Pages
▼
Tuesday, October 05, 2021
Holding Critics Of Sola Scriptura Accountable
Critics of sola scriptura often apply objections to the concept that, if valid, would also work against their alternative to sola scriptura (objecting to relying on your own interpretation of scripture while they rely on their own interpretation of their rule of faith; objecting to arriving at a canon of scripture by means outside of scripture while they arrive at the canon of their rule of faith by means outside that rule of faith; objecting to interpreting scripture by means outside of scripture while they interpret their rule of faith by means outside that rule of faith; etc.). An easy, concise way of getting at those inconsistencies and getting critics of sola scriptura to think more deeply and more consistently is to tell them, "Scripture is to me what your rule of faith is to you." If they claim to not understand how scripture functions for an Evangelical in a particular context, or they say that they think a particular Evangelical practice violates sola scriptura, for example, tell them to apply the same reasoning to their own rule of faith and, after they do so, tell you whether they still think their objection is a good one. Part of the problem in so many discussions of sola scriptura is that critics of the concept haven't thought much about it or their own rule of faith. Getting them to think more deeply and consistently and to be more self-critical is important. It's often helpful to use a line like "Scripture is to me what your rule of faith is to you."
Speaking of which holding the RCC accountable...let's see how do they regard the inerrancy of Scripture?
ReplyDeleteCatechism? "we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures"
Synod of Bishops? "with regards to what might be inspired in the many parts of Sacred Scripture"
CDF? "response is yet to come"
Pope Leo? "written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily, as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true."
Fr. Raymond Brown? "argue[d] that the Council intended to teach that Scripture’s inerrancy is limited “to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purpose of God.”"
Hahn (referring to Brown)? “the wording of the Constitution does not support such an interpretation"
Catholic Scholarship? "Hahn concedes that a reading such as Brown’s “is firmly entrenched in modern Catholic scholarship"
YET "that the Church is and was the same Catholic Church that was active before, during, and after Vatican II"
Infallible declaration? "And so, we wait"
Source: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-scripture-inerrant
DeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteThanks; great article!
Wilson,
Thanks for that link and comments. Excellent exposure of the deep roots of Romanism.
I found James White’s “Scripture Alone” and a number of Michael J Kruger’s work helpful on this subject.
ReplyDelete