Jeremy Menicucci

Presuppositional apologetics & nouthetic counseling. Reformed Baptist pastor @realnacmin · PhD cand., OT, Westminster · @BooksAtAGlance reviewer

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

Please prayerfully consider supporting the Dolezal family, and especially pray for James's recovery.
https://t.co/hTFjGjrAUR

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

God loves nations... just apparently is indifferent towards who's in them.

[Frank Turek @DrFrankTurek]

Romans 9 has nothing to do with the election of individuals to salvation it has to with the election of the nation of Israel.

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

This is a rather nonsensical reply, you affirm that people are fallible and infallible (which negates the very definition of infallibility, which you so helpfully provided, thereby nullifying your claim). Furthermore, if you affirm that everyone can be infallible then you concede the point you're attempting to refute of Sola Scriptura from your perspective. Furthermore, you clearly don't understand Sola Scriptura since the claim is not that the interpreter must be infallible but that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith regardless of who attempts to interpret it, and that the Scriptures are its own best interpreter (and when used rightly, therefore, are the sole infallible interpreter).

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

Uh oh. He just quoted the sole infallible voice and representative for all of Protestantism. Game over y'all.

[Bishop @BishopJaxi]

There it is. I rest my case.

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

@MarktheLess "It is."

Case closed then.

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

So it's not infallible? In other words, it's inerrant, but it cannot trusted?

"You aren’t infallible (nor am I)" Irrelevant, since this isn't the claim of those who hold to Sola Scriptura.

"That means you risk error, even heresy, by thinking your own interpretation is correct"

That's clearly not Sola Scriptura to anyone who's honest and not trying to blatantly misrepresent it. Sola Scriptura is not "My own interpretation is correct," it never has been SOLO Scriptura, and it's shocking how many times I have to correct this.

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

You only replace my "circular reasoning" with your own: "the final authority is the church guided by the Holy Spirit, because the church says it's the final authority guided by the Holy Spirit." Which doesn't take into account the numerous times the church has erred, nor does it take into account that the NT arose and the OT was used to CORRECT and INSTRUCT the church. If the church is the final authority, why did it end up with rival popes and controversies over whether the pope or councils were more authoritative, or a pope who died of a heart attack in his mistress's bed? Or why did the church split into East and West if the church is the final authority?

The Bible is the final authority as to its nature, and it's a word concept fallacy to argue that the Bible needs to explicitly say it's the final authority, even though its internal witness bears testimony to it as well.

But you thanked me, so you're welcome.

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

Of course, I don't claim to be my own authority; that's what Sola Scriptura means.

You already know the Bible is infallible; you can't admit that it is in the thread because you know it undermines your polemic. Otherwise, it would've been so easy to have just said, "yes it is infallible."

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

@MarktheLess So the Bible is not infallible?

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

@ValentJoz So you acknowledge it is infallible?

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

@ValentJoz Why does someone need to declare the Bible is infallible? Why is it also so hard for ya'll to just answer the question, is the Bible infallible or not?

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

@Joepatriot82 Why can't you answer the question? is the Bible infallible or not?

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

@ValentJoz So the Bible is not infallible?

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

@Joepatriot82 The Bible is not infallible? Strange.

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

@88mph121 The Bible is not infallible in your view? Strange.

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

@ValentJoz The Bible is not infallible? Weird flex.

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

This is the literal definition of refusal to believe in Sola Scriptura.

[Bishop @BishopJaxi]

Same Bible.
Different doctrines.
Different churches.
Different moral teachings.
Different "gospels."

The fruit of sola Scriptura is chaos, anarchy, and disunity.

The one true Church is not found in Protestantism, because Protestantism is the antithesis of "one."

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

Jerome's use of books "as authoritative" is not the issue. Jerome held to two registers of what is "scripture," but Jerome EXPLICITLY states that the apocrypha are not CANONICAL. That's the issue.

[BIBLE SCHOLARMAXXING @EcciusMaximus]

Utterly false, Jerome never treated the Deuterocanonical books as Apocrypha. He used them authoritatively throughout his entire life minus a brief window of about five years where he held to a personal opinion because he never found them in the original language. Even post Latin Vulgate 382AD, he uses the Deuterocanonical books as authoritative. (images attached, years 399ad, 404ad)

At the time of Jerome 380 years after Jesus, it is true that these Jews (380 years after Jesus) did not accept these 7 books as Scripture. However, they also rejected all the New Testament books, Jesus Himself, and the entire Christian faith. Why would you appeal to them for authority on Scripture?

When Pope Innocent issued the decree affirming the 73 book canon Jerome did not protest. We have nearly all of his surviving works, there is no record of him protesting this decision. If Jerome had been bullied into including these books as @WesleyLHuff suggests, wouldn't he have written about it? Doesn't this demonstrate that the 73 book Bible was in fact established in the year 382AD? Wouldn't that mean that Protestants later deleted the 7 books?

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

In order for your argument to make sense you have to assert that anyone's experience of salvation is unknowable, which is just blatantly false regardless of whether or not you are a Calvinist. Even though Calvinists can be called for Jury Duty and know that, somehow the God of the universe's effectual call is somehow defined by Calvinists as pointless (in your view).

You also grossly misrepresent Calvinism and technically Biblical Christianity as a whole, which is why you plainly dodged my response. No one's assurance of salvation is rooted in some sort of inner confused monologue; it's rooted in the objective work of Jesus Christ.

Until you recognize that aspect of Calvinism, your reasoning here is sui generis, and it might score you points with your followers, but it does nothing to meaningfully interact with or refute Calvinism.

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

In what ways does a non Calvinist have a monopoly on this? Especially, for example, in the case of those loved ones who walk away from the faith? It seems that whatever standard you apply for assurance is equally or even more fully wrong in those situations. Is it because they "made a decision?" And in what cases would that be more reassuring that a Calvinist saying "its because God made a decision?"

[Timothy Renfro @MrTimothyRenfro]

The Calvinist has no objective assurance for his loved ones: his wife, his children, his friends, his siblings, his parents, his relatives. What if God doesn’t prefer to save any of the Calvinist’s loved ones? If God doesn’t prefer to save them, does this mean that the Calvinist loves these folks more than God does?

[Jeremy Menicucci @jmenicucci]

@MrTimothyRenfro The finished work of Christ and his ongoing intercession.