Reply 1

"HOW can a Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth err? Julie merely states, 'Nowhere in the verse is an infallible church assumed'. For some reason, she cannot give a reason to back her statement up. I agree in her statement that God is the protector and rock. However, for some reason, she does not think this is infallibility. If God protects them from erring, isn't this infallibility?"

Once again my opponent is forced to read his presupposition into the verse. He starts off with the conclusion: "Rome is infallible" and then goes backward into the text to prove His point, rather than letting the text speak for itself.

There is nothing which states that the Church would function infallibly or inerrantly. Rather, what is infallible is the Truth of God itself. Now, the last time I checked, we were debating Sola Scriptura, so I'll end our banter on Roman Catholic epistemology with this note: The "infallibility of the Church" is not a Biblically-supported doctrine. The Bible informs us that the gates of hell would not prevail over His Church, He promises her a guide and a comforter, He gives us His Word, and gives her the awesome privilege of being able to hold us His Word up before the nations as the pillar and support of the truth. But while my opponent would love to read his presupposition into the text, Scripture does not promise us an infallible Magisterium, nor does it say that a Church made up of sinners will never stumble. Nevertheless, it does tell us the Church would never be without the Spirit, and would always have the unfailing Truth of God's Word.

My opponent has the burden to demonstrate otherwise, and it is his burden alone.

"Of course, Paul meant truth that does not contain any error. Therefore if the Church proclaims the Truth, it is infallible. Therefore when the Church binds, and since God binds as well, and God is infallible, then when the Church binds, it is infallible."

My opponent's logic is astonishing� and I assure you that is not a compliment.

Nowhere are these statements substantiated in the simple text, but rather they demonstrate the lengths a Roman Catholic will go through to prove their presupposition.

"By this admission, she basically has proven that Sola Scriptura is not true."

I fail to see how I disproved Sola Scriptura. Rather, I affirmed something which is a basic tenant of Scripture Only. The authority and teaching of the apostles did not die, so their command to stand firm in the faith has not ceased. However, while the 1st Century Church had the benefit of the oral teaching of the apostles, death has silenced their voices from the Church we live in, the Church of the 21st Century. But this does not mean that we are without their teaching and authority. They were used of the Spirit in more than oral teaching; they were led to pen their teaching with all authority given unto them by the Lord to stand as His substitutes. We have the Truth of God and His Voice to the Church in the God-breathed Scriptures.

I would only assume that my opponent had a false misconception of what Sola Scriptura believers espouse with regards to apostolic authority. I hope this matter has been clarified now.

"We have to know that this isn't really a Catholic vs. a Protestant viewpoint debate, but Julie defending Sola Scriptura itself. Disproving the Catholic Church would not make Sola Scriptura true."

Exactly correct. I refer the reader and my debate opponent back to my opening statement for the evidence of the sufficiency of Scripture. I as well assert that in order for Sola Scriptura to be disproved, that it must be established that either the Bible is unreliable or that another rule of faith exists which is equal to Scripture in inspiration and able to do all that it claims it can do. (See 2 Tim. 3:16-17) Keeping in mind the arguments and the evidence I have already made in this debate, I submit that my opponent has not displayed another rule of faith which stands to be either superior to or equal to Scripture.

"Julie has admitted that oral traditions have not ceased."

I never said that, and invite others to reread my last statement to see what I did say.

"The answer is, which Julie cannot admit is from the Traditions that were handed to them."

Which my opponent has failed, more than once, to demonstrate. I have asked for the apostolic pedigree of the "Traditions" my opponent defers to, but I have yet to even hear a definitive exposition of what "Tradition" is and how it is equal to Scripture in inspiration. I have yet to see how it can make the man of God equipped for every good work. In fact, what has been demonstrated is how nebulous of a term Tradition is. It takes on whatever form and whatever definition suits the Roman Catholic apologist at the current moment in time.

"One cannot assume that this type of transmission ended when the Apostles died."

As I have said before, the teaching of the Apostles and the Gospel which they were given authority to proclaim has been inscripturated.

Reply 4

No further comments by Julie.

Reply 5

"The reason why I asked which early Church Father taught Sola Scriptura AFTER inscripturation only is because this is another man made tradition that nullifies the Word of God. It was actually just out of curiosity since "Sola Scriptura AFTER inscripturation" sounds new to me."

Which, I might note, would be your private interpretation, A. <g> Once, again, my opponent tries to hold me to his burden. We who espouse Sola Scriptura admire and respect what the early Church fathers have written, but we also realize that they have at times contradicted themselves, and have otherwise shown that they are fallible sources. Not that we should ignore what they have written, but rather we should not hold what they have written subject to that which we know is inspired: Scripture. We do not, therefore, have the burden of demonstrating our beliefs conclusively from history as that is not an infallible authority. However, this is not to say that therefore the history of the Church fails to demonstrate any who held to the hermeneutic of Sola Scriptura.

In fact, David King and William Webster show very conclusively that the hermeneutic existed. (Please see their three volume set, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith)

In my closing statement, I will wrap up and summarize all that we have encountered in the debate, and once again demonstrate the case for Sola Scriptura. But let me preface it by saying that whether or not the burden lays on me in this debate, representing the affirmative side, I invite all to read this debate in its entirety to see where the case for Sola Scriptura has been made, and how it has not been contested effectively by my opponent.

I hope that my opponent will demonstrate for us, in his closing comments, just what the case for Scripture plus Tradition is, and give us the evidence I have sought after this entire debate: Where is the evidence that Tradition is equal to Scripture in inspiration, where is the evidence that Tradition is able to do what Paul says Scripture can do in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work), what doctrines does Tradition encompass, and what apostle can we link this Tradition back to and how?

If he fails to do this, and instead accuses me of shifting the burden, then he has only served to allow my words and my evidence to stand. The choice is his. But I would like to think that Rome has a better defense than to hide behind allegations and assertions.

See A's Rebuttals Here

Julie Staples