Defining sola scriptura.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Differences in doctrine are not crimes.

I simply pointed out that in norming, having a rule doesn't equate to eliminating problems. I'm SURE you realized that, but.... The Rule of Law is that the Law is the embraced rule in the norming of disputed behavors - but it does not mandate that simply embracing that rule means therefore there is no crime, no disputes, that simply embracing that practice equates to a sinless heaven. In the same way, embracing the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) does not mandate there simply having that rule means there are not more disputes, no more wrong ideas. It simply means that were accountability is permitted, there is a rule for the norming.

Read post #11, I'm confident if you do, you'll come to understand.





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I simply pointed out that in norming, having a rule doesn't equate to eliminating problems. ...

Differences in doctrine are not problems, are they?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Differences in doctrine are not problems, are they?

Read post # 11. The word "problem" never exists there. But if there is a dispute among us concerning dogma, yes - some would see that a problematic but only those who think that truth matters rather than simply the claim of a denomination to lord it over others. Obviously, if truth is irrelevant, then accountability is irrelevant - and thus so is norming and any rule in such Read post # 11 here including the section, "Why Does the RC Denomination So Passionately Protest This Practice?"







.

 

[tadoflamb]

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).

May I deduce then that the only proper practitioners of sola scriptura are the Lutherans? They have their confessions as another rule to rule the doctrines produced by the first rule.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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).


.

May I deduce then that the only proper practitioners of sola scriptura are the Lutherans?

No.

See post # 11.




.

 

[tadoflamb]

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.

I'm pretty sure that sola scriptura doesn't guarantee consistency of doctrine. It's merely a rule in which to determine doctrine. Simply put, it's just something the do (practice). No big deal.

 

[Albion]

I'm pretty sure that sola scriptura doesn't guarantee consistency of doctrine.

Have you read anything CaliforniaJosiah or I have written in the past couple dozen posts? Sola Scriptura is not about a guarantee; it's about having God's word be the decider in important doctrinal matters rather than something else.

If there's a dispute over whether automobiles or ox carts or airplanes will get you to Miami quickest, we are saying that air travel is fastest. You are replying that some people fly United and some Southwest, so we can't know if air travel beats oxcarts.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm pretty sure that sola scriptura doesn't guarantee consistency of doctrine.

Read post #11. Please underline and embolden each time the word "guarantee" appears in the definition.


The RCC and LDS both use the same epistemology (self declaring self incapable of error so that whatever self alone currently says is to be swallowed in obedience to the teaching authority of that self as that self claims for that self exclusively and individually - in formal doctrrine AT LEAST). Are those two denominations consistent in all their teachings? Is the RCC and EOC and OOC all consistent - with exactly the identical doctrines?


The Rule of Law embraces a rule in norming..... does it "guarantee" that all people do and think the identical same things?





.

 

[tadoflamb]

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.

Maybe my part of the world is a denominational aberration, but there's about 2 dozen 'sola scripturist' denominations within a ten minute drive from me and zero of the Catholic-type. But then again, I don't know of any Catholic-type church that follows "Tradition" in preference to the Sacred Scriptures.

 

[tadoflamb]

Read post #11. Please underline and embolden each time the word "guarantee" appears in the definition.


The RCC and LDS both use the same epistemology (self declaring self incapable of error so that whatever self alone currently says is to be swallowed in obedience to the teaching authority of that self as that self claims for that self exclusively and individually - in formal doctrrine AT LEAST). Are those two denominations consistent in all their teachings? Is the RCC and EOC and OOC all consistent - with exactly the identical doctrines?


The Rule of Law embraces a rule in norming..... does it "guarantee" that all people do and think the identical same things?





.

That's what I'm saying. Sola scriptura guarantees nothing.

 

[tadoflamb]

Have you read anything CaliforniaJosiah or I have written in the past couple dozen posts? Sola Scriptura is not about a guarantee; it's about having God's word be the decider in important doctrinal matters rather than something else.

For the third time, sola scriptura guarantees nothing. We agree.

 

[Albion]

Maybe my part of the world is a denominational aberration, but there's about 2 dozen 'sola scripturist' denominations within a ten minute drive from me and zero of the Catholic-type. But then again, I don't know of any Catholic-type church that follows "Tradition" in preference to the Sacred Scriptures.

Maybe a refresher course in comparative religions would help you. A lot.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Differences in doctrine are not problems, are they?

... if there is a dispute among us concerning dogma, yes - some would see that a problematic but only those who think that truth matters ...

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 talking about truth taught by the Holy Spirit.

So the truth taught by the Holy Spirit by some conservative magisterial Protestants is that the Eucharist is a symbol with no real presence, no physical presence of Christ, but rather a real absence of the physical body and blood of Christ while others say that the truth taught by the Holy Spirit is that Christ really is physically present?

Some conservative non-Catholics say that the truth taught by the Holy Spirit is that baptism is to be administered only to those who give a credible profession of faith while others say that the truth taught by the Holy Spirit is that infants are to be baptised?

The differences in the truth taught by the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy scriptures are caused by what, exactly?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm pretty sure that sola scriptura doesn't guarantee consistency of doctrine. It's merely a rule in which to determine doctrine. Simply put, it's just something they do (practice). No big deal.

Obviously

The thing is that doctrinal statements such as the Westminster Confession of Faith do say that the final arbiter of truth is the Holy Spirit speaking in the holy Scriptures. I suspect that truth may be a little less amenable to the "no big deal" approach than the practise we've been told fully defines sola scriptura.

 

[Albion]

For the third time, sola scriptura guarantees nothing. We agree.

What's this "third time" stuff? The supporters of using Scripture have been consistent through all of this while you opponents have tried out every kind of objection you could think up.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

sola scriptura guarantees nothing.

Where in the definition does it state that it does? See post #11, then would you please underline and/or embolden every time the word "guarantee" appears in the definition? Or even somewhere in the entire post? Does ANY practice specifically GUARANTEE anything?

IMO, it is more likely that the TRUE TEACHER will welcome the light, come into the light, embrace accountability - even demand it - to some rule OUTSIDE, ABOVE and BEYOND self, confident that truth reveals itself and focused on truth prevailing. It is the FALSE TEACHER who seeks the dark, hides in the dark, rejects accountability, rejects norming because truth is to be evaded and all that matters if the unmitigated power, control and lordship of self over all others; around that self will self build huge, think, towering walls of egoism, claims of self for self, shouts of power and of how special self exclusively is and how what really matters is all docilicly submitting to itself.

Read post # 11. Include the section, "Why Does the RC Denomination So Passionately Protest This Practice?"



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

For the third time, sola scriptura guarantees nothing. We agree.

Where in the definition does it state that it does? Does ANY practice GUARANTEE anything? ...

Okay, great. Now you've told us that sola scriptura is, in your opinion, nothing but a practise that does not guarantee anything.

You didn't give any scripture to justify the practise of sola scriptura. Is there some logic to justify it? The law of non-contradiction in Logic doesn't have chapter and verse from the bible to support it but it does have experience and history to point to its practical value. Does sola scriptura have something like that?

 

[Albion]

It's a game, CalJ, just like the "everyone hates Mary" game. I say it's time to call a halt to responding to every taunt and request for information whose only purpose is to waste our time.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's a game, CalJ, just like the "everyone hates Mary" game. I say it's time to call a halt to responding to every taunt and request for information whose only purpose is to waste our time.

Thank you for your contributions. You've provided interesting replies.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

you've told us that sola scriptura is, in your opinion

No. I have you the official, formal, historic, verbatim definition. From 1577. I didn't write it (I wasn't even alive in 1577).

You didn't give any scripture to justify the practise of sola scriptura.

Why? Do I need to list all the Scriptures that command us to type on an HP Laptop? To make our coffee with a French Press? To drive on the right hand side of the road in the USA unless indicated otherwise? To speak English?

But you yourself SEEM to indicate that disagreement on dogma is not a good thing (maybe that's NOT your view). And Scripture does speak of accountability, of false prophets, of testing the spirits. And I can't find this statement anywhere: "Truth matters EXCEPT for any teacher, denomination, sect, cult or religion that insists that it itself exclusively is exempt from such and that if any such insists that all just docilicly swallow whatever disputed and unique dogmas that it iself individually teaches because it itself individually and exclusively does - then you must just swallow that, right or wrong." I just can't find anything like that. In fact, after a very careful seach, i can't find your denomination mentioned anywhere as being exempt from truthfulness (or any other). But again, YES, I do see your point: if truth is seen as irrelevant - then yes..... YES....... YES....... all this is irrelevant. See post # 11, there is a large section of that which deals with that very issue (which you'd read it at some point).



[quote Does sola scriptura have something like that?[/quote]


See the next post...




.