After receiving the latest rebuttal from Mr. Guthrie, I realized it's all quite nice to claim your opponent has not answered your questions, when in reality you aren't looking at your opponent's issues, just merely claiming they don't match up with the subject.

     Mr. Guthrie continues to go away from formal sufficiency that only the Bible is needed to interpret the Bible and no Church has the authority to interpret. This is the view of the Reformers, and the view I have announced my stand against. If Mr. Guthrie would love to continue claiming he has defeated the view but in reality not touched it, this is fine with me.

     Shandon knows better than to say to the Early Church Communion was not an essential doctrine. In the end, it's what he thinks is essential, since in Sola Scriptura, it is "Me and My Bible against the World." I am far from confused about the need for a final binding infallible interpreter of scripture. Mr. Guthrie thinks Mr. Guthrie is that final authority, no matter how he denies it, he's stuck.

     My opponent continues to talk about how Peter favors sola scriptura, and private interpretation of scripture, yet he does not even touch 2 arguments I made. What Peter says in chapter 3 about Paul's writings, that those not having the correct view twisted it to their own destruction, and the correct view comes from the Apostles, and if Peter supports going by the Bible alone, to explain the Council in Acts. My opponent ignores these, doesn't even make reference to them.

     I don't have the time in this debate to show how wrong you are about the Early Church and Sola Scriptura, that is why my challenge still remains, awaiting your acceptance Mr. Guthrie. I say make it a no word limit debate on those specific fathers, to show how misguided you are in your reading of the Fathers.

     You have not touched my passages from Timothy, Chronicles, Jude, all these you haven't touched, and they specifically answer questions you have asked. You made several vague points in your opening statement, that would take far more than the 2 sentences you wrote to refute, and I"ve promised I will get to them.

     Mr. Guthrie then claims I didn't read his argument about scripture, but yet he fails to address the quote I gave from 2 Timothy Chapter 2 and the first chapter of James, which used the same terminology as 2 Timothy 3:16-17, and by the Protestant interpretation, in the light of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, would lead to the Bible supporting the view you can work your way into heaven, so Mr. Guthrie would do good to address this issue.

     Mr. Guthrie seems to believe I think Revelation continues today, that new doctrines can be dreamt up, that would be the Evangelical Position, not the Catholic. We believe Revelation ceased with the Death of the Apostles, yet we can prove our beliefs from history, but that being a development of doctrine discussion, is another debate.

     I listed several occurrences of things mentioned in scripture that were the testimony of the prophets, that weren't in scripture, and my opponent ignored them. This proves Revelation happened outside of Scriptures, and we've yet to see how Scripture proves this authority ceased with the death of the last apostle. He also ignored how he can tell what Scripture is since Scripture has no table of contents.

     Do not go beyond what was written. Given Mr. Guthrie's take on this verse, anything written after that verse "is going beyond what was written." Same with all the References in the OT. Mr. Guthrie's legalistic take on the verse backfires in his face. He would have to prove Paul meant do not go beyond the 27 books of the NT as going beyond what was written, something he has not done.

     Just because Moses is told to write something down, how do we get formal sufficiency out of this? Where do we get outside of Scripture, nothing can be an infallible interpreter? Again, that is the focus of this debate, and something my opponent attempts to run from. He must prove that Scripture has no need of an infallible interpreter, that Scripture is the only infallible interpreter, no Church has this authority. That is formal sufficiency.

     If the most Trustworthy source is the oldest one, I will take the Didache, St. Clements Epistle to the Corinthians, and many of Ignatius' works over Scripture, being these were written before the last book of the Bible. I will also accept the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, such as Acts of Peter and Paul. This argument also backfires in the face of Mr. Guthrie.

     I do not have a flawed view of interpretation of scripture, I just don't believe the individual is the final arbiter of doctrinal authority, the individual does not determine what is and isn't Orthodoxy. For Shandon, it doesn't matter if everyone before him speaks different; he follows the Me, My Bible, against the World, since I have the Holy Spirit. He will say of course not, but in the end, he decides what is and isn't Orthodox, since he follows the pipe dream of formal sufficiency. While the existence of denominations doesn't downplay Scriptures' infallibility or material sufficiency, it sure downplays the formal.

     I have offered several counterarguments to Mr. Guthrie, and answered his original arguments, would do him quite well to engage my position, instead of not engaging it, and claiming he has defeated it. And yes Shandon, the formal challenge for a dialogue on these Early Church Fathers and whether or not they proved sola scriptura is still open to you.