Advice for my upcoming Sola Scriptura debate
#11
I personally wouldn't engage in debates like this, to be honest.  People on the side of sola scriptura have their minds made up and only the Holy Spirit can change and/or enlighten them.  I guarantee you it will end up in an argument with lots of smugness and nothing will be accomplished.
Reply
#12
(09-22-2017, 10:57 PM)MaryLover Wrote: In October, I'm going to be doing a Sola Scriptura in which I intend to prove, that the Holy Bible is not a catechetical book, but rather geared towards those, who already know the basics of the One True Faith. I am studying for this, I have read the FishEaters article on Sola Scriptura, I have Patrick Madrid's Where's that in the Bible,  and am currently watching a Sola Scriptura debate on Youtube, and am taking notes. Still every bit, helps, so I'm asking for your guys advice on this, any tips?


You might ask, "How do you know that what you are reading is the Bible?" There could be fallible books added and/or infallible books missing. The translation could be incorrect. To give you an answer he will have to go to a fallible source (according to him). He can't say his Church told him, because according to him, no Church is infallible, rather just scripture alone. If he says he's researched the matter and knows through various historians which are the correct texts and translations, they again are fallible. Also, he would not be using scripture alone to come to his determination. If he says the Holy Ghost told him, then why should any one believe him in particular? Thousands upon thousands of people say the Holy Ghost teaches them, all while disagreeing with one another. Why should anyone believe him? He himself is fallible. How does he know he heard the Holy Ghost? He can't tell you to believe him, when he himself says you must go to scripture alone. The most common verse a protestant twists to support his false position is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which reads...

"All Scripture inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to argue, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, instructed to every good work."


Simply point out that "profitable" does not equal "sufficient". Water profits the body, but it is not sufficient. The body also needs oxygen, vitamins, minerals etc. to survive.
Reply
#13
Quote:If he says the Holy Ghost told him, then why should any one believe him in particular? Thousands upon thousands of people say the Holy Ghost teaches them, all while disagreeing with one another. Why should anyone believe him? He himself is fallible.


I really wish people would stop using these sorts of apologetics arguments.

Lookit, he believes the Holy Spirit has led him to accept a certain canon of Scripture, and you believe the Holy Spirit has led you to assent to the teachings of the Church of Rome.

Neither of you are infallible, and neither of you believe that your conclusions can be assented to without supernatural faith given by God.

So you are at an impasse. Your final conclusions are always going to be rooted in an assumption that God is leading you a certain way, and both of you can be asked the exact same questions you believe only he should answer.

There is no Roman Catholic who can infallibly know which books belong in the Bible. All they can have is a sincere trust that the Church of Rome is correct when she makes a canonical declaration. But "sincere trust" is not what the apologist's rhetoric demands of the Protestant, who is fully expected to have an infallible knowledge not even the Roman Catholic can have. That sort of thing is an apologist's word-game: it claims the Protestant lacks something the Roman Catholic possesses.

In my opinion, it is far better to simply leave this whole "you can't know the canon without authority" question out of the discussion of Sola Scriptura.
Reply
#14
(07-26-2018, 12:01 AM)BenedicamDominum Wrote:
Quote:If he says the Holy Ghost told him, then why should any one believe him in particular? Thousands upon thousands of people say the Holy Ghost teaches them, all while disagreeing with one another. Why should anyone believe him? He himself is fallible.



Quote:I really wish people would stop using these sorts of apologetics arguments.

Lookit, he believes the Holy Spirit has led him to accept a certain canon of Scripture, and you believe the Holy Spirit has led you to assent to the teachings of the Church of Rome.

I never said the Holy Spirit led me to believe the teachings of the Church Rome. I don't believe a teaching because it comes from a place. For a time the Papacy wasn't even located in Rome. I certainly don't currently believe in most of the teachings of Rome. In fact I oppose many of them. I rather believe in the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Why?

Because Tradition points to an infallible Catholic Church
Because Scripture points to an infallible Catholic Church
Because unity in doctrine points to an infallible Catholic Church
Because holy saints and martyrs point to an infallible Catholic Church
Because universality points to the infallible Catholic Church
Because a living apostolic Magisterium has pointed to the infallible Catholic Church
Because history points to an infallible Catholic Church
Because true miracles attest to the infallible Catholic Church
Because common sense points to an infallible Catholic Church
Because actual graces (on the natural plane--when cooperated with) point to an infallible Catholic Church

Notice that supernatural faith is not listed above. Keep this in mind as I respond to your next point.

Quote:Neither of you are infallible, and neither of you believe that your conclusions can be assented to without supernatural faith given by God.

I really wish people would stop putting words in my mouth when they post. Supernatural faith is only given in water baptism. Actual graces, however, (on the merely natural plane) can be given to anyone (even pagans). These can help point non-Catholics to the true Church (if they cooperate with them), where they can then receive baptism and therefore receive supernatural faith which is infused at that time. One can come to the conclusion of an infallible Church who can declare the infallible canon of Scripture before one receives supernatural faith during water baptism, however, because of the points mentioned above. No supernatural faith needed.

Quote:So you are at an impasse. Your final conclusions are always going to be rooted in an assumption that God is leading you a certain way, and both of you can be asked the exact same questions you believe only he should answer.

You are the only one at the impasse because you assumed you knew my position when you did not. My faith is rooted not in grace alone nor in scripture alone, but in the whole package, which the protestant does not and cannot have.


Quote:There is no Roman Catholic who can infallibly know which books belong in the Bible. All they can have is a sincere trust that the Church of Rome is correct when she makes a canonical declaration. But "sincere trust" is not what the apologist's rhetoric demands of the Protestant, who is fully expected to have an infallible knowledge not even the Roman Catholic can have. That sort of thing is an apologist's word-game: it claims the Protestant lacks something the Roman Catholic possesses.

So then, if the protestant says Jesus was merely a man and/or that it's ok to murder someone and steal from them if one feels like it and there is no need to repent due to the fact that Jesus has already covered our sins, and he tells you he believes these things because it says so in the scriptures that God has led him to, how then would you respond to him? According to you, you would have to tell him as long as he has a "sincere trust" that what he believes is correct, you could not advise him to believe any differently with certainty, because it is impossible for human beings to know infallibly. After all, "sincere trust" is all you claim to have. He certainly can (and does) claim "the same" in what he believes. Are you beginning to see how ridiculous your position is? I hope so.
Reply
#15
I know he is Novus Ordo, however:

http://www.steveraysstore.com/apostolic-...faith-dvd/

All you really have to do is show this! The Protestant "missing link" between Early Christianity and the Middle Ages. It proves that the Faith is practiced in the traditional Roman Catholic Church the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. It debunks Sola Scriptura and has fun as well. Simple enough for children, challenging enough for adults and converts!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)