3b - Verga to Antony
Cross Examination Rebuttal 2

1) Thank you for confirming that the Angels were present.   I appreciate your support for my position, so, no I will not retract.

2) a) No I will not retract.   There is no reason why you should accept my interpretation.  What you should be doing is proving your position which you have so far failed to do.
b) This question is a false dichotomy since Catholics don't believe in Sola Scriptura. Protestants do not have "different views" they have views which are diametrically opposed and they all claim that scripture supports their groups own interpretation.

3) You need to re-read the verse from Mark. it says the support was "dedicated" to God.  This verse does not say it was of divine origin.

4) Once again the subject of this debate is sola scriptura and YOU have the burden of proof.

I will use this 3rd statement to demonstrate further contradictions and problems with the practice of sola scriptura.
My opponent has stated that sola scriptura has been present throughout history and has used several verses from the Bible to indicate that it was practiced at the time of the Apostles. Yet James White states "Protestants do not assert that sola scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at that very time coming into being?"
(http://vintage.aomin.org/This%20Bereans%20passage.html ) My opponent has repeatedly referred to the "doctrine" of sola scriptura the dictionary gives as it's definition: 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Doctrine ) The dictionary defines "principle as: an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Principle) If this "doctrine" is a true principle then it would have to be true for all time, 2+2 will always equal 4.
My opponent says it was practiced, James White says it wasn't.

In the book of Acts at the Council of Jerusalem the Apostles met to discuss the Gentiles coming into the Church. Some felt they should be required to be circumcised first (Acts 17:7)  "After much debate had taken place."  It doesn't say anything about consulting the Tanak. If they had the verse, wouldn’t Peter have said "According to Genesis 17:10 and Exodus 4:24-25 they must be circumcised?"

My opponent stated that the "word" of God is perfect citing Psalm 19:7. The exact wording is "The law of the LORD is perfect," Catholic Bible (verse 8) (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/psalms/psalm19.htm) and KJV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+19&version=KJV) Not only did he misquote his own reference, but it does not state that either the "word" or the "law" are to be the sole infallible source. Further if we want to get technical the "Law" refers to the first five books of the Bible (http://bible.org/seriespage/law-first-five-books)

My opponent also cited 1 Cor. 13:10 about the arrival of the "perfect" and the passing away of the "partial," yet no where either does he prove that this is referring to the Bible.

In Mark 28:20 Jesus tells the Apostles, "...And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age," and in John 16:13, "But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming."
No where does the Bible say that this presence or guidance will come solely from the Bible.  Rather we are told in 1 Tim. 3:15 that, "......the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

In the interrogatory my opponent asked, "Why then do you criticize Protestants for having different views on infant baptism?" as if this were the only point they disagreed on and a minor one at that. He ignored the fact that I documented disagreement on ordination of Gays, and women, and the elevation of these groups to the episcopacy. He also declined to comment on the matter of the oppositional views about the presence of Christ in the Communion.
Clearly, if the "doctrine" of sola scriptura were true, then there should be complete unanimity on each of these matters, but as I have documented there is not.

I will now refer to some of the Early Christian heresies: (http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heresies.html) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy) Neither of these are Catholic sites to the best of my knowledge. They both list, define, and explain quite a few early heresies. If the “doctrine" of sola scriptura were indeed true none of them could have arisen. The Gnostics would not have been able to claim "secret knowledge" since it would all have been written down. Sabellius would not have been able spread the fallacy of modalism. Arius could never have claimed that Jesus was a created being. People would have been able to point to one of more verse in the scripture to settle the matter. Rather just like at the Council of Jerusalem councils were called to settle the matter and then to suppress these false teachings.

The working definition that we are are using for this debate contains this sentence; "The Bible is the ultimate authority, allowing no equal, nor superior, in tradition or church." My opponent has been asked several times by me to supply me with even a single verse from the Bible that states this in unequivocal terms. instead he has only supplied me with verses stating that the scriptures are valuable and useful, but not one stating that it is the "ultimate" authority. My opponent has also failed to take into account or been able to explain how a "superior" Bible was able to have the canon ordered by a supposedly "inferior" Church.

Another matter that is not addressed in the Bible is the canon of scripture. I have yet to see an infallible list in the Bible of those books which are to be contained in it. Not a single chapter contains any reference to its table of contents. My opponent never addressed why "The Shepherd of Hermas," 1 Clement, The Didache, and other books were not included in the Bible.

In conclusion the Bible does not address these and other matters of importance, such as the nature of the Trinity (3 separate, coequal persons, with one nature), the hypostatic union (one person with 2 separate natures).These among others are not clearly addressed.  Instead, each of them has been settled by the Catholic Church over the centuries meeting in councils guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ. Jesus promised us adversity and he also promised that the Church, the Pillar and foundation of truth, would prevail against the gates of hell, with the help of the Holy Spirit and he has remained true to that promise.

Word Count: 1191