tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5886094768104585293..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Throwing the baby out with the paintbrushRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33537576965683007302013-11-06T18:36:50.213-05:002013-11-06T18:36:50.213-05:00Truth Unites... and Divides
"Pastor Phil Joh...Truth Unites... and Divides<br /><br />"Pastor Phil Johnson was on Michael Brown's radio program. I don't know if it was technically a debate, but you did have the opposing sides engage each other for a brief time."<br /><br />That's a start, although some MacArthurites tried to discredit the interview because they said Brown kept talking over Phil's answers.<br /><br />"Also, there was a lengthy on-line debate between Sam Storms and C. Michael Patton. Pastor Patton was highly critical of the Strange Fire conference for 'painting with a broad brush.'"<br /><br />And I can think of one prominent MacArthurite who tried to discredit Patton on that account. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38503815509600630442013-11-06T17:30:57.915-05:002013-11-06T17:30:57.915-05:00I'd also like to say that there are charismati...I'd also like to say that there are charismatics who also pay lip service to "Sola Scriptura." Can charismatics consistently claim to hold to Sola Scriptura? I think so, if we define it to mean that now in this Age (in between the closing of the Canon and the return of Christ) Scripture alone is the sole infallible and assured source of inspired revelation in the possession of the church. Therefore it alone is the sole infallible rule of faith for the church. That's how Anglicans often define Sola Scriptura and claim to hold to it even though they have a high regard for church tradition and reason. Wesleyans similarly do so and include a high regard for experience along with tradition and reason (i.e. the Wesleyan Quadrilateral). However, some of the Puritans defined Sola Scriptura more narrowly to mean that nothing could be established or allowed in the church (or state) unless a biblical model or precedent could derived from Scripture. But if we Protestants are going to claim that Sola Scriptura is historical and that the early church fathers practiced it, and that the Reformers weren't introducing a theological novum, we will have to abandon that extreme form that SOME of the Puritans and Reformers (and some of their theological children) held to. <br /><br />So, while in the past I've preferred saying I held to Summa Scriptura, or what some call Prima Scriptura, I now think that I should stick with the term Sola Scriptura. In order to ensure that it is positively asserted that no other claimed source of revelation is (or can possibly be) on par with Scripture (that is, before the return of Christ). Something which the phrase Prima Scriptura doesn't necessarily imply.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46877291235908288002013-11-06T16:57:41.228-05:002013-11-06T16:57:41.228-05:00Yeah, for responsible charismatics, the truth of t...Yeah, for responsible charismatics, the truth of the principle outweighs the possible negatives. Just as MacArthurite cessationists would say that the truth of the principle of Sola Scriptura outweighs the fact that there are many Protestant denominations out there who disagree on non-essentials as a result of the practice of (or abuse of, or mere lip service to) Sola Scriptura (<a href="http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-33000-protestant-denominations-lie.html" rel="nofollow">though, not as many as some Catholic apologists claim</a>). The fact that Protestant adherents of Sola Scriptura (or "Scripturians" as John Gill once called Karaite Jews) have disagreements is not considered a disproof of Sola Scriptura by Scripturians. Responsible charismatics believe the same thing with regard to abuses of charismatic theology.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4072033014370964632013-11-06T14:36:59.635-05:002013-11-06T14:36:59.635-05:00"If you want to shift opinions, you need to h...<i>"If you want to shift opinions, you need to have an actual debate, not a self-serving monologue."</i><br /><br />Pastor Phil Johnson was on Michael Brown's radio program. I don't know if it was technically a debate, but you did have the opposing sides engage each other for a brief time.<br /><br />Also, there was a lengthy on-line debate between Sam Storms and C. Michael Patton. Pastor Patton was highly critical of the Strange Fire conference for "painting with a broad brush."Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com