Defining sola scriptura.

[MoreCoffee]

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.

 

[Albion]

Let's not go there.

Very well. I'm sure that you don't care to have an exact parallel drawn to the point you were making about Sola Scriptura, but it does illustrate the fallacy in your contention even if we do not 'go there.'

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

And none of them differ. It's just in SOME, there is ADDED why Scripture is embraced (as I did in post # 11 - which you keep ignoring), and in SOME, there is ADDED how that Scripture is to be interpreted. AGAIN, in over 10 years, I've have not found ONE (even among clergy) not even ONE Protestant who disagrees with the official, formal, historic definition I gave that all Catholics and Mormons entirely ignore (and then claim they don't know what Sola Scriptura is - but condemn and protest "it" nonetheless while stressing they don't have a clue what it is they are so boldly and persistently condemning).

I'd like to see how they justify the belief

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!!!!)






.

 

[Kristos]

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.





.

Actually, quite the opposite. The 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. It has actually created an atmosphere of relativism of doctrine - that as long as it's based on scripture, then we can agree to disagree and remain in communion as Christians.

 

[Albion]

We've seen your many posts in another thread about your view of sola scriptura

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.

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 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.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Fair enough. Start a thread about that, using the definition we have here.

That'd be this thread.

Remember the OP, how it said 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?

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?

 

[Albion]

Actually, quite the opposite. The idea of sola scriptura has rendered the need or desire for arbitration as obsolete.

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.

The only rule is scripture, so there is no reason for arbitration. It has actually created an atmosphere of relativism of doctrine

Oh no. There's no justification for a claim like that one.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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. ...

I said no such thing.

 

[Albion]

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.

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

.

Thanks for quoting me again.

By the way, the quote does not say what you said it did.

 

[Kristos]

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 More Coffee, 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?

 

[MoreCoffee]

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?

Don't fret, you don't need to agree with me and even if you did you wouldn't be agreeing with what Albion wrote. His post made a claim about what I've written in this thread that is not true.

 

[Kristos]

.

Actually, I think More Coffee & I are saying more or less the same thing, just coming at it from a different direction.

 

[MoreCoffee]

.

Actually, I think we are saying more or less the same thing, just coming at it from a different direction.

I reckon his post says it in a lot less words than yours

 

[Kristos]

I reckon his post says it in a lot less words than yours

ambiguous pronoun foul. I actually meant you are I are saying the same thing - just from different angles (no pun intended)

 

[MoreCoffee]

ambiguous pronoun foul. I actually meant you are I are saying the same thing - just from different angles (no pun intended)

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. 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.

 

[Albion]

I never claimed to agree with More Coffee, in fact, I never claimed to agree with Catholic Church.

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.

No justification? Which part? Do you deny that there is a doctrinal diversity among sola scripturists?

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:

1. There is even MORE diversity and disagreement on this issue among the Catholic-type churches that are following "Tradition" in preference to Sola Scriptura.

and

2. Most Protestant churches do accept Sola Scriptura. There are some newer splitoffs who have taken up what they call SolO Scriptura or some other addition, but it's not correct to contend that among the churches that claim Sola Scriptura, there is widespread disagreement over doctrinal essentials.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

sola scriptura didn't stop different doctrines from arising

The Rule of Law doesn't stop crime, either. But it DOES give a basis on which to arbitrate disputed behavors - and I think it's better than each self mandating that self exclusively be exempt from any accountability (dictatorships).

I'd also remind you that the two primary protestors of these in the West - the RCC and LDS (both for the same reason and both with the same alternative - just swallow whatever self says cuz self says it) have come up with dogmas (quite different from each other).... and since neither accepts accountability, there's nothing that even theoretically COULD stop that since neither accepts accountability. See post #11, especially the section "Why Does The RC Denomination So Passionately Protest This Practice?"

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

Yup, the Reformed defintion is the same as the historic one.


Read post # 11. I think if you read post #11 it will clear up all these issues for you.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah







.

 

[MoreCoffee]

]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.

The Rule of Law doesn't stop crime, either. ...

Differences in doctrine are not crimes. A Baptist is every bit as much as Christian as a LCMS Lutheran.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

he idea of sola scriptura has rendered the need or desire for arbitration as obsolete.

No, it's not the same thing. Read post #11 (including "What It Is NOT").

Actually, it's the opposite. When a denomination simply exempts itself from all norming (including any arbitration other than it itself declaring that it itself can't be wrong so it's not) is what makes arbitration obsolute... indeed, the entire aspect of norming is simply rejected for those who protest this practice. See post #11. Read the section also, "Why Does the RC Denomination So Passionately Reject This Practice?"

The only rule is scripture, so there is no reason for arbitration.

How silly. Read post # 11.

It's when self excludes self from accountability (see CCC 87, see "The Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle/Prophet Bruce McConkie) that arbitration is eliminated. When accountabilty is rejected in the sole case of self (as the RCC does), then all aspects of it are rejected - including the Rule and the Arbitration (indeed, all aspects). Read post #11, especially the section "Why Does the RC Denomination So Passionately Reject this Practice?"




.