SR... it’s REALLY THAT difficult to tell me whether you mean “written Word” or not? Honestly?
I think you’re right: the reader can judge between us, on that point. I also think you’re right on another point: this really shouldn’t be that hard. If you’re defending “sola SCRIPTURA”, then getting you to admit that you’re talking about SCRIPTURA is really rather basic, yes?
In my experience, commenters (with whom I’ve chatted) don’t get “cagey/dodgy” like this unless they’re wary of “being pinned down” to this-or-that point... and if that’s the case with you, I really wish you wouldn’t feel that way. I don’t “crow” over so-called “victories” (look at any of my threads and comments, and tell me if you’ve ever seen otherwise); if someone says, “I don’t know how to answer that”, for example, I don’t thump my chest and say, “There you go! Your side is finished!” No... I say “okay”, and then give the person time to think/research some more, and that’s that. I’m not out for scalps; I’m out for truth.
Frankly, I’m a bit let down to see this end; you’ve been very civil and snark-free, which was a refreshing change from some other exchanges I’ve had (no offense intended to others).
Interpret it however you like. You are the one who I cannot pin down. Sola Scriptura is an advanced concept. It is built on primitives on which we should be able to agree. Whether the word of God is written or not, it is still the word of God. Genus. Mode of implementation, number of books, all secondary. All differentia, relative to the more basic premise. But if we cannot agree on that premise, I have no way to build on it. I cannot see why you will not simply say yes, the word of God, the utterance of God, if that helps you, is inherently supreme in making truth claims.
So no, don’t be disappointed. We have radically different views, and we cannot get past our unique perspectives. I for one have no intention of discussing canon until we know what exactly it is we are canonizing, or of enscripturation until we know what it is that is being enscripturated. It seems flat out silly to me to get that horse and cart turned around backwards like you have it.
As for why quit now, it’s always a problem. There’s no clean way to exit one of these conceptual impasses. The other side is most often going to claim victory, and yet, without actually crossing that divide, how is there a victory? So it becomes necessary to cut one’s losses. Time and effort lost on futile exchanges of words. Law of diminishing returns kicks in. At some point one person or the other has to let their impulse to have the last word give way to the rational understanding of an unresolved situation.
Peace,
SR