My own debate on Sola Scriptura with Mr. Bellisario is progressing at a snail's pace (link to debate) - the latest news being that late last night my cross-examination questions for Mr. Bellisario were posted.
For those champing at the bit (or chomping at it, if historical etymology is not important), here are two Sola Scriptura debate transcripts - both of which are rather substantial in terms of reading length.
Gerry Matatics vs. James White (1992)
James White vs. Patrick Madrid (1993)
Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Well, that was interesting TF.
Here is something I caught.
Mr. Matatics: [[It is a tradition of men. It was not taught in the early Church or in the first 15 centuries of church history--contrary to what Mr. White has said, and we will get into the details of his quotes, and the other things those Church Fathers said-- until Wycliffe and Luther invented this concept as a way of justifying their revolt against classical Christianity for their own purposes, and their own agenda.]]
Here are two things, one, he obviously, for no apparent Good and Godly reason "bought" into that grudge against Luther and Wycliffe and two, isn't that a clear admission of an "agenda" in it's own right?
Oh well. I guess it's ok for him to have an agenda and it is not ok for Dr. White?
Here is one of my all time favorite passages of Scripture supporting our dearly beloved Dr. White and any one who will stand up and defend sola scriptura:
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
I guess it goes without saying but hey, I will say it anyway, that Paul noted, God and the "Word" of His Grace. Fifteen centuries of classical Christianity, popery, is classical alright, but not, Christianity.
I know I am not the brightest light bulb in the room, but, Acts 20:32, that's pretty clear to me, you?
Sola Scriptura it is then!
Ok, ok, maybe I should move on then?
But, Mr. Matatics says this:
[[He would agree that there were Apostles who never wrote any gospels or letters, so far as church history or the Scripture itself tells us.]]
Wait a minute, huh?
He was speaking that in 1992. Is there someone in the house over 2000 years old who can vouch for that fact, that is that other Apostles never wrote a gospel or a letter? Who would require anyone to establish whether or not they wrote or did not write? I would claim just the opposite based on the gospel writings and letters that have been preserved from that time period. It would seem to me that what we have and know factually as evidence supports the opposite even though there isn't any writing of those "who never wrote" that made it to these days.
Now of course we do remember what John wrote:
Joh 21:24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh 21:25 Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
Oh boy, I think I am getting a bit idiotic now.
Mr. Matatics: [[It is a tradition of men. It was not taught in the early Church or in the first 15 centuries of church history--contrary to what Mr. White has said, and we will get into the details of his quotes, and the other things those Church Fathers said-- until Wycliffe and Luther invented this concept as a way of justifying their revolt against classical Christianity for their own purposes, and their own agenda.]]
If Matatics had been more familiar with the church fathers, he would not have made this claim. In fact, one sees the same doctrine of Sola Scriptura sprinkled throughout the writings of the early church.
-TurretinFan
Post a Comment