QuestionsSo, even though TF disagrees, he's saying that sola scriptura reduces to satis scriptura. So, in short they are not the same thing. It would appear that TF agrees with me here, but doesn't want to SAY he agrees with me!
Scott posed the following questions:
Now, how about the significant points from my response to Mr. Hays? Agree or disagree?TF: I don't agree. Sola Scriptura reduces to Satis Scriptura.
1) The teaching of satis scriptura is NOT sola scriptura.
sw: OK, so WHERE is it taught? Let's see if TF can become the FIRST Protestant to show us the teaching of sola scriptura IN Scripture. Keep in mind TF, we're not going to accept satis scriptura or suprema scriptura - we want to see SOLA scriptura.2) Sola scriptura is not taught in Scripture. Some Protestants will admit to this fact, will Mr. Hays or TurretinFan do so?TF: I don't agree. Sola Scriptura is taught in Scripture.
sw: Well, again TF appears to really be agreeing with me but can't come out and SAY he agrees with me! In short, the listing as such does not exist - but since we have all the books in hand that listing is derivable. Why not just point to the table of contents then! You have that grouping of books primarily due to the Catholic Church compiling it for you (your canon is minus a few books, but that's not the point here). Especially concerning the New Testament, why does TF's canon not include the Epistles of Clement, Shepherd of Hermes or the Didache?3) Nowhere in Scripture will we find the listing (canon) of what should comprise the Canon of Sacred Scripture.TF: The listing as such is derivable, given that we have the books in hand. However, the listing as such is not. I guess that is a "disagree" as well, since I wouldn't use Scott's wording.
sw: Again we see that TF does agree, but doesn't want to SAY he agrees! The point of the question is that ANY interpretation is really extra scriptura - whether or not it is properly derived is not part of the question - and irrelevant. Even if it is "properly derived" the interpretation itself is not Scripture and thus is extra scriptura.4) Interpretation of an implicit teaching in Scripture is still extra scriptura.TF: I don't agree - at least, I don't agree if "implicit" includes things that are properly derived from Scripture but simply aren't explicit in Scripture. It's not completely clear what Scott views as "implicit."
sw: I can understand why TF would not want to answer this, for if he did he would have to agree with me again - and this time impugn his friend and co-blogger.5) Steve resorted to the invalid argumentum ad hominem several times (and I appreciate the fact that TurrentinFan did not).TF: I'll leave that one for Steve to answer.
6) Steve seemed to confuse the Pentateuch with the Canon of the Old Testament, and I quote: "So from the time Moses wrote the Pentateuch until the Council of Trent in the 16C, the Jews were without a canon of Scripture." The Pentateuch refers ONLY to the first 5 books of Moses, also known as the Torah.
TF: I disagree. The Canon of the Old Testament began with (the first book of) the Pentateuch and continued to expand as the Spirit inspired more and more books. It closed with the penning of the last book of the Old Testament. (Note that I am referring to the closing of the canon not the recognition of the canon.)sw: Again TF disagrees, but doesn't deal with the subject at hand. Mr. Hays stated that "from the time Moses wrote the Pentateuch until the Council of Trent in 16C, the Jews were without a canon of Scripture." Let us be clear here, the Pentateuch is PART OF the Old Testament Canon, and by and large is the ONLY part of Scripture which Jews, to this day, consider to be "canonical" on the same level as most Christians consider the entire canon. Jews accept the Torah/Pentateuch as essentially written by God. The Prophets are almost "as inspired" as the Torah, and the Writings/History books - though somewhat inspired are nowhere near "as inspired" as the Torah. Any way you look at it, the Jews had a canon - but not quite what Christians call a canon.
7) Scripture remains a PART OF Catholic Tradition. No matter how much Steve or TF would like to remove that from OUR Sacred Tradition, they cannot.
Clearly I was not asking if TF agreed with Catholic Tradition, but whether or not he agrees that Scripture remains PART OF Catholic Tradition. It's a bit ridiculous for him to in one breath "disagree" with me regarding the Jewish canon, and then in the next breath state that "it (Scriptures) is made void (for Rome), just as it was for the Jews." It appears he's stating the Jews really had no Scripture and the Catholics really have no Scripture because Scripture is made void through human tradition. Again, it is a ridiculous to posit such an argument. I repeat, I am not asking TF to agree with Catholic Tradition - I realize at this point he will not, but Scripture is most definitely PART OF Catholic Tradition, and the FACT that the New Testament Canon codified BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH in the late 4th Century IS the New Testament Canon which TF accepts. When considering the FACTS surrounding this discussion, TF's statements are rendered utterly empty.I disagree. It is (for Rome) made void through human tradition, just as it was for the Jews.
TF: I hope those answers help Scott.
-TurretinFansw: I hope my responses help TF see that being evasive and diversive are not good tactics when answering direct questions. I do want to say again though that I appreciate his ability to disagree without resorting to name-calling ad hominem silliness.
TF has chronicled this discussion here: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/01/scott-windsor-index.html