Sola Scriptura, Bad Roman Catholic Apologists, and More

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Books, Textual Criticism, and the Humor of Scholarly Papers

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon. I'm trying to find her in that exploder here. Because it's the only one that will work on our phone system for some reason Mozilla does not like our phone system.

It just it just. It doesn't like that the printer thing either at least on my end it doesn't but anyway I thought I would start off today by mentioning a little something about some of the books that I'm reading these days some people actually find that interesting and As we are recording things now and posting it on the internet on YouTube.

I will show you. Those of you who take time to that This book just arrived The textual and studies third series volume six from Houghton and Parker textual variation theological and social tendencies question mark papers from the fifth Birmingham colloquium on the textual criticism of the New Testament my daughter almost went into seizures when I read her that but So some of the really interesting.

I'm looking forward to sitting down with Scribal behavior in p66 some great little scans here and discussions of things like that but I happen just a little while ago to be thumbing through and Dirk young kins has a article here with some rather humorous.

It's not normal to find humor in textual critical papers at a symposium, but there are some funny-looking graphics in here and Here's one marked poor old scribe and these are things that might be influencing the scribes transcription.

Shouldn't have had the beans yesterday. I Thought that Thomas gospel was quite nice have to buy sandals finally my favorite part of this book and hallelujah, I Had never actually seen anything like that in a scholarly paper on New Testament textual criticism before but yeah, that's.

That's gonna be some interesting reading. And of course, I have two volumes here from if you if you buy books like this and you see Brill as The publisher, you know, you spent at least three digits and both of these were well over three digits.

Unfortunately stays in the textual criticism the New Testament Bart Ahriman, of course his scholarly papers and then Eldon J Epps perspectives on New Testament textual criticism collected essays 1962 to 2004 that one's only around 850 pages or so and then we've got this one's interesting scribal habits of Codex Sinaiticus.

Which now is the rock star of all? Ancient books on the Internet is Codex Sinaiticus. You haven't didn't see all the stuff about Codex Sinaiticus going live. Oh goodness. Yeah, the Sinaiticus website went live last week and for the first couple days you couldn't get into the English site.

So someone in channel, I think it was Turretin fan had the brilliant idea go into the German side and it worked just fine. Apparently I'm uh, not on that mailing list. Uh, well, it was discussed a good good deal in the in the channel.

Yeah, nothing to say that one. Did you nope? No, you got nothing to say that. Oh, yeah Skyman says he's bought some Brill books and If they turn out to be okay, if they tend to be really good resources, then you feel good.

But if you get a Brill book and it turns out to be a lame-duck and you look at how much you paid for it. You ain't feeling very Brill. No two ways about it mm-hmm bad stuff anyway. As I normally do in the mornings as I think a lot of people are doing anymore.

I almost never bother with you know any type of Cable news or anything else in the morning at all. I do my RSS feeds and you know you scan the news headlines and stuff like that and then I have all of my Christian ones and my anti-christian ones and my Islamic ones and so on and so forth and So I happened across Steve Ray's blog which I have in the apologetic section that is the those who oppose the faith and I learned later in the day.

That's of course Dave Armstrong the Chihuahua of Roman Catholic apologists. Who just he just so much reminds me of was what was that cartoon where you had the real big dog? And then you had the little yippy dog.

It was just bouncing along next to him. Hey spike. Hey spike. Remember him I I forget who that was but but the little Dog that's Dave Armstrong because he never does anything original on his own. He always borrows somebody else and when I'm so when Steve post this this video.

It's not long before Dave Armstrong throws it up there. Oh, and I was gonna. I was gonna put this up Let me for some reason Firefox doesn't do the ctrl-t thing anymore either at least on on most of my systems.

That's because they're PCs, and I am Starting to get unhappy with PCs basically, but Let me see here did I scroll down here? Yeah here here we go he He posts this video we're gonna listen a little a little bit of it here in a moment Bishop James White's solo scriptura inanities hilarious YouTube montage, which as I said Had been posted before that by Jerusalem Jones.

And then right after and it's how far the mighty Bishop White has fallen Just so pathetic and but then right below it open forum listen to this open forum. Please try to interact with folks with courtesy and politeness as you would do if you were face-to-face.

And that's that's right below the other one I You just got a chuckle a lot at Dave Armstrong. He's something else anyways. They both put up this This video that someone posted on YouTube which once again begins with I Don't know how they don't get this but same things you know Dave Armstrong Blow up a big picture of me and show the top of my head or something I mean, that's always you know real deep.

You know brilliant wise type of thing and very compelling argumentation very very you know I Definitely, that's why I guess that's why you wear caps now is because I don't want you know Dave Armstrong to do that anymore I guess anyway, and what it is is what you do is you take little snippets and you know you don't worry about context or things like that you take a snippet and You only take what you hope.

Your audience of Roman Catholics will find compelling as long as they don't understand what the debate was actually about same and so Let me just play a section for you. It's by the way if you want to find it on YouTube you can search for.

It's X Y L K e apostrophe s. Whatever X Y L K e is or refers to X Y L K e apostrophe s sola scriptura truth edit, and there's more to that title than might meet the eye. Yes, they had to do some truth editing on this to put together There's no question about it, but let's let's listen to us a snippet of this to get us to get us started today.

I I believe in prologue to pour up now. You can show the Catholic world how you arrive at this Infallible certitude about Scripture using something outside of Scripture to get to it. That's your dilemma.

And I'm gonna.

Hold you to it before the end of the night now that of course was from the 1993 debate with Patrick Madrid. And of course there are pictures my picture is you know being edited didn't and flipping around and doing things to keep your mind on the screen.

Because this is all audio basically with of course the you know the music in the background things like that that sounds just wonderful but anyways. And I would just respond as I did in the debate by pointing out to mr.. Madrid that To attempt to make the canon infallible on that level requires that you have an infallible Church, and when we asked mr.

And mr.. Madrid upon what basis he has an infallible Church. Well well you know we have this argument for the infallibility Church and that argument for the infallibility Church and the point is he has to go outside of The church itself to prove his point and so his argument isn't even consistent.

It accomplishes nothing all it does is move the question of ultimate authorities one step backwards and as I've said many times Roman Catholics All you're doing is to is is moving the line backwards. And then using your foot to to sort of smooth out the footprint so no one can see that what you've done.

And they stand there and smiles. If you accomplish something epistemologically you've accomplished nothing at all. That is he wants to say well you need an infallible source to define the canon for you.

Well, I don't say that the cans infallible. I say the scriptures infallible, and I base my view of canonization which mr. Madrid did not understand in 1993 nor was it the subject of the debate specifically.

But I base my view of the canon of the scripture on the promises of God and the Extension of God's power to accomplish what his purposes in scripture are. I do not base it upon an infallible Church in any way shape Or form.

God may use means, but the means he uses do not themselves have to be infallible. But the very same argumentation that mr. Madrid just used in that comment could then be turned upon his own argumentation itself.

That is how do you know that Rome is infallible well? I don't care if you use Keating's spiral argument, which isn't really a spiral. It's circular, but spiral argument or anything else you're always going to be going to outside sources to try to establish these things.

So on an epistemological level it simply doesn't work. It doesn't accomplish the ends that the questioner is attempting to Use in in the debate so the only people that'll find that kind of argumentation Compelling are people that are not thinking deeply enough to understand what the issues are in the first place.

And I think that's why these things keep popping up is that the people listening these debates don't get how their position was refuted. They just don't understand it. They're they're really not following what the debate is and so they just pick some things out there their side said and so on so forth so then you then we had Okay.

What I put there. Okay, then we had. I've got a bunch of stuff queued up because I want to respond to a couple of these things the Jerry Matta ticks Section which of course was utilized for a long time by Phil por Vosnick.

Who likewise put just a portion of the cross-x up on? on the web and see James White admits that the Apostles and Jesus did not follow soul scriptura, so why should we and They don't you know give you the whole thing where you go.

How during periods of inscription when the scriptura is being formed? Through the process of revelation. Could you hold to sola scriptura because the scriptura doesn't exist yet? Since the whole issue is that scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church.

Then the question becomes well. Why would you even ask the question about unusual times of inscription rather than the state of the church today? When both sides admit that there is no revelation taking place once again It is a a means of getting around the issue and anyone who thinks that's somehow a compelling argument.

Just doesn't understand what the issues are. So here's how it came out in the video.

He warned Timothy that evil men will be coming into the church. He warned Timothy is going to be difficult. And in Acts chapter 20 The Apostle Paul warned the Ephesian elders that there would be those who would come up within the ranks of the eldership itself.

They would teach false doctrine. I believe in sola scriptura. It is not the scriptures fault that men like to have their ears tickled. In fact the scriptures warn us. But there will be those who are like The the sailboats we saw out on the ocean today.

They're blown about by every wind of doctrine. I believe in sola scriptura.

Now by the way, I'm glad that he's getting that stuff out there. I I. Hope people listen to it. Maybe they'll track down the debates and listen to the whole thing.

What is the truth about sola scriptura? Does the Bible really teach it? Did the apostles teach it? Did Jesus teach it? I believe in sola scriptura. It's not because I love it. The issues this evening are eternal.

The issues this evening are vital. The issues this evening are vital. And I'm so thankful that you're here to share in this experience with us.

Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura?

The hearers of our Lord, yes or no? I have said over and over and over again It's not because I love it. That sola scriptura is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the church. Not to times been scripturic.

So your answer is no. That is exactly what my answer is.

Did the apostles practice sola scriptura, Mr. White? Yes or no? No. Thank you. Did the successors to the apostles, Mr. White, practice sola scriptura? Timothy only believed what Paul had written to him.

Did he practice?

Again, after the inscripturation of scripture. Thank you, Mr. White. So I'm glad to affirm everything you said. Very good.

So Mr. White, you admit then that Jesus didn't practice sola scriptura. I assert it. His hearers do not. The apostles do not and their successors do not.

Wait a minute. That tradition to which he holds has made many an error. It's contradicted itself. Man, it's awfully hard to even listen to that with that techno in the background. I guess that sort of explains people aren't listening really carefully.

Let me play for you portions of that I've got so much stuff queued up here. That it's not even funny. So many things we can look at. And it looks like we've got. Oh, it looks like a relevant question.

But let me play this first. This is from the. No, that's not the one I want. I want this one here. Here we go. Here is at least a portion. I want to listen to at least a portion. Of what you won't hear Roman Catholics like this put to techno music.

And I wouldn't want to put it to techno music. Anyways, if you're going to put something like this, put it to music. At least you can think with. And it isn't quite as loud as the people speaking. So you have to pick things out.

That's just poor production. But anyways. This is my cross-examination. This is what came right before that section. My cross-examination of Jerry Medetich. Let's see how well. Isn't it interesting?

Jerry Medetich, they would use him today. Because Jerry Medetich isn't an Orthodox Roman Catholic anymore. And he uses the very same kind of argumentation against them. But the Orthodox Catholic apologists won't debate him.

I mean, ask Chris Arnson. He's tried to get them all to go on the air with Jerry Medetich. And he can't get them to do it. Isn't that ironic? Well, anyway. Let's listen to how that really went. Okay, Mr. Medetich.

Where has the church, in light of the examples you've used. You've used two examples. You talked about in 2 Thessalonians. He who restrains Paul not mentioning what that is in 2 Thessalonians. And then you mentioned Paul preaching for three years in Ephesus.

Where has the church infallibly defined What Paul meant in 2 Thessalonians. Concerning he who restrains. And where has. How does your tradition give us the information. From Paul's preaching in Ephesus.

That you say we somehow must have? Now, just to catch you up Jerry will present things. And he'll say. Well, look. The apostles said a lot of things that are not in Scripture. Which, of course, is a given.

Both sides would agree with that. And he gave as an example An interpretation of who the one restraining is. So wouldn't it be wonderful if we knew who that was? And then, I mean, Paul preached for three years in Ephesus.

Here's the beginning of tradition. These are the things that are passed down to us. Well, that's a real nice convenient thing to say. But there's this little problem. And I didn't queue this one up. But as I asked Mitchell Pacwa In our debate in 1999 I said, Father Pacwa.

Is there anywhere where Rome has officially defined A single word that Christ or the apostles Ever said outside of the New Testament? And he honestly answered, well, no. So, you know, you hear these Roman Catholic apostles.

Well, just think of all the things That the apostles said and taught. And if all you have is sola scriptura. Then you don't know these things. But what is the implicit assertion in that kind of rhetoric?

We do know these things. And we can tell you these things. But the fact of the matter is, you're going to see. They can't tell you anything about it at all.

The question presupposes a typical misunderstanding Of the Catholic Church. It is not taught by the Catholic Church. And therefore it will not be taught by me tonight That the Church only passes on the tradition In dogmatic pronouncements That is one way the Church passes on What Christ and the apostles taught It also passes it on in the liturgy.

It also passes it on in a whole host of writings That come to us from the fathers That do not amount to solemn definitions. So I'll agree with you, Mr. White. But it's not injurious to my position That neither the Council of Trent Or any other council said If any man denies that when St. Paul said That the restrain that St. Paul speaks of Is this or that, let him be anathema.

There is no such dogmatic definition.

So then you do not have an infallible knowledge Of what Paul refers to there, do you?

Are you asking, do I as an individual? Yes I have not studied all the Church fathers. I have not studied all that the liturgy contains. So I will admit that there are many things That have been passed on by the apostles To their successors Which can be found in the writings That I have not yet personally discovered.

I've got a lifetime of study ahead of me.

So those alleged traditions that are passed on In regards to these very issues you brought up. You can't show us a Theanoustos-inspired Element of data or knowledge That would tell us what Paul meant.

Or what Paul preached in Ephesus, can you?

On that particular point of the man of sin. No, I grant that I don't know everything That has been passed on.

Now remember, he's the one who brought up these examples. He's the one who presented them, not me. I'm not coming up with something That he hadn't presented or anything else. He presented these as part of his attack On Sola Scriptura.

And so when I say, alright, show us What these things are. Now you can see he has no response.

That's something I'm admitting Only because I have not read Everything the Church fathers taught. But I can give you several examples Of things that.

And by the way, the Church fathers Would have taught all sorts of things about this. You could find all sorts of differing opinions On all of these kinds of things. Amongst the volumes and volumes Of the writings of the early Church fathers There is no unanimous consent On these types of issues.

Protestants do not believe it's clear in Scripture. That Catholics do believe it's clearly passed on. The practice of infant baptism, for example. That is Theopneustos. That was taught by Christ and the Apostles.

Are there things in the tradition of the Church Things in the writings of the Father That are erroneous? Individual fathers.

Can make individual statements That can endure, of course. And who determines When they're speaking the truth. And when they don't? Well, the fathers have to be Shown to be saying something That is taught by a consensus of the fathers.

If one father is saying something idiosyncratic Then that could be erroneous. And finally, of course When there is a dispute When some theologians Or some later Catholics Might quote one father. And some might quote another When it's necessary.

The Church can meet in a solemn council Just as they did in Jerusalem in Acts 15. And say, this opinion is that Which was passed on by the Apostles.

This opinion is idiosyncratic. So the Church hierarchy determines What is and what is not Apostolic tradition.

In the writings of the fathers Ultimately The Apostles exercise a governing function In the Church Which they passed on to successors As we see in the pastoral epistles. Yes.

You said that some early fathers Might teach something that is idiosyncratic. Historically, for example The majority of the early fathers As we've discussed before Taught that Matthew 16, 18 Is not in reference to Peter As the foundation of the Church.

Yet a later council Defined that as a dogmatic belief. How can you test The statement of the Vatican Council That it's the ancient and historical And universal faith of the Church On any basis whatsoever.

How can you test What the Church says to you As a Roman Catholic. And still be faithful as a Roman Catholic. Now remember Given his position today He can no longer answer As he answered that day He has changed.

I'm exactly where I was that day I would argue Exactly as I did that day. Well, you look at.

First of all The basis. Because contrary to another common misconception The Church cannot pull a rabbit out of a hat When the Church says We're going to solemnly define What we have to believe about justification Or baptism, what have you.

There's always citation of Scripture. No person in this room Could fail to pick up The canons of the Council of Trent, for example And not see in the footnotes That they quote Scripture copiously In support of the assertions they make.

They can quote previous councils And previous Church fathers, too.

But how can you test. Am I allowed to look at the citations At the bottom of the page.

And say, they were wrong. Obviously, if they say something like John chapter 1 Alludes to this or that And in fact, you look up the reference And it has nothing to do. It says nothing about Mary Or baptism, or wherever it is.

Then any reasonable person could say Wait a minute. There's some slip of the pen here. Or something.

But do I have the right As an individual priest Priesthood holding believer before God To look at Roman Catholic arguments And teachings based upon tradition And say their use of Scripture is wrong. Well, I don't know what you mean.

Can I give you an example? Matthew 16, 18 is a misuse Of Jesus' words to Peter To establish the papacy. Am I wrong to say that. And if so, why? You are wrong to say that.

I don't know what you mean. By do you have the right. You certainly have the freedom To look at things. And you have the freedom Obviously, right with God. And you have the freedom To come to an erroneous conclusion.

God grants us that freedom. We are free to sin. How do you know it's an erroneous conclusion? Simply because. Ultimately, as you say, yes. The church is the pillar And foundation of the truth.

The Church as Pillar and Foundation of the Truth

Sola Ecclesia. We all heard it coming. He just didn't want to say it. I mean, is that not clear? I'm watching people on the channel. They all saw that coming up. Here's Sola Ecclesia. The church defines what is Scripture.

What Scripture says. The church defines what is tradition. What tradition says Sola Ecclesia. There is no way to test What Rome says infallibly. That's all there is to it. That's his ultimate authority.

And Scripture is not equal to that authority. Scripture cannot be interpreted. Outside of what that authority says Scripture says. If we can ever figure out what it says. What that infallible authority says about Scripture.

So, anyway.

Very, very, very clear. He just didn't want to go there. It upholds the true teaching of the word of God. And the church fathers. Is there any? The church fathers Which did not make explicit. The fact that this could have some application to Peter.

Do not exclude that possibility. I think, again, many times. With all due respect. Protestant apologists sometimes say. Because this church father Doesn't say something about this verse. That a later one does.

He would have been explicitly excluding it. Not necessarily. Let's just let people know. You and I have done a Almost 7 hour debate on that.

They can get the tapes from either one of us If they want to find out if that's the case. If 2 Thessalonians 2 .15 Is, as you say A command to hold on to oral traditions And these oral traditions Contain data that is Outside of Scripture itself Then does it not follow That I am, in fact, consistent To ask you to be able to Demonstrate to me That the Thessalonians Had delivered to them The very same doctrines That you say I must believe on the basis of tradition today.

Of course I can I can make the assertion.

That the Thessalonians Had an obligation To pass on everything that Paul taught them Because The command is right there in Scripture. But if you're going to ask me For a laundry list Of everything that I know Was specifically taught at that congregation The Catholic Church doesn't make You're asking You're building up a straw man.

The Catholic Church simply says Everything that we do believe As a doctrine Does come from the apostles. Whether those things were all taught At Thessalonica Or whether they were taught at Corinth Or whatever.

Jerry, let me put it this way Somewhere along the line.

Somebody, one of the apostles Paul or another. Taught orally to somebody. In the early church. That indulgences were true, right?

The principle behind them, yes. Okay. So, then is it.

No, no, no, please, no. Then is it consistent then For me to ask you To show me something In the copious writings Of the early church That demonstrates they They had that belief.

Sure, that's perfectly legitimate. And if this were A debate on indulgences As perhaps we ought to have I'd be very happy. No, excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. No, no, no, let's just. Don't groan. This is a debate on Sola Scriptura And I'm going to ask Mr. White To defend from Scripture That thing For him to say, now Be ready at the drop of a hat Mr. Matitix Without my telling you Ahead of time Which doctrine I'm going to bring up.

You've got to give me Patristic citations.

In support of indulgences. Or the body shall be. All I asked, Jerry, was. Is it a valid question To ask you. Of course it's a valid question. Absolutely. And I'm willing to meet That challenge. Now, Jerry, was Athanasius wrong In standing against The majority of the.

Organized church of his day? He was right to stand up For what the church Had officially taught.

At the Council of Nicaea. Even though bishops.

Had apostatized from that faith. As the church has always admitted. Individual bishops. Can and do err. Now, now, now.

How many people in that audience Recognized how dishonest That answer was. How bad that answer is. Probably not many. And that's one of the problems With debates. You know, people have to go back And they have to check These things out.

Let's remember There were councils That met And anathematized Athanasius And compromised The Nicene Creed That had more bishops at them Than Nicaea did. There were decades That passed When this was The majority view Of the bishops Of all the churches In all the world.

The Roman bishop himself Signed the Arianized Sirmium Creed. That's why it was Athanasius Contramundum. So, did you hear What he just did? Well, there might be Individual bishops. No, there were Councils Decades And Athanasius Stood against them all.

If he's gonna be consistent Now, he'd probably Remember this came up On Iron Sharpens Iron When Jerry and I were on last year. Because now he has to Take a different view. Now he has to look to Athanasius As support Because now he's in the minority Standing against his organized church To see the people Moving around From position to position.

And what's interesting Is about his response There is that his position today In reference to the current Bishop of Rome. Would be apostasy. Right, exactly. Dang, they do a change.

Jerry, were there not Councils after Nicaea That condemned Athanasius? Yes or no? No There were none. You've not read The proceeds of any Of the Arian councils That.

Oh, Arian. Councils? Yes I thought you said. A council of a church. Yes, exactly. The next council Mr. White Is you well known As the council of Constantinople in 381.

Now notice what he's doing here Again. These folks love to Play with church history. But they won't accurately Handle church history. Because the whole idea Of ecumenical council Is yet well into the future At this point in time.

And the very fact that Nicaea Did not have Quote unquote Ecumenical standing In the minds of people Is clear from every bit Of historical information Available to us. Nicaea had to fight For acceptance.

And so here you have All these other councils That meet Of more bishops. And how do you know Before Constantinople. How do you know During the Arian resurgence That Athanasius is wrong And the established church Is right or vice versa By modern Roman Catholic standards.

The person living that day Could not know. They could not know That came out in the debacle With Tim Staples On papal infallibility Where he fell apart. And I pointed out That given his defenses Of the various papal errors That I documented That during the lifetimes Of those popes Who gave those erroneous Understandings and teachings.

No individual alive at that time Could possibly know What the truth of those matters was. Couldn't know it. Couldn't know it. That's the problem with the system. When you deny Sola Scriptura When you make another authority Equal and in function Superior to the authority Of the scriptures Which vindicated Athanasius Ecumenical councils.

But you have Ariminum. You have Seleucia. You have even Liberius Signing the Arianized creed of Sirmium In the years between 340 and 350 Athanasius was almost alone. Even the bishop of Rome Didn't stand with him.

When the majority of the church Stood against Athanasius Why then would he stand up and say. The reason I don't accept this Is because the scriptures.

Are self-sufficient For the preaching of the truth. You, Mr. White, give us One passage from Athanasius Where he says The scriptures are self-sufficient Contragentes 1 .1. I just gave it to you. Well, you read it out loud to the people.

Do you have this? No, but I'd be happy.

To pay for a copy of it. Well, I'm buying this one. I'm giving it to Jerry.

I'll pay for it. There are. But he nowhere says, Mr. White That the scriptures are self-sufficient To establish all the doctrines.

And that actually was my citation Of Contragentes 1 .1 And that was the end of the first Cross-examination period. Hey, you know what? I will submit that whole period To anybody. That was right at 11 minutes in length or so 10 minutes in length.

And, you know, I don't think Those anonymous folks on YouTube Are going to be putting Too much techno music To that particular Cross-examination And posting that. And I wonder why I think it's pretty obvious.

Our first caller Before we go back To some of this other stuff Is right on this actual topic Which is exceptionally unusual. So let's go ahead And talk with Paul. On Sola Scriptura And the early creeds.

Hi, Paul. Hey, how you doing?

Doing good. Good. Yeah, the question I had. And regarding this What value do you think Those early ecumenical creeds Have for orthodoxy In light of Sola Scriptura? Well, I've addressed this A number of times.

Because there are a number Of evangelicals Who rather glibly will say Something along the lines of Well, of course, we accept The first seven ecumenical councils. And I just want to go. Have you read What each one of those Seven ecumenical councils said?

Normally what they're referring to Are the symbols Or the creeds In regards to Trinitarian And Christological issues That are a part of those councils Not the entire council itself The canons and decrees And things that were Associated therewith.

I don't know of anybody Who actually As a Protestant Could hold to the Seventh ecumenical council For example, in regards to What it says on all sorts of things. So the value of any Credal statement Historical or modern Is directly related to The accuracy of what it says Biblically in regards to Whatever it is it's addressing.

So the Nicene symbol Has authority Because what it says Is exactly what the Scriptures teach. The only way you can accept What Nicene teaches Is if you have the highest view of Scripture And you actually believe You have to believe both Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura All of Scripture And Scripture alone.

If you reject either one of those You really don't have any reason Outside of tradition To be holding to those Particular things And the Chalcedonian definition Of the person of Christ. Again, the issues are Biblical.

They are exegetical in nature. The farther down the road you get The more politics became involved In some of the choices of terminology. And so one has to examine The roles. You know, you look at a Cyril of Alexandria I mean, this is not a nice man.

This is a man very clearly motivated By all sorts of external factors Outside of the exegesis of Scripture. And so you have to keep those things in mind In looking at the context of the days And things like that.

But I've defended the Chalcedonian definition. But I do so on the basis of Scripture And on the basis of some sort of Authority to be assigned To a particular gathering of people In a particular city at a particular time.