Scott Windsor, Sr. said...PBJ, again you have gone beyond my argument. You even brought in a quote about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which has not been even remotely discussed by me. No, my whole argument, THUS FAR, has not been to show who possesses "the other pen," only that "the other pen" exists - and YOU have affirmed that fact too! I fully understand your unwillingness to accept the Catholic Church might be in possession of "the other pen," even your eagerness to demonstrate she does not - but again, that was not the point of my argument. I repeat, the FACT, which you have affirmed is that THE OTHER PEN EXISTS. James White to Matatics: "All you have to do is produce 'the other pen' and you win this debate." [Addendum: The quote from White is paraphrased but accurately represents what White said -see below].
sw: PBJ, again you have gone beyond my argument. You even brought in a quote about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which has not been even remotely discussed by me. No, my whole argument, THUS FAR, has not been to show who possesses "the other pen," only that "the other pen" exists - and YOU have affirmed that fact too!
BJ: What? Do you have a filter on when reading my responses?sw: Not a formal "filter," but I have glossed over a couple times when you're going off topic. When you do so, you are rightfully ignored.
PBJ: As explained, your argument the "other pen can be found in Matthew 16:18-19 and similarly in Matthew 18:18" simply does not translate into "the other pen," that of an "extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation" as Swan argued, that of what Trent said ("received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves") which White cited in rejecting.
sw: The extent of my argument was and is to show that Scripture itself points to another infallible source. You have already affirmed "the other pen." Thus, by White's own challenge/standard - he looses the debate.
PBJ: And which pen is what you claimed to be proving, and thus you are arguing for what Trent presumed of itself, but contextually and in the light of all Scripture this binding/loosing power is not about what Trent presumed. Nor does it even mean what you claimed you are only arguing (in order to extrapolate this to mean what Trents presumed, if your assertion is to have any import), that of giving man/men authority to bind or loose whatsoever they choose on Earth, and more than its means that whatsoever "two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven," which contextually belongs to the binding/loosing provision but does not translate into autocratic authority.
sw: And again, you have abandoned the debate for an additional topic. You PRESUME that because I am a Catholic, I am arguing Trent and what "whatsoever" extends to - even though REPEATEDLY I have stated that for THIS discussion that is NOT part of my argument. You have lost the debate, as did White, based upon your own affirmation of another infallible source and so you are attempting to divert the discussion away from your lost position on to one you think you can "win." As much as I would like to engage that discussion, and can and will when appropriate, THIS debate is not and has not been about Trent, the Assumption or the extent or limitation of "whatsoever." Those are YOUR arguments which you're trying to divert me into defending to draw attention away from the FACT that "the other pen" has been produced.
PBJ Nor does it even refer to providing revelation in the context that you restrict to, but to disciplinary corporate judicial judgments, as well as spiritual binding/loosing in prayer.
sw: Again, ALL I am saying at this time is that the Scriptures provide "the other pen." I have deliberately NOT engaged the discussion on the length or limit of that authority.
PBJ: You could argue that binding/loosing judgment could bind souls to believe whatsoever revelation the magisterium decrees was apostolic tradition, but without the binding/loosing provision translating into autocratic authority then the veracity of which would have to be established upon conformity with the established word of God, that which is written, which was essentially established as being of God based upon its unique Divine power and attestation.
sw: I "could" argue that - but I have not. I believe you want me to argue that, because essentially you AGREE with the existence of "the other pen," and keep trying to move to a point you DISAGREE with me. In short, you keep trying to move the goalpost.
sw: James White to Matatics: "All you have to do is produce 'the other pen' and you win this debate."PBJ: Actually what White said was "All he needs to do is go out, get a Cross Medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See! Another pen, just like yours!" and he's won the debate."
sw: Granted, my representation was a paraphrase - which accurately portrayed what White actually said. Would you agree that White's challenge was to provide "the other pen?" I would add, what you quoted was not White to Matatics, but White to Madrid. White used the same analogy with Matatics, but with Matatics he said:
JRW: But, if I came in and made this assertion, that this is the only pen like this in the world, it would be very easy for Mr. Matatics to win that debate. Know how? He gets in his car, he goes down to the local business store, or stationery store, or whatever it is and he goes in and gets a Cross Medallist pen and he brings it in and stands up at the podium and he puts it next to this one and says, “See, there’s another one just like it.” And the debate’s over. The debate’s over. The uniqueness of this pen has been shown to be false. (SOURCE).
sw: To Madrid he said:
JRW: To illustrate this, I call your attention to my pen. Yes, to my pen!
If our debate this evening was that I was going to stand here and say that this is the only pen of its kind in all the universe, how would I go about proving it? Well, the only way I could prove the statement "there is no other pen like this in all the universe," is if I looked in all of your purses, and all of your shirt pockets, and in all the stores in the world that carry pens, and look through all the houses, and all over the planet Earth, and the Moon, and the planets in the Solar System, and in the entire universe, looking for another pen like this. And, of course, I could not do that. But it would be very easy for Mr. Madrid to win that debate. All he needs to do is go out, get a Cross Medallist pen, walk up here, hold it right next to mine, and say, "See! Another pen, just like yours!" and he's won the debate. ...he must demonstrate the existence of "the other pen." (SOURCE).
sw: Either way, what I said was not an inaccurate paraphrase of what White said to either Madrid or Matatics. I repeat: Would you agree that White's challenge was to provide "the other pen?"
PBJ: And besides what also is excluded, this pen (contrary to your moving the goal posts) " is what you must produce, but Rome has no such other pen, for in order to be this pen, just like Scripture, then Rome must be able to show that she not only speaks as wholly inspired of God but also provides new Divine revelation, as apostles did. And that RCs know that this is assuredly the word of God when spoken according to her infallible scope and subject-based formula. And which is where the Assumption comes in.sw: Um, you have been "Mr. Goalpost Mover," not me. You keep trying to move the goalpost for me to defend the Catholic position of the Pope and the College of Bishops to be in possession of that "other pen" or "pens" or "whatsoever," when all along I have stated MY goal is NOT to defend those positions AT THIS TIME, but MERELY to demonstrate the existence of "the other pen," which YOU have affirmed the existence of. Need I remind you that you affirmed that the authority given to men to bind or loose IS scriptural AND that since that binding/loosing also takes place in Heaven AND since you have also affirmed that nothing errant (or fallible) can be bound in Heaven THEN logic demands that whatsoever they so bind/loose is infallibly bound/loosed. Here are your words:
PBJ: Why can't you see that "that men were given authority to bind and loose on Earth/Heaven has been repeatedly acknowledged," "That men can blind/loose on Earth and in Heaven is Scriptural means yes? (Emphasis added) Certainly nothing erroneous can be bound or loosed in Heaven.sw: You're not going back on your words now, are you?
PBJ: Thus contrary to your claim, Matthew 16:18-19 and similarly in Matthew 18:18 does not teach "the other pen," that Trent presumed of itself, and which Swan and White, nor even authority to bind or loose whatsoever a church chooses, much less Rome with her novel and unScriptural ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
And which Roman "pen" is indeed what you are arguing for, contrary to your claim.
2:14 PM, JUNE 11, 2016
sw: You're back to arguing "whatsoever" and "which Roman pen" - but again - MY argument is merely for the EXISTENCE of "the other pen" or "AN other pen." I repeat, I am NOT arguing (at this time) for who is in possession of "the other pen" OR the limits or lengths of the authority of "the other pen."
Addendum 6/18/2016:
PBJ responded on BeggarsAll on June 16, 2016. (Linked here). I have prepared a response to PBJ and have included all his/her words in my response. Since my response is a bit long for a combox (comment box) response, and formatting is more difficult in a combox, I am responding here:
sw: PBJ, You're back to arguing "whatsoever" and "which Roman pen" - but again - MY argument is merely for the EXISTENCE of "the other pen" or "AN other pen." I repeat, I am NOT arguing (at this time) for who is in possession of "the other pen" OR the limits or lengths of the authority of "the other pen."
PBJ: Again you are exampling constrained RC blindness of what refuted you, for as shown, you claim to be proving the existence of "the other pen" that Swan rejected as being what Trent claimed,sw: Correction, I did not make an argument for "what Trent claimed."
PBJ: ...that of her unwritten traditions being from the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself,sw: Correction, I did not make an argument for "unwritten traditions."
PBJ: ...and which in response you asserted was found in Matthew 16:18-19 and similarly in Matthew 18:18,sw: Correction: While I did cite those verses, it was NOT "in response" to an argument on "unwritten traditions." Again, I did not make an argument for "unwritten tradition" nor did I attempt to support "unwritten tradition" in this discussion with you. You need to stop making things up. Who do you think you're fooling with these invented arguments?
PBJ: ...and . which you also pointed to Matatics as claiming and which you said White denied,sw: Correction, I did not point to anything Gerry Matatics claimed. I quoted White speaking to Matatics. More invented argument from you, PBJ.
PBJ: ...and which pen was one "just like" Scripture.
sw: Um, please quote where I stated "which pen was one 'just like' Scripture." Still making stuff up, I see.
PBJ: Therefore contrary to your assertion, whether or not Rome is in possession of "the other pen" is not "another argument" for .as much as you claim to only be arguing merely for the EXISTENCE of "the other pen" or "AN other pen, you have to be arguing for what Swan denied and your responded "can be found in Matthew 16:18-19 and similarly in Matthew 18:18," and you quoted White as challenging Matatics to provide!sw: You know what, PBJ, if you would represent what YOU want to say and let ME say what MY argument is - you wouldn't have to go making up stuff. I realize you've been trying to draw me into those OTHER arguments, but your attempts have failed. I did not bring up White's fatally flawed pen argument - Swan did. I focused in on White's "the other pen" challenge - and avoided the side issues you kept attempting to derail my argument with.
sw: "You have already affirmed 'the other pen,'"
PBJ: Once again I have not, for the "other pen" is what you claim White denied and Swan described, which you claim can be found in Matthew 16:18-19 and similarly in Matthew, and which is simply not what you wishfully claim to see me affirming, nor that of any pen meaning "whatsoever they choose on Earth and that which they bind/loose on Earth is bound/loosed in Heaven," nor that Mt. 16:18 or Mt. 18:18 contextually refers to the "other pen" that you imagine is in there.sw: OK. let's do a short recap here to bring MY argument back into focus instead of what you're attempting to impute on me as my argument.
a) White defines sola scriptura as the sole infallible source of teaching for the Christian church.
b) White challenges (both Matatics and Madrid) to demonstrate another infallible source for Christian church and uses his Cross Medalist pen as an analogy of his claim. IF that pen represents the SOLE infallible source - then all Matatics or Madrid would have to do is provide us with "AN other infallible source," -or in other words- "the other pen" and they win the debate.
i) Keep in mind, White's Cross Medalist pen does not represent Scripture itself - but it represents the infallible nature of Scripture. "The other pen" he challenges Matatics, Madrid, or anyone else to provide is another infallible source. MY argument has not been, thus far, to prove the Catholic Church is in possession of "the other pen," nor have I argued the lengths or limits of "the other pen," all I have sought to do is demonstrate the existence of "the other pen," and I believe I have done so.
c) I provided Matt. 16:18-19 and 18:18 as scriptural evidence of God giving men the authority to bind or loose on Earth and that which they bound/loosed on Earth was also bound/loosed in Heaven. Both you and Ken affirmed that Scripture indeed records God (Jesus) giving this authority to men.
d) I then asked, "Do you believe anything errant or fallible could be bound or loosed in Heaven?" Both you and Ken affirmed that nothing fallible could be bound or loosed in Heaven.
e) So, ipso facto, if nothing fallible can be bound/loosed in Heaven then this authority God (Jesus) gave to men MUST be infallible authority.
f) There you have it - "the other pen."
sw: Back to PBJ:
PBJ: Therefore you have made fallacious chargessw: I have made NO "fallacious charges." If you disagree with me, document yourself.
PBJ: ...and lost the argument, yet blindly, or ignorantly or insolently assert the contrary!sw: Let me just say, I have not "won" the argument(s) you keep trying to divert me to - because I have not engaged them. The argument I do claim to have "won" is that of presenting "the other pen." I have provided ANOTHER infallible source other than Scripture - and the irony is, that OTHER source is recorded IN SCRIPTURE! One who accept Scripture as an infallible authority should logically accept that these men were given infallible authority too - therefore, sola scriptura, especially as White defines it, is demonstrably shown to be a false teaching and contrary to Scripture.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.