Ask a UT psychologist (personality) — James Pennebaker

What do our words say about us in terms of our personality?
Video Rating: 4 / 5

This video demonstrates that the Calvinist keith’truth’s continued responses to me are desperate and fail to try to build the blocks for “sola scriptura” in the Catholic Saint and Doctor St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386). What is first discussed are his false assumptions and outright false assertions on Material Sufficiency, and some of St. Cyril’s scriptural definitions. KeithTruth’s first video tirelessly pleads that I have dishonestly portrayed his actions in removing a video and have misunderstood “Sola Scriptura” from the beginning. Only after 11 minutes of these useless semantics and character assassinations (I have tried to restrict responding to this section to half that time) does he finally come to a very important concept of material sufficiency and begins to present St. Cyril as teaching as much. In this video, I correct the 3-4 false assumptions he makes (which are central both to his affirmative and defensive case) regarding Catholic teaching on the matter and St. Cyril’s teachings on Scriptural definition. I relay all readers to my previous video on St. Cyril (linked below) which from the bottom up proves that St. Cyril was inside and out Catholic—dozens of citations are provided, exegeted and shown to be falsely ignored by keith in his empty rebuttals. Akin, Catholic History and Material Sufficiency of Scripture. archive.catholic.com “Scripture.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 1 Oct. 2011 www.newadvent.org
Video Rating: 4 / 5


26 Comments so far »

  1. djdannyskills said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 7:22 am

    What about a very conscious alert mind that can choose at which rate he or she says you or I? I’ve been experiencing this myself. I can see you have too professor.

  2. monkigun said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 7:59 am

    Amen Brother!

  3. Theologica37 said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 8:38 am

    (Contd 4)
    ..? “one should not demand an infallible decree on a text”
    I never implied this. An Ex Cathedra statement, say, is not the only way an interpretive aspect of Scripture is finally bound. Thus, when James White makes this retort it exposes ignorance and does not rescue the theological relativism of Protestantism.
    I never said, “[I] concede [I] don’t have one”. I said: you’re not one, protestantism cannot possibly be one; Apostolic Tradition and the Visible Church don’t suffer your loss.

  4. Theologica37 said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 9:12 am

    (Contd 3)
    Under Sola Scriptura, one is forced to place ones self under exactly this subjectivity. As, there is only one finally binding criterion of the Faith, and a systematic (via unfounded presupposition) dismissal of the Spoken Word of God. I have no reason whatsoever to ever accept a word you say with regard to Scripture, you have no connection to the Apostles, no authority to teach, no authority to bind my conscience with your subjective interpretations; all you have is your heresy.

  5. KeithTruth said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 9:23 am

    If you grant that one should not demand an infallible decree on a text then how do you know that your interpretation of any text not surrounding an infallibly defined dogma is accurate? Why do Catholics nag on Protestants about their exegesis and claim it is personal judgement when you can’t even offer an infallible interpretation of the majority of texts? Saying you don’t need one you concede you don’t have one and should stop claiming to have infallible answers about Scripture.

  6. Theologica37 said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 9:56 am

    (Contd 2)
    That would include your irrelevant reference to the Bereans who on the basis of the Old Testament were cross-referencing Paul. Further, you’re not reading the text of 2 Pt. The contrast is between the personal “interpretation of things” (20) which merely has “its origin in the human will” (21); and having the teachings “from God.. by the Holy Spirit” (21). Personal interpretation (prophesy specifically) by subjective direction, guidance and conclusion is being contrasted negatively.

  7. Theologica37 said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 10:09 am

    James White’s ridiculous return: “has Rome interpreted that for you?” Is so severely misguided I cannot believe you parroted it. The Catholic ecclesiology does not demand, in order for a Scriptural text to be interpretively binding, that the Pope make an infallible decree on the text. Its a horrible retort, but I can understand it: because the problem is a real one in protestantism: you have NO ability to bind me or anyone else to your interpretation of Scripture.

  8. KeithTruth said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 10:38 am

    Where has Rome infallibly interpreted 2 Pet. 1:20-21 for you? I have seen Catholics interpret that text in other ways than you have. So it appears your infallible interpreter the pope isn’t doing his job. It also appears that although you claim to be unified and subject to an infallible interpretation of Scripture there is still much dispute within Romanism. For example the tradition debate – did Mary actually die before her alleged assumption? Romanists disagree.

  9. KeithTruth said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 10:50 am

    It doesn’t say no one can interpret Scripture apart from submission to the papal office. It says no one making prophecies contained in Scripture (the prophets who wrote the books) did so because of their own interpretation but because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to prophesy and record it. Acts 17 reports the Bereans reading the Scriptures to see if Paul’s message of Jesus was found in there – they interpreted it and came to true knowledge apart from submission to papalism.

  10. monkigun said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 11:12 am

    It is relevant because you do not have the authority in any way to interpret scripture. That authority rests with the Apostles and their successors in the Holy Church. So when you dive into scripture along with the 30,000 other protest sects is the Holy Spirit giving 30,000 truths as you all seem to think? No ! There is only One Truth, One Church , One Faith and One Body not 30,000! Say what you want but the Catholic Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth ( 1 Tim 3;15) not you.

  11. KeithTruth said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 11:49 am

    2 Peter 1:20-21 says no prophecy of Scripture came from anyone’s own interpretation but men spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. I believe that with my whole heart. How is it relevant to where we disagree in theology?

  12. monkigun said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 12:28 pm

    Anything meaningful?? Since when is the Bible nonsense and without meaning? oops you did it again! Keith please know that the perception of your blocking is that you are ill equipped to defend your falsehoods so you stick your head in the sand and do not allow challenges to your self interpretations (which are forbidden) 2 Peter 1:20″ Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.” – Oops there it is! This is too easy!

  13. KeithTruth said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 12:29 pm

    If one wants to debate there are forums for that I am open to. However, why would I allow you to spread your nonsense on my channel when you’re not interested in debate and you don’t contribute anything meaningful to the conversation? Just look at your first comment to me on here. How is that contributing to rational discussion?

  14. monkigun said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 1:21 pm

    If you want an honest debate then open up your comments.Why are you so afraid of responses that you you have to block people who disagree with you? If you are trying to show us the err in our ways then let’s have a discussion. It seems though that you are not willing or are unable to tolerate those that refute your position and so you block comments . If what you say is Truth then nothing we say will change that but if what you say is false then the light of Truth will reveal it.

  15. KeithTruth said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 1:51 pm

    Truth is I responded to all of his points already. I have no pants? Okay… lol

  16. monkigun said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 2:36 pm

    You can’t block me or the Truth here! The Truth is theologica37 has destroyed your argument point by point and you have no pants!

  17. newtochrist said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 3:01 pm

    Thanks for the video , please continue to expose the False prophets

    believe me they made a big damage to God’s people already , sola scriptura is a demonic idea that led to confusion every where around us .

    there is this guy sending messages to me , saying that the catholic church is the whore of babylon , and orthdox , protestant church’s are all false

    all what I need is jesus , then I discover he don’t believe in the trinity , this is the fruit of sola scripture
    man made religions

  18. Theologica37 said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

    You’ve no right to call me deceptive, none whatsoever. I no longer will allow it, in fact– its ridiculous.
    My point was not that this is the definition, my point (if you watch the video) was that this was the best way to ground the sense of Scripture’s authority on S.S, which is directly the quote. The exact word for word definition is not important to me, as I’ve continually said, it is the concept and how that concept specifically (say, “infallibility”) is properly grounded.

  19. KeithTruth said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 3:42 pm

    I didn’t ask if the reformers grounded the authority of Scripture in its relation to the word of God. I asked for a source which presents sola scriptura as the belief that Scripture is “the only rule of faith” in the sense that it can be called such due to it being the only rule which is divinely revealed. No one used that kind of language. Plus your deceptive attempts to change what you meant are baseless since you said we believe Scripture is the “only teaching authority”…

  20. Theologica37 said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

    KeithTruth has complained that my definition of Sola Scriptura as: “the Only Word of God, the only revelation of God to man and thus the only rule of Faith” is faulty (..”dishonest”), and has challenged me to point to any Protestant utilizing this.
    Eminent Protestant scholar Alister McGrath,
    “The Reformers grounded the authority of scripture *in its relation to the Word of God.*” (Reformation Thought, 104).

    This appears in the Chapter devoted to the very question
    .
    .
    and is the first sentence. 

  21. danieljliversLXXXIX said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 4:58 pm

    Birth of Tragedy isn’t the full sum of Nietzsche’s philosophy. His latter works are his best. (Particularly Twilight of the Idols, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Dawn, AntiChrist, and Beyond Good and Evil; and it’s best to read Beyond Good and Evil before reading Genealogy of Morality). But reading and understanding are two different things.

    And where do biasies come into play?

  22. KeithTruth said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 5:50 pm

    I’m going to go ahead and post a response to this video today and then respond to your part 2 video when it comes out just to let you know.

  23. Theologica37 said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 5:59 pm

    To understand Nietzsche Birth of Tragedy is more important to start with. That you immediately assume I haven’t read him is unwise.. I have studied Nietzsche extensively and read the works you point to and others. Given your anti-Christian bias I’m surprised you didn’t tell me to read the Genealogy.
    I encourage your comments if I can get the time to do videos on Nietzsche.

  24. danieljliversLXXXIX said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 6:19 pm

    John, as in John Armstrong, as in DeistPaladin.

    Fragile? Incoherent? Have you never read anything by him? His writing is fluid and his philosophy is colourful. If you’re going talk about Nietzsche it helps to have an understanding of him. (And one thing you should understand is his disregard for shallow acadimic intellectualism.) You should start with Twilight of the Idols and Beyond Good and Evil.

  25. Theologica37 said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 6:41 pm

    “John”.. “destroyed” my arguments? Who are you talking about?

    Nietzsche’s arguments are fragile at best and incoherent at worst. You buy into his scheme.. .. really? I’ll look for your comments when I get to discussing his works. 

  26. danieljliversLXXXIX said,

    Wrote on May 22, 2012 @ 6:44 pm

    Don’t think I will. Seeing your description box, and remembering who you are (by the way, John completely destroyed your “arguments”) I don’t think I’ll waste my time. I usually don’t bother listening to Christians talk about Nietzsche.

Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.



The Psychology of Selling