According to Nick, the Catholic epologist:
Steve, The fact Protestants cannot agree on whether the day(s) of worship are essential or not is, in itself, proof of the failure of Sola Scriptura.
I do have to wonder if Nick is really that dense. Perhaps his is.
That would only evidence the failure of sola Scriptura if it is God’s will that all Christians worship on a particular date, but Scripture is unclear on that obligation.
Put another way, Scripture would only be inadequate if that was a divine obligation, but the testimony of Scripture was insufficient to apprise us of our divine obligation. But if the issue is adiaphorous, then we wouldn’t expect the Bible to stipulate a particular day of worship.
So, to show that sola Scriptura is a failure, Nick first needs to show that Christians have a divine obligation to worship on a particular date, but Scripture is unclear on their obligation. Needless to say, Nick hasn’t done that.
The mere phenomenon of Protestant disagreement on this issue doesn’t show, either that Scripture is unclear or insufficient.
For one thing, it’s quite possible for professing Christians to reject the clear teaching of Scripture. Indeed, Roman Catholicism is a case in point.
For another thing, Nick’s reasoning is reversible. Assuming that Scripture doesn’t specify a Christian day of worship, then the silence of Scripture renders that question inessential. That’s how you know it’s inessential. That’s how you know it’s a point of liberty.
At the moment I’m not affirming or denying that assumption. Rather, I’m simply drawing attention to the real nature of the argument, since Nick is too dense to grasp the issue at hand.
As a vassal of the pope, Nick tacitly begins with his Catholic assumptions regarding the day of worship, then alleges that Scripture is insufficient because it fails to ratify his operating assumptions.
But, of course, that’s confused. That wouldn’t show that sola Scriptura is a failure on Protestant grounds. For he has smuggled a Catholic assumption into the argument. At most, this only shows that Scripture is a failure on Catholic grounds. But, of course, that does nothing to advance the argument. Indeed, that doesn’t even amount to an argument. Rather, it begs the question.
All he’s done is to cite what he deems to be an unacceptable consequence of sola Scriptura, then conclude that sola Scriptura is unacceptable. But he hasn’t begun to justify his own standards. And he hasn’t begun to show that sola Scriptura is insufficient by Protestant standards.
The prevailing 'lax' attitude is of more recent origin, where virtually everything save "Jesus is Lord" is reduced to non-essential.
There’s nothing “lax” about taking the position that Scripture is indifferent to this issue. Laxity has reference to the enforcement of a policy, and not the policy itself. If you have a policy which you don’t enforce, then that’s a lax attitude. But not to have a policy on some issue or another is not, itself, symptomatic of a lax attitude. You may have good reason for thinking that such a policy would be unwarranted.
Again, I’m haven’t said that Scripture is or isn’t indifferent to this issue. I’m just documenting Nick’s intellectual limitations in framing the issue.
This is in contrast to the more "conservative" days when Protestant denominations fought bitterly on such subjects.
Of course, we could also contrast the laxity of modern Rome with the more “conservative” days when it was far stricter in enforcing religious policies. If Nick were smart, he'd avoid an objection which invites such an obvious counterexample. But he isn't that smart.