Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm going to be so bold as to correct you a tad bit. Sola scriptura is the practice of using the bible as the sole rule in determining doctrine. It's not a rule, it's a practice. The bible is the rule.
(see post #11)
Don't count me as one of them. So far, I've seen it called a principle, praxis, teaching, doctrine, methodology and an ideology. You may now add 'rule' to that list.
So because the pope and magesteriums agree to something plainly taught in Scripture, only then it's infallible? Gee what a revelation! Something from the infallible scripture is affirmed as infallible! It must mean the whole system is infallible! /sarcasm
It would be much easier herding cats then trying to find out the million of ideas floating around about some strange doctine of man like this so-called sola scripturaHow does your denomination define its doctrine of scripture and does it have a specific section or sections that tell you that scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest is the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures?
If so can you quote from the official doctrinal standard, show what passages of holy scripture are used to support its declaration on this subject, and explain its meaning in your own words, please?
So because we use a slightly different term it negates the whole? Logical fallacy much?
Wow, you correct what you do not understand. Sola Scriptura is defined as the bible is the only infallible rule of faith. I forgot that there is little in the way of humor in some people. I'm sorry but I am too at peace to be so dour....
Correct, the bible is the rule. Sola scriptura is the practice of using the rule. You called sola scriptura a rule.
(See post #11)
So because we use a slightly different term it negates the whole? Logical fallacy much?
It would be much easier herding cats than trying to find out the million of ideas floating around about some strange doctrine of man like this so-called sola scriptura
Post 11 is overworked after all it's only an opinion to call it a practise and deny that it's doctrine.
That definition is the only definition I've found to adamantly define it as a practice.
The credible sources for a definition call it a doctrine. I reckon it must be a doctrine. I reckon that the WCF section does a good job defining it in the context of a doctrine of scripture.
9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
That certainly reads like the doctrine of sola scriptura. It's refreshing, actually. However, I note that one portion of the doctrine avers something which has been denied by a sola scripturist in another thread, scripture interprets scripture:
I think if I were to continue in this thread, I would have to abandon the definition given to us in post #11 and focus more on this one.
It would be much easier herding cats then trying to find out the million of ideas floating around about some strange doctine of man like this so-called sola scriptura
If it is in holy scripture then it is inspired and inerrant. Is that so hard to grasp?
No, you misunderstand. I was pointing out that you cannot use a plain teaching of Scripture as "proof" of infallibility of a church/magesterium/pope.
The scripture was the infallible part. To use it as such is a logical fallacy. Unless it was being stated that it was not a plan teaching until the RCC said so? Which of course would be simply a statement of ignorance or of Sola Ecclesia.
Why not; it is the same God who inspired holy scripture who gives infallibility to the pope when he speaks ex cathedra and it is the same God who inspired holy scripture who revealed himself in holy tradition. I don't see the validity of your objection when it is God who speaks in holy tradition and in holy scripture; in the first by deed and example as well as word and in the second in writing.
The scriptures are inerrant but the church speaks infallibly when she speaks through saint Peter and his successors.
Originally Posted by MoreCoffee
If so can you quote from the official doctrinal standard, show what passages of holy scripture are used to support its declaration on this subject, and explain its meaning in your own words, please?
Beware the doctrine of Men!It would be much easier herding cats then trying to find out the million of ideas floating around about some strange doctine of man like this so-called sola scriptura
The book stores are filled to overflowing today with all types of books dealing with every aspect of earthly life."...of the making of many books there is no end..." (Eccl. 12:12).
You do understand the circular reasoning you've used and bare assertions you've made here, right?
We can go around and around if you'd like, but there is no "Sacred Tradition" that can be found to substantiate anything you've posted about papal infallibility, and there is no scripture either.
Though as has been shown before, this is little hindrance to the RCC, as they admit they subjugate scripture to a tertiary role.
The RCC decides what is scripture, what is tradition,
and what is dogma, yet claims it is somehow under that which it controls. Smh, the simple fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is easily seen throughout scripture, and that this obvious teaching was seen by the RCC, does not mean it is now infallible in all other teachings as well. As I said, this is a logical fallacy. If you'd like, we can examine (quickly so as to not go too far afield of the thread topic) your evidence for papal infallibility and papal succession, though I can guarantee you that aside from those who hold firmly to sola ecclesia, it will be found wanting...
Technically, it is not inerrant, that is a property of holy scripture. It is infallible. But being infallible has a net effect not unlike inerrancy as inerrancy is understood in a document like the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy.
As for being inspired (God breathed if you prefer), only holy scripture is inspired by God.
She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles.
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?