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.
So, we're back to characterizing those who use Sola Scriptura or describing some alleged consequences of Sola Scriptura, whereas the point of the thread was supposedly to understand what "Sola Scriptura" means.
But let's take your thought there. I'd reply by asking why Holy Tradition and the power of the Papal office weren't able to refute the beliefs the Old Catholics, Sedevacantists and others sufficiently enough to stop them from becoming major movements within Catholicism.
Let's not go there.
Okay, let's move on. We've seen your many posts in another thread about your view of sola scriptura, others have offered views drawn from the WCF, Belgic confession, and other sources from magisterial Protestantism
Sola Scriptura is not a belief, it's a practice. See post #11. I sincerely believe that if you just take 5 minutes to actually READ that post (all of it), all this off-topic stuff and all these diversion will end and you FINALLY will know what it is (and thus become the first Catholic ever known to me who does!!!!)I'd like to see how they justify the belief
Lost me....
Yeah, Sola Scriptura implies at least accountability. Yes, if one (person, church, denomination, sect, cult, religion) were to invent a new dogma, it is LIKELY in this mileau that said dogma (if disputed) might come under the Rule of Scripture. But he would not be able to exempt himself exclusively without abandoning Sola Scripture in the same way that the LDS and RCC do (which INSIST on full and immediate accountability for all OTHERS just wholly exempt self, individually and exclusively). See post # 11, especially "Why does the RC Denomination So Passionately Protest This Practice."
But I SUSPECT you MAY be confusing the chosen rule (INCLUDING FOR SELF) with the separate, different issue of arbitration. Again, see post # 11.
.
What you've seen is the definition of Sola Scriptura, given for the benefit of those who said they didn't understand the meaning of the term.We've seen your many posts in another thread about your view of sola scriptura
Fair enough. Start a thread about that, using the definition. We don't want to go back over that ("What's it mean?") again, as we move into what you said you'd like to see now.I'd like to see how they justify the belief and what scripture they use for justifying it.
Fair enough. Start a thread about that, using the definition we have here.
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?
Actually, quite the opposite. The idea of sola scriptura has rendered the need or desire for arbitration as obsolete.
Oh no. There's no justification for a claim like that one.The only rule is scripture, so there is no reason for arbitration. It has actually created an atmosphere of relativism of doctrine
Hmm. You say that SS has rendered the need for arbitration obsolete. 'MoreCoffee' and others have said that SS has caused all manner of disagreement. ...
.MoreCoffee said: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.
Hmm. You say that SS has rendered the need for arbitration obsolete. 'More Coffee' and others have said that SS has caused all manner of disagreement. It does look like the 'throwing mud against the wall and hoping something will stick' idea is in operation.
Oh no. There's no justification for a claim like that one.
I never claimed to agree with MoreCoffee, in fact, I never claimed to agree with Catholic Church.
No justification? Which part? Do you deny that there is a doctrinal diversity among sola scripturists? Or that groups with different doctrine openly commune as if they were one?
Actually, I think we are saying more or less the same thing, just coming at it from a different direction.
ambiguous pronoun foul. I actually meant you are I are saying the same thing - just from different angles (no pun intended)
I know. In that post, I contrasted your view with the other posters. The commonality was only that you're all taking potshots at Sola Scriptura. And of course I have recognized your EO icon.I never claimed to agree with More Coffee, in fact, I never claimed to agree with Catholic Church.
No, but I have added two important provisos to that which must be acknowledged if we're to be serious about this and not just slinging insults:No justification? Which part? Do you deny that there is a doctrinal diversity among sola scripturists?
sola scriptura didn't stop different doctrines from arising
Yup, the Reformed defintion is the same as the historic one.the Westminster Confession of Faith says, "scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith by which all controversies of religion are to be determined
The Rule of Law doesn't stop crime, either. ...]What I said, and what I meant is that sola scriptura didn't stop different doctrines from arising and it didn't result in a single perspective on the gospel.[/B] It's just an observation about history. It is simply a fact that there are dispensationalists, Calvinists, Arminians, Anabaptists, Credo Baptists, Paedo Baptists, and so on.
So when the Westminster Confession of Faith says, "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" it is not saying, evidently, that the Holy Spirit speaking through scripture says one thing about baptism, one thing about predestination, one thing about end times, and so on because it is obvious that Baptists, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Lutherans, and Methodists are all Christians and all their conservative branches adhere to sola scriptura, and they all believe that the Holy Spirit does speak in scripture and they have different doctrines about the matters mentioned and other matters too.
he idea of sola scriptura has rendered the need or desire for arbitration as obsolete.
The only rule is scripture, so there is no reason for arbitration.
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?