Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura...is there a difference?

[GandolftheWhite]

The Southern Baptists do not claim a magisterium or infallibility in all aspects of the faith as the RC does. The SBC does not claim the ONLY one true church where there is a "better" chance of salvation (used to be the ONLY way to salvation until the RC position became untenable).

doesn't matter they still have to only agree with themselves

You may not call it a Magisterium but the Southern Baptist most certianily do have board that overseas the doctrines that are to be taught and lay out the parameters in which they should be taught across all Southern Baptist church. Some call it Frappes others call it Milkshakes, same thing different term.

Well the Catholic Church doesn't think of it's self as the ONLY One true Church it does recognize it's separated brethen in the Eastern Orthodox Church as part of the one true Church as well.

And the Catholic Church doesn't teach that you have to Catholic to be saved I can pull up some doctrines.

I was always led to believe what you are posting but still that's besides the point

I ask you who does the Southern Baptist Church have to be in agreement with (what other Christian Denominations) to lay out it's norms? Again I ask do they consulth the Congrationals? the Presbyterians? or do they only have to agree with themselves?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

that's what I was asking California Joshia. He seems to demonize the Catholic Church because it agrees with itself.
?

1. QUOTE ME where I posted the word "demon" in ANY form whatsoever, with the RCC or any other object, in this thread or any other thread at CF or anywhere else. QUOTE ME.


2. QUOTE ME where I posted that it is "denomic" for self to agree with self. QUOTE ME where I posted that.


3. Yes, as we all know (including you), the RCC agrees with ITSELF - alone. It has a grand "unity" (if you insist on calling it that) of ONE - self alone with self alone. It agrees ONLY, exclusively, solely, uniquely, singularly with ONE: itself. But this agreement of SELF alone with SELF alone is not nearly as significant was you might want to imply since this agreement of self exclusively with self exclusively, this agreement SOLELY and ONLY with the ONE self alone sees in the mirror - is only official, formal, institutional and limited to what it itself alone currently regards as appropriate for agreement. As you well know, AT LEAST as much can be said for any other denomination you might mention, NONE is worse in this regard than is the RCC one. So, by your rubric, the LDS is correct since the LDS agrees with the LDS - at least formally, officially, institutionally and currently in what the LDS regards as good for it itself to agree with itself about. While I don't disagree with you that the LDS agrees with the LDS in that very limited since (as the RCC does with the RCC), where I disagree with you is that ergo, the LDS is correct.







.

 

[Kristos]

But doesn't that invalidate your argument? Many here accuse protestants of division blaming SS but they seem to ignore their own divisions.

No, it's actually the point. If there is division how could it be justified except as essential? Cut off the hand so to speak. The argument here that I am curious about is the idea that SS can be practiced, it can lead to division over non-essentials, and that's okay. Some seem to be saying even that there aren't really any essential because it's all relative. It's very confusing honestly. Why would people divide over non-essentials? Even more perplexing is why they would think that it is okay to divide over non-essentials. How is this normative? It seems more like the essentials are being stripped away little by little to allow greater division... Isn't that the opposite of norming?

 

[GandolftheWhite]

.





1. QUOTE ME where I posted the word "demon" in ANY form whatsoever, with the RCC or any other object, in this thread or any other thread at CF or anywhere else. QUOTE ME.


2. QUOTE ME where I posted that it is "denomic" for self to agree with self. QUOTE ME where I posted that.


3. Yes, as we all know (including you), the RCC agrees with ITSELF - alone. It has a grand "unity" (if you insist on calling it that) of ONE - self alone with self alone. It agrees ONLY, exclusively, solely, uniquely, singularly with ONE: itself. But this agreement of SELF alone with SELF alone is not nearly as significant was you might want to imply since this agreement of self exclusively with self exclusively, this agreement SOLELY and ONLY with the ONE self alone sees in the mirror - is only official, formal, institutional and limited to what it itself alone currently regards as appropriate for agreement. As you well know, AT LEAST as much can be said for any other denomination you might mention, NONE is worse in this regard than is the RCC one. So, by your rubric, the LDS is correct since the LDS agrees with the LDS - at least formally, officially, institutionally and currently in what the LDS regards as good for it itself to agree with itself about. While I don't disagree with you that the LDS agrees with the LDS in that very limited since (as the RCC does with the RCC), where I disagree with you is that ergo, the LDS is correct.







.

Again simple question, who has to agree with the Lutheran Church when forming it's norms for Scripture interpretations, and Doctrines?


Does the Baptist Church have to agree with the lutheran Church or does the Lutheran Church only have to agree with itself?

Does the Episcopal Church have to agree with the Lutheran Church
Does the Presbyterian's have to agree with the Lutheran Church
Does the United Methodist church have to agree with the Lutheran Church

or like I stated before does the Lutheran Church only have to agree with itself?

This is fairly basic question.

 

[Kristos]

Again simple question, who has to agree with the Lutheran Church when forming it's norms for Scripture interpretations, and Doctrines?


Does the Baptist Church have to agree with the lutheran Church or does the Lutheran Church only have to agree with itself?

Does the Episcopal Church have to agree with the Lutheran Church
Does the Presbyterian's have to agree with the Lutheran Church
Does the United Methodist church have to agree with the Lutheran Church

or like I stated before does the Lutheran Church only have to agree with itself?

This is fairly basic question.

If I may...

It seems like file is saying that they don't have agree on anything that is qualified as non-essential. So, as long as they adhere to sola fide/sola gratis (which seems to be essential), then the rest is basically open season. Maybe that's an over simplification, but that's what I got out of the discussion so far...

 

[GandolftheWhite]

If I may...

It seems like file is saying that they don't have agree on anything that is qualified as non-essential. So, as long as they adhere to sola fide/sola gratis (which seems to be essential), then the rest is basically open season. Maybe that's an over simplification, but that's what I got out of the discussion so far...

Hi Kristos this isn't a response to File, in which by and large I agree with this is a response to California Joshia who trying to demonize the Catholic Church by using the terms "Agree's with itself Alone" "Self Alone" etc in terms of developing Norms and Doctrines and I'm simply asking
who does the Lutheran Church have to come to an agreement with when forming it's noms and doctrines?

The last I check the Lutheran Church doesn't need the Southern Baptist Church's blessing when forming it's Norms and Doctrines. It has to agree with Itself.

 

[Kristos]

Hi Kristos this isn't a response to File, in which by and large I agree with this is a response to California Joshia who trying to demonize the Catholic Church by using the terms "Agree's with itself Alone" "Self Alone" etc in terms of developing Norms and Doctrines and I'm simply asking
who does the Lutheran Church have to come to an agreement with when forming it's noms and doctrines?

The last I check the Lutheran Church doesn't need the Southern Baptist Church's blessing when forming it's Norms and Doctrines. It has to agree with Itself.

Got it

 

[Hentenza]

doesn't not matter they still have to only agree with themselves

You may not call it a Magisterium but the Southern Baptist most certianily do have board that overseas the doctrines that are to be taught and lay out the parameters in which they should be taught across all Southern Baptist church. Some call it Frappes others call it Milkshakes, same thing different term.

And that would be a misrepresentation since the SBC view is that of the autonomous local church.

The Baptist Faith & Message

Well the Catholic Church doesn't think of it's self as the ONLY One true Church it does recognize it's separated brethen in the Eastern Orthodox Church as part of the one true Church as well.

And the EO vehemently disputes such. It is not your denomination's purview to label another Christian denomination as "separated brethren". In fact, is very unChristlike.

And the Catholic Church doesn't teach that you have to Catholic to be saved I can pull up some doctrines.

Sure. Have you read this thread in OBOB?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7547175/

It seems to still be a popular belief among your brethren.

I ask you who does the Southern Baptist Church have to be in agreement with (what other Christian Denominations) to lay out it's norms? Again I ask do they consulth the Congrationals? the Presbyterians? or do they only have to agree with themselves?

Again the SBC has no magisterium and believes in the autonomous local church model. You are attempting to make an analogy where one does not exist.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

1. QUOTE ME where I posted the word "demon" in ANY form whatsoever, with the RCC or any other object, in this thread or any other thread at CF or anywhere else. QUOTE ME.


.

Again simple question

Yes, so quote me where I post that?

2. QUOTE ME where I posted that it is "denomic" for self to agree with self. QUOTE ME where I posted that.

Again, simple question

I agree, quote me where I said that.

3. Yes, as we all know (including you), the RCC agrees with ITSELF - alone. It has a grand "unity" (if you insist on calling it that) of ONE - self alone with self alone. It agrees ONLY, exclusively, solely, uniquely, singularly with ONE: itself. But this agreement of SELF alone with SELF alone is not nearly as significant was you might want to imply since this agreement of self exclusively with self exclusively, this agreement SOLELY and ONLY with the ONE self alone sees in the mirror - is only official, formal, institutional and limited to what it itself alone currently regards as appropriate for agreement. As you well know, AT LEAST as much can be said for any other denomination you might mention, NONE is worse in this regard than is the RCC one. So, by your rubric, the LDS is correct since the LDS agrees with the LDS - at least formally, officially, institutionally and currently in what the LDS regards as good for it itself to agree with itself about. While I don't disagree with you that the LDS agrees with the LDS in that very limited since (as the RCC does with the RCC), where I disagree with you is that ergo, the LDS is correct.

Again simple question, who has to agree with the Lutheran Church when forming it's norms for Scripture interpretations, and Doctrines?

No one HAS to agree with any Lutheran denomination. You are imposing the RCC mandate of docilic submission to unmitigated power upon Protestants who don't share that circumvention of truth.



Now, why is it that if SELF (alone, exclusively, solely, uniquely, singularly), agrees with SELF (officially, formally, institutionally and currently) in those thing that SELF currently regards as appropriate for itself to agree with itself concerning, ERGO it is correct? Doesn't that mandate that ergo The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is correct? After all, exactly like the RCC, the LDS is in full agreement with itself (officially, formally, institutionally, currently and in those issues that it itself alone regards as appropriate for self to agree with self concerning)? Why?

does the Lutheran Church only have to agree with itself?

Is not your point that the RC denomination is correct because it agrees with itself, all formed on the premise that if self agrees with self ergo self is correct? Then, yes - the LDS is correct. I agree. I just disagree with your premise (however popular in Catholicism it may be). All you've done is establish is that truth belongs to any who agree with the one self sees in the mirror. Yes, I get your point: if that premise is true then the RCC is true - as also the LDS, every cult you could name, etc. They are all true since in each case, self agrees with self (officially, formally, institutionally, currently and in what self alone regards as appropriate for agreement with self, anyway). I just think your premise is absurd (even though it seems the single most popular apologetic in Catholicism)






.

 

[Philothei]

Shall we then say that all our Churches are partly a bit off for saying officially what they say? I think the bottom line is NOT is what the official Churches claim then but what we should believe in order to comply all "what is kind of politically" correct...??

Just because a Church does not have open communion that does not mean they refuse the "christianity" of the rest of the Brethren with a different dogma. Because there IS a definate difference in Dogmatic expressions for sure...We all believe differently

 

[Hentenza]

No, it's actually the point. If there is division how could it be justified except as essential? Cut off the hand so to speak. The argument here that I am curious about is the idea that SS can be practiced, it can lead to division over non-essentials, and that's okay. Some seem to be saying even that there aren't really any essential because it's all relative. It's very confusing honestly. Why would people divide over non-essentials? Even more perplexing is why they would think that it is okay to divide over non-essentials. How is this normative? It seems more like the essentials are being stripped away little by little to allow greater division... Isn't that the opposite of norming?

lol The EO, OO, and the RC can't even agree on the "essential" theology of the eucharist.

Brother, divisions are because of interpretations of scripture AND interpretations of "T"radition. SS merely teaches that the norm is scripture. It does not teach which interpretation is right since each interpretation is man's interpretation. Yes, your church believes an interpretation just like the rest of us believe an interpretation. God's word is absolute truth but man has a penchant for subjectivity.

 

[Philothei]

Interpreting scripture either by gratis or not it is still that regardless if a man is within his own Church or in an isolated desert IMHO. If there is individual interpretation within a Church still there IS a 'tradition" based on someone's experiences as to how he interprets right?

 

[GandolftheWhite]

And that would be a misrepresentation since the SBC view is that of the autonomous local church.

The Baptist Faith & Message





And the EO vehemently disputes such. It is not your denomination's purview to label another Christian denomination as "separated brethren". In fact, is very unChristlike.




Sure. Have you read this thread in OBOB?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7547175/

It seems to still be a popular belief among your brethren.





Again the SBC has no magisterium and believes in the autonomous local church model. You are attempting to make an analogy where one does not exist.

as far as the EOare concerned I think it was JPII that has called them the second Lung of the Faith and truth be Orthodox are allowed to take Communion in the Church
Also you say they vehemently dispute there wasn't a separation? Are you sure about that, because I don't think you are correct. So they don't believe there ever was a Schism and they don't acknowled the Bishop of Rome? I think you are wrong on this.

2. Didn't read the link but I know what the Cathecism says I know how Pope John Paul II felt and taught and that's the main thing.

the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation . For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

While I can't deny people will still cling to old beliefs and practices about who is and who is not a Christian any more than you can't deny that they are just as many members of the Southern Baptist Church who believe the samething in reverse. I can tell you first hand many atop of MANY Baptist simply do not believe Catholics are Christians. If you were to start a thread in the Baptist sub forum titled Are Catholics Christians or is Catholicism Christianity, what do you think the response would be? So yes both sides have their over zealot members, no arguing here, I just wouldn't point out the mess in other peoples backyards when your own backyard is filled with just as much garbage.


3.So the SBC has no magisterium or Governing board ok answer this question what would happen to a Southern Baptist Church if that they
1. Allowed for homosexual Pastors
2. Allowed for female Pastors
3. Allowed infant Baptisms

Would they still be allowed to be part of the Southern Baptist Convention?

 

[sunlover1]

The argument here that I am curious about is the idea that SS can be practiced, it can lead to division over non-essentials, and that's okay.

Who said that that sin is alright?

Sin is never right, and i havent said that it is.
I said that according to Scripture....... there are
those who are UNSKILLED in rightly dividing the
word of truth, which leads to misunderstandings.

 

[GandolftheWhite]

.




Yes, so quote me where I post that?









I agree, quote me where I said that.











No one HAS to agree with any Lutheran denomination. You are imposing the RCC mandate of docilic submission to unmitigated power upon Protestants who don't share that circumvention of truth.



Now, why is it that if SELF (alone, exclusively, solely, uniquely, singularly), agrees with SELF (officially, formally, institutionally and currently) in those thing that SELF currently regards as appropriate for itself to agree with itself concerning, ERGO it is correct? Doesn't that mandate that ergo The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is correct? After all, exactly like the RCC, the LDS is in full agreement with itself (officially, formally, institutionally, currently and in those issues that it itself alone regards as appropriate for self to agree with self concerning)? Why?














Is not your point that the RC denomination is correct because it agrees with itself, all formed on the premise that if self agrees with self ergo self is correct? Then, yes - the LDS is correct. I agree. I just disagree with your premise (however popular in Catholicism it may be). All you've done is establish is that truth belongs to any who agree with the one self sees in the mirror. Yes, I get your point: if that premise is true then the RCC is true - as also the LDS, every cult you could name, etc. They are all true since in each case, self agrees with self (officially, formally, institutionally, currently and in what self alone regards as appropriate for agreement with self, anyway). I just think your premise is absurd (even though it seems the single most popular apologetic in Catholicism)






.

So you mean NO ONE has to agree with the luthern Church when it makes it's Doctrines and Norms? Sooooo they would that be just like the LDS then where all they have to do is agree with themselves on their own Doctrines and Norms.

Correct?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


I suspect that Hentenza (a Calvinist Baptist) and I (a traditional Lutheran) would agree with the dogmas of the other - both embracing accountability and the Rule of Scripture, than would the RCC and LDS in their own dogmas -both rejecting accountability (of self anyway), the Rule of Scripture, and declaring self unable to be wrong.




.

 

[Dorothea]

Actually, it's not OT because the thread is about SS and Kristos was asking
how SS can be a good practice if so many disagree.
But to address what you said, and no offence but your church members are
not exempt from the human condition lol
We ALL have the mind of Christ, in that we all (HIS,... not those who SAY
that they are His. I'm talking about born again children of God here) hold
the thoughts and purposes of Christ in our hearts.
But we also all have differnent ideas about different things.
NO Matter what denomination you belong to. Even yours.

There is no way you and Kristos can hear a message and NOT filter it
through your own lens. You're two differnt people.

But yeah, going to Scripture when we want to check doctrine is a very
good and noble practice.
And I am sure you would agree with that... and perhaps Kristos
does not understand my analogies.

Look at the NT Church in the Scriptures in Acts. They were all of one mind. All were taught the same teachings by the Apostles that were Christ's teachings. This is what has been preserved and continued on today and until His return. This is what I'm talking about. If there was a person who differed in doctrine and it was not worked out, they either left the Church or the Church no longer considered them a member.

 

[Kristos]

lol The EO, OO, and the RC can't even agree on the "essential" theology of the eucharist.

Brother, divisions are because of interpretations of scripture AND interpretations of "T"radition. SS merely teaches that the norm is scripture. It does not teach which interpretation is right since each interpretation is man's interpretation. Yes, your church believes an interpretation just like the rest of us believe an interpretation. God's word is absolute truth but man has a penchant for subjectivity.

No division is because of heresy.

 

[Philothei]

lol The EO, OO, and the RC can't even agree on the "essential" theology of the eucharist.

Brother, divisions are because of interpretations of scripture AND interpretations of "T"radition. SS merely teaches that the norm is scripture. It does not teach which interpretation is right since each interpretation is man's interpretation. Yes, your church believes an interpretation just like the rest of us believe an interpretation. God's word is absolute truth but man has a penchant for subjectivity.

I agree with you ... I think you are saying that the "basis" for the interpretation in Churches with SS is the scripture and that sets the norm... right? Given we can never have the 100% God's Truth... I agree no one does...The only thing for our Church is that we don't believe we have 100% but we come along a way so we do have the richness of all the Tradition of the Church. Same can be said though for all of us who came from the common "root" that is prior to the Schism IMHO 1054 We all have that common Tradition. The church was historically ONE in the "visible" and "invisible" sense of the tern I hope I did not offend anyone stating this Actually that common ancestory that springs from Christ and His Apostles is what it binds us as brother and sisters in Chirst. In my understanding the Bible is there as a guide so we can communicate the Truth of God and Christ...Makes sense?

 

[Dorothea]

as far as the EOare concerned I think it was JPII that has called them the second Lung of the Faith and truth be Orthodox are allowed to take Communion in the Church
Also you say they vehemently dispute there wasn't a separation? Are you sure about that, because I don't think you are correct. So they don't believe there ever was a Schism and they don't acknowled the Bishop of Rome? I think you are wrong on this.

2. Didn't read the link but I know what the Cathecism says I know how Pope John Paul II felt and taught and that's the main thing.


3.So the SBC has no magisterium or Governing board ok answer this question what would happen to a Southern Baptist Church if that they
1. Allowed for homosexual Pastors
2. Allowed for female Pastors
3. Allowed infant Baptisms

Would they still be allowed to be part of the Southern Baptist Convention?

the EOC does not believe they are the "second lung" of the Catholic Church. The RCC has not been a part of the EOC since around 1054 a.d.