Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: canon

  • Sola Scriptura and the Canon Revisited: Guest Post by Adam Blauser

    As I have gotten involved in dealing with Roman Catholicism and sola scriptura, I have found two things very interesting. First of all, there is a grossly simplistic view of meaning in language amongst many Roman Catholic apologists. Many of them will be willing to destroy human language in order to argue against sola scriptura, borrowing from men like Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish to argue that we cannot know which interpretation of scripture is correct. It is amazing to be able to cite deconstructionists making parallel arguments to Roman Catholic apologists.

    Second, what I am realizing more and more …

  • Canon and Roman Catholicism

    RC: I’m still waiting for James White to explain which Canon of Scripture I’m allowed to use when if I take up sola scriptura.

    Chris: Canon is a function of Scripture. Those things which I have written are in the canon of my works. Similarly those things which God has breathed out constitute the canon of Scripture.

    RC: Chris… what I meant… am I permitted to use the Scripture comprised of 73 books, or the one comprised of only 66 books? Of course both versions are God breathed, inherent, and authoritative.

    Obviously this is all hypothetical as I do not… …

  • Admitting the Possibility

    (4:50) “Please pray for us? It seems to me as though Joshua’s prayer leading up to this debate, and my prayer, are a bit different. I’ll let you follow his posts so that you can check that out. My prayer for the upcoming debate is not that what I think is the truth will in fact be made out to be true. Because I quite frankly admit the possibility that I might be wrong about this; I don’t think that I am, and I think that the Scripture is clearly in support of the position that I’ll be advancing. But

    …

  • Commenting on Canon

    “Do you mean why should we accept Hebrews rather than the Gospel of Thomas as canonical?

    Well, the primary reason is because Hebrews *is* canonical, whereas the Gospel of Thomas is not.

    But then I guess you’re asking how we know that.

    I would say that it is self-attesting.

    See, self-attesting is always objective.

    This is strange to me – people usually take that to be subjective.

    I’m not talking about a subjective mark, but an objective one.

    But it presumes itself authoritative in the same way as other Scripture.

    And is qualitatively the same.

    I’m not talking about the …