Steve Ray has a list of 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (quotation marks his)(link to the whole list). This is number 27/35. I'm trying to provide the answers in a common format, for easy reference.
27) If sola Scriptura is so solid and biblically based, why has there never been a full treatise written in its defense since the phrase was coined in the Reformation?
Simple Answer(s):
LOL
Important Qualification(s):
1) The phrase was not coined during the Reformation, though the phrase became a handy way of expressing the difference between the position of the Reformers as contrasted with the position of those who adhered to Trent.
2) William Whitaker wrote a full length treatise on the subject in the 1500's.
3) Since then, plenty of folks have written either full length treatises or large portions of larger treatises on the topic.
4) For example, William Webster and David King have a three volume set on the topic entitled, "Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of the Faith," and Keith Mathison has a single volume that is entitle "The Shape of Sola Scriptura."
- TurretinFan
Friday, February 05, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
TurretinFan,
good post, but are you,like a good teacher, hoping we'll look up for ourselves when the term 'sola scriptura' was coined? If so, I hope it's not at the END of the three-volume set by King and Webster :)
When I first saw this series, I was excited about it. I understand that the questions are loaded, and I was glad to see you honestly answer the loaded questions and defend Biblical Christianity. I think your answers have helped bolster my ability to defend the Bible against claims of apostolic succession.
However, recently, I'm really disappointed in your responses. You have answered "LOL" to three questions now, indicating that you are now longer taking this thing seriously.
For instance, the issue of the Nasrani in India was raised, and I feel like you completely dropped the ball on that chance. There are a lot of ecclesiological questions raised by the existence of a church founded by an apostle, developing in isolation from Roman or Orthodox tradition that the Romanist should have to answer to, and when I first read that question on the list, I was excited to hear your response. And then your response turned out to be "LOL".
I know that some of these questions are ridiculous, and they are all loaded towards Roman epistemology, but I don't think you are honoring the truth when you dishonor the questions by merely laughing at them.
May the Love of Christ be with you, brother.
Point well taken, John. I'm a bit confined by my "simple answer" approach. When a question is sufficiently absurd, the only simple response is going to be laughter. I hope that the Qualifications are where you will find the meat of the response.
Lord willing, when this series (and an extension to cover the remaining 3 numbered questions and about 15 or so un-numbered questions) is complete, I hope to revisit these questions and answers in a comprehensive manner. I'll consider your advice to substitute a more declarative response than laughter to the more ridiculous questions that Steve poses.
I think at least one more answer in this series involves laughter as the simple answer to the question.
Then I hope the Spirit can clear some time for you to do so in the future :)
I'm looking forward to the kind of serious historical study you routinely pursue on your blog being applied to the Nasrani, as I think there is a wonderful argument there for the providence of God, but also the fallacy of the Roman Magisterium.
Keep up the research, brother, and may the Lord of Life encourage your pursuits.
Those were some good recommended resouces on the subject of sola scriptura, TF.
I own the three volume set, "Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of the Faith", as well as a couple of other selections that I would recommend:
Scripture Alone: Exploring the Bible's Accuracy, Authority, and Authenticity
Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible
Claiming and displaying breathtaking ignorance of the formal principle of the Protestant Reformation is an invalid argument against its existence and/or relavance.
In Christ,
CD
“1) The phrase was not coined during the Reformation, though the phrase became a handy way of expressing the difference between the position of the Reformers as contrasted with the position of those who adhered to Trent.”
When was it framed and by whom? What authority did they have to frame it and where did they get the authority from? SS is problematic right from the start.
”2) William Whitaker wrote a full length treatise on the subject in the 1500's.”
Remains to be seen as a full defense of the indefensible.
”3) Since then, plenty of folks have written either full length treatises or large portions of larger treatises on the topic.”
Maybe . . . but then again SS has not been able to overcome the charge of being circular, inconsistent, unhistorical, unworkable and so on. Nobody can defend a theory that has so many holes in it.
”4) For example, William Webster and David King have a three volume set on the topic entitled, "Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of the Faith," and Keith Mathison has a single volume that is entitle "The Shape of Sola Scriptura."”
See some of the reviews on Amazon. It doesn’t seem to be a very good defense at all.
JM
"When was it framed and by whom? What authority did they have to frame it and where did they get the authority from? SS is problematic right from the start."
We don't require authority for the coining of terms. The term as such won't be in the earliest fathers or the Greek fathers, because Latin itself wasn't that popular among them.
"Remains to be seen as a full defense of the indefensible."
Speaking of defenses of the indefensible, criticizing the work in such vacuous terms would seem to qualify, particularly given Steve Ray's either ignorant misrepresentation of the facts, or outright lie (it is quite hard to believe he's so ignorant as not to know that there are many such treatises out there).
”Maybe"
It's not a question of "maybe." There is no doubt at all that such treatises have been written.
" . . . but then again SS has not been able to overcome the charge of being circular, inconsistent, unhistorical, unworkable and so on."
Actually, plenty of them have shown that such charges are ludicrous.
"Nobody can defend a theory that has so many holes in it."
On the contrary, the many treatises have demonstrated that the holes lie in the arguments of those attempting to reject the divine doctrine, not those who are promoting it.
"See some of the reviews on Amazon. It doesn’t seem to be a very good defense at all."
Folks who right reviews on Amazon don't always even read the book. Citing their reviews is at least two steps below citing Wikipedia.
Post a Comment