Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Nonsense. Regardless of whether you like my terminology, the meaning is clear. Exegesis has the final say neither in doctrine nor practice. Conscience does.You are talking about two different things there, misrepresenting the meaning of "authority" in the case of Scripture. So, the rest of the explanation is moot.
You already said that.Nonsense.
But that's just the problem--the meaning is not clear. You are using the word "authority" in quite a different sense than it has been used in these discussions on Sola Scriptura.Regardless of whether you like my terminology, the meaning is clear.
Everyone paying attention? As promised, the last two posters objected to me without postulating a single exception to the rule of conscience. Show me ONE scenario where - when you feel certain that action A is evil, and action B is good - that it is morally upright/commendable (in both your eyes and God's eyes) to go with A instead of B.Conscience is flawed and wholly corrupt. Pushing it as the final authority is alien to Christian orthodoxy.
The topic is Sola Scriptura.Everyone paying attention? As promised, the last two posters objected to me without postulating a single exception to the rule of conscience. Show me ONE scenario where - when you feel certain that action A is evil, and action B is good - that it is morally upright/commendable (in both your eyes and God's eyes) to go with A instead of B.
Conscience is flawed and wholly corrupt. Pushing it as the final authority is alien to Christian orthodoxy.
Which stands in unequivocal contradiction to the rule of conscience.The topic is Sola Scriptura.
But that's just the problem--the meaning is not clear. You are using the word "authority" in quite a different sense than it has been used in these discussions on Sola Scriptura.
Nonsense
It bears repeating.You already said that.
some people, when faced with an solid argument counter with their own opinion blows off the topic at hand and introduces another. Dont take it personally, it's a defensive debate tactic one employs when cornered.As promised, the last two posters objected to me without postulating a single exception to the rule of conscience.
While, generally speaking, we’re all influenced for better or worse by those who came before us, and while some cradle-Christians remain “believers” more for cultural than for personal and true spiritual reasons, and while presumably none of our individual theologies are perfect in an absolute sense, we ideally all seek and discern the truth for ourselves from the sources we may look towards: bible, church, pastor, all of the above, etc.In addition, the whole range of premises concerning these claims is erroneous.
1. Any comparison of a single denomination to a bunch of others is of course going to look like the one is united while the others are not. Let's call the one 'A' and the others B, C, D, and E. It looks like A is united for being only one entity and its followers then say that B, C, D, and E obviously are not!
But we can take any particular church out of the formula, move it, and then make the same claim. Ergo, 'B' is united (and therefore right), while A, C, D, and E are obviously disunited as a group! It is the same every time we pit a single church--any one--against all the others at once.
But that's not all.
2. Almost none of these churches is internally united anyway. While the denomination itself may have a definite position on some doctrine, every study shows that the people who belong to it are not. They believe all sorts of things that their own church disavows. Most Catholics, for instance, do not actually believe in Transubstantiation, many consider their church's teaching about an all-male priesthood to be wrong, and it is no secret that many think the church is absolutely wrong when it comes to homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, and other such teachings, none of which the church itself says is left to the individual to decide..
There are only a handful of Christian denominations whose members are 100% in agreement with their church on doctrine, or close to that, and some of these are considered cults by the mainstream denominations.
3. The notion that Protestantism is a giant grab-bag and every individual is expected to believe whatever he wants is another fable. Most Protestant churches are even more dogmatic than the Catholic ones and almost none teach that the individual is right to believe just whatever he thinks best. Further, it's less likely that you'll be expelled from a Catholic church for not following the church's beliefs than is the case with most Protestant churches.
4. The idea that choosing to suit is somehow inherent in Protestantism but not in Catholicism is refuted by the fact that everybody is free to make an individual selection about what is the truth in either case!
If you say that all Protestant churches are about the same (which is not true in the first place), but argue that in Catholicism you do not put the individual's judgment ahead of the church's beliefs, the truth is otherwise. You make an individual choice merely becoming a Catholic!
The difference is only that in one situation you choose a church that agrees with you while in the other you make the individual choice to let one of them choose what's true for you. Membership in any church is the result of a personal decision, whether the person actually follows it's teachings or not.
Here is something I write about thisI come from a Protestant evangelical background. I am struggling with the position of sola scriptura and would like to hear your thoughts.
First of all, is sola scriptura even internally consistent? For we wouldn't even have the scriptures without the tradition of the church. It was men, not God, that determined the canon of the Bible. Sola scriptura itself seems to be a philosophical argument, not an exegetical one. The scriptures don't make that claim for itself, nor give the scope of divine inspiration.
Isn't the appeal to the scriptures first and foremost an appeal to church tradition? For the scriptures we have are determined by men and tradition through church history (ie God did not appear to me and tell me what books were canonical). That a collection of writings are published together in the same volume is not the authority. The Reformers are the ones that excluded the Apocrypha from the Protestant canon, after all, not God. Those men decided that those books were not canonical, because they supported doctrines they did not agree with (eg purgatory, praying to saints, etc). Other men, centuries before, did the same for the gnostic gospels. We cannot appeal to the book of Hebrews or Peter or Revelation vs the Didache vs the Shepherd of Hermas vs Clement vs the Apocrypha vs the gospel of Thomas without first having had human beings agree/decide for us which is canonical (the scriptures don't in themselves include a table of contents).
If it's not an appeal to church tradition, on what other basis can we understand canonicity? And therefore inspiration and inerrancy? From this perspective, it seems both Protestants and Catholics appeal to scripture (at least to some degree) but obviously disagree on the scope of the canon. What is an appeal to scripture to the Catholic is not an appeal to scripture to the Protestant.
Has anyone ever considered that without the Spirit of God working in us and teaching all things he scriptures would be hidden from allSola Espirito Sancto is really the only way to go, although I would use a passage from Romans to back that up.
Yes your post on the Inward Witness is pretty-much on-point in my opinion. As it turns out, however, the authority of the Inward Witness is actually based on an even more fundamental/ foundational principle - a tautological one. In other words, the Inward Witness is merely one example of a more general principle fittingly described as the authority of conscience, in refutation of Sola Scriptura.
...this in and of itself should lend itself should tell you everything you need to know.
The long and the short of it seems to be that the Holy Spirit can inspire men to write Sacred Scripture.I've first heard Sola Scriptura within the Reformed Calvinist denomination..currently the church I attend.
While yes, men wrote as they were instructed and guided by the Holy Spirit...this in and of itself should lend itself should tell you everything you need to know. The Bible tells us that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof, and correction, for instruction, for training in righteousness." Yes, the canon was agreed upon by councils over the years..but even among the churches I've attended they have all disagreed upon how they came about. Some say the council members were guided by the Spirit; while others defend that they relied on the reliability of what manuscripts were available to them at the time..citing the historical date of those manuscripts to be a measure of it's reliability--also citing whether or not the books contained were referenced by Jesus himself in the Gospels (this was the big contention between Protestants and Catholics--and is partially the reason why the Catholic bible is different). This is why I believe it's incredibly important to look at church history, as well as historical context when reading the BIble..without these, understanding is lost. George Santayana once said, if we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.
Much of Pentecostal theology in terms of speaking in tongues and prophetic visions stems from a revival in the 1900's called Azusa street, which thus has caused me to view such theology with much skepticism.
Ultimately..when I look at a church, I look at two factors: Are they strictly in the Word of God...or is the Word of God plus many other sources...when most Christians haven't even read the Word of God...the Word should be vital and forefront.
The second is..do they love each other? If there are clear divisions, or you don't see any actual love being shown...then be cautious..it is likely they use grace as a license to sin; instead of being convicted of their sin leading to repentance.
No, I don’t speak of the conscience here but I speak of a christ himself in believers . His Spirit bears witness with our spirit.Yes your post on the Inward Witness is pretty-much on-point in my opinion. As it turns out, however, the authority of the Inward Witness is actually based on an even more fundamental/ foundational principle - a tautological one. In other words, the Inward Witness is merely one example of a more general principle fittingly described as the authority of conscience, in refutation of Sola Scriptura.
I was trying to inform you that the Inward Witness is grounded in conscience (feelings of certainty). This clarification is actually quite useful, for at least two reasons.No, I don’t speak of the conscience here but I speak of a christ himself in believers . His Spirit bears witness with our spirit.
I understand. The conscience ALSO bears witness. I was speaking of the true Light which lighteth every man that comets into the world. The conscience can be defiled but the true Light (God) cannot fir God is Light.I was trying to inform you that the Inward Witness is grounded in conscience (feelings of certainty). This clarification is actually quite useful, for at least two reasons.
(1) It tells us to heed conscience even when we aren't sure whether the Inward Witness is speaking
(2) It alerts us to wait prayerfully on the Lord for feelings of certainty (ideally 100% certainty). All direct revelation operates in this manner. This is what it means to be led by the Spirit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?