tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post6512880302494521029..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Sola Scriptura Debate - Rebuttal Essay by GerryNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-18969880485812421972013-04-17T12:48:03.153-07:002013-04-17T12:48:03.153-07:00This argument suggests that there must be an infal...This argument suggests that there must be an infallible entity to determine what Scriptures are. But the problem with this is that a person must first determine which is the infallible entity, how will he do that? The believers of God identify what is Scripture because they have a relationship with God. Having this relationship, they know the actions of God like a boyfriend knowing the actions of his girlfriend as gained from their bonding times. John 10:4-5 says:<br /><br />========<br /><br />This is a gigantic leap. First of all it would need to be worked out what exactly is meant by the sheep recognizing the voice of the shepherd. Does this extend to recognizing that something should bare the classification of scripture? I wonder how Gerry can make this leap considering that even protestants hold that the COPY they are looking at is not inspired itself and is not inerrant. Protestants maintain that scripture was inspired and inerrant in the original ONLY. So how does recognizing the voice of Christ tell you that the document you are holding is a copy of the ORIGINAL? And even then how does recognizing the voice of Christ tell you that the original was inspired and inerrant? The copy that Gerry holds in his hand could be a compendium of actual scripture. If that is the case, then is Gerry willing to argue that because he is a sheep who recognizes the voice of his shepherd that he is qualified to say that the compendium he holds in his hands is scripture?<br /><br />So Gerry has not solved this problem by appealing to the sheep hear the voice of the shepherd idea. In fact he has only dug himself in deeper.<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05835428170978751832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-68454732259551489982013-04-17T12:37:11.603-07:002013-04-17T12:37:11.603-07:00*all things = matters of faith and morals. I bette...*all things = matters of faith and morals. I better correct this as I can see a protestant running with this and counter arguing, 'oh we don't teach that scripture shows you how to work on cars'Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05835428170978751832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-609401539633875882013-04-17T12:35:50.311-07:002013-04-17T12:35:50.311-07:00I already refuted a similar argument earlier. A Je...I already refuted a similar argument earlier. A Jew during the Old Testament time is not expected to believe in the second coming of Christ. Why? Christ hasn’t been incarnated yet.<br />======<br /><br />The problem with this line of argument is that in your view, scripture must teach it's own sufficiency. If sola scriptura was not yet true, than arguing that scripture teaches it's own sufficiency is bogus. What do you expect us to gather from your argument? That scripture taught it was completely sufficient but that sufficiency did not equate to sola scriptura? That is what you are arguing.<br /><br />Ultimately what it gets down to in your view is that scripture WOULD eventually be sufficient for all things.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05835428170978751832noreply@blogger.com