Just this morning, I came across a blog that was new to me: Neal Judisch’s, of towers and tongues. Neal has only been blogging since April 2008; yet his output, both in quantity and quality, has been very impressive.
I am currently reading through his threads under the label, sola scriptura, and would like to recommend to all who have an interest in this topic to join me in this endeavor. I have no doubt that those who do so will be as equally impressed as I am.
Grace and peace,
David
Thanks David,
ReplyDeleteI read some of it; but it is long and deep; need time to digest it.
But, as far as I can tell, it is the same apologetic that RCC uses against Sola Scriptura, that is, basing the attack on SS is based on philosophy and epistemology. How do we know what we know?
Sola Scriptura never claimed to be required to give all historical knowledge about the writers, for example that Mark wrote Mark or Matthew wrote Matthew, etc. or that Darius the Mede is either another name for Cyrus or Gubaru, whose name is found in Babylonian records; or other historical knowledge about co-regencies of kings, etc.
It is the RCC demand that SS must include all that knowledge is a premise and presupposition and assumption that SS does not make.
The canon discernment and discovery by the people of God is history. History is true; but the Scriptures are "God-breathed". So there is a difference.
More later,
Hi Ken!!!
ReplyDeleteSo nice to “see” you again. You wrote:
>>But, as far as I can tell, it is the same apologetic that RCC uses against Sola Scriptura, that is, basing the attack on SS is based on philosophy and epistemology. How do we know what we know?>>
Me: I don’t think one can avoid philosophical and epistemological issues when addressing any doctrinal/theological topic. Yet with that said, IMHO the strongest case against the Evangelical view of SS was cogently expressed by A.N.S. Lane (see blog side bar).
I am still reading through Neal’s material too. Perhaps when we both finish, we can exchange some further thoughts…
God bless,
David
It is not avoiding philosophy or epistemology completely; rather, my complaint is that with the Apologetic of Newman and all the rest of the former Evangelicals, they use skepticism and "how do you know?" you have the right books in the canon as the whole basis for their apologetic; and they demand that Sola Scriptura has to have exhaustive knowledge on historical matters, such as demanding that Mark and Matthew have a verse that says, "The Gospel written by Matthew, eyewitness of Jesus Christ . . ." or "The Gospel written by Mark, under Peter's guidance, and for Peter, who was an eyewitness", etc.
ReplyDeleteThe RCC apologetic seems to demand that; along with a verse that says the 27 books and also a clearer verse that says Hebrews, James, Jude, 2-3 John and 2 Peter are apostolic and God-breathed.
Sola Scriptura does not demand exhaustive knowledge on those historical matters of who wrote what, etc.
So, is Anthony Lane still a Protestant?
ReplyDelete>>So, is Anthony Lane still a Protestant?>>
ReplyDeleteMe: I think this webpage indicates that he still is very Protestant.
Grace and peace,
David
If he is still Protestant, then how does he square the historical facts that we all agree on (RC, EO, P) with the conclusions that each group comes to?
ReplyDeleteHow does he handle the epistemology issue and philosophy issue?
My beef is that the modern RCC apologetic is basing everything on Epistemology and doubt and skepticism( I don't know for sure unless I have the Magisterium to tell me so).
Hi Ken,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
>>If he is still Protestant, then how does he square the historical facts that we all agree on (RC, EO, P) with the conclusions that each group comes to?
How does he handle the epistemology issue and philosophy issue?>>
Me: Good questions. I have only read three of his books, and two of his essays, and the questions you raise are not addressed in those particular works.
You could email your questions directly to Tony (Dr. Lane); the link to his email is at the end of his bio. I would be very interested in hearing his response. I could, in that event, create a new thread with your email to Tony, and his response.
>>My beef is that the modern RCC apologetic is basing everything on Epistemology and doubt and skepticism( I don't know for sure unless I have the Magisterium to tell me so).>>
Me: I think that the same can be said of modern, non-conservative Protestant theology. I have been working through an enormous amount of material on the issue of ‘revelation’; I plan to do a thread on my research once finished, but for now, it sure seems that many modern RCC theologians have adopted much from contemporary Prot theologians (Barth, Brunner, Moltmann, et al.).
Grace and peace,
David