Feel free to add comments here, or join us in BattleACTS.
Qui Locutus - Formerly The CathApol Blog - a Catholic Apologetics Blog Defending the Faith and keeping Catholics Catholic! Scott Windsor, MEd. - aka: CathApol
11 comments:
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Feast of the Assumption
The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - another example of "not-so-ordinary" days! These are COUNTING days - and...
-
Is Sola Scriptura Self Refuting? So goes the title of an article by Steve Hays on Triablogue. The real problem with defining sola scrip... -
In a recent post from Alan/Rhology on Beggars All , he said: >> sw: So you're confirming (again) that your local >> churc...
-
This is a continuing discussion from http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/01/pope-working-toward-unity-with-eo.html >> sw: "Um, t...
I would like to make my statement here also. I was disappointed in MA's supposed "opening statement." He didn't so much make his postive position statement, as made an argument against TV's past statements on the subject. He was supposed to provide the 'audience' his support/understanding of the agreed on Sola Scriptura definition. Subsequent rounds are for the arguments. Dissappointing.
ReplyDeleteWell, as I said I am reserving my personal public comments on the debate until it is concluded. I hope I've provided some direction for both participants to keep it focused on the question of the debate and not go off on tangents, while they may mean something to the participant - for the "audience" (as you put it) such "baggage" is relatively meaningless.
ReplyDeleteA person who goes by "euzao" on the #CathApol IRC Channel comments on one of Micah's arguments:
ReplyDelete[18:57] <euzao> Why? Because the content of these jewish traditions which He eschewed were the jewish explication of the law; the very thing we are told is the content of Roman Catholic Tradition, only in their case, they are claiming to explicate from the New Testament. Thus, Christ's thumbs down to Pharisaical tradition must also apply to Roman Catholic ones as well. Sola Scriptura reigns because,
[18:57] <euzao> "the words of this law [are] your life" (Deut 32:46-7).
[18:58] <euzao> you see that that argument is made by 4 statements
[18:58] <euzao> and one analogical.
[19:00] <euzao> it is very interesting these kind of argumentation
[19:02] <euzao> this analogy is false.
[19:02] <euzao> the Tradition do not only explain the New Testament
[19:02] <euzao> but rather support that the New Testament is the New Testament.
[19:03] <euzao> actually the Tradition is what gives support for dogmatics.
[19:03] <euzao> Duke77 I would recommend using Communitorium against him
[19:03] <Duke77> I'm not debating him, I'm the moderator/host for the debate.
[19:04] <euzao> ohhh, yes, interesting
[19:05] <euzao> Chapter 2
[19:06] <euzao> Duke77 this old text deals exactly with sola scriptura
[19:08] <euzao> sola scriptura is a humanist disease
[19:09] <euzao> even though those who supported sola scriptura back in time were tyrants...
[19:09] <Duke77> I like 2.5
[19:10] <euzao> Chapter 26 also.
[19:10] <Duke77> naming all those heresies which based their interp on Scripture... yet each one is different, and all opposed the True Church.
[19:10] <euzao> 25
[19:11] <euzao> 25 too
[19:11] <euzao> well, that wouldn't be polite to say that a heretic who quotes the Scripture do as the devil does
[19:11] <euzao> but nothing far from the truth.
[19:11] <Duke77> agreed
[19:13] <euzao> and sola scriptura would demand something that is impossible.
[19:13] <euzao> Sola Scriptura is like the Communist utopia
[19:13] <euzao> everybody would understand and follow it, and be all biblical scholars.
[19:13] <euzao> that's a sick idea
[19:14] <euzao> even though they do not presuppose that, for a efficacious appliance of the Sola Scriptura principle, it would demand: 1) that all people should read; 2) that all do know the entire Bible, in all its variances, analogies; 3) that people should recognize the ecclesiastic authority by that
[19:15] <euzao> well, they do have a perspective of the world that is inherently gnostic, let me say. Yes, gnostic, like Mao-Tse-Tung "cultural revolution"
[19:16] <euzao> you have to "clean out", by Grace, to interpret the Bible, because sin doesn't make you do so... Like the culture didn't let communism go through...
Cross examination questions have been posted to the main page
ReplyDeleteRound 2b responses have been posted. Next round due in 48 hours or less if possible.
ReplyDeleteModerator Scoring of Round 2b for Verga can be found here:
ReplyDeletehttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/BattleACTS/message/6677
and for Micah here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BattleACTS/message/6678
(These will be added to the main web page too).
Antony's complaint about the scoring can be read here:
ReplyDeletehttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/BattleACTS/message/6681
My response to his complaints here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BattleACTS/message/6683
Scott<<<
Debate Moderator
Micah's closing argument, like his opening argument was quite disappointing. Instead of supporting and arguing for Sola Scriptura and the agreed upon definition of same, he only argues against Verga's argument against Sola Scriptura. He never addressed the fact that most, if not all the verses he cited had no reference to an "ultimate authority" in writing. He never addresses the holes in his opening argument or follow up interrogatories. I was actually hoping for more "meat" on his argument FOR Sola Scriptura. I was disappointed. It only shows that there is no meat to his argument.
ReplyDeleteOne caveat...Micah did remain civilized in this debate. And, for that, I am grateful.
Well, the REAL issue is that he didn't PROVE sola scriptura was scriptural - and didn't even argue for that fact, and THAT was the point of the debate for him (Micah, that is). Verga had nothing to prove here, Micah did - since Micah held the affirmative.
ReplyDeleteMicah offered some arguments contrary to Verga's - true - but he didn't invalidate Verga's assertions, he only offered a different opinion or interpretation. Verga's arguments remain valid. But clearly, Micah loses based on the FACT that he didn't even argue for his own position! As you said, in merely attacking Verga's arguments he can't "win."
Scott<<<
The "Scoring Copies" of Rounds 3b and 4 are now posted. I anticipate having the "Moderator Summary" ready by tonight.
ReplyDeleteScott<<<
The Moderator Summary is posted, plus there are some other links on the homepage of the debate.
ReplyDeleteDue to protestation from Antony, I'm also seeking a supporter of sola scriptura to step forward and offer their objective comments on this debate.