A reply to Sola Scriptura (the poster and the doctrine)

[jacobaer]

Hi Sola Scriptura,

I followed your discussion in the “Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura” thread, and noticed that, as far as I could tell, no one caught the error in your argument.

Here it is.

You said: “It logically follows that if Scripture is God speaking there is not higher source, right? At best there can be an equal source, but not a higher, right? Therefore, God speaking judges all other things that are not its equal. If you think you have another source that is equal to God’s speaking then the onus is on you to prove this. Otherwise this point stands.”

Then you said: “Now, the next question is, is Scripture sufficient for the faith. Well, 2 Tim. 3:15-16 tells us the following…”

ME: In your first defense, you go outside Scripture to lay your foundation. I am not quarreling with you about this. We Catholics acknowledge that there is a God-given authority outside of Scripture. It is you as a Christian in the Protestant tradition who denies this. Yet, you make an authoritative statement about Scripture and ask for agreement from us. In essence, you have made yourself the authority.

Peace,
Jacobaer

 

[Della]

Jacobaer:

…you make an authoritative statement about Scripture and ask for agreement from us. In essence, you have made yourself the authority.

This is the crux of the matter, isn’t it?

The problem with saying that any written document is the “authority” is that authority does not and cannot lie in inanimate objects, which is what any book is.

Now, don’t quote verses about the word of God being living and effective, folks, for I am not talking about that here. Of course it is–that’s not the problem.

Only persons can have/maintain authority, not books. This is why Jesus never founded a book nor commanded his Apostles to do any sort of writing. They were to spread the Gospel by making disciples not writing anything down and commanding that it be read.

Besides, most of the Epistles were written to correct existing problems that had arisen in the Church, not primarily for spreading the Gospel.

And even the Gospels were never meant to be the end all and be all of the life of Christ. They were helps to telling Jesus’ story and spreading his message but once again, it was people who were given the task of bringing souls into the Church not a book–and still are.

 

[joshua_b]

I think the fundamental problem we have here is one of perception.

When Protestants are asked to define the Word of God they will inevitably answer with “Scripture” or the Bible. While Scripture certainly is the Word of God, it is an incomplete answer. Catholic teaching tells us that the definition to “Word of God” is Jesus. “In the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”(I don’t know the ch./verse, and Im too lazy to look it up).

Catholics believe that the Word of God is a living Word; the Word lives through the teachings of the Church He established. Those teachings exist in three parts: Sacred Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterial teaching. Father Corapi once said that the Word of God is like the Trinity in that one part can not exist independent of the other two. Wherever one part is, the other two parts are also present by the very nature of their being. Protestants don’t understand that Catholics do not place Sacred Tradition ABOVE the Word of God…Sacred Tradition is an integral part of the Word of God. Scripture is also an integral part of the same Word, but only one part.

What perplexes me is whether or not this gap can ever be bridged…

 

[RNRobert]

I think the fundamental problem we have here is one of perception.

When Protestants are asked to define the Word of God they will inevitably answer with “Scripture” or the Bible. While Scripture certainly is the Word of God, it is an incomplete answer. Catholic teaching tells us that the definition to “Word of God” is Jesus. “In the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”(I don’t know the ch./verse, and Im too lazy to look it up).

:bible1:John 1:1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hi Sola Scriptura,

I followed your discussion in the “Protestant defense of Sola Scriptura” thread, and noticed that, as far as I could tell, no one caught the error in your argument.

Actually most of them ignored my argument and acted as if I never made one. I’m glad you at least recognize the argument. Furthermore, you started a new thread in my name, what an honor. But of course you are planning on showing me the error of my ways. Lets see what you have to say.

Here it is.

You said: “It logically follows that if Scripture is God speaking there is not higher source, right? At best there can be an equal source, but not a higher, right? Therefore, God speaking judges all other things that are not its equal. If you think you have another source that is equal to God’s speaking then the onus is on you to prove this. Otherwise this point stands.”

Then you said: “Now, the next question is, is Scripture sufficient for the faith. Well, 2 Tim. 3:15-16 tells us the following…”

ME: In your first defense, you go outside Scripture to lay your foundation. I am not quarreling with you about this. We Catholics acknowledge that there is a God-given authority outside of Scripture. It is you as a Christian in the Protestant tradition who denies this. Yet, you make an authoritative statement about Scripture and ask for agreement from us. In essence, you have made yourself the authority.

Jacobaer, I’m not following your argument. Scripture itself says it is God’s word, so that is the authority. Maybe I’m missing your point, but your refutation is not making any sense as I read it.

 

[Atreyu]

Actually most of them ignored my argument and acted as if I never made one. I’m glad you at least recognize the argument. Furthermore, you started a new thread in my name, what an honor. But of course you are planning on showing me the error of my ways. Lets see what you have to say.

Jacobaer, I’m not following your argument. Scripture itself says it is God’s word, so that is the authority. Maybe I’m missing your point, but your refutation is not making any sense as I read it.

What if I disagree with your premise - that Scripture is the word of God? I’m not saying that I do disagree with this, but how do you know that it is? Because Scripture says it is? Well that is begging the question, is it not? Other books also claim divine authorship, but we do not admit them to being the word of God. So why the abridged Protestant Bible?

By the way, I believe that the Catholic Bible is the written word of God precisely because of the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[LaSalle]

Hi SS

I’m gonna just jump in here …

Jacobaer, I’m not following your argument. Scripture itself says it is God’s word, so that is the authority. Maybe I’m missing your point, but your refutation is not making any sense as I read it.

Catholics believe that the bible is from God because the Church said it is so.

“Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” St Augustine (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 5:6 [A.D. 397]).

If the bible is from God solely because it says it is, then it’s guilty of circular reasoning. (As Atreyu has pointed out - oh congrats on your engagement, by the way)

Any written text can be interpreted in a number of ways - that’s why you see hundreds of protestant denominations all claiming that their doctrines are the God sworn bible truth!

They are all sincere and well meaning … but all seem to reach different doctrines based, oddly enough, on the same bible! How do you explain that?

SS is simply untenable … I am always amazed that protestants cannot seem to see that; I guess it’s part of the Lord’s plan.

 

[SolaScriptura]

What if I disagree with your premise - that Scripture is the word of God? I’m not saying that I do disagree with this, but how do you know that it is? Because Scripture says it is? Well that is begging the question, is it not? Other books also claim divine authorship, but we do not admit them to being the word of God. So why the abridged Protestant Bible?

If I were debating someone who didn’t believe the Scriptures were the word of God then this would be a completely different debate. Being that we both agree the Scriptures are the word of God it is not begging the question.

By the way, I believe that the Catholic Bible is the written word of God precisely because of the authority of the Catholic Church.

But how do you know the Catholic Church is who it says it is? Because she says so? Isn’t that begging the question? You can’t say you believe it because the Bible says so, because it is the Church that tells you what the Bible is. You can’t say you believe it be Tradition is the truth?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hi SS

I’m gonna just jump in here …

Catholics believe that the bible is from God because the Church said it is so.

Yes, but how do you know who or what the Church is without the Bible? Don’t answer with Tradition, because the next question is how do you know what Tradition is without the Bible? Seems like you have a tight circle yourself. However, if I was discussing this with someone who didn’t believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures I wouldn’t make exactly the same argument. You make arguments based on shared premises by the one whom you are debating.

SS is simply untenable … I am always amazed that protestants cannot seem to see that; I guess it’s part of the Lord’s plan.

If it is so untenable I don’t understand why so many of you Catholics will not even offer a rationale refutation of it. Most of what I hear is the crackling of straw burning as you all torch the strawman, or just the condescension about how untenable it is without offering an argument to prove what you are asserting. This is getting old and tiring.

 

[kaycee]

What if I disagree with your premise - that Scripture is the word of God? I’m not saying that I do disagree with this, but how do you know that it is? Because Scripture says it is? Well that is begging the question, is it not? Other books also claim divine authorship, but we do not admit them to being the word of God. So why the abridged Protestant Bible?

By the way, I believe that the Catholic Bible is the written word of God precisely because of the authority of the Catholic Church.

And you know about the authority of the church from … the Bible? Matt 16:18? somewhat circular nes pas?

Why appeal to an authority you deem insufficiant.

 

[Atreyu]

If I were debating someone who didn’t believe the Scriptures were the word of God then this would be a completely different debate. Being that we both agree the Scriptures are the word of God it is not begging the question.

Well we don’t exactly agree on what the written word of God is now, do we? Besides which, we have very different reasons for believing why the Bible is the written word of God. I believe it because the Church tells me so. Why do you believe it again?

But how do you know the Catholic Church is who it says it is? Because she says so? Isn’t that begging the question? You can’t say you believe it because the Bible says so, because it is the Church that tells you what the Bible is. You can’t say you believe it be Tradition is the truth?

Not at all. I don’t depend on the inspiration of the Bible for determining the authority of the Church. If I take the Biblical books as historically accurate, along with the witness of the early church fathers, then I can determine the validity of the authority of the Catholic Church. It is not independent of the Bible, but it is not dependent on the inspiration of the Bible. So long as I give equal weight to the other historical books as I do to the Bible, then there’s no fallacy. Do you agree?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Well we don’t exactly agree on what the written word of God is now, do we?

But you do agree that all of the Scriptures I contain is the word of God, I just don’t agree that all of yours is, so the point still stands.

Besides which, we have very different reasons for believing why the Bible is the written word of God. I believe it because the Church tells me so. Why do you believe it again?

You believe it because the church tells you so? But why do you believe the church knows, because it tells you so? As you told me that is begging the question. How do you know you have the right church? Because it tells you so? If you rely on your own authority to come to this decision then you are in the same boat as I

I believe it based on a number of reasons such as:

1. 
   *]Based on internal witness
   *]Based on external witness
   *]Based on history( and yes, I even take the church fathers testimony into account )
   *]Based on the fact of Jesus Christ resurrection, which vindicated everything he said and it logically follows if he was God He would preserve His revelation.
   *]The work of the Holy Spirit in my heart
   

   Not at all. I don’t depend on the inspiration of the Bible for determining the authority of the Church. If I take the Biblical books as historically accurate, along with the witness of the early church fathers, then I can determine the validity of the authority of the Catholic Church.

   Well, why can’t I do the same thing for determining the canon? If you don’t need an inspired Bible to trust it account of things why do you think I need an infallible church? Can’t I just take the witness of the church as historically accurate amongst the other things I mentioned above? However, this creates a problem for you, because you claim to need an infallible church unless you cannot be certain. Well, how do you know you have one? Since the bible is only historically accurate it could be wrong on some details and still be considered historically accurate. How do you know your church is infallible, because it says so? It could also be wrong on the canon. The same is true for tradition. Believe me, you are in no stronger position than I with this argument.
   

   It is not independent of the Bible, but it is not dependent on the inspiration of the Bible. So long as I give equal weight to the other historical books as I do to the Bible, then there’s no fallacy. Do you agree?

   There is no fallacy, but you lose your precious infallibility so we are in the same boat

 

[jemfinch]

You believe it because the church tells you so? But why do you believe the church knows, because it tells you so?

I’ve seen this argument several times (in here, from you and kaycee; in Real Life, from James White and from my dad). It’s like you’re trying to excise faith from the Christian experience. It’s a straw man that Protestants very often trot out against the Church, to emphasize that faith is still involved in the search for truth. But as Catholics, we proudly embrace the fact that faith cannot be removed from the search for truth, for without faith it is impossible to please God!

What we’re saying, however, is that our faith in the Church is an eminently more reasonable faith than your faith in Sola Scriptura. We’re saying that more evidence (biblical, historical, and logical) supports our faith in the Church than supports your faith in your own tradition of Sola Scriptura.

How do you know you have the right church?

Fundamentally, the same way that you “know” you have the right Bible: by faith supported by reason. But our knowledge that we have the right Church is, again, eminently more reasonable than your faith that you have the right Bible and the right interpretation thereof. Any number of reasons can be presented in defense of this claim, should you decide to investigate it.

Because it tells you so? If you rely on your own authority to come to this decision then you are in the same boat as I

In the end, we have to rely upon the resources God has given us, both external and internal. We’re not arguing a logical issue here: we’re arguing an epistemological issue. We’re not arguing merely whether your claims are logically coherent or whether your interpretation of the Bible is internally consistent, but whether they’re the ones most supported by the evidence (historical, biblical, and logical) that we have.

I believe it based on a number of reasons such as:

• Based on internal witness

As mentioned before, many other works claim to be inspired by God, but you reject those.

• Based on external witness
• Based on history( and yes, I even take the church fathers testimony into account )

The only external witness worth believing is one that actually has an external definition of truth and of the faith by which to discern between inspired books and uninspired books. If an external witness has no yardstick by which to determine whether a work is inspired, how can it be trusted? The only reason a Protestant should take into account the testimony of the Church Fathers when discerning what works are Scripture and what aren’t is that he implicitly accepts the claim of the Catholic Church that there does exist a Tradition which is not recorded in Scripture, against which written works may be compared and either accepted or rejected as inspired Scripture as is appropriate to their consistency with that Tradition.

• Based on the fact of Jesus Christ resurrection, which vindicated everything he said and it logically follows if he was God He would preserve His revelation.

It doesn’t “logically” follow, it “reasonably” follows, but that’s neither here nor there. What’s important is that it also follows in exactly the same way that God would preserve His Church as the bearer and proclaimer of His revelation, as the pillar and foundation of the truth, and as the City on a Hill that cannot be hidden.

• The work of the Holy Spirit in my heart

I can just as easily claim that the work of the Holy Spirit in my heart is what led me to the Catholic Church and away from the false teaching of Sola Scriptura. One of us is wrong, so your assuredness that it is the Holy Spirit that keeps you believing in Sola Scriptura is almost certainly misplaced.

Well, why can’t I do the same thing for determining the canon?

Because to determine the Canon by any means other than special revelation by the Holy Spirit, you need already to know the Gospel and the content of the deposit of faith in order to discern between inspired and uninspired books. Without that pre-existing knowledge, you cannot reasonably assert that any written work is Scripture.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

Yes, but how do you know who or what the Church is without the Bible?

Historical evidence and common sense alone can drastically narrow the field of groups we need to examine for “Churchiness.” Even were the Bible not to exist (God forbid!), I would be able to reject Protestantism on the basis of historical evidence alone: many of its fundamental theological tenets are innovations, and have no historical evidence prior the Reformation. Common sense tells me that if Christianity is worth believing, it must have “gotten things right” from the beginning: that the Reformation contradicted the faith as believed by Christians everywhere for almost 1,500 years clearly indicates to me that it is highly unlikely to be truth.

Don’t answer with Tradition, because the next question is how do you know what Tradition is without the Bible?

Our Church, as a living body, has existed since the time of Christ. Historical evidence confirms this fact. Even groups that are opposed to our Church in some way (for instance, the Orthodox or the Oriental Orthodox) will still confirm that our Church has a direct historical lineage to Christ Himself. Even without the Bible, history itself confirms that our Church at least fulfills what common sense tells us that the Church must be.

Seems like you have a tight circle yourself.

I’m fine with “circular” arguments. At some point, all arguments become circular in the face of skepticism. One of the most famous arguments against skeptiicism simply amounts to waving at your opponent and saying “Here is a hand.”

However, if I was discussing this with someone who didn’t believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures I wouldn’t make exactly the same argument. You make arguments based on shared premises by the one whom you are debating.

We’re willing to do that. We can argue from the Scriptures that Sola Scriptura is false. You can either be like the Thessalonians, and refuse to accept our argument, or you can be like the Bereans, and search the Scriptures and find out that it is so.

If it is so untenable I don’t understand why so many of you Catholics will not even offer a rational refutation of it.

Perhaps you should state more clearly what you mean by Sola Scriptura. Do you believe any of the following statements?

1. All revealed truth is contained in Scripture.
2. No authority exists outside of Scripture.
3. All authority is subject to Scripture.
4. There is no authoritative interpreter of Scripture.
5. Scripture is the only authoritative interpreter of Scripture.

I don’t want to argue against a strawman, so please, let me know what you mean when you say that you believe in Sola Scriptura (feel free to refer me by link to another post (not a thread, but a single post or set of posts within a thread; I don’t have time to read hundreds of posts looking for a needle in a haystack ), but without a clear explanation of what you hold, I can’t be sure that I’m not wasting my time arguing against a straw man.

Jeremy

 

[jacobaer]

Hi Sola Scriptura,

Thanks for responding. I will be back a little later as I don’t have time right now but just wanted to acknowledge you.

By the way, may I call you…Sola?

Peace,
Jacobaer

 

[joshua_b]

:bible1:John 1:1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Thank you, my friend. ( I thought that was it, but didn’t want to look like an idiot by citing it wrong)

I notice that none of our SS defenders want to comment on my post. I am curious as to why that is ( I certainly don’t consider myself exceptionally brilliant. Was it that my comments are so based in idiocy that they are not even worth entertaining ?)

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hi Sola Scriptura,

Thanks for responding. I will be back a little later as I don’t have time right now but just wanted to acknowledge you.

By the way, may I call you…Sola?

Peace,
Jacobaer

Hi Jacobaer,

LOL, yes feel free to call me Sola, actually that should have been my nick so that I can fill in the second word based on the discussion. You know Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide

 

[SolaScriptura]

I notice that none of our SS defenders want to comment on my post. I am curious as to why that is ( I certainly don’t consider myself exceptionally brilliant. Was it that my comments are so based in idiocy that they are not even worth entertaining ?)

Hi joshua_b,

There are a number of reasons I don’t answer some post. First of all, I can’t answer them all, because I’m clearly outnumbered. Second, if I started a discussion with someone I like to try and finish it, so the more people I’m currently talking to it is the less likely I will respond to another post. Third, it depends on how relevant the comment is to my particular discussion. Fourth, the length matters. If it is short or will only take a short answer I’m more likely to respond to it. So it says nothing about you in anyway that I didn’t respond to it.

Grace and Peace my friend,
S.S.

 

[SolaScriptura]

jemfinch:

Historical evidence and common sense alone can drastically narrow the field of groups we need to examine for “Churchiness.” Even were the Bible not to exist (God forbid!), I would be able to reject Protestantism on the basis of historical evidence alone: many of its fundamental theological tenets are innovations, and have no historical evidence prior the Reformation. Common sense tells me that if Christianity is worth believing, it must have “gotten things right” from the beginning: that the Reformation contradicted the faith as believed by Christians everywhere for almost 1,500 years clearly indicates to me that it is highly unlikely to be truth.

If the bible didn’t exist I would reject them all, because they are a mass of contradiction and all fallible. Can you tell me some of the Protesant fundamental theological tenets that are “innovations and have no historical evidence prior to the Reformation”? I often find some novice Catholic reads a Catholic website and start making all these grand claims. Lets see if that is the case for you or if you can provide some goods.

jemfinch:

Sola Scriptura:

Don’t answer with Tradition, because the next question is how do you know what Tradition is without the Bible?

Our Church, as a living body, has existed since the time of Christ. Historical evidence confirms this fact. Even groups that are opposed to our Church in some way (for instance, the Orthodox or the Oriental Orthodox) will still confirm that our Church has a direct historical lineage to Christ Himself. Even without the Bible, history itself confirms that our Church at least fulfills what common sense tells us that the Church must be.

I didn’t ask you all that. I asked how do you know what Tradition is without the Bible?
jemfench:

I’m fine with “circular” arguments. At some point, all arguments become circular in the face of skepticism. One of the most famous arguments against skeptiicism simply amounts to waving at your opponent and saying “Here is a hand.”

Wow, that is deep . OK, all you Catholics that were chiding me for begging the question (i.e. circular argument) hear is a fellow Catholic that claims you are just as circular.

jemfinch:

Sola Scriptura:

However, if I was discussing this with someone who didn’t believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures I wouldn’t make exactly the same argument. You make arguments based on shared premises by the one whom you are debating.

We’re willing to do that. We can argue from the Scriptures that Sola Scriptura is false. You can either be like the Thessalonians, and refuse to accept our argument, or you can be like the Bereans, and search the Scriptures and find out that it is so.

LOL!!! If your arguments are a good as the rhetoric you will be a force to be reckon with.

jemfinch:

Sola Scriptura:

If it is so untenable I don’t understand why so many of you Catholics will not even offer a rational refutation of it. Perhaps you should state more clearly what you mean by Sola Scriptura. Do you believe any of the following statements?

1. All revealed truth is contained in Scripture.
2. No authority exists outside of Scripture.
3. All authority is subject to Scripture.
4. There is no authoritative interpreter of Scripture.
5. Scripture is the only authoritative interpreter of Scripture.

I don’t want to argue against a strawman, so please, let me know what you mean when you say that you believe in Sola Scriptura (feel free to refer me by link to another post (not a thread, but a single post or set of posts within a thread; I don’t have time to read hundreds of posts looking for a needle in a haystack ), but without a clear explanation of what you hold, I can’t be sure that I’m not wasting my time arguing against a straw man

Very good. Actually I wouldn’t accept any of those above as a valid definition of sola Scriptura. Let me tell you why for each one, because it may help to bring some clarity to the discussion, before I give you definition.

1. There was other revealed truth that was given that is not in Scripture. The Apostle John himself said so.
2. The Sciptures themselves speaks of other authorities. Parents and the government are examples.
3. All authority is not subject to Scripture, because Scripture has an equal authority, and that would the God and His word.
4. Elders are authoritative interpreters of Scripture, but that doesn’t make them infallible.
5. False as demonstrated by #4

Now here is a definition of sola Scriptura we can discuss.

Scripture, being the Word of God, is the highest authority and only infallible rule of faith in the possession of the church today.

 

[jemfinch]

If the bible didn’t exist I would reject them all, because they are a mass of contradiction and all fallible.

They certainly do contradict each other, that’s for sure. But fallible? It seems that you accept this as axiomatic. I can’t argue with your axioms.

Can you tell me some of the Protesant fundamental theological tenets that are “innovations and have no historical evidence prior to the Reformation”?

Sure. Sola Scriptura. Sola Fide would be another good one. I’ve seen the Protestant “historical evidence” that the Early Church Fathers held these viewpoints, but their statements and quotations have usually been mistranslated or taken out of context (as is evinced by even clearer, even simpler statements made by the same Fathers in support of Catholic teaching.

I didn’t ask you all that.

You also didn’t read “all that,” apparently.

I asked how do you know what Tradition is without the Bible?

And as I answered before, history attests to the existence of Christian Tradition. The Bible did not inform me of the existence of Christian Tradition; the Bible is a Christian Tradition.

Wow, that is deep . OK, all you Catholics that were chiding me for begging the question (i.e. circular argument) hear is a fellow Catholic that claims you are just as circular.

Don’t twist and distort my words like you do the Scriptures I didn’t say our arguments were “just as circular” – I said that, in the end, all arguments become circular in the face of common skeptical claims. The difference between our circular arguments and ours is that our circles are larger because integrate a lot more evidence in their support.

Very good. Actually I wouldn’t accept any of those above as a valid definition of sola Scriptura.

Good!

1. The Sciptures themselves speaks of other authorities. Parents and the government are examples.

Don’t forget the Church and its leaders, the former clearly being referred to as an authority in 1 Corinthians and the latter clearly being referred to as an authority in Hebrews 13.

1. All authority is not subject to Scripture, because Scripture has an equal authority, and that would the God and His word.

So would you agree with the statement, “All authority but God Himself (in any of His three persons) is subject to the authority of Scripture”?

1. Elders are authoritative interpreters of Scripture, but that doesn’t make them infallible.

How do elders excercise this authority? If they truly do interpret Scripture authoritatively, then by definition other Christians must conform their interpretation of Scripture to the authoritative interpretation of their elders. If this is not so, then the elders aren’t truly interpreting the Scriptures authoritatively. So what happens when an elder authoritatively interprets Scripture incorrectly and his flock is bound by his authority to interpret Scripture in a way that preserves his error?

Notably, the Catholic Church teaches that the bishops of the Church are not individually infallible interpreters of Scripture, either.

Now here is a definition of sola Scriptura we can discuss.

Before we discuss this, I’d like you to respond to both of my posts, rather than just this later one. I believe that I raised some issues in my first post that ought to be addressed before we move on.

Scripture, being the Word of God, is the highest authority and only infallible rule of faith in the possession of the church today.

Just a couple questions for you to ponder while you read and respond to my first post:

1. I see men and women wielding authority every day, but I’ve never seen a book or a scroll wield any authority. If I were arrested by a police officer, it would not be the law by which I was arrest that was wielding the authority; it would be the police officer. If I were convicted of a crime, it would not be the law by which I were convicted that was wielding the authority, but the court in which I was tried. In my experience, written words do not seem to possess any authority, only the enforcers and interpreters thereof. So how can a book, even a God-breathed infallible one, have actual authority?
2. Every natural language is grammatically ambiguous. On top of that, words in natural languages often have wildly varying meanings; the ambiguity arising from these various meanings cannot, in many circumstances, be discerned from the textual context. Even further, the meanings of words can be modified by the connotation or intention of the author, in degree, in forcefulness, and along a number of other axes. Given all this ambiguity in the meaning of any sufficiently long natural language work, what practical use has an infallible book when there are no infallible interpreters of that book?

Looking forward to your responses,
Jeremy