James White Debate

[c0achmcguirk]

I posted a lot last night…and this is what you comment on?

MariaG:

I think we’ve exhausted this topic . When you make a statement:
This is a complete overstatement and twisting of what has been said here. Are thes honest questions?

Yes. Read them in context with what GAssisi said…that God’s truth must be preached without any hint of error whatsoever, or else he isn’t glorified. I’ve yet to meet a man or woman who can claim to preach God’s truth without any error…therefore God can’t receive glory AT ALL from any fallible men.

MariaG, I noticed you didn’t respond to what I posted to you last night. Are you able to demonstrate an oral teaching held by the apostles that wasn’t recorded in Scripture?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[jordan]

c0achmcguirk:

This is an oral teaching which is recorded (one and the same) in Scripture!

Coach:

You set the bar high, indeed! Pretty tough to demonstrate an oral teaching held by the Apostles that is not recorded in Scripture. If it involved early apostolic teaching recorded in writing, surely that writing would be part of our Scriptures. But then again, how do we prove that the NT Scripture you and I hold as the Word of God, is what we believe it to be?

What needs to be remembered is that New Testament Scripture is what it is because of its fidelity to the oral teachings of the Apostles. Since there were many false gospels and epistles circulating under the names of apostles, how was one to know which scripture was Scripture? All the various “churches” did not agree on what should, or should not be in the canon. The matter was settled at the Council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I.

There were many oral traditions that were part of the faith of the Church, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary, but the books selected for the canon were selected not because they contained all of Apostolic Tradition, but because they did not conflict with it.

The NT canon is, in fact, based on oral traditions.

God bless!

jb

“There are also many things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21: 25)

 

[MariaG]

Sorry, I honestly did not see the point in responding if you somehow think anyone was implying that ever priest that has ever taught is infallible.

But since you say you are, no, papal infallibility does not extend to every priest who ever taught.

I also have a family, and research for your question takes time. Here are not the listed Traditions, but words of the church fathers talking about tradition. You can find the whole article here: catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

Eusebius of Caesarea
"At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition" (*Church History *4:21).

(You’ll notice it talks of writings from those other than the Apostles.)

Irenaeus
“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (*Against Heresies *1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . **What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?” **(ibid., 3:4:1).

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and **most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
**
“With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the **faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” **(ibid., 3:3:1–2).

There is more. Please read for yourself. I will later look for the spefic teaching referred to in the above, but the church has always understood that there was a oral tradition different from scriptures both equal in value. You can choose to believe otherwise but the early writings of the church and church understanding of those writings and oral teachings has always been such. I will look for a speific tradition for you.

 

[MariaG]

A point was brought up earlier that telling people to hold fast to what we’ve told you and written to you is very different than saying hold fast to what I’ve told you and written the same words down. That would be redundant. Why not just say hold to those words I have written to you (because I’ve written down everything I said.)

As well as it is on the ridiculous side to think that John was referring to what color Jesus’ eyes were or what he ate. The verse directly before refers specifically to all the previous miracles that were written down.

Jn 21:24- 25 This is the disciple who testifies of these things and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contaim the books that would be written. Amen

I do not expect you to actually agree with the interpretation of Catholic words and Catholic teachings. Lately, all I seem to debate are those who tell me that no, the church is wrong to interpret those words this way, here let me and my friends who are not Catholic tell you what the Church teaches. But I keep praying there will be a first who does not insist that they can interpret the teachings of the Catholic church better than those who are Catholic. Maybe you’ll be the first?

God Bless,
Maria

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Coach:

You wrote:
"Remember, it is you and Maria asserting that these oral traditions are not recorded in Scripture. Could you demonstrate one of them and prove they originated with the apostles?"

I am only saying that Paul says to hold fast to the traditions–be they written or oral–and that he does not qualifiy that statement further with any charge that for oral teachings to be binding they must eventually be wrtiten down (if Sola Scriptura was an important part of Paul’s theology, then this “or oral” option would have hung out there as a source of potential confusion). His point is that the traditions are binding because they originate from the authoritative church. At the very least, 2 Thess 2:15 is awkward for Sola Scriptura advocates (even if some references to traditions refer back to things taught previously).

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, Catholic view on Sacred tradition does not necessarily mean these “secret” truths totally unrelated to anything in Scripture. I wrote the following about teachings in tradition that were based on Scripture and necesasry developments of Scripture (see below). The precise nature of Jesus Christ (the important balance between his humanity and his divinity), the nature of the persons of the Trinity and their relationship to one another, etc. ARE NOT EXPLICITLY SPELLED OUT IN SCRIPTURE although they have their roots in Scripture. Heresy, as I said, is, in part, an incorrect interpretation/expounding upon/developing/application of Scripture. Therefore, an authoritative Church has to meet (councils) to discuss the issue and, guided by the Holy Spirit, discern the truth. That truth which is the end product, while it is based on Scripture, STILL CANNOT BE HAD BY SIMPLY ANY PERSON, AT ANY TIME, JUST READING THE BIBLE BY THEM SELVES (apart from the magisterium and tradition of the Church). [by the way, do not read the caps as anger–that is just for emphasis]
You have not addressed these issues, coach (I understand that you are answering many people, but just try to address this point about the development of doctrine). I recommend reading John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. NOt to take away from Dr. White, but Newman was a true historian and biblical scholar.

My previous quote was:
“What have you to say about the question of the development of doctrine? The church’s oral tradition has its kernal source in Scripture. However, questions arise about revelation as recorded in Scripture that had to be answered anew as the Church reflected on Sacrede Scripture, grew in its understanding of it, and applied it to new problems.
The CHurch found it necessary to debate and meet in council to decide that Jesus has both a human and divine nature (vs. Arianism and Docetism–Scripture can be used to argue both sides), and that his humanity was consubstantial with our own(monophysites denied this–citing Scripture). The Scriptures possess the foundation for a belief in the Trinity–but the Ttradition of the Church had to unfold to determine what exactly was the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (while some said the Son was subordinate to the Father, some said he was not, some denied the divinity of the HS).
How does Sola Scriptura solve these problems? How does sola scriptura (with private interpretation as a consequence) allow for an authoritative church to receive the Scriptures and grow in its understanding of them when heresies and new questions arise?”

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Coach,

One other question for you. You mentioned in your post defining the true nature of Sola Scriptura, beyond the misconceptions, that SS did NOT mean that the church does not have a teaching role.

My question is–what exactly is this teaching role of the church with Sola Scriptura? Why do I need the church to teach anything after divine revelation is completed and all is on ink and paper. Can’t I just read the Bible and come to the truths my self?

The tradition and magisterium of the church is important also for placing the emphasis in the right areas–Scripture speaks of Christ’s divinity and his humanity–what is the true balance? Paul speaks of salvation through faith and James says faith without works is dead–so how do we understand justification and salvation, and the important balance between faith and a faith that is only genuine (real) and lived out only when it is expressed in works (same as actions) of charity? Catholics believe that the Church helps find the proper balance in discerning doctrine and answering questions as they arise. But Sola Scriptura has resulted in an ever-growing number of Protestant sects that all follow Sola Scriptura and yet teaching different things regarding issues central to salvation (when can one be baptized and what is its effect, can salvation be lost), and other doctrinal and disciplinary issues still important (do women have authority to preach/be pastors/priests, is homosexual acts sinful–this last one seems obvious in Scripture, and yet, Prots disagree–if they interpret wrong, who has the authority to say, the church?), etc.

Just saying that all teachings must be found in Scripture is not convincing to me, because there are serious disagreements (not just unimportant nuances) as to how different “churches” interpret Scripture. I see no other way other than that there must be some one authoritative teaching body and a tradition of interpreting the Word.

In short: What is the role of the church in relation to Sola Scriptura?

 

[MrS]

AngelicDoctor:

I have often heard the same arguments the coach tries to use to confuse both from friends and strangers…

Everything we need to know is in scripture.

Show me one oral teaching I have to believe for my salvation.

Show me one Tradition handed down from the Apostles that is not in Scripture.

After much prayer, I saw that I could not play this game. And it is a game when you submit to the “authority” of the one outside the Catholic church to defend the authority of the Church.

So I started over. Using the numerous verses in scripture that weave the story of our Church, I tried to show the reasonableness behind the establishment of the Church, and the reasonableness for the authority of the Church. With that, everything else falls into place, slowly but surely

It took a little while. But I can only do what I can do. After that we need to let God take over. Eyes are opened in His time.

Anyway, the effort is often worth it. In was in one particular case. Because the one who was zealously presenting the Protestant position was my son. He is asking more questions, good question, and not mindless banter that has enveloped the coach.

You do a nice job discussing with him. Others tend to argue or debate. That won’t work. Prayer, patience and reason will.

MrS

 

[Exporter]

There are professional Anti-Catholics such as Jimmy Swaggart and Lorain Boettner, who wrote “Catholocism”. These and Tony Alamo make their living from poor ignorant people who buy their tapes, pamphlets and books. Their energy is not directed toward teaching the Word of God , but in making a living by using Catholocism their target.

I do not know about Dr. White, but I do know a little about Fr. Mitch Pakwa. I would not give a nickle for Dr. White from what I have learned on this thread. Mitch Pakwa is not a “professional” Anti- Protestant, he is a teacher of God’s Word.

When a Catholic is talking to a Protestant about faith, the Protestant want “SPECIAL” privileges. They will say," You show me a verse on the Bible that says what you just said." They are tied to verses and Bible only. This is a game they want to play. We know that the Anti-Catholics DO NOT want to allow the Catholic to use all three of his Authorities: Oral Tradition, Scripture and The Holy Spirit acting through the Magistirium.

When talking to Anti-Catholics, ask them how they know the books in their “English Bible”(KJV) are inspired…do they get it from the Bible? The only Book of the New Testament that says it is inspired is the Book by John - The Apocalypse!

 

[fulloftruth]

You know I have noticed something about the proposition of Sola Scriptura as a rule of faith. I have seen it said by Coach that there are Catholics that disagree on Catholic Teachings, and how that some how shows that this is a problem for both rules of faith, that is that the Bible alone is the only infallible rule of faith, and The Bible, the Magesterium and Sacred Tradition Make up the entire rule of faith. I think it would be good if we could stick to official church documents on both sides, because any member of any church can disagree with parts of their Churches teaching, that in itself does not make the teaching wrong. So if we could look at official dogmas and doctrines from each sides Church, then we could see who has the truth as a rule of faith. The Catholic position is the only position that can cover all bases 100% where as other positions may have parts of the truth, but because of thier rule of faith they cannot account for all that scripture says as a whole and not have contradictions. Scripture must be read in context and with an understanding of who the writer was writing to and for what purpose. The letters in the NT are all pretty particular to thier adressee’s needs and cultural differences. Depending on if the wroter was writing to Romans or Jews or who ever, determines alot about the context of the writing. If you listen to James White and Coach and others, they are pretty crafty with thier arguments, but they do not have the assurance of infallibility in knowing that thier interpretation is the one that God had intended.

This analogy of the computer and the manual is not a complete analogy. If we are talking about using something at its bear minimum or basic necessity, than I find no disagreement on the Catholic side, But if you are talking about leading others into all truth and being an expert at the inner workings of the computer and being able to teach other how to not only use the computer with great knowledge but to fix it when it breaks or how to avoid or correct a virus in its hard drive then no, you will not be sufficiently equiped even with the manual, you will need the manufacturer and the designer and creator. So that is a bad analogy, even for James White.

Originally Posted by fulloftruth
*If, when the Canon was assembled, all of the apostles were dead, and Christ was in heaven, who or what was used infallibly to determine what was inspired and what was not. Since they did not use Scripture to assemble the list of Canon, doesn’t that kind of prove that scripture is not the only infallable authority *
Coaches Response:
If you read my previous posts you would know that I don’t claim the Church was infallible when she determined the Canon. It was a historical process that allowed for the possibility of error, even though I believe that there wasn’t error (as far as the New Testament is concerned)

So let me get this straight, you are taking as the final Infallible rule of faith, a document that could have been put together errantly, and you don’t know if it was, and you have no authority that you subscribe to on earth that can tell you either way, yet thats good enough for you as long as it contradicts the Catholic Church, right. I guess the Church got it right even by your standards. Dumb luck huh. And if you don’t know, the apocraphyl books were always considered inspired and the reason why the Jews stopped circulating them is because they pointed to Jesus as the Messiah, before Christ they were just as highly thought of as all of the other Scriptures.

 

[fulloftruth]

Posted By Fulloftruth:
If that does not prove that to you, then when, and you must prove this from scripture, did the authority cease to be authoritative and when did Scripture become the only infallible rule of faith, and not the Church that assembled and Promulgated it.

Response By Coach:
This is silly. I don’t have to prove to you the exact date and time that SS came into effect to prove SS true any more than you need to prove the exact day the Earth was created to prove God created the Earth.

Really educated response there, incoherent maybe!
How about a century, a millenium? How about a reasonable answer to the question. Since the Bible that we use today was not composed until the 4th century, what authority on earth sifted through the inspired and non-inspired documents and made a de fide pro-nouncement(really happened in the 17th century but it was the same list as the 4th). I guess you don’t think that it necessarily had to be infallible and you don’t like that authority or acknowledge it but you will use their finished work as your sole infallible rule of faith any way. Sounds like thievery if you ask me.

Posted by Fulloftruth:
Jesus did recognize Papal infallibility, he instituted it. When Jesus stated in Matt 16:18-19, that Peter would be given the “keys to the Kingdom,” He was pulling from the text of Isaiah 22:20-24 almost verbatum. Response by Coach:

If this is true, Jesus would have corrected the Apostles who were arguing over who was the greatest among them in Matthew 18. But this is not the case. The Apostles certainly didn’t think Peter was their leader, nor the greatest among them as their disputes in Matthew 18 and Mark 9:33-37 show.

I don’t see where this causes a problem for Peter’s primacy. It wasn’t until Pentecost that he thought he was the Leader or had the stones to act on it. But to take Peter being given the Keys, and being told that he would be used as the foundation to which Christ would build a church that the Gates of hell would not prevail against, a church that Christ would be with always till the end of time, a church that was given the power to bind or loose things in heaven, a place where I think we all agree nothing imperfect can enter, which kind of gaurantees that he and his succesors will be protected from teaching error, a church that was breathed on by God himself, a church that was given the power to forgive and bind sins, a power previously restricted to God himself and ultimatley still restricted to God himself but administered throught the Church in his physical stead, the church that he started. The Church that has the power to excommunicate, which, if bound in heaven and on earth, means eternal damnation, if not reversed by the Church, the Church that is spoken of as the heavenly Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ, The Church that is en route to being the perfected Kingdom of David, with Christ as Its King, Peter and his successors as the Prime Minister, and Mary as the Queen Mother, You cannot get any more Biblical than this.

 

[porter11]

c0achmcguirk:

If one needs an infallible canon (list of books) to say that the Bible is infallible, does one need an infallible list of Popes to say that the Papacy is infallible?

This is pure garbage! Who would deny the towering difference between believing ‘these ten books are infallible’ and ‘that guy is infallible’. The simplicity of the latter statement alone makes it intrinsically more probable than the former (all else being equal), and so it doesn’t need the same degree of justification as the former (all else being equal).

There are substantive differences between an infallible person and an infallible book. To begin with, the book can’t stop and correct you if it sees you are interpreting it incorrectly. The infallible person can stop you and correct you if he sees you are interpreting him incorrectly. An infallible person WITH an infallible book is very helpful, because the infallible person can tell you if you are interpreting the infallible book incorrectly and proceed to correct you.

  It is simply ridiculous to deny the immense value of an infallible interpreter of the Bible.  This value contributes to the plausibility of the existence of a Magisterium over the sola scriptura scenario unless one can demonstrate how the lack of an infallible interpreter is somehow ‘better’.  (Mind you, I’m not saying this alone makes it a justified belief, but only contributes to its plausibility given the relevant background information [God’s nature, the plan of salvation, etc].)

This is why your insistance that interpretation is a problem for Catholics is absurd. Historically, when interpretation of Scripture has been a problem, the Church stepped in and sufficiently cleared things up. Later, when interpretation became problematic again, the Church stepped in and sufficiently cleared things up. And this can continue until our Lord comes again!

It is also important to remember that the differing interpretations of what is given by the Magisterium are extremely minor compared to the differing interpretations amongst protestants, as well as between protestants and Catholics. Differing interpretations within the Church involve non-salvific issues while those amongst protestants and between Catholics and protestants involve requirements for salvation. For you to draw this comparison is misleading at best.

The weak argument you gave to justify your belief that your canon is correct (that God wouldn’t let us get the canon wrong) could just as easily be applied to the Magisterium (God wouldn’t let us interpret the Bible incorrectly). And given the (as James White calls them) ‘heretical’ beliefs (regenerative baptism, the Real Presence, etc. etc. etc.) that the Church Fathers unanimously believed came directly out of Scripture at the time the Canon was established, this principle should apply to them. It is the same principle: God wouldn’t let them be misled so gravely. If you don’t agree, then it is just to suit your own beliefs and for no other reason.
(The statement ‘that guy and those ten books are both infallible’ only requires as much substantive justification as ‘that guy is infallible’, given ‘that guy asserts that those ten books are infallible’ and a proper understanding of ‘infallible’. Thus, the above argument cannot be effectively reversed.)

 

[porter11]

But how about the fact that the Gospel of John, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, James, Jude, and Revelation were all heavily disputed texts and their attributed authorship is doubted to this day? I can’t be sure of what I’m about to say because I don’t have the texts on hand, but I believe the Gospel of John was only included for political reasons (if you are a protestant), not because of any rational support for its inclusion. How do you justify your belief that your canon is correct? Don’t say you’ve already answered this, because you haven’t. To say that the bible is a fallible collection of infallible books only bespeaks ignorance, not justification. What justifies you in believing that you have the right canon (and remember that if you say that ‘God wouldn’t let us get it wrong’ you must apply that to the interpretations of the Church at the time as well, which I assume you believe to have been seriously mistaken)?

Your speaking as though the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff were not held by the Church Fathers is laughable. Starting from the New Testament, to Clement of Rome, to Ignatius of Antioch, to Irenaeus of Lyons, and on through the Fathers (it only gets more explicit), the hierarchy of the Church is repeatedly found, and Rome is always at the top. In fact, this whole discussion is so ridiculous in light of a good and thorough reading of the Church Fathers (especially if one pays attention to who is writing who about what and the various tones that are taken).

And by the way, the Protestants that write in major scholarly journals affirm that when our Lord gave St. Peter the keys of the kingdom, it was obviously a reference to Isaiah. (e.g. Evans, Wright, Hemer, Blomberg). The plural/singular argument you make relies upon a limping hermeneutic.

 

[porter11]

One last thing:

This business about ‘Pope glasses’ is postmodernistic rubbish. The same argument applies to all historical investigations which confirm traditional beliefs. This type of historical postmodernism has been trashed (thankfully) and is only occasionally bounced around within the field of psychology (in a very unacademic way).

To give a counter-example: a Jehovah’s Witness could accuse a Christian of wearing ‘Christ glasses’. The Christian would say that Christ’s divinity is clear from the texts, but the Jehovah’s Witness would reply that he is simply reading his Christology back into the texts. The JW would say that if it were true, then the text would be more explicit.

I could even suggest ‘Reformation glasses’ are at play here! Of course, I won’t, because that would be almost as ridiculous as the ‘Pope glasses’.

 

[porter11]

I’m sorry, this could just be my Pope glasses, but…

[From Irenaeus’ Against Heresies]:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings…by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by showing] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

So the people are “the Church” only so far as they agree with the Church in Rome and the successors of the apostles. This sounds familiar…

 

[Cat]

I have not read all of these apologies.

I don’t need to.

Sola Scriptura is false because it doesn’t work in practice.

I was a part of evangelical churches for over 40 years. I saw on a daily, weekly, monthly basis, many incidences of one Christian interpreting Scripture one way, and another Christian interpreting Scripture in aN opposing way.

I can’t even begin to list the thousands of examples, some minor ("Should women wear head coverings in church?) and some major (Does everyone who is filled with the Holy Spirit speak in tongues).

And some VERY major–ask any Christian “What shall I do to be saved?” and you will get as many answers as there are Christians.

It seems to me that our eternal destiny is pretty important and that God never intended that dozens of versions of “How To Be Saved,” many in opposition to each other, would be floating around.

When I was kicked out of my Protestant church (Evangelical Free Church in America), I forever lost my belief in Sola Scriptura. I actually think this doctrine is evil. I think Satan created it as a means of dividing Christians.

One of the big trends in Protestant Christianity today is to stay away from any church and simply read the Bible and pray by yourself, allowing God to teach you. I am serious! Don’t listen to any man, just read the Bible and decide for yourself with the help of the Holy Spirit.

And the thinking among many Protestants–educated Protestants, teachers who publish best-sellers–that God actually allows many different interpretations of the Bible to accomodate the differences in people.

No wonder Christians practice abortion and homosexuality and all kinds of other “differences.”

The pastors and deacons–men and women ordained as leaders of our church–who threw me out twisted the Bible to prove that I had “strived against their leadership” and “been divisive.”

I believe I did nothing wrong.

The pastors conveniently ignored all the passages such as Matthew 5 and Matthew 18 and others that give a “procedure” for resolving conflicts and restoring each other. When my husband and I tried to point out these Scriptures, they said, “You’re just twisting the Bible to get what you want.”

But, say Protestant friends, this is just man’s misuse of Scriptures. The Scriptures are solely sufficient, but man is the one who misinterprets, because of man’s sinful nature.

So Jesus gives us a mystery Book, but no key to decipher it?

Even though Jesus said that He didn’t trust men, because He knew what was in their hearts, He left the Scriptures in our sinful hands without a clue?

And since we are sinful, how can we ever trust anyone’s interpretation, including our own, of Holy Scripture?

The HOLY SPIRIT! say Protestants. If a Christian truly relies on the Holy Spirit, that Christian will be led into all truth.

That means that either I, or the pastors of my old church, were not led by the HOLY Spirit, because we each came to different conclusions about what the Bible was saying.

One of us was led into a lie. WHAT SPIRIT led us into that lie?

And HOW did that Spirit manage to deceive Christians who are supposedly filled with the Holy Spirit?

Frightening.

And WHY does the Holy Spirit lead some to interpret that the Bible–this is just an example–teaches that homosexuality is a sin, while others interpret that the Bible teaches that God created homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality, and wants everyone to accept them.

Or that abortion is the “loving way” to deal with unwanted children. Yes, I have read this in Christian books and articles. In one of Tim LaHaye’s (Left Behind) early books, he and his wife wrote several paragraphs about the necessity of abortion when the mother has no resources.

Sola Scriptura is wrong because it doesn’t work.

 

[Psalm45_9]

Cat:

One of the big trends in Protestant Christianity today is to stay away from any church and simply read the Bible and pray by yourself, allowing God to teach you. I am serious! Don’t listen to any man, just read the Bible and decide for yourself with the help of the Holy Spirit.

I believe you, it happened to my old girlfriend. She left the Catholic church because she was a liberal and did not like all the conservativness of the Catholic Church. Then she became Baptist, but eventually found them to be very closed minded, then she became a Unitarian. But that was too liberal, since that church states everyone will be saved, you can openly deny Christ’s divinity and still be saved! Then she became a Methodist, but she got into arguments with them. Now she belongs to her own Bible believing church, and she’s the only member.

 

[losav]

I dont know James White and I have no interest in knowing him. I have a lot of things to learn in the Catholic faith and I wouldn’t reach my hundred years of learning its rich Tradition. I thank God, english is not my mother tongue and that He didn’t give me the art of being articulate and excellent in philosophical arguments like Coach. I just thank God he gave me simple thought and simple heart to accept these teachings. I got this wisdom from my illeterate mother who taught me how to pray to God and to love the saints.

To coach, thank you for giving us all the things that we must learn as Catholics and thank you also for your interest in this topic. And since you are here already in this site, I would humbly suggest you to read thorughly what is written here at www.catholic.com with suspended judgment. And if you disagree, just leave it for us. It is meant only for those who believe. God bless you abundantly. While you are making the best arguments, it doesn’t diminish my love for this church and I am holding fast to her teachings.

God bless you and the Catholic Church…

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Coach,

Thank you for validating my position. I see your best defense of White is simply to show how I used certain rhetorical jargon wrongly. I suppose I could challenge you on that, and justify how I used my terms correctly, but that is not the point.

I have called White a hypocrite in his beliefs and dishonest in his debating tactics. I have amply proven that. I do not have to apologize for anything to Mr. White. However, I have NOT called him “hate-filled,” though I do believe he is very arrogant (this was amply proven in a debate he had with James Akin on the Bible Answer Man regarding merit; Akin amply explained the Catholic position to show that the doctrine of merit is not Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian, but White would not listen to the Catholic understanding, but maintained his tirade based on his own ignorance; THAT is arrogant, Coach, no matter how you put it) I would normally not ask for an apology since I understand that you are one to many, and may confuse what one person said with another. But since you attempted to use the supposed fact that I described White as “hate-filled” as actual rhetorical leverage, I will ask for an apology.

BTW, attempting to make a comparison between Mormons and Catholics IS an ad hominem, because there is no justification for the comparison. So what one is left with is merely an impression that Catholics are not Christians. THAT is an ad hominem. Call it “guilt by association” if you like, but it is ALSO an ad hominem. However, JW’s are often compared to Protestants JUSTIFIABLY because of your common belief in sola scriptura. THAT is not an ad hominem because you DO believe in sola scriptura – we are not attacking Protestantism or Protestants personally, but sola scriptura, and we want to impress how irrational sola scriptura is by showing that it can just as easily lead to a religion like the JW’s (in fact, the Arians, the heretical precursors of the JW’s also cried “sola scriptura” against orthodox Christianity). Like I said, White is rhetorically dishonest, saying or writing anything to score points with his audience, even though there is no justification for it.

Finally, your insistence on a list of infallible Popes and your false comparison to an infallible Bible IS a straw man because I am willing to bet that you are misunderstanding what papal infallibility entails, if you think it is comparable to biblical infallibility. BTW, where is your infallible list of infallible books?

You seem to like to impress people here in this forum with your rhetorical savvy. But I definitely remember St. Paul warning Christians against such “wisdom.” It is the same “wisdom” that White displays in his debates and books. Not TRUE wisdom, but only worldly rhetorical savvy. I am sure many here, including myself, are praying for you.

God bless,

Greg

 

[TobyLue]

To cOach—
Please excuse my ignorance since I am not an apologist, but I would like to know the following:

Whether someone teaches me or whether I’m self-taught to use the computer…it changes little. I can still use the computer even if I don’t know how it works exhaustively

How do you know if you are using it correctly? Tell me that not once have you had to ask for help from somebody or call tech support

In the same way, I don’t need to know the canon infallibly before I can claim that the Bible is infallible (inerrant, if you prefer).

Hmmm, you a mere human “can claim that the Bible is infallible .” By what methods? Prove to us by scripture alone that **you ***have the ability to make this statement because by this statement you are making yourself infallible.

Also

*It’s 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*

You said it is a very simple “doctrine”. When was this doctrine formulated, by whom and by that authority?

*Doctrine: *

*1. What is taught as the belief of a church, a nation, or a group of persons; belief; principle: Christian Doctrine *

*2. What is taught; teachings. *

3. Obsolete, the act of teaching; lesson.

Please show us when this doctrine was formulated and passed on to all Christians. If SS is to apply, please show us by Scripture Alone where one can find the verses of what the 6 claims that SS is not and the 5 claims that SS is since you claim it is a “doctrine”? And please a very simple answer that a simple brain can understand.
Thank you and God Bless…

 

[preyoflove]

"No, and I never claimed it. If having an infallible interpreter solves this dilemma of disagreement…why do I see so much disagreement among Catholics on issues like Thomists Vs. Molinists, Novus Ordo Folks vs. the Traditionalists, Sedevacantists vs. mainstream Roman Catholicism, among many many many other issues.

There are disagreements among those who hold to sola Scriptura, I’ll admit it. But that doesn’t discount the rule of faith!"

The infallible interpreter does not solve the dilemma of disagreement. People can disagree to their heart’s content–they have free will to do that. Jesus could not even keep the apostles from arguing among themselves who should be the greatest–even after he made Simon the first Pope! They can argue all their lives but that has nothing to do with the correctness of the infallible interpreter–which is the Church. And if you don’t agree with the interpretation of the infallible Church, you let go from the pillar and foundation of truth.