Yesterday I shared a discussion that "Ed" and I had on Facebook. I don't plan on talking to him anymore, but I will be looking at what he said in his last post to me. Anything that you read here in quotes with red text are from "Ed" while the text after the quotes is how I would reply. Blue text is Scripture.
"It’s your reality. You haven’t shown me the scripture that supports or uses the term “alone” with scripture."
It's important to notice something here. In order for this man to change his mind, he has forced the argument into a war on words. This is something that can be difficult to get over, and if the person that you are dealing with is like this man, he's using it as a shield to protect himself from an opposing argument. If someone is open to having an honest discussion however, it is possible to demonstrate how this mentality isn't logical.
For instance, when arguing against an anti-Trinitarian, often times people will say, show me where the word "Trinity" is in the Bible. It is not necessary for the word "Trinity" to be in the Bible in order for the doctrine to be true. What is necessary is that the principle is there. People like "Ed" that I had a discussion with isn't interested in having a conversation. He's only interested in giving his talking points and then abandoning them when they don't work anymore. So just because we don't have the words "Scripture alone" in that order, it doesn't necessarily follow that the principle isn't there.
"1 Tm 3:15 doesn’t even come close to teaching that scripture “alone” is the sole rule of faith.""
Already in this first paragraph, "Ed" has purposefully or ignorantly misdefined the definition of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is NOT that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. Sola Scriptura IS that the Bible is the sole INFALLIBLE rule of faith. This is an important distinction to make. I personally believe that this man is purposefully building up a strawman in order to feel superior. A careful Roman Catholic would attempt to explain why he believes that Sola Scriptura is incorrect based on the proper definition of the term. So already, "Ed" is demonstrating why I stopped discussing theology with him. If you can't show respect for what others believe, then there is no reason to continue the conversation. Not to mention that I wasn't the one who brought up 1 Tim 3:15. There are lots of passages in the Bible that don't deal explicitly with Sola Scriptura.
But, let's look at 1 Tim 3:15:
"but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth."
The person who wrote this is a Roman Catholic. He is obviously reading this passage with Roman Catholic pressupostions in mind. If we look at the context however, one sees no reason to believe that the Roman Catholic Church is being discussed here. What in 1 Tim 3:15 says that the Roman Magisterium and its organization is the only possible definition of the word "church"?
My argument is twofold. Number one is that when a Roman Catholic brings this verse up as a defense of Roman Catholicism, they can be unknowingly reading things eisegetically with anachronism.
In fact, if one reads the entire chapter 3 of 1 Timothy, we get an entirely different vision of what the hierarchy of the church is. From verse 1 through 7, we are given clear instructions on what a bishop/overseer/elder should be. The Greek word used here for bishop/overseer/elder is έπίσκοπον (episkopon). Verse 2 explains it like this:
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
Think about this for a moment. How many Roman Catholic bishops fulfill all of these instructions? How many Roman Catholic bishops are above reproach? Quite a number I would imagine, but not all. How many of them are the husband of one wife? I can't think of any. That doesn't mean that there are none, but certainly the Roman Catholic Church goes just shy of disqualifying a man as bishop if he is married. Someone may say that they know of a bishop who is married. That is possible. However, he would be an exception in the modern Roman Catholic Church, not the rule. Already we see that Rome is very different than the church that Paul is describing here. In verses 8 through 13 Paul explains the role of Deacons and women in the church. I would also like to add that there is no office of the papacy mentioned here, nor cardinals, not even priests.
The second thing to consider is what verse 15 is talking about. What does it mean for the church to be the pillar and support of the truth? What does a pillar or a support do? They hold something else up. We as the body are to hold up the truth of Christ, and to present that truth to the world.
Lastly, Protestants read verse 15 without any problem. The language used in it is common language in Protestant circles. Only those who are ignorant of what Protestants discuss when discussing theology would think that this would be persuasive to them. We are the church, the bride of Christ.
I think that this is a good place to end this post. My opponent after stating this gives nine reasons why he believes that Sola Scriptura is false. I will discuss each point in its own post.
No comments:
Post a Comment