|
See Julie's Rebuttals Here
Reply 1
<< A reads into Justin Martyr’s words. Justin is not
offering this as a proof of an unwritten Tradition in the Roman
Catholic sense, nor is he presenting this practice as an infallible
truth. We who espouse Sola Scriptura do not say there is anything
wrong with tradition. I, as a Reformed Baptist, have certain
liturgical traditions that I observe. Where we part ways with the
Roman Catholic is with regards to what role tradition has as a rule of
faith and practice. We do not espouse "Tradition" to being
equal to Scripture or to being another infallible rule of faith. If
A wishes to cast any doubt on my assertions of Scripture alone,
then he must demonstrate the existence of a rule of faith equal to
Scripture in inspiration. >>
First, no one said that Apostolic Tradition has to be
"unwritten." Second, where in the Bible does it mention the
form of worship? It doesn’t. Why would they do such a thing if it did
not come from the Apostles themselves?
<< My question to A is for evidence of an unwritten
"Tradition" which can be verifiably proven to be from Paul
or from Peter, etc. and which specifically outlines a doctrine binding
upon the believer which Scripture does not discuss. >>
This I did when I quoted Clement. However, Julie disagrees:
<< The next quote given by
A is from Clement. This quote once again fails to demonstrate a
doctrine which is not in Scripture, was transmitted through
"Tradition" and can be demonstrated to being apostolic in
origin. Furthermore, my opponent’s use of this quote to prove
apostolic succession is a historical and interpretive fallacy on his
part, but that’s for another debate. >>
That is exactly what I did. No one said that Tradition contradicts or
is not written in the Bible. I can argue from material sufficiency of
Scripture, which means that every doctrine is in Scripture either
explicitly or implicitly. No one said that Scripture isn’t
qualitatively sufficient, however, it isn’t sufficient in a
quantitative sense. These Traditions have been passed from the Apostle
to the Councils and such. As Augustine said,
"Those which we keep, not as being written, but as from
TRADITION, if observed by the whole of Christendom, are thereby
understood to be committed to us BY THE APOSTLES themselves or
plenary Councils, and to be retained as instituted." (Ep 118).
Augustine even gives an EXAMPLE of an Apostolic
Tradition.
"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] ...may be supposed
to have had its origin in Apostolic Tradition, just as there
are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore
are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet
are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the
Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).
Greg Krehbiel received this list from an Orthodox apologist that gave
extra-biblical teachings:
1. The liturgy.
2. The Proscription against praying with heathen, heretics, and
apostates.
3. The quotations of Christ found in St. Clement and St. Justin
Martyr's writings.
4. The 85 Apostolic Canons
5. The interpretation of the Scriptures that Christ is God, and
not
simply a Divine Creature.
6. The Tradition that the Four Gospels are authentic, and written
by St. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
7. The Tradition that St. Paul's writings are to be accepted, and
not discarded on the grounds that he was an apostate from the law,
and clearly in contradiction with the view of the Law found in
the Gospels.
Reply 2
<< Secondly, I asked A, "Could you give me any
evidence that the oral message of Paul differed in any way from the
written message?" A’s answer was to demonstrate that
what was spoken was probably an expansion upon what was written, not
a contradiction. I was not trying to establish a contradiction at
all, and perhaps I worded my question poorly. Rather, I was trying
to make a point. The Roman Catholic apologist has no proof even of
what the oral message of Paul was. It was not concretely laid down
in any manner which can be traced back to him. The only
authoritative and certain record we have of the teachings of the
apostles is found in Scripture. >>
First, we cannot prove that it was from a specific
Apostle. However, we can prove that it was from the Apostles
themselves. One example is Infant Baptism. What did Jesus actually
mean by "let the children come to me?" Does Scripture tell
us that infants can or cannot be baptized? The answer would be no.
However, from the early Church Fathers, and the Church, she proclaimed
that Infant Baptism is valid and this of course comes from the
practice and teachings of the Apostles. As Basil the Great says,
"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some
we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the
Tradition of the Apostles, handed on to us in mystery (i.e.,
Sacrament; the Liturgy of the Mass). . In respect to piety both
are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no
one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters
ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs
as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel
in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a
mere term." (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [AD 375]).
Reply 3
<< What A demonstrates is that he had to use private
judgment in order to ascertain that Rome is the authority under which
he should submit. I ask this question to show the fallacy a Roman
Catholic commits when he uses this argument against Sola Scriptura,
"But you are left with nothing but your private interpretation of
Scripture, whereas we have an infallible authority to exegete
Scripture for us." What it comes down to is this: Which authority
will we submit ourselves to? The theopneustos (God-breathed)
Scriptures, or one "infallible human authority". And how
does the Roman Catholic know that his infallible authority is true,
and not Salt Lake City (Mormonisn) or Brooklyn (Watchtower Society)?
He must use his private judgment to interpret which he feels is
telling the truth. The very thing he throws up in the face of the
adherent to Sola Scriptura, he himself is guilty of. >>
This shows that Julie DOES NOT KNOW what
private judgment is. Private judgment is NOT a mere
acceptance of the individual. The Council of Trent on the Decree of
Scriptures tells us what they had to say on private judgment:
"Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no
one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals
pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the
Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to
interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to
whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation,
has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the
Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be
published."
So private judgment is not about "choosing." It is about
the person himself being the ultimate arbiter of truth. It is a person
who does not have ANY AUTHORITY declaring a supposed truth
contrary to what the Church teaches or going against public revelation
with the person’s own opinion. Some articles by Dave Armstrong:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ469.HTM
and
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ31.HTM
Reply 4
<< My point is this, that if an infallible human authority
(be it the Church, Magisterium, etc) was required in order to know and
discern truth, then why was God’s people who existed pre-Christ left
without an infallible human authority or Magisterium? My opponent
dances around this issue with unbacked assertions, failing to
demonstate that the Old Testament Church possessed exactly what the
Roman Catholic apologist asserts the New Testament Church must have.
>>
Again, I never said that an infallible human authority was required
in order to know and discern truth. However, Jesus Christ made an
infallible Church. Therefore if Christ made an infallible Church, then
we as Christians expect to have an infallible human authority to know
truth.
<<To answer what my opponent does say, never does Jesus say
that his Church will be infallible and never does he assign a
Magisterium to act as interpretive head over the Church. Furthermore,
my opponent proceeds to engage in Scriptural eisegesis (reading his
doctrines into the text of Scripture) when he insinuates that the
statements "pillar and foundation" and "bind and
loose" are evidence that the New Testament church needs an
infallible human authority. The apostolic Church does hold up the
Truth, she does support it and defend it. And the testimony it is
built on is the testimony of the apostles who were given the authority
from Christ to act as his representatives. But it is a non sequitur to
state that this supports the entire plethora of Roman Catholic dogmas
and practices which come out of this simple testimony of Scripture.
>>
I have shown that the Church must be infallible. Julie
never showed how a Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth
could err. If what the Church does is hold up the Gospel, then when she
proclaims what the Gospel says, it must be true. We know that what the
Apostles taught was infallible, and they had an infallible authority to
pronounce the Gospel (Acts 15). What they taught in Acts 15 was
infallible.
Julie claims that this infallibility ceases, yet gives NO PROOF.
We know that the Apostles PASSED this authority (1 Tim
1:3; 3:2; 4:11-16; 5:17; 6:2ff; 2 Tim 1:13-14). How can they pass any
other authority other than an infallible authority?
I also gave Protestant scholars’ commentary such as M. Eugene
Boring, Francis Wright Beare, Eduard Schweizer, R.T. France, William F.
Albright and C.S. Mann, F.F. Bruce, Joachim Jeremias, and David Stern.
However, Julie "claims" that my citations are misinterpreted,
but gave NO proof, except James White’s commentary.
Julie claims that she is presenting her case "scholarly," yet
gave an anti-Catholic SECONDARY SOURCE.
Reply 5
<< I hardly see how this is a
straw man argument and neither does my opponent demonstrate how this
is a straw man. Rather I am demonstrating the fallacy of the RC
apologist who states that, in order to know the canon conclusively,
one needs an infallible authority to hand us an infallible list of
canon. I suppose that no one knew what Scripture was until the 1500’s
AD when the Council of Trent finally put down an "infallible
pronouncement" of the canon of Scripture. Furthermore, my
opponent equivocates, first saying that the Old Testament church knew
Scripture by submitting to the Church’s authority then saying Hebrew
canon was in dispute for a long time. This would cast some doubt on
the authority of the Old Testament Church, no doubt. >>
The Old Testament Church not having infallibility does not mean they
didn’t have any authority. However, the New Testament Church has
infallible authority. And I would also conclude that one DOES need an
infallible authority to hand us an infallible list of canon because an
infallible effect cannot come from an fallible cause.
However, if she says that the canon is fallible, then that means that
she doesn’t know that the 27 NT books are the Word of God. However, if
she says that the canon is in itself infallible, since God made that
canon, then there is another infallible rule of faith. The canon is both
a rule of faith and infallible. Therefore, there is another infallible
rule of faith other than the Scriptures.
Since we are talking about the canon, let us turn the tables around.
How does Julie actually know what Scripture is when the Scriptures
themselves does not give us a list of books? We agree that the
Scriptures are self-evident in themselves (or self-authenticating), but
that isn’t self-evident to us. She never gave a criterion for the
canon or how we can know the nature of Scripture.
Julie mentioned what I believe should be responded to:
<< If A wishes to cast
any doubt on my assertions of Scripture alone, then he must
demonstrate the existence of a rule of faith equal to Scripture in
inspiration. >>
First of all, Julie has not shown from Scripture that Scripture is
the only infallible rule of faith therefore it is self-referentially
inconsistent. Second, I don’t have to show another infallible SOURCE
OF DOGMA, which I believe Julie is confusing with "rule of
faith." As Greg Krehbiel states, "The Nicene Creed would be an
infallible interpretation of the infallible source of dogma."
Athanasius says,
"Without pre-fixing Consulate, month, and day, they wrote
concerning Easter, 'It seemed good as follows,' for it did then seem
good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith
they wrote not, 'It seemed good,' but, 'Thus believes the Catholic
Church;' and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to
shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and
what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as
was taught by the Apostles." (Councils of Ariminum and
Seleucia 5)
"The confession arrived at Nicaea was, we say more, SUFFICIENT,
AND ENOUGH BY ITSELF, for the subversion of all irreligious
heresy, and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the
Church." (To the Bishops of Africa, 1)
"For this Synod of Nicaea is in TRUTH a
proscription of every heresy." (Ibid, 11)
Does this mean that Nicaea didn’t use Scripture? Let’s say for
the sake of the argument that Nicaea used Scripture alone to define
doctrine. But that just shows that Scripture is the infallible source of
dogma and Nicaea then makes an infallible interpretation. Hence, the
interpretation of Nicaea is an infallible rule.
I also pointed out that the early Church did not practice Sola
Scriptura because they didn’t have the correct number of books. How
can someone practice Sola Scriptura if you don’t have ALL
SCRIPTURE? Doesn’t 2 Tim 3:16-17 say that ALL SCRIPTURE,
not some, makes the man of God equipped? This was the unanswered
question Julie never answered among other questions, which I will give
in my concluding statement.
See Julie's Rebuttals Here
A.L.
|
|