tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3866611.post1218113738930596271..comments2023-11-05T02:14:33.709-07:00Comments on Qui Locutus: Sola Scriptura Self RefutingScott Windsorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01961374547503296840noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3866611.post-49703050782534603622017-04-06T22:23:37.459-07:002017-04-06T22:23:37.459-07:00Hi Nick,
If I may add to your reply - but first of...Hi Nick,<br />If I may add to your reply - but first of all, thanks for the reply! <br /><br />> Here is my argument:<br />> (1) SS teaches all doctrines binding on Christians must come from<br />> Scripture alone.<br /> <br />Well, some adherents to SS believe that. The argument I responded to was the definition used by James White (and Steve Hays) which states "Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Christian." It then becomes our task to show "another infallible rule of faith," and we need look no further than Scripture to demonstrate this other infallible rule of faith. Of course I refer to Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18 - wherein first *A* man and the a "group" of men are given infallible authority, by Jesus Christ Himself!<br /><br />> (2) SS is a doctrine binding on Christians.<br /> <br />Since it is "their" rule of faith - it is binding upon "them," yes.<br /><br />> (3) Thus, SS must be taught in Scripture.<br /> <br />Well, per my approach - if it is not taught in Scripture then it is not an infallible teaching. Given then that it is fallible, we must look at who first taught sola scriptura. Since it is virtually unheard of until the 16th century (that's 1500 years of Christendom WITHOUT the teaching) we can validly surmise that this teaching comes from men, not from God, and these men who taught and teach it do not have valid authority in the Church to teach, or bind others to this belief.<br /><br />> (4) If SS is binding but not taught in Scripture, then this contradicts<br />> item (1) - making SS self-refuting (via contradiction) by definition.<br /> <br />Protestants who adhere to SS do indeed believe that teaching is binding on all Christians - but this leads us back to what I said - they have no authority to teach and/or bind anything. Thus, if it is not found in Scripture (by their standard) then it is not infallible and if it is not infallible, how could it be binding upon all Christians?<br /> <br />AMDG,<br />Scott<<<<br />CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11555309542380876999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3866611.post-73855227859415986472010-01-20T18:35:21.072-07:002010-01-20T18:35:21.072-07:00As for the claim that the canon is "a given i...As for the claim that the canon is "a given in the system" - I agree, that is a pretty serious claim that needs to be addressed. It wouldn't be fair if such a thing can just be assumed, all the while denying Catholics the right to claim Tradition.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3866611.post-20287269938728588602010-01-20T18:32:00.591-07:002010-01-20T18:32:00.591-07:00I think the self-refuting charge does fit, because...I think the self-refuting charge does fit, because one is not free to assume SS is the way a Christian should live and derive their theology. Rather, if God hasn't instructed them to proceed that way (i.e. SS), they are following a tradition of men by definition, and thus make SS self-refuting because Scripture never told them to proceed with SS in the first place. <br /><br />Here is my argument: <br />(1) SS teaches all doctrines binding on Christians must come from Scripture alone. <br /><br />(2) SS is a doctrine binding on Christians.<br /><br />(3) Thus, SS must be taught in Scripture. <br /><br />(4) If SS is binding but not taught in Scripture, then this contradicts item (1) - making SS self-refuting (via contradiction) by definition.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3866611.post-67578736745832662602010-01-19T20:57:21.338-07:002010-01-19T20:57:21.338-07:00Actually, the above was "Tur8infan" and ...Actually, the above was "Tur8infan" and White was quoting him from here:<br /> <br /><a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/01/beckwiths-bait-and-switch.html" rel="nofollow">http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/01/beckwiths-bait-and-switch.html</a><br /> <br />So let either of them answer the question.<br /> <br />In JMJ,<br />Scott<<<CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762504684024359557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3866611.post-7213727051563913882010-01-19T20:53:26.771-07:002010-01-19T20:53:26.771-07:00White responds to Beckwith:
Beckwith begins:
Be...<a href="http://www.facebook.com/notes/james-r-white/beckwiths-bait-and-switch/259729955628" rel="nofollow">White responds to Beckwith:</a> <br /> <br /><i>Beckwith begins:<br />Because the list of canonical books is itself not found in Scripture—as one can find the Ten Commandments or the names of Christ’s Apostles—any such list, whether Protestant or Catholic, would be an item of extra-Biblical theological knowledge.</i><br /><br />There is a rather obvious problem with this claim. Given Scripture (as Beckwith does for the Ten Commandments or the names of Christ's apostles) a list of canonical books is readily derivable from the Scriptures. As a thought experiment, one could imagine receiving a Bible with the table of contents accidentally smudged beyond recognition. That table of contents could be easily restored from the text in a matter of moments. Given Scripture the list of canonical books, while not found as such, is easily derived.<br /><br />Of course, if one doesn't grant that we already have the Scriptures, as such, the matter of creating a list becomes more difficult. But that's not a challenge facing sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura begins with the reader possessing the Scriptures. It is a given of the system.<br /> <br /><b>So let us ask White, "If it is a given of the system, in which system was this list given?"</b>CathApolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17762504684024359557noreply@blogger.com