Friday 21 November 2014

Sola Scriptura: Response to Quinque Viae (XM Flash or xgamer_immortal)

Quinque Viae, also known as xgamer_immortal or XM Flash, has recently written an article to me which I hope to respond to as best I can.

"Bobo has decided to make a number of anti-catholic posts on his blog, I had a rather long explanation explaining who Bobo is and where he's from, but I decided it would be best to just deal with the material he presents and see how he responds.
         First off, he makes this bizarre claim about Sola Scriptura and the role of tradition in Christian life. He starts by saying that Tradition that is not in violation with scripture is "valid" and Sola Scriptura is merely an affirmation of Scripture's supremacy, which does not negate said tradition that is in accord with Scripture. The problem is his misunderstanding of Catholic Material Sufficiency, where it stands in the Catholic belief that Scripture and Tradition are not in opposition to one another, and every Tradition is affirmed in either an implicit or explicit sense. He clearly has no knowledge of this belief but rather just makes the inference that Catholics can ignore scripture as they choose when picking Traditions. Saintly intercession is explicitly stated in the Bible, praying for the dead is explicitly affirmed in the Bible (as Protestant scholar JND Kelly proves), the Trinity doctrine is implicitly affirmed in the Bible, etc.... In fact there isn't a single doctrine of Catholicism that is found in the Sacred Tradition that has no implicit or explicit reference from the biblical texts, if he can provide one that would be great but there has been a great deal of Catholic arguments that stem from the Scripture concerning these beliefs."

First, I have indeed undertaken the task to refute Roman Catholicism. This doesn't mean I hate Catholics themselves, Far from it, If I hated Roman Catholics, then I would encourage others not to evangelise to them, same with Eastern Orthodox people.

If Quin wants to pull the "Anti-Catholic card", the same point can be said of him that he is Anti-Protestant. That's not going to get us anywhere.

Next, The onus of proof is on Quin to to show that the traditions as held to by the Catholic church are even found within the inspired texts of the Bible as well as in the early church Fathers. You would be hardpressed to find them.

A tradition is essentially teaching and as I explain in another article my writings could be considered a tradition or teaching, the same with Quin's own writings. Both of us are conveying tradition to our reading audiences. But it stands to reason to call into question Roman Catholic tradition that is ANACHRONISTICALLY shoehorned into the biblical text and into early fathers like Ignatius, Irenaus, Origen, Tertullian etc.

"Then, Bobo creates a false dichotomy where he chooses to hold Scripture up to this standard as being one's only final authority, yet then dismisses any notion that Tradition could hold an equal authority. This is merely what you would find in an anachronistic 21st century "Western" view of the texts. First off, Bobo clearly seems to have little to no knowledge of the biblical world. It was a world that was of a higher context, where great theological issues and important beliefs were assumed of the reader and often not explicitly stated. The Monotheistic belief of Yahweh in the 5 books of Moses? Not explicit, the SHEMA can read as a Henotheistic or Monolatristic creed as well as a Monotheistic one. The Kosher Slaughter, Calendar system, Jerusalem as the sacred city? Key doctrines in Judaism that are presupposed in the author's books, and are not explicitly stated. And even as scholars (mainly secular ones at that) have pointed out that the monotheistic nature of Yahweh is rather ambiguous until you get to Deutero-Isaiah, even more scholars have found that the Trinitarian nature of God is ambiguous in the NT. We have Christ's Deity clearly affirmed, Father's Deity affirmed, but we are left to ponder the specifics of this view and what "Deity" may entail. Was Christ "Theos" in the same sense Moses was "Theos" to Philo? Are mainstream NT scholars (conservative ones too) correct when they say Paul had more of an Arian view? We rely largely upon extrabiblical means to interpret scripture, looking at the wider cultural world rather than just thumping the text ignorantly. I shall go to NT Wright who makes this surprising claim,
"It is much more likely, in my judgment, that the gospel writers were able to draw on a bewildering variety of sources, many of them oral (in a world where oral reports were prized more highly than written ones), and many of them from eyewitnesses.


There is no pondering, If Christ and the Father's deity are affirmed, it is safe to assume and affirm that the Trinity is indeed taught in the texts of scripture itself and that Christ is called theos in the true sense. The exception would be Psalm 45 which talks about Christ's supremacy: There is even pretty solid material out there that even confirms the Biblical witness of the Trinity itself.

A modalistic interpretation cannot be deemed valid because scripture clearly affirms that the Father and the son are distinct persons and even Tertullian himself refuted Modalism in his treatise Against Praxeus.

Dismissal of tradition that goes against the biblical text is not an anachronistic way of reading the Bible, considering Jesus did NOT accept every single Pharisaical tradition, though some tradition he was not against.

"15 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’[a] and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[b] 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
    but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
    their teachings are merely human rules.’[c]”

Acceptance of some of the oral tradition would not prove Sola Scriptura to be false. Washing the hands wasn't a problematic or false tradition, but was an example of a dispensable tradition, but certainly the loophole that Jesus mentions counts as a violation.

Are you going to suggest that Jesus is guilty of some "21st Century anachronism"?

Also, For those unaware, Henotheism believes one God is to be worshiped but there is an acknowledgement of other deities existing. The Shema hardly can be used as a pretext for Henotheism since YHWH in the OT emphatically states that this only one God and NONE besides him. Furthermore, in the Psalms we have the following:

"Psalm 115:1 Not to us, Lord, not to us
    but to your name be the glory,
    because of your love and faithfulness.
2 Why do the nations say,
    “Where is their God?”
3 Our God is in heaven;
    he does whatever pleases him.
4 But their idols are silver and gold,
    made by human hands.
5 They have mouths, but cannot speak,
    eyes, but cannot see.
6 They have ears, but cannot hear,
    noses, but cannot smell.
7 They have hands, but cannot feel,
    feet, but cannot walk,
    nor can they utter a sound with their throats.
8 Those who make them will be like them,
    and so will all who trust in them.
9 All you Israelites, trust in the Lord—
    he is their help and shield."

"Psalm 135:15 The idols of the nations are silver and gold,
    made by human hands.
16 They have mouths, but cannot speak,
    eyes, but cannot see.
17 They have ears, but cannot hear,
    nor is there breath in their mouths.
18 Those who make them will be like them,
    and so will all who trust in them."

Though the idols and false Gods have tangible statues, they themselves are non-existent and cannot do harm, nor even deliver one from the clutches of disaster (Much like the idol of Mary cannot do this either).

"Likewise, great Protestant scholar Larry Hurtado echoes this thought:
Second, the approach taken in LJC understands the books of the New
Testament as the visible tip of a much larger iceberg, as it were. In
Hurtado's view, a prior and large-scale Christian understanding of Christ,
including his history, person, nature and work, is assumed by the written
texts. Put in his own terms, the narratives of the New Testament assume a
larger enabling narrative and a larger contextual understanding, all of it
mainly oral. What does this mean for people who assert a position of sola
scriptura and of scriptura scripturarn interpretatur? How does the larger
prior understanding relate to the regula Fdei of early Christian
communities? How does it relate to the general issue of Scripture and
tradition? What is, in fact, our final authority in matters of faith and life?
[Emphasis mine]


Again, you can use tradition, Quin has claimed he understands sola scriptura but so far, I am not convinced that he has even understood it. Should we consider looking at an oral tradition for profitability, yes. Should the oral tradition be binding on one's conscience if it violates God's moral code? No.

One should go back to the early church and look at other material to see what the groups themselves believed, be they orthodox or heterodox movement. It is good to get the information for historical study and understanding so we can refute the objections of unbelievers should the issues arise.

"Bobo has anachronistically and ahistorically thrown himself into a world that relied heavily upon Oral Traditions. One where the written texts assumes a basic knowledge Ritualistic, Ceremonial, theological traditions. One that had a literacy rate of 3% (Source: Ehrman) and your typical Levantine rhetorician would have to employ alliteration, rhymes, wordplay, hyperboles, and parables to communicate to the audience and have the message repeated from individual to individual. This is exactly what Jesus did, these wordplays are especially apparent when you translate the texts back to the original Aramaic."

Yes, the ancient world did have oral tradition, but this isn't a news flash to a sola scripturist, since we accept that the Bible was oral first, then codified and written down. This wouldn't however justify the claims of Roman Catholics and what they say about their traditions. Not much else to say really.

"To the first century Jew, the tefillin, the Kosher Slaughter, Calendar system, Jerusalem's prominence had to, by definition, be of an equal authority to the Torah (For the sake of discussion I'm limiting the torah to the 5 books of Moses) otherwise there is no infallible manner in which to discern the theological truths of these practices. I do wonder, how does Bobo infallibly know how to perform the Slaughter that was essential to Jewish life? There's no evidence in the Torah besides a vague, "Kill the beast as I have commanded you." But how? What does Deuteronomy mean concerning the tefillin prayers? Is it esoteric? If that is the case then why did classical Jewish branches all seem to affirm a literalistic interpretation of said texts? The Teffillin has been found at the site of the Essenes, the Pharisees wore it, the Sadducees wore it (according to the Talmud), & even the Hellenic Jews seemed to have recognized the teffillin as tangible objects. (Source: letter to Aristeas) But how does Bobo know how to wear it? Like the pharisees did? Or the Sadducees? They differed in the specifics. 

Bobo's logic is as follows:
A) Presuppose that scripture alone is one's final authority
B) Holds Tradition as authoritative only in it's accordance to Scripture

This leads to an infinite regression and circular logic, for I could propose the following conundrum.

A) The Scripture says to kill the animal in a certain manner.
B) I believe we should kill the animal by using a hammer to the head. Then later remove the meat from the blood.

A) Scripture says to kill the animal in a certain manner.
B) I believe we should kill the animal using a knife and follow Rabbinic Traditions.

Point C) Scripture does not specify whether or not a hammer or knife is used. Or how to drain the blood, when to drain it, etc..

You have both scenarios where scripture is hailed as the only final authority, but point B is up for interpretation and relies upon one's own subjective viewpoint with no infallible backing. Is Bobo honestly going to suggest that a commandment from God is subjected to one's own private understanding of the slaughter? It does not logically follow. You will end up with an infinite number of methods and answers that are all outside the scope of scripture, either you hold scripture and tradition as equally valid or you have to concede that the Word of God fails to instruct the average individual on to the essentials of his faith.

A tradition telling us how to slaughter kosher in certain way or tying tefillin isn't so much of a problem, since a Sola Scripturist DOESN'T dismiss every tradition, but tests those said traditions. Why is there the assumption that just because I reject unbiblical traditions, therefore I am not open to how the issue of kosher and tefillin is to be resolved?

If you want to discern how to properly deal with these matters, that's fine, it's important to do things the way God requires.

"Finally the last desperate appeal of the anti-catholic apologist is to resort to 2 Timothy 3:16-17, a verse which explicitly debunks Sola Scriptura but is somehow twisted into a bizarre proof-text for the dogma. First off, in which biblical dictionary or lexicon is the word "ophelimos" used to denote completion or sufficient? Ophelimos roughly means advantageous, useful. So if the Protestants are correct and and this is supposedly some 'creedal' statement then why on earth would Paul soften the impact of this alleged important early creed by employing such terminology? I would rather believe that Paul did not lie when he said scriptures were something that were advantageous while not disregarding the Oral Traditions as being equally authoritative (2 Timothy 3:8) which would be following the precedent set in Judaism of that time."

Paul doesn't affirm Oral Tradition as equally authoritative, he often pointed to the OT and even to Luke's own Gospel to substantiate his teaching, not to mere traditions of men. For those who are unaware, Jamnes and Jambres are the names of the Pharaoh's magicians, two at least, who opposed Moses in Egypt when he performed miracles in front of the Pharaoh.

Read more on them here:

Ophelimos will be looked at momentarily.

"He goes onto say every scripture is profitable. Two pesky little words that totally debunk the belief of Sola Scriptura are "every" and "scripture." First off, "Every scripture" (pasa graphe) would refer to the every scripture in an individual sense. Even "Doctor" James White has admitted such. Unless Bobo can defy scholarship and show some proof of an early "Bible" compiled into one book (rather than scrolls) he is once again projecting an anachronistic view in the biblical world. Every scripture would be referring to Isaiah alone, Genesis alone, Jeremiah alone, Sirach alone. The author is affirming the sacredness of scripture, every single OT scripture individually, and saying one could learn and teach from said scripture. This correlates beautifully with the Catholic view of Material Sufficiency, not the Protestant view of formal sufficiency which states that the scriptures are only authoritative when the "magical number" of 66 is met, then the Bible as a whole becomes authoritative. Moreover, it is curious as to why Bobo forgot that the word "Scripture" was in the singular, not the plural. The only time the word scripture is pluralized in the passage is in a reference that excludes NT texts and is speaking solely of Old Testament scripture. So it's clear the Catholic interpretation is the biblical and logical interpretation of the verse."

I never claimed the Bible was compiled into one book and acknowledge the individual books were scrolls. Even Jesus himself read from a scroll of Isaiah. Even if "Every Scripture" refers to the books of the OT, it doesn't prove the Romanist church to be true, let alone biblical or even the false doctrines they so love to propagate.

As for Sirach, as Ryan Turner of CARM observes:
"1.  There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles.  While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say."  There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics.  In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5Lk. 24:27Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God. "

Keith Thompson observes the following in his paper on Sola Scriptura:
"First, neither the Lord Jesus nor the Apostles ever quote any Apocryphal book with the formulaic expressions denoting canonicity, i.e. "Thus saith the Lord," "This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken through the prophet," "The Scripture says," "It is written," etc.

Now someone may wish to say that this is also true with many of the OT books which the Jews and Christians both accept as canonical. The problem with this objection is that we do know that the Lord Jesus and his Apostles, as well as the NT documents as a whole, often appealed to the Scriptures in the possession of the Jews at that time. And, as we documented in the previous parts of our discussion, one will find many references to “the Law and the Prophets,” or to “the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms” (cf. Luke 24:25, 27, 44-45). These divisions of the Scriptures did not include the Apocryphal books, but did contain the OT books found in the Jewish and Protestant canons.

Second, just because the NT may allude to material from the Apocrypha doesn’t mean that the NT writers viewed them as inspired or canonical." Keith Thompson, Appendix: Addressing Some Arguments in Support of the Apocrypha:

I thoroughly recommend all to read that article above and examples in said article are listed to demonstrate the point made.

Other points about Sirach may be focused on if the Lord Wills.

As for the quote from James White. WHERE did he say what he said? And Speaking of White, this is what he said on Sola Scriptura (Bold italic emphasis mine):
Sola scriptura says the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. It does not deny the existence of "general revelation" in nature (hence the error of saying the "sole source of revelation"). It is interesting to note, however, that Mr. Ray, in his zeal for the Roman position, ends up taking the more conservative, traditional partim-partim viewpoint of tradition and revelation, for while many modern Roman Catholic theologians are moving toward abandoning the "two-source" view of revelation, Mr. Ray states his adherence to it plainly a number of times in his article (we shall note them in passing). Mr. Ray is a former Baptist. Hence, he might want to be familiar with what the Baptists in 1689 placed in their Confession of Faith:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
The sufficiency of Scripture is clearly asserted, but it is a sufficiency carefully defined. No one claims the Bible is an omnipedia of all knowledge. Nor does anyone claim the Bible can tell you, specifically, what color fabric to place upon the pews of your new church building. But all things that are "necessary" for God's "own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in Holy Scripture.""

And in the same article says:
"Sola scriptura speaks to the Church as she exists in her normative state. Times of revelation are not normative. They are now passed. So how does the Church have sure access to the truths of God today? By reference to nebulous, a-historical traditions, or to the sure and unchanging Word of God in the Scriptures? Sola scriptura says the Church always has an ultimate authority to which to turn: and the Church isn't that ultimate authority! The Church is in need of revelation from Her Lord, and that she finds in Scripture, not in "traditions" that are uncertain".

James White, A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray’s Article, Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura:

I would recommend others reading his articles here:

Also, Why is there the assumption that the Protestant view means that a "magic number" as to be met?

"In summary for 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
A) Paul affirmed an Oral Tradition as a Pharisee, so any attempt at saying the OT alone is needed would have to deny the Pharisaic belief in the Oral Torah and explain from a biblical basis things like the Calendar system & Kosher Slaughter.
B) The word "Ophelimos" ruins any sort of creedal statements that the Protestant might infer
C) The phrase used is pasa graphe, meaning every scripture. The Scripture is individually affirmed as authoritative, which correlates terrifically with how scriptures were bound to scrolls in first century Judaism.
D) As biblical commentator Adam Clarke has observed, the verse is about the Old Testament only. Implying the NT is included ("the scriptures you read growing up..") is going way beyond the text and making astronomical claims that cannot be proven.
E) The affirmation of Scripture is most likely to counter the gnostic interpretations. Bobo should probably know the Pastorals had an innate anti-Gnostic polemic to them, the author is trying to say the Old Testament is valid in contrast to the proto-gnostics who may already be denying its value. The historical context is everything.

A Oral Traditions of the Pharisees don't prove the Roman Catholic apostate traditions to have any weight. I already said that traditions used to deal with kosher slaughter and tefillin aren't problematic and that Jesus accepted SOME of the traditions, not all.
B How? It just means profitable. Tradition is profitable, not inspired.
C Which doesn't prove Rome to be a true church in any way.
D. I am aware Paul is referring to the Old Testament in context, I have said it refers to the New Testament in principle. The same principle applies.
E. Yes I am aware the NT has anti-Gnostic polemic in them.

Going back to ophelimos, the word means profitable. No Sola Scripturist denies this and tradition itself can be profitable, as is a commentary. Several of the Reformers had no hesitation looking at the dissertations and treatises of church Fathers or the decisions of the church councils for what they said. However...... tradition in this passage is not described as God Breathed, scripture itself, so how it destroys a protestant creeds and confession I have no idea. Tradition outside the scripture is NEVER referred to as God breathed, hence the point is vacuous.

Furthermore it is important to realize that scripture is "theopneustos" or God-breathed (Something the Roman tradition is not) and also can equip and furnish the believing. Tradition is fine to use for edification for sure and even may provide an insight you haven't noticed. Maybe I have an insight someone may not have seen who knows? But the point is, It is ultimately the scripture itself that is called inspired, not the traditions of the Roman apologists who want to force false teaching on their congregants.

Matt Slick observes the following regarding the Greek of the passage:
"Let's take a look at the Greek. The word "inspired" is qeovpneustos (theopneustos), and it means literally, "God breathed." This means that God was the one working through people--breathing through them his words. The Scriptures, therefore, are perfect and without error because they come from God. Paul continues and says that these Scriptures are profitable for teaching, for proof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. In verse 17 he explains that this is so the Christian may be adequate--equipped for every good work. The word artios(artios) is defined as follows:
  • "complete, capable, proficient, able to meet all demands."2
  • "complete, perfect of its kind, suitable, exactly fitted"3
  • "complete, perfect. 2a having reference apparently to "special aptitude for given uses."4
So, we see from three sources that explain the Greek that Paul is telling us that the Scriptures are "complete, capable, proficient, able to meet all demands, exactly fitted, etc." This is fine; but Paul continues to tell us that this, so we might understand that by studying the Scriptures, we will be adequately equipped for every good work.
The Greek word for "equipped" is ejxhrtismevno" (exartismenos) and it means, "having been finished, fully equipped":
  • "equip, furnish."5
  • "to be thoroughly prepared or furnished."6
  • "to complete, finish. 1a to furnish perfectly. 1b to finish, accomplish."7
We can then see that we are equipped for every good work. Every good work is explained in the previous verse as teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. This means that the Bible is sufficient for all of these things. This naturally includes the teaching of doctrine because teaching correct doctrine is a good work by which we reprove, correct, and train. Furthermore, this means that we don't need sacred tradition to teach, reprove, correct, and train in righteousness because the Scriptures are what is sufficient for this."

Sam Shamoun himself also notes the following:
"1. The Holy Scriptures are the sole, infallible rule of faith by virtue of it being breathed out or inspired by God. As such it is completely sufficient in and of itself to thoroughly equip Christians in all things necessary for salvation and sanctification.

2. The Bible is the only certain norm, since it is the only revelation that can be demonstrated to have come from inspired men of God. This cannot be said of oral traditions.

3. Finally, the central focus of the Scriptures is to reveal and make known the risen Lord and immortal Savior Jesus Christ, God’s eternally beloved Son, who alone grants eternal life to all who believe." Sam Shamoun, An Articulation of Sola Scriptura: The Biblical Basis for the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures:

Finally, Thompson demonstrates the following regarding the phrase "exartismos" (Bold and italic emphasis mine):
"Now, when 2 Timothy 3:17 teaches that Scripture thoroughly equips the man of God for every good work including doctrine, the original Greek word is exērtismenos (ἐξηρτισμένος), the perfect passive participle of exartizō (ἐξαρτίζω). The word exartizō is defined in the following ways by major professional lexicographers and grammarians:
Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words defines it as: “to fit out” (W. E. Vine, Merrill F. Unger, William White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, [Thomas Nelson Inc., 1996], p. 117).

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines it as: to complete, finish 1a) to furnish perfectly” (Joseph. H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2009], p. 222).

Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words affirms it means “to equip or furnish completely” (William D. Mounce, Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, [Zondervan, 2006], p. 1146).

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament notes the word means to “bring to a suitable state” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromily, Vol. 1, [Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964-1976], pp. 475).

The Baur, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, defines it as: “equip, furnish . . . for every good deed 2 Ti 3:17” (Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur, Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, [University of Chicago Press, 2000], p. 346).
Hence, what is deduced from this text is that Scripture is able or powerful to make men wise unto salvation through faith. Scripture is God-breathed or given by inspiration of God. Scripture’s purpose is to profit us with doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. Hence, there is no doctrine or sin that Scripture is not profitable enough to address. And Scripture is sufficient in the sense that it makes the man of God complete, fully furnishing and fully equipping him for every good work including doctrine or teaching.

Therefore, since 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches that Scripture fully furnishes or makes the man of God fully equipped forevery good work including doctrine, that means Scripture contains everything we need for doctrin. We do not need extra-biblical tradition to supplement Scripture and inform us of doctrine allegedly missing from Scripture as Romanism teaches."

Moving on.

"Most importantly, as Catholic apologist David Armstrong points out, there is a passage about the Church which puts the Church as even more authoritative than anything expressed in 2 Tim 3:16. See here:

Maybe another time if the Lord Wills I may comment on this article, but not now.

         I haven't been able to deal with all of Bobo's arguments, he has the bad habit of jumping bombastically to one subject to the next for some reason. I would rather focus on Sola Scriptura first with him and expand from there. But so far, Bobo has displayed his incapability with dealing with the basic anthropology of the Biblical world, one which is clearly affirmed by the leading Protestant NT scholars of our time.. one that relies heavily upon Oral Tradition. Such oral tradition is even of a "greater" (their words not mine) value than written scripture in due to the low literacy rate of the time. Bobo has failed to explain how key aspects of the Jewish faith remain outside the Bible, and his "Oh well traditions are valid just not as valid as scripture!" doesn't work out logically (as proven above) and is a presupposition not justified in the biblical texts, Judaism, or early Christianity. The Catholic case that the Word of God (Oral, Written, & Magisterial) is our final authority alone still stands while Bobo's remains unproven.

I hope he will honestly engage me in dialogue this time and we can stick to a subject. My past attempts at dialogue with him have failed (I wrote quite a lengthy series of replies on iconography under one of his videos which he never got around to reading)  I'm planning on writing on the canonicity of Sirach (relying solely upon Protestant & Jewish sources mind you) in antiquity and may be posting some of my articles on 2 Tim 3:16 & Sola Scriptura which might be of interest to him.

No I don't bombastically jump from one subject to another, In two of my papers I address a number of claims of individuals I have spoken with. The prime reason for focusing on multiple topics that I did was because of the fact that several objections were brought to me by Th3 Vin3 and margesimpson1. It would be nice to point this out to his readers.

Furthermore, Quin fails to mention in his article that I had listened to an EASTERN ORTHODOX recorded television program, called Holy Cross Live, presented by Yanni Simonides, where he discusses with scholars on what the orthodox church teaches. This was for a set of videos on Eastern Orthodoxy that I had done in the past which Quin mentions he wrote replies to.

It is not icons that are the problem, it's the veneration of icons which is the problem, which is to be blunt, idolatrous and no there is no difference between the worship of a statue and a veneration of an icon.

I would also recommend and judge for yourself the article by Messianic Drew on Roman Catholic claims of authority: (This link is defunct).

For now this is all I have to say in this particular article.

Answering Judaism.


  1. I'm sorry but this is just rather embarrassing. I present clear, emphatically-proven, historically-backed evidence by the leading Protestants of our time and you rely upon some random guys from CARM and an apologist that goes around shouting "nigger" at people. Pretty pathetic, quite honestly. I'll have a good laugh at this then make a reply on my blog later in the week.

    1. What is quite sad is you are defending a church that's has rank idolatrous pagan practices.

      Never witnessed Keith shouting Nigger, he may of put that behind him.

      Oh so CARM cannot be seen as reliable? Not an argument.

    2. Also, Considering the fact you have lied about me on your paper by claiming I abuse mentally ill people, Why would I take what you say about other apologists seriously?

  2. Response is up on my blog:

    Please read when you get a chance. It kills me when my opponent offers arguments too strange and out-there to even respond to, but this kept happening over & over again in this most recent dialogue. Well, anyways, hope you all enjoy it.

    Also for your horrid defense of Keith:

    "Never witnessed Keith shouting Nigger, he may of put that behind him."

    "Also, Considering the fact you have lied about me on your paper by claiming I abuse mentally ill people, Why would I take what you say about other apologists seriously?"

    Ah, so now I'm a liar? I told you why I felt that way and what West's mental conditions are. But I guess since your buddy was caught with his pants down acting like a Klansman, you have to freak out and accuse me of lying. I really do hope you repent and get right with God. Aren't you the same person, by the way, that called me an "Apostate?" Wouldn't that imply that I was/am a Protestant? Seems like you're the only on here lying through their teeth. Sorry that the truth hurts.

    1. My point of referring to you as apostate has nothing to do with referring to you as a former protestant, but the fact that you are in Catholicism, you are an apostate from the Biblical faith.

      You don't take from two interactions I had with west and claim I knowingly abuse mentally ill people. That is not on the cards and you give the wrong impression to your audience. One doesn't know an individual from only two interactions.

      Whether Keith has done it or not, I expect he has put it behind him if he was guilty, thus you are bringing up an action that has been renounced. If he isn't guilty, you are bearing false witness.