Quote:
Originally Posted by crhoades  Your friend shouldn't adopt solo scriptura and treat it like sola scriptura. I would argue that a thomistic natural theology would more likely lead you to Rome - at least that's what Van Til argued in nearly every book.
Get this book. Check out the TOC. It's backed up exegetically and confessionally.
edit: as a second thought. Your friend would've spent better time instead of going around asking everyone "By What Standard" and sat down and read the Institutes. |
He's read Rushdoony's Institutes...do you mean those or Calvin's? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding sola scriptura...his question seems valid. Whether or not we believe the proper understanding of Scripture comes through the church/preaching, the argument still remains that we don't claim infallability, and there are a dozen other denoms that hold sola scriptura, but have drastically different doctrine.
I don't buy into Romanism, but I'm trying to see if there is a good argument to debunk their claims to authority.
Have you read that book, btw? Does anything stick out from that book, that you can remember, that would apply here?
Thanks.