Bible without an infallible canon.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Correct. Sola Scriptura does not apply when Scripture is being revealed. But it was in effect 20 years before Christ was born, so I wouldn’t say that SS started after the New Testament was written.

What? It was? Do Jews follow Sola Scriptura? Judaism Has a huge history of oral tradition. I’ve just never heard that one before.

 

[RobNY]

I’ve been spelling infallible wrong this whole time… gosh I feel stupid.

c0achmcguirk:

Welcome Rob. Thanks for your civil response, I appreciate it. Dude, I just noticed that we have the same birthday: May 28…'cept I was born in 1977.

Yeah, I’m new at this. Heck, 11 years isn’t that much.

Correct. Sola Scriptura does not apply when Scripture is being revealed. But it was in effect 20 years before Christ was born, so I wouldn’t say that SS started after the New Testament was written.

I am not an expert on Judaism, so I really can’t say if they have the equivalent of “Sola Scripture”. However, I did think they had some heirarchy of some type.

Well, I would part ways with you here. One doesn’t need an infallible canon to say that Scripture is infallible.

How then do you determine that Scripture is infallible? Any man or woman can simply assemble religious writings and expect them to all be God-inspired?

How did the Jewish man twenty years before Christ know what was Scripture and what wasn’t? He didn’t have an infallible canon then, and yet Scripture was still infallible, correct?

Judaism and Christianity are two distinct faiths. And like I said, my knowledge of Judaism is rather limited.

Actually, the canon wasn’t “infallible” (from the Roman Catholic perspective) until November 1546, when Trent officially made it so. One can have an infallible Bible without an infallible canon.

The Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397) both defined the Bible the same as it was later defined at Trent. Carthage sent its decision to Rome for ratification, which was done by Pope St. Boniface (and declared canon settled for the Western Patriarchate), and sent it to the Eastern Patriarchs. The Catholic Scripture was accepted informally worldwide. The Council of Nicea II (787) ratified the same canon as authoritative for the Eastern Churches. I suppose that infallibility is something that happens following great disagreement. As you can see, Scripture in its current form had been accepted well in advance of the Council of Trent and was official. So, I don’t think it was technically ‘infallible’, but it certaintly was official.

Perhaps my question was a bit murky. Scripture isn’t infallible because the Church says it is, its infallible because it is God-inspired. The real question is how do you discern whether scripture is indeed inspired? There is a list of other religious writings. How can we logically separate apocryphal sources from inspired scripture without an authoritative entity?

I definitely got a bit stuck up on the word infallible, but I really only needed to use authority (thats what I get for working too quickly).

If the Church had the authority to discern what is and isn’t inspired (and they did define the Bible early on), then they are quite obviously an “outside authority”, other than the Bible. In the same way as my previous argument, I submit for you to show me when the Church lost said authority.

 

[Cat]

Hi, cOachmcguirk

I am the one who said I think that James White is arrogant and hate-filled.

Perhaps I do owe Mr. White an apology.

In my defense, I did say “I THINK,” not “HE IS.” I was stating my opinion.

But you want to know why I have that opinion.

I have read just one piece written by James White. It made me cry. I have never visited the man’s website again and don’t plan to. If you want to try to find the piece, go ahead.

It was a fiction piece in which a family is led towards Catholicism, and a Protestant debates the Catholic who is leading them astray. (So right away, Catholicism is presented as a false religion.)

In the piece, the Catholic is characterized as a fool. He obviously doesn’t know his Bible and his puny arguments are trounced. The family is vastly relieved that someone rescued them from evil Catholicism.

Because it was “fiction,” Mr. White could create his own “universe.” He chose to present Catholicism as false and Protestantism as true. He chose to create a foolish, bumbling Catholic and a clever, kind-hearted Protestant. He chose weak arguments for the Catholic so that the Protestant character could easily defeat his arguments. And finally, he chose to create a dark, frightening Catholic Church and a friendly, welcoming Protestant church.

The problem is, this is not real. Other Catholics, including my husband, would have been able to effectively “debate” the Protestant hero in the story. Not all Catholics are fools and not all Protestants are friendly.

But a lot of Protestants will accept Mr. White’s fiction as fact.

Perhaps the reason I had such a strong emotional reaction to Mr. White’s fiction is that I was asked to leave my Protestant church in February of 2002. I had been an evangelical Christian all of my life, and had an impressive (by man’s standards) portfolio of Christian service. I had been part of evangelical churches led by current noted evangelical leaders in the U.S. My “evangelical credentials” were impeccable.

I made the mistake of questioning the pastors at my Evangelical Free church about some schedules and procedures, not about doctrine or beliefs. I did no wrong, but the pastors used the Bible to create a trumped-up case against me and accused me of hideous things that I was not guilty of. (A year later, one of the pastors who had been most vicious to me was fired from the church after she was caught in a lie.)

There was even a “tribunal,” in which my husband and I were ripped to shreds by the pastors, including people we had never met and who had never met us. It ended with us running out of the church. I had nightmares for months (still do).

I learned that day that the Bible can be twisted horribly. For a year, I didn’t read the Bible, I was so afraid that I would become evil like these pastors.

Maybe that is why I had such a strong emotional reaction to Mr. White’s fiction. He did the same thing to the Catholic character as those pastors did to me. Made a fool out of me. This is not Christian.

I write fiction. too. I create Christian characters, Catholic and Protestant, who are true Christians and interact with each other in Christian love even when they disagree. Why would I want to hurt the Church of Christ, which includes Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox, by making any Christian look “bad?” Realistic, yes, struggling, yes, even sinful at times. But not “bad.”

So maybe I owe Mr. White an apology. Or maybe he owes Catholics like me an apology for presenting us as fools in his fiction. And perhaps he even owes me an apology for hurting me again with his awful piece. But I don’t expect an apology. My old EF church has never apologized to me and never will. And as a Catholic, I am learning to accept that and to pray for my “separated brethren” rather than attack them as Mr. White does.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

whowantsumadebo:

What? It was? Do Jews follow Sola Scriptura? Judaism Has a huge history of oral tradition. I’ve just never heard that one before.

Hi whowansumadebo (I thought my nick was goofy ),

Let me back up a bit. Sola Scriptura simply says that the only infallible rule of faith in our possession is the Scripture. There are other rules of faith–like our pastors, orthodox believers, our parents, the law, church tradition, church fathers, etc…but only one is infallible and incapable of error: the Scriptures.

With that in mind, what other rule of faith was infallible on the Jew twenty years before Christ? None, right? Granted there were rabbis and teachers of the law that had their opinions on what the law was and what God taught, but Jesus made it clear that the Pharisees and Sadducees et al were in the wrong and added to Scripture.

Without any other infallible God-breathed rules of faith, sola Scriptura was in effect for the Jew twenty years before Christ. Even though the Pharisees and Sadducees might have told them otherwise.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Welcome back Rob,

RobNY:

I am not an expert on Judaism, so I really can’t say if they have the equivalent of “Sola Scripture”. However, I did think they had some heirarchy of some type.

I elaborated on this above in my response to whowantsumadebo, but I think the problem here is that your thinking of SS as a belief that men hold to (like the ancient Roman belief that there are many gods). When I assert that SS was in effect 20 years before Christ, I’m saying that there was no other infallible rule of faith for the Jew then…even though there were teachers of the law that felt that their oral tradition was from God and infallible. We all know how Jesus felt about this (read Mark 7, Matthew 15).

How then do you determine that Scripture is infallible?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells me that Scripture is God-breathed, therefore Scripture by its very nature is inspired. Scripture didn’t become infallible because a group of men met and declared it to be so. Scripture is infallible because God breathed it into existence. Think of the Christian in 1545 that didn’t have an “infallible” canon. Was the Scripture infallible for him? Of course it was.

The Council of Hippo (393), the Council of Carthage (397) both defined the Bible the same as it was later defined at Trent…So, I don’t think it was technically ‘infallible’, but it certaintly was official.

Well, you’ve done a lot of research, obviously…but it’s not as cut and dry here. First off, there is a dispute on whether Hippo’s canon was the same as Trent’s (3 Esdras). Secondly, the deuterocanonicals were handled differently by the Church all the way up until Trent–in fact the vast majority of Academia in the Church handled the Deuteros like the Lutherans do today: Useful for edification, but not infallible. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, and probably the greatest languages scholar of the early church did not consider the Deuteros inspired, neither did Origen, another scholar of the early church. During the Reformation we see Cardinal Cajetan even saying that “Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus,…For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.”

The real question is how do you discern whether scripture is indeed inspired? There is a list of other religious writings. How can we logically separate apocryphal sources from inspired scripture without an authoritative entity?

God didn’t “list” his canon in the sense that he inspired a 67th book of the Bible called “Canon” that was inspired just like the books of the Bible. Instead, God’s canon was an artifact of inspiration–the act of inspiring the books in the Bible created the canon (which is infallible because it is God’s canon).

On the other hand we have man’s fallible canon. Man’s canon is not inspired, so it is not infallible.

I believe what R.C. Sproul and Dr. John Gerstner have said, “The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.” The canon, because it is not inspired, is fallible, but the Bible itself is infallible.

Do I think Rome got the New Testament right? Yes. I recognize that when Rome wrote down what she thought the Canon was, she was fallible. It was a historical process. Now it’s one thing to say the church could have erred with respect to the canon, and another thing to say the church did err. I think Rome got the NT canon correct, but I admit there is room for error in the NT canon–because the canon isn’t inspired. I also believe it is correct because I believe God would have reason to give us a correct canon.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Cat:

I am the one who said I think that James White is arrogant and hate-filled.

Perhaps I do owe Mr. White an apology.

Hi Cat,

I give you kudos for your admission…but I’m having trouble understanding your reasons for thinking the article Dr. White wrote was “hate-filled” and “arrogant.”

I don’t know this board’s policy on outside links, but the article is entitled “Sola Scriptura in Dialogue” and it’s on Dr. White’s website…Alpha and Omega Ministries.

The article was written as loose fiction based on real experiences (as he states at the bottom of the article). I re-skimmed it before responding to you and honestly I don’t see the connection between the horrible confrontation you had at your former Protestant Church and White’s article–is there any specific section that seemed like White was “shredding” the fictitious Catholic to bits, etc.?

You said that the Catholic was providing weak argument for sola Scriptura and yet as I read it and compare it to the arguments I see given at this board and other Catholic boards–I notice that they are identical. And if you view the arguments as weak…as I do…maybe you should study sola Scriptura again.

I can tell you are a writer–you are very articulate. But taking one article which describes Dr. White’s apologetic encounter with someone as enough proof to publicly call him “hate-filled” and “arrogant” is, I think, a tad bit out of line. But we all say things we regret later, and I have said some whoppers myself, that I wish I could take back…maybe you’d like to go ahead with that apology to Dr. White.

And I too, will admit publicly that I’ve been a jerk to people online and allowed anger to speak when I should have been delivering my message with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15).

It’s late…and I got to be to church in 5.5 hours. Yikes.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[RobNY]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 tells me that Scripture is God-breathed, therefore Scripture by its very nature is inspired. Scripture didn’t become infallible because a group of men met and declared it to be so. Scripture is infallible because God breathed it into existence. Think of the Christian in 1545 that didn’t have an “infallible” canon. Was the Scripture infallible for him? Of course it was.

My question isn’t how you know Scripture is inspired, so much as what Scripture is inspired. Again, I went over everything here in my seventh paragraph of my last post.

Well, you’ve done a lot of research…

Whether the canon was the same in Trent as it was in Hippo, or Carthage is really tangential to our argument. Its an interesting argument to hold, but I’m not sure at this point it really matters that much in view of the rest of the argument.

God didn’t “list”…The canon, because it is not inspired, is fallible, but the Bible itself is infallible.

I agree that Scripture is infallible. I agree that it is infallible because God inspired it, not because of anything man did to assemble it. I know that. I said that in my last post.

But, that doesn’t ignore the integral role man played in forming and assembling canon either. Sola Scripture relies completely on, and absolutely needs Scripture to be infallible- and it not only needs Scripture to be infallible, it needs to know what Scripture is infallible. You can only tell what Scripture is infallible with an authoritative body. (And if you cannot know what Scripture is infallible, then you cannot base your beliefs concretely on anything.)

Do I think Rome got the New Testament right? Yes. I recognize that when Rome wrote down what she thought the Canon was, she was fallible. It was a historical process. Now it’s one thing to say the church could have erred with respect to the canon, and another thing to say the church did err. I think Rome got the NT canon correct, but I admit there is room for error in the NT canon–because the canon isn’t inspired. I also believe it is correct because I believe God would have reason to give us a correct canon.

God bless,
c0ach

The only purpose of this argument was really to show the Church did have an ‘authority’ in certain matters. Because, you attempted to shift the burden of proof to Catholics, to prove that there was an outside authority.

The Church could have erred? I think this is significantly more important that you let it seem it is. What if they are wrong?

What if, say, the Gospel of John is really not inspired?

Gosh, that would throw a monkey wrench in your attempts at salvation, wouldn’t it?

Now you don’t *think Rome got it wrong. *That’s fine and dandy and whatnot. But what you are saying is that the very Scripture you read may not, in fact, be God-inspired. Why? Because no matter which way you slice it a man (or group of men) had to assemble the Bible.

Because SS relies so heavily not just on the inerrancy of the Bible (which we agree on), but on the primacy of the Bible, I don’t see how you can even allow for the canon being incorrect. (And remember that you said that there is no more revelation- according to that at least, even if we did assemble the Bible incorrectly, there would still be no more revelation from God.)

Scripture Alone without being able to know what Scripture really is God-inspired and what is apocryphal, is a lamp without fuel.

(I had to edit down my quotes of you to meet the character length requirements.)

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Da Coach wrote:
"Protestants have always maintained and readily assert that sola Scriptura did not apply when Jesus was walking the earth and when Prophets are inspired to write Scripture. Obviously there would be other, God-breathed, infallible rules of faith during those times! This isn’t a problem for Protestants, we readily accept this."

However, once there is no more revelation (and Catholics Theology is right when it says that revelation has ceased) there isn’t any more God-breathed rules of faith for Scripture to serve beside. The Bible stands alone, the only God-breathed revelation that we still possess."

Coach, I am not denying that there was not new revelation in the form of Jesus and the prophets, but I am saying that Jesus and the prophets had to teach sola scriptura–and their teaching has to be found explicitly in Scripture for the teaching to be valid by its own principles. In other words, all that I was saying was that Sola Scriptura could not have simply been a doctrine that developed after the apostolic period–as somewhere it was written that White admitted. Where does Jesus or the apostles teach it? 2 Tim 3:16 proves that Scripture is God-breathed and inspired (no Catholic denies that) and that it is profitable, that is, effective/valuable for teaching, etc. Patrick Madrid’s basic challenge in his debate with White still stands. If Scripture alone (without an authoritative magiesterium and tradition to INTERPRET it) is sufficient for all beliefs necessary for salvation, why do two given Protestants (say, an Anglican and a Baptist) differ over their belief of whether or not it is valid to baptize infants?–would not both men seem to be “men of God”. The impossibility of the actual application of Sola Scriptura–seen through the constantly growing division among sects on essential issues–seals the case against it.

"AngelicDoctor, I appreciate your civil tone and your reasoned response. Do you know where the Bible teaches another God-breathed rule of faith?"
Sure–off of the top of my head–the church is said to be “the Church of the living God, the pillar and bullwark of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15); Jesus told his apostles that “he who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me…” (Lk 10:16); Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15). Scripture is replete with references to authoritative teaching Church that Jesus established. If the CHurch is necessary to understand and interpret the revelation handed down by word and letter–than SS (with the complementary belief in private interpretation of Scripture) does not work. This is exactly what the CHurch did in Acts 15, this was a primitive council–the apostles and elders gathered together to figure out the implications of the received revelation, applying it to a new problem that had arose. The rest of the history of the Church demonstrates the need for councils and creeds amidst heretics and orthodox Christians swapping biblical ammo.

 

[chimakuni]

James White is a professional debator and his ego is well fed by his debates. He could be debating numerous positions and he would still be excellent at doing so.

Those of you who have written long pieces (and short) about James White and his intentions…will you please join me in praying for his conversion?

James White loves God in a mighty way - and he sincerely believes his way is correct. That does not mean that God cannot use us to help James in his conversion to Rome. Since we cannot change James…only ourselves, let us pray for him and see what God will do!

God Bless -

 

[MrS]

c0achmcguirk:

Correct. Sola Scriptura does not apply when Scripture is being revealed. But it was in effect 20 years before Christ was born, so I wouldn’t say that SS started after the New Testament was written.

WRONG - Even the Pharisees and /Sadducees did not agree on what was scriptural… Jesus rebuked them both to at least live by what they believed.

It doesn’t.

Well, I would part ways with you here. One doesn’t need an infallible canon to say that Scripture is infallible.

HUH? Do you mean since there is no index in the Bible we can’t know what should be in the Bible?

How did the Jewish man twenty years before Christ know what was Scripture and what wasn’t? He didn’t have an infallible canon then, and yet Scripture was still infallible, correct?

Actually, the canon wasn’t “infallible” (from the Roman Catholic perspective) until November 1546, when Trent officially made it so. One can have an infallible Bible without an infallible canon.

VERY WRONG and VERY PROTESTANT

Trent, in answer to the reformation, re-affirmed the Canon, which had been accepted and remained unchanged (although questioned and discussed) for over 1100 years.

God bless,
c0ach

MrS

 

[MrS]

c0achmcguirk:

Let me back up a bit. Sola Scriptura simply says that the only infallible rule of faith in our possession is the Scripture. There are other rules of faith–like our pastors, orthodox believers, our parents, the law, church tradition, church fathers, etc…but only one is infallible and incapable of error: the Scriptures.

NOWHERE does scripture say this or even imply this. The Protestant understanding would include this: If you want to know the truth, it will be found in Scripture…Scripture Alone. They will not recognize Tradition or the Magisterium. Thus they are left to their own immagination, or “movement” by the spirit…such movements differing among 30,000 denominations.

With that in mind, what other rule of faith was infallible on the Jew twenty years before Christ? None, right? Granted there were rabbis and teachers of the law that had their opinions on what the law was and what God taught, but Jesus made it clear that the Pharisees and Sadducees et al were in the wrong and added to Scripture.

Without any other infallible God-breathed rules of faith, sola Scriptura was in effect for the Jew twenty years before Christ. Even though the Pharisees and Sadducees might have told them otherwise.

**Nope. They could not even agree as to what was in Scripture. or… **
if the Jews recognized a teaching authority could they then discount what the teaching authority was teaching?

God bless,
c0ach

MrS

 

[c0achmcguirk]

RobNY:

Whether the canon was the same in Trent as it was in Hippo, or Carthage is really tangential to our argument. Its an interesting argument to hold, but I’m not sure at this point it really matters that much in view of the rest of the argument.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood. When you listed all the councils that mentioned the canon, I thought you were making the argument that the canon was “infallible” long before 1546, and realizing that most likely Trent and Carthage and Hippo disagreed on the canon drastically changes this. If that wasn’t the point you were trying to make, I’ll drop it.

But, that doesn’t ignore the integral role man played in forming and assembling canon either. Sola Scripture relies completely on, and absolutely needs Scripture to be infallible- and it not only needs Scripture to be infallible, it needs to know what Scripture is infallible.

Rob, when you make the argument that one needs an infallible canon to have an infallible Bible, it’s like saying “I can’t use my computer since I don’t know exhaustively how it works.”

Look, I don’t need to know exhaustively how my computer works in order to claim to say that it works (although as a Computer Engineer I have a pretty good idea what’s going on in there).

You may feel that Rome has some “advantage” concerning infallibility–the Church and the Canon are both infallible, in your eyes. Of course you have a problem–how do you know Rome is infallible? How do you know that the Mormons, who claim to have an “infallible magisterium” aren’t the true church? On the other hand, how about the Jehovah’s Witnesses who also have an “infallible magisterium”–are they the true church? Or maybe you looked at the Seventh-Day Adventists, whose “infallible interpreter” is Ellen G. White? Or perchance you looked into the Way International whose “infallible” founder’s interpretation you need before you can understand the Scriptures correctly?

The bottom line is (1) you fallibly decided that there should be an infallible interpreter. (2) you fallibly used private interpretation of the Scriptures and history to conclude that there is an infallible interpreter. (3) you fallibly decided that Rome is that infallible interpreter while rejecting the tens of thousands of other competing authorities.

Now, is your canon infallible? Nope–and neither is mine.

But the Pope is Infallible!

Now herein lies the rub. A Roman Catholic has absolutely no problem accepting that the Pope is infallible when speaking on matters of faith and morals, yet when asked to show how they know this infallibly they respond with silence.

If you say that the Protestant must have an infallible list of books in order to say that the Bible is infallible, you’d better be prepared to provide an infallible list of Popes in order to say that the Pope is infallible.

God bless,
c0ach