Trent Horn debate with James White: watch here!

[Lenten_ashes]

Came across this today:

youtube.com/watch?v=Z-PofAyvTJQ

Let me know what you think.

God Bless

This is outstanding lol

 

[Sr_Brando]

Sr_Brando;14484018:

Sola Scriptura means, the only infallible authority today is the written word of God.

That’s not the definition of SS I’ve seen on this forum by other SS advocates.
Whose definition of SS should I believe?
Who is the authority that I can look to to see what the correct definition of SS is?

Sola Scriptura doesn’t eliminate other authorities in a Christian’s life. The doctrine just instructs us to remember all other authorities today are fallible.

Bible verse for this, please?

Hence, during the days of Jesus and the other Apostles, Sola Scripture is not applicable and a straw man characterization. The written word of God was not the only sole infallible authority during Jesus’ life and the Apostles’ lives.

Bible verse which states that SS was not applicable in Jesus’ time, but is applicable now, please.

You may have the wrong idea about Sola Scriptura. Who defines it? History. It’s a historical fact nowadays. For example, Cyril of Jerusalem taught his catechumens (had to look that word up):
Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.(NPNF2, Vol. 7,Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4:17.)

If protestants diverge from their the historical definition then they have diverged. We’ll need to do as Cyril instructed his converts to do, prove “…things which [they] announce from the Divine Scriptures.” The bible, God’s word, is the authority, which is as if God were present and speaking directly to us from his throne.

Can I give you book chapter and verse for SS? There is not a verbatim statement in scripture. We can see this practice put in play by many people recorded in the scriptures, including Jesus himself. This is similar to the doctrine of the trinity. There is no verbatim statement in holy script, but the doctrine is every where in scripture.

PS: I may use quotes from early church fathers but I am no historian. I am learning about them but historian will still be a long shot! hahaha

 

[Sr_Brando]

Sr_Brando;14484096:

So James’ answer is pretty clear. The rule he uses is consistency in allowing clear didactic texts to interpret ambiguous texts. This is not theology.

Where does the Bible tell us to do this?

You missed the point of my statement. I was answering the question I have seen earlier in this thread.

Can you explain how JW knows whether a bible verse is prescriptive or descriptive?

You may disagree with the answer but, hey, there it is.

 

[Sr_Brando]

You’re right, and I think that we can all be sure that Trent would agree with the fact that our theology comes from Christ. He wasn’t making a sola scriptura statement. Rather, it was a rhetorical device that would best illustrate to the audience and opponent that he was facing at the time the error of James Whites’ reasoning.

Trent’s statement and point stands. Fully extrapolated, it would likely be stated more fully that our theology should come from all of God’s Word and revelation, both written tradition (Scripture) and the tradition handed down through the Church, and teachings confirmed and developed by the infallible teaching magisterium of the Church and her Pope. We should not develop our theology and then endeavor to reinterpret all of the preceding to fit that theology (e.g., the concept of once saved, always saved). Trent’s statement was a very fitting way of capturing all that in a one-line “zinger” that could best illustrate the point in that situation.

How do you know that is what Trent meant at this particular point? I am curious to know if he has been interviewed and stated other things. I’d like to see or hear his take on the debate.

 

[Sr_Brando]

That is, we received the Good News, and then the texts which confirmed this Good News were declared to be inspired.

Hypothetically, if something can be declared inspired, can that same something be declared un-inspired later?

We do not get our doctrines from a book, no matter how holy.

Is this a quote from an infallible source? If so, can you post the source please?

Side question: If something is inspired, it starts out that way. It was always inspired. We recognize the inspired nature later. Agree, disagree?

 

[PRmerger]

You may have the wrong idea about Sola Scriptura. Who defines it? History. It’s a historical fact nowadays. For example, Cyril of Jerusalem taught his catechumens (had to look that word up):
Have thou ever in thy mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.(NPNF2, Vol. 7,Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4:17.)

If protestants diverge from their the historical definition then they have diverged. We’ll need to do as Cyril instructed his converts to do, prove “…things which [they] announce from the Divine Scriptures.”

All of this is Catholic, Brando. Yes, we do look to the Scriptures.

But where is the definition that SS means that the only infallible authority today is the written Word?

The bible, God’s word, is the authority, which is as if God were present and speaking directly to us from his throne.

The Bible is God’s Word, yes, but it’s not the authority.

The Bible says that it’s not.

Did you know that?

 

[PRmerger]

Hypothetically, if something can be declared inspired, can that same something be declared un-inspired later?

I wouldn’t think so.

Is this a quote from an infallible source?

No.

Side question: If something is inspired, it starts out that way. It was always inspired. We recognize the inspired nature later. Agree, disagree?

Agree. And it was the Catholic Church which did the “recognizing”. Catholic bishops, to be exact.

So that means, each and every time you quote from, say, Hebrews, as the divine Word of God, you are giving tacit submission to the authority of the CC which “recognized” this for you and me.

 

[Sr_Brando]

Sr_Brando;14486955:

So, why would I take a flawed inerrant fallible system of the Roman Catholic Church over the Holy Spirit?

This is begging the question, Brando.

You still have to prove that the Catholic Church is a fallible system.

And, if you do this, you’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, because if it is, indeed, a fallible system, then you have no way to know that the 27 books in the NT are God-breathed. For it is the CC which told you they are theopneustos–there is NO OTHER WAY you can know which books belong in the NT and which do not…

Question, did Irenaeus shot himself in the foot, so to so, by make the statement that the scriptures are the ground and pillar? (See following quote below.)
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.(ANF, Vol. I, Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1.)

Sr_Brando;14486955:

I apologize to come off so sternly and firmly, but I am not Roman Catholic. I don’t see the human magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church as anything special or authoritative.

Just as a means of gentle fraternal correction, the Catholic Church is not Roman, Brando.

We are the Catholic Church. And the Roman rite is just one of many rites in the universal , Catholic Church.

The RCC is based where? Rome? It’s been the Roman Catholic faith for quite some time now.

Sr_Brando;14486955:

And, when God tells us he is coming to abide with us forever, teach us, bring things to our remembrance and indwell us, I think the choice between God and man is obvious.

Certainly. When the choice is between God and man, we must always choose God.

Agreed! That makes me happy! hahaha

Sr_Brando;14486955:

The authority God “left” us is his living and abiding word of God, his very breathed out word.

You’ll have to cite a Bible verse for this, Brando, because I think you’ve been duped into believing a man-made tradition here. You just heard your pastor say this, who heard another man say this, but no one, not a single person, ever read that in a single word of the Bible.

In fact, it directly CONTRADICTS the Bible which tells us that something else is the authority God left us.

Do you know what the Bible says is this “something else”?

What’s the “something else”?

Sr_Brando;14486955:

We don’t need the Roman Catholic magisterium.

Without the magisterium, you wouldn’t know that Hebrews is inspired, that the Gospel of Mark is inspired, etc etc etc.

The ONLY way you know this is because you give your tacit submission to the authority of the CC, Brando.

Was Cyril wrong:
Concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures; nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee of these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures…In these articles we comprehend the whole doctrine of faith….For the articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men, but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith….This Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions (2 Thes. 2:15) which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts…Now heed not any ingenious views of mine; else thou mayest be misled; but unless thou receive the witness of the prophets concerning each matter, believe not what is spoken; unless thou learn from Holy Scripture…receive not the witness of man.(NPNF2, Vol. 7,Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4:17.)

 

[Sr_Brando]

Wow PR, your fast. I am not even done and your already responding. I feel so far behind! hahaha

 

[Sr_Brando]

Sr_Brando;14486955:

The authority God “left” us is his living and abiding word of God, his very breathed out word. Not to mention the fact that God never left! The bible teaches this as a common sense, on-the-face reading. I’ve seen your post about being a father and it was beautiful to be honest. I see where your coming from, but I see what God says he is doing. He is here and never left. We don’t need the Roman Catholic magisterium.

You’ll have to cite a Bible verse for this, Brando, because I think you’ve been duped into believing a man-made tradition here. You just heard your pastor say this, who heard another man say this, but no one, not a single person, ever read that in a single word of the Bible.

In fact, it directly CONTRADICTS the Bible which tells us that something else is the authority God left us.

Let me preempt, Brando, but saying that if you are going to post “All Scripture is inspired by God”–2 Tim 3:16, that verse does not say, at all that the authority God left us is his Bible.

What it says is that IF something is in the Bible, we can know that it’s God-breathed.

But it does NOT say that this Bible is the authority God left us. It doesn’t exclude, say, a man, (like Jesus) being authoritative, or another man (like Peter) being authoritative, or another entity (like the Body of Christ) being authoritative.

All it says is that if we read something in the Bible, we can know that it’s God-breathed.

Nothing more, and nothing less.

These seems convoluted to me. If it’s in the bible then it’s God-breathed. We know this because, “All scripture is inspired by God” which is in the bible, see 2 Tim 3:16. Umm, shouldn’t you have said, “IF something is in the Bible, we know that it’s God-breathed [because the CC declared it so].”?

 

[PRmerger]

Question, did Irenaeus shot himself in the foot, so to so, by make the statement that the scriptures are the ground and pillar? (See following quote below.)

If he did so, then he did so in defiance of the Scriptures which state that “something else” is the ground and pillar of truth.

What’s the “something else”?

Wait and see…



Read 1 Tim 3:15 and then we can chat.

 

[Sr_Brando]

You stated,

The definition of the word infallible means incapable of making mistakes.

I showed that the Word of God by nature is the breath of God, alive and active. If God is infallible, so is his word. I am not changing the definition of infallible.

 

[PRmerger]

These seems convoluted to me. If it’s in the bible then it’s God-breathed. We know this because, “All scripture is inspired by God” which is in the bible, see 2 Tim 3:16. Umm, shouldn’t you have said, “IF something is in the Bible, we know that it’s God-breathed [because the CC declared it so].”?

But you have to know what IS Scripture first, right, Brando?

Who told you that Hebrews is inspired and belongs in the NT?

The answer is: the Catholic Church. Catholic bishops, specifically.

 

[PRmerger]

The RCC is based where? Rome? It’s been the Roman Catholic faith for quite some time now.

The Catholic Church is not Roman, Brando.

We are the Catholic Church.

That’s why our Catechism states this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Note that it doesn’t say: Roman Catholic.

The Roman, or Latin, rite is only one of a multitude of different rites.

 

[Sr_Brando]

All of this is Catholic, Brando. Yes, we do look to the Scriptures.

But where is the definition that SS means that the only infallible authority today is the written Word?

??

The Bible is God’s Word, yes, but it’s not the authority.

The Bible says that it’s not.

Did you know that?

Nope. Show me.

 

[Sr_Brando]

The Catholic Church is not Roman, Brando.

We are the Catholic Church.

That’s why our Catechism states this:

Note that it doesn’t say: Roman Catholic.

The Roman, or Latin, rite is only one of a multitude of different rites.

I agree to disagree. hahaha

 

[PRmerger]

I agree to disagree. hahaha

haha!

But if you say “Catholic Church” rather than “Roman Catholic Church” you will sound smarter.



(Unless, of course, you’re talking specifically about 1 rite of the universal Church).

 

[Sr_Brando]

If he did so, then he did so in defiance of the Scriptures which state that “something else” is the ground and pillar of truth.

Wait and see…



Read 1 Tim 3:15 and then we can chat.

…if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. …

okay…?

 

[PRmerger]

…if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. …

okay…?

You got it.

The Bible does not point to itself as the authority…but rather to…

the CHURCH!!!

 

[adamhovey1988]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m41a8wsSoE1r7z57y.gif

You got it.

The Bible does not point to itself as the authority…but rather to…

the CHURCH!!!

I hate to butt in, but I think that poses another problem which I believe I know the answer to and I know that you know the answer to but which Church?