Sungeis vs Hester Debate

[Porknpie]

I am attaching a link to an interesting debate between Robert Sungenis (Catholic Apologist) and David Hester (Church of God Pastor). At 1:17:46, Sungenis asks Hester how does he know that 10 of the books of the NT are inspired and should be in the bible. Notice the lack of an answer to the question.

Also, the personality contrast between Sungenis and Hester is pretty stunning. I love the humility of Sungenis.

Link is here

 

[devoutchristian]

Isn’t he the geocentrist nut? And isn’t he also a Holocaust “questioner”?

 

[Bradys_Dad]

Very interesting debate. I also agree about the personality contrast, too.

Similar to Mr. Sungenis, I struggled with fully understanding the repeated comment made by Mr. Hester about “contradictions in tradition and scripture”. Ultimately. I believe he was trying to allege that Catholic Tradition is antithetical to Sacred Scripture - a charge that I believe would take more lengthy discussions, maybe talking about specific doctrines. Dr. Hester mentioned a few of these supposed unbiblical doctrines such as infant baptism.

I’ve heard or read other non-Catholics state something similar: if a Catholic doctrine is not obviously found in the Bible, it must be based on Tradition alone and therefore, unbiblical. Of course “obviously found” is based on one’s interpretation of what the Bible says and so any Catholic who attempts to use the Bible to defend a doctrine, or at least show it is not contrary to what the Bible expresses, will likely butt heads with a different, and equally thoughtful and scholarly, interpretation. To me, this is an obvious problem with sola scriptura.

I was intrigued how Mr. Hester apparently agrees that support for doctrines are not always clearly laid out in the Bible citing both explicit and implicit evidence. Again, I’m not sure how much this helps his case since someone has to decide how much evidence is enough.

 

[Porknpie]

I was intrigued how Mr. Hester apparently agrees that support for doctrines are not always clearly laid out in the Bible citing both explicit and implicit evidence. Again, I’m not sure how much this helps his case since someone has to decide how much evidence is enough.

Yes, Mr. Hester is forced to become his own authority and by his admission, he’s fallible. Where does that leave the truth to be found? This is true of every protestant pastor which is why there is disagreement all over on how to interpret the bible on faith and morals. He believes that all of us can read the Written Word of God and through it, understand what God is telling each one of us. That’s interesting…so for some, God is saying contraception is OK and to other, contraception is not OK. If God’s essence is truth, the theology of all I need is the bible and me leads to some pretty significant inconsistency.

He also fails to use reason & historical evidence when confronted with the truth that the Catholic Church approved of his books in his bible. He can not bring himself to admit or perhaps even understand - that the Catholic Church was infallible in deciding what books were inspired by God and which were not. I’m still not clear after watching the debate if he even understands that he is using a Catholic book.

And…he is missing the fact that the apostles taught that Christ instituted seven sacraments to give us the grace needed to help us on our earthly journey, including the Eucharist. John 6 speaks of the real presence in the Eucharist as does the early Church…but being bible alone, he ignores what the Church has taught and believed since the apostolic age.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

 

[Bradys_Dad]

He also fails to use reason & historical evidence when confronted with the truth that the Catholic Church approved of his books in his bible. He can not bring himself to admit or perhaps even understand - that the Catholic Church was infallible in deciding what books were inspired by God and which were not. I’m still not clear after watching the debate if he even understands that he is using a Catholic book.

I would think that the canon question would be challenging to explain from a non-Catholic perspective. I’ve heard several views, but not the one Mr. Hester mentioned about Scripture attesting to what is Scripture through self-citation. That is, since some of the New Testament books (e.g. 17 books) were directly quoted or referenced by authors in the New Testament, then this means the canon of Scripture was known since the time of the apostles. Mr. Sungenis rightly asks about the other 10 books. Additionally, what about when New Testament authors reference other sources, such as the deuterocanonicals (which Mr. Hester does not accept) and non-inspired writings, like the Book of Enoch and Assumption of Moses. Shouldn’t the self-citation principle stay consistent or else someone would still need to decide which writings referenced were inspired?

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Very interesting debate. I also agree about the personality contrast, too.

Similar to Mr. Sungenis, I struggled with fully understanding the repeated comment made by Mr. Hester about “contradictions in tradition and scripture”. Ultimately. I believe he was trying to allege that Catholic Tradition is antithetical to Sacred Scripture - a charge that I believe would take more lengthy discussions, maybe talking about specific doctrines. Dr. Hester mentioned a few of these supposed unbiblical doctrines such as infant baptism.

I’ve heard or read other non-Catholics state something similar: if a Catholic doctrine is not obviously found in the Bible, it must be based on Tradition alone and therefore, unbiblical. Of course “obviously found” is based on one’s interpretation of what the Bible says and so any Catholic who attempts to use the Bible to defend a doctrine, or at least show it is not contrary to what the Bible expresses, will likely butt heads with a different, and equally thoughtful and scholarly, interpretation. To me, this is an obvious problem with sola scriptura.

I was intrigued how Mr. Hester apparently agrees that support for doctrines are not always clearly laid out in the Bible citing both explicit and implicit evidence. Again, I’m not sure how much this helps his case since someone has to decide how much evidence is enough.

Yes, Hester’s claim about “contradictions in tradition and scripture” is an artifact of sola scriptura: anything that differs from the results of his interpretation of the Bible alone here in 2013 was from tradition added by the Church.

And he never sets out to prove that sola scriptura is in fact the method God chose to hand on His word down through time as opposed to the pre-existing position of the ancient church East and West that it is Scripture and Tradition in the Church.