Thursday, April 08, 2010

Conversation with Catholic Nick

Continuing from here, in my experience too, RCs and EOx are apparently scared of Webster and King's books.Which is ironic b/c Nick felt it necessary to comment on a blogpost about that very book. One wonders whether he's even read one of them. Here's the comment I respond to.
If I'm not mistaken, this is the same Nick as "Catholic Nick" from Tfan's debate: Responses to 'Catholic Nick'.


I've responded to that which matters in your post. I left out some things, b/c they were really, really worthless.

James White: he plainly says SS was not operational during times of enscripturation.

Yes, I know. I didn't question that.

The rule of faith was coming into being; it didn't *fully* exist yet.

And yet Paul directs Tim to the Scr and not to the Magisterium. Sounds like he knew sthg you're not acknowledging.

neither the Apostles nor Apostolic Christians were practicing SS.

So what?

R: Except the text says what it says. And of course Timothy had the OT!
N: This is the fallacy of anachronism: your 'interpretation' requires you to read back into the text something that was historically impossible.

It's anachronistic to remind you that Timothy had the OT? Esp when Paul mentions in the previous verse the "sacred writings, which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to faith in Christ Jesus"? Riiiiiight. Try again.

Paul could not be instructing Tim to engage in SS when SS wasn't operational.

Equivocation. "Engage in SS" is not the same as "the Scr is able to adequately prepare the man of God for every good work". Do you think we don't acknowledge that the authoritative teachings of apostles was God's speaking thru His shaluach?
And yet Paul was preparing Tim for the future, as the context makes plain.

Having the OT is irrelevant, since no Protestant claims the OT is sufficient.

Now YOU'RE engaging in anachronism! Paul clearly tells Tim about the "sacred writings, which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to faith in Christ Jesus". The OT is sufficient, yet not the exhaustive extent of God's revelation. You need to argue for the OT's insufficiency, not ascribe that view to me and then dismiss it.

Scripture presents more than one source for divine communication to man, and no rational Protestant would deny that: God spoke to men before Scripture existed

No one questions that here! Do you spend your days talking KJV only advocates or something?
We're asking you to prove your assertion - that God deposited His revelation in sthg other than the Scr, AFTER IT WAS SPOKEN. I notice no evidence from you, no argument for that position. Get on it.

through all sorts of created mediums, dreams, fire, cloud, oral preaching of Apostles, etc.

Which you know about b/c of the Scr, y por nada más.

Just reading v14 refutes your argument, since Paul points to all Tim's teachers.

Strawman. As if Sola Scrip dismisses the utility, even the near necessity, of teachers.
You come across as if this is the 1st time you've talked to a knowledgeable Sola Scripturist, yet you've engaged in a long convo with TFan. I conclude that you're not a very good listener, and I encourage you to get better at that skill.

Further, to limit your analysis to 16f and say "that's all Paul points to" assumes Paul wanted to lay down a rule of faith here without regard for what he taught elsewhere.

Just bring fwd the alternative and we can talk. How many times do I have to challenge you to do so before you pony up the dough?

in which the sword is only one piece.

Given 1 Cor 2:14-15, it's hardly surprising that Paul would refer to someone's need to be regenerate before the Scr will be particularly helpful for him.

I never said something inspired can come from anyone other than God, quite the contrary.

Sorry, man. You said: "I don't recall any requirements (esp in Scripture) where something must be explicitly said to be "God Breathed" to be inspired and authoritative." That's what I was responding to.
Retractions are certainly allowed, but you have to be man enough to say "I retract".

R: Yep, the apostles' teaching. See any apostles around today?
N: No, but irrelevant.

So the fact that apostles are all dead is irrelevant to whether there are for-sure apostolic teaching in somewhere other than the Scr is irrelevant to the question?

N: Where did I assert their oral teaching was substantively different? Nowhere.

Don't be so dense. There's no reason to bring up 2 Thess 2:15 and other mentions of "oral trad" in the NT otherwise. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.

N: Starting with the last sentence, that claim is bogus because what what Sungenis would have apart from Scripture is irrelevant.
R: Oh, so let's take away Scr. Now please demonstrate how you know your assertion.
Or is this an example of your "non-God-breathed and yet inspired and authoritative teaching"? How do you know it is?
N: How do I know my assertion? By basic logic.

Please give us the logical structure of the way you know that, since you know it "by basic logic".