Dr. White and Dr. Michael Kruger, President and Professor of Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC., discuss Sola Scriptura, the Canon, and Roman Catholicism on the Dividing Line, back on January 7, 2014 on the Dividing Line. They listened to a call from a Lutheran to the "Catholic Answers"radio program and then discuss. I embedded this Dividing Line and discuss some basic canon issues over at my other blog.
"Sola Scriptura", the Canon, and Roman Catholicism
Anyone commenting must demonstrate they have listened to the whole Dividing Line program first. (smile)
And read my other comments at my other blog, called "Apologetics and Agape". (smile)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
It starts off slow, as the Lutheran evidently has not dealt with this issue much, but as expected the RCs resort to the mainstay "we gave you thing Bible" polemic,
That the only reason we have the NT as a unit is because someone - the successors to apostles - decided they were inspired. Thus the question, how can you accept the authority of the NT without accepting the authority of the bishops who constituted it?
The foundational premise is that which is stated by Dulles (along with others statements examined in a very worthy post by Hayes (i think) The Magisterial cat-and-mouse game , "People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high."
It is not until the 44 min mark in the video that White and his guest show the fallacious logic of that argument, by asking how then could a OT Jew know that 2 Chronicles was Scripture?
Or for that matter, why should any 1st c. souls follow a holy man in the desert eating insects and an itinerant Jewish Preacher, both of whom were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses? But the Lord established His claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
I must have heard this before, as for some time now, faced with RCs which must compel all evidence to support Rome, that i have been asking,
It seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?
Post a Comment