Thanks! In a nutshell, your reply is clearer. I'll read Pilgrim's links when I get time. But, I still see a major contradiction and hope you can perhaps clear it up...
Quote
In Roman Catholic tradition, they recognize their tradition and interpretation of Scripture as being on par with Scripture. Sola Scripture on the other hand recognizes the value of people gifted in interpreting the Bible, but realizes that unlike the infallible Word of God, man being fallible can error. Hence their interpretation is only as good as it is biblical. For correct interpretation, the infallible (Scripture) must be compared with the infallible (Scripture). Confessions such as the WCF and the LBCF were created to combat heresy. But they hold to Sola Scriptura.
This is what the author stated:
Quote
The problem that adherents of solo scriptura haven’t noticed is that any appeal to Scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of Scripture. The only question is: whose interpretation? When we are faced with conflicting interpretations of Scripture, we cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve our difference of opinion as if it were a Ouija board. In order for Scripture to serve as an authority at all, it must be read, exegeted, and interpreted by somebody. In order for the Holy Spirit to speak through Scripture, some human agency must be involved, even if that human agent is simply one individual reading the text of Scripture.
How are the Evangelicals different than the Reformers in this matter?
Quote
The Apostles did not tell every individual believer to take their Bibles and decide by themselves and for themselves whether the Judaizers were correct. On the contrary, they gathered in a council as a body and discerned the truth of the matter. Their decision then was given to the various churches. The fundamental point is that Christ established His Church with a structure of authority that is to be obeyed (Heb. 13:7). Even in the first years of the Church, there were those who were specially appointed to the ministry of the Word (Acts 6:2-4). In his letters to Timothy and Titus, Paul indicates that a special teaching ministry was to continue after his death (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1-7; 2 Tim. 4:2; Titus 8:5-9). The modern Evangelical doctrine of Scripture essentially destroys the real authority of ministers of the Word and the Church as a whole.
Why does he dismiss the RC and EO for appealing to Tradition when he claims to do the same?
Quote
But despite the very real differences, the modern Evangelical position shares one major flaw with both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox positions. Each results in autonomy.
So, Evangelicals appeal to themselves for autonomy and it's wrong. RC and EO appeal to their ministers for authority and it's wrong. Reformers appeal to their ministers for authority and it's right.
He admits that he believes in the canon, so we know he appeals to Tradition so that puts him right on par with the RC and EO, thus, one of the several contradictions I find in this article.
