Patrick Madrid wrote an article attacking Sola Scriptura as though it were a "blueprint for anarchy," which is the title that he gave to the article (link to article). The phrase is catchy among contemporary Roman apologists, and it should be no surprise then that we sometimes need to respond to these claims.
Here are three gentlemen who have recently (within the last month, I believe) provided answers:
James Swan - Follow Up Post
Stanford E. Murrell - Bondage of the Blog
Steve Hays
Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Without going to James Swan, Stanford E. Murrell or Steve Hays, I'll come to that later, I just wanted to highlight this portion of Madrid:::>
"....we would expect to find it everywhere taught
and practiced in the early Church....".
Huh? Quite the contrary and ironically he is establishing that very fact!
Sometimes when reading the works of the Devil, as the RCC certainly is, you just might miss him in the details!
I wonder why?
Not so in the Writings, Prophets or Psalms, though!
Hmmmmmm?
I wonder why that fact is not mentioned either?
Might it be revisionism of the finest work the devil does with the details?
I make sport of this and probably I shouldn't, but here I am sporting!
As I always remind anyone who will listen, by asking: "when is the last time the Devil came to you clearly and convincingly enough by stating, I am he and I come to kill, steal and destroy you?"
No, it's just not like that as Sola Scriptura clearly teaches:::>
2Co 11:12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.
2Co 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
Oh, yeah, as for the Word pointing to the Word, why what was this Word for then?
Psa 138:1 Of David. I give you thanks, O LORD, with my whole heart; before the gods I sing your praise;
Psa 138:2 I bow down toward your holy temple and give thanks to your name for your steadfast love and your faithfulness, for you have exalted above all things your name and your word.
and
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
Or this one too:::>
Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.
and:::>
Act 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:2 And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
and:::>
Act 17:10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue.
Act 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Act 17:12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
and:::>
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
Now these verses cited are the ones that come to mind without doing a word search on how often God and man pointed to God's Word in the Word of God.
Oh well!
Turretinfan,
I especially liked the Stanford E. Murrell post.
Here's a related article by a Roman Catholic, Simon Cozens, on why scripture can't interpret scripture:
http://www.simon-cozens.org/content/why-scripture-doesnt-interpret-scripture
Here's my answer to the Catholic lady who asked me what I thought about the article:
There's alot I could say about Simon's post on scripture interpreting scripture. I don't know if I want to take the time to go into it in detail, but I'll try to explain why I think he's wrong.
First of all, he says that the problem with the idea is that people forget the fallible agent that is doing the interpreting. This fallible agent is using one passage to interpret another. One problem with Simon's objection is that there is always a fallible agent involved when humans are interpreting scripture, whether they are using scripture to interpret scripture or using some other source. The problem is not that people are fallible. The problem is that people are either ignorant of the whole of scripture, are not being led by the Holy Spirit, and/or they are using some other source to contribute to interpretation that is not consistent with scripture.
Saying scripture cannot interpret scripture is like saying God cannot interpret scripture. If His people are abiding in His word, and are filled with the Spirit, and are growing in knowledge of Christ, and are exhorting and encouraging each other, and are using His word alone as their guide (their teachers must do this as well), then they can't go far wrong. The problem is that people are not doing these things consistently.
Patrick Madrid seems not to understand that 'sola scriptura' was a term that came up after all of God's word was written down. That does not mean that those who first used the term meant for written scripture to be separated from the spoken words of the prophets or old or the personal way that God spoke to the earliest Patriarchs of the Old Testament. It doesn't mean that we forget that the Apostles first spoke the word of the gospel before beginning to write it down. All God's word is supreme, and all God's word is NOW written down in scripture.
Doesn't the statement of the prophets that "The mouth of the LORD has spoken it" sum it all up? No other word is needed.
Madrid and others can't see where scripture teaches 'sola scriptura'. I think it must be a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. It's everywhere in scripture.
The early church believed in sola scriptura.
The early church believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
The perpetual virginity of Mary is according to Protestants against scripture.
Yet the early church professed belief in Mary's perpetual virginity.
Very interesting.
OK, back, read up and here's my vote,
1, Murrell
2, Swan
3, Hays
I liked the depth of Murrell and the ease of reading what he wrote.
I liked Swan but I guess I would have to go back and reread it to say why. He does refute Madrid.
I was enjoying the memories of the Discovery Channel watching the fish in the sea and the days of sitting in the frozen wheat fields with my brother and dad one winter goose hunting with my very own shot gun, watching those Canadian geese fly by to high to hit em! grrrrr, when I read Hays. If he only could have put more of a point on that pen, but, it's equally obvious with fish and pipers and geese, someone is leading and someone is following and their is an invisible Intelligent Designer visible nevertheless!
:)
I guess what I am saying is I liked Jennie's remarks above the most!
Alex:
As you should know, even some of the early reformers "believed in" the perpetual virginity. Of course, none of them (from the early church to the Reformers) made the perpetual virginity an article of faith (even if a few folks like Jerome took a very stern line). And Sola Scriptura is not about every historical view that people may have. So you're surprise should be less that people might hold views that are not derived from Scripture.
Rome demands faith on this matter that was denied by Helvidius, Victorinus, and Tertullian (according to Jerome's testimony).
-TurretinFan
Thanks, natamllc!
"Anarchy is a sweet word, but we all need furniture"
- from the song "Anarchy" by Nobody Can Dance
Okay perhaps musicians are the last place we look to for political guidance, but it is a breath of fresh air to hear lyrics that actually say something worthwhile. Though people have interpreted this song, and this quote in particular, in different ways, but perhaps it is relevant to the "Blueprint for Anarchy." A catchy title indeed, but we need something practical
Post a Comment