Sola Scriptura?

[All4Christ]

I get that, the question I raised is does and should those definitions continue to apply, and make sense. I say they do not. The fallacy we make as Catholics and Orthodox is that we try to throw all the non-Catholic/Orthodox churches into the same pot and call them the same. It just doesn't work. There are just too many differences for that to be helpful.

I do not call them the same. I have consistently said they are different in their understanding of Sola Scriptura.

That said, they are Protestants - just not traditional Protestants. Several people are limiting the definition to traditional Protestants and are trying to hold everyone else to the same. It is important to understand where everyone is coming from if we are to have a meaningful discussion.

 

[All4Christ]

I get that, and I understand where you are coming from. I'm just saying that we non-Protestant (if you will) Christians change our mentality on this matter. Albion is a member of an Anglican denomination. In all reality he has more in common with our beliefs than lets say someone from a Baptist church. I think that should be respected and understood.

Since this is different than your original post, I will respond to this separately.

I will reiterate that I respect and understand that. However, I also think it is important to respect and understand that others consider Protestants to cover much more than that - and consider the reason for the schisms following the Reformation to be related.

I respect Anglicans, and other Traditional Protestants. I'd also like you both to respect that we all have different backgrounds - and that it impacts the way we discuss this subject.

 

[Erose]

I do not call them the same. I have consistently said they are different in their understanding of Sola Scriptura.

That said, they are Protestants - just not traditional Protestants. Several people are limiting the definition to traditional Protestants and are trying to hold everyone else to the same. It is important to understand where everyone is coming from if we are to have a meaningful discussion.

I get that. I had Albion clarify who he was referring to in that definition in post 423. So we know who he was referring to now from his perspective.

 

[Albion]

Mainline Protestants are now a minority among Protestants in America (where I, and I'm assuming many of you, live), and have been for about twenty years now. As of 1998, they were a minority of the total American Protestant population, at 48% (down from 55% in 1973). Things have not gotten better since then.

Given this, I honestly think the protestation (heh) that you can't take "splinter" groups as representative of Protestantism is not necessarily valid. Sure, if you are talking about taking individual independent churches (e.g., Ted's Church of the Very Bright Lights or something like that) as defining Protestantism, then that makes sense, but if you are looking across all of the bodies that define themselves as part of the Protestant tradition and taking a kind of aggregate approach, then that's totally valid to do, since the non-mainline/'splinter' groups from the clear majority. They may not all fit into the historical category of Protestant, but if they are the majority of Protestants in the place where you live, and have been for decades, then in a real operative sense, they are Protestantism, at least insofar as concerns your country.

As I noted earlier, if a person says that "the churches around here are mostly such and such", then there is no issue.

However, it's most common for the poster to characterize Protestantism as a whole when speaking of some issue. That has been a favorite device of some members who want to paint Protestants as do-it-yourself Christians or people who oppose all formality or something else that's equally untrue.

 

[pescador]

I must be seriously mistaken as I thought that the discussion in this thread would be about sola scriptura as the title suggests. Instead I read posts about who is a true Protestant. Is sola scriptura being discussed in another thread?

 

[All4Christ]

I get that. I had Albion clarify who he was referring to in that definition in post 423. So we know who he was referring to now from his perspective.

It is his perspective. It is a universal opinion though that the term Protestants should not include non-mainline Protestants.

All I ask is that we respect and understand that not all of us consider Protestant to just mean main-line Protestants and to understand that many of us consider the timeline after the reformation to be relevant in some way.

We don't just have the opinion of one person here. We try to understand and respect the opinions of everyone. Just because several don't consider the modern definition of Protestantism to be correct doesn't mean everyone understands it that way - or should be made to understand it that way.

I agree that we should and need to acknowledge that mainline and evangelicals are not the same. However, that is not what is being said here.

We are talking past eachother. When people just say Protestant and really mean mainline - it is confusing to others. When people say Protestant and really mean Evangelical - it also is confusing. So let's make sure to clarify it from all perspectives. Generally speaking, Protestant today though - without a label - refers to the broader definition.

However, it's most common for the poster to characterize Protestantism as a whole when speaking of some issue. That has been a favorite device of some members who want to paint Protestants as do-it-yourself Christians or people who oppose all formality or something else that's equally untrue.

I agree that it should be specified when discussing this that Protestants do not all hold to the same beliefs. The same should be done for non-Protestants.

 

[All4Christ]

I must be seriously mistaken as I thought that the discussion in this thread would be about sola scriptura as the title suggests. Instead I read posts about who is a true Protestant. Is sola scriptura being discussed in another thread?

Yes, we should go back to discussing Sola Scriptura.

However, the audience we are discussing is important to have a meaningful discussion of Sola Scriptura, as it defines the specific understanding of what Sola scriptura means.

 

[All4Christ]

I'll stop pushing this subject. We can all be more specific about which group we are talking about. I wouldn't want to be misrepresented as having the same belief as another traditional church when using a word that means something completely different.

It still can be considered relevant though, depending on your view.

My whole point at the beginning was to give a reason for why we are coming from different perspectives.

 

[Albion]

It is his perspective. It is a universal opinion though that the term Protestants should not include non-mainline Protestants.

How can it be a "universal opinion" that the term Protestants should not include Protestants? It's beginning to look like a fairly simple issue is being made muddy for no reason.

All I ask is that we respect and understand that not all of us consider Protestant to just mean main-line Protestants and to understand that many of us consider the timeline after the reformation to be relevant in some way.

You don't mind, then, that Orthodox churches are included when a reference is made to all the Catholic churches.

I'll call it settled, then. It's ridiculous to keep this non-issue going and you can't have it both ways.

 

[All4Christ]

How can it be a "universal opinion" that the term Protestants should not include Protestants? It's beginning to look like a fairly simple issue is being made muddy for no reason.


You don't mind, then, that Orthodox churches are included when a reference is made to all the Catholic churches.

I'll call it settled, then. It's ridiculous to keep this non-issue going and you can't have it both ways.

That's my whole point that we can't have it two ways. I agree that we should specify main-line Protestant and Evangelical Protestant when discussing theology. (They both are traditionally considered to be Protestants by people today). I consider Orthodox to include a group of Churches as well - oriental, Eastern, Old Believers, Eastern Catholics (theology wise), etc. You disagreed with me earlier when saying Protestant vs Catholic. At that point you included all Protestants- Evangelical and mainline. Perhaps then you can understand why I have a problem with you grouping Orthodox and Catholic together. When you feel like it is important to differentiate Protestants you are doing that. However, you often group us all together. I can follow what you want when differentiating theology. Do the same for us.

That said - I will stop discussing this tangent at this point. I apologize to be OP for pushing us into this tangent.

 

[Albion]

That's my whole point that we can't have it two ways. I agree that we should specify main-line Protestant and Evangelical Protestant when discussing theology. (They both are traditionally considered to be Protestants by people today).

Were that easily done, I suppose I would concede the point. But what IS mainline and (even more difficult) what is Evangelical? Does that (Evangelical) mean snake-handlers, Pentecostals, every non-denom...or maybe the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church?

 

[Erose]

One thing I have dealt with here and other forums when discussing the Solas, is that how these are defined is not universal across the board with those church groups who would claim to adhere to them. There has been times where we were discussing Sola Scriptura under a specific understanding, and then you will have a poster jump up and say that isn't what Sola Scriptura is. Okay, start discussing with the new understanding and then another poster would say that isn't what it is. You can very easily get caught in a loop, because of this. Like I wrote before, many confuse Solo with Sola in discussing this concept, and that also can lead to confusion as well.

 

[Erose]

Were that easily done, I suppose I would concede the point. But what IS mainline and (even more difficult) what is Evangelical? Does that (Evangelical) mean snake-handlers, Pentecostals, every non-denom...or maybe the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church?

Good point. It can be very difficult to categorize denominations, and I think this is one of the issues with dealing with Christians from multiple traditions here on this forum.

 

[ripple the car]

When I started this thread, I had no idea it would wind up being twenty something pages long. It's good to discuss things. If stuff doesn't get off topic, nothing gets clarified.

 

[All4Christ]

Were that easily done, I suppose I would concede the point. But what IS mainline and (even more difficult) what is Evangelical? Does that (Evangelical) mean snake-handlers, Pentecostals, every non-denom...or maybe the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church?

You have a definition for mainline (what you consider to be Protestant in this conversation. Could we do mainline and non-mainline - or historic Protestant and non-historic Protestant? Or traditional (per definition of this forum) vs non-traditional?

 

[Albion]

One thing I have dealt with here and other forums when discussing the Solas, is that how these are defined is not universal across the board with those church groups who would claim to adhere to them. There has been times where we were discussing Sola Scriptura under a specific understanding, and then you will have a poster jump up and say that isn't what Sola Scriptura is. Okay, start discussing with the new understanding and then another poster would say that isn't what it is. You can very easily get caught in a loop, because of this. Like I wrote before, many confuse Solo with Sola in discussing this concept, and that also can lead to confusion as well.

But all this means is that one of the speakers is mistaken, not that no one knows what Sola Scriptura means or that it's totally in the eye of the viewer.

 

[Albion]

You have a definition for mainline (what you consider to be Protestant in this conversation. Could we do mainline and non-mainline - or historic Protestant and non-historic Protestant? Or traditional (per definition of this forum) vs non-traditional?

I am interested in what anyone says, to be sure, but I doubt that we'd come to a happy conclusion if we set out to define all of that. What I've been in favor of is simply that we not generalize when pointing fingers.

 

[Erose]

But all this means is that one of the speakers is mistaken, not that no one knows what Sola Scriptura means or that it's totally in the eye of the viewer.

I would agree with this to a point, but it does seem to me that different denominations interpret the definition of SS differently than others.

 

[All4Christ]

What I've been in favor of is simply that we not generalize when pointing fingers.

Agreed.

To everyone, let's all make a point to do our best to not generalize across all of Christianity when discussing theology.

 

[Albion]

I would agree with this to a point, but it does seem to me that different denominations interpret the definition of SS differently than others.

Truly, I would like to see that laid out in graph form or some other way that showed, with evidence, the position of each denomination involved.