Debating the Reformation+A Scriptual defense of Predestination

[udontknowmickey]

So BluffThis has laid down the "Catholics vs. Protestants" challenge. I decided to move this to a seperate thread in order to properly address it without messing with spam's thread on predestination (which is interrelated as BluffThis pointed out, but it's much easier to discuss the overarching doctrine in a seperate thread).

This is his post. I have broken it up into points so that I may easier respond to them.

[ QUOTE ]

Well if scripture alone (sola scriptura) is the only standard, then whose interpretation should be followed?


[/ QUOTE ]

First we must define sola scriptura. Quoting James White (www.aomin.org) this is one that is commonly accepted:

[ QUOTE ]

Sola scriptura teaches that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. The doctrine does not say that there are not other, fallible, rules of faith, or even traditions, that we can refer to and even embrace. It does say, however, that the only infallible rule of faith is Scripture. This means that all other rules, whether we call them traditions, confessions of faith, creeds, or anything else, are by nature inferior to and subject to correction by, the Scriptures. The Bible is an ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church. It is so because it is theopneustos, God-breathed, and hence embodies the very speaking of God, and must, of necessity therefore be of the highest authority.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thus we see that no one interpretation is to be followed in the sense that it is always right and everyone else is wrong where they disagree, BUT, if an interpretation is consistant with the whole of Scripture, then it is binding upon one's consience.

Flipping the question over of course is. If you deny sola scriptura, then clearly you believe that the Chruch's interpretation is to be followed. But the Church has not infalliblely interpreted 95% of the Bible. So now what? It seems to be my interpretation against yours again, does it not? My solution is to point to more of Scripture, which will clarify points and prove other points false.

[ QUOTE ]

The great number of protestant denominations would seem to indicate that lacking an authoritative interpreter, that even more doctrinal disagreements leading to further splits are inevitable.


[/ QUOTE ]

An authoritative interpreter, you mean the pope is that right? But yet today even though Catholics are united under one name, do we not have thousands of Catholics who hold differing beliefs? There are liberal Catholics, there are conservative Catholics. There are Catholics who believe in evolution, there are Catholics who don't. Just because people have the same "banner" under which they fall, does not mean that they are lock step in with the Pope.

Doctrinal disagreement tends to lead to splits, but that does not mean that there isn't an arbiter: Scripture. Just people people can't follow Scripture consistantly does not mean that Scripture is not infallible.

[ QUOTE ]

And if the 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation of disciples of Christ and the apostles can't be counted upon to have the majority correct view, then how can Calvin or Luther?


[/ QUOTE ]

I pointed to Jesus and Paul as primary, though predestination is evident almost throughout the Bible. If you want I can start citing texts. I also linked to Augustine (400AD or so) which was an early church figure I believe.

Ultimately the question isn't in how many people believe in it, it's in if it's taught in the Bible. Even if no one believed in predestination, if it's taught in Scripture, then it's true. If it's not, then it's false.

[ QUOTE ]

And regarding the passage in Romans, there is more than one interpretation. Predestination doesn't have to mean that certain individuals were predestined to perdition via having no real minimal opportunity to respond to God's grace (although others might be given greater and more opportunities), but only that by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative reponse, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see you did not even examine the passage in Romans. Let me quote it at length for you, highlighting specific verses that especially relevant. From the ESV Bible, copied from Biblegateway

[ QUOTE ]

1I am speaking the truth in Christ--I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit-- 2that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.


6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son." 10And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call--


[/ QUOTE ]

Notice the key phrase in verse 11) "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call"

Though Rebecca's sons were not born and they had done nothing good or bad. God chose one of them in order that His purpose of election might continue. This is not because of works but because of his call.

Does it sound like they had a choice here? "not because of works but because of his call" seems quite clear.

[ QUOTE ]

12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."


[/ QUOTE ]

God elected Jacob (loved), but hated Esau. All of this before they had done anything, before they were born.

[ QUOTE ]

14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now Paul responds to an imagined argument that God is being unfair if predestination is true. But instead of saying "God isn't being unfair, it's actually fair," he says that fairness is dependant upon God. "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy"

Notice Paul refutes the idea of us determining our destinty yet again in verse 16 when he says, "so it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy"

[ QUOTE ]

19You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--


[/ QUOTE ]

Now Paul refutes the classic argument that "How can God hold us responsible if everything is predestined?" Notice that his answer is not "but you had free will, so you deserved it", but rather it is "Who are you to talk back to God?"

But yet he still answers the question as to why: God has the right over those he created as a potter over the clay. He has created some for honorable use, and some for dishonorable. He has endured with much patience those vessels of wrath (predestined to perdition) in order to show his glory to vessels of mercy (predestined to heaven).

Another key phrase: Prepared beforehand for glory.

The rest of the chapter is not as relevant, I've covered all of the key points, but you're free to quote from it (or the rest of the Bible for that matter).

Predestination is also quite evident in passages like: John 6 and Ephesians 1

[spaminator101]

This was very well done. Im impressed. Sure wish I had the patience to write for that long.

[BluffTHIS!]

1) Regarding sola scriptura: The bible does not claim to be the only source of divine revelation. The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Tradition, as opposed to human/insititutional traditions, is also divine revelation on par with scripture and consists of teachings passed on orally that were not always clearly expounded on the bible. The biblical source for this is the end of the Book of John where it says that there are many other things that Jesus said and did so that the amount of books necessary to record them would fill the world.

2) "Thus we see that no one interpretation is to be followed in the sense that it is always right and everyone else is wrong where they disagree, BUT, if an interpretation is consistant with the whole of Scripture, then it is binding upon one's consience."

But differnet protestant denominations put forth differing interpretations that each believes is in fact consistent with the whole of scripture. Without an authoritative interpreter, this means that God has allowed a situation where we now cannot be sure of possessing the sound doctrine that He taught that those who heard it could. Thus God's word and salvific message is rendered void to some degree.

3) Authoritative Interpreter: This is not just the pope but the church as whole, although any interpretation cannot be valid without being the approval of the Petrine office.

4) Dissenting Catholics: Their dissent in no way renders invalid true doctrine, and even were a majority to hold a differing opinion than the church on a matter of doctrine would not matter. Such dissenters are just reinventing the wheel that the reformation and all the protestant denominations built. If they were people of integrity they would leave and join a denomination with whose beliefs they agreed. The reason they don't is that they would just be another protestant dissenter and no longer the darlings of the liberal media.

5) Predestination: Nothing you wrote or cited in scripture refutes the interpretation of predestination that I gave in the other thread:

"Predestination doesn't have to mean that certain individuals were predestined to perdition via having no real minimal opportunity to respond to God's grace (although others might be given greater and more opportunities), but only that by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative reponse, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence."

It is by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their response that they were predestined one way or the other, not that some were predestined with no free choice to accept or reject.

6) The Bible: Another reason that it is the Catholic Church alone that is the valid interpreter of scripture is that it has been the custodian of holy scripture for close to 2000 years, whereas the protestant theologians were johnny-come-latelys who would not have possessed the bible were it not for the Catholic Church handing it down to their time, especially due to monasteries copying and recopying it during the Middle Ages when much classical learning was lost. Scripture as a whole is to Christians as the Law that was held by the Ark of the Covenant was to Jews, and thus the Catholic Church is as the Ark holding the prescious divine message entrusted to it.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


1) Regarding sola scriptura: The bible does not claim to be the only source of divine revelation.


[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct. Did I claim that the Bible was the only source of divine revelation?

My point is that the Bible is our sole infallble rule of faith for the Universal Church.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 makes this very clear:

"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 competent, equipped for every good work."

1) Scripture is breathed out by God, thus it is God's Word, it is infallible.

2) It is useful for all manners of things so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work.

Now I can't prove a universal negative, that there exists no other sources of divine authority, but all you have to do is to provide documentation that another divine authority exists from Scripture. Show me that tradition is alos "God breathed" and infallibe.

[ QUOTE ]

The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Tradition, as opposed to human/insititutional traditions, is also divine revelation on par with scripture and consists of teachings passed on orally that were not always clearly expounded on the bible. The biblical source for this is the end of the Book of John where it says that there are many other things that Jesus said and did so that the amount of books necessary to record them would fill the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

Does that mean that your tradition gives us information on what else Jesus did in his ministry that isn't contained in the Gospels? Please, share some of this.

[ QUOTE ]

2) "Thus we see that no one interpretation is to be followed in the sense that it is always right and everyone else is wrong where they disagree, BUT, if an interpretation is consistant with the whole of Scripture, then it is binding upon one's consience."

But differnet protestant denominations put forth differing interpretations that each believes is in fact consistent with the whole of scripture. Without an authoritative interpreter, this means that God has allowed a situation where we now cannot be sure of possessing the sound doctrine that He taught that those who heard it could. Thus God's word and salvific message is rendered void to some degree.


[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me, if we take your assumption to be true, that the Roman church is the interpreter, isn't it possible for people to misunderstand the church? But now the salvific message is rendered void! You can't hold your authority up to the same scrutiny you're holding mine to.

[ QUOTE ]

4) Dissenting Catholics: Their dissent in no way renders invalid true doctrine, and even were a majority to hold a differing opinion than the church on a matter of doctrine would not matter. Such dissenters are just reinventing the wheel that the reformation and all the protestant denominations built. If they were people of integrity they would leave and join a denomination with whose beliefs they agreed. The reason they don't is that they would just be another protestant dissenter and no longer the darlings of the liberal media.


[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly about Scripture and denominations.

[ QUOTE ]

5) Predestination: Nothing you wrote or cited in scripture refutes the interpretation of predestination that I gave in the other thread:

"Predestination doesn't have to mean that certain individuals were predestined to perdition via having no real minimal opportunity to respond to God's grace (although others might be given greater and more opportunities),


[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed that people didn't have an opportunity to respond to God's grace. In fact, Romans 1 makes this clear that everyone has had that opportunity, so they are without excuse.

Romans 1:18-23

[ QUOTE ]

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.


[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]
but only that by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative reponse, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence."

It is by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their response that they were predestined one way or the other, not that some were predestined with no free choice to accept or reject.


[/ QUOTE ]

To requote verse 11 from Romans 9:11-13

[ QUOTE ]

though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."


[/ QUOTE ]

Not because of works, but because of his call-- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

[ QUOTE ]


6) The Bible: Another reason that it is the Catholic Church alone that is the valid interpreter of scripture is that it has been the custodian of holy scripture for close to 2000 years, whereas the protestant theologians were johnny-come-latelys who would not have possessed the bible were it not for the Catholic Church handing it down to their time, especially due to monasteries copying and recopying it during the Middle Ages when much classical learning was lost. Scripture as a whole is to Christians as the Law that was held by the Ark of the Covenant was to Jews, and thus the Catholic Church is as the Ark holding the prescious divine message entrusted to it.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a bold claim. But is it relevant at all?

To sum up your words:

1) The Protestants would not have had Scripture if Catholics didn't pass it down
2) Therefore your interpretation is false.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
That is correct. Did I claim that the Bible was the only source of divine revelation?

My point is that the Bible is our sole infallble rule of faith for the Universal Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have just contradicted yourself.


[ QUOTE ]
Now I can't prove a universal negative, that there exists no other sources of divine authority, but all you have to do is to provide documentation that another divine authority exists from Scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you can see that if another separate and equal source of revelation exists, that its validity does not rest soley on scriptural authority or it would not really be equal. The bible itself says that it is not the sole source of revelation: "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). Plus since the gospels were not written down immediately by the apostles, there is a clear precedent for the oral teaching authority of the church.

[ QUOTE ]
Does that mean that your tradition gives us information on what else Jesus did in his ministry that isn't contained in the Gospels? Please, share some of this.


[/ QUOTE ]

The teachings of Holy Tradition mostly overlap what is taught in scripture. Examples of where it goes further have to do with doctrines concering Mary the mother of Jesus.

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me, if we take your assumption to be true, that the Roman church is the interpreter, isn't it possible for people to misunderstand the church? But now the salvific message is rendered void! You can't hold your authority up to the same scrutiny you're holding mine to.

[/ QUOTE ]

People misunderstanding true doctrine and certainty or uncertainty of true doctrine being taught are different things.

[ QUOTE ]
I never claimed that people didn't have an opportunity to respond to God's grace. In fact, Romans 1 makes this clear that everyone has had that opportunity, so they are without excuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you are no longer strictly following Calvin. Either some people are predestined without having a chance to respond or all have the chance to repsond. Which is it you believe?

[ QUOTE ]

That's a bold claim. But is it relevant at all?

To sum up your words:

1) The Protestants would not have had Scripture if Catholics didn't pass it down
2) Therefore your interpretation is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your 2nd point should read: "2) Therefore they could not have been the custodians of sacred scripture and thus could not be the authentic interpreters of same."

If God wants us to hear his true message pure and unchanged, then there has to be a true church to carry on and proclaim that message. And it is the Catholic Church that has all the marks of the true church.

[udontknowmickey]

Notice that this is a debate between two viewpoints: sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and sola ecclesia (The Church alone).

I am taking the position that Scripture is our infallible rule of faith, while BluffThis is taking the position that the Church is our infallible rule of faith.

With this in mind, the demands of proof must be equal on both sides.

And back to the debate:
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

That is correct. Did I claim that the Bible was the only source of divine revelation?

My point is that the Bible is our sole infallble rule of faith for the Universal Church.


[/ QUOTE ]


You have just contradicted yourself.


[/ QUOTE ]
Where? Am I saying A and ~A at the same time somewhere? Please demonstrate how this is so.

[ QUOTE ]

Surely you can see that if another separate and equal source of revelation exists, that its validity does not rest soley on scriptural authority or it would not really be equal.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do I? If one authority claims to be sufficient and it's true, wouldn't it then be the only necessary authority?

All I'm asking you to prove is that Tradition is at the same level as Scripture. Is it God breathed? Is it infallible? If Scripture were insufficient, it would say so would it not? (this is what you address below, which I will address myself)

[ QUOTE ]

The bible itself says that it is not the sole source of revelation: "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).


[/ QUOTE ]

Quick question: Do you hold to the partim-partim view or to ‘material sufficiency view of Tradition?

in quick definition: material sufficiency teaches that all of God’s revelation is at least implicitly contained in Scripture.

patrim patrim view teaches that part of God's revelation is in Scripture and part in Tradition.

Now, if you hold to the material sufficiency view, you have no reason to cite this, since you believe that Scripture is sufficient itself as well.

If you hold to the patrim patrim view, you must now provide a defense that Paul actually taught things like the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, The Infallibility of the Pope and so on and so forth. Without this, your tradition falls far short.

Thus so without any historical support of Paul preaching something like the Immaculate conception, your argument isn't worth anything.

May I also mention that the Roman Church is divided on this issue?

But I will respond to the verse anyways, reading the verses in context as well as remembering the historical context we see that the meaning is evident. In verse 13-15 of the same chapter

[ QUOTE ]

13But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.


[/ QUOTE ]

and we remember that Paul paid a visit to the church in Thessolinica (Acts 17). Thus all Paul is saying is that "I preached the gospel to you before, now I am writing this letter to you. Remember the gospel which I preached to you and is now contained in writings"

Now to turn the tables: Has the Roman Church infallibly interpreted 2 Thess. 2:15 or given an infallible definition of the term "tradition"?

I'm afraid you can look all over for that, and you will find a lot of confusion within the Roman Church on that exact topic.

[ QUOTE ]

Plus since the gospels were not written down immediately by the apostles, there is a clear precedent for the oral teaching authority of the church.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just because it was originally in oral form (as was the Hebrew Bible), does not mean that Scripture is not sufficient now. Now that all the oral form is put into writing, we now have a sufficient Scripture.

Remember the Bereans in Acts 17.
[ QUOTE ]

10The brothers[a] immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.


[/ QUOTE ]

They were more noble than those in Thessalonica and the examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so . Notice that they were "more noble!" They weren't rebuked by Paul for testing things against Scripture. Paul didn't say "Hey! I'm an Apostle, I have Divine Revelation! What I say isn't contained in Scripture" No, the view that we need a secondary revelation in Tradition is completely denied here.

[ QUOTE ]



The teachings of Holy Tradition mostly overlap what is taught in scripture. Examples of where it goes further have to do with doctrines concering Mary the mother of Jesus.



[/ QUOTE ]

Has the Church infallibly defined one single tradition that was passed on by Jesus that isn't contained in Scripture? Just because you now believe in a Mediatrix and Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary, doesn't mean that the Jesus taught it.

[ QUOTE ]


People misunderstanding true doctrine and certainty or uncertainty of true doctrine being taught are different things.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. These were my exact points about the authority of Scripture.

[ QUOTE ]


Then you are no longer strictly following Calvin. Either some people are predestined without having a chance to respond or all have the chance to repsond. Which is it you believe?


[/ QUOTE ]

Do tell me where Calvin denied Romans 1. People are predestined to Hell and to Heaven, before they were born, before they did anything. This doesn't mean that while they live God does not actively harden or soften their hearts towards him. If you're predestined to Hell, God works in you (vessel prepared for destruction) to sin and to deny Him so that His judgements are right. If you're predestined to Heaven, God works in you (vessel prepared for glory) to have faith and to do good works. Each of these, because God is just and is our definition of just, is perfectly righteous and just.
[ QUOTE ]

Quote:

That's a bold claim. But is it relevant at all?

To sum up your words:

1) The Protestants would not have had Scripture if Catholics didn't pass it down
2) Therefore your interpretation is false.

Your 2nd point should read: "2) Therefore they could not have been the custodians of sacred scripture and thus could not be the authentic interpreters of same."


[/ QUOTE ]

so really you have 3 points

1) Protestants would not have had Scripture without Catholics passing it down
2) Since the Catholics passed it down, it has the authority to interpret Scripture, and Protestants do not
3) You are a Protestant, therefore your interpretation is false.

You have yet to establish 2, that passing it down implies authority to interpret.

Let us also remember Jesus rebuking the Pharisees for their tradition. We would not have had our Old Testament without them passing it down, but yet Jesus says clearly that their interpretations are oftentimes completely wrong. How is the Pharisee's traditions different from the Roman Church's?

[ QUOTE ]

If God wants us to hear his true message pure and unchanged, then there has to be a true church to carry on and proclaim that message. And it is the Catholic Church that has all the marks of the true church.


[/ QUOTE ]

To put into syllogism form again:

1) If God wants us to hear his true message pure and unchanged, then there has to be a true church to carry on and proclaim that message.
2) The Roman Church has all the marks of a true church.

You have yet to establish 1. You have yet to establish that God wants us to hear his message pure and unchanged. You have yet to establish what "the marks of a true church" are. You have yet to establish that the Roman Church has these. You have yet to establish that having the marks of a true church implies that it is a true church.

Please, clarify your logic.

You still have yet to provide a defense for your interpretation of Romans 9 where you claim that it is only

"by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their free negative reponse, that they were predestined to eternal punishment as a consequence.

It is by virtue of God's foreknowledge of their response that they were predestined one way or the other, not that some were predestined with no free choice to accept or reject."

Tell me, is this what the Roman Church teaches? Where does it find it's Scriptual support for such an interpretation. How is my interpretation wrong then?

You haven't touched Romans 9 yet. If you want to talk about predestination I suggest you do so. We can also talk about John 6 and Eph. 1 which are other passages that clearly teach predestination. I highly suggest you do some reading, as this discussion continues I will bring them up.

[David Sklansky]

"I never claimed that people didn't have an opportunity to respond to God's grace. In fact, Romans 1 makes this clear that everyone has had that opportunity, so they are without excuse."

"Then you are no longer strictly following Calvin. Either some people are predestined without having a chance to respond or all have the chance to repsond. Which is it you believe?"

In fact he would then not even believe in predestination in any sense of the word that is relevant to people. As you well kmow (as does Not Ready deep down).

This Calvin fellow sounds pretty much like a moron to me.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That is correct. Did I claim that the Bible was the only source of divine revelation?

My point is that the Bible is our sole infallble rule of faith for the Universal Church.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have just contradicted yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where? Am I saying A and ~A at the same time somewhere? Please demonstrate how this is so.

[/ QUOTE ]

(I'd like to avoid these tall multi-point posts so I am going to address different points in separate posts and suggest you do the same as well.)

Your two statements above can only not be contradictory of each other if you maintain that there are in fact more sources of divine revelation other than the bible, and that those other sources of revelation are not infallible rules of faith as well. So clarify your position:

1) Are there other sources of divine revelation other than the bible?

2) Do those other sources of revelation contain infallibly true doctrine?

Also note that I am only talking about general revelation, which ceased with the death of the last apostle (though may have been written down later by an apostle's disciples as redactors of his works, or passed on orally from them), and not with special revelation in which God directly or by agency might have imparted some divine knowledge to individuals at later dates but which is not necessary for Christians to believe if they choose not to.

Also note regarding your comments on tradition, that HOLY TRADITION referred to by the Catholic Church as part of revelation along with the bible, though that which was originally passed along orally, is NOT the same as human/institutional traditions which is what Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees regarding, since they were imposing burdens of belief and practice not required by the Law.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
so really you have 3 points

1) Protestants would not have had Scripture without Catholics passing it down
2) Since the Catholics passed it down, it has the authority to interpret Scripture, and Protestants do not
3) You are a Protestant, therefore your interpretation is false.

You have yet to establish 2, that passing it down implies authority to interpret.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should be evident, as God would not entrust the gift of divine revelation without the authority to interpret it. If you disagree, then logically it follows that non-Christians are just as qualified to intrepret Christian scripture as Christians.

[BluffTHIS!]

I was going through your post and excerpting parts to respond to when I came to this:

[ QUOTE ]
You have yet to establish that God wants us to hear his message pure and unchanged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably through debating with you unless you acknowledge this to be a silly statement.