Re: Answering Critics: 6

Response to Paleocrat's "shotgun blasts" of information and arguments...quite frankly part 5 of the video responses dealing with Hermeneutics deals with these issues, but it came out AFTER this response and before I had seen this one. Enjoy.

Moses

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Paleocrat
• Jeremiah
• Bannister
• Catholicism
• Protestant
• apologetics
• theology
• Calvinism
• Sola
• Scriptura
• Preachdaword

[JesusDisciple777]

the context of chapter 6 is that people abandon Jesus because he asks them to be canibals.

[prchdaword]

@JesusDisciple777 ok seriously....Jesus did not ask them to be "cannibals"....follow the verbs and you will see that "eating" "drinking" "believing" are all different ways of talking about faith....the verbs are synonymous

[prchdaword]

@leviksu actually there are a few passages including 2 Tim 3:16-17 "....complete and thoroughly equipped" Is it your position against Scripture that "all Scripture" cannot make the man of God "complete" and "thoroughly equipped"? That we need something more? Remember.....if you say yes, you are saying Scripture and God who gave it, are lying....

Also, remember that sufficiency in Sola Scriptura is not exhaustive but only for matters of salvation and holy living....its not an encyclopedia

[prchdaword]

@leviksu thats if you take "history" as the authority and not God's word - which is obviously a fundamental error of all false religions....to look at something other than God as authorative.

I think you need to get beyond the caricatures that RC's make of "private interpretation" and actually read something on hermeneutics and see how we see to be faithful to God's word as it is presented in the text and in the original languages my friend....you seem learned, do some research.

[prchdaword]

@leviksu I am a presuppositionalist

[leviksu]

Further, how can you say that the Bible is legit? Even if I were to grant your circular logic, where in the Bible does it SAY that the Bible is sufficient (not USEFUL... not GOOD... but COMPLETELY SUFFICIENT). IT DOESNT! And even if one of the books of the Bible did, it can't possibly be referring to the entire Bible because they all preceeded it by like 400 years!

[leviksu]

The argument against protestantism is historical and practical. A sensible look at history leads one to Catholicism, as does a deep look at the Church Fathers (see John Cardinal Newman and Scott Hahn). The problem of private interpretation is that there is no final authority! You end up with thousands of denoms all claiming they have it right! It ends in relativism of the most hilarious kind

[leviksu]

haha! nice try.  the only thing that makes sense is the Triune Christian God (see presuppositional apologetics)

[prchdaword]

@leviksu if you know logic, then you surely must know that all claims of ultimate authority are ultimately circular or assume their point. For instance, you cannot prove "Reason" from reason alone, you must revert to irrationality. The same goes for empiricism...empiricism cannot prove empiricism....

if you belief rests on logic, then do you not have to first assume the law of non-contradiction? How do you prove the law of non-contradiction? Isn't that, again, just a circular argument ??

[prchdaword]

@leviksu If you want to base the authority of Scripture on the authority of reason, then my friend, you have named your god. Why is it wrong to take God's word for it that the SCriptures are indeed true? Does it not follow that if an Almighty, sovereign, omnipotent being has revealed himself truly (for he has no falsehood) that if His revelation says it is true to take it as true? Why do you seek a higher authority than God?

God speaks clearly in Scripture. Just listen....