So, is sola scriptura another version of the napkin religion?

[Gregory Thompson]

Discussion space to discuss the napkin religion, and its similarity (or lack thereof) to the claims of sola scriptura.

 

[sandman]

I have yet to see a napkin be raised back to life into a tree.
Christianity is not a religion...

 

[Jipsah]

I have yet to see a napkin be raised back to life into a tree.

OK.

Christianity is not a religion...

That is a slogan.

 

[Jipsah]

Discussion space to discuss the napkin religion, and its similarity (or lack thereof) to the claims of sola scriptura.

View attachment 328488

Funny! And like a lot of funny things, contains more than a grain of truth.

Interestingly enough (to me, anyway), is that some of the best engineering ideas first took shape on bar napkins. Perpetrated a couple of them meself.

 

[sandman]

OK.

That is a slogan.

Even slogans can hold truth…

Christianity is a way of a Father with his family it’s what God wrought through His son Jesus Christ …by comparison religion is what man thinks of God.
In Christianity God is the subject man is the object
In religion Man is the subject God is the object

 

[Michie]

Discussion space to discuss the napkin religion, and its similarity (or lack thereof) to the claims of sola scriptura.

View attachment 328488

Are we comparing Scripture to something scrawled on a napkin now?

 

[Jipsah]

Even slogans can hold truth…

That one doesn't. Christianity is a religion. It has a Deity, beliefs about that Deity, worships that Deity, has priests (or whatever you prefer to call them) and temples (or whatever you prefer to call them), and creeds, and a cosmology, and a code of ethics and behavior, ad infinitum. Just like every other religion.

Christianity is a way of a Father with his family it’s what God wrought through His son Jesus Christ …by comparison religion is what man thinks of God. In Christianity God is the subject man is the object
In religion Man is the subject God is the object.

OK, that all sounds interesting. Now tell me what that means, and how it's different than, say, Islam, or Hinduism?

And just for drill (anticipating the almost inevitable "If you were a real Christian..." response), I hereby affirm that I believe everything expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds to be objectively true. That's the difference for me, you see. I believe that the Christian Faith is true, while Islam, and Judaism, and Hinduism, and whatever, are not true.

BTW, if you're going to reach for the "Christianity is a relationship with God" trope, I assert tht everybody has a "relationship with God", but that being sinners, it's just not generally a good relationship.

 

[Jipsah]

Are we comparing Scripture to something scrawled on a napkin now?

Reductio ad absurdum, but yeah. The Bible says that Bible is true, as al Quran says that it is true, or the Sikhs say that the Guru Granth Sahib is true. Obviously there has to be a bit more to it than that, else no one would accept any of those things as ultimately true. The Bible, of course, is based on Holy Tradition, which we must also accept as true in order to accept the Bible. In the end it all comes down to what we believe, be it the napkin or the Word of God.

 

[Michie]

Reductio ad absurdum, but yeah. The Bible says that Bible is true, as al Quran says that it is true, or the Sikhs say that the Guru Granth Sahib is true. Obviously there has to be a bit more to it than that, else no one would accept any of those things as ultimately true. The Bible, of course, is based on Holy Tradition, which we must also accept as true in order to accept the Bible. In the end it all comes down to what we believe, be it the napkin or the Word of God.

Pretty insulting no matter where you sit on your beliefs imo.

 

[Jipsah]

Pretty insulting no matter where you sit on your beliefs imo.

From where we sit, sure. But to the unbeliever, "The Bible sez..." is about as credible as "the napkin sez". Why would the unbeliever accept the authority of the Bible? It's like telling us "the Quran says...". We find that of merely academic interest, and attach no authority to it.

In the end we accept the Bible as Holy Writ because of a couple thousand years of history and tradition. We don't accept the napkin because it's just a napkin.

 

[IceJad]

Discussion space to discuss the napkin religion, and its similarity (or lack thereof) to the claims of sola scriptura.

View attachment 328488

It is a chicken and egg situation. Religion should be an accumulation of many aspects such as history, laws, revelations, prophecies, customs and sayings. A non-written religious practise could be true during the time of its inception, however without written records how sure are we that such practise is accurately passed down? Then comes the other argument just because it is not written doesn't mean it is not part of the religion originally because even the Gospel of John said that not every action of Jesus was recorded down.

I personally hold sola scriptura to a higher degree of trust as non-written practises or teachings are easier to be inaccurately passed down.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

“The Napkin religion is the one true religion because it says so right here on this Napkin.”

1. We don't know who wrote that.

2. Scripture is theopneustos (breathed-out by God).

False equivalence fallacy: “This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal but the claim of equivalence does not bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors” (emphasis added).

 

[FireDragon76]

Sola scriptura doesn't stand up well to Rationalism or Postmodernism. Many of the Reformers seemed to be genuinely naive about the limitations of language, epistemology, and hermeneutics, particularly in the Reformed tradition, but also to some extent in the Lutheran tradition as well. They all tended to peer down the well of the vast history of time and see in the early Church reflected to them an idealized version of themselves, to borrow an image from the 19th century Jesuit modernist, George Tyrrell.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is a chicken and egg situation. Religion should be an accumulation of many aspects such as history, laws, revelations, prophecies, customs and sayings. A non-written religious practise could be true during the time of its inception, however without written records how sure are we that such practise is accurately passed down?

Many religions are based on religious experience as primary. It's only the large western religions that tend to be heavy on propositions for their religious epistemology.

The Quaker religion, for instance, is almost exclusively experientially based. Many eastern religions, such as Shinto, are heavily experientially based as well.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Are we comparing Scripture to something scrawled on a napkin now?

You know, if someone sold a bible in napkin format, people would probably buy it.

 

[Michie]

You know, if someone sold a bible in napkin format, people would probably buy it.

I can’t relate to this attitude at all.

 

[sandman]

That one doesn't. Christianity is a religion. It has a Deity, beliefs about that Deity, worships that Deity, has priests (or whatever you prefer to call them) and temples (or whatever you prefer to call them), and creeds, and a cosmology, and a code of ethics and behavior, ad infinitum. Just like every other religion.

OK, that all sounds interesting. Now tell me what that means, and how it's different than, say, Islam, or Hinduism?

And just for drill (anticipating the almost inevitable "If you were a real Christian..." response), I hereby affirm that I believe everything expressed in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds to be objectively true. That's the difference for me, you see. I believe that the Christian Faith is true, while Islam, and Judaism, and Hinduism, and whatever, are not true.

BTW, if you're going to reach for the "Christianity is a relationship with God" trope, I assert tht everybody has a "relationship with God", but that being sinners, it's just not generally a good relationship.

In my post I was not comparing Christianity to other religions…. although now I can clearly see how my post was misleading and where you would draw that conclusion. I don’t really care about other religions, nor do I know enough about them to compare. What I really was doing was defining what has happen to Christianity through the offshoots of religion. I realize you still won’t agree with me... as I am not a big fan of most religions (in Christianity).

True Christianity is not a religion it is a way of a Father with His family which does make that a relationship. At the base of most religions is a works base doctrine seeking self-righteousness by doing the right thing… saying the right thing…. wearing the right thing… acting the right way… it’s rituals, repetition, creeds, rules ….and more. It’s man way in his eyes of dictating to God what worship is.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I can’t relate to this attitude at all.

Me neither, but I understand that it's true.

 

[Michie]

Me neither, but I understand that it's true.

I don’t believe it is.

 

[fhansen]

Discussion space to discuss the napkin religion, and its similarity (or lack thereof) to the claims of sola scriptura.

View attachment 328488

More than one religion, since SS can’t seem to come up with a unified body of beliefs. And this is because Scripture is necessarily filtered through the weak and fallible men who interpret it as they read it. Once the Christian faith is effectively divorced from the past, lived experience and understanding of the church, much guess-work must be applied.