Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's an interesting open letter with no copyright from James White to Tim Staples following their debate:
11/19/96
TO: Tim Staples, St. Joseph Catholic Radio
FROM: James White, Alpha and Omega Ministries
RE: The Debate in Review: An Open Letter to Tim Staples
Tragically, you continue to ignore the corrections offered on your misunderstanding of sola scriptura, and on the basis of that, think you have found contradictions to it in patristic sources. Your unwillingness to stand corrected, Tim, is loud testimony to the correctness of my charge: you believe in sola ecclesia.
It looks like White, stapled Staples to the wall. It is so tragic that people like Staples use such pathetic means to try to get one over on the one they debate. But in a way it is a good thing because it allows anyone who has anything between their ears to see just how pathetic Staples can be and I hope when people hear/see the debate they will call Staples to account for his untowardness.
It is due to people like Staples that Martin Luther had to invoke "Sola Scriptura." The Catholic church wanted to bury the debate with Luther using extra-biblical sources. Luther knew his strongest stance was to use the Scriptures.
It looks like White, stapled Staples to the wall. It is so tragic that people like Staples use such pathetic means to try to get one over on the one they debate. But in a way it is a good thing because it allows anyone who has anything between their ears to see just how pathetic Staples can be and I hope when people hear/see the debate they will call Staples to account for his untowardness.
It is due to people like Staples that Martin Luther had to invoke "Sola Scriptura." The Catholic church wanted to bury the debate with Luther using extra-biblical sources. Luther knew his strongest stance was to use the Scriptures.
You may want to watch this video about the conversion of Peter Kreeft to Catholicism This man is probably the CS Lewis of this era and a professor of philosophy at Boston College.
Unknowingly his conversion started at the age of 12, but he only learned this retrospectively.
Quote:
A visit to St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York when he was twelve years old, "feeling like I was in heaven... and wondering why, if Catholics got everything else wrong, as I had been taught, they got beauty so right. How could falsehood and evil be so beautiful?"[4]
You may want to watch this video about the conversion of Peter Kreeft to Catholicism This man is probably the CS Lewis of this era and a professor of philosophy at Boston College.
Unknowingly his conversion started at the age of 12, but he only learned this retrospectively.
Well he is sincere. What if he goes into a Muslim mosque and it is more beautiful than any Catholic church building he ever saw, will he convert to Islam?
Beauty does not truth make.
2Co 11:14 "And no marvel, for Satan himself is being transfigured into a messenger of light. " The allure of Satan is not an ugly face and horns and a tail but his beauty. Though I have never seen him, I'm sure, based upon the above verse that he would be extremely beautiful.
I don't mind Kreeft joining Catholicism. He just traded one set of theological ideas for another set and both sets are suspect.
If you want to be the most popular church in the world it is important to not stand for the real truth because Jesus said "People love darkness and will not come to the light."
But like I said before, I love my Catholic brothers and sisters as well as protestant. I am in neither camp. I am a believer, plain and simple who can embrace believers from both camps. It is important to not be sectarian.
Tim staples is a convert to the Catholic faith and he believed in Sola Scriptura at one time himself but found out that is not true when he studied it closer.
Good for Tim. I've heard the guy speak a number of times -- I used to listen to Catholic Answers Live quite a bit. Honestly....I'm not all that impressed with him. He seems to have a rather limited understanding of Christian Theology.
Is there something in particular you think is worth discussing about it? Or did you intend for us to read the article and just convert?
Tim staples is a convert to the Catholic faith and he believed in Sola Scriptura at one time himself but found out that is not true when he studied it closer.
Just so nobody misunderstands, I don't tend to self-identify and Protestant nor do I believe in Sola Scriptura. I'm also not Catholic.
With that said, Sola Scriptura is nonsensical. It presumes that God will never again have anything to say to humankind that is worth writing down. But the worst part is that mainline Protestantism doesn't truly believe in Sola Scriptura.
To a Protestant, if you do not accept the formal doctrine of the Trinity, you are "worshipping another Jesus" or "worshipping a false God" and you're pretty much doomed to burn in hell for eternity. Well ... the formal doctrine of the Trinity isn't actually taught in the Bible. Sure there are passages that seem to imply some aspects of it, but in every case the passage might mean something entirely different. And it is not enough to just believe in a general Trinity -- that there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The vast majority of Protestants insist that the Trinity as set forth in the Athanasian Creed is the only acceptable description of the three. In so doing, they elevate the decisions made at the Council of Nicaea and the next seven Ecumenical Councils above scripture. If you must read the Bible through the lense of the Nicaean Trinity, then you have just made Nicaea more authoritative than the Bible itself. You're using Nicaea to tell the Bible what it can or cannot say or mean. Not very Sola Scriptura of them ...
There is a list a mile long of their beliefs and practices that are not Biblical. Some Protestantism inherited from Catholicism. Others are moves to be "un-Catholic". Some are denomination specific. Some are not.
Ex Nihilo Creation.
Life begins at conception
Monogamy
The closure of public revelation
The Trinity
The canon of scripture – the word Bible doesn’t even appear in the Bible
The office of the Pastor and what it entails
All other priesthood offices and what they are supposed to do
Sola scriptura
All sin is equal
The end of public revelation
Predestination
The "Being Saved" doctrine
The sinners prayer found amongst most Born Again denominations isn't found anywhere in the Bible
Gifts of the spirit as a requirement for salvation
Priestly/Ministerial Vestments
Infant Baptism & Adult Believer Baptism (the Bible gives us no guidance on this debate)
Universal priesthood of all believers without any need for ordination
The closed canon
Some Protestants observe the dietary law of the OT and some do not. The Bible never tells us which is correct.
Truth is relative (ie there is no absolute truth)
Praying to Jesus
There are multiple pathways to God
Divorce
Pews in the chapel
The list could go on forever. The reality is, the Bible itself is insufficient to build a religion from. There are too many unanswered questions and too many details that are never spelled out. No religion could even function if they were strictly Sola Scriptura.
Just so nobody misunderstands, I don't tend to self-identify and Protestant nor do I believe in Sola Scriptura. I'm also not Catholic.
With that said, Sola Scriptura is nonsensical. It presumes that God will never again have anything to say to humankind that is worth writing down. But the worst part is that mainline Protestantism doesn't truly believe in Sola Scriptura.
To a Protestant, if you do not accept the formal doctrine of the Trinity, you are "worshipping another Jesus" or "worshipping a false God" and you're pretty much doomed to burn in hell for eternity. Well ... the formal doctrine of the Trinity isn't actually taught in the Bible. Sure there are passages that seem to imply some aspects of it, but in every case the passage might mean something entirely different. And it is not enough to just believe in a general Trinity -- that there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. The vast majority of Protestants insist that the Trinity as set forth in the Athanasian Creed is the only acceptable description of the three. In so doing, they elevate the decisions made at the Council of Nicaea and the next seven Ecumenical Councils above scripture. If you must read the Bible through the lense of the Nicaean Trinity, then you have just made Nicaea more authoritative than the Bible itself. You're using Nicaea to tell the Bible what it can or cannot say or mean. Not very Sola Scriptura of them ...
There is a list a mile long of their beliefs and practices that are not Biblical. Some Protestantism inherited from Catholicism. Others are moves to be "un-Catholic". Some are denomination specific. Some are not.
Ex Nihilo Creation.
Life begins at conception
Monogamy
The closure of public revelation
The Trinity
The canon of scripture – the word Bible doesn’t even appear in the Bible
The office of the Pastor
Jesus pre-existence
Sola scriptura
All sin is equal
The end of public revelation
Predestination
The "Being Saved" doctrine
The sinners prayer found amongst most Born Again denominations isn't found anywhere in the Bible
Gifts of the spirit as a requirement for salvation
Priestly/Ministerial Vestments
Infant Baptism & Adult Believer Baptism (the Bible gives us no guidance on this debate)
Universal priesthood of all believers without any need for ordination
The closed canon
Some Protestants observe the dietary law of the OT and some do not. The Bible never tells us which is correct.
Truth is relative (ie there is no absolute truth)
Praying to Jesus
There are multiple pathways to God
Divorce
Pews in the chapel
The list could go on forever. The reality is, the Bible itself is insufficient to build a religion from. There are too many unanswered questions and too many details that are never spelled out. No religion could even function if they were strictly Sola Scriptura.
Nobody is saying that God CANNOT speak to man. The question is, though....how would we know if he did? Would he contradict that which we already agree he said?
There are many Ministries who confess `If it is not in the Bible than don`t believe it `.....Then turn around and teach on revelations which came through the Spirit of God but are not clear in the text of the Bible ......But then there is a legalism ideas which reject true faith and see things in a spirit less ideas , which would ignore Jesus Holy Spirit , and His ideas of truth which Jesus has a hard time leading through His spirit ................ Then there are some who ignore the prophetic gifting of Christ and go Word only Churches...............Then there is in the Word of God which Jesus taught that His Spirit would continue to show you new things and help you remember the Words which Jesus said from the comforter Holy Spirit ...... Then there is the dragon spirit of the devil who imposes to be God brings a Word in to the churches which sounds intriguing but are contemptuous and faithless and border on the spirit of the false prophet , but people believe and this goes un-discerned through Holy Spirit`s gifting ...........Then there are the lesser critics of Jesus and then greater critics of Lord Jesus who are weak in Jesus Holy Spirit and have a difficult time believing and spending their time being the critic of a faithless to God ......... Then there is the grammar critic who must see the literal text in the grammar of man to believe , as God does not prove His Word through grammar , but tries to be articulate in His languages through His Spirit ....... See there are some pro`s and con`s for believing revelations from Christ into the metaphor and literal truths by the text or through the prophetic gifting of Christ
The apostle Paul stated that he completed the word of God. He saw beyond John's Revelation.
It is useless to go beyond the Scriptures if one has not fathomed all the depth of divine revelation. I know of no church, Catholic or Protestant, that has understood everything in the Bible.
So you think the bible was just thrown down from heaven and oral tradition and worship was not allowed? If the bible is the end all and be all then what did Christians believe before the NT bible was even written?
So you think the bible was just thrown down from heaven and oral tradition and worship was not allowed?
No, the Bible was not thrown down from heaven. Why would you even think I believe that?
Why would you think worship would not be allowed if we are to align ourselves with the Scriptures rather than extra-biblical teachings of uninspired men?
The New Testament came piecemeal. When Paul would write a letter to one church he would tell them:
Col 4:16 And whenever the epistle should be read to you, cause that it should be read in the Laodicean ecclesia also, and that you also may be reading that out of Laodicea."
So his letters circulated.
The apostle Paul was given divine revelation for the nations from the risen Lord. When he passed on the torch to Timothy he said:
2Th 2:15 Consequently, then, brethren, stand firm, and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, whether through word or our epistle."
He didn't tell Timothy to make up his own traditions.
1Ti 4:16 Attend to yourself and to the teaching. Be persisting in them, for in doing this you will save yourself as well as those hearing you."
What teaching? The teaching Paul gave to Timothy.
2Ti_2:2 And what things you hear from me through many witnesses, these commit to faithful men, who shall be competent to teach others also."
The faithful men who came after Timothy are supposed to teach what Paul taught. How can we know what Paul taught unless we look at what he taught?
Quote:
If the bible is the end all and be all then what did Christians believe before the NT bible was even written?
Do you mean, what did the Circumcision believers of Israel believe as distinct from what the Uncircumcision Christians of the nations believed before the NT was written?
We know what the Uncircumcision Christians believed before the four gospels and Acts were written because those writings look into what they believed prior to them being written.
Paul wrote to the Uncircumcision believers of the nations as they were coming into the faith. So we know exactly what they were believing.
Paul truly did complete the full revelation from God for the church.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
