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.
But that is extraneous to Sola Scriptura, don't you see? Sola Scriptura merely posits that God's word is the ultimate guide to doctrine. If some people don't use it and prefer something else, this doesn't render Sola Scriptura--or God's word, for that matter--defective or inadequate!
Likewise, if they do subscribe to the principle that is Sola Scriptura and misunderstand the Bible, that does not invalidate the Bible, nor does it mean that there's anything amiss with the process itself.
You might have a point if: 1) there were an alternative that solved all the problems you think you see with Sola Scriptura and if, 2) The Bible were shown to be hokum and not deserving of being our guide.
I don't get that you are ready to answer "Yes, that's so" to either of those.
The very nature of what sola scriptura has been squeezed out of it.
"Scripture Alone" means relying upon Scripture as the most reliable guide to doctrine, to the exclusion of competing and manmade alternative authorities.Is it the ultimate or the only? While they seem similar, I think they lead to different places and that is my point.
It was presented as the alternative to a corrupted process, you could say. That's what reform normally is--correcting something that's gone awry and returning to the original.Was not sola scriptura itself presented as an alternative?
Each of us will have to decide that for ourselves, I guess. However, I have no hesitation in saying that the superstition-ridden and thoroughly politicized and corrupted Medieval Church that, BTW, your EO churches would not reconcile with either, needed reform.My point is that it was an unnecessary change - that it did more harm than good as shown by it's fruit.
Was not sola scriptura itself presented as an alternative?
Is it the ultimate or the only? While they seem similar, I think they lead to different places and that is my point.
Was not sola scriptura itself presented as an alternative? My point is that it was an unnecessary change - that it did more harm than good as shown by it's fruit.
Was not sola scriptura itself presented as an alternative? My point is that it was an unnecessary change - that it did more harm than good as shown by it's fruit.
I don't think that's so. We do not see "infallible" Popes or magesteriums through the early church, and as a later development. It could easily be pointed out that such a thought, that the leader of the church was somehow infallible, or that they were given some special revelation from God outside of that which is found in sacred scripture, has directly led to the rise of such things as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other such things. However if Sola Scriptura were practiced, these things would be impossible as the idea of an infallible ruler of the church, or revelation outside of Scripture, or anything that may come from these could be dismissed if it contradicts scripture as Mormonism and the Watchtower Bible and Tract society obviously does.
I don't think that's so. We do not see "infallible" Popes or magesteriums through the early church, and as a later development. It could easily be pointed out that such a thought, that the leader of the church was somehow infallible, or that they were given some special revelation from God outside of that which is found in sacred scripture, has directly led to the rise of such things as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other such things. However if Sola Scriptura were practiced, these things would be impossible as the idea of an infallible ruler of the church, or revelation outside of Scripture, or anything that may come from these could be dismissed if it contradicts scripture as Mormonism and the Watchtower Bible and Tract society obviously does.
My point is that with sola scriptura, a leader or group may create a new doctrine that the roof of a house belongs on the bottom, not the top. They can judicially show that all the angles are square - using the "sola" norm as defined - yet they are wrong. A proper house does not have the roof on the bottom even if all the angles are square.
If inventing new doctrines wasn't easy and if it would be easily refuted then why do we have dispensationalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, and a bunch of other isms within magisterial Protestantism? Surely new doctrines must have come up somewhere and nobody was able to refute them sufficiently to stop them becoming major movements within Protestantism.
How 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?
Mormons and JW aside. My point isn't that anything has been added per se - like a house needs a pool to be a house. My point is that with sola scriptura, a leader or group may create a new doctrine that the roof of a house belongs on the bottom, not the top. They can judicially show that all the angles are square - using the "sola" norm as defined - yet they are wrong. A proper house does not have the roof on the bottom even if all the angles are square.
If inventing new doctrines wasn't easy and if it would be easily refuted then why do we have dispensationalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, and a bunch of other isms within magisterial Protestantism? Surely new doctrines must have come up somewhere and nobody was able to refute them sufficiently to stop them becoming major movements within Protestantism.
Lost me.... what in the WORLD does that have to do with Sola Scriptura? ...
Okay, so what's the justification for the definition, why believe and use it?
Then you are responsible for it. Give the definition the author then used, if this snippet is to have any relevance and be worth the space being taken up at CF.
.
Okay, so what's the justification for the definition, why believe and use it?
If inventing new doctrines wasn't easy and if it would be easily refuted then why do we have dispensationalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, and a bunch of other isms within magisterial Protestantism? Surely new doctrines must have come up somewhere and nobody was able to refute them sufficiently to stop them becoming major movements within Protestantism.
Practices are not believed. ...
Others say that sola scriptura is part of the doctrine of scripture; as evidence for that consider the WCF chapter one section ten:The supreme judge 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, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
You may click on the testimony link in the "signature" section of every one of my posts, the FIRST FEW posts there address that - although I wrote all that YEARS ago (and haven't reviewed it in a long time).what do you believe
If inventing new doctrines wasn't easy and if it would be easily refuted then why do we have dispensationalism, Calvinism, Arminianism, and a bunch of other isms within magisterial Protestantism? Surely new doctrines must have come up somewhere and nobody was able to refute them sufficiently to stop them becoming major movements within Protestantism.
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?