At the Beggars All blog, James Swan discusses a part of a book that I like alot. Catholic Nick commented with some bad exegesis, and I decided to respond.
Here are my comments.
I'll take a stab at your comments, though of course James can speak for himself.
By this admission, Sola Scriptura was not practiced during Apostolic times. Further, this means at no time could the Apostles be instructing Christians to engage in SS
I don't see why that follows at all - are you saying that the apostles had no idea that God might be giving Scr during their lifetimes? What evidence do you have for that claim?
Further, why couldn't the apostles use a little foresight? Even heed prophecies of the future?
Paul couldn't be instructing Timothy to engage in SS in 2 Tim 3:16f.
Except the text says what it says. And of course Timothy had the OT!
If that's your "argument," then you've fallen into a logically fallacy.
Your post is flawed, since the Scr presents only one source for divine communication to man, and especially only one source for AUTHORITATIVE and CERTAIN divine revelation - Scr. Scr DOES teach Sola Scr. Now, where's your competition?
It does not state nor necessitate Scripture *alone* thoroughly equips, much less "a believer" in general.
It's the only thing Paul points Tim to. Like we keep asking, bring forth your competition.
Note Eph 6:11-18, esp v17, and how this can be seen as a parallel to Paul's instructions to Timothy.
Sorry, but isn't Eph 6 IN SCRIPTURE? How else would anyone know it except it's IN SCRIPTURE?
how does "17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of Go" help your case?
I don't recall any requirements (esp in Scripture) where something must be explicitly said to be "God Breathed" to be inspired and authoritative.
Oh, so it's perfectly OK to say that something that DIDN'T come from God to receive the label "inspired and authoritative"? I don't think you've thought this thru.
So, if you have sthg that IS from God and sthg that IS NOT from God, by which one will you judge the other? Please let us know, thanks.
The Apostle's oral Teaching is explicitly called the "Word of God"
Yep, the apostles' teaching. See any apostles around today?
Further, it simply begs the question to assert that their oral teaching was substantively diff from what was eventually inscripturated.
Ultimately, that doesn't matter ...counter-argument is fallacious.
Let the reader judge, but this doesn't even merit a reply.
Starting with the last sentence, that claim is bogus because what what Sungenis would have apart from Scripture is irrelevant.
Oh, so let's take away Scr. Now please demonstrate how you know your assertion.
Or is this an example of your "non-God-breathed and yet inspired and authoritative teaching"? How do you know it is?
The point is Scripture itself says other means are used to accomplish or ready the man for "every good work,"
On your shallow level, sure it does. I guess we should all be thankful there's better exegesis in the post than you're providing.
Sungenis goes to Scripture alone because Scripture is the only thing the Protestant will accept.
how do you know that? Did you ask him?
So what is the other source?
According to the Bible, the only thing capable of being sufficient for making man equipped for every good work is Grace - 2 Cor 9:8.
Ah, more out of context citations. Keep 'em comin'!
So that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work
ReplyDeleteA very interesting passage to base your entire faith around, given the fact your faith rejects good works as a basis for salvation. (Your proof-text for Sola Scriptura undermines your proof-texts for Sola Fide). -- What a convoluted little religion you got there on your hands, Rho. :-)
Yep, the apostles' teaching. See any apostles around today?
ReplyDeleteNo. And I don't see them giving out autographed copies of their Scriptures either, so... why do accept the faithful transmission of written apostolic tradition, while at the same time completely disregarding the unwritten one as trustworthy? Hmm? :-\ -- That another internal contradiction of your convoluted little religion, Rho? :-\
You show only your own bigoted ignorance of Protestant faith when you think that we are against "good works" in themselves.
ReplyDeleteThis is the hostile anti-Protestant caricature, not the real thing.
Our good works are not the basis of our salvation. They are the wholesome fruit of our salvation.
Since works aren't necessary for justification, and no-one can really ever please, ... and since Scripture's purpose is to make us perfect into those unnecessary good works ... what's the point of Scripture anyway? (By grace through faith, and all that...)
ReplyDeleteWho said that good works are unnecessary?
ReplyDeleteIt's stupidity and resistance to correction like that that gets you banned places, Lvka. Too bad you haven't figured it out yet.
Who said that good works are unnecessary?
ReplyDeleteAccording to you and other Protestants, it is none other than St. Paul:
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.
"what's the point of Scripture anyway?"
ReplyDeleteIt is you ecclesiolaters who cannot really answer this question. If we really have an infallible church to guide us in all our ways, a church that cannot ever really go against God's will, then why do we even need the Bible around for?
V.,
ReplyDeleteI don't found my core-belief in the Church on verses contradicting other core-beliefs of my faith.
According to you and other Protestants, it is none other than St. Paul:
ReplyDeleteIt's no surprise that you demonstrate zero understanding of the biblical or Protestant viewpoint. Glad you could come by.