Reply To Gavin Ortlund’s 6-Minute Sola Scriptura Defense

[Michie]

Including the Biblical Case for Prophets as Inspired and Infallible Authorities Besides Holy Scripture

I’m responding to Gavin’s video, “Sola Scriptura Defended in 6 Minutes” (1-17-24).

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the Church’s only infallible rule. It doesn’t mean that Scripture is the only authority.

This is the standard Protestant definition and one that many Catholics don’t understand. Even some Catholic apologists don’t; for example, John Martignoni. In his case, I myself (as the editor of many of these particular tracts) tried to correct him by noting that the definition is as Gavin states here, but to no avail. In his tract, “The Bible Alone?”(St. Paul Street Evangelization), John wrote about sola Scriptura: “Many Christians believe that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the sole authority, or the sole rule of faith, that one needs in order to know what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. . . . nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible should be used by Christians as the sole authority . . .” He never mentions the words infallible or infallibility, which are an essential part of the actual definition, as Protestants understand it to be.

Sola Scriptura simply means that popes, councils, and other post-apostolic organs of the church are fallible.

Continued below.

Reply To Gavin Ortlund's 6-Minute Sola Scriptura Defense Reply To Gavin Ortlund's 6-Minute Sola Scriptura Defense

Including the Biblical Case for Prophets as Inspired and Infallible Authorities Besides Holy Scripture Gavin Ortlund is a Reformed Baptist author, Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund makes his six-minute case for sola Scriptura as the rule of faith. I absolutely demolish it, with relentless, numerous...

www.patheos.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Including the Biblical Case for Prophets as Inspired and Infallible Authorities Besides Holy Scripture

I’m responding to Gavin’s video, “Sola Scriptura Defended in 6 Minutes” (1-17-24).

Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the Church’s only infallible rule. It doesn’t mean that Scripture is the only authority.

This is the standard Protestant definition and one that many Catholics don’t understand. Even some Catholic apologists don’t; for example, John Martignoni. In his case, I myself (as the editor of many of these particular tracts) tried to correct him by noting that the definition is as Gavin states here, but to no avail. In his tract, “The Bible Alone?”(St. Paul Street Evangelization), John wrote about sola Scriptura: “Many Christians believe that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the sole authority, or the sole rule of faith, that one needs in order to know what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice. . . . nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible should be used by Christians as the sole authority . . .” He never mentions the words infallible or infallibility, which are an essential part of the actual definition, as Protestants understand it to be.

Sola Scriptura simply means that popes, councils, and other post-apostolic organs of the church are fallible.

Continued below.

Reply To Gavin Ortlund's 6-Minute Sola Scriptura Defense Reply To Gavin Ortlund's 6-Minute Sola Scriptura Defense

Including the Biblical Case for Prophets as Inspired and Infallible Authorities Besides Holy Scripture Gavin Ortlund is a Reformed Baptist author, Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund makes his six-minute case for sola Scriptura as the rule of faith. I absolutely demolish it, with relentless, numerous...

www.patheos.com

Dave Armstrong and John Martignoni are having a bit of a tiff at the moment and I'm not sure what it's really all about but they are both taking pot shots at each other.

 

[epostle]

Dave Armstrong and John Martignoni are having a bit of a tiff at the moment and I'm not sure what it's really all about but they are both taking pot shots at each other.

Dave Armstrong:
"My friends John Martignoni (a partner of mine in my apostolate) and Jimmy Akin have written nothing incorrect. Their teaching is in total agreement with Catholic Church teaching, as I believe I will prove in the course of this paper."

Merit: Clarification Of The Catholic Doctrine

Explanation of the fine points of the notion of merit in Catholic theology. It's NOT "salvation by works."

www.patheos.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Dave Armstrong:
"My friends John Martignoni (a partner of mine in my apostolate) and Jimmy Akin have written nothing incorrect. Their teaching is in total agreement with Catholic Church teaching, as I believe I will prove in the course of this paper."

Merit: Clarification Of The Catholic Doctrine

Explanation of the fine points of the notion of merit in Catholic theology. It's NOT "salvation by works."

www.patheos.com

Yes, but that was from circa 2017. Their newer tiff seems related to how to assess pope Francis. It's a sorry thing that how to assess the pope is causing division.

 

[epostle]

Yes, but that was from circa 2017. Their newer tiff seems related to how to assess pope Francis. It's a sorry thing that how to assess the pope is causing division.

One major criticism of Pope Francis is that he has created confusion in the Church. Here are four reasons people find him confusing and what we can do about it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

One major criticism of Pope Francis is that he has created confusion in the Church. Here are four reasons people find him confusing and what we can do about it.

Which doesn't explain why two highly aware apologists would come into a tiff over how to evaluate pope Francis. Sure, lots of us are unfortunately political first and see everything politically. But that doesn't fully explain the now rampant confusion in the Church.

 

[epostle]

Which doesn't explain why two highly aware apologists would come into a tiff over how to evaluate pope Francis.

Yes, it does.

Sure, lots of us are unfortunately political first and see everything politically. But that doesn't fully explain the now rampant confusion in the Church.

I am unable to find "tiffs" between Armstrong and Martignoni. They are partners in the same apostolate. A link would be helpful. Lets trade.

Pope Francis Defended: Resources For Confused Folks

A collection of explanatory articles (311+) that defend Pope Francis against accusations of erroneous teaching, heresy, ignorance, equivocation, arrogance, etc. ad nauseam.

www.patheos.com

 

[epostle]

Pope Francis is so often misquoted, somebody made a meme:

 

[chevyontheriver]

I am unable to find "tiffs" between Armstrong and Martignoni. They are partners in the same apostolate. A link would be helpful. Lets trade.

Apologetics for the Masses #469 - Pope Francis, Bp. Strickland, Papal Indefectibility, and...Dave Armstrong (Part 4)
Papal Indefectibility...and why I believe Dave Armstrong was wrong about Bp. Strickland
Apologetics for the Masses #468 - Fiducia Supplicans, Pope Francis, Bp. Strickland and...Dave Armstrong (Part 3)
Fiducia Supplicans this week; Papal Indefectibility/Infallibility next week
Apologetics for the Masses #467 - Pope Francis, Bp. Strickland, Papal Indefectibility, and...Dave Armstrong (Part 2)
Fiducia Supplicans and Papal Indefectibility/Infallibility
Apologetics for the Masses #466 - Pope Francis, Bp. Strickland, Papal Indefectibility, and...Dave Armstrong
Is Pope Francis a heretic? Is Bp. Strickland a heretic? What's up w/Dave Armstrong?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Pope Francis is so often misquoted, somebody made a meme:

View attachment 343601

I'm still waiting for his clarifications on a whole scad of things. Not holding my breath however. He seems content not to clarify. Even when asked. So that meme is not quite accurate. IF it were accurate then he would have explained what he said, or maybe he would have said what he said with more clarity in the first place.

 

[Markie Boy]

Gavin usually does a nice job of fairly explaining both sides. He also does a great job with historical data that pertains to issues, something protestants often fall down on.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Gavin usually does a nice job of fairly explaining both sides. He also does a great job with historical data that pertains to issues, something protestants often fall down on.

Are you posting here as a Catholic or as something else?

 

[Michie]

Are you posting here as a Catholic or as something else?

Yes….? Odd.

 

[epostle]

I'm still waiting for his clarifications on a whole scad of things. Not holding my breath however. He seems content not to clarify. Even when asked. So that meme is not quite accurate. IF it were accurate then he would have explained what he said, or maybe he would have said what he said with more clarity in the first place.

Dicastery for Doctrine of the Faith clarifies application of ‘Fiducia supplicans’​

 

[chevyontheriver]

Dicastery for Doctrine of the Faith clarifies application of ‘Fiducia supplicans’​

I read that the day it came out and again a few times. The clarification was a sad attempt at a clarifying.

But I was talking about the thousand OTHER things that pope Francis has said that need clarifying because he has been as clear as mud. Things that have yet to be clarified. We could go all the way back to whether he knew or not about McCarrick. From him we still don't know. We could go back to his level of knowledge about a host of other abuser friends that he has in one way or another covered for. It's not just the muddy Fiducia supplicans.

You may think Fiducia supplicans is a clear and clean document in keeping with the Catholic moral tradition making absolutely no changes in anything. Lots of bishops think otherwise. Supposed clarification or not.

 

[epostle]

I read that the day it came out and again a few times. The clarification was a sad attempt at a clarifying.

You don't want clarification, you just want to complain about the Pope. You never answered "tiffs" between Armstrong and Martignoni so I think you are just looking for a fight.

But I was talking about the thousand OTHER things that pope Francis has said that need clarifying because he has been as clear as mud.

Already addressed. If you don't watch videos and read links posted explaining Pope Francis, don't reply to my posts with shallow complaints.

Things that have yet to be clarified. We could go all the way back to whether he knew or not about McCarrick. From him we still don't know. We could go back to his level of knowledge about a host of other abuser friends that he has in one way or another covered for. It's not just the muddy Fiducia supplicans.

Have you even read Fiducia supplicans? Why don't you copy and paste the parts you find confusing and we can discuss it rationally. I see nothing muddy about it. It's definition of "blessing" is very clear.

You may think Fiducia supplicans is a clear and clean document in keeping with the Catholic moral tradition making absolutely no changes in anything. Lots of bishops think otherwise. Supposed clarification or not.

"Lots of bishops" can be found opposing everything the Vatican puts out. The Pope welcomes disagreement and controversy because it induces constructive dialogue and ongoing development. There is nothing constructive about you ignoring everything I post. You just don't like the Pope.

Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (18 December 2023)

Declaration Fiducia Supplicans On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings (18 December 2023)

www.vatican.va

Fiducia Supplicans: Non-liturgical blessings, and Pope Benedict's distinction - Vatican News

An Instruction published in 2000 by the then-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith distinguished between rituals inserted into ...

www.vaticannews.va

 

[chevyontheriver]

You don't want clarification, you just want to complain about the Pope. You never answered "tiffs" between Armstrong and Martignoni so I think you are just looking for a fight.

That was post 9. Which you appear not to have bothered to read. But I think YOU are just looking for a fight. I'll pass.

Already addressed. If you don't watch videos and read links posted explaining Pope Francis, don't reply to my posts with shallow complaints.

I was a popesplainer for several years. Been there. Done that. Your reply here seems like proof you want a fight. As I said, I'll pass. Maybe just put you on ignore. Yup. That's the ticket. You can spew what you want. I don't care.

Have you even read Fiducia supplicans?

Many times. And the supposed clarification. And the pope calling people hypocrites who don't jump on the FS bandwagon. And on and on. The first response of the FSplainers are always that their opposites never read the document. Sorry. It's BECAUSE I read the document several times that I don't buy it.

"Lots of bishops" can be found opposing everything the Vatican puts out.

That's a rather new thing in the life of the Church. Sure a rare bishop disagreed here and there. But it's a thousand bishops now at least who have rejected FS. How many more are too scared to actually disagree? That's a rhetorical question. I won't be reading your answer.

The Pope welcomes disagreement and controversy because it induces constructive dialogue and ongoing development.

The pope is a nasty name caller who likes to be known as Numero Uno. Not the Vicar of Christ. That's not Numero Uno enough. It's his way or the highway.

There is nothing constructive about you ignoring everything I post.

Problem is I have read and paid attention to what you have written. But from now on I will ignore everything you post.

You just don't like the Pope.

It took a long time to get to that opinion, but yes, I do not like the pope. I think he is a bad pope. You can defend him all you want, but I won't be reading it as I am ignoring you. You burned any bridge to calm discussion. Good bye.