Kevin Tierney

 

     First of all, I’d like to offer my sincerest thanks to Mr. Shandon L. Guthrie for a civilized debate. Hopefully, this is the way Protestants and Catholics can dialogue at all times, as if Christ himself was the moderator for this debate. We both acted in a civil fashion. Both I and Mr. Guthrie of course believe we won this debate, and he has offered his reasons why. I in turn will offer my reasons why I believe I have shown the formal insufficiency of Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith.

     I showed in my opening statement 2 Peter 1:20, and in context of the entire epistle, showed that privately interpreting scriptures is against Scripture. Formal sufficiency demands private judgment, the individual being the ultimate judge of Orthodox. Mr. Guthrie attempted to explain this away, but when I asked to harmonize his view with the Council in Acts, an authority outside of scripture passing down binding doctrine on the people, he claimed I changed my definition midway. Far from it, I said from my opening statement this was true sola scriptura, as the Reformers taught it. Mr. Guthrie then admitted that sola scriptura was not praticed during apostolic times, or by their successors. It’s a Post-Apostolic Doctrine. I asked him to prove this from scripture alone, that when the apostles died, only the scriptures were to be followed. He failed to show proof from scripture. I then showed how consistent exegesis of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 would turn 2 Timothy 2:19-21 and James 1:1-4 into Pelagian verses, that one can work their way into heaven without God’s grace. Mr. Guthrie claimed the Greek was different, which I never denied, the Greek in James was stronger than the Greek in 2 Timothy 3, and James screamed sufficiency by Protestant standards. I showed from Chronicles and Kings, how not everything the Prophets said was in scripture. So Mr. Guthrie again was asked, prove from scripture alone, where it says after John died, the scriptures became the only rule of faith.

     I showed how “not going beyond what was written” proves far too much for Mr. Guthrie. I showed how the private judgment, leads to anarchy, and anarchy cannot be a rule of faith. In our second question, I asked Mr. Guthrie again, to prove when Oral Tradition ceased to have authority from scripture. He didn’t prove from sola scriptura, where it says this. Mr. Guthrie offered no scriptural evidence that signs and wonders ceased with the Death of the Last Apostle. He claims Christ citing scripture helps prove sola scriptura. To which I reply, there is someone who always quotes scripture in debates, but please, let’s leave Satan out of this! Merely appealing to the written in no way establishes formal sufficiency. He chose not to answer my question.

     In question 3, Mr. Guthrie attempts to shift the burden onto myself, by making me prove Tradition is verifiable. Even if he could prove me wrong (which he didn’t) that doesn’t prove sola scriptura right. And that is the scope of the debate; it was a case of back peddling. When you cannot prove your position, attempt to make him prove his, while you sneak out the back door. He attempted to make my Word of God statement to mean only scriptures, when I showed “Word of God” did not always mean scriptures.

     In our final question, I asked Mr. Guthrie to prove Matthew wrote Matthew. He offered several arguments, but they don’t prove it. Modernists easily explain this one away. In the end, he follows Sola Guthrie. (Matthew Is God’s word because he believes it is God’s word)

     I then showed how God’s word was not self-authenticating. He attempted again to go on the offensive against Catholics, which is again, not the scope of this debate, and I will gladly discuss the nature of Tradition with him if he so wishes. He did a great job discussing Mormonism on one of his radio shows (I listened to the show from work). A big problem with the Mormons is that the book of Mormon is inspired because they have “a burning in the bosom.” They teach the book is self authenticating. Sounds a lot like Mr. Guthrie’s position, I feel the Spirit’s witness to it. Yet all throughout scripture, the Spirit witnessed, and even the prophets didn’t realize it.

     In his closing statement, he again attempts to downplay Peter’s remarks about private interpretation, by offering a 3 step counterpoint. Rather than sidestep, I cut the argument out from under already, asking him to harmonize that with the Council in Acts. An outside source of authority, telling what the Word of God is, and their decision was binding upon the believers. Mr. Guthrie then states an incorrect definition of formal sufficiency, that we go to scripture to rebuke heresy, and treat scripture in high regard. Formal Sufficiency is nothing other than scripture contains the Word of God now, and nothing outside of scripture can have a binding interpretation upon itself.

     It is for these reasons I believe I have won the debate. Mr. Guthrie admits they didn’t practice sola scriptura in apostolic times. Christ told us about this:

He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, `Honor your father and your mother,' and, `He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.' But you say, `If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.' So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: `This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'"†

Thank you.

 

EDITOR'S NOTE

†Matthew 15:3-9.

---