Defining sola scriptura.

[Root of Jesse]

Is God capable of conveying his message without his creation having to interpret it for him?

That is the debate. Is God smart enough without our amazing insight and knowledge to communicate his will?

Lets forget all the legalism, dogmatic religious ideals and ask a simple question.

Is God's word able to interpret its self?

Does the one true God, creator of all rely on his creation to interpret his word for him, because he cannot do it himself?

Does sound make a sound in a vacuum?

 

[tadoflamb]

When you DO something, it's a praxis. When you PROCLAIM A TEACHING, that's teaching.

I know that. Now, go explain that to the rest of the sola scriptura community.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I know that.

You (and the other Catholics here) seem to contradict that constantly.... Perhaps you need to read the Catholic posts in this thread.




.

 

[tadoflamb]

"....among us" is not "among Lutherans exclusively." Nice try, but silly.

Really, a Lutheran document isn't intended for Lutherans? Fascinating. I'm sure the Catholic Church hasn't been included in the ambiguous 'us'. So, who is us? How much norming of dogma are the Lutherans doing with the Calvinists? How about the Anglicans or Methodists. Where do you draw the line if you do have one? Is 'us' churchman of a denomination, or is everyone invited to norm their own dogma?

 

[tadoflamb]

You (and the other Catholics here) seem to contradict that constantly.... Perhaps you need to read the Catholic posts in this thread.

No, we're just pointing out the obvious, that sola scripturists don't have agreement on whether sola scriptura is a practice, a rule, a teaching, a principle or a doctrine. I'm pretty sure the Catholics on this thread have read post #11 and know that in your opinion, sola scriptura is a practice.

But, like you said, sola scripturists are kind of sloppy and the principle/practice /rule/teaching/doctrine brings no assurance of correctness or unity. And as a practice, sola scriptura is non-binding and can be dismissed at any time. Sort of like fish Friday or bingo night.

 

[Tigger45]

Thanks for your contributions.

Tigger45, How do you define it?

See post #11.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thanks for your contributions.

Tigger45, How do you define it?

See post #11.

I don't. It is not a doctrine of my Church. And I do not believe it anyway.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

sola scripturists don't have agreement on whether sola scriptura is a practice, a rule, a teaching, a principle or a doctrine. I'm pretty sure the Catholics on this thread have read post #11 and know that in your opinion, sola scriptura is a practice.

And in post 462, you stated that you agree it's a practice.

So, we're in agreement: Those 17 words are the historic, formal, official definition that no Protestant appears to disagree with, that I did NOT get into a time machine and write those words in 1577, and that it is a practice..... wow..... all things Catholics (including you, I think) have insisted upon here at CF.


Yes, I have stated, that while TYPICALLY when Protestants state "doctrine" they are referring to their doctrine of SCRIPTURE (which they see as an explanation for WHY Scripture should be embraced for this purpose among us), not to the practice itself. But yes, SOME are pretty sloppy and use the word "doctrine" for ANYTHING sound - including practices - a usage I don't support. But it seems silly and absurd to me to insist that ERGO they have a different definition of the practice. I think Catholics (and Mormons elsewhere) have gone to absurd, silly, laughable lengths to TRY to construct some confusion that only insists in themselves (which, at least Catholics admit - insisting they don't know what they are talking about because they don't know what it is that they insist is condemnable, wrong, sinful, bad, unbiblical, new - all the condenmnations of what they insist they don't know what is), or as you, condemning "sola scripturologisticerists" for doing what you claim you don't know what is.


Yes, those 17 words are the definition. No Protestant disagrees that that IS what Sola Scriptura is.

Yes, they were first written within Protestantism in 1577 and NOT personally by me getting into a time machine and going back to 1577. Of course, they were written by others long, long before that.

Yes, DOING this is a practice. There may be doctrines involves as to WHY Scripture is so used, but using it is a practice.

No, it's not hermeneutics, it's not arbitration, it's not a teaching (practices are incapable of teaching anything). ALL the enormous, incredible, persistent (and I admit very crafty!) Catholics efforts to evade, dodge and circumvent the subject by trying to hijack the thread to those other topics is simply documentation of their unwillingness or inability to discuss the subject at hand.

Yes, I've given the reason why the RCC rejects and protests this practice (with verbatim quotes), which not only no Catholic has challenged but actually supported and affirmed over and over and over and over (for years now).





.






.

 

[tadoflamb]

And in post 462, you stated that you agree it's a practice.

No, in post 462 I said that practice and doctrines are two different things. As to whether sola scriptura is a doctrine or a practice, that's one for the sola scripturists to flesh out as when the Lutheran churchmen penned 'among us', I'm sure I wasn't included.

So, we're in agreement: Those 17 words are the historic, formal, official definition that no Protestant appears to disagree with, that I did NOT get into a time machine and write those words in 1577, and that it is a practice..... wow..... all things Catholics (including you, I think) have insisted upon here at CF.

Actually, there's nothing in the document in which the seventeen word alleged historic, formal, official, confessional verbatim definition of sola scriptura which says this is the historic, formal, official, confessional verbatim definition of sola scriptura. So, I'm not agreement that those seventeen words are the historic, formal, official, confessional verbatim definition of sola scriptura. In fact, the words sola scriptura do not appear anywhere in the document and there are no scriptural references to support it. Strange that the rule wasn't used when making the rule.

The fact that so many sola scripturists have adopted your definition is only indicative of how poorly it's been defined. Seventeen words which don't even justify their own sentence. Wow.







.

 

[tadoflamb]

You (and the other Catholics here) seem to contradict that constantly.... Perhaps you need to read the Catholic posts in this thread.

I've been enjoying very much the posts of my fellow Catholics and I think they would agree with me that they know the difference between a practice and a teaching and a doctrine. Those three things mean very different specific things in the Catholic faith. Definitions that have been lost by the sola scripturists.

As such, I know that practices are optional. There's nothing binding about them and they can be readily changed, dismissed or discarded.

Teachings, on the other hand, have varying degree of certainty are widely believed but aren't infallible. Doctrines are infallible but haven't formally been elevated to Dogma, and Dogmas are infallible.

Now that I've helped define your terms, I don't think anyone 'among us' is norming any dogma.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

How about the RCC and its doctrine on Amillennialism, is that infallible?

 

[MoreCoffee]

How about the RCC and its doctrine on Amillennialism, is that infallible?

No. It isn't church doctrine even though it is widely believed.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

No. It isn't church doctrine even though it is widely believed.

So the Church may have it all wrong?

 

[MoreCoffee]

So the Church may have it all wrong?

No, the church has it right but your earlier post suggests that the church teaches what she does not in fact teach and even though many within the church believe an amillennial view of the last things many do not. It is an error to decide that the church is wrong because some within her membership may be wrong.

 

[Rick Otto]

the church is made of "living stones".
Don't claim catholicity unless you mean it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

the church is made of "living stones".
Don't claim catholicity unless you mean it.

You know what, catholic doesn't mean universal despite what some folk say. If the Catholic Church were universal then everybody would be a member. Everybody in all of history and in all of the future and in the present too. So be careful how you use 'catholic' because I reckon its meaning is more a matter of "according to the whole [of the faithful]" rather than "everybody" or even "all christians".

 

[ThatTrueLight]

No, the church has it right but your earlier post suggests that the church teaches what she does not in fact teach and even though many within the church believe an amillennial view of the last things many do not. It is an error to decide that the church is wrong because some within her membership may be wrong.

What do you mean by the church?

Ar you saying that your church can't be wrong in its amillennial view?

 

[MoreCoffee]

What do you mean by the church?

I mean the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church in communion with the bishop of Rome who is the successor of saint Peter.

Ar you saying that your church can't be wrong in its amillennial view?

No, I didn't say that. In fact I said the opposite; specifically I said that the Catholic Church does not teach any end-times doctrine as dogma.

 

[ThatTrueLight]

I mean the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church in communion with the bishop of Rome who is the successor of saint Peter.

Scripture teaches clearly that His church is called the body of Christ, many members and yet one body.

Are you really going to pretend that only Catholics make up His body? I can''t imagine why anyone would want to think like that, let alone think like that.

No, I didn't say that. In fact I said the opposite; specifically I said that the Catholic Church does not teach any end-times doctrine as dogma.

Why? Don't they know everything about the end times? Or are they just guessing about amillennialism and things like that?

 

[ThatTrueLight]

See, what I mean by the church of God is exactly what the holy scriptures say about the church of God, that it is His body, many members and yet one body.

It's exclusive to no denomination and consists of each and every person who has trusted in the precious shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins, and the LORD Himself (alone) adding them to His body by sealing them with the Holy Spirit, baptizing them into that one body by one Spirit.