Stephen M. Adams wrote:
> lsenders@hotmail.com writes:
> >Sola scriptura is predicated on the biblical revelation that man is
> >totally blind and incapable of properly interpreting not only
general
> >revelation but special revelation as well.
>
> If you are unable and incapable of interpreting the Scriptures, then
> you can't possiby derive doctrine from them. In other words, if
> your fundamental premise is that man is incapable of undestanding
> the Scriptures, how then do you propose to know what they say???
>
What have I been writing all this while? Man must be led by the
Spirit. Even regenerate man must learn the art of waiting on the
Spirit. How often do we all do what we would normally define as the
"Lord's work" yet we accomplish these things through the power of the
flesh? This "new man" paradigm is not second nature. It is something
which requires a determination on the part of the believer. Prayer and
faith. Just as justification is accomplished by the humbling of one's
self, saying, "You are the Creator, I am but the creature. You are
self sufficient, I am derrivative," just so for sanctification. And to
grow in knowledge is to grow in grace which is to grow more and more
dependent upon the Lord. It is Dan 2:20-23. The paradigm illustrated
in this passage as well as throughout scripture is one and same. Why
is this a question with you?
>
> That aside, the clear facts of the matter is that the Scriptures
> themselves refute 'Sola Scriptura' as defined in my original post:
>
Again, I must apologize but I did not see such refutation in your
posts. Perhaps you point me to one specifically or copy and paste into
a reply in this thread.
>
> Try this test: define the canon of Scriptures using nothing but
> Scipture, with no reference to anything else. After all, per
> the above definition, reference to anything else introduces error
> and thus cannot be taken as dogma.
>
Here's my answer to this supposed dilemma. I've read the Apocrypha and
the pseudepigraph. I never had any dilemma as to distinquishing them
from what has risen to become our canon of 66 books. There really is
no comparison. As for the books which we now have and were once
disputed, biased as I have become from so many years of familiarizing
myself with them, I cannot but help see their own internal evidence as
being "scripture." Again, this is not the work of rationalization nor
any other human intellectual analysis. It is the internal witness of
the Spirit of Truth. Again, I don't see the dilemma except that,
because our "second" nature is so natural to us and so easily assumed
almost by default "prone to wander, Lord I feel it," we must strive in
the spirit to remain