Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, I've known CJ's posting style for years, and this is exactly how he works.
You are wasting your time trying to have an honest conversation with him. He will have none of it.
Really? You give a definition there? And an example, too? Gosh, if only I'd known that, I might have not only read it but also linked to it from my original post.
I'm not sure I've see you actually answer any questions about that. Each time I've asked for any clarification you've told me I'm off topic in my own thread and dodged the question or turned it sideways.
The ONLY thing I have seen you do thus far is paste your link, then paste links to your link, and then for good measure, cut-and-paste the entirety of that link into your post. Please forgive me, but that tactic has gone from helpful, to amusing, to obnoxious, to flatly insulting. We are perfectly literate and capable of reading your thread the first time you post it.
You seem to sincerely think you're participating in a discussion, but no discussion is taking place. You are attempting to so tightly control the definition and framework of the discussion that no progress of any kind can be made, except to say "ok, I agree with you" and leave it there, or else simply end any attempt at pursuing it further.
As of now I will take the latter option.
And that is all part of CJs game.The interesting thing is, I am not even sure what I am to agree with because I don't get it. Any question I ask is off-topic.
Any question I ask is off-topic.
I do look forward to a conversation with a Confessional Lutheran on how one should understand Sola Scriptura
how we mischaracterize it
But no one seemed interested in discussing that characterization, just in letting it stand or in parroting it.
To defend others. I only saw that said once in some other thread. I guess others didn't comment on it because they didn't make the initial comment.
Yes, CJ. It's everybody else's fault. Really. You can go away vindicated.Calling me a "liar", accusing me of all sorts of things, ignoring nearly everything I posted, a constant effort to change topics away from the subject at hand - probably didn't help the process here.
.
If it just meant that "if it contradicts scripture it is wrong", then the Orthodox would not have a problem with it. None at all, because nothing in our Doctrine or Praxis contradicts Holy Scripture.I read the referenced post in the OP. Aren’t we making this whole question to complicated?
Doesn’t sola scriptura simply mean that the written word of God has ruling authority over all others? I guess the simple me says, in other words, if it contradicts scripture it is wrong. The Bible should be our standard for testing everything else that claims to be true. Authorities governing Christian life and devotion, must do so only as long as they are not in conflict with scripture.
See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, (Ephesians 5:15 KJV)
Here, we get into a little bit of a problem. Personal revelation is a tricky thing. Assuming one has it is more often spiritual pride than it is truly a Divine Revelation.When I come across a question or a choice where the Bible is silent I go directly to God and ask Him “What is the wise thing to do”, then let the Holy Spirit guide me.
Here, we get into a little bit of a problem. Personal revelation is a tricky thing. Assuming one has it is more often spiritual pride than it is truly a Divine Revelation.
I read the referenced post in the OP. Aren’t we making this whole question to complicated?
Doesn’t sola scriptura simply mean that the written word of God has ruling authority over all others?
In CONCEPT, that IS abiding by this practice. I doubt any arbitration would likely be THAT loose, THAT informal - but that would be ARBITRATION according to it - just so loose as to be pretty worthless. In a similar discussion with LDS, they insisted (and went on to demonstrate) that NOTHING the LDS teaches exactly, technically CONTRADICTS Scripture either - although every single one quickly admitted that LOTS of key LDS teachings are "in no sense affirmed by Scripture" either. So, it would depend on how loose or strict the arbitration might be.I guess the simple me says, in other words, if it contradicts scripture it is wrong.
THAT is the classic definition of "Sola Scriptura."The Bible should be our standard for testing everything else that claims to be true.
When I come across a question or a choice where the Bible is silent I go directly to God and ask Him “What is the wise thing to do”, then let the Holy Spirit guide me.
You had the right idea. Prayer. Sobriety. Weigh the options. Sometimes, there will be no clear-cut answer. Sometimes the answer is to pick a path, and to do God's Will on whichever path you've chosen.I agree it can be tricky. So what is your response if the Bible is silent on a question?
You had the right idea. Prayer. Sobriety. Weigh the options. Sometimes, there will be no clear-cut answer. Sometimes the answer is to pick a path, and to do God's Will on whichever path you've chosen.
The reason I mentioned something in reply to your earlier post was that it can set a dangerous precedent to think that God will personally direct us every time we ask for it. More often than not, I think, He will let us chose, and let us learn and grow from our choices.
Too often, when someone says "God led me to...", what they actually mean was "this is what I really wanted to do".
GOOD STUFF, Denver....
Although it's rarely framed in the context of "authority," yeah - the point is, God's words trump man's opinions (as one youth pastor at a Baptist Church put it).
Perhaps there are two dogmas on an issue of importance, "A" and "B" Perhaps they cannot BOTH be correct. IF it matters if one (or either) is correct (accountability - and this IS the "rub", the point of contention), then we've just entered the realm of "norming." Norming is the epistemological process of determining correctness/validity.
As those supporting "A" and those supporting "B" figurative sit down at the table together, as WE ALL do norming, the first order of business (now that accountability has been unviersally accepted) is to agree on a Standard. WHAT will be used as the "measuring stick" (the literal meaning of the word "canon", what in epistemology is called "the norma normans" - the norm that will norm"). Generally, the most sound candidate would be the one seen as MOST reliable, MOST objective, MOST knowable by all and alterable by none, the one with the most historic and universal embrace as reliable for such. The Rule of Scripture embraces Scripture for this role. Scripture then becomes the canon ("measuring stick") or rule ("straight edge"). Yes, in a sense, all at the table are agreeing to subject their views to God's, to regard themselves as under Him, their words under His words. And all others are agreeing to this, too.
In CONCEPT, that IS abiding by this practice. I doubt any arbitration would likely be THAT loose, THAT informal - but that would be ARBITRATION according to it - just so loose as to be pretty worthless. In a similar discussion with LDS, they insisted (and went on to demonstrate) that NOTHING the LDS teaches exactly, technically CONTRADICTS Scripture either - although every single one quickly admitted that LOTS of key LDS teachings are "in no sense affirmed by Scripture" either. So, it would depend on how loose or strict the arbitration might be.
THAT is the classic definition of "Sola Scriptura."
And there you set quite a different standard for arbitration. Not simply "isn't false" but "is true." A LOT tougher. But yes - both IN CONCEPT would be arbitration according to the Rule of Scripture.
This is the issue of "adiaphoron." This is one of many concepts related to Sola Scriptura. SOMETIMES, in the arbitive process, it is concluded that the position in review cannot be adequately affirmed OR denied. (AGAIN, we're off topic here, this is an issue in ARBITRATION). It is "adiaphoron" - a matter in which Scripture is not seen as norming true or false. It may even be declared as being entirely "silent" on that. USUALLY, it will thus NOT be declared as "heresy" or as "dogma."
In some cases, the group may decide to simply end the process there - no definitive conclusion is possible. Or it may bring an opinion - NOT normed by Scripture exactly but nonetheless from implications. Generally, most groups will not call this dogma and not claim such is normed by Scripture. OR it may respond with "pious opinion." In Protestantism, "pious opinion" is a view generally regarded as sound but is NOT normed true or false by Scripture - it is thus PERMITTED teaching (and perhaps even a prescribed teaching of that body) but NOT doctrine (and denying such does NOT make one a heretic or less "Christian"). For example, many Lutherans believe that Mary had no other children than Jesus - and this is PERMITTED. But it is not DOGMA, one may have no opinion at all on the matter (as I don't) or even conclude that Mary DID have other children - they will not be declared a heretic or excommunication or burned at the stake (or in this case, even corrected by his bishop - unless said pastor declares that we MUST believe She had other children, then he WILL be corrected by his bishop).
Yes, it's humility. You hit the nail right on the head. It's a willingness to accept I could be wrong - and truth matters more than my power or ego or lording it over others. It's the humility of saying God's words trump mine. It's even the humility of saying, "This is MY pious opinion - that I think sound - but I do not claim GOD teaches it."
You've pretty much got it, my brother.
And thanks for chiming in!
Blessings!
I agree it can be tricky. So what is your response if the Bible is silent on a question?
This! That is the answer! Ask! Ask your brother, your fathers, your elders, those present and those of the past. It is so simple!
And to make the point more illustrative, here's a little story from the Desert Fathers (~6th century):Once an elder fasted for seventy weeks eating only once a week. He asked God about a certain passage of Scripture, and God did not reveal it to him. Finally the elder said to himself: "After all this labour I have gained nothing. I shall go to my brother and ask him." And as he was closing his door to go away, an angel of the Lord was sent to him who said: "The seventy weeks which you fasted did not bring you nearer to God, but when you humbled yourself to go to your brother, I was sent to you to explain the passage to you." And the angel revealed the meaning of the passage which he had sought, and departed from him.Similarly, one should not rely on his own judgment in interpreting scripture but again ask those who are more knowledgeable than he. Also, read the works (and the lives) of past Christians who are universally acclaimed. Some of them had a unique gift in interpreting scripture as you can read in my signature.
I respect your point of view. However, the only problem with that, IMO, is that who you ask will determine the answer. Look at CF - a Roman Catholic will give one answer, Eastern Orthodox perhaps another, Baptists one, Calvinist another...I think you see my point.
Still there are similarities in all traditions even the ones who reject that they have itI respect your point of view. However, the only problem with that, IMO, is that who you ask will determine the answer. Look at CF - a Roman Catholic will give one answer, Eastern Orthodox perhaps another, Baptists one, Calvinist another...I think you see my point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?