I will definitely look into these. He is an excellent speaker. I am fascinated by his commentary on the Marxist-Hegelian aspects.
I'll have to get you into some debates with @PS if you haven't been already! Maybe he could make a Catholic out of you :).
Truthfully, I am not yet. I was formerly a non-denom protestant, but PS has really put in a lot of work in the past year to speak with me on these issues.
I'm never opposed to a debate. I don't always have time to respond thoroughly enough to make it worth anyone's while but I'm sure we'll get into it some day.
A lot of times we just ping each other in comments that seem relevant. Neither of us has spent as much time here as of late, but if we get into it, I'll give you a shout.
My problem with sola scriptura is that no where in Scripture is this doctrine contained, which it would have to be in order for sola scriptura to be true. We can't just say that sola scriptura is a presumed axiom or an article of faith since sola scriptura itself denies that there can be any articles of faith not contained within Scripture.
But it isn't just a matter of the doctrine being absent from Scripture. Scripture speaks quite clearly against the possibility of sola scriptura.
Notably, 2 Thes 2:14 (biblegateway.com) beseeches Christians to hold to traditions passed down to them, whether by word or by epistle. This "word or epistle" dichotomy clearly suggests an oral / written dichotomy, and therefore affirms not just the Scriptural teaching, but that which is passed down through the Apostles to our own age outside of what was written down. And we know that there were things that Jesus taught that were not written down, since Scripture tells us as much:
"And without parable he did not speak unto them; but apart, he explained all things to his disciples." Mark 4:34 (biblegateway.com)
As for sola fide, Scripture gives us a case of a eunuch requiring help from an Apostle in order to understand what Scripture is saying (Acts 8:29-35 (biblegateway.com)). So the million dollar question is, how can man be justified by faith alone if man does not even know what the "faith" constitutes? Is it mere belief in a name? Belief in an essence? Belief in seven articles of faith? Twelve? Belief in every factoid of the Bible, even those whose meaning as either literal or metaphorical is ambiguous? Are the billions of people who populate this Earth supposed to crack open the Good Book and give it their best go? Maybe here or there they'll interpret a metaphor as something literal, or something literal as merely metaphorical; maybe they'll see symbols where there are sacraments, or counsels where there are precepts. Clearly the eunuch needed help. Don't we? At least some of us? Are we to suppose Christ left us to our own devices? Or did He in His wisdom establish, not just an abstract Church, but a living Church with a temporal hierarchy (what are bishops if not members of a temporal hierarchy?), one that would not just provide us with sound exegesis on the Scriptures, as Phillip did for the eunuch, but one that would also preserve those extra-Scriptural traditions (the "word" traditions, as distinguished from the "epistle" traditions) about which St. Paul speaks?
If one is going to assert that man is justified by faith alone, one ought to know - with clarity and certainty - what that faith even is.
Jesus Christ did not leave us with a Bible - that came centuries after His ascension. What He did leave us with, before ascending into heaven, was a Church, and He gave that Church the ability to "bind and loose" - and in obedience to Him, I am obedient to His Church.
EDIT: I left out of this analysis the fact that Luther added "alone" to Romans 3:28 (biblegateway.com), and attempted to remove the epistle of St. James from the Bible, since it contradicted his teachings.
(post is archived)