Protestant Christians: Any problem with sola scriptura?

[rcwitness]

My FRIEND,

I have not the slightest idea of what you’re point here is.

I did however notice that you did not answer my question directly. [NOT necessary that you do so]

BUT I would like to better understand what you’re trying to point out to me

My opinion is (as PRmerger articulated once) that when Protestants give the veneration of Scriptures as being the Word of God, they tacitly give submission to the Infallibility of the Catholic Church for Confirming the Canon of Scripture.

This Infallible Confirmation of the Canon and the belief that all Scripture is free of error comes from God and given through the Church, and not Scripture itself. Though Scripture supports it. Scripture and divine Teaching authority come from the same Spirit.

I believe the Scripture is the Written Word, and the Eucharist is no less the Word. Both are from above.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel, thank you for that detailed post.

the woman at the well explanation was fascinating.

Let me ask you your interpretation of Revelation 12:2?

Birth pains are the result of original sin

So how do we as Catholics reconcile this since our Lady has no original sin?

I do think this passage is referring to her, also the ending of chapter 11 describes the Ark of the covenant which is her. But I think it’s also likely describing either Israel or the Church as well. But the birth pains seems to be a somewhat valid protestant rebuttal.

What say you?

God bless you.

Lenten, I am so delighted to share with you, I could write a book on the subject of Mary. So I will try very hard to keep my post short.

Revelations is our Mass Liturgy in Cosmic view. We are dealing with an Apocrypha and Eschatological sense of scripture. In short Revelations directly reflects the past, present and future all at once in each substance of scripture thus the Mass in liturgy.

Romans 8:22, Galatians 4:19 gives us an introduction in regards to birth pains that are reflective to Revelations. Israel suffers birth pain to give birth to the Messiah, When Mother Church suffers birth pains for all Christians to be baptized, while the Mother (Mary) suffers birth pains for all her offspring who give witness of her son Jesus Christ who come under attack by the serpent, She prays and intercedes for us to her Son in heaven.

Scripture does not contradict itself. Mary does not suffer her birth pains, until after she gives birth, which is a prophetic fulfillment of Isaiah. Mary is without original sin because know one ever heard of a woman giving birth to a male child before the birth pains come upon her.

Mary suffered her birth pains during Jesus passion, at the foot of the cross and crucifixion death of her Son. Make no bones about it, Mary suffered birth pains. But not according to original sin when a woman suffers pain before giving birth. Mary suffered birth pains after she safely (miraculously) delivers a male child.

Thus Isaiah confirmed Mary is without original sin; “before she is in labor she gives birth…who ever heard of such a thing or who ever saw the like?” Then, God speaks and confirms that God has done this. Please read the prophecy below, when God say’s that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth, because the Lord closed her womb after she gave birth to Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7* Before she is in labor,
she gives birth;
Before her pangs come upon her,
she delivers a male child.
8Who ever heard of such a thing,
or who ever saw the like?..
9Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth,
and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD.
Or shall I who bring to birth
yet close her womb? says your God.
10* Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her,
all you who love her;
Rejoice with her in her joy,

We Catholics take all of scripture in content when dealing with an Apostolic Doctrine and faith. We do not have the liberty as Sola Scripturalist do to take scripture out of it’s original context, reveal God’s divine revelation which does not conflict with any of scripture.

I Have much more to say of these mysteries.
Read Revelations 12 (all) again after you read Isaiah’s prophecy, and see the light:thumbsup: I hope this helps your faith walk in the Immaculate Conception.

God love’s you

Gabriel of 12

 

[alwayswill]

My opinion is (as PRmerger articulated once) that when Protestants give the veneration of Scriptures as being the Word of God, they tacitly give submission to the Infallibility of the Catholic Church for Confirming the Canon of Scripture.

This Infallible Confirmation of the Canon and the belief that all Scripture is free of error comes from God and given through the Church, and not Scripture itself. Though Scripture supports it. Scripture and divine Teaching authority come from the same Spirit.

But that is not the the view of SS practicing Christians

RC Sproul’s view summarized hre:
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/sproul-bible-is-fallible-collection-of.html

ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW: The Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books.

PROTESTANT VIEW: The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.

The distinction in view here refers to the Catholic Church’s conviction that the Canon of Scripture was declared infallibly by the church. On the other hand, the Protestant view is that the church’s decision regarding what books make up the Canon was a fallible decision. Being fallible means that it is possible that the church erred in its compilation of the books found in the present Canon of Scripture.

Another’s view here:
reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/01/why-i-believe-the-canon-is-fallible-and-am-fine-with-it/
“Why I Believe the Canon is Fallible . . . And am Fine with It!”​

Note: I am not asking any Catholic to agree with the above: just letting you know the view of many SS practicing Christians.(including myself)

Also , as James White points out in a discussion of SS
"And, finally, sola scriptura **is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
**

I believe the Scripture is the Written Word, and the Eucharist is no less the Word. Both are from above.

Unfortunately the English language is not a precise as the Greek.
graphe theopneustos is not the same as Logos
but yes graphe theopneustos and Logos are both from above

 

[rcwitness]

But that is not the the view of SS practicing Christians

RC Sproul’s view summarized hre:
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/sproul-bible-is-fallible-collection-of.html

ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW: The Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books.

PROTESTANT VIEW: The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.

The distinction in view here refers to the Catholic Church’s conviction that the Canon of Scripture was declared infallibly by the church. On the other hand, the Protestant view is that the church’s decision regarding what books make up the Canon was a fallible decision. Being fallible means that it is possible that the church erred in its compilation of the books found in the present Canon of Scripture.

Another’s view here:
reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/01/why-i-believe-the-canon-is-fallible-and-am-fine-with-it/
“Why I Believe the Canon is Fallible . . . And am Fine with It!”​

Note: I am not asking any Catholic to agree with the above: just letting you know the view of many SS practicing Christians.(including myself)

Also , as James White points out in a discussion of SS
"And, finally, sola scriptura **is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
**

Unfortunately the English language is not a precise as the Greek.
graphe theopneustos is not the same as Logos
but yes graphe theopneustos and Logos are both from above

I thought you said that you believe the Church got it right? And you thought the Church got the Canon right because God is Sovereign? And if the Bible is the Rule of faith for us, how can it not be Confirmed by God to be absolutely complete?


Is the doctrine of SS confirmed by all protestant Christians, or does everybody have an equal right to define it???

 

[guanophore]

But that is not the  the view of SS practicing Christians

RC Sproul’s view summarized hre:
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/sproul-bible-is-fallible-collection-of.html

ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW: The Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books.

PROTESTANT VIEW: The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.

I would be very cautious of anything involving RC Sproul, as he is a virulant anti-Catholic and frequently misrepresents what the CC teaches. Above is an example. The Church teaches that the gift of infallibility was given to the Church, and is exercised by persons, to lead the Lord’s Church into all Truth.

The CC teaches that the Scriptures are inspired, and inerrant.

Still one has to wonder, if Bible Christians admit their collection of books is fallible, how can any of it be reliable? Cannot anyone come along, like Luther did, assert that some of the books should not be in the canon, and begin a controversy?

The distinction in view here refers to the Catholic Church’s conviction that the Canon of Scripture was declared infallibly by the church. On the other hand, the Protestant view is that the church’s decision regarding what books make up the Canon was a fallible decision. Being fallible means that it is possible that the church erred in its compilation of the books found in the present Canon of Scripture.

So how can you trust that the contents are accurate? The Bible did not come with a table of contents. Many of the books do not identify themselves as Scripture.

Come to that, how can you trust Jesus to guide the Church into all Truth, if you can’t trust that He preserved the Church from error in developing the canon?

Besides, I know many SS Christians who will concede that the “Catholic Church got it right that time” and that God did preserve the Church from error in the development of the canon.

I think Sproul is afraid to take this position because it undermines the assumption that the church had already gone off the rails.

Another's view here:

reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/01/why-i-believe-the-canon-is-fallible-and-am-fine-with-it/
“Why I Believe the Canon is Fallible . . . And am Fine with It!”​

Note: I am not asking any Catholic to agree with the above: just letting you know the view of many SS practicing Christians.(including myself)

Also , as James White points out in a discussion of SS
"And, finally, sola scriptura **is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
**

So, my question would be, how does the HS guide and enlighten the Church? If He did not do this with the canon of Scripture, how does the modern Christian have any faith that can be dependable, based on a Bible that is not?

And one of the most disressing points, the doctrine of SS is not found in Scripture. It is an extrabiblical doctrine about how the bible should be used.

 

[guanophore]

I thought you said that you believe the Church got it right? And you thought the Church got the Canon right because God is Sovereign? And if the Bible is the Rule of faith for us, how can it not be Confirmed by God to be absolutely complete?

She did say that!

Is the doctrine of SS confirmed by all protestant Christians, or does everybody have an equal right to define it???

I think she has demonstrated that the latter is the case, with the quotes from beggarsall.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Lenten, I am so delighted to share with you, I could write a book on the subject of Mary. So I will try very hard to keep my post short.

Revelations is our Mass Liturgy in Cosmic view. We are dealing with an Apocrypha and Eschatological sense of scripture. In short Revelations directly reflects the past, present and future all at once in each substance of scripture thus the Mass in liturgy.

Romans 8:22, Galatians 4:19 gives us an introduction in regards to birth pains that are reflective to Revelations. Israel suffers birth pain to give birth to the Messiah, When Mother Church suffers birth pains for all Christians to be baptized, while the Mother (Mary) suffers birth pains for all her offspring who give witness of her son Jesus Christ who come under attack by the serpent, She prays and intercedes for us to her Son in heaven.

Scripture does not contradict itself. Mary does not suffer her birth pains, until after she gives birth, which is a prophetic fulfillment of Isaiah. Mary is without original sin because know one ever heard of a woman giving birth to a male child before the birth pains come upon her.

Mary suffered her birth pains during Jesus passion, at the foot of the cross and crucifixion death of her Son. Make no bones about it, Mary suffered birth pains. But not according to original sin when a woman suffers pain before giving birth. Mary suffered birth pains after she safely (miraculously) delivers a male child.

Thus Isaiah confirmed Mary is without original sin; “before she is in labor she gives birth…who ever heard of such a thing or who ever saw the like?” Then, God speaks and confirms that God has done this. Please read the prophecy below, when God say’s that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth, because the Lord closed her womb after she gave birth to Jesus.

Isaiah 66:7* Before she is in labor,
she gives birth;
Before her pangs come upon her,
she delivers a male child.
8Who ever heard of such a thing,
or who ever saw the like?..
9Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth,
and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD.
Or shall I who bring to birth
yet close her womb? says your God.
10* Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her,
all you who love her;
Rejoice with her in her joy,

We Catholics take all of scripture in content when dealing with an Apostolic Doctrine and faith. We do not have the liberty as Sola Scripturalist do to take scripture out of it’s original context, reveal God’s divine revelation which does not conflict with any of scripture.

I Have much more to say of these mysteries.
Read Revelations 12 (all) again after you read Isaiah’s prophecy, and see the light:thumbsup: I hope this helps your faith walk in the Immaculate Conception.

God love’s you

Gabriel of 12

Gabriel, this is a fantastic explanation.

And it makes sense!

Corresponds with Luke 2:35

I just read that the Church fathers did, in fact, consider that passage from Isaiah to be fulfilled with the blessed Mother.

This is very helpful. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

 

[alwayswill]

I thought you said that you believe the Church got it right? And you thought the Church got the Canon right because God is Sovereign? And if the Bible is the Rule of faith for us, how can it not be Confirmed by God to be absolutely complete?


Is the doctrine of SS confirmed by all protestant Christians, or does everybody have an equal right to define it???

maybe we are using different meanings of words;

infallible means incapable of error (impossible to be wrong)
inerrant mean that it has no error (it is correct)

by definition: every thing that is infallible (impossible to be wrong) would also be inerrant.(correct)
but not everything that is inerrant is also infallible

for example: my Calculus test answers could be without error: but that does not mean it was impossible to be in error:

I hope that explains it

 

[alwayswill]

I would be very cautious of anything involving RC Sproul, as he is a virulant anti-Catholic and frequently misrepresents what the CC teaches. Above is an example. The Church teaches that the gift of infallibility was given to the Church, and is exercised by persons, to lead the Lord’s Church into all Truth.

The CC teaches that the Scriptures are inspired, and inerrant.

Still one has to wonder, if Bible Christians admit their collection of books is fallible, how can any of it be reliable? Cannot anyone come along, like Luther did, assert that some of the books should not be in the canon, and begin a controversy?

So how can you trust that the contents are accurate? The Bible did not come with a table of contents. Many of the books do not identify themselves as Scripture.

Come to that, how can you trust Jesus to guide the Church into all Truth, if you can’t trust that He preserved the Church from error in developing the canon?

Besides, I know many SS Christians who will concede that the “Catholic Church got it right that time” and that God did preserve the Church from error in the development of the canon.

I think Sproul is afraid to take this position because it undermines the assumption that the church had already gone off the rails.

So, my question would be, how does the HS guide and enlighten the Church? If He did not do this with the canon of Scripture, how does the modern Christian have any faith that can be dependable, based on a Bible that is not?

And one of the most disressing points, the doctrine of SS is not found in Scripture. It is an extrabiblical doctrine about how the bible should be used.

Most of your question are addressed here
:reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/01/why-i-believe-the-canon-is-fallible-and-am-fine-with-it/

re: RC Sproul

Unsound Sticks, or, Arguments Catholics Shouldn’t Use
freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2243954/posts

1. Avoid the term “anti-Catholic.” The term is ill-defined. If it refers to a form of bigotry or prejudice then it could only be applied to individual Protestants (or other non-Catholics) on a case by case basis, and that only after they had exhibited a demonstrable pattern of bad faith. If, on the other hand, it refers to theological opposition to Catholicism, then it ought not to be used as a term of disdain. For Catholics are theologically opposed to Protestantism. Indeed, according to Dominus Iesus, Protestant “churches” are not, properly speaking, churches.
   The distinctives of Protestant theology are heresy, and the Council of Trent has pronounced anathema upon them.** If, then, Protestants who believe Catholicism to be heretical are anti-Catholic, by the same standard Catholics who believe Protestantism to be heretical are anti-Protestant.**"

If I thought the the Catholic Church was infallible then I would be Catholic

 

[rcwitness]

maybe we are using different meanings of words;

infallible means incapable of error (impossible to be wrong)
inerrant mean that it has no error (it is correct)

by definition: every thing that is infallible (impossible to be wrong) would also be inerrant.(correct)
but not everything that is inerrant is also infallible

for example: my Calculus test answers could be without error: but that does not mean it was impossible to be in error:

I hope that explains it

Yes, thanks.

But still confused. This means God left His Rule up to chance. And the Church happened to be fortunate in Confirming the Canon. Yet, it’s possible she actually wasn’t fortunate, and we are all confident in a wrong Canon, and so attributing God’s Word to men and men to God’s Word.

It’s a bit like buying a brick fortress and placing it on sand.

We do not attribute Infallibility to men, but to God through His Stewardship. Does the student receive the test results, and have confidence the Teacher judged Infallibly, or could the score still be wrong?

 

[alwayswill]

Yes, thanks.

But still confused. This means God left His Rule up to chance. And the Church happened to be fortunate in Confirming the Canon. Yet, it’s possible she actually wasn’t fortunate, and we are all confident in a wrong Canon, and so attributing God’s Word to men and men to God’s Word.

It’s a bit like buying a brick fortress and placing it on sand.

We do not attribute Infallibility to men, but to God through His Stewardship. Does the student receive the test results, and have confidence the Teacher judged Infallibly, or could the score still be wrong?

I don’t believe in chance:
Lightning bolt : sparrow falling form the sky; Josuha going to Egypt, the time and place of our birth.
No chance involved

 

[rcwitness]

I don’t believe in chance:
Lightning bolt : sparrow falling form the sky; Josuha going to Egypt, the time and place of our birth.
No chance involved

Ok. I guess you use the language of “Sovereign” and we “Magisterial Infallibility”.

I think they overlap, and we can use Scripture to support Infallibility, while in order for Scripture to support SS, Scripture first has to be guaranteed/Confirmed and so Canonized. Not to mention, explicit found within Scripture. Seems like two hurdles one has to make to accept SS.

 

[guanophore]

maybe we are using different  meanings  of words;

infallible means incapable of error (impossible to be wrong)
inerrant mean that it has no error (it is correct)

Yes. You are using a slightly different definition of what the CC uses. In the CC, the term infallible is applied to the actions of people, and the product (the teaching that results). Infallibity requires the possiblity of action, which is only possible with persons who have a will, not documents, however Holy. Scripture does not act of itself, so is not infallibile in the sense that people are when they are penning it.

by definition:  every thing that is  infallible (impossible to be wrong) would also be  inerrant.(correct)

but not everything that is inerrant is also infallible

I think we would agree that the Holy Spirit preserved the writers of Scripture from error while they were writing (making them infallible in the act) and that the product is inerrant.

I am not sure I understand the second part. Can you give an example?

   for example: my Calculus test answers could be without error: but that does not mean it was impossible to be in error:

I hope that explains it

Not quite, because we could say that you were infallible in your responses (as they were all correct). The very reason that the church needs the gift of infallibility is BECAUSE people are capable of error. The only way that we can be infallible is by the grace of God, preventing the error.

I hope you are not erroneously equating infallibility with impeccbility.

 

[guanophore]

Most of your question are addressed here

:reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/01/why-i-believe-the-canon-is-fallible-and-am-fine-with-it/ re: RC Sproul

Unsound Sticks, or, Arguments Catholics Shouldn’t Use
freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2243954/posts

Yes, but that does not mean I agree with them.

Perhaps, by your response, you are saying that you do, which I can accept. I just wrote that for others who are reading the thread so that they can consider the source.

2. Avoid the term "anti-Catholic." The term is ill-defined. If it refers to a form of bigotry or prejudice then it could only be applied to individual Protestants (or other non-Catholics) on a case by case basis, and that only after they had exhibited a demonstrable pattern of bad faith.

Anti-Catholic can be accurately applied to persons as well as institutions that espouse such bigotry and prejudice. I have studied Sproul for many years (and still read commentaries from time to time) and I would not describe him as a person of “bad faith”. His faith is not the same as mine, but he seems perfectly sincere to me. He has arrived at his anticatholic bias in the same way that I abandoned mine.

If, on the other hand, it refers to theological opposition to Catholicism, then it ought not to be used as a term of disdain. For Catholics are theologically opposed to Protestantism. Indeed, according to Dominus Iesus, Protestant “churches” are not, properly speaking, churches.

I agree that it need not be used as a term of disdain. It is a descriptor, just like most of peoples affiiliations on their posts here at CAF. You describe yourself as “Protestant”, but I do not think it is disdainful.

The distinctives of Protestant theology are heresy, and the Council of Trent has pronounced anathema upon them.** If, then, Protestants who believe Catholicism to be heretical are anti-Catholic, by the same standard Catholics who believe Protestantism to be heretical are anti-Protestant.**"

Yes. Sproul espouses theological distinctives that are considered heresies, and some of them are anti-Cahtolic. The problem is that the Scriptures tell us there are to BE NO doctrinal distinctives. I would think this should be a problem for those who espouse SS as well as it is for Catholics.

If I thought the the Catholic Church was infallible then I would be Catholic

That is a hopeful state of affairs! It means that when you have a proper understanding of this gift, you will be able to come home!

I don’t believe in chance:
Lightning bolt : sparrow falling form the sky; Josuha going to Egypt, the time and place of our birth.
No chance involved

I agree. No coincidences, just Godincidences!

So what will it be for you? Did God work through the Church to prevent error in forming the canon by His sovereignty, or did they produce a potentially fallible collection?

 

[guanophore]

Ok. I guess you use the language of “Sovereign” and we “Magisterial Infallibility”.

I think they overlap, and we can use Scripture to support Infallibility, while in order for Scripture to support SS, Scripture first has to be guaranteed/Confirmed and so Canonized. Not to mention, explicit found within Scripture. Seems like two hurdles one has to make to accept SS.

I agree. How does a Christian defend a practice invented by men 1500 years after Jesus founded His Church that is not found in Scripture?

 

[alwayswill]

Yes. You are using a slightly different definition of what the CC uses. In the CC, the term infallible is applied to the actions of people, and the product (the teaching that results). Infallibity requires the possiblity of action, which is only possible with persons who have a will, not documents, however Holy. Scripture does not act of itself, so is not infallibile in the sense that people are when they are penning it.

I think we would agree that the Holy Spirit preserved the writers of Scripture from error while they were writing (making them infallible in the act) and that the product is inerrant.

I am not sure I understand the second part. Can you give an example?

Not quite, because we could say that you were infallible in your responses (as they were all correct). The very reason that the church needs the gift of infallibility is BECAUSE people are capable of error. The only way that we can be infallible is by the grace of God, preventing the error.

I hope you are not erroneously equating infallibility with impeccbility.

nope: not erroneously equating infallibility with impeccbility

I tend to be using the definitions of infallible (incapable of error) and inerrant (contains no error) as found on nearly every dictionary websites.

I’ll try to be more aware that may not be the definitions Catholics are using.

 

[alwayswill]

bolded by aw

So what will it be for you? Did God work through the Church to prevent error in forming the canon by His sovereignty, or did they produce a potentially fallible collection?

if God worked through the Church then we have the Canon God allowed.

“If they produced” then it was potentially fallible .

so you tell me:

Who or what is the ultimate infallible former of the Canon?
Was it a “God work” or a “they produce”?

 

[thenobes]

nope: not erroneously equating infallibility with impeccbility

I tend to be using the definitions of infallible (incapable of error) and inerrant (contains no error) as found on nearly every dictionary websites.

I’ll try to be more aware that may not be the definitions Catholics are using.

“incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.”

Nothing is wrong with the dictionary definition. Being “capable” implies use of an ability. Use implies action. Books have no action.

Now if you are saying that the Holy Spirit infallibly conveys to you the meaning of scripture when you read it, well that is an acceptable use if infallible.

peace
steve

 

[simspt]

But that is not the the view of SS practicing Christians

RC Sproul’s view summarized hre:
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/sproul-bible-is-fallible-collection-of.html

ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW: The Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books.

PROTESTANT VIEW: The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.

The distinction in view here refers to the Catholic Church’s conviction that the Canon of Scripture was declared infallibly by the church. On the other hand, the Protestant view is that the church’s decision regarding what books make up the Canon was a fallible decision. Being fallible means that it is possible that the church erred in its compilation of the books found in the present Canon of Scripture.

Another’s view here:
reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/01/why-i-believe-the-canon-is-fallible-and-am-fine-with-it/
“Why I Believe the Canon is Fallible . . . And am Fine with It!”​

Note: I am not asking any Catholic to agree with the above: just letting you know the view of many SS practicing Christians.(including myself)

Also , as James White points out in a discussion of SS
"And, finally, sola scriptura **is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
**

Unfortunately the English language is not a precise as the Greek.
graphe theopneustos is not the same as Logos
but yes graphe theopneustos and Logos are both from above

If you believe the canon might be wrong then if God would allow that why wouldn’t he allow for errors to creep into the texts themselves as well? If inerrancy is so important then why wouldn’t the selection of texts themselves be as important regarding potential mistakes? And why wouldn’t doctrinal errors based on interpretations of those texts also be just as important? Logically the arguments white and Sproul use are cherry picked. If you start A priori with views of inerrancy then why not the canon?? Simple, because it doesn’t fit their SS presumptions or framework.

 

[simspt]

But that is not the the view of SS practicing Christians

RC Sproul’s view summarized hre:
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/sproul-bible-is-fallible-collection-of.html

ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW: The Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books.

PROTESTANT VIEW: The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books.

The distinction in view here refers to the Catholic Church’s conviction that the Canon of Scripture was declared infallibly by the church. On the other hand, the Protestant view is that the church’s decision regarding what books make up the Canon was a fallible decision. Being fallible means that it is possible that the church erred in its compilation of the books found in the present Canon of Scripture.

Another’s view here:
reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/01/why-i-believe-the-canon-is-fallible-and-am-fine-with-it/
“Why I Believe the Canon is Fallible . . . And am Fine with It!”​

Note: I am not asking any Catholic to agree with the above: just letting you know the view of many SS practicing Christians.(including myself)

Also , as James White points out in a discussion of SS
"And, finally, sola scriptura **is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
**

Unfortunately the English language is not a precise as the Greek.
graphe theopneustos is not the same as Logos
but yes graphe theopneustos and Logos are both from above

In the article you linked this stood out to me
“I recognize the Christian Church received the Canon. It does not though, create the Canon…”
Of course the Church created the canon by the very process of authoritatively deciding which books it would recognize as authoritative based on its own criteria eg orthodoxy, apostolicity, catholicity eg it decided to use in response to heresy.

Does that prove the process was infallible, of course not no more than you can prove one theory over another with different views of inspiration eg inerrancy…

But to say the church just “recognized” the canon as if the NT texts existed before the Church as well as the canon is very misleading and intentionally diverts attention away from the role the Church.

Protestants like white and sproul are stuck having to tacitly acknowledge the authority of the same Church that gave them their NT that also held to so many doctrines they disagree with today. Why should they have any confidence in Church that they claim go it so wrong on so many doctrines during the first 5 centuries of Christianity but got it right on the canon???

The Church did not “create” the “inspiration” of the texts by selecting them, they were inspired the moment their authors penned them, both Protestants and Catholics agree on that but role it played in recognizing and writing them is arbitrarily watered down by Protestants for the sake of a priori views of SS.