Sola Scriptura

[ivebeenshown]

Is there anything else besides the Trinity that is of dubious origin? And is that your opinion or RC?

I didn't say the Trinity is of dubious origin.

 

[ivebeenshown]

To Josiah:

Using Scripture to evaluate a doctrine necessarily entails interpretation of Scripture and of the doctrine. Why do you insist that, in a thread about 'the practice of using Scripture as the sole rule in evaluating doctrine', interpretation is irrelevant or off-topic, considering interpretation is a very component of the practice?

 

[steve_bakr]

Meaning that, as you said, the institutional church moved to reinforce and clarify with a human explanation--a truth that was already in the Bible--even if many common people didn't understand it. In the Nicene Creed, the Scriptures are mentioned as a basis for the doctrines explained and asserted by it...but nothing about traditions.

The Nicene Creed is what has been revealed by God through Holy Tradition. It seems your position is that Scripture is the only way God reveals his truths to man.

 

[Albion]

The Nicene Creed is what has been revealed by God through Holy Tradition.

That's nothing but a stipulation, like Mormons claiming that the Book of Mormon is scripture or Protestants saying that God restored Israel after WWII as a sign that the end of time is near. IOW, just a guess. There is, of course, nothing objective--such as Scripture--to confirm it, and the writers of the Nicene Creed didn't make that claim themselves. Why do you think that is? The writers of Scripture testified to having been inspired by God to record what they did.

It seems your position is that Scripture is the only way God reveals his truths to man.

My position is that God gave us Scripture in order to reveal all that he deemed necessary for us to know. Is yours that it was incomplete or insufficient? And if so, how would you know what the alternative IS? No one here who has advocated traditions as an alternative or supplement has ever even attempted an answer to that but we're supposed to believe it?!

 

[SolomonVII]

The Nicene Creed is what has been revealed by God through Holy Tradition. It seems your position is that Scripture is the only way God reveals his truths to man.

With or without filioque?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by steve_bakr The Nicene Creed is what has been revealed by God through Holy Tradition. It seems your position is that Scripture is the only way God reveals his truths to man.

With or without filioque?

I was always confused about that myself......the RCC and EOC appear to be a odds with that doctrine from what I understand

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602-88/#post43628489

Scholasticism
Filioque
Papal Supremacy
Immaculate Conception

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602-87/#post43630346

Inventions:
-Infallability of the Pope
-Papal supremacy
-Immaculate coneption
-purgatory
Errors:
-Vatican I and II(not the councells but their decisions....although II was worse than I)
-indulgencies
-crusades
-Vatican City.... (never should have been a "seperate state"but goes hand in hand with the Papal supreority)

 

[steve_bakr]

That's nothing but a stipulation, like Mormons claiming that the Book of Mormon is scripture or Protestants saying that God restored Israel after WWII as a sign that the end of time is near. IOW, just a guess. There is, of course, nothing objective--such as Scripture--to confirm it, and the writers of the Nicene Creed didn't make that claim themselves. Why do you think that is? The writers of Scripture testified to having been inspired by God to record what they did.

My position is that God gave us Scripture in order to reveal all that he deemed necessary for us to know. Is yours that it was incomplete or insufficient? And if so, how would you know what the alternative IS? No one here who has advocated traditions as an alternative or supplement has ever even attempted an answer to that but we're supposed to believe it?!

Do you profess the Nicene Creed?

 

[Kepha]

Sola scriptura simply means that God's Word is the highest authority to which all other authorities must defer and is the authority that governs all other authorities.



I take it you haven't read the Bible lately.

Here are just a couple for you:

Here are a couple more for you:

That's extremely generous of you to throw your perfect interpretation on random Bible veses as an attempt to prove us wrong.

Let's say the Law isn't clear to you. Does that mean you reject the Rule of Law as thus invalid and instead each is exempt from accountability/responsibility?
on.

Bad analogy.

A) If the Law isn't clear to me, then it will be explained by the law givers as explicitly as needed so I may remain accountable and repsonsible.

B) If I'm ignorant of the law, then I have a chance to defend myself for my ignorance of their laws.

C) Equating man's law to show how we should deal with God's Word as well, is a slap in God almighty's Face since self alone makes His law through his/her own interpretations. And though you may claim God is doing the interpretation for you, your hundreds and hundreds of sects say otherwise.

It is impossible to use Scripture as your only 'rule' in evaluating doctrines without interpretation,

Your logic is sound.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Albion
That's nothing but a stipulation, like Mormons claiming that the Book of Mormon is scripture or Protestants saying that God restored Israel after WWII as a sign that the end of time is near. IOW, just a guess.

Do you profess the Nicene Creed?

What makes you ask that?

.

 

[SolomonVII]

I was always confused about that myself......the RCC and EOC appear to be a odds with that doctrine from what I understand

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602-88/#post43628489

Scholasticism
Filioque
Papal Supremacy
Immaculate Conception

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602-87/#post43630346

Inventions:
-Infallability of the Pope
-Papal supremacy
-Immaculate coneption
-purgatory
Errors:
-Vatican I and II(not the councells but their decisions....although II was worse than I)
-indulgencies
-crusades
-Vatican City.... (never should have been a "seperate state"but goes hand in hand with the Papal supreority)

There are two Sacred Traditions on a variety of dogmatic claims, and have been for a long time before 1054.

The Sacred Traditions just keep growing further and further apart, and yet we are expected to receieve the assurance of certainty by holding fast to Sacred Tradition,

Which one?

 

[Fireinfolding]

There are two Sacred Traditions on a variety of dogmatic claims, and have been for a long time before 1054.

The Sacred Traditions just keep growing further and further apart, and yet we are expected to receieve the assurance of certainty by holding fast to Sacred Tradition,

Which one?

Without question both are Sacred and true right?

So, I suppose without question ...

...eenie meanie...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Without question both are Sacred and true right?

So, I suppose without question ...

...eenie meanie...

Here we go round the mulberry bush, chasing after a dead horse which never dies

http://www.christianforums.com/t7231588-65/
"Holy Tradition"--Who has the correct interpretation of the Traditions?

 

[SolomonVII]

Traditions are often useful guides and offer instruction and good counsel and a deeper appreciationof the faith.
But in terms of being innerant and infallible, that is hardly the case. As often as not traditions disagree with each other.

That is not a damning indictment against tradition, for traditions are always about taking in account local conditions and considerations. What may proof useful to a evangelist in Visigoyh Spain in his evangelizing to Arians would not be the same as what would appeal to a liberal theologian in the heart of Byzantium.

But to get to the purest, most virginal and untouched elements of the faith, it only makes sense to go to scripture, which is a testimony of those who were eyewitnesses to that unique event in human history when God was one of us, and the apostles walked with God.
Scripture is at the source of our faith all the rest is commentary with varying degrees of usefulness and accuracy.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Here we go round the mulberry bush, chasing after a dead horse which never dies

http://www.christianforums.com/t7231588-65/
"Holy Tradition"--Who has the correct interpretation of the Traditions?

Even in the garden it seemed a whole lot simpler, between what is true and what was a lie be it Gods words to them or the serpent's.

Now its like, Gods words are second to a Holy tradition (divided) and each call their Holy Tradition true, I mean, I have heard of the Holy Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit (being true) as God is true but not of the term Holy Tradition (and among the few) being unquestionable but just as true.

So just say we have but two (because Im not up on all the traditions out there) but just to simplify it. Both claim their sacredness, and thier trueness (given they held under the title of "Holy, Sacred, and True") even though both differ (thus I cant see how both be true) but both believe they are unquestionable?

Its like there is no lies anymore, its just thrown into the tradition pile. Theres either, truth, lies and tradition, and if its not in scripture, it might be a lie (only if its not tradition). But at the same time if its not in one true tradition it could be found in the other tradition thus (once again) it becomes void as being a lie. Even though both traditions are sacred, holy and true even if at odds (or whatever).

Yeah, I'm confused So interpretation comes by a divided Holy Tradition? I never heard that, unless Holy Tradition really means Holy Spirit, I would doubt it because why wouldnt someone say Holy Spirit?

I cant make sense of it, I read the posts on these things and get lost.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Heres where casting lots might come in handy though

 

[Fireinfolding]

Or you could roll dice

 

[ivebeenshown]

There are two Sacred Traditions on a variety of dogmatic claims, and have been for a long time before 1054.

The Sacred Traditions just keep growing further and further apart, and yet we are expected to receieve the assurance of certainty by holding fast to Sacred Tradition,

Which one?

Look at the circumstances and determine which group of bishops were in error by splitting from the other group. I would say that if there were not one particular bishop that the institution 'centered' on, such as the bishop of Rome, it would be impossible to tell which group one should remain loyal to in the event of such a schism.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I am going to post this until a 'Sola Scriptura' proponent can answer this for me:

To Josiah (or anyone who can answer):

Using Scripture to evaluate a doctrine necessarily entails interpretation of Scripture and of the doctrine. Why do you insist that, in a thread about 'the practice of using Scripture as the sole rule in evaluating doctrine', interpretation is irrelevant or off-topic, considering interpretation is a very component of the practice?

 

[Anoetos]

Those three truths are found throughout the bible, but not explicitly as one statement regarding the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity had to be clarified by the Church though. Some were saying the Son and the Spirit were lesser in authority than the Father, some were saying the Son was not truly God, so on.

Right, and SS does not require an explicit record of every doctrine either.

 

[Anoetos]

I am going to post this until a 'Sola Scriptura' proponent can answer this for me:

Strawman: no one has said that interpretation is "irrelevant or off-topic".

What we've said is that authority is primary to its interpretation; in much the same way that however many de fide, ex cathedra, pronouncements the magisterium may see fit to hand down, those receiving them must still understand and implement them rightly (given the record on Vatican II alone, this clearly gets messy): Their authority is seen to be in their nature, not in their interpretation.

The distinction is that Scripture, being His very own God-breathed Word, is different in nature to such magisterial statements: the same Holy Spirit Who inspired the human authors indwells believers, giving them a guarantee of at least eventual correction and right interpretation.