Originally posted by Mateo
Sir Clete,
You have me at something of a disadvantage here in that I am unfamiliar with the term "sola scriptura" nor the doctrine it likely represents and so have no way of responding in any useful way.
Mateo
Understanding Sola Scritpura isn't necessary to respond substantively.
Your abandonment of extra-biblical works is itself a theological position that is non-biblical. It is therefore self contradictory and therefore self defeating.
There is simply no Biblical support for such an idea. Your use of "a little leaven, leavens the whole lump" is a prime example of ripping scripture out of its context. Leaven, was used by Christ to represent sin, not doctrinal error. You submit that is hard to remove leaven from a loaf of bread, I submit that it is impossible, which was Christ's point (or one of them). But this does not hold with someone's publication teaching a false doctrine.
Take C.S. Lewis for example, he said in one of his books that "God can not be moved by love." And he meant exactly what he said. He truly believed that. Should we, because Mr. Lewis was blinded on this one issue by one of the biggest "isms" of all time (Calvinism), ignore the rest of his brilliance in Christian apologetics?
Further, wouldn't this web site qualify as "extra-biblical"?
And how about that article I pointed out about Sola Scriptura, isn't that extra-biblical as well? And yet you consent to reading it. Why?
I think perhaps that you have either overstated your position or you do not practice it as consistently as perhaps you would like. Either way, a reexamination of your position on this issue seems to be in order.
Resting in Him,
Clete
