To my fellow-Protestants,
If you continue to say asinine things like "The Bible alone is the only authority" or "The Bible alone is the only source of knowledge," any Anchorite epologists will eat you alive.
To my Anchorite Friends,
You probably think that sola scriptura means "The Bible alone." If you converted from Protestantism to Anchoritism, you likely didn't have a good grounding in historic Reformed dogmatics (you probably didn't read Muller or Bavinck's Prolegomena; you probably reduced the Reformed faith to the Five Points). However, to be fair to you, your Protestant interlocutors are likely making the same mistake.
Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the principium cognoscendi. It is our external cognitive foundation for theological knowledge. It is the final authority of theological knowledge. If it is the final authority for theological knowledge, that necessarily implies lesser sources of knowledge. This means Protestants cheerfully welcome lesser warrants of belief: traditions, liturgy, lives of the saints (Hebrews 13:7), general revelation, and (and here is where I get in trouble), words of wisdom.
If the Bible is the only source of theological knowledge, then it can't be a judge of theological knowledge (obviously, since any other knowledge is necessarily wrong).
Someone could respond, "Yeah, but it's your interpretation of the Bible that is the final judge of knowledge, which means you think you are the final judge." That sounds like an impressive rebuttal, but it's not. As Bavinck pointed out, this person confuses the organ of knowing with the source and standard of knowing.
(1) Yes, I am using my own reason and judgment. I would be a fool not to.
Everyone, including the Anchorite, uses his reason to evaluate claims. But I know my reason is prone to error.
(2) Since fallible, my reason is open to correction from other cognitive sources (tradition, alternative interpretations, natural revelation).
Someone could object, "But that's making everything subjective. How is this not relativism?" I refer to the aforementioned confusion of organ and source.
(3) Any type of reasoning which sees reason as an organ of knowing will be subjective.
(3') The organ of knowing is within the knowing subject.
Is this a vicious relativism? We see that charge but no reason to think so.
(3*) The organ of knowledge is within the knowing subject. The source of knowledge is external to it.
Case study for Eastern Orthodox. Vincent of Lerins said the church has always taught the imputation of Adam's guilt. Have fun with that one.
If you continue to say asinine things like "The Bible alone is the only authority" or "The Bible alone is the only source of knowledge," any Anchorite epologists will eat you alive.
To my Anchorite Friends,
You probably think that sola scriptura means "The Bible alone." If you converted from Protestantism to Anchoritism, you likely didn't have a good grounding in historic Reformed dogmatics (you probably didn't read Muller or Bavinck's Prolegomena; you probably reduced the Reformed faith to the Five Points). However, to be fair to you, your Protestant interlocutors are likely making the same mistake.
Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the principium cognoscendi. It is our external cognitive foundation for theological knowledge. It is the final authority of theological knowledge. If it is the final authority for theological knowledge, that necessarily implies lesser sources of knowledge. This means Protestants cheerfully welcome lesser warrants of belief: traditions, liturgy, lives of the saints (Hebrews 13:7), general revelation, and (and here is where I get in trouble), words of wisdom.
If the Bible is the only source of theological knowledge, then it can't be a judge of theological knowledge (obviously, since any other knowledge is necessarily wrong).
Someone could respond, "Yeah, but it's your interpretation of the Bible that is the final judge of knowledge, which means you think you are the final judge." That sounds like an impressive rebuttal, but it's not. As Bavinck pointed out, this person confuses the organ of knowing with the source and standard of knowing.
(1) Yes, I am using my own reason and judgment. I would be a fool not to.
Everyone, including the Anchorite, uses his reason to evaluate claims. But I know my reason is prone to error.
(2) Since fallible, my reason is open to correction from other cognitive sources (tradition, alternative interpretations, natural revelation).
Someone could object, "But that's making everything subjective. How is this not relativism?" I refer to the aforementioned confusion of organ and source.
(3) Any type of reasoning which sees reason as an organ of knowing will be subjective.
(3') The organ of knowing is within the knowing subject.
Is this a vicious relativism? We see that charge but no reason to think so.
(3*) The organ of knowledge is within the knowing subject. The source of knowledge is external to it.
Case study for Eastern Orthodox. Vincent of Lerins said the church has always taught the imputation of Adam's guilt. Have fun with that one.
