My Google Blog Search pulled this comment up:
If you read a little more on the blog, you’ll see that at one time I had a sola scriptura philosophy. Then I realized such a philosophy is unbiblical. I couldn’t find anywhere in the Bible where the Bible says that the Bible is the sole authority for all matters related to faith. Rather I saw the Bible pointing back to the Church as an authority. History shows that the Bible is authoritative because the Church says it is (by virtue of the fact that the Canon was determined by the Church) and not the other way around. But, you’ve heard that argument before and have closed your eyes to it.
This actually goes back a few weeks to the Beckwith reversion and the reactions that poured in regarding my impudence in 1) mentioning it, 2) daring to be a consistent, historical Reformed Baptist.
In reference to the comment, I find it unusual for anyone who once believed in the all-sufficiency of Scripture to refer to say they once “had a sola scriptura philosophy.” That is not how we speak. But then we are given the standard arguments. We are told it is unbiblical. That would mean this person was convinced of another positive, biblical teaching, evidently, sola ecclesia. That seems to be the meaning of what comes after, but, not quite. Notice, “I saw the Bible pointing back to the Church as an authority.” Well, that is not an appropriate counter-statement to sola scriptura and the assertion that it is unbiblical. No one questions the assertion that the Bible teaches that the church has authority. I surely have never denied that the church has authority. That would be odd for an elder in an Reformed Baptist Church. But, saying the church is an authority and saying this contradicts sola scriptura shows that our writer has misunderstood the doctrine he said he once held (maybe because he thought it was just a philosophy?) and continues to deny.
Then we are told that the Bible is authoritative because the Church says it is. Now this statement is blatantly false and easily refuted. When Jesus quoted the Scriptures to the Jews, did they respond, “Hey, the only reason those Scriptures have authority is because we said they do, since we determined the canon!” No, for they never dreamed that the authority of that which is “God-breathed” could be based upon the proclamations of the church. The Bible is authoritative because it is God speaking, not because anyone points to it and says, “That is authoritative.” Clearly, for such a claim to be true, our writer would have to hold a blatant and clear form of sola ecclesia, giving to the Roman Church the ultimate authority. He clearly seems to think the Roman Church determined the canon, which is again, obviously untrue, for the first dogmatic definition of the canon, even according to Rome, is from the 16th century, and anyone who thinks the Bible was lacking in authority until then has not cracked the cover of said book. And so we see, again, a very confused epistemology being presented by the would-be defender of Rome.
I get the very strong feeling that his writer has never read The Roman Catholic Controversy let alone Scripture Alone. I doubt he has ever viewed one of my debates on the subject, either. Yet, he is confident enough to say that I am the one who has “closed your eyes to it.” I have done no such thing. I refuse to close my eyes to error and contradiction.
Finally, I note that in referring to this comment, our writer once again referred to me as an anti-catholic. I would like to ask, is our writer an anti-Baptist? If not, why not?