tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4091980.post112024322944855651..comments2023-08-20T08:41:51.527-05:00Comments on At Home He's a Tourist: Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4091980.post-1121052113001571722005-07-10T22:21:00.000-05:002005-07-10T22:21:00.000-05:00Wow, a comment!Just to clarify: it's not textual c...Wow, a comment!<BR/><BR/>Just to clarify: it's not textual criticism that I think is inconsistent with <I>sola scriptura</I>, it's the fact that the New Testament writers don't seem to follow the principle. Here are some Jewish traditions that the NT writers adopt, according to Enns:<BR/><BR/>--"Jannes and Jambres" as names of Pharaoh's magicians (2 Tim 3:8).<BR/>--The description of Noah as a "preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5).<BR/>--The claim that angels disputed over Moses' body (Jude 9).<BR/>--The claim that God gave the Law through the intermediary of angels (Gal. 3:19; Acts 7:52-53; Heb. 2: 2-3).<BR/><BR/>I guess a Protestant could say that, being inspired, the NT writers could discern which extrabiblical traditions were valid, an ability denied the post-apostolic church.<BR/><BR/>Pablo will set us straight, though, right?Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13463900697710872788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4091980.post-1121046860781042122005-07-10T20:54:00.000-05:002005-07-10T20:54:00.000-05:00Your last paragraph seems to assume that "sola scr...Your last paragraph seems to assume that "sola scriptura" (1) is the same thing as Biblical literalism, and (2) precludes historical analysis or criticism. <BR/><BR/>I was under the impression that the Protestant reformers who emphasised "scripture only" were trying to rid Christianity of extra-scriptural dogmas and pronouncements issued (or invented) by the Roman church in the middle ages and Renaissance, and wished instead to base their beliefs on the original source-text as closely as they could determine it. <BR/><BR/>Thus it seems to me that a sincere "sola-scripturalist" has more reason than anyone else to rigorously study the textual history of the Bible, wheras someone who believes in continuing institutional revelation has little reason to do so. After all, if scriptures are to be supplanted by whatever the head of the church says today or tomorrow, why bother determining what they said in the first place, or how they came to be in their current form?Felixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02972873626450562217noreply@blogger.com