re: Protestant-Only Religious Service at Pentagon

quote:

---

62 million Americans identify as Catholic

---

“Identify as”

How many of them are actually people of faith? The 40 year old who hasn’t been to church since they were 10 is not a religious person

quote:

---

American Evangelicals have done more damage to the US in the last 40 years than the Leftist can ever have dreamed of doing.

---

Remind me how many Catholic politicians have been democrats and not just democrats but high ranking democrats.

The truth is that neither the Protestants nor the Catholics are going to win you a national election on their own. They either come together or they both lose. The numbers simply are not there on their own.

quote:

---

Damn yall are dumb

---

Tell me why you said that.

quote:

---

This is one of the longest non-answers I’ve seen in a while. Are you Frank Turek by chance?

---

I was actually quite thorough in responding to you. Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean it was a non-answer. I touched on both the uniqueness of the authority of Scripture as well as an example of the church father's disagreeing, because I wasn't sure what you were asking an example of. I then answered each of your questions about the relationship between the Church and the Scriptures.

quote:

---

First, your argument assumes what it’s trying to prove. You say only what is “God-breathed” is infallible, and then assume Scripture is the only thing that’s God-breathed. But nowhere does Scripture say “only Scripture is God-breathed.” That’s an added premise, not a biblical one.

---

My argument didn't assume anything. It was a clear statement of what the Scriptures do and do not say. They specifically state that the Scriptures are "God-breathed", and nothing else (including human tradition) is stated as being God-breathed. If you want to refute that premise, you should provide an example of something other than the Scriptures being described as God-breathed that we also still have access to. For instance, clearly the words of Jesus were all inspired and infallible (Jesus couldn't lie), and yet nowhere do we have record of what Jesus actually taught outside of the Bible, and the RCC can't produce any alleged direct quotes from Jesus that are not found in the Bible.

quote:

---

Second, 2 Timothy 3:16–17 doesn’t teach Scripture alone. It says Scripture is useful and sufficient to equip, not that it is the only authority. By that logic, someone equipped by Scripture would never need teachers or the Church, which contradicts passages like Ephesians 4 and 2 Peter 1:19-20.

---

I think you are confusing what authority is and what Paul is telling Timothy.

Protestants agree that the Scriptures are not the only authority for the Christian. The Scriptures teach that there are elders/teachers, and that the Church (as exercised through the elders) has authority to bind and loose. There are also authorities in the home (husband over the wife and the parents over the children), and civil authorities that all have real authority from God.

What Protestants believe the Scriptures teach is that the Scriptures alone are an infallible authority and incapable of erring. The Church can get it wrong and must be corrected by Scripture.

With that said, 2 Tim. 3 says that the Scriptures are sufficient for making the man of God "complete" and "equipped for every good work". That means that whatever Scripture is, it alone can make a man of God "complete" (lacking in nothing necessary), and "equipped for every good work" (not just some good works). While Catholics like to emphasize the word "useful", that's not actually the word we're focusing on. That which is perfect and sufficient is also useful. But only the Scriptures are said to be sufficient for equipping the man of God for every good work, so that he will be complete.

Because the Scriptures are the only infallible rule for the Church, they are quite capable of challenging error within the Church, and are useful (and necessary) for reform. Reform is not something you can have when the Church claims to be infallible and makes a dogma that must be followed, even if it goes against Scripture and even the early church fathers.

quote:

---

Third, your canon argument collapses your position. You said the Church recognized the canon, the index is not infallible, and the Church is not infallible. So now you have a fallible Church recognizing a fallible list of books based on internal witness and the Spirit. That means you have no infallible way of even knowing what Scripture is, which makes claiming Scripture alone is infallible a problem.

---

Your argument doesn't follow. You are claiming that without an infallible way of knowing what is infallible, we can't actually trust that the Scriptures are what they are, and therefore, that they are infallible.

This doesn't hold in our every day experience. We can know who are parents are, even if we are not infallible judges. We can know what books are written by a well-known author even if we don't have an infallible source telling us about that. The overwhelming evidence may suggest the conclusion. Tradition is a piece of the evidence in this case, but not an infallible guide.

You also conflate recognition with creation, as all Catholics seem to do. You seem to be saying that the Church could not receive what was God's word unless she, herself, was infallible, yet you don't even believe the Bible was merely received by the Church, do you? You believe that the Scriptures, themselves, have authority due to the infallible declaration of the Church, right? Meaning, that the authority of the Scripture exists only because the Church infallibly declares what is Scripture, and therefore, that which has authority. If that is the case (I hope it isn't), then truly the Church is the highest authority, because she has authority over what is Scripture and how to interpret it, meaning there is no appeal above the Church, not even Scripture, itself.

quote:

---

Fourth, appealing to the Spirit doesn’t solve it. Every group claims the Spirit, yet they all disagree. That method clearly doesn’t produce unity or certainty.

---

While this is true that a mere appeal to the Spirit doesn't solve the problem, it is nevertheless true that the Spirit really does testify to His own word. Jesus said, "my sheep hear my voice", and we believe that the call of the Spirit of Christ directs us to the self-attesting Scriptures as God's word.

quote:

---

Finally, your own argument depends on the Church. You admit the Church preserved, transmitted, and recognized Scripture, but then deny it has authority. You trust the Church enough to give you the Bible, but not enough to teach what it means.

---

I reject your assertion that I believe the Church has no authority. What I'm actually saying is that the Church is not an infallible authority. That's a really big difference.

I don't actually trust that the Church "gave [me]" the Bible, as if she created it and defined what wasn't already in existence. I believe the Church received what God has declared as His word, and I trust that she rightly identified it as such from early on. What I don't agree with is that she was infallible in her reception and recognition, because she is still a human institution made up of fallible humans.

What I'm doing is recognizing the God-ordained role of the Church to receive what her Master gave her, not that she is an infallible authority to create what the Master gave. I trust that the infallible God worked through human means to preserve His word. I don't believe He provided a different infallible standard beyond His word.

quote:

---

At the end of the day, sola scriptura depends on a canon it cannot infallibly justify, an authority it denies, and a method that leads to endless contradiction.

---

I can push back on you in the same way: sola ecclesia (what I believe Rome functionally teaches) depends on fallible reason it cannot justify, an authority that it claims she herself declares, and a method that leads to error.


How do you know the Church is infallible? You must argue that she's infallible because Scripture supports it, history supports it, and theological reasoning supports it, but those are all fallible means to arrive at infallibility. You are essentially arguing that the Scriptures are not infallible unless the Church declares them to be infallible, and yet you also argue that the Scriptures give this infallible authority to the Church, so you wind up with a circular argument.

quote:

---

Wait… are you the non-denominational guy I debated with the other day?

---

I doubt it. I'm Presbyterian.

quote:

---

Nope. Only when he invokes infallibility. When he’s fallible (issues that are not matters of pure faith), he is subject to skepticism and questioning.

---

also you should probably reread the catechism and church canons if you think you are allowed to disagree with the Pope unless he's speaking ex cathedra

Canon 752 requires submission of the intellect and will to the Pope in all matters, and is not restricted to infallible definitions, it includes ordinary teaching on faith and morals. So you were obligated to submit your intellect and will to the previous commie Pope on any issue that touched on faith and morals, ie illegal immigration, the evils of capitalism, the morality of climate change, etc etc, other wise by Canon 751 you are guilty of the mortal sin of schism, which is defined as the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the church subject to him.

quote:

---

You say Scripture is the only infallible authority, but you don’t have an infallible way of identifying what Scripture actually is. Comparing it to knowing your parents or recognizing an author doesn’t work. Those aren’t claims about divine revelation and infallibility. You’re claiming certainty about the Word of God, not guessing authorship of a book. That requires a higher standard, not a lower one.

---

Again, Jesus held the Pharisees to this same standard I'm providing. There was no infallible Magisterium or Council that the Jews had to declare what was and wasn't Scripture, and yet Jesus held them accountable to it. He assumed they knew the Scriptures without such an infallible declaration from the Old Testament Church. Even the Septuagint included writings that the Catholic Church rejects, so you can't even argue that there was some sort of implicit infallible agreement on the OT canon with the writing of the Septuagint.

You are placing a requirement on the Scriptures (needing an infallible decider) that even Jesus didn't require.

quote:

---

You also say the Church is fallible but “reliably” recognized the canon. That’s just a softer version of the same problem. If the Church can err, then it could have erred on the canon. And if that’s even possible, then your foundation for “Scripture alone” becomes uncertain.

---

I don't see it that way at all. Even the Roman Catholic church didn't infallibly declare what the canon was until the Council of Trent in the 1500's. There was disagreement on the Deuterocanonical books all the way up until Trent, in fact. Cardinal Cajetan, who disputed with Martin Luther, did not believe the Deuterocanonicals were authoritative and canonical in the same way the rest of the Scriptures were. In that sense, even Rome didn't have an infallible canon for about 1500 years. That means that for 1500 years, Christians could not have an infallible assurance of even the canon that was generally accepted by the church (if your argument were applied here), but they still trusted that it was what the church received in spite of that problem.

Regardless, my confidence is not in an infallible Church, but the infallible word of God, which promises that the Scriptures will be preserved for the Church. I trust in God's providential provision and preservation, not in an infallible witness. Again, John the Baptist providentially recognized and proclaimed Jesus as the Christ, but he didn't have to be infallible in order to do so.

quote:

---

On the “self-attesting Scripture” point, that clearly doesn’t work in practice. Every group claims the Spirit confirms their interpretation, yet they all disagree. That’s exactly why sola scriptura produces fragmentation. Appealing to the Spirit without an authoritative interpreter just moves the problem, it doesn’t solve it.

---

Again, the appeal to the Church doesn't fix this, either. Just as you claim the Scriptures are a medium between God and the Church, you also believe that the Church is a medium between the Scriptures and the people of God.

You claim that the Church needs to be infallible to receive the word of God rightly (both as canon and in interpretation), and yet you don't claim the people of God must be infallible to receive the teaching of the Church. If the Church must be infallible to declare and interpret the Bible, why don't the people need to be infallible in declaring and interpreting the declaration of the canon and the interpretation of the Church? Or, are you claiming that the Church is always so clear that there never needs to interpretation? I hope not, because that's not been true throughout history; there have been clarifications needed time and time again for this reason, and there are still faithful Catholics who seem to be confused by what the church teaches in spite of her best efforts.

quote:

---

You accused me of “sola ecclesia,” but that’s not the Catholic position.

---

Not officially, no. That's the logical conclusion of what she does teach.

quote:

---

The Church doesn’t create truth or stand above it. The Church is the servant of divine revelation, but also the authoritative interpreter of what was handed down.

---

Again I say, if the Church alone can define what is Scripture, and the church alone can interpret Scripture; and the Church alone can define and interpret oral tradition, then the Church is functionally the highest authority.

This is revealed in practice: if there is a dispute about what is canon (the Deuterocanonicals, for instance), there is no appeal to the writings, but an appeal to the Church. If there is a dispute about what the Scriptures teach, there is no appeal to the writings, but an appeal to the Church. And if the Church has already made an infallible declaration about canon or interpretation, there cannot be change, because it assumes that such declarations really are infallible. So again, at the end of the day, the Church is functionally the highest authority, even over the Scriptures, and over oral traditions.

Whatever you appeal to has the higher authority. If you cannot appeal to the Bible, but to the Church, then the Church has the higher authority.

quote:

---

That’s exactly what you see in Scripture itself with binding and loosing authority and the Church acting as the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

---

And this is another place we have a disagreement of interpretation. I can appeal to the Scriptures to show that your (Rome's) interpretation is incorrect, but for you, it doesn't matter what the Bible says, because the Church has already made an authoritative declaration that cannot be overturned.

quote:

---

And on circular reasoning, you’re actually in that boat. You’re using fallible historical reasoning and personal judgment to identify an infallible canon, then turning around and saying that canon alone is your infallible authority. That’s circular too, just less acknowledged.

---

We both have a common problem. However at the end of the day, my final authority is the Scriptures, themselves, while your final authority is the Church. My assertion is that only the Scriptures are held out by themselves as the only infallible authority for the Church that can make a man of God complete and equipped for every good work.

quote:

---

At the end of the day, your position still rests on a canon you can’t infallibly justify and an interpretive method that demonstrably produces contradiction. Calling it “recognition” instead of “authority” doesn’t fix that. It just re-labels it.

---

The label is important to the discussion. If the Church is infallible, then she cannot be wrong, and therefore she cannot be reformed. If she is not infallible, then she can be wrong, and she can also be corrected by the Scriptures, which are infallible.

I can trust that the Scriptures are what they are because they have been received and preserved by the Church through God's providence without believing that the Church--which didn't even infallibly declare what the canon was until the 1500's--is infallible.

You keep trying to dodge the core issue, but it doesn’t go away.

Appealing to the Pharisees actually hurts your argument, not helps it. The Jews didn’t operate on sola scriptura. They had an authoritative teaching body, binding interpretations, and oral tradition. That’s exactly why Jesus tells them they “sit on Moses’ seat” in Matthew 23. That’s not private interpretation, that’s authority.

On the canon, you’re proving my point without realizing it. You admit there was disagreement for centuries and no infallible declaration until later. That means, under your system, Christians had no certain way of knowing what Scripture even was for 1500 years. Yet you still claim Scripture alone is the infallible authority. That’s a contradiction.

Saying “God preserved it” doesn’t solve that. The question is not whether God can preserve His word, but how you know, with certainty, which books are that word. You’re still relying on fallible historical reasoning and personal judgment. Calling it “providence” doesn’t make it infallible.

Your “John the Baptist” analogy also doesn’t work. John wasn’t identifying a collection of texts for the entire Church to treat as infallible revelation. You’re trying to equate a prophetic recognition with establishing the canon of Scripture. Those are completely different categories.

On the Church being the “highest authority,” you’re still misunderstanding the claim. The Church doesn’t stand above Scripture like it can override it. The Church is bound to divine revelation, but it has the authority to authentically interpret it. That’s the same structure you see in Acts 15. There was a doctrinal dispute, and the resolution wasn’t “everyone read Scripture and decide.” It was a binding decision by the Church.

And your final point just restates the problem. You say your final authority is Scripture, but you only know what Scripture is through a fallible process you admit could be wrong. That means your “final authority” rests on something uncertain.

At the end of the day, you’re asking Scripture to function as an infallible authority while denying any infallible way to identify it or interpret it. That’s the tension you haven’t resolved.

quote:

---

Appealing to the Pharisees actually hurts your argument, not helps it. The Jews didn’t operate on sola scriptura. They had an authoritative teaching body, binding interpretations, and oral tradition. That’s exactly why Jesus tells them they “sit on Moses’ seat” in Matthew 23. That’s not private interpretation, that’s authority.

---

Again, I don't deny church authority. I deny that the Church has an infallible authority, and an authority over even the Scriptures.

That was the point of me mentioning the Pharisees. They had real authority (which is why Jesus mentioned honoring and obeying them due to their position), but that authority wasn't higher than the Scriptures, which is why Jesus said they nullified the word of God in favor of the traditions of men. That wasn't a good thing.

quote:

---

On the canon, you’re proving my point without realizing it. You admit there was disagreement for centuries and no infallible declaration until later. That means, under your system, Christians had no certain way of knowing what Scripture even was for 1500 years. Yet you still claim Scripture alone is the infallible authority. That’s a contradiction.

---

It's not a contradiction. Whatever is Scripture is authoritative, and only that which is Scripture is infallible. We can know (even if not infallibly) what is Scripture, and therefore, we can have an infallible standard and authority.

You're confusing an infallible knowledge with the only way to have knowledge at all. I'm disagreeing and stating that we can know certainly even if we cannot know infallibly.

quote:

---

Saying “God preserved it” doesn’t solve that. The question is not whether God can preserve His word, but how you know, with certainty, which books are that word. You’re still relying on fallible historical reasoning and personal judgment. Calling it “providence” doesn’t make it infallible.

---

I have certainty about what is Scripture. There is an abundance of evidence to support what the Scriptures are, and the Holy Spirit testifies to His people that the Scriptures are Scripture. You keep falling back to lacking an infallible certainty means you can't be certain at all. That's not what I'm saying, and I absolutely disagree with you on that.

quote:

---

Your “John the Baptist” analogy also doesn’t work. John wasn’t identifying a collection of texts for the entire Church to treat as infallible revelation. You’re trying to equate a prophetic recognition with establishing the canon of Scripture. Those are completely different categories.

---

No, they aren't. The principle remains true. You do not need to be infallible to receive the truth, whether that be Jesus as the Christ (and thus, His status as the infallible God), or the very word of God as Scripture.

quote:

---

On the Church being the “highest authority,” you’re still misunderstanding the claim. The Church doesn’t stand above Scripture like it can override it. The Church is bound to divine revelation, but it has the authority to authentically interpret it. That’s the same structure you see in Acts 15. There was a doctrinal dispute, and the resolution wasn’t “everyone read Scripture and decide.” It was a binding decision by the Church.

---

I'm not misunderstanding the claim. I'm showing you the logical conclusion of your teaching and the practice of it in reality.

You again appeal to the Church having real authority. I do not deny that. I have agreed with you, in fact. What I'm denying is that the Church has an infallible authority.

When you say that the Church "has the authority to authentically interpret it", I think you mean "infallibly interpret it", because, again, I also agree that the Church has authority to interpret it, but not the authority to bind the consciences of God's people where the Scriptures do not.

If Rome claimed was an authority to interpret Scripture but also declared that she could be wrong in her interpretation, there wouldn't be any disagreement. My contention is that Rome can and has erred, and all human institutions can and do, and that she can be corrected by Scripture. That's where the disagreement lies.

If Rome cannot be corrected by Scripture, then she is an authority over Scripture. The Church may claim to correct herself (where she hasn't declared something authoritatively, I suppose), but not by the supreme authority of the Scriptures, but by her own co-equal authority.

quote:

---

And your final point just restates the problem. You say your final authority is Scripture, but you only know what Scripture is through a fallible process you admit could be wrong. That means your “final authority” rests on something uncertain.

---

Correct to a point. My inability to be infallibly certain doesn't mean I can't be certain. And the infallibility of the Scriptures does not rest on my declaration that it is, nor on the declaration of the Church. The Scriptures are self-authenticating and self-authoritative. They are an authority to themselves because of them being the word of God.

quote:

---

At the end of the day, you’re asking Scripture to function as an infallible authority while denying any infallible way to identify it or interpret it. That’s the tension you haven’t resolved.

---

I don't need to resolve it. That's a tension with you, not me. I don't claim that there needs to be an infallible testimony to the Scriptures. You do. And you haven't dealt with my assertion that you have a problem because your infallible authority relies on fallible means (the Scriptures as such, history, and human reason).