wturri78
Puritan Board Freshman
...against Sola Scriptura?
Wait, put down the pitchforks and torches!
I ask because I've encountered an endless stream of shallow arguments from Rome that claim to disprove the Reformation position, but in reality they only disprove the flimsy "Me 'n My Bible" evangelical approach. The same bad arguments are advanced ad nauseum..."John's gospel says that Jesus did stuff not in Scripture..." or "Paul says we need to hold fast to tradition..." or "There was no official cannon until the 4th century so the doctrine was impossible..." You know the drill. Many of these are picked up by Orthodox people too, although they have an entirely different view of "Tradition" from the west. And in almost every case, the convert to RC/EO came from an evangelical background that never actually explained Sola Scriptura intelligibly to begin with--and probably never really held to it.
At any rate, if somebody were to put forward an argument against the Reformation position that is difficult to refute (note I say difficult and not impossible), what would it be? What presuppositions do we bring that are perhaps difficult to justify vs. competing presuppositions?
Sometimes I find it helpful to view myself through the eyes of those who disagree and see what they see--sometimes I find holes in my armor that I didn't see before and it makes me that much better able to clarify and articulate my own thinking.
Just curious what you all think?
Wait, put down the pitchforks and torches!
I ask because I've encountered an endless stream of shallow arguments from Rome that claim to disprove the Reformation position, but in reality they only disprove the flimsy "Me 'n My Bible" evangelical approach. The same bad arguments are advanced ad nauseum..."John's gospel says that Jesus did stuff not in Scripture..." or "Paul says we need to hold fast to tradition..." or "There was no official cannon until the 4th century so the doctrine was impossible..." You know the drill. Many of these are picked up by Orthodox people too, although they have an entirely different view of "Tradition" from the west. And in almost every case, the convert to RC/EO came from an evangelical background that never actually explained Sola Scriptura intelligibly to begin with--and probably never really held to it.
At any rate, if somebody were to put forward an argument against the Reformation position that is difficult to refute (note I say difficult and not impossible), what would it be? What presuppositions do we bring that are perhaps difficult to justify vs. competing presuppositions?
Sometimes I find it helpful to view myself through the eyes of those who disagree and see what they see--sometimes I find holes in my armor that I didn't see before and it makes me that much better able to clarify and articulate my own thinking.
Just curious what you all think?
