Sola Scriptura

[Standing Up]

There was only one church, that I'm aware of then.

Then, when? 100ad, 500ad, 1100ad, 1600ad, 2000ad?

 

[Standing Up]

Apparently it is all of them, considering some of the "I am neither Protestant or Catholic, and I merely repeat what the Bible plainly says" lonewolf rhetoric that we have seen in multiple threads when the subject of the canon and interpretation comes up.

Perhaps you're right. Different flocks have different food (bibles). So much for the idea that the "Catholic Church gave us the bible".

But yes, that becomes an SS problem. IOW, if your OT includes the idea of praying to the dead and mine doesn't, even if we both agree to forgo tradition and councils, and use SS, we may end up with a problem.

 

[Tzaousios]

Perhaps you're right. Different flocks have different food (bibles). So much for the idea that the "Catholic Church gave us the bible".

Nah. It says how deceptively "spiritualized" and "right" the lonewolf Christian mentality is along with its conflation of interpretation and the truth that the text holds. I would not expect you to admit this, though.

But yes, that becomes an SS problem. IOW, if your OT includes the idea of praying to the dead and mine doesn't, even if we both agree to forgo tradition and councils, and use SS, we may end up with a problem.

What Old Testament includes "praying to the dead"?

 

[Standing Up]

Nah. It says how deceptively "spiritualized" and "right" the lonewolf Christian mentality is along with its conflation of interpretation and the truth that the text holds. I would not expect you to admit this, though.

Mont: They reject the church that caused the Bible

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Which church? Which bible? EO or RC or OO or P each with different OT.
​

T: apparently it is all of them, considering some of the "I am neither Protestant or Catholic, and I merely repeat what the Bible plainly says" lonewolf rhetoric that we have seen in multiple threads when the subject of the canon and interpretation comes up.


Please stay on topic, and off me. Let's start again:

Which church? Which bible?

 

[Tzaousios]

Please stay on topic, and off me.

I didn't say anything about you. What made you think that I had? All I said was that I did not expect you to admit to anything contained in my post.

 

[Montalban]

I didn't say anything about you. What made you think that I had? All I said was that I did not expect you to admit to anything contained in my post.

We've already seen how people equate their opinion with the bible

 

[Montalban]

Post #401 raises a problem that still doesn't help sola scriptura

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Post #401 raises a problem that still doesn't help sola scriptura

I don't see how... WHEN the first denomination came into being has nothing whatsoever with WHAT is the most sound rule/norma normans for us as we evaluate the disputed dogmas among us.





.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why are you happy with the Lutheran church doing just that?

Read the Confessions. Quote for me the part that lists all rejected books.


Then, let's stop the hijack and return to the topic of the thread.


.

 

[Rick Otto]

Nah. It says how deceptively "spiritualized" and "right" the lonewolf Christian mentality is along with its conflation of interpretation and the truth that the text holds. I would not expect you to admit this, though.



What Old Testament includes "praying to the dead"?

Ask a real pope. Or an EO priest. Prots generaly don't do it.

And the "Lone Wolf Christian" label... anybody here fit that?
I'm with God, not alone.
How do you feel about God being invisible if you're uncomfortable with an invisible church concept?

 

[Tzaousios]

Ask a real pope. Or an EO priest. Prots generaly don't do it.

Ask them what?

And the "Lone Wolf Christian" label... anybody here fit that?

Well, I would say yes, but would you admit that there are, semantics aside?

I'm with God, not alone.
How do you feel about God being invisible if you're uncomfortable with an invisible church concept?

This is what I meant by semantics. Yes, of course, you are with God. That is not the purpose of the what is meant by "lonewolf Christian." I think you understand what I mean.

As for invisibility, I am not sure what you are getting at by me being "uncomfortable." I tend not to draw a dichotomy between the invisibility of God and the visibility of the Church. So, no, I am not uncomfortable.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Tzaousios;Ask them what?

What Old Testament includes "praying to the dead"?

They are the ones who interpret scripture to allow for that.

Well, I would say yes, but would you admit that there are, semantics aside?

In order to 'set semantics aside', wouldn't you have to be a little more definitive than a lone wolf being someone who "conflates interpretation"?
Isn't that allegation the common currency of general theological disputes?
How lonely can one feel in the presence of so many who rely more on God & scripture than any one of the schisms of Catholicism?

This is what I meant by semantics. Yes, of course, you are with God. That is not the purpose of the what is meant by "lonewolf Christian." I think you understand what I mean.

I understand you to mean one who doesn't 'pledge allegeance' to any congregation, rather only to God & lets love rule, not ecclesiastic authorities since the ecclesia is so schismed.

As for invisibility, I am not sure what you are getting at by me being "uncomfortable." I tend not to draw a dichotomy between the invisibility of God and the visibility of the Church. So, no, I am not uncomfortable

I thought you were, enough to the degree that you affiliate with a visible one. Add to that the baggage in the terms "lone" & "wolf", neither of which seperately or together conjure a positive image, at least in my mind, with it's minimal familiarity with your posts. That you would affiliate with Lutherans & associate Lone Wolves with conflating interpretation expresses in my semantic understanding, that you are pro-establishment (reformed to some degree), and skeptical of non-joiners in general.

Am I trippin', dude?

 

[Montalban]

I don't see how... WHEN the first denomination came into being has nothing whatsoever with WHAT is the most sound rule/norma normans for us as we evaluate the disputed dogmas among us.

I don't see what your posts always raising this 'norma normans' has to do with the reality of sola scriptura as it's a 'means' not based in Scripture

However if you don't know when or where or even how the bible came into being that's fine.

 

[Rick Otto]

The unsubstantiated claim that SS is not in scripture is boilerplate "just so" statement making. We are to accept it just because it is said to be so.

Acts 17 is scripture & it displays the 'norm' of comparing spiritual truths heard elsewhere with spiritual truths in scripture for correspondence & affirmation.

[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
[12] Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few

 

[Tzaousios]

What Old Testament includes "praying to the dead"?

They are the ones who interpret scripture to allow for that.

No, they do not. "Praying to the dead" is a rhetorical turn of phrase that is used to describe intercessory prayer in a derisive manner. I think you are aware of that.

In order to 'set semantics aside', wouldn't you have to be a little more definitive than a lone wolf being someone who "conflates interpretation"?
Isn't that allegation the common currency of general theological disputes?

I think that I have provided for a specific, definitive use of the term when I have used it elsewhere. In that context, I do not think that the aspect of interpretation becomes "common currency."

How lonely can one feel in the presence of so many who rely more on God & scripture than any one of the schisms of Catholicism?

In my experience, those can be divided into ones who live firmly within their comfort box and probably very well believe that that is what they are doing and nothing else exists outside of the box.

The other group consists of those who know very well what exists outside of the box, have had exposure to the sources and history, yet react against it in spite of what they know. To that end, they consciously use whatever they know for specific polemical and rhetorical purposes rather than face the music. They are the ones that tend to describe rhetorically what they do as merely "relying on God and Scripture."

I understand you to mean one who doesn't 'pledge allegeance' to any congregation, rather only to God & lets love rule, not ecclesiastic authorities since the ecclesia is so schismed.

No, that is not what I mean since you description is a rhetorical reconfiguration of what you perceive or want me to mean. You set up a false dichotomy here between "us and them."

Should the mentality be, if there are "schisms" and disagreements, as there have been throughout history, why not add yet another one to the heap with one's individual interpretation and a church of one?

I thought you were, enough to the degree that you affiliate with a visible one.

Once again, I think it is a false dichotomy to set up my ecclesiological beliefs as being founded upon an uncomfortableness between the invisibility of God and a visible/invisible church. Rather, it is an informed disagreement with the reasonings and justifications of those who choose to define the church as being only invisible and reject the visible.

Add to that the baggage in the terms "lone" & "wolf", neither of which seperately or together conjure a positive image, at least in my mind, with it's minimal familiarity with your posts.

Baggage? No, it is the result of my informed disagreement with the aforementioned reasonings and justifications. It accurately describes what I think is going on with that particular ecclesiological mentality.

That you would affiliate with Lutherans & associate Lone Wolves with conflating interpretation expresses in my semantic understanding, that you are pro-establishment (reformed to some degree), and skeptical of non-joiners in general.

I don't affiliate with Lutherans, but a Presbyterian church that is liturgical in worship, Reformed in theology, confesses the historical creeds, and believes in the Real Presence. I don't reject church history or the church fathers, but let them inform my perspective as I find it in my present ecclesiological context.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Tzaousios;No, they do not. "Praying to the dead" is a rhetorical turn of phrase that is used to describe intercessory prayer in a derisive manner. I think you are aware of that.

It was not present in my mind, but now that you mention it I not only ask for your forgiveness bit also for your continued attention to the issue at hand, praying to deceased or discorporate saints who are very much alive in Christ as I am aware. I view "praying to the dead" as a vulgarization, but not necessarily as derogatory.
It is the practice itself I view as contradictory to scrupture, and therefore it derogates Christianity by association.
Forgiveable in truly loving people, but unseemly at best, in my opinion.

I think that I have provided for a specific, definitive use of the term when I have used it elsewhere. In that context, I do not think that the aspect of interpretation becomes "common currency."

Well, that's nice to know about you. Maybe that's one of the reasons you seem more reasonable than the average GT poster.

In my experience, those can be divided into ones who live firmly within their comfort box and probably very well believe that that is what they are doing and nothing else exists outside of the box.

Ok. But 'churchianity' can become a comfort box, where one escapes more than resolves or even at least deals with one's own problems. Not that that's always a bad thing, but you know,... too much of a good thing is a bad thing.

The other group consists of those who know very well what exists outside of the box, have had exposure to the sources and history, yet react against it in spite of what they know. To that end, they consciously use whatever they know for specific polemical and rhetorical purposes rather than face the music. They are the ones that tend to describe rhetorically what they do as merely "relying on God and Scripture."

Ok, I can see that, & yet some experience Christian fellowship more easily outside the 'box' of established religious institutions being more comfortable in what they believe are spiritual institutions as opposed to what are religious institutions - 'religious' being a degree removed from 'spiritual'. For example, the two greatest commandments are 'more spiritual' than the law & the prophets - Jesus having said "On these twocommandments hang all the law and the prophets."

No, that is not what I mean since you description is a rhetorical reconfiguration of what you perceive or want me to mean. You set up a false dichotomy here between "us and them."

Me? I thought you set the rhetoric & dichotomy with "Lone Wolf". lol
Some like to 'run with the pack' & some like to go it alone, but myself, I see no reason not to enjoy the best of both, & reject the worst of both.

Should the mentality be, if there are "schisms" and disagreements, as there have been throughout history, why not add yet another one to the heap with one's individual interpretation and a church of one?

The mentality should be that of Christ's - Forgiveness & self-sacrificial acts of good faith like charity, giving hope & being loving.

Once again, I think it is a false dichotomy to set up my ecclesiological beliefs as being founded upon an uncomfortableness between the invisibility of God and a visible/invisible church. Rather, it is an informed disagreement with the reasonings and justifications of those who choose to define the church as being only invisible and reject the visible.

"Founded" wouldn't be my word. "Re-inforced by", maybe. That cool?
I only reject the visible as being spiritual. It is always perfectly religious, but the visible part is always in conflict with itself. That isn't spiritual (in the positive sense).

Baggage? No, it is the result of my informed disagreement with the aforementioned reasonings and justifications. It accurately describes what I think is going on with that particular ecclesiological mentality.

My reasonings don't lead me to give a positive or negative value to the word "baggage". To me it just means information that goes into reasonings & justifications. In that sense, everyone has baggage,

I don't affiliate with Lutherans, but a Presbyterian church that is liturgical in worship, Reformed in theology, confesses the historical creeds, and believes in the Real Presence. I don't reject church history or the church fathers, but let them inform my perspective as I find it in my present ecclesiological context.

Excuse me, please. I don't know why I thought your icon was Lutheran. And I personaly don't consider Real Presence as being in any way reformed other than some reformers believed in it. It seems totaly counterintuitive to me.

As usual, it's been interesting & informative talking to you.

 

[Montalban]

Read the Confessions.

Whose? Yours? What did you do?

Quote for me the part that lists all rejected books.

For what purpose? You know Luther doesn't accept all OT books my church accepted

Then, let's stop the hijack and return to the topic of the thread.


.

I'd like to - especially re: what I was asking you about Acts 15 showing a reliance on non-scripture but I'm really afraid I'm going to get another lecture in Norman Normans which doesn't answer this point.

 

[steve_bakr]

What Old Testament includes "praying to the dead"?

They are the ones who interpret scripture to allow for that.

In order to 'set semantics aside', wouldn't you have to be a little more definitive than a lone wolf being someone who "conflates interpretation"?
Isn't that allegation the common currency of general theological disputes?
How lonely can one feel in the presence of so many who rely more on God & scripture than any one of the schisms of Catholicism?

I understand you to mean one who doesn't 'pledge allegeance' to any congregation, rather only to God & lets love rule, not ecclesiastic authorities since the ecclesia is so schismed.

I thought you were, enough to the degree that you affiliate with a visible one. Add to that the baggage in the terms "lone" & "wolf", neither of which seperately or together conjure a positive image, at least in my mind, with it's minimal familiarity with your posts. That you would affiliate with Lutherans & associate Lone Wolves with conflating interpretation expresses in my semantic understanding, that you are pro-establishment (reformed to some degree), and skeptical of non-joiners in general.

Am I trippin', dude?

Can you discuss the issues without having to be anti-Catholic? BTW, calling the Catholic Church schismatic is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Montalban]

People here think that sola scriptura is in the bible. It isn't.

Sola scriptura is about ONLY USING scripture.

If the Apostles use scripture one time, and then not another, then they aren't demonstrating sola scriptura

If I were to say "Rick Otto only seasons his chicken with salt" and I ignore every time he seasons his chicken with herbs, but only use the examples where he seasons his chicken with salt then my statement is no more true for it. EVEN IF I can say "But proof is in the bible!"

It's not proof if it's missing half the examples.

 

[Montalban]

This is why the 'norman normans' argument fails. As a method it is not demonstrated in scripture.

To be demonstrated in scripture there'd only be the use of scripture! Using other means immediately sinks the 'sola scriptura' argument.