James White Debate

[c0achmcguirk]

Hello Maria!

I’ll kick off tonight’s reply session with you. Don’t get a big head.

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.)

Because this verse does not violate Sola Scriptura. SS does not apply during periods of inscripturation, the Apostles were inspired, no doubt.

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

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

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

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.

Forgive me for being unclear. I was simply pointing out that John 21:25 does not invalidate sola Scriptura, because it would be a ridiculous claim that SS contained all religous knowledge–it would be impossible!

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

AngelicDoctor:

if Sola Scriptura was an important part of Paul’s theology, then this “or oral” option would have hung out there as a source of potential confusion

One could counter and say if Paul was concerned that Thessalonians would understand the Magisterium and Papal Infallibility he would have put that in the letter to them as well. Or anywhere in the Bible, for that matter.

Speculation is fun, but it can lead to some terrible doctrine.

His point is that the traditions are binding because they originate from the authoritative church.

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

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.

I believe in development of doctrine, don’t get me wrong. Yes, I’m infinitely grateful that the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out by the early church. I’m blessed that the early church researched and compiled the NT canon. My acceptance of these doctrines does not violate sola Scriptura. It is still my duty to go back and check these doctrines to make sure that they do not violate Scriptures. Some early church councils do in fact go against Scripture, as you yourself pointed out. There are popes who teach error, even Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the 6th, 7th, and 8th Eccumenical Councils.

The point is: councils and Popes err and contradict each other. Scripture does not…it can not!

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

AngelicDoctor:

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?

Excellent questions AD. The Church is authoritative in its teachings, after all it is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), it’s clear that Christ established the Church for our benefit.

I’d be preaching to the choir if I brought up the numerous verses the lay out the importance of being a part of the Church, so I won’t waste bandwidth there.

The tradition and magisterium of the church is important also for placing the emphasis in the right areas

First, you’re making an invalid comparison, because you are comparing your Church against all the churches that adhere to sola Scriptura. You’re basically saying “Our organization has more organizational unity than all of your churches have.” Well, of course your organization has more organizational unity–a single organization always has more unity than a group of organizations.

You are saying that because there are disagreements among those who adhere to sola Scriptura, then I need an infallible interpreter to settle the issues. There are several problems with this argument.

1. The fact that people misinterpret the Bible isn’t the Bible’s fault. It’s the fallible person reading the Bible’s fault.
2. 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.
3. I, as an adherant to sola Scriptura, know what my (infallible) rule of faith is. It’s the Bible, and the Bible alone. What is the Catholic’s rule of faith?

Catholics disagree among themselves on which papal decrees, council rulings, teachings, etc. are infallible and binding and which aren’t. A Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox, and an Anglican may claim to follow the church or tradition, but he isn’t able define exactly what that is. He can’t cite something comparable to the evangelicals 66-book canon of Scripture.

People throw around the terms “the church” and “tradition” but they’ve been defined all sorts of ways over the centuries…and the alleged authority of “the church” and “tradition” isn’t verifiable like the authority of the Scripture is. We have compelling evidence for believing the infallibility for Scripture (prophecy, scientific foreknowledge, historical evidence). We don’t have specific evidence for the infallibility of “the church” and “tradition.”

So, I ask those who attack (the verifiable) sola Scriptura: What is your rule of faith? How can you verify it and interpret it without facing the same difficulties that you criticize in association with sola Scriptura?

God bless,
c0ach

PS: What is your rule of faith argument from members.aol.com/jasonte2/solawhat.htm

 

[c0achmcguirk]

fulloftruth:

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.

fulloftruth, you seem to have a beef against private interpretation.

1. Tell us how you came to decide that Rome was the “true” church without engaging in the very private judgment that you have already dismissed as illegitimate.
2. List all the complete Bible verses that have been infallibly interpreted by Rome and what Rome’s interpretation was.
3. List every time a Pope has issued an infallible statement and name said document.

Certainly one who can have “assurance in infallibility in knowing that their interpretation is the one God intended” would easily be able to answer all three.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

porter11:

How do you justify your belief that your canon is correct?

I accept the same criteria that the early church used. (1) apostolic origin (2) reception by the original churches, and (3) consistency with the undisputed core of canonical books.

Apostolic origin included not only the books that were written by the apostles themselves, but also those books that were authorized by the apostles. For example, the Gospel of Mark was seen as carrying the impimatur of Peter, and the Gospel of Luke the sanction of Paul.

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)?

I don’t follow your logic. I say that I believe the canon is right, but I say there is room for error and you take that to mean that I have to think the Church at the time is infallible? Seems quite a leap to go from “I agree with you here” to “I agree with you here, so therefore, everything else you say is without error.”

Your speaking as though the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff were not held by the Church Fathers is laughable.

You need to study the issue further before you laugh too hard, porter.

Matthew 16:18 was not unanimously interpreted by the Fathers the same way Rome interprets it today (Peter Alone = Rock, Peter has successors–Bishops of Rome). In fact most of them interpreted the rock of Matthew 16:18 to be Peter’s confession of faith or Jesus himself.

The plural/singular argument you make relies upon a limping hermeneutic.

Could you elaborate? Key (singular) to the house of David is the same as Keys (plural) to Heaven? Plus Jesus has the key to the house of David in Revelation 3:7 (not Peter).

How is it a “limping hermeneutic?” You knew I wasn’t going to let you get off that easily.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

porter11:

This business about ‘Pope glasses’ is postmodernistic rubbish. The same argument applies to all historical investigations which confirm traditional beliefs.

I’m sorry you have a problem with the term, but it’s a valid representation of the arguments I see that supposedly prove Petrine Primacy. Never mind that the same arguments would also prove Pauline Primacy. members.aol.com/jasonte3/paul51.htm

Or when one actually looks up and reads the fathers in context and sees that, for example, Augustine said lofty things of Peter, but when you read further Augustine believed that all the apostles and their successors, the bishops, shared equally in the powers which Christ granted St. Peter.

When Catholic apologists copy and paste quotes from Jurgens about Peter–most often they have “Pope glasses” on and are not reading the Fathers in context to verify that the author meant what they want it to mean.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

GAssisi:

I see your best defense of White is simply to show how I used certain rhetorical jargon wrongly.

I did more than that, I hope you aren’t intentionally misrepresenting me. Anyone can look back and see that I showed most of your examples aren’t even unfair or invalid…it’s just that you don’t like the arguments because you’ve already decided that the conclusion is wrong.

I have called White a hypocrite in his beliefs and dishonest in his debating tactics. I have amply proven that.

I disagree, you showed no such thing, not even “amply.” You just proved that you didn’t like his conclusions so you won’t accept any of his arguments.

I do not have to apologize for anything to Mr. White.

If not for mislabeling him above, perhaps for misrepresenting him? Your version of the Pacwa debate on Justification was not even close to what really happened. White also brought up Augustine, and the reason White brought up the Reformation was because that was within the domain of Pacwa’s question–he brought up Wyclif and Hus because they came before the “eve of the Reformation” and obviously believed in justification by faith alone.

Your caricature of the event was misleading at best.

However, I have NOT called him “hate-filled,”

For this, I apologize. I didn’t intentionally use the term, I confused you with “Cat” who said that she called White “arrogant” and “hate-filled”. I assumed it was you–in a thread full of White-bashing posts it’s hard to keep everyone straight.

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

Huh? I’m reminded of a quote from The Princess Bride: “You keep saying that word, I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

Akin offers an unconvincing “proof” and so White is supposed to what, be quiet? I know you already assume he’s wrong, but Akin’s answer was unconvincing to me, either. How is it “arrogant” to continue with your argument?

I don’t expect you to stop giving your argument just because I attempt to rebut you. Do you judge Roman Catholic apologists as harshly as you judge White? Are non-Catholics allowed to give their side of the argument at all? Is it “arrogant” when they respond?

 

[c0achmcguirk]

(continued)

BTW, attempting to make a comparison between Mormons and Catholics IS an ad hominem, because there is no justification for the comparison.

Again, I know you understand that Mormons reject sola Scriptura and believe that they have an infallible interpreter. This and this alone is enough reason to say that a comparison can be made. Remember, a debate is timed, you have a short period to get your message across.

Honestly, you need to relax your stringent requirements for debating points…methinks you are a little too harsh. :yup:

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.

This is a straw man? Where have I misrepresented the Papacy? I’m making the point that you don’t need to have an infallible list of every piece of a rule of faith to say that that rule of faith is infallible. The argument isn’t that hard to follow, I wish I could explain it better, I guess.

BTW, where is your infallible list of infallible books?

I’ve said many times over that I don’t have an infallible list of infallible books. That’s why I’m asking for an infallible list of Popes–to point out the double standard Catholics have.

You seem to like to impress people here in this forum with your rhetorical savvy.

Believe me, I care little for “impressing” people. I care that I glorify God and maybe someone would entertain the possibility that maybe Rome has gone a little too far with this “tradition” thing. As a former Catholic I’ve come to this conclusion.

Again, I apologize for saying that you said White was “hate-filled.” I didn’t intentionally try to misrepresent you. I also apologize for extensive use of smilies.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

TobyLue:

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

Excellent question TobyLue,

I don’t know infallibly that I’m using it correctly. And I do ask for help. God gave us the Church to help us believers come together in fellowship and he puts Pastors over us to help explain the Bible to us.

But that of course doesn’t mean that we still have to interpret it for ourselves. Even the Catholic must fallibly interpret what they’ve fallibly decided was infallible.

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

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.

I don’t follow. I can say “This Bible is infallible” and not have to be infallible myself. Do you become infallible when you tell your friend the Pope is infallible?

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

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

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

Please show us when this doctrine was formulated and passed on to all Christians.

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

Remember Jesus condemned the Pharisees for their “traditions.” Traditions that the Pharisees felt were handed down from Moses and were divine.

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.

Well, it’s 3:20 AM, and I have to work tomorrow at 8… but there is a great debate between Apolonio Latar and Julie Staples on sola Scriptura. Read Julie’s opening statement to see a good proof for it from Scripture.

bringyou.to/apologetics/a60.htm

God bless,
c0ach

 

[JohnDeP]

Thank you all for a fantastic thread!

Some questions/thoughts:
c0ach, you seemed to change your definition of sola scriptura somewhere in the middle: “Sola Scriptura, plainly stated, is that the Bible is infallible and I can trust that it says what it’s supposed to say.” Did you drop the “sola” part? Meaning, that in it “alone” must you depend for matters of faith? Didn’t you say that “God …puts Pastors over us to help explain the Bible to us.” Are you depending on Pastors instead of the Bible “alone”? Also, where in Scripture does God “put” Pastors over us (but not Popes)?
You seem to confuse infallibility with impeccability (Catholics only claim the former, never the latter, regarding Popes).
Did Christians exist between the death of the last Apostle and the formation of the written Bible (various dates used in this thread)? Wouldn’t they be proof-positive against sola scriptura? Weren’t there churches not addressed by various letters (to Colossians, to Corinthians, etc.) that existed solely on oral words (of the Apostle who started it and then his successors) until they “got” some of the written Scriptures (perhaps a period of hundreds of years)? Wouldn’t that existence be based solely on Tradition?
In 2Timothy2:8, what “gospel” is Paul saying is his (and preached)? Were any of the 4 written down and promulgated at that point? Also, 2Timothy3:14-16, what sacred writings and scripture is Paul referring to at this point, wouldn’t it be only OT? Note, too, that he says profitable, not sufficient.

Lastly, I’ve seen people refer to Gerry Matatics in this thread. I’ve never seen him live, but through and odd set of circumstances, I’m going to see him in California:
gerrymatatics.org/lakearrowhead.pdf
Does anyone know if his format includes sola scriptura? How does he allow/debate the other side? Is anyone else going?

Thanks again for a great thread! :clapping:

-JohnDeP

 

[whowantsumadebo]

I saw Matatics in my homw town, and it was the first time I ever heard of him. It was just him speaking, no debate. I thought he had a notable vigor and was a powerful speaker. He used alot of the arguments I heard in taped debates like the ones PhilVaz has on his website. He knows scripture in-and-out pretty well. That’s where I first learned about the Mary/Ark of the Covenant connection and all that.
I don’t even think most protestants see that kind of typology in scripture. It was an interesting learning experience and a good show.

 

[preyoflove]

Cardinal Newman on the distinction between certainty (or as he styles it, certitude) and infallibility:

"It is very common, doubtless, especially in religious controversy, to confuse infallibility with certitude, and to argue that, since we have not the one, we have not the other, for that no one can claim to be certain on any point, who is not infallible about all; but the two words stand for things quite distinct from each other. For example, I remember for certain what I did yesterday, but still my memory is not infallible; I am quite certain that two and two make four, but I often make mistakes in long addition sums. I have no doubt whatever that John or Richard is my true friend, but I have before now trusted those who failed me, and I may do so again before I die.

“A certitude is directed to this or that particular proposition, it is not a faculty or gift, but a disposition of mind relative to the definite case which is before me. Infallibility, on the contrary, is just that which certitude is not; it is a faculty or gift, and relates, not to some one truth in particular, but to all possible propositions in a given subject-matter. We ought, in strict propriety, to speak not of infallible acts, but of acts of infallibility…I am quite certain that Victoria is our Sovereign, and not her father, the late Duke of Kent, without laying any claim to the gift of infallibility…I may be certain that the Church is infallible, while I am myself a fallible mortal; otherwise, I cannot be certain that the Supreme Being is infallible, until I am infallible myself…It is wonderful that a clearheaded man, like Chillingworth, sees this as little as the run of everyday objectors to the Catholic Religion…”

Grammar of Assent (1903), 224f

Shalom, amen.

 

[preyoflove]

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

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

You will have to forgive us too, however, if we also believe in these words from the same Augustine you quoted:

"Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, nisi me Catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas"

(Contra Ep. Fund., V, 6 – “I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not oblige me to believe”).

Shalom, amen.

 

[preyoflove]

“There are popes who teach error, even Pope Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the 6th, 7th, and 8th Eccumenical Councils.”

"According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold.

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, ‘To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine.’" (“Papal Infallibility” online tract, Catholic Answers, Library Section)

and

“A similar situation arose in the pontificate of Honorius I. The Emperor Heraclius at Constantinople gave his support to a Christology intended as a compromise with the Monophysite heretics who denied Christ’s human nature, which in fact was a heresy itself — Monothelitism, the doctrine that Christ has two natures but only one will, which is divine rather than human. (A man without a human will is not a man.) Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople accepted the new heresy and wrote to Pope Honorius I explaining Monothelite teachings in a carefully expurgated and toned-down manner, and asked the Pope’s opinion. Honorius replied that he thought it would be vain to dispute the issue as Sergius had explained it, and refused to give an opinion. Sergius then distributed the Pope’s letter all over the East as proof that Monothelitism was not heretical, though actually the letter said nothing of the kind. No real difficulty regarding papal infallibility would ever have arisen from this — since obviously teaching heresy and refusing to denounce a heresy at a particular time are wholly different things — were it not for the fact that the Third Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, which condemned the Monothelite heresy in 681, forty-three years after Pope Honorius I died, also condemned him as a heretic because of his letter to Sergius. However even the decrees of an ecumenical council are not binding on the whole Church unless and until, and to the extent that, they are confirmed by the Pope. Pope St. Leo II (681-683) did confirm the acts of the council, but he also noted explicitly that Pope Honorius was being condemned for tardiness and negligence in not denouncing the Monothelite heresy sooner. Pope St. Leo II said nothing to indicate that he believed Pope Honorius had taught heresy or that he had assented to any condemnation of him for that reason.” (“Upon this Rock” by Warren H. Carroll)

There’s your error right there.

Shalom, amen.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

"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.

There will always be disagreements over doctrines and mere disciplinary practices in the Church. And, after the Church has spoken authoritatively to clear up an argument over various interpretations of the deposit of faith, the authority of the Church does not mean that there will not be some who will persist in their error and disobedience (some out of the mandate of their own conscience–even if it poorly formed).
For example: Traditionalists vs. Novus Ordo–well, if you deny that the Second Vatican Council had the authority to validate and endorse the Mass in the vernacular language, then that would place you in serious error. If, however, you simply think the Novus Ordo Mass was ill-conceived, poorly executed, or if you simply prefer the Latin Mass (which is still offered in some parishes with approval of the bishop), that is just an opinion and not a matter of heresy–denying the authority of the Church in council to make changes to the liturgy.
-Sedevacantists are in error because they believe the chair of Peter is vacant since Pius XII–believing other “popes” to be pretenders to the claim. They are in error. Besides, the person wrote “sedevacantists vs. MAINSTREAM Roman Catholics”–well, there is your answer. Most RC’s are in the mainstream and do not follow the heretic sedevacantists. Just beacuse an issue has been settled, does not mean one cannot persist in dissent.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

…contiuned…

The role of the authoritative magisterium as final interpreter and protector of the deposit of faith (Scripture and Tradition) does not mean that no one will persist in error. It does mean that there will be a light to guide the Church into all truth as it progresses through time and through the theological debates of history. The Church still maintains the unity beacuse, throuughout the world, such a large number of Christians who profess to be Catholics can say a common creed (that is a reason why we have to devise creeds, by the way, to combat heresy and refine/define again the truth–and these creeds are not in Scripture, to need them means Sola Scriptura is not enough). Under this system, you can disagree with the Church, but at least you know that you are disagreeing with the Church, and you are not in full communion with the established creed (whether you are honest about that fact–as Sedevacantists would be–or whether you try to fool yourself and still use the name “Catholic”–such as the pro-abortion rights group “Catholics for a Free Choice” who aren’t fooling anyone)

-Sola Scriptura, however, requires a stronger claim of unity. As I understand it, along with Sola Scriptura there must also be a belief in the immediacy and absolute clarity of Scriptura, such that everyone should be able to believe what is necessary for salavtion simply by referring to the Bible. (Because, i have never heard anyone explain to me the role of the teaching church with respect to Sola Scriptura–is a teaching church necessary or not? and if so, which church is the church to listen to?). Therefore, when I see the division in Protestantism, it has no apparent way of resolving itself because every who differs is following Sola Scriptura–they are basing their beliefs on the bible. Catholic dissenters, however, are NOT doing what they are supposed to be doing–listening to the authoritative teaching of the magisterium of the Church (the Pope, college of bishops, and/or ecumenical council).

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Coach, I just noticed that you replied to my last point. I missed it. I apologize, to be honest, I have not been reading all the posts, I have been skimming (and that is not entirely fair given the work that you have put in to this discussion, reading and replying to all these posts; thank you for your work). Here is my reply (in addition to my 2 most recent posts above)

*(Coach in italics): First, you’re making an invalid comparison, because you are comparing your Church against all the churches that adhere to sola Scriptura. You’re basically saying “Our organization has more organizational unity than all of your churches have.” Well, of course your organization has more organizational unity–a single organization always has more unity than a group of organization.

*I am not sure what you mean here. I am not talking about “organizational unity” like a corporation. The unity of the Church is not a superficial facade or just a neat bureaucracy. I mean unity within the Church with regards to common authority (college of bishops traced back through apostolic succession, and in communion with one primate–the bishop of Rome), common liturgy/worship (the sacraments) and teaching (that encompasses a large number of Christians throughout many cultures of the world and throughout history–I can attend a Mass in Nigeria, and it the same sacrament I receive in Illinois or Rome) vs. an ever-growing number of smaller independent bodies of Christians–who have a connection in that they are reading the inspired word of God, but who may have limited connection other than that (and significant differences in church structure, worship, and teaching).

*You are saying that because there are disagreements among those who adhere to sola Scriptura, then I need an infallible interpreter to settle the issues. There are several problems with this argument.
*
*1. The fact that people misinterpret the Bible isn’t the Bible’s fault. It’s the fallible person reading the Bible’s fault."

*I don’t care whose fault it is, what I am concerned about is that the fault is rampant. I am not blaming the Bible, all that I am saying is that if the Bible is to be the Christian’s sole rule of faith (without any interpretive tradition or body outside of the Bible), then it better be clear enough so that every good-intentioned Christian can believe what is necessary for salvation. If that does not happen (such as when various Christians disagree about the nature of baptism–which is necessary for salvation–and who can be baptized, for example) then that means that there is a problem with the mode in which we receive God’s revelation and draw from it the theological truths (practical and theological) that are necessary for salvation and that answer our questions that continually arise through history. You are right, it is the fault of the fallible person reading the Bible (who is blaming the Bible for Sola Scriptura?), but that means that fallible people need a way to understand revelation that is certain and infallible–the teaching of the Church ensures greater unity and is more in keeping with our human nature–trustingly listening to and obeying divinely inspired authority (just as the early disciples and those of the early church did)–rather than privately interpreting the written word (in other areas of life, governments interpret legal charters).

 

[AngelicDoctor]

2. 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.

“almost any cult out there…” I am sorry, but, that is as insulting of an argument as it is lame. Trying to tie bizarre cults to the 2,000 year traditions of Latin and Eastern Christians by guilt through association (in denying Sola Scriptura) is just not worthy of a serious apologetic debate. Besides, how many cults follow Sola Scriptura (even if they have a carismatic leader) since many of them often come of the American Protestant tradition? Orthodox and Catholics shared the same tradition for nearly 1,000 years (though with different theological nuances, and can point to 7 ecumenical counsels that we agree on–and so we are much closer in shared beliefs than we are with Protestants. We celebrate common saints and read the writings of both Eastern and Western doctors. Of course, there was a schism, and that leads to separation over the long run (as new questions and heresies arise in history). The East relies soley on ecumenical councils (which can no longer meet without the bishop of Rome–the pope–whom they have always recognized as one of the 5? great patriarchs, and one of high importance, to say the least) to address new questions of the faith. My prayer is that ecumenical efforts between the East and West will lead to a future reunion. Still, we are very close in our beliefs (Real Presence of the Eucharist, the number of sacraments, they have an authentic priesthood and apostolic succession, etc.) and they have many means to sancitifcation (especially the sacraments just listed, along with tradition and the Word) that lead to salvation. The Anglicans believe in tradition and reason along with Scripture as part of the deposit of faith. Again, we would share a lot in common with them–and more so than with other Protestants. Still, there break was a rejection of Catholic authority in the mold of Protestantism.

 

[AngelicDoctor]

3. I, as an adherant to sola Scriptura, know what my (infallible) rule of faith is. It’s the Bible, and the Bible alone. What is the Catholic’s rule of faith?

Catholics disagree among themselves on which papal decrees, council rulings, teachings, etc. are infallible and binding and which aren’t. A Catholic, an Eastern Orthodox, and an Anglican may claim to follow the church or tradition, but he isn’t able define exactly what that is. He can’t cite something comparable to the evangelicals 66-book canon of Scripture.

That is great you can cite the 66-canon of Scripture that is based on the authentic lists published throughout the first 1,000 years by the Catholic Church,… and then finally restated in answer to the Reformation at the Council of Trent. You can cite what is the basis for your rule of faith–but can you cite precisely doctrines that are found in Scripture that are necessary for salvation? There are a lot of great truths found in those 66 (plus) books, and indeed it is all truth, but how do you know which truths to take from there so that one can be saved? How do you clarify ambiguous, confusing texts or verses? How do you establish the balance between seemingly contradictory ideas (faith and works–Paul and James), must you “persevere” in love of God for salvation (as Hebrews, John, and the Gospels seems to suggest) or is salvation eternally secure, what is the role of the Church that Jesus mandated to preach, baptize, and pass on “oral traditions” (2 Thes 5) and meet in council (Acts 15) in relation to the inspired Word of God that it received? In other words, if I am a sincere believer in Jesus Christ, what do you say to me when I hold up the 66 (plus) cannon of Scripture–your rule of faith–and say, ‘ok what must I do to be saved?’ Or, "what in all of this must I believe to be saved?’ Or, ‘I don’t understand these verses?, can you help me?’ For Catholics, the Church and tradition has always helped us answer these questions. Who helps you?

 

[AngelicDoctor]

I can look at the documents and canons in the collections of the decrees of ecumenical councils, I can read the writings of the fathers, etc. This might be a larger source than just the canon of Scripture, and it can also be thornier–with disagreements (the growing pains of conflict is to be expected as history progresses and doctrine necessarily develops and is refined). However, it also answers more questions, it answers questions that the Bible does not (such as the more precise and nuanced questions important in theology that are found in councils because Scripture was being contested over). However, for the basics, one looks to and recites the Creed (which derived from a council).

People throw around the terms “the church” and “tradition” but they’ve been defined all sorts of ways over the centuries…and the alleged authority of “the church” and “tradition” isn’t verifiable like the authority of the Scripture is. We have compelling evidence for believing the infallibility for Scripture (prophecy, scientific foreknowledge, historical evidence). We don’t have specific evidence for the infallibility of “the church” and “tradition.”

The infallible Church does not answer questions of (secular) history or science, that is not its domain, its domain is questions of faith and the revelation of God–and these things are not subject to empirical verification. Can the world verify that Jesus was the Incarnate God? Or that the Holy Spirit descended? How would the world verify whether the Church was right in saying that the use of contraception is immoral? Besides, I have news for you, secular people attack the Bible on scientific grounds all the time (Darwinism vs. creationism) and historical grounds (sometimes 2 of the historical books will recount the same event in a different–sometimes seemingly contradictory way), and the fulfillment of prophesy often has to be interpreted (I can give exmaples if interested). (not that the scientists and historians who attack the Bible are right on these grounds–in deed, they are generally not asking the right questions).