Defining sola scriptura.

[MoreCoffee]

Then make sure you reprimand your RCC friends as well. They bring an aspect up, and you swoop in to call foul when we present arguments against it. That's not a dialogue, it's a monologue. Although that may be the way you prefer it since your op has been answered continuously throughout this thread yet we still keep hearing it hasn't....

Post 757 was not directed at any specific individual.

 

[SpyderByte]

Post 757 was not directed at any specific individual.

You quoted me in it..............

 

[MoreCoffee]

You quoted me in it..............

That is not true. I quoted myself as author of the original post for this thread.

 

[SpyderByte]

That is not true. I quoted myself as author of the original post for this thread.

It's possible. I use the iPhone app sp I don't see post numbers, but you didn't answer my question. Are you going to act likewise when people of your own denomination do the same?

On second thought, never mind. I know the answer. It's a waste of time when one side wants to use a monologue like a battering ram to drive over arguments and herd people away from relevant points that debunk the aforementioned monologue.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's possible. I use the iPhone app sp I don't see post numbers, but you didn't answer my question. Are you going to act likewise when people of your own denomination do the same?

On second thought, never mind. I know the answer. It's a waste of time when one side wants to use a monologue like a battering ram to drive over arguments and herd people away from relevant points that debunk the aforementioned monologue.

Since post 757 was not directed to any individual it obviously applies equally to all persons who deviate from the thread's topic as defined in the original post.

I gave a link to post 757 here it is again.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Please return to the thread's topic. The current line of discussion is off topic.

The topic of this thread is defined by the original post which is shown below.

See post #11 where the definition is given.



I agree, yes, Catholics (including you) have gone to AMAZING, creative, inventive, persistent lengths to divert, evade and hijack the thread. They have TRIED so very hard to subvert the definition with their strawmen, they have TRIED so very hard to change the subject to principles of hermeneutics and/or arbitration, they have TRIED so very hard to suggest that if reasons are given for the practice that changes the practice to something different, they have TRIED so very hard to suggest that the official definition is something I personally wrote in 1577, they have TRIED so hard to prove that because the RCC has a UNIQUE Bible that NONE other embrace this makes the practice impossible, they have TRIED so hard to suggest that the practice could make a denomination as disunited as the RCC one is, but one thing they have not done: engage in the discussion.

In debate, there is a technique when you feel trapped..... it's often called "the shell game." It involves constantly moving the subject.... constantly changing the topic.... thus the issue to be avoided is constantly being bumped and the opponent is placed on the defensive (and if well done, confused by the constant changing). I think this thread shows how well some Catholics can apply this!!! See post #11.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Please keep to the thread topic. It ought to supply plenty of opportunity to present views about scripture and its role in defining doctrine as well as sola scriptura as a theory of authority in the church. There's also plenty of room for presenting scripture to support one's doctrine of scripture and one's view of sola scriptura. And one can explain what the scripture and doctrine mean in one's own words so sticking with the thread topic is likely to be satisfying for anybody who wants to discuss the doctrine of scripture.

All that would be off topic.

The official, formal, historic definition has been given. Just ignored.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Please read the original post and adhere to the theme it sets.

 

[SpyderByte]

Please read the original post and adhere to the theme it sets.

Iow CaliforniaJosiah we must adhere to the misrepresentations of the RCC and it's apologists and just admit that their definitions and strawmen are the ones we must use, no matter how incorrect it is!

 

[tadoflamb]

That any would call the bible God is as astounding as any one calling a piece of bread God, in my poetically inspired opinion.
Poetry astounds me.
You too?

...And actually no, the practice/doctrine/tradition of worshipping the bi.... I mean sola Scriptura, is not the same as what you may knowingly henceforth refer to as "the perspicuity of scripture"

Google THAT 5 times really fast!

"This is my body". Sounds pretty clear to me.

Now, please underline, bold or otherwise highlight where in the bible Jesus calls the bible His body. See how this works?

But, I'm glad you brought this up. The perspicuity of scripture is a tenet of sola scritpura ignored by the author of post #11. So, where did you get your definition? Please share.

 

[tadoflamb]

Just come out and say: "I do not believe God can interpret scripture by only using his scripture to ordinary people.

Please bold, underline or otherwise highlight where in the definition of sola scriptura where it says scripture interprets scripture. (see post #11)

 

[barryatlake]

Spyder, you misunderstand the theme that MoreCoffe is speaking about.

MoreCoffe wrote: "Please read the original post and adhere to the theme it sets."
__________________

 

[tadoflamb]

See post #11 where the definition is given.

I read that. There's nothing in there about the bible being God.

There must be another definition where they're getting that from.

Same with scripture interpreting scripture and the perspicuity of scripture.

Any explanation as to why this could be?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Iow CaliforniaJosiah we must adhere to the misrepresentations of the RCC and it's apologists and just admit that their definitions and strawmen are the ones we must use, no matter how incorrect it is!

Show me a misrepresentation in the original post. If you can't then kindly stick with the theme set in the original post.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I read that. There's nothing in there about the bible being God.

There must be another definition where they're getting that from.

Same with scripture interpreting scripture and the perspicuity of scripture.

Any explanation as to why this could be?

Please stick to the original post's theme.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I read that. There's nothing in there about the bible being God.

That's because the practice doesn't teach that (practices don't teach anything). Read post # 11.

Same with scripture interpreting scripture and the perspicuity of scripture.

That's because the practice doesn't interpret anything... and doesn't teach the perspicuity of Scripture. See post # 11.

What some are doing is trying to explain WHY in their own opinion Scripture should be embraced as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us - they are not CHANGING the definition, they are EXPLAINING why they think it is sound. You have chosen to confuse their explaining with the definition itself in an attempt to evade the topic.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[tadoflamb]

Please stick to the original post's theme.

I thought this was a thread about the definition of sola scriptura. Mea culpa.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I thought this was a thread about the definition of sola scriptura. Mea culpa.

It is, but post 11 is far from what was requested in the original post so rehashing it with CaliforniaJosiah is derailing the thread. Let's stick with what the original post asked, specifically

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?​

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It is, but post 11 is far from what was requested in the original post

Post # 11 gives the historic, official, formal, confessional definition (that NO Protestant yet has disagreed with).

No, it does not affirm your misconceptions and strawmen ("doctrine", etc.) but it does give the actual, real definition.

All the attempts by Catholics to evade and hijack have been stunning.


Thank you.


pax


- Josiah

 

[Standing Up]

It is, but post 11 is far from what was requested in the original post so rehashing it with CaliforniaJosiah is derailing the thread. Let's stick with what the original post asked, specifically

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?​

It's not that hard.

"The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us"

Numerous scripture verses tell us this is written so you might believe and believing have eternal life.

To my knowledge, no council has ever declared we should believe what it says in order to have eternal life.

But there are some denominations who say you must believe what I say in order to have eternal life.

For those in the last group, we (SS) suggest you change your mind and follow what God-breathed scripture has revealed instead.