shadmans Musings  

We have finally made it to argument 5 against Sola Scriptura , which Cameron calls the Canon problem, and is part 34 of my Sola Scriptura series. Of the arguments, this one likely had a real possibility of making some valid points, because Protestants have an organic view of how the books of the New Testament came to be recognized as Scripture and it’s nothing like what Rome promotes. Historically, how the Canon, or the books of the New Testament that are considered authentic Scripture, came about has, to some degree, baffled scholars because just like Cameron, many seem to have wanted someone or something to have made a definitive proclamation early in the history of the Church. I don’t think any of them like the obvious, which is how history documents what happened. Unfortunately, a thorough accounting will have to wait for another series I plan to write, since the goal here will be to refute Cameron’s argument. For the Protestant, the Canon came about gradually over a couple centur...

As we begin Cameron’s next argument, #6, which is part 33 of this Sola Scriptura series, he attempts to show that the concept of Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. There were a number of unanswered questions generated from Cameron’s first three arguments which I refuted in my previous three blogs and unfortunately none of those questions are going to be addressed by Cameron’s sixth argument against Sola Scriptura . As a matter of fact, this new argument is only going to generate more questions to add to that list of questions that someone on the Catholic side needs to answer. One of the issues with the ‘not in the Bible’ argument, is that it is still tied to the authority question of argument #7. That is not by my choosing, but because Cameron seems to fall back upon that in his attempt to justify his position for this new argument. I say justify because quite frankly he does not attempt to make a very strong case to prove that Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible. I would have prefe...

As we begin argument 7 in Cameron’s ‘powerful’ arguments against Sola Scriptura we come to the subject of final authority, and what he means by this is that Sola Scriptura makes the individual the ultimate and final authority on interpreting Scripture. Cameron seems to want to identify ‘who’ is supposed to have the final authority when interpreting Scripture but maybe a better way to put this is, who is responsible to read and understand Scripture - every believer or just the Church and her hierarchy? This argument on Cameron’s part is an attempt to demonstrate that the believer does not have the right or responsibility to interpret Scripture; that final authority rests with the Church whose responsibility also extends to telling the believer what Scripture means. It reminds me of a radio personality who famously boasted that he would tell you what was important in the news and then tell you what to believe. It was intended as sarcasm because of how little people were actually thinki...