First Rebuttal

Kevin Tierney

     My opponent made the claims I did not touch his arguments, and when I did, they did not qualify as valid responses. Lets see if this claim really holds water.

     He attempted to explain away the existence of denominations, as saying these bodies are not really divided on essential teachings, just minor ones. I would have to ask my opponent then, what are the Protestant Stances on Baptismal Regeneration, the Real Presence, eternal security, the effects of sin, among a host of other doctrines. I am unable by space limits to spell the beliefs of 4 major denominational views on these issues(from their creeds or statements of faith.) Now if Mr. Guthrie will attempt to say these views are essential, then he shows a gross arrogance and ignorance of Church history, as these were incredibly essential doctrines. So the argument that denominations disprove formal sufficiency still stands.

     While the existence of denominations doesn’t downplay scripture, it downplays scripture as the sole and infallible rule of faith for Protestantism, being the massive schisms it has produced. This debate is on the formal sufficiency of scripture, that nothing outside of scripture can be used to interpret scripture. If 4 major bodies of believers all go by the Bible alone, and disagree on several major beliefs (at least they were major beliefs for 1400 years) that disproves formal sufficiency.

     He then attempts to say Peter’s denial of private interpretation proves sola scriptura, by denying any outside authority to interpret scripture. If he wishes to believe this, the Bible becomes a lie, based on the Council of Jerusalem, as Recorded in Acts. Would he like to state this council had no authority? Here was an authority other than scripture proclaiming doctrine, and the case was closed. This is what Traditional Christians refer to as an Ecumenical Council, something Protestantism has nothing of, since they claim to “follow the Bible alone”, when in reality they don’t even do this.

     Mr. Guthrie states that of course there was an oral tradition in Apostolic times, this doesn’t damage sola scriptura and formal sufficiency. If this is a Post-Apostolic Doctrine, there are several things to consider. 1.) Where in Scripture does it say once the Apostles die only the written is to have authority? 2.)If this view came about after the Death of the Apostles, it should be quite easy to show the Early Christians practicing this belief. For now, I shall save Mr. Guthrie the embarrassment of showing how false assumption 2 is, by citing patristic evidence at great length, since that could be another debate in itself, and a formal challenge exists to Mr. Guthrie if he wishes to take that up. Guthrie claims I must prove certain traditions have existed outside of Scripture, and doesn’t see how I could do this. I’ll gladly take this up with just a few examples. I will of course first ask him to name me which books belong in the Bible by the Bible alone; being that this is a tradition that isn’t written down in scriptures. We can look inside 1 Cor. 11:2 and 34, Paul refers to instructions he gave to the Corinthian church about the Eucharist that are not contained in his writings. The Corinthians also had another letter from Paul that has been lost (see 1 Cor. 5:9). We may also look in 2 Chron. 29:25, where the King does a certain thing according to the commands of the Prophets, yet this command is nowhere already written in scriptures. Is 8:20’s “The law and the testimony” lines up against SS when you look at it. The Law is more than likely the Torah, but the Testimony is the Testimony of the Prophets, and I have just showed the Prophets didn’t record down all their commands, which were the commands of God himself! We now see the OT wasn’t sola scriptura, it gets no better in the NT. (2 Chron. 35:4 is another example of traditions not already included in the scriptures)

     As we read through the short Epistle of Jude, Jude mentions a prophecy made by Enoch. This prophecy is nowhere in the already recorded scriptures. The only place this exists is the non-Canonical book Assumption of Enoch, written 1900 years after Enoch made this prophecy. How did this prophecy survive, oral Tradition. The fact that Jude is quoting this prophecy makes this prophecy quite valid as the Words of God, spoken by Enoch. This is a case of Oral Tradition not in scripture. There are many more examples I will touch upon in further rebuttals and my commentary on this debate I urge all readers to read.

     Mr. Guthrie made a long discourse of how scripture is inspired and infallible, based on 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Reason I didn’t answer those points is because I agree Scripture is infallible! Where have I or any Catholic Apologist said otherwise. For Mr. Guthrie to think that argument carries weight against the Catholic position, that scripture is infallible, that’s building a straw man.

     I have just shown resources not in Scripture that were inspired by God, since they were the testimonies of the Prophets not in Scripture, an scripture points to something they said outside of scripture to follow. So Point 1b of 2 Timothy crumbles.

     He has still yet to answer how 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says Scripture is the sole interpreter of scripture, and a Church does not have authority to interpret it. He has again shown material sufficiency and passed it off as Sola Scriptura, something he claimed he was not going to do.

I am completely justified in saying Scripture is only one of the tools to equip us with every good work.

By the Protestant view of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, our attempts at purification are all that is needed to equip us with every good work. In the First chapter of James, James mentions perseverance in far stronger, yet similar language in relation to being equipped as does 2 Timothy 3:16-17. By using the same standards Protestants interpret 2 Tim 3:16-17, perseverance is all we need to make us perfect, lacking in nothing. I know my opponent will not take this position.

Tell me, just because Jesus quotes Scripture, where does this say Scripture is the sole infallible source for interpreting scripture. You are again showing material sufficiency, which is not the scope of this debate

Mr. Guthrie also mentions Scripture is superior to non Biblical Tradition. This is nothing but setting up and knocking down a straw man. Apostolic Tradition is not at odds with Scripture. Even an elementary critic of the Catholic eventually realizes this.

I do not have the space to refute each of Guthrie’s arguments in this rebuttal, but I will refute more as I can.