F
fulloftruth
Guest
bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm#Debates
(you must scroll down and click on the Sola Scriptura with Tim Staples link)
This is for everyone to check out. If you are Catholic and Know your stuff, then I would ask you to listen to the arguments of White several times, like 6-8 times. Everytime I listen to it, I hear something I did not hear before that really shows proof positive that Sola Scriptura is a Heresy and that it can be Proven if one is Honest with one self. Notice how White cannot give scriptural references for his claims, and how Tim nails him on it. He admits that Christ and the Apostles did not practice Sola Scriptura, and he keeps saying that it is the normative state of the church now that matters. Staples then asks him for proof from scripture, which is where it must come from if his claim of Sola Scriptura is true, of where the command to hold fast to the traditions orally and written, was changed to just written. When did the transfer take place, since the Gospel was preached long before it was written, and most people, up until recently could not read. White could produce no Scripture passage that states that Scripture is the ONLY infallable Authority, a claim that only came on the seen in the last 5-7 hundred years and has been the catylist for the splintering to which Christaianity fell victim. It is the only outcome possible when the only Infallible Authority is a book that is hard to understand and which has verses in it that can be twisted to mean whatever the twister(the Devil) wishes it to mean and can lead people into heresy. White claims that just because people do not follow the Bible properly and use the bible to make outrageous claims, does not make the Bible insufficient. But I would claim that if the Truth cannot be clearly identified and defended authoritatively, then how can a new believer come to know the difference between truth and heresy. The early church fathers that he seems to quote often, all of which were Catholic, seemed to have no problem indentifying heresy, and exstiguishing it and its progenitors authoritativley with excommunication. Are we to believe that these excomminications were not binding on earth and heaven, infallibly. I think not.
(you must scroll down and click on the Sola Scriptura with Tim Staples link)
This is for everyone to check out. If you are Catholic and Know your stuff, then I would ask you to listen to the arguments of White several times, like 6-8 times. Everytime I listen to it, I hear something I did not hear before that really shows proof positive that Sola Scriptura is a Heresy and that it can be Proven if one is Honest with one self. Notice how White cannot give scriptural references for his claims, and how Tim nails him on it. He admits that Christ and the Apostles did not practice Sola Scriptura, and he keeps saying that it is the normative state of the church now that matters. Staples then asks him for proof from scripture, which is where it must come from if his claim of Sola Scriptura is true, of where the command to hold fast to the traditions orally and written, was changed to just written. When did the transfer take place, since the Gospel was preached long before it was written, and most people, up until recently could not read. White could produce no Scripture passage that states that Scripture is the ONLY infallable Authority, a claim that only came on the seen in the last 5-7 hundred years and has been the catylist for the splintering to which Christaianity fell victim. It is the only outcome possible when the only Infallible Authority is a book that is hard to understand and which has verses in it that can be twisted to mean whatever the twister(the Devil) wishes it to mean and can lead people into heresy. White claims that just because people do not follow the Bible properly and use the bible to make outrageous claims, does not make the Bible insufficient. But I would claim that if the Truth cannot be clearly identified and defended authoritatively, then how can a new believer come to know the difference between truth and heresy. The early church fathers that he seems to quote often, all of which were Catholic, seemed to have no problem indentifying heresy, and exstiguishing it and its progenitors authoritativley with excommunication. Are we to believe that these excomminications were not binding on earth and heaven, infallibly. I think not.
I’ve heard many times that his 1986 debate against Martin (on The John Ankerberg Show) was the best showing by a Catholic in a debate…ever. But when he doesn’t do well against White it’s because “he isn’t that great of a debater”…well, I can understand why you take that position–you need to find a silver lining to the cloud somewhere. 
