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 …
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… …