Sola Scriptura

All4Christ · Mar 11, 2016

OzSpen said:
Please do not put me down like this. I have a PhD in NT studies (historical Jesus), so I'm more than aware of the need to read any writer in context.

I am not intending to put you down. I apologize if it came across that way.

That said, I have read many of the church fathers and the website you gave does not put it in context, especially when considering the entirety of their writings. That is the reason it matters what websites you provide.

That is not meant to say that you do that personally. My comment is specifically on the website, though it is important for us all to keep that in mind, myself included.

Again, I apologize. I do not want to put anyone down.

Cappadocious · Mar 11, 2016

OzSpen said:
Please do not put me down like this. I have a PhD in NT studies (historical Jesus)

Lol. What body awards Ph.D's in "NT studies (historical Jesus)"?

All4Christ · Mar 11, 2016

OzSpen said:
Please do not put me down like this. I have a PhD in NT studies (historical Jesus), so I'm more than aware of the need to read any writer in context.

With your examples of the LDS and JW you have used the fallacy of biased sample. It is an example of illogical reasoning. When you engage in fallacious reasoning like this, we cannot have a logical discussion. I urge you to quit this kind of logical fallacy.

I just saw this update. I chose those two because they are considered to be non-Nicene Christians based on the forum rules. Yes, they have fallacy in their beliefs.

However, you can choose any single one of the denominations and back up their individual beliefs with scripture. Many can be quite convincing - yet they all are different in their conclusions. Why? Because either a.) the entire context of the Bible isn't taken into account or b.) it isn't able to be fully determined without apostolic tradition to support it.

I was attempting to not throw any specific denomination's beliefs under scrutiny when I gave those examples.

You asked me to not put you down (albeit it being unintentional). Please accord me the same courtesy you asked of me.

OzSpen · Mar 11, 2016

Cappadocious said:
Lol. What body awards Ph.D's in "NT studies (historical Jesus)"?

This demonstrates your ignorance of PhD dissertations. My PhD dissertation (dissertation-only in the British system) was in the Department of New Testament and the subject of my dissertation was on an aspect of the historical Jesus.

Your lol is using a fallacy of appeal to ridicule. It also is a demonstration of your ignorance of the PhD system worldwide.

MarkRohfrietsch · Mar 11, 2016

All4Christ said:
Thanks Mark! I didn't want to reply too much in the other thread, since it was off-topic

You are welcome!

MarkRohfrietsch · Mar 11, 2016

OzSpen said:
This demonstrates your ignorance of PhD dissertations. My PhD dissertation (dissertation-only in the British system) was in the Department of New Testament and the subject of my dissertation was on an aspect of the historical Jesus.

Your lol is using a fallacy of appeal to ridicule. It also is a demonstration of your ignorance of the PhD system worldwide.

Enough of this "my PhD is bigger than yours stuff" This is traditional theology, not a place for PhD envy.

The rules for this forum are first and foremost, respectful discussion:

This is from the Statement of Purpose for this forum:

Traditional Theology Forum Guidelines:

Those who post here in the Traditional Theology forum should show civility and mutual respect towards one another irrespective of jurisdiction or churchmanship. Enter into all discussions and debates demonstrating your respect and courtesy towards other posters through civil dialogue.

Do not state or imply that another poster who has identified himself or herself as traditional Christian, is not in reality truly a traditional Christian because of belief, practice, or their affiliation with any particular denomination. Discuss and debate specific topics from your own traditional theological viewpoint, allowing others to do likewise without fear of judgment and condemnation. Do not get sidetracked into debating whether or not another poster's beliefs are right or wrong according to your traditional theological background or viewpoint. When making a statement about traditional theological beliefs please consider prefacing your statement with "some traditional Christians believe" or "my tradition believes".

When discussing and debating some topics, please be aware that your personal beliefs may at times be challenged, criticized or questioned. Don't become defensive or personally offended. Posters themselves, however, are never to be personally flamed. Flaming is defined as an attack on another person's character, as opposed to their arguments or beliefs.

Likewise, do not "tell" others what their own church teaches and believes. It is encouraged to ask questions about those teachings and beliefs and as well be prepared to answer questions about your own.

Take a few minutes and read this please:
Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose

OzSpen · Mar 11, 2016

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Enough of this "my PhD is bigger than yours stuff" This is traditional theology, not a place for PhD envy.

The rules for this forum are first and foremost, respectful discussion:

This is from the Statement of Purpose for this forum:

Traditional Theology Forum Guidelines:

Those who post here in the Traditional Theology forum should show civility and mutual respect towards one another irrespective of jurisdiction or churchmanship. Enter into all discussions and debates demonstrating your respect and courtesy towards other posters through civil dialogue.

Do not state or imply that another poster who has identified himself or herself as traditional Christian, is not in reality truly a traditional Christian because of belief, practice, or their affiliation with any particular denomination. Discuss and debate specific topics from your own traditional theological viewpoint, allowing others to do likewise without fear of judgment and condemnation. Do not get sidetracked into debating whether or not another poster's beliefs are right or wrong according to your traditional theological background or viewpoint. When making a statement about traditional theological beliefs please consider prefacing your statement with "some traditional Christians believe" or "my tradition believes".

When discussing and debating some topics, please be aware that your personal beliefs may at times be challenged, criticized or questioned. Don't become defensive or personally offended. Posters themselves, however, are never to be personally flamed. Flaming is defined as an attack on another person's character, as opposed to their arguments or beliefs.

Likewise, do not "tell" others what their own church teaches and believes. It is encouraged to ask questions about those teachings and beliefs and as well be prepared to answer questions about your own.

Take a few minutes and read this please:
Traditional Theology Statement of Purpose

Mark,

I was responding to a person who asked about the nature of my PhD and he was ignorant of the PhD systems worldwide.

It was nothing to do with speaking about one PhD being better than another. That was nowhere to be found in my evidence.

However, now I'll know not to answer a person's questions when they ask some specifics.

Oz

MarkRohfrietsch · Mar 11, 2016

OzSpen said:
Mark,

I was responding to a person who asked about the nature of my PhD and he was ignorant of the PhD systems worldwide.

It was nothing to do with speaking about one PhD being better than another. That was nowhere to be found in my evidence.

However, now I'll know not to answer a person's questions when they ask some specifics.

Oz

This is a forum where traditional theologies are respected; there are many here who are very well read and very learned and have invested many hours of dedicated study of these traditional theologies. I respect that a person has the dedication and commitment to earning an advanced degree. The truth of what such a degree means is that the person who earned it can learn. That learning should not stop once one has a piece of sheep-skin in one's hand.

We are all here to learn and grow in our faith here, and in this forum the emphasis is on learning about each others traditions and practice.

MoreCoffee · Mar 11, 2016

OzSpen said:
You obviously didn't read very carefully what I quoted from Augustine in his letter to Jerome:

I don't want to argue about what saint Augustine believed. His beliefs are documented and pretending that he taught and believed "sola scriptura" is obviously wrong.

He did not state that the authors of tradition are completely free from error. His language was that he yielded respect and honour ONLY to the canonical books of Scripture.

There is no indication here that he yielded respect and honour to both Scripture and sacred tradition. As I've indicated in 'The Bloopers of the Church Fathers', there are some degrading and disgusting things said by the church fathers. To rely on them for authoritative teaching is far removed from the authority of theopneustos - God-breathed - Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV). There are way too many inconsistencies in the church fathers to grant them the authority of Scripture.

So you want this abominable statement by Tertullian to be part of the Apostolic Tradition that you consider to be authoritative? Tertullian (On the Apparel of Women, Bk 1.1) wrote this about women:

Are you going to promote this pejorative view of women on this forum as authoritative from God as part of Sacred Tradition on which your church relies?

Oz

Cappadocious · Mar 11, 2016

OzSpen said:
the subject of my dissertation was on an aspect of the historical Jesus.

I feared as much. Good grief...

OzSpen said:
Your lol is using a fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

I don't think you understand how informal fallacies work.

OzSpen · Mar 12, 2016

Cappadocious said:
I feared as much. Good grief...

I don't think you understand how informal fallacies work.

I do understand how formal and informal fallacies work, but when you make an innocuous comment like this, it proves nothing.

Cappadocious · Mar 12, 2016

OzSpen said:
I do understand how formal and informal fallacies work, but when you make an innocuous comment like this, it proves nothing.

Undermining your credibility is not fallacious. I can be charged with such a fallacy only if I argue that your silliness entails the falsity of your premise or the invalidity of your argument.

sparow · Mar 13, 2016

MoreCoffee said:
@OzSpen, the holy scriptures are of central importance in Catholic Church teaching so the quote from saint Augustine is exactly what we teach and believe yet saint Augustine did not teach "sola scriptura" because saint Augustine and the Catholic Church teach and believe that apostolic tradition is normative revelation from God and it is not inscripturated. Post #4 gives an example and more can be given but I refrain from including more quotes because saint Augustine's views on the holy scriptures and apostolic tradition are not the subject of this thread.

I am having difficulty determining what this discussion is about; the first time I have heard the term sola scriptura was in relation to the Council of Trent when the Protestants said sola scriptura the Catholics replied, "If you want to go by the Bible and the Bible alone then you will have to keep the Law including the Sabbath; there is no authority for keeping Sunday except the Papacy." This floored the Protestants because they had abrogated the Law and hated the Jews also. Where the tradition of not keeping the Law came from is not clear; the change to keeping Sunday was a slow creeping event. The original apostles and Paul kept Law including the Sabbath. There is no scriptural justification for abrogating the Law including the Sabbath, only the authority of the Church and traditions of men. It is up to the individual to decide whether they follow God or follow men; I believe Sola Scriptura is also a doctrine of men.

MoreCoffee · Mar 14, 2016

sparow said:
I am having difficulty determining what this discussion is about; the first time I have heard the term sola scriptura was in relation to the Council of Trent when the Protestants said sola scriptura the Catholics replied, "If you want to go by the Bible and the Bible alone then you will have to keep the Law including the Sabbath; there is no authority for keeping Sunday except the Papacy." This floored the Protestants because they had abrogated the Law and hated the Jews also. Where the tradition of not keeping the Law came from is not clear; the change to keeping Sunday was a slow creeping event. The original apostles and Paul kept Law including the Sabbath. There is no scriptural justification for abrogating the Law including the Sabbath, only the authority of the Church and traditions of men. It is up to the individual to decide whether they follow God or follow men; I believe Sola Scriptura is also a doctrine of men.

I have no interest in transforming this thread into a Sabbath debate.

sparow · Mar 14, 2016

MoreCoffee said:
I have no interest in transforming this thread into a Sabbath debate.

You mentioned Apostolic Tradition which is the anti-thesis of Sola Scriptura; I have no interest in turning this thread into a debate on Apostolic Tradition. Sola Scriptura was very important at the Council of Trent; when the Protestants were told Sola Scriptura meant they would have to keep the Sabbath the Protestants collapsed and the Reformation of the Catholic Church came to an end and the Inquisitions started up again; there were two Sola Scriptura churches left, the Jesuits went to India and changed that Sabbath keeping church started by the apostle Thomas into a Sunday keeping Church. Then the Jesuits went to the hills of Italy and changed the last Sola Scriptura church to keeping Sunday; much blood was spilled.

MoreCoffee · Mar 14, 2016

Where in the documents of the Council of Trent were "protestants" told "Sola Scriptura meant they would have to keep the Sabbath"?

sparow said:
You mentioned Apostolic Tradition which is the anti-thesis of Sola Scriptura; I have no interest in turning this thread into a debate on Apostolic Tradition. Sola Scriptura was very important at the Council of Trent; when the Protestants were told Sola Scriptura meant they would have to keep the Sabbath the Protestants collapsed and the Reformation of the Catholic Church came to an end and the Inquisitions started up again; there were two Sola Scriptura churches left, the Jesuits went to India and changed that Sabbath keeping church started by the apostle Thomas into a Sunday keeping Church. Then the Jesuits went to the hills of Italy and changed the last Sola Scriptura church to keeping Sunday; much blood was spilled.

sparow · Mar 15, 2016

MoreCoffee said:
Where in the documents of the Council of Trent were "protestants" told "Sola Scriptura meant they would have to keep the Sabbath"?

What they were told by way of reasoning was if they went by the Bible and the Bible alone they would have to keep the Sabbath but they were not speaking English most likely Latin. I'll try and find where this is recorded, maybe by the Protestants.

All4Christ · Mar 15, 2016

sparow said:
What they were told by way of reasoning was if they went by the Bible and the Bible alone they would have to keep the Sabbath but they were not speaking English most likely Latin. I'll try and find where this is recorded, maybe by the Protestants.

Here are the canons and decrees made in the Council of Trent. Everything decided should be in this:

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0432/

MarkRohfrietsch · Mar 15, 2016

For those who come here and can not help themselves regarding debating Sabbath keeping; there is a forum for that:
Sabbath and The Law

MoreCoffee · Mar 15, 2016

sparow said:
What they were told by way of reasoning was if they went by the Bible and the Bible alone they would have to keep the Sabbath but they were not speaking English most likely Latin. I'll try and find where this is recorded, maybe by the Protestants.

Save us all time and CF some band width and stop pretending that the Council of Trent was about Sabbath keeping and breaking. In fact save us time and CF bandwidth and stop posting this nonsense.

Sola Scriptura

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Well-Known Member

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Regular Member

Unapologetic Apologist

Unapologetic Apologist

Regular Member

Unapologetic Apologist

Repentance works.

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Repentance works.

Well-Known Member

Repentance works.

Well-Known Member

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙

Unapologetic Apologist

Repentance works.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency