Defining sola scriptura.

[Albion]

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.

That would be the view of most Christians. But we do know that certain denominations, including the Mormons, Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and some others that are very well-known, do think that theirs is the only one that God cares about.

That's considered so eccentric and, frankly, absurd by members of the thousands of other denominations that it usually just rolls off their backs when it's said to them, and they don't even bother to consider it an insult, even though it is intended as such.

 

[Rick Otto]

Redefinition is standard procedure in moving goal posts.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

Haha, yup - the RCC totally rejects and ignores the church. It itself could care less about the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church. It ONLY looks in the mirror at it itself exclusively; that's all it sees... that's all it cares about..... that's all it listens to........ itself. THAT is the one ITSELF insists is infallible (in formal doctrine AT LEAST), THAT is the one ITSELF insists is the sole authoritarian interpreter of Scripture (hidden in the heart of ITSELF) and RCC Tradition (as chosen, defined by ITSELF), THAT is the one ITSELF insists is the sole arbiter, THAT is the one ITSELF insists is the unmitigated, unaccountable, God-like Authority (when ITSELF speaks, God Himself speaks, insists it itself for it itself exclusively).

And yes, that IS why the RC Denomination so passionately, so foundationally protests this practice in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, individual case of it itself alone.

Why does the RC Denomination so passionately Reject and Protest this practice?


The RC Denomination so foundationally and passionately protests the Rule of Scripture in norming not because it rejects Scripture or has an alternative rule that is MORE inerrant, MORE inspired by God, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative, MORE above and beyond and outside all disputing parties. Rather the rejection is because the individual RC Denomination rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique, individual case of it itself alone, uniquely, individually.

From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."

Since it itself declares that it itself exclusively and individually and institutionally is unaccountable and that it itself is infallible (in formal doctrine, AT LEAST) and it itself insists that when it itself exclusively and current speaks therefore God must agree, it itself is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of truth and responsibility (and thus norming and the embraced norma normans in such) is simply made entirely, completely, wholly irrelevant (for it itself, exclusively and individyually). Truth, accountability, responsibility are all just laid aside (in the singular, exclusive case of self uniquely) and in its place, in stead of that, in lieu of that, the RCC substitutes its call for all to just submit to the unmitigated, God-like power of it itself (as claimed by itself for itself, exclusively), the POWER it itself claims for it itself simply "trumping" all else.



.

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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

I don't know how else to say "no" to your repeated assertion that the Catholic Church teaches amillennialism as dogma.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In another thread the following comment was made.

... If a term has to be explained - it's best not to use it. ESPECIALLY when we KNOW it is likely to be misunderstood, divisive, problematic. Language should help, not harm...

Interesting comment. So sola scriptura is often misunderstood, is divisive, problematic, causes harm more than help, and is like a slogan intended to highlight divisions. ... but one still uses it, right?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Haha, yup - the RCC totally rejects and ignores the church. It itself could care less about the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church. The RCC ONLY looks in the mirror at it itself exclusively; that's all it sees... that's all it cares about..... that's all it listens to........ itself. THAT is the one ITSELF insists is infallible (in formal doctrine AT LEAST), THAT is the one ITSELF insists is the sole authoritarian interpreter of Scripture (hidden in the heart of ITSELF) and RCC Tradition (as chosen, defined by ITSELF), THAT is the one ITSELF insists is the sole arbiter, THAT is the one ITSELF insists is the unmitigated, unaccountable, God-like Authority (when ITSELF speaks, God Himself speaks, insists it itself for it itself exclusively).

And yes, that IS why the RC Denomination so passionately, so foundationally protests this practice in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, individual case of it itself alone.

Why does the RC Denomination so passionately Reject and Protest this practice?


The RC Denomination so foundationally and passionately protests the Rule of Scripture in norming not because it rejects Scripture or has an alternative rule that is MORE inerrant, MORE inspired by God, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative, MORE above and beyond and outside all disputing parties. Rather the rejection is because the individual RC Denomination rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique, individual case of it itself alone, uniquely, individually.

From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."

Since it itself declares that it itself exclusively and individually and institutionally is unaccountable and that it itself is infallible (in formal doctrine, AT LEAST) and it itself insists that when it itself exclusively and current speaks therefore God must agree, it itself is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of truth and responsibility (and thus norming and the embraced norma normans in such) is simply made entirely, completely, wholly irrelevant (for it itself, exclusively and individyually). Truth, accountability, responsibility are all just laid aside (in the singular, exclusive case of self uniquely) and in its place, in stead of that, in lieu of that, the RCC substitutes its call for all to just submit to the unmitigated, God-like power of it itself (as claimed by itself for itself, exclusively), the POWER it itself claims for it itself simply "trumping" all else.




​

.

So sola scriptura is often misunderstood, is divisive, problematic, causes harm more than help, and is like slogan to highlight divisions. ... but one still uses it, right?

No. Catholics and Mormons may 1) Claim they don't know what it is - BUT whatever it is (and they don't have a clue) it's bad, wrong, evil, sinful, satanic, new, unbiblical, condemnable - whatever it is which they don't know or 2) Substitute a plethora of silly strawmen for the reality, then mock their own substitution (and in the process, often condemn their own denomination which alone does what they mock).





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No. ...

Come on, you doctored the "quote" so that it looks like a reply to something that it has nothing to do with. That's quite dishonest, right? Why do something like that?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Haha, yup - the RCC totally rejects and ignores the church. It itself could care less about the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church. The RCC ONLY looks in the mirror at it itself exclusively; that's all it sees... that's all it cares about..... that's all it listens to........ itself. THAT is the one ITSELF insists is infallible (in formal doctrine AT LEAST), THAT is the one ITSELF insists is the sole authoritarian interpreter of Scripture (hidden in the heart of ITSELF) and RCC Tradition (as chosen, defined by ITSELF), THAT is the one ITSELF insists is the sole arbiter, THAT is the one ITSELF insists is the unmitigated, unaccountable, God-like Authority (when ITSELF speaks, God Himself speaks, insists it itself for it itself exclusively).

And yes, that IS why the RC Denomination so passionately, so foundationally protests this practice in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, individual case of it itself alone.

Why does the RC Denomination so passionately Reject and Protest this practice?


The RC Denomination so foundationally and passionately protests the Rule of Scripture in norming not because it rejects Scripture or has an alternative rule that is MORE inerrant, MORE inspired by God, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative, MORE above and beyond and outside all disputing parties. Rather the rejection is because the individual RC Denomination rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique, individual case of it itself alone, uniquely, individually.

From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."

Since it itself declares that it itself exclusively and individually and institutionally is unaccountable and that it itself is infallible (in formal doctrine, AT LEAST) and it itself insists that when it itself exclusively and current speaks therefore God must agree, it itself is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of truth and responsibility (and thus norming and the embraced norma normans in such) is simply made entirely, completely, wholly irrelevant (for it itself, exclusively and individyually). Truth, accountability, responsibility are all just laid aside (in the singular, exclusive case of self uniquely) and in its place, in stead of that, in lieu of that, the RCC substitutes its call for all to just submit to the unmitigated, God-like power of it itself (as claimed by itself for itself, exclusively), the POWER it itself claims for it itself simply "trumping" all else. ​

No. Catholics and Mormons may

1) Claim they don't know what it is - BUT whatever it is (and they don't have a clue) it's bad, wrong, evil, sinful, satanic, new, unbiblical, condemnable - whatever it is which they don't know or

2) Substitute a plethora of silly strawmen for the reality, then mock their own substitution (and in the process, often condemn their own denomination which alone does what they mock).




.

More Coffee,


IF you want to respond to what I posted, do. If not, don't.





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

More Coffee

More often than not what your posts contain is a repost of something you posted before. Post #11 comes to mind. The repetition becomes tedious after the first three or so repetitions. I've lost count of the number of times your replies either re-quoted post #11 or cited it as if it were an answer to the original post. I do not think it answers the original post and I've said so before. So now when I see it re-quoted or cited in this thread I skip over what it says and deal with whatever is left over if the left overs are interesting.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I've lost count of the number of times your replies either re-quoted post #11 or cited it as if it were an answer to the original post. I do not think it answers the original post

Since you keep asking the same questions - you'll get the same answers. And if you keep re-posting the identical same points - you'll get the same replies.

You got the definition. AGAIN (it's been posted for at least the 10 years I've been at CF, and it was very well known when I got here so predates my coming to this community). NOT ONE PROTESTANT has EVER disagreed with a single word of it, in fact, post #11, not one protestant at CF has disagreed with one word of it. I know this troubles you, but.....

I realize you seem to feel a strong, strong need to change the topic (odd since YOU started the thread!!!) - anything (it seems) to get the discussion away from the topic - the definition of the practice. You want to hijack it to the issue of hermenuetics (it seems so as to condemn self insisting that self alone may do this - which is the RCC position, again odd since you're only condemning your own denominaiton) or to the issue of arbitration (it seems so as to condemn self appointing self as the sole arbiter - which is the RCC position, again odd since you're only condemning your own denomination) or to simply document that what I posted as to why the RC Denomination protests this practice is correct. Your persistent (it's actually impressive!) efforts to divert the thread away from the issue YOU raised is understandable but frustrating and conterproductive.

We all know why the RCC rejects this (and interesting NO CATHOLIC YET has disagreed with a THING I've posted in that part of post #11 - not in nearly 10 years of me being at CF). All this silliness about "We don't know what it is - only that whatever it is, it's BAD, horrible, unbiblical, new and divisive - whatever it is, but we don't know" is just one of the incredibly silly things we see from too many Catholics. And the persistent (and truly crafty!) ways of evading the topic reveals a deep resistance to conversation.








.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since you keep asking the same questions - you'll get the same answers. ...

I won't ask any questions about your post 11 replies.

 

[tadoflamb]

I'm thinking that if sola scripture were a doctrine, one would have to use the bible has their measure to formulate it. Since there is no scripture which substantiates the seventeen word official, historic, formal, confessional, verbatim definition of sola scriptura, by default, the author of post #11 has to call it a practice.

 

[tadoflamb]

It's exclusive to no denomination......

Denominations are an abiblical concept. I'm surprised a sola scripturist would even use the word.

 

[tadoflamb]

I won't ask any questions about your post 11 replies.

I'm still looking for the definition of sola scriptura which allows for the personal reading of the bible and the private rendering of judgement, because sola scripturists display a certain penchant for doing such.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Denominations are an abiblical concept.

I agree, it's one of the fundamentals I disagree with RC Denomination about.

But let's see if the discussion can be to the definition of the practice rather than a plethora of diversions and evasions?






.

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm still looking for the definition of sola scriptura which allows for the personal reading of the bible and the private rendering of judgement, because sola scripturists display a certain penchant for doing such.

So you don read the bible and only believe what your told by the church of your personal choice.

I get that.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm still looking for the definition of sola scriptura which allows for the personal reading of the bible and the private rendering of judgement, because sola scripturists display a certain penchant for doing such.

You won't find that because there is no such definition (except in the imagination of Catholics and Mormons).


On the OTHER issue, I AGREE with you. Self insisting that self exclusively is the sole, unaccountable, authoritarian interpreter of Scripture is unbiblical, wrong and dangerous. But of course, there is only one main denomination that does what we both reject: Yours. The RC Denomination. See what it itself insists about it itself in the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of it itself # 85. Then spend all the rest of your days on Earth and in Purgatory searching every other Catechism of every other denomination on the planet for another denomination stating what yours does, what we both reject. You won't find one (*), no matter how long you live or spend in Purgatory, no matter how hard you search - you won't find another because there is no other. Just yours. Just the RC Denomination. Uniquely, exclusively, solely, singularly, individually - just it. You only are condemning your own denomination in the Catechism it itself wrote about it itself, #85.


But let's return to the actual definition. And perhaps leave your condemnation of the RC Denomination's insistence of it itself for it itself of being the only unaccountable, authoritarian interpreter to another day and thread?



Thank you.


pax


- Josiah



* Actually, the early LDS did the same thing, but officially abandoned that over a century ago, leaving the RCC alone in what you condemn. And I do not include here the "cults" just denominations largely regarded as Christian (you will find "cults" doing this - but lets leave them out of the discussion).



.

 

[tadoflamb]

I agree, it's one of the fundamentals I disagree with RC Denomination about.

But let's see if the discussion can be to the definition of the practice rather than a plethora of diversions and evasions?






.

Except you'll never find the Catholic Church calling itself a denomination. That's left to the sola scripturists who invented the concept.

 

[Rick Otto]

I see you personally choosing what you believe.

 

[tadoflamb]

So you don read the bible and only believe what your told by the church of your personal choice.

I get that.

What a strange thing to say. Is this really what your argument has been reduced to?

Now, how about providing us with your definition of sola scriptura, the one whcih allows you to read your bible and pass your private judgement on the content within, because unless you're norming dogma, the definition in post #11 is not for you.