Sola Scriptura

[Kepha]

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

It's silly to suggest this some kind of example with today's Christians and their Bibles.

A) Paul could not err when teaching from the OT as you can today.

B) Paul received His Tradition from the Holy Spirit directly and in speaking with the Apostles who learned their Tradition from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. For example, the Holy Trinity couldn't be explicitly pointed out using the OT. Only when taught this orally could it be more clearly brought out, through the implicit writings of the OT by one who could properly interpret. And all the sS advocates in this GT area sure would make a mess of things if they each had their way with the Bereans. Fortunately for them at the time, this kind of mindframe didn't exist.

C) Protestants all the time return to the Church when reading their Bibles when properly guided in certain passages. However, it would be foolish to again claim that sola Scripture was at work here too as your attempt with that Acts 17 example.

D) Paul could only speak their language, being the OT since they were NOT Christians. So He couldn't just preach as He did with the already Christian believers.

E) I've said all this before so I expect like then, it will fall on the deaf ears of the regular, adamant sS advocates who participate on this board.

 

[steve_bakr]

It's silly to suggest this some kind of example with today's Christians and their Bibles.

A) Paul could not err when teaching from the OT as you can today.

B) Paul received His Tradition from the Holy Spirit directly and in speaking with the Apostles who learned their Tradition from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. For example, the Holy Trinity couldn't be explicitly pointed out using the OT. Only when taught this orally could it be more clearly brought out, through the implicit writings of the OT by one who could properly interpret. And all the sS advocates in this GT area sure would make a mess of things if they each had their way with the Bereans. Fortunately for them at the time, this kind of mindframe didn't exist.

C) Protestants all the time return to the Church when reading their Bibles when properly guided in certain passages. However, it would be foolish to again claim that sola Scripture was at work here too as your attempt with that Acts 17 example.

D) Paul could only speak their language, being the OT since they were NOT Christians. So He couldn't just preach as He did with the already Christian believers.

E) I've said all this before so I expect like then, it will fall on the deaf ears of the regular, adamant sS advocates who participate on this board.

Strong points.

 

[Albion]

It's silly to suggest this some kind of example with today's Christians and their Bibles.

Darn those Bible-believers anyway!

 

[Albion]

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

And neither is Pope, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, etc. etc.

You've treated us to a point without a point.

 

[SolomonVII]

.....
And the "Lone Wolf Christian" label... anybody here fit that?
I'm with God, not alone.
........

In the company of many Catholics here and people like Tzaousios, I certainly would be alone and am seen to be vicious like a wolf might be.

But in the company of sola scripturists, who do tend to think for themselves and respect others that do likewise, I can't say that I have ever felt particularly alone or viscious.

SS isn't particularly the teaching of my own denomination, but Scripture is most certainly they way that I was able to start relating to God again. So I guess the choice would be whether or not to be true to myself and true to the understanding that I have come to, or to remain true to what others tell me I am supposed to believe is true, even when there is every indication that they don't find half the stuff all the credible either.

In the company of some here, who search back into posting history looking for slip-ups to report, who monitor the chats in others profiles and the like, most certainly from their perspective, some of us are wolves to be hunted and dispersed of forthwith.

 

[Tzaousios]

In the company of many Catholics here and people like Tzaousios, I certainly would be alone and am seen to be vicious like a wolf might be.

What is this supposed to mean? I don't think you are vicious at all. That is not what I mean by "lonewolf." I think you are quite aware of this as others are.

But in the company of sola scripturists, who do tend to think for themselves and respect others that do likewise, I can't say that I have ever felt particularly alone or viscious.

What about those who reject or at least question Sola Scriptura in the manner that it is often used? Do they not think for themselves and respect others? I think "respect" should not be conflated with uncritically accepting what certain people say or define what they are doing.

SS isn't particularly the teaching of my own denomination, but Scripture is most certainly they way that I was able to start relating to God again.

Since here you admit to having a particular denomination, could you tell us specifically what that denomination is? I don't think that non-SS people deny that the Bible is the way that they relate to God.

So I guess the choice would be whether or not to be true to myself and true to the understanding that I have come to, or to remain true to what others tell me I am supposed to believe is true, even when there is every indication that they don't find half the stuff all the credible either.

Do you think for a moment that you could treat those to whom history has spoken and who have done the often paradigm-wrenching and comfort box-eliminating legwork as those who also remain true to their conscience? Can those people also be true to their consciences and the leading of the Spirit without being considered automatons who are led around by a carrot on a stick, i.e. "others telling what one is supposed to believe as true"?

In the company of some here, who search back into posting history looking for slip-ups to report, who monitor the chats in others profiles and the like, most certainly from their perspective, some of us are wolves to be hunted and dispersed of forthwith.

Ha! Someone is developing a bad case of paranoia and conspiracy theories. What are you talking about here?

 

[daydreamergurl15]

He didn't say that the Church MADE the books inspired, he said that the Church BORE WITNESS to their inspiration. The Church canonized the Bible you have today, except for some writings that Protestants don't include in their Bibles.

This is what he said, to which I then replied back with "You make it sound like these men MADE the books to be inspired."

Well 'right' was Paul who handed his Epistles over and thus the witness for those Epistles.

Whether they are 'true' in their message is one thing, but they are truly Paul's messages because the churches bore witness to this.

Post #364.

Now, you were saying?

Paul's message was true because God gave it to him NOT because the church bore witness to it.

 

[steve_bakr]

In the company of many Catholics here and people like Tzaousios, I certainly would be alone and am seen to be vicious like a wolf might be.

But in the company of sola scripturists, who do tend to think for themselves and respect others that do likewise, I can't say that I have ever felt particularly alone or viscious.

SS isn't particularly the teaching of my own denomination, but Scripture is most certainly they way that I was able to start relating to God again. So I guess the choice would be whether or not to be true to myself and true to the understanding that I have come to, or to remain true to what others tell me I am supposed to believe is true, even when there is every indication that they don't find half the stuff all the credible either.

In the company of some here, who search back into posting history looking for slip-ups to report, who monitor the chats in others profiles and the like, most certainly from their perspective, some of us are wolves to be hunted and dispersed of forthwith.

I don't think that the term lone wolf is meant to portray viciousness, just the idea of being your own interpreter of Scripture without regard to what Catholics call Holy Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church.

Anyway, I don't have a personal problem with your being sS. My wife is sS. It isn't how I view things,but it's not like I want to do battle over it. It is easy for the rhetoric in this kind of conversation to get heated to an inappropriate manner on both sides. We're all Christians and we all love the Lord, which makes us brothers and sisters, and not enemies.

 

[SolomonVII]

I don't think that the term lone wolf is meant to portray viciousness, just the idea of being your own interpreter of Scripture without regard to what Catholics call Holy Tradition and the teaching authority of the Church.

.....

Yes , of course it is a term of endearment in most Christian circles, just like wolf in sheeps clothing and stuff like that.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I don't think that the term lone wolf is meant to portray viciousness, just the idea of being your own interpreter of Scripture

I can (and do) understand your rebuke of self appointing self as the sole, infallible/unaccountable interpreter of Scripture. I'd just remind you to take that rebuke to the only denomination on the planet that does that - the RCC. Read what the RCC itself says in the Catechism of the RCC itself, # 85. Then try - for the rest of your life - to find the same in the Catechism of ANY other denomination - you will not find it. The RCC stands alone in the thing you condemn.

But since you know that Sola Scriptura is a practice related to norming (the evaluation of the correctness of disputed dogmas among us) and not a princple of hermeneutics, then perhaps we should stick to the issue of this thread: the most sound rule in norming.





.

 

[Albion]

....as the One True Church of God

Here we go again. Anyone else wanna talk to hear himself talking?

 

[SolomonVII]

The chief reasons being that it is heresy, that it is a doctrine of men which nullifies the word of God, and that is the chief source of division withing the Church.

Or, Sacred Tradition that does not tie back to apostolic teaching is heresy, for not tying itself back to what is known to be apostolic teaching.
According the the Nicene Creed anyways, the catholic church is an apostolic church. False teachings then would by definition be teachings that are not according to the apostles.

Scripture is acknowledged by all to be the authentic apostolic teaching. Therefore agreeing to limit ourselves to scripture and known apostolic teaching andard outside of apostolic teaching.

Since there is no one Holy Tradition acknowledged by all branches of the Traditions Church as being the authentic one, then judgng heresy according to the various traditions available ends up necessarily in schism.
Again as per Nicene, it is an ant-catholic way to determine heresy as a result.

There s no norm that exists in Sacred Tradition, for there is no Sacred Tradition common to all. Heresy and anathema and excommunication therefore are based in no norm, but only in the totalitarian, authoritaran decree that the other is a heretic, because "I say so", with the "I" in this case being any and all of the various churches caught up in the acts of ex-communicating each other.

 

[SolomonVII]

We have no such thing in the Catholic Church. All Dogmas have been infallibly defined by the Supreme Pontiff and the true Successors of the Apostles, the Bishops.

Yes of course.
And thank you for stepping up to the plate to be the prime example of exactly what California Josiah has been saying in several posts here already.

Le Dieu, C'est Moi.

 

[Albion]

Are there less-than-supreme pontiffs?

 

[steve_bakr]

Yes , of course it is a term of endearment in most Christian circles, just like wolf in sheeps clothing and stuff like that.

Yes, and lone wolf also has a kind of tragic-romantic connotation as well.

 

[steve_bakr]

Or, Sacred Tradition that does not tie back to apostolic teaching is heresy, for not tying itself back to what is known to be apostolic teaching.
According the the Nicene Creed anyways, the catholic church is an apostolic church. False teachings then would by definition be teachings that are not according to the apostles.

Scripture is acknowledged by all to be the authentic apostolic teaching. Therefore agreeing to limit ourselves to scripture and known apostolic teaching andard outside of apostolic teaching.

Since there is no one Holy Tradition acknowledged by all branches of the Traditions Church as being the authentic one, then judgng heresy according to the various traditions available ends up necessarily in schism.
Again as per Nicene, it is an ant-catholic way to determine heresy as a result.

There s no norm that exists in Sacred Tradition, for there is no Sacred Tradition common to all. Heresy and anathema and excommunication therefore are based in no norm, but only in the totalitarian, authoritaran decree that the other is a heretic, because "I say so", with the "I" in this case being any and all of the various churches caught up in the acts of ex-communicating each other.

One of the meanings of "apostolic church" is the apostolic succession of which the Church is believed to be the inheritor of.

Restricting oneself to Scripture alone is a possible approach and has its merits, but it may not be the fullest approach to Christianity.

 

[steve_bakr]

The chief reasons being that it is heresy, that it is a doctrine of men which nullifies the word of God, and that is the chief source of division within the Church.

You might want to turn down the heat a bit, Brother. We are still in the Vatican II era, whereby we reach out to our Protestant brethren.

 

[Albion]

One of the meanings of "apostolic church" is the apostolic succession of which the Church is believed to be the inheritor of.

Restricting oneself to Scripture alone is a possible approach and has its merits, but it may not be the fullest approach to Christianity.

But there's no inherent conflict between Apostolic Succession and Sola Scriptura. Plenty of churches adhere to both.

 

[ebia]

But there's no inherent conflict between Apostolic Succession and Sola Scriptura. Plenty of churches adhere to both.

Of course that must depend on what one understands by each of those labels.

 

[Albion]

Of course that must depend on what one understands by each of those labels.

There's no inherent conflict between Apostolic Succession and Sola Scriptura -- as the world and all of us understand the terms.