Scripture Alone: Defending the Biblical, Logical, and Historical Case for Sola Scriptura

[responsivevoice_button] Chris Matthew responded to the critique presented by Jon the Orthodox. So, I’ll post the previous articles in regards to this discussion: https://www.original-sinner.com/sola-scriptura-a-brief-refutation/ http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2020/01/21/is-sola-scriptura-self-refuting/ Here is now his addition to the conversation: Greetings. Are you Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, … Continue reading Scripture Alone: Defending the Biblical, Logical, and Historical Case for Sola Scriptura

Papal Poison

This is a collection of arguments against Sola Scriptura from Catholics. They really will be the same old arguments used by them but a collection of the refutations to them. The place to start is with the issue of the definition of Sola Scriptura: On the Meaning of Sola Scriptura Does sola Scriptura mean sole authority? What does sola scriptura mean? 1. Scripture is meant to be read in a community: Reading Scripture in community Communal reading 2. The papacy is needed for proper interpretation of the Bible and to reject it leads to “chaos”(30,000 Denominations): Clashing with Catholicism If … Continue reading Papal Poison

White vs Williams

This debate that was supposed to be a debate about indulgences turned into a debate about Church Authority and Protestant canon. Peter lives in the modern time where epistemology is done without any regard for metaphysics, but that hasn’t been the narrative throughout history. Williams only challenges to White in this debate was about his way of coming to a knowledge of the canon. James White gave a near externalist account of it where canon causes a positive doxastic attitude towards a proposition. The debate almost reminds you of the problem of the criterion. Do you start with particular examples … Continue reading White vs Williams

Hawkeye

I recently got into an exchange with a classical apologist, Spencer Hawkins. So, the credit goes to him. Here’s how it went: “1) Your first move is to shift the burden of proof. You make the claim that ALL non-Christian worldviews are logically impossible,” i)The issue is that to propose a question-begging claim. To say that it is possible doesn’t show it to be possible. From the Christian perspective, my God is the measure of what is and is not possible. You even say later “I can imagine the Christian God not existing without running into a logical contradiction”. This … Continue reading Hawkeye