Voice of Reason demolishes James "White beard" white in Catholic vs Reformed debate

4,978 Views | 47 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by AgLiving06
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:29p, 8/1/24
Alex aka "voice of reason" and James White recently debated the merits of Catholicism and the Reformed faith in a very lively and eye opening two hour debate on YouTube posted here

White has been a long time critic of Roman Catholicism but seems to have lost some shine off of his star after getting waxed by Sungenis and Jimmy Akin for decades. What is pointed and wholesome about this debate is how lovingly Voice of Reason debates him, how he embraced him at the beginning and end of the debate and how thoroughly he wiped the floor with him in the debate.

I understand I am biased but have read both Protestant and orthodox reviews of the debate which agree. Reformed theology is a huge head scratcher for me, it is very very popular and prevalent here in the American south, but seems to have very little in common with actual historical Christianity. 95% of its theology seems to have been invented within the last few hundred years based on the personal interpretation of scripture of Zwingli and Calvin and a misunderstanding of Augustine.

Either way, if you have time please watch the debate and let me know your thoughts
Reply Quote
4
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:40p, 8/1/24
AG
I will have to check it out. I am going through the White vs Akin debate on Sola Scriptura right now from April 2024. I really am having a hard time following Akin's position regarding the Apostolic Paradigm and fallible vs infallible church interpretation. It seems very fluid and wishy washy to me.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 4:53p, 8/1/24
10andBOUNCE said:
I will have to check it out. I am going through the White vs Akin debate on Sola Scriptura right now from April 2024. I really am having a hard time following Akin's position regarding the Apostolic Paradigm and fallible vs infallible church interpretation. It seems very fluid and wishy washy to me.


The thing I think that is the worst about Akin is that he'll sometimes take a "point" even when it isn't about the actual
argument someone is making, and when he talks about a subject he doesn't explain himself at a level where non Catholics unfamiliar without paradigm will understand but will take it for granted everyone has a firm Catholic base, it can make him hard to understand.

Voice of Reason uses a ton of scripture, one of the Protestant responses to the debate was "did not expect the Catholic to
quote 10x as much scripture as the Protestant" and he makes sure to throughly explain his positions at a level where you don't have to know the Catholic teachings like the back of your hand
Reply Quote
1
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:52a, 8/2/24
This was a really good debate. From the Catholic perspective, a few things I saw:

1. The Bible is not the infallible authority. GOD is the infallible authority and He gave us the Bible, and because of that, we can know it is infallible. He also gave us a church through the apostles that predates scripture. Why does one have authority and the other does not? I have serval things to say about the way the Bible is viewed Protestants (in my opinion) but it would take away from the rest of the post, so I'll save it for later.

2. White was unprepared. Alex smoked him on multiple points, leading him to appeal to the fact that he's done tons of debates over the last 30 year. He also repeatedly focused on pope Francis's bad quotes (of which there are many) while ignoring the fact that Francis has many other quotes definitively saying that certain things (like gay marriage, women priests) can never be a thing. He simply tried to cast doubt based on a pope's seeming disposition rather than sticking to fact. He even grants that this pope hasn't actually changed the teaching. He essentially proves the point that it doesn't matter what one pope (or group of people) may think, it's the actual teaching that matters

2B. He tries to portray the church changing authoritative teaching (which isn't true) while side stepping the very obvious fact that every other denomination HAS changed teaching on contraception. In the past 100 years, every denomination (that I'm aware of at least) has changed course on this moral teaching. It doesn't matter what denomination you are, if you are reading this, your church denounced contraception less than 100 years ago as sin. What do they say now? For all the press releases saying tha Catholic Church would cave on contraception, here we are. And that's just one example. We can't skip over the interpretive authority and pretend like it'll all be ok.

3. This reminds me again that debates are just that: debates. They are not comprehensive, and im sure both James and Alex wish they could say things differently, add points of clarity or flat out approach certain topics a different way. I would give grace to any mediocre answer given on both sides.

4. Alex notes his appreciation that he and Dr White can embrace. Jesus wants us to be one. That does not mean we should water down our beliefs, but the more we view the other as an enemy ( especially 500 years after the split) does more harm than good. We've been raised with so many faith traditions that reunification will require an act of God in the most literal sense. Let's all pray that Christians can, more or less, get on the same page again.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 11:54a, 8/2/24
The Banned said:
This was a really good debate. From the Catholic perspective, a few things I saw:

1. The Bible is not the infallible authority. GOD is the infallible authority and He gave us the Bible, and because of that, we can know it is infallible. He also gave us a church through the apostles that predates scripture. Why does one have authority and the other does not? I have serval things to say about the way the Bible is viewed Protestants (in my opinion) but it would take away from the rest of the post, so I'll save it for later.

2. White was unprepared. Alex smoked him on multiple points, leading him to appeal to the fact that he's done tons of debates over the last 30 year. He also repeatedly focused on pope Francis's bad quotes (of which there are many) while ignoring the fact that Francis has many other quotes definitively saying that certain things (like gay marriage, women priests) can never be a thing. He simply tried to cast doubt based on a pope's seeming disposition rather than sticking to fact. He even grants that this pope hasn't actually changed the teaching. He essentially proves the point that it doesn't matter what one pope (or group of people) may think, it's the actual teaching that matters

2B. He tries to portray the church changing authoritative teaching (which isn't true) while side stepping the very obvious fact that every other denomination HAS changed teaching on contraception. In the past 100 years, every denomination (that I'm aware of at least) has changed course on this moral teaching. It doesn't matter what denomination you are, if you are reading this, your church denounced contraception less than 100 years ago as sin. What do they say now? For all the press releases saying tha Catholic Church would cave on contraception, here we are. And that's just one example. We can't skip over the interpretive authority and pretend like it'll all be ok.

3. This reminds me again that debates are just that: debates. They are not comprehensive, and im sure both James and Alex wish they could say things differently, add points of clarity or flat out approach certain topics a different way. I would give grace to any mediocre answer given on both sides.

4. Alex notes his appreciation that he and Dr White can embrace. Jesus wants us to be one. That does not mean we should water down our beliefs, but the more we view the other as an enemy ( especially 500 years after the split) does more harm than good. We've been raised with so many faith traditions that reunification will require an act of God in the most literal sense. Let's all pray that Christians can, more or less, get on the same page again.


I agree fantastic debate and White is looking more and more desperate as his arguments against the church are less and less defined and more attacks against current non authoritative practices or statements by the Holy Father and his current CDF. He also makes claims like "the canon wasn't dogmatically defined until Trent" even though he knows Trent was merely a reconfirmation of the canon rhat had been in use for 1200 years by that time.

If you follow White you'll know his "Theopneustos" points are 95% of his arguments towards sola Scriptura. Alex did a great job of showing that even if the literal world "theopneustos" is not used but once in scripture, its literal meaning is used multiple times concerning the Apostles themselves and those that receive the Holy Spirit in chrismation and confirmation.


Funny enough, white's own YouTube channel turned off the comments on the video as there were a ton of angry reformed subscribers who were pillorying him for making the reformed faith look bad. I know Alex was way down the list of debate partners and possibly White thought he would easily beat him and didn't prepare, but he made the reformed faith seem fairly contrived.
Reply Quote
Faithful Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 12:23p, 8/2/24
10andBOUNCE said:
I will have to check it out. I am going through the White vs Akin debate on Sola Scriptura right now from April 2024. I really am having a hard time following Akin's position regarding the Apostolic Paradigm and fallible vs infallible church interpretation. It seems very fluid and wishy washy to me.



This is a great discussion with Jimmy Akin and Dr. Gavin Ortland on the subject. I think this discussion may help shed more light on the Apostolic Paradigm and was a really charitable back and forth. This video was part 2.
Reply Quote
1
AgLiving06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 4:55p, 8/4/24
10andBOUNCE said:
I will have to check it out. I am going through the White vs Akin debate on Sola Scriptura right now from April 2024. I really am having a hard time following Akin's position regarding the Apostolic Paradigm and fallible vs infallible church interpretation. It seems very fluid and wishy washy to me.

The general consensus is that Akin didn't prepare for this debate at all, but simply used it as a platform to present something he wanted to work on.

Akin is also a pretty nasty debater, that hides behind his southern drawl.

He's had debates like this one, where he just ignores the debate. He had a debate with Jordan Cooper where he used extreme word play to act as if there really aren't any disagreements between Protestants and Rome. He had another debate (I forget with who), where he realized that interrupting his interlocutor was throwing the dude off so he kept doing it, even after being asked not to.
Reply Quote
AgLiving06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:08p, 8/4/24
On this debate. I'll preface by saying I started watching it, but am only through the VoR opening.

A couple comments though:

1. VoR's claims/problems with Sola Scriptura are bad. Like really bad. These are the standard pop apologetics arguments that only really work in the setting he's in.

2. What do I mean by that? A pretty big knock on James White is that he is low church, which is the only setting where these arguments "may" hold up. I don't know if he attempts to address them or not.

For example, he makes two arguments (paraphrased):

1. There are 18 named Apostles, but we only have writings from some of them.
2. He notes that we have 2 letters to the Corinthians, but it's pretty well believed there were 4.

These might work on James White (I don't know if he responds to them), but they don't with any Protestant group.

For example, this argument is directly addressed in a more modern Lutheran Systematics book:

Quote:
The traditional distinction between writings universally accepted (homolegoumena) and writings spoken against by some (antilegomena), adopted from Eusebius, was seen as a necessary distinction by Luther and early Lutheran Orthodoxy. Chemnitz, for example, argued, first, that the church cannot make authoritative writings which the ancients had rejected; second, that the church cannot reject writings which the church universally accepted; and third, that the "present church" cannot "make those writings [which were in doubt] canonical, universal, and equal to those of the first rank." This distinction remains important. The core writings of the Gospel and Apostle have, from the beginning, been the rule and norm of apostolic preaching and teaching. These should form the foundation of all teaching and preaching done in Christ's name. Other writings that were historically not so clearly apostolic should be interpreted in light of the core writings, not the reverse. These writings do not have so central a role in the life of the church as the core writings.

The theoretical possibility that lost and unknown but genuinely prophetic or apostolic writings might by God's providence be discovered is sometimes raised, and some individual sayings or deeds of Jesus may have been passed on independent of the four-fold gospel tradition. Considered from both a theological and historical perspective, should any such writings be recovered, they could never attain the authoritative status of the rest of the Scriptures. From a theological perspective, the genuine gospel and apostolic faith has already been made clear and preserved in the canonical Scriptures. Any newly recovered writings which add to or contradict this norm would necessarily be rejected as non-apostolic. From a historical perspective, the church throughout its history has rejected these writing for various reasons. As Chemnitz notes, the later church cannot bestow authority upon writings that were not authoritative among the earliest Christiansotherwise nothing would prevent the church from going as far as declaring even Aesop's Fables canonical.57 In this sense, then, the church has a "closed canon," or more accurately, a group of writings which has been long acknowledged as authoritative and is not in need of revision.

Samuel H. Nafzger et al., eds., Confessing the Gospel: A Lutheran Approach to Systematic Theology, vol. 1 & 2 (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2017), 672673.

Reply Quote
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLiving06 • 6:22p, 8/4/24
White responds that he believes one of the lost letters is actually just Ephesians, and VoR counters that he mentioned that so he would have to claim that he used extra biblical references to come to that understanding.
Reply Quote
AgLiving06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quo Vadis? • 7:24p, 8/4/24
Quo Vadis? said:
White responds that he believes one of the lost letters is actually just Ephesians, and VoR counters that he mentioned that so he would have to claim that he used extra biblical references to come to that understanding.

Interesting. I've not heard that theory.

This just shows what I said about White. His view doesn't play well in these context because he doesn't hold to the tenets of Sola Scriptura. If he did, there's really no concern with any of the arguments.

Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLiving06 • 8:40p, 8/4/24
AgLiving06 said:
10andBOUNCE said:
I will have to check it out. I am going through the White vs Akin debate on Sola Scriptura right now from April 2024. I really am having a hard time following Akin's position regarding the Apostolic Paradigm and fallible vs infallible church interpretation. It seems very fluid and wishy washy to me.

The general consensus is that Akin didn't prepare for this debate at all, but simply used it as a platform to present something he wanted to work on.

Akin is also a pretty nasty debater, that hides behind his southern drawl.

He's had debates like this one, where he just ignores the debate. He had a debate with Jordan Cooper where he used extreme word play to act as if there really aren't any disagreements between Protestants and Rome. He had another debate (I forget with who), where he realized that interrupting his interlocutor was throwing the dude off so he kept doing it, even after being asked not to.


Jimmy's southern drawl has seemingly come back with a vengeance since moving back to Arkansas lol. I don't think that's a tactic, but I can understand the sentiment.

I did not listen to either debate listed here, but I did listen to a debate where he faces a fellow Catholic over the issue of Christian feminism, and I do believe he evaded very clear points to try and minimize the issue. Maybe that's what you were picking up on.

Akin is incredibly knowledgeable and great in both dialogue and monologue, but based on my limited experience, along with what you posted, it's possible interdenominational debate isn't his forte.
Reply Quote
Bob_Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:40p, 8/5/24
AG
I'll just first note the childish tone of the original post and title. It's a shame after such a charitable debate to come in here and read words like "demolished" and "waxed". Grow up.

It was nothing of the sort and its the same debate that has been hashed out several times before. Alex did a great job and is a charitable young man and it is appreciated the work he put into it. He is far better than Jimmy Akin in terms of presentation and argumentation. Akin could learn a lot from Alex.

And I'll just say that the conversation around indwelt Christians being "theopneustos" is a fundamental error by Alex and likely hints at the major contention here. This is clearly evident in what Paul is saying to Timothy in the passage of 2Timothy ("for training in righteousness"). The Scripture, which is God breathed and infallible, is what is used to sanctify indwelt believers with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 17:17). That does not make us theopneustos and that is clearly proven in the fact regenerate Christians are still fallible and in need of sanctification. In fact, if you take Alex's point here to its logical conclusion, it weakens the case for ecclesiastical authority that Roman Catholics hold to.

Overall it was good debate. At the end of the day, both sides still hold that their counterparts are in error.
Reply Quote
1
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob_Ag • 2:36p, 8/5/24
Bob_Ag said:
I'll just first note the childish tone of the original post and title. It's a shame after such a charitable debate to come in here and read words like "demolished" and "waxed". Grow up.

It was nothing of the sort and its the same debate that has been hashed out several times before. Alex did a great job and is a charitable young man and it is appreciated the work he put into it. He is far better than Jimmy Akin in terms of presentation and argumentation. Akin could learn a lot from Alex.

And I'll just say that the conversation around indwelt Christians being "theopneustos" is a fundamental error by Alex and likely hints at the major contention here. This is clearly evident in what Paul is saying to Timothy in the passage of 2Timothy ("for training in righteousness"). The Scripture, which is God breathed and infallible, is what is used to sanctify indwelt believers with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 17:17). That does not make us theopneustos and that is clearly proven in the fact regenerate Christians are still fallible and in need of sanctification. In fact, if you take Alex's point here to its logical conclusion, it weakens the case for ecclesiastical authority that Roman Catholics hold to.

Overall it was good debate. At the end of the day, both sides still hold that their counterparts are in error.


I think you misunderstood Alex's point. He was saying that many things are listed as God breathed, even if they don't use the word theopneustos that occurs one time in the Bible when speaking about scripture, and obviously all those things are not supposed to be the supreme authority on Christian teaching, and neither is scripture just by virtue of being God-breathed.
Reply Quote
1
Faithful Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:33p, 8/5/24
The scriptures were not the only authority that was "God-Breathed" and something being "God-breathed" does not necessarily imply or mean what White claims in the way he claims it. It is White's presupposition.

Quote:
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am
sending you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
NowhereMan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quo Vadis? • 4:22p, 8/5/24
Start by existing southern theology it is not representative of reformation thought.
Begin with Augustine vs Pelagius which is the foundation for Reformational thinking.
Read Thomas Aquinas and his thoughts on concupiscence and how it aligns with Augustine.
Pascal a Catholic is another consideration for Reformational thinking.
Henry Nouwen a modern Roman Catholic sounds reformational.
Pre-Trent Roman Catholic and Post Trent are different as is post Vatican 2 theology it is too confusing

Avoid a proof text war with protestants, and stupid debates. James vs Romans. Waste of time.

Try to see the big story being told in the bible.
stick to the big plot, theme and story.

Is it a story of the individual getting a second chance to prove themself or is it the sovereign God coming to rescue us from our fallen nature that has been taken captive by devil?

We are all believe the Apostles Creed it is the effect of what Christ did, the will of God as reality not potential.







Reply Quote
1
Bob_Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quo Vadis? • 4:57p, 8/5/24
AG
Quo Vadis? said:
Bob_Ag said:
I'll just first note the childish tone of the original post and title. It's a shame after such a charitable debate to come in here and read words like "demolished" and "waxed". Grow up.

It was nothing of the sort and its the same debate that has been hashed out several times before. Alex did a great job and is a charitable young man and it is appreciated the work he put into it. He is far better than Jimmy Akin in terms of presentation and argumentation. Akin could learn a lot from Alex.

And I'll just say that the conversation around indwelt Christians being "theopneustos" is a fundamental error by Alex and likely hints at the major contention here. This is clearly evident in what Paul is saying to Timothy in the passage of 2Timothy ("for training in righteousness"). The Scripture, which is God breathed and infallible, is what is used to sanctify indwelt believers with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 17:17). That does not make us theopneustos and that is clearly proven in the fact regenerate Christians are still fallible and in need of sanctification. In fact, if you take Alex's point here to its logical conclusion, it weakens the case for ecclesiastical authority that Roman Catholics hold to.

Overall it was good debate. At the end of the day, both sides still hold that their counterparts are in error.


I think you misunderstood Alex's point. He was saying that many things are listed as God breathed, even if they don't use the word theopneustos that occurs one time in the Bible when speaking about scripture, and obviously all those things are not supposed to be the supreme authority on Christian teaching, and neither is scripture just by virtue of being God-breathed.
No, I understand his point just fine. This is equivocating at its finest. Paul is clearly distinguishing Scripture in 2 Tim 3 by showing how it is distinctly useful because it is in fact theopneustos and importanty, God's intention for it. You can't just rip apart the direct contextual application of the passage because it sounds like other things are similar. It is not just that it is God breathed, but is God breathed for a specific purpose and that is what Paul is plainly alluding to.
Reply Quote
Bob_Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Faithful Ag • 5:12p, 8/5/24
AG
Faithful Ag said:
The scriptures were not the only authority that was "God-Breathed" and something being "God-breathed" does not necessarily imply or mean what White claims in the way he claims it. It is White's presupposition.

Quote:
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am
sending you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."
Once again, the argument is not what is or is not God breathed, although that is certainly a debatably topic, but what was it God breathed for. This is why I said this point Alex makes lies at the heart of the issue.
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob_Ag • 5:23p, 8/5/24
Bob_Ag said:
Quo Vadis? said:
Bob_Ag said:
I'll just first note the childish tone of the original post and title. It's a shame after such a charitable debate to come in here and read words like "demolished" and "waxed". Grow up.

It was nothing of the sort and its the same debate that has been hashed out several times before. Alex did a great job and is a charitable young man and it is appreciated the work he put into it. He is far better than Jimmy Akin in terms of presentation and argumentation. Akin could learn a lot from Alex.

And I'll just say that the conversation around indwelt Christians being "theopneustos" is a fundamental error by Alex and likely hints at the major contention here. This is clearly evident in what Paul is saying to Timothy in the passage of 2Timothy ("for training in righteousness"). The Scripture, which is God breathed and infallible, is what is used to sanctify indwelt believers with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 17:17). That does not make us theopneustos and that is clearly proven in the fact regenerate Christians are still fallible and in need of sanctification. In fact, if you take Alex's point here to its logical conclusion, it weakens the case for ecclesiastical authority that Roman Catholics hold to.

Overall it was good debate. At the end of the day, both sides still hold that their counterparts are in error.


I think you misunderstood Alex's point. He was saying that many things are listed as God breathed, even if they don't use the word theopneustos that occurs one time in the Bible when speaking about scripture, and obviously all those things are not supposed to be the supreme authority on Christian teaching, and neither is scripture just by virtue of being God-breathed.
No, I understand his point just fine. This is equivocating at its finest. Paul is clearly distinguishing Scripture in 2 Tim 3 by showing how it is distinctly useful because it is in fact theopneustos and importanty, God's intention for it. You can't just rip apart the direct contextual application of the passage because it sounds like other things are similar. It is not just that it is God breathed, but is God breathed for a specific purpose and that is what Paul is plainly alluding to.


How does "all scripture is God breathed" equal "only scripture is God breathed"? White makes this claim repeatedly but can only use his interpretation of that passage to back it up, which is why the argument fails
Reply Quote
5
Faithful Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob_Ag • 5:35p, 8/5/24
Bob_Ag said:
Quo Vadis? said:
Bob_Ag said:
I'll just first note the childish tone of the original post and title. It's a shame after such a charitable debate to come in here and read words like "demolished" and "waxed". Grow up.

It was nothing of the sort and its the same debate that has been hashed out several times before. Alex did a great job and is a charitable young man and it is appreciated the work he put into it. He is far better than Jimmy Akin in terms of presentation and argumentation. Akin could learn a lot from Alex.

And I'll just say that the conversation around indwelt Christians being "theopneustos" is a fundamental error by Alex and likely hints at the major contention here. This is clearly evident in what Paul is saying to Timothy in the passage of 2Timothy ("for training in righteousness"). The Scripture, which is God breathed and infallible, is what is used to sanctify indwelt believers with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 17:17). That does not make us theopneustos and that is clearly proven in the fact regenerate Christians are still fallible and in need of sanctification. In fact, if you take Alex's point here to its logical conclusion, it weakens the case for ecclesiastical authority that Roman Catholics hold to.

Overall it was good debate. At the end of the day, both sides still hold that their counterparts are in error.


I think you misunderstood Alex's point. He was saying that many things are listed as God breathed, even if they don't use the word theopneustos that occurs one time in the Bible when speaking about scripture, and obviously all those things are not supposed to be the supreme authority on Christian teaching, and neither is scripture just by virtue of being God-breathed.
No, I understand his point just fine. This is equivocating at its finest. Paul is clearly distinguishing Scripture in 2 Tim 3 by showing how it is distinctly useful because it is in fact theopneustos and importanty, God's intention for it. You can't just rip apart the direct contextual application of the passage because it sounds like other things are similar. It is not just that it is God breathed, but is God breathed for a specific purpose and that is what Paul is plainly alluding to.

I would just ask anyone trying to make the case that 2 Timothy 3:16 is a slam dunk for Sola Scriptura to step back and look at this claim objectively. 2Tim does not say you are attempting to make it say for several reasons:

1. Timothy first acknowledges Tradition and continuing in what you have learned knowing from whom you learned it.

2. He is speaking of the "sacred writings" that they have been acquainted with since childhood (e.g. Old Testament) and not the specific letter they were reading in that moment (Letter from Timothy).

3. "All Scripture is breathed out by God" fails to define what is Scripture and what is not Scripture.

4. Scripture being "profitable that the man of God may be made complete, and equipped for every good work" =/= only infallible authority. It simply does not say what James White is attempting to make it say which was Alex's point.

2 Timothy said:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The same people who attempt to make 2Tim 3:16 a slam dunk on Sola Scriptura will deny what is being plainly said by Jesus in the Gospel of John:

Gospel of John 20: 21-23 said:
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."

Reply Quote
2
Bob_Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 10:15p, 8/5/24
AG
The Banned said:
Bob_Ag said:
Quo Vadis? said:
Bob_Ag said:
I'll just first note the childish tone of the original post and title. It's a shame after such a charitable debate to come in here and read words like "demolished" and "waxed". Grow up.

It was nothing of the sort and its the same debate that has been hashed out several times before. Alex did a great job and is a charitable young man and it is appreciated the work he put into it. He is far better than Jimmy Akin in terms of presentation and argumentation. Akin could learn a lot from Alex.

And I'll just say that the conversation around indwelt Christians being "theopneustos" is a fundamental error by Alex and likely hints at the major contention here. This is clearly evident in what Paul is saying to Timothy in the passage of 2Timothy ("for training in righteousness"). The Scripture, which is God breathed and infallible, is what is used to sanctify indwelt believers with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 17:17). That does not make us theopneustos and that is clearly proven in the fact regenerate Christians are still fallible and in need of sanctification. In fact, if you take Alex's point here to its logical conclusion, it weakens the case for ecclesiastical authority that Roman Catholics hold to.

Overall it was good debate. At the end of the day, both sides still hold that their counterparts are in error.


I think you misunderstood Alex's point. He was saying that many things are listed as God breathed, even if they don't use the word theopneustos that occurs one time in the Bible when speaking about scripture, and obviously all those things are not supposed to be the supreme authority on Christian teaching, and neither is scripture just by virtue of being God-breathed.
No, I understand his point just fine. This is equivocating at its finest. Paul is clearly distinguishing Scripture in 2 Tim 3 by showing how it is distinctly useful because it is in fact theopneustos and importanty, God's intention for it. You can't just rip apart the direct contextual application of the passage because it sounds like other things are similar. It is not just that it is God breathed, but is God breathed for a specific purpose and that is what Paul is plainly alluding to.


How does "all scripture is God breathed" equal "only scripture is God breathed"? White makes this claim repeatedly but can only use his interpretation of that passage to back it up, which is why the argument fails


Once again, this isn't the point and I made that clear. The distinguishing factor is what it was God breathed to do and function. The purpose of God's infallible Word. And I'm not sure that passage needs interpreting. It's quite plainly stated.
Reply Quote
Bob_Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Faithful Ag • 10:29p, 8/5/24
AG
Faithful Ag said:
Bob_Ag said:
Quo Vadis? said:
Bob_Ag said:
I'll just first note the childish tone of the original post and title. It's a shame after such a charitable debate to come in here and read words like "demolished" and "waxed". Grow up.

It was nothing of the sort and its the same debate that has been hashed out several times before. Alex did a great job and is a charitable young man and it is appreciated the work he put into it. He is far better than Jimmy Akin in terms of presentation and argumentation. Akin could learn a lot from Alex.

And I'll just say that the conversation around indwelt Christians being "theopneustos" is a fundamental error by Alex and likely hints at the major contention here. This is clearly evident in what Paul is saying to Timothy in the passage of 2Timothy ("for training in righteousness"). The Scripture, which is God breathed and infallible, is what is used to sanctify indwelt believers with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 17:17). That does not make us theopneustos and that is clearly proven in the fact regenerate Christians are still fallible and in need of sanctification. In fact, if you take Alex's point here to its logical conclusion, it weakens the case for ecclesiastical authority that Roman Catholics hold to.

Overall it was good debate. At the end of the day, both sides still hold that their counterparts are in error.


I think you misunderstood Alex's point. He was saying that many things are listed as God breathed, even if they don't use the word theopneustos that occurs one time in the Bible when speaking about scripture, and obviously all those things are not supposed to be the supreme authority on Christian teaching, and neither is scripture just by virtue of being God-breathed.
No, I understand his point just fine. This is equivocating at its finest. Paul is clearly distinguishing Scripture in 2 Tim 3 by showing how it is distinctly useful because it is in fact theopneustos and importanty, God's intention for it. You can't just rip apart the direct contextual application of the passage because it sounds like other things are similar. It is not just that it is God breathed, but is God breathed for a specific purpose and that is what Paul is plainly alluding to.

I would just ask anyone trying to make the case that 2 Timothy 3:16 is a slam dunk for Sola Scriptura to step back and look at this claim objectively. 2Tim does not say you are attempting to make it say for several reasons:

1. Timothy first acknowledges Tradition and continuing in what you have learned knowing from whom you learned it.

2. He is speaking of the "sacred writings" that they have been acquainted with since childhood (e.g. Old Testament) and not the specific letter they were reading in that moment (Letter from Timothy).

3. "All Scripture is breathed out by God" fails to define what is Scripture and what is not Scripture.

4. Scripture being "profitable that the man of God may be made complete, and equipped for every good work" =/= only infallible authority. It simply does not say what James White is attempting to make it say which was Alex's point.

2 Timothy said:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

The same people who attempt to make 2Tim 3:16 a slam dunk on Sola Scriptura will deny what is being plainly said by Jesus in the Gospel of John:

Gospel of John 20: 21-23 said:
Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld."



This is great, but I'm not even bringing this up. Im saying the way Paul is applying that term, theopneustos, to Scripture, is specific in its meaning and intent. I'm saying Alex is misrepresenting that in his debate. Even if you want to believe that term applies to us, it would be foolish to suggest it has the same purpose or intent. We are not Scripture nor is Scripture us.

Beyond that it's all the same arguments from both sides.
Reply Quote
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob_Ag • 11:38p, 8/5/24
Bob_Ag said:
The Banned said:
Bob_Ag said:
Quo Vadis? said:
Bob_Ag said:
I'll just first note the childish tone of the original post and title. It's a shame after such a charitable debate to come in here and read words like "demolished" and "waxed". Grow up.

It was nothing of the sort and its the same debate that has been hashed out several times before. Alex did a great job and is a charitable young man and it is appreciated the work he put into it. He is far better than Jimmy Akin in terms of presentation and argumentation. Akin could learn a lot from Alex.

And I'll just say that the conversation around indwelt Christians being "theopneustos" is a fundamental error by Alex and likely hints at the major contention here. This is clearly evident in what Paul is saying to Timothy in the passage of 2Timothy ("for training in righteousness"). The Scripture, which is God breathed and infallible, is what is used to sanctify indwelt believers with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 17:17). That does not make us theopneustos and that is clearly proven in the fact regenerate Christians are still fallible and in need of sanctification. In fact, if you take Alex's point here to its logical conclusion, it weakens the case for ecclesiastical authority that Roman Catholics hold to.

Overall it was good debate. At the end of the day, both sides still hold that their counterparts are in error.


I think you misunderstood Alex's point. He was saying that many things are listed as God breathed, even if they don't use the word theopneustos that occurs one time in the Bible when speaking about scripture, and obviously all those things are not supposed to be the supreme authority on Christian teaching, and neither is scripture just by virtue of being God-breathed.
No, I understand his point just fine. This is equivocating at its finest. Paul is clearly distinguishing Scripture in 2 Tim 3 by showing how it is distinctly useful because it is in fact theopneustos and importanty, God's intention for it. You can't just rip apart the direct contextual application of the passage because it sounds like other things are similar. It is not just that it is God breathed, but is God breathed for a specific purpose and that is what Paul is plainly alluding to.


How does "all scripture is God breathed" equal "only scripture is God breathed"? White makes this claim repeatedly but can only use his interpretation of that passage to back it up, which is why the argument fails


Once again, this isn't the point and I made that clear. The distinguishing factor is what it was God breathed to do and function. The purpose of God's infallible Word. And I'm not sure that passage needs interpreting. It's quite plainly stated.


That is not clear at all. I don't see anywhere that he is setting scripture apart from anything else. Is scripture inerrant? Catholics and EO believe this. Are we beholden to not contradict scripture? Catholics and EO believe this.

Is scripture self interpreting? No. I can't find any early writings that back this up. Does scripture say that there is no co-equal authority outside of itself? No.

There are a whole host of issues I can bring up, but I know we won't agree. Using the Bible alone as your sole authority, I don't see how you can back up your position.
Reply Quote
Faithful Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob_Ag • 12:10a, 8/6/24
Bob_Ag said:
This is great, but I'm not even bringing this up. Im saying the way Paul is applying that term, theopneustos, to Scripture, is specific in its meaning and intent. I'm saying Alex is misrepresenting that in his debate. Even if you want to believe that term applies to us, it would be foolish to suggest it has the same purpose or intent. We are not Scripture nor is Scripture us.

Beyond that it's all the same arguments from both sides.

I am not applying this term to "us". Which is the entire point that you (and Dr. White) are missing because you have tunnel vision about theopneustos in this verse. I am pointing out that the same can be applied to the apostles and disciples that Jesus (God) breathed on them giving them the Holy Spirit . God breathed life into Adam, and God breathed life into the Church and promised the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth until the end of the age, and God breathed life into the Scriptures. It was through the God-breathed men that the God-breathed NT scriptures came into existence, and then through the God-breathed Church that the Scriptures were recognized. They are all God breathed and of the same essence.

The point Alex was making in the debate is that theopneustos (God-breathed) speaks to the nature of scripture, which is of the same nature as the Church. Alex was not misrepresenting anything, but rather he was calling attention to the glaring weakness underlying Dr. White's interpretation.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Bob_Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 7:51a, 8/6/24
AG
The Banned said:
Bob_Ag said:
The Banned said:
Bob_Ag said:
Quo Vadis? said:
Bob_Ag said:
I'll just first note the childish tone of the original post and title. It's a shame after such a charitable debate to come in here and read words like "demolished" and "waxed". Grow up.

It was nothing of the sort and its the same debate that has been hashed out several times before. Alex did a great job and is a charitable young man and it is appreciated the work he put into it. He is far better than Jimmy Akin in terms of presentation and argumentation. Akin could learn a lot from Alex.

And I'll just say that the conversation around indwelt Christians being "theopneustos" is a fundamental error by Alex and likely hints at the major contention here. This is clearly evident in what Paul is saying to Timothy in the passage of 2Timothy ("for training in righteousness"). The Scripture, which is God breathed and infallible, is what is used to sanctify indwelt believers with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 17:17). That does not make us theopneustos and that is clearly proven in the fact regenerate Christians are still fallible and in need of sanctification. In fact, if you take Alex's point here to its logical conclusion, it weakens the case for ecclesiastical authority that Roman Catholics hold to.

Overall it was good debate. At the end of the day, both sides still hold that their counterparts are in error.


I think you misunderstood Alex's point. He was saying that many things are listed as God breathed, even if they don't use the word theopneustos that occurs one time in the Bible when speaking about scripture, and obviously all those things are not supposed to be the supreme authority on Christian teaching, and neither is scripture just by virtue of being God-breathed.
No, I understand his point just fine. This is equivocating at its finest. Paul is clearly distinguishing Scripture in 2 Tim 3 by showing how it is distinctly useful because it is in fact theopneustos and importanty, God's intention for it. You can't just rip apart the direct contextual application of the passage because it sounds like other things are similar. It is not just that it is God breathed, but is God breathed for a specific purpose and that is what Paul is plainly alluding to.


How does "all scripture is God breathed" equal "only scripture is God breathed"? White makes this claim repeatedly but can only use his interpretation of that passage to back it up, which is why the argument fails


Once again, this isn't the point and I made that clear. The distinguishing factor is what it was God breathed to do and function. The purpose of God's infallible Word. And I'm not sure that passage needs interpreting. It's quite plainly stated.


That is not clear at all. I don't see anywhere that he is setting scripture apart from anything else. Is scripture inerrant? Catholics and EO believe this. Are we beholden to not contradict scripture? Catholics and EO believe this.

Is scripture self interpreting? No. I can't find any early writings that back this up. Does scripture say that there is no co-equal authority outside of itself? No.

There are a whole host of issues I can bring up, but I know we won't agree. Using the Bible alone as your sole authority, I don't see how you can back up your position.
You're kind of all over the place. I made a specific point in my first post on this thread. I'm not talking about James White or even Sola Scriptura necessarily. I'm stating that it is error to try and equate theopsneustos beyond what Paul is stating in 2 Timothy. God gave us his Holy Writ for a purpose which is directly inspired by God (which is what gives it its authority, its origin of inspiration is God himself). One of its main purposes is to sanctify us in the truth ("your word is truth, sanctify them in the truth" as our Lord says). It does not require the Roman Catholic church to become magically useful for us or to be efficacious on the life of a believer.
And yes, Scripture is in fact self-interpreting in several places. And yes, you can read the Bible and understand a great majority of it plainly. These truths are some of the great things the reformers fought for. Besides, the RCC is hardly doing a great job interpreting these days.

Your last paragraph shows you clearly don't understand what Sola Scriptura is referring to.



Reply Quote
Faithful Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob_Ag • 8:38a, 8/6/24
Bob_Ag said:
You're kind of all over the place. I made a specific point in my first post on this thread. I'm not talking about James White or even Sola Scriptura necessarily. I'm stating that it is error to try and equate theopsneustos beyond what Paul is stating in 2 Timothy. God gave us his Holy Writ for a purpose which is directly inspired by God (which is what gives it its authority, its origin of inspiration is God himself). One of its main purposes is to sanctify us in the truth ("your word is truth, sanctify them in the truth" as our Lord says). It does not require the Roman Catholic church to become magically useful for us or to be efficacious on the life of a believer.

Respectfully, you are taking a lot for granted in your assertions about Theopneustos. I understand the point you are trying to make, but you are completely missing the point Alex and myself are making. It is an error to try and make Paul's use of theopneustos to mean that the only infallible source and authority for Christians must be the Scriptures. Interpreting 2 Timothy in that way goes beyond what 2 Timothy says and claims more than the verse implies, especially given the backdrop of the clear teachings from Jesus himself. Where in scripture do we see that the authority and promise that Jesus clearly gave to his disciples is replaced with Scripture?

This is not an attack on the nature of Scripture in any way, but rather highlights the fact that the Scriptures are not the only thing that was God-breathed and has God's authority.

Bob_Ag said:
And yes, Scripture is in fact self-interpreting in several places. And yes, you can read the Bible and understand a great majority of it plainly. These truths are some of the great things the reformers fought for. Besides, the RCC is hardly doing a great job interpreting these days.

Your last paragraph shows you clearly don't understand what Sola Scriptura is referring to.

If Scripture was "self-interpreting" what do you do about interpreting the scriptures everywhere else not included in your "several places"? Are those verses and their meaning less important? Why do Sola-Scriptura Christians have so many different interpretations like Baptismal Regeneration for example?

I do understand Sola Scriptura and the idea is unbiblical, unworkable, and not historical. Latching on to the word Theopneustos doesn't change that reality and doesn't overcome and replace the rest of Scripture. That was the point Alex was making to Dr. white and that I am making here.

BTW - I do agree with you that the tone of the debate was very charitable and that we need more of that in these discussions. Like you I prefer to avoid the this person "demolishes" and "owns" that person stuff.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob_Ag • 8:39a, 8/6/24
AG
I re-read your first point, and I think his response is pretty apt.

Quote:
The Scripture, which is God breathed and infallible, is what is used to sanctify indwelt believers with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 17:17). That does not make us theopneustos and that is clearly proven in the fact regenerate Christians are still fallible and in need of sanctification

Ok, let's break this down a little bit.

The scripture is God-breathed and infallible. Check. We all agree here.

Is what is used to sanctify indwelt believers. This is where you are getting pushback. Everyone agrees that scripture is useful for teaching etc. but the way you have written this has an implied exclusivity. That is not agreed. Other things are God-breathed, and other things are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.

That does not make us God-breathed. You are right that this particular verse does not make us God-breathed. However, there are certainly other scriptures that point out that people who have received the Spirit of God (literally Pneuma tou Theou - same exact root words) have the Breath of God dwelling in them.

that is clearly proven in the fact regenerate Christians are still fallible and in need of sanctification. There is an unspoken assumption here that is making an identity relationship between the concepts of God-breathed and infallible. People can receive the breath of God and still be fallible people.

As for this last post

Quote:
God gave us his Holy Writ for a purpose which is directly inspired by God (which is what gives it its authority, its origin of inspiration is God himself).
Other things in the scripture are directly inspired by God and have authority -- the teaching of the Apostles, for example, is directly inspired by God and has authority, because its origin is from God Himself through Jesus Christ, and is illumined by God Himself through the Spirit. St Paul's Gospel is a particular example of this divinely inspired, authoritative teaching that was, as he says, not received from man nor was taught it but revealed through direct revelation.
Reply Quote
2
Bob_Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Faithful Ag • 8:46a, 8/6/24
AG
Faithful Ag said:
Bob_Ag said:
This is great, but I'm not even bringing this up. Im saying the way Paul is applying that term, theopneustos, to Scripture, is specific in its meaning and intent. I'm saying Alex is misrepresenting that in his debate. Even if you want to believe that term applies to us, it would be foolish to suggest it has the same purpose or intent. We are not Scripture nor is Scripture us.

Beyond that it's all the same arguments from both sides.

I am not applying this term to "us". Which is the entire point that you (and Dr. White) are missing because you have tunnel vision about theopneustos in this verse. I am pointing out that the same can be applied to the apostles and disciples that Jesus (God) breathed on them giving them the Holy Spirit . God breathed life into Adam, and God breathed life into the Church and promised the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth until the end of the age, and God breathed life into the Scriptures. It was through the God-breathed men that the God-breathed NT scriptures came into existence, and then through the God-breathed Church that the Scriptures were recognized. They are all God breathed and of the same essence.

The point Alex was making in the debate is that theopneustos (God-breathed) speaks to the nature of scripture, which is of the same nature as the Church. Alex was not misrepresenting anything, but rather he was calling attention to the glaring weakness underlying Dr. White's interpretation.
Again, this is fallacious and wrong. You're liberally trying to equate things in the Bible and destroying the immediate contextual understanding of that passage. Like I said, the point is not just that it's inspired and given by God, but inspired by God for a certain purpose. That doesn't you mean you can then just jump around the Bible and find every place you feel is similar which isn't even using the same Greek word and then equate their purpose. Paul is distinguishing Scripture in that passage whereas you are universalizing it. That is precisely how not interpret the Bible.
Reply Quote
Bob_Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 9:11a, 8/6/24
AG
Quote:
Ok, let's break this down a little bit.

The scripture is God-breathed and infallible. Check. We all agree here.

Is what is used to sanctify indwelt believers. This is where you are getting pushback. Everyone agrees that scripture is useful for teaching etc. but the way you have written this has an implied exclusivity. That is not agreed. Other things are God-breathed, and other things are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.

That does not make us God-breathed. You are right that this particular verse does not make us God-breathed. However, there are certainly other scriptures that point out that people who have received the Spirit of God (literally Pneuma tou Theou - same exact root words) have the Breath of God dwelling in them.

that is clearly proven in the fact regenerate Christians are still fallible and in need of sanctification. There is an unspoken assumption here that is making an identity relationship between the concepts of God-breathed and infallible. People can receive the breath of God and still be fallible people.

This is simple. Paul is making a point that Scripture is God Breathed, God Inspired which in that very essence is what makes it able to make us "wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ". Amen. Why is that?

Because it derives its infallible nature from God Himself. Which is why Christ uses it as His infallible defense against Satan. That does not imply that other things are not inspired by God. That does not imply there is nothing else useful for our Christian walk to maturity. However, the only thing that grounds us to these things is God's infallible Word. You can't go around equating the utility of things by presupposing everything that is inspired by God has the same function. The whole world was created by God's inspiration. Do you think that is what Paul is getting at here in the passage? No, of course not. And that's my point.

Quote:
Other things in the scripture are directly inspired by God and have authority -- the teaching of the Apostles, for example, is directly inspired by God and has authority, because its origin is from God Himself through Jesus Christ, and is illumined by God Himself through the Spirit. St Paul's Gospel is a particular example of this divinely inspired, authoritative teaching that was, as he says, not received from man nor was taught it but revealed through direct revelation.
Yes. And I'm thankful God led this whole process of inscripturation by the work of His Holy Spirit. And I'm thankful we have the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets and the Cornerstone Himself. And I'm also thankful we have a closed canon of Scripture that makes us wise for Salvation. And I'm thankful we have the Spirit of Truth indwelling us that guides us in sanctification and helps us discern the truth.

We don't live in the age of the Apostles anymore, however. We no longer need to add or take away from Scripture. We have everything that the man of God needs to be complete, equipped for every good work. I'm very thankful for that because it is all by God's grace.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob_Ag • 9:16a, 8/6/24
AG

Quote:
You can't go around equating the utility of things by presupposing everything that is inspired by God has the same function.
And you can't go around degrading the utility of other things by presupposing that nothing else has this function.

You are saying that because scripture is described as God-breathed nothing else may have the same function. There is no scriptural basis to do so.


Quote:
Yes. And I'm thankful God led this whole process of inscripturation by the work of His Holy Spirit. And I'm thankful we have the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets and the Cornerstone Himself. And I'm also thankful we have a closed canon of Scripture that makes us wise for Salvation. And I'm thankful we have the Spirit of Truth indwelling us that guides us in sanctification and helps us discern the truth.

We don't live in the age of the Apostles anymore, however. We no longer need to add or take away from Scripture. We have everything that the man of God needs to be complete, equipped for every good work. I'm very thankful for that because it is all by God's grace.
And, to bring it home, this is an anachronistic view which is historically untenable. To wit: we may have a closed canon today, but in the past we did not. So who closed the canon, and by what authority?
Reply Quote
3
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bob_Ag • 9:27a, 8/6/24
Bob_Ag said:
The Banned said:
Bob_Ag said:
The Banned said:
Bob_Ag said:
Quo Vadis? said:
Bob_Ag said:
I'll just first note the childish tone of the original post and title. It's a shame after such a charitable debate to come in here and read words like "demolished" and "waxed". Grow up.

It was nothing of the sort and its the same debate that has been hashed out several times before. Alex did a great job and is a charitable young man and it is appreciated the work he put into it. He is far better than Jimmy Akin in terms of presentation and argumentation. Akin could learn a lot from Alex.

And I'll just say that the conversation around indwelt Christians being "theopneustos" is a fundamental error by Alex and likely hints at the major contention here. This is clearly evident in what Paul is saying to Timothy in the passage of 2Timothy ("for training in righteousness"). The Scripture, which is God breathed and infallible, is what is used to sanctify indwelt believers with the help of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, John 17:17). That does not make us theopneustos and that is clearly proven in the fact regenerate Christians are still fallible and in need of sanctification. In fact, if you take Alex's point here to its logical conclusion, it weakens the case for ecclesiastical authority that Roman Catholics hold to.

Overall it was good debate. At the end of the day, both sides still hold that their counterparts are in error.


I think you misunderstood Alex's point. He was saying that many things are listed as God breathed, even if they don't use the word theopneustos that occurs one time in the Bible when speaking about scripture, and obviously all those things are not supposed to be the supreme authority on Christian teaching, and neither is scripture just by virtue of being God-breathed.
No, I understand his point just fine. This is equivocating at its finest. Paul is clearly distinguishing Scripture in 2 Tim 3 by showing how it is distinctly useful because it is in fact theopneustos and importanty, God's intention for it. You can't just rip apart the direct contextual application of the passage because it sounds like other things are similar. It is not just that it is God breathed, but is God breathed for a specific purpose and that is what Paul is plainly alluding to.


How does "all scripture is God breathed" equal "only scripture is God breathed"? White makes this claim repeatedly but can only use his interpretation of that passage to back it up, which is why the argument fails


Once again, this isn't the point and I made that clear. The distinguishing factor is what it was God breathed to do and function. The purpose of God's infallible Word. And I'm not sure that passage needs interpreting. It's quite plainly stated.


That is not clear at all. I don't see anywhere that he is setting scripture apart from anything else. Is scripture inerrant? Catholics and EO believe this. Are we beholden to not contradict scripture? Catholics and EO believe this.

Is scripture self interpreting? No. I can't find any early writings that back this up. Does scripture say that there is no co-equal authority outside of itself? No.

There are a whole host of issues I can bring up, but I know we won't agree. Using the Bible alone as your sole authority, I don't see how you can back up your position.
You're kind of all over the place. I made a specific point in my first post on this thread. I'm not talking about James White or even Sola Scriptura necessarily. I'm stating that it is error to try and equate theopsneustos beyond what Paul is stating in 2 Timothy. God gave us his Holy Writ for a purpose which is directly inspired by God (which is what gives it its authority, its origin of inspiration is God himself). One of its main purposes is to sanctify us in the truth ("your word is truth, sanctify them in the truth" as our Lord says). It does not require the Roman Catholic church to become magically useful for us or to be efficacious on the life of a believer.
And yes, Scripture is in fact self-interpreting in several places. And yes, you can read the Bible and understand a great majority of it plainly. These truths are some of the great things the reformers fought for. Besides, the RCC is hardly doing a great job interpreting these days.

Your last paragraph shows you clearly don't understand what Sola Scriptura is referring to.





You're are really reaching here. As has already been pointed out, Paul is telling his audience about the scriptures they've known since childhood. The first NT books is estimated to have been written 15-20 years before 2 Timothy. So unless he is specifically targeting an audience of teenagers, it is literally impossible that he is talking about the NT books. Even then, several more books were yet to be written. He is talking about how the OT paved the way for us to understand Christ's coming.

You can say that your only desire is to point out that scripture is specifically called god breathed for teaching. I can say that it does not clearly state it's the only thing. You say the Bible doesn't have to say that, but for some reason the Bible DOES have to say that the church is God breathed for teaching, otherwise it doesn't count. Seems like a double standard.

I'm well aware of the differences between sola scriptura and "solo" scriptura, but in this particular instance, you are appealing to solo without recognizing it.
Reply Quote
3
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:58a, 8/6/24
AG
Imagine if we interpreted 1 Tim 3:15 this way - the Church of the living God is the [only] pillar and foundation of truth.
Reply Quote
5
AgLiving06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 7:02p, 8/6/24
Zobel said:
Imagine if we interpreted 1 Tim 3:15 this way - the Church of the living God is the [only] pillar and foundation of truth.

I mean...it sounds good, but lets play it out.

Who is the Church of the living God? Those who are in communion with the Pope? I suspect several of those who starred your post say you. Do you agree?

What about the Lutheran definition of the Church? Do you agree this is right?

[1] It is also taught that at all times there must be and remain one holy, Christian church. It is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel

Or will you make a claim about the Church as it relates to the EO?

Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgLiving06 • 8:51p, 8/6/24
AG
I don't know what you're talking about.

My point was - that verse doesn't mean the church is the exclusive foundation of truth. We shouldn't read exclusivity into that any more than into the verse about scripture.
Reply Quote
4
Frok
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:21p, 8/7/24
AG
I appreciated the debate, it's good to see the charitable attitude from both men. I think both sides will think their guy "won" the debate.

My personal opinion on scriptural interpretation, there isn't a specific person or institution with the sole authority to interpretation. I live in the 21st century, I can use technology to read what any wise person has ever said on the subject. I have other believers who can correct me if I'm in error.

The Holy Spirit guides that whether it be your church or others around you.

SO I guess I do agree with the Catholics that you do need outside sources (other believers) to help walk you through it.

Reply Quote
2
Faithful Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Frok • 8:30p, 8/7/24
Frok said:
I appreciated the debate, it's good to see the charitable attitude from both men. I think both sides will think their guy "won" the debate.

My personal opinion on scriptural interpretation, there isn't a specific person or institution with the sole authority to interpretation. I live in the 21st century, I can use technology to read what any wise person has ever said on the subject. I have other believers who can correct me if I'm in error.

The Holy Spirit guides that whether it be your church or others around you.

SO I guess I do agree with the Catholics that you do need outside sources (other believers) to help walk you through it.

Catholics don't go to "outside sources". Catholics go to the source that Jesus and the Scriptures instruct us to listen to and promised the Holy Ghost to protect and guide until the end of the age.

Last time I checked the Bible does not instruct us to use AI or google to help us interpret scripture or for doctrinal guidance. Neither does Scripture instruct to rely on other professed Christians. The Bible instructs us. listen to the Church.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Page 1 of 2 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.