Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura...is there a difference?

[Kristos]

Who said that that sin is alright?

Sin is never right, and i havent said that it is.
I said that according to Scripture....... there are
those who are UNSKILLED in rightly dividing the
word of truth, which leads to misunderstandings.

Are you saying that division is a sin?

 

[Hentenza]

as far as the EOare concerned I think it was JPII that has called them the second Lung of the Faith and truth be Orthodox are allowed to take Communion in the Church

So? JPII had no authority on any one except for the RC. His opinion was his own. It is true that the EO can take communion in an RC church, however, the EO does not believe in transubstantiation so the allowance seems a bit political to me.

Also you say they vehemently dispute there wasn't a separation? Are you sure about that, because I don't think you are correct. So they don't believe there ever was a Schism and they don't acknowled the Bishop of Rome? I think you are wrong on this.

Where did you get that from my post? The EO claims that it was your denomination that schism.

2. Didn't read the link but I know what the Cathecism says I know how Pope John Paul II felt and taught and that's the main thing.

That is the problem with the catechism. It explains the official position of your church that many do not practice as printed.

3.So the SBC has no magisterium or Governing board ok answer this question what would happen to a Southern Baptist Church if that they
1. Allowed for homosexual Pastors
2. Allowed for female Pastors
3. Allowed infant Baptisms

Would they still be allowed to be part of the Southern Baptist Convention?

Nothing. We do not have a local church excommunication process. Most do leave the SBC simply because they do not agree with the SBC ethical and theological stand.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

1. QUOTE ME where I posted the word "demon" in ANY form whatsoever, with the RCC or any other object, in this thread or any other thread at CF or anywhere else. QUOTE ME.

Again simple question

​

Yes, so quote me where I post that?

2. QUOTE ME where I posted that it is "denomic" for self to agree with self. QUOTE ME where I posted that.

Again, simple question

I agree, quote me where I said that.

3. Yes, as we all know (including you), the RCC agrees with ITSELF - alone. It has a grand "unity" (if you insist on calling it that) of ONE - self alone with self alone. It agrees ONLY, exclusively, solely, uniquely, singularly with ONE: itself. But this agreement of SELF alone with SELF alone is not nearly as significant was you might want to imply since this agreement of self exclusively with self exclusively, this agreement SOLELY and ONLY with the ONE self alone sees in the mirror - is only official, formal, institutional and limited to what it itself alone currently regards as appropriate for agreement. As you well know, AT LEAST as much can be said for any other denomination you might mention, NONE is worse in this regard than is the RCC one. So, by your rubric, the LDS is correct since the LDS agrees with the LDS - at least formally, officially, institutionally and currently in what the LDS regards as good for it itself to agree with itself about. While I don't disagree with you that the LDS agrees with the LDS in that very limited since (as the RCC does with the RCC), where I disagree with you is that ergo, the LDS is correct.

Again simple question, who has to agree with the Lutheran Church when forming it's norms for Scripture interpretations, and Doctrines? does the Lutheran Church only have to agree with itself?

No one HAS to agree with any Lutheran denomination.
You are imposing the RCC mandate of docilic submission to unmitigated power upon Protestants who don't share that circumvention of truth.



Now, why is it that if SELF (alone, exclusively, solely, uniquely, singularly), agrees with SELF (officially, formally, institutionally and currently) in those thing that SELF currently regards as appropriate for itself to agree with itself concerning, ERGO it is correct? Doesn't that mandate that ergo The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is correct? After all, exactly like the RCC, the LDS is in full agreement with itself (officially, formally, institutionally, currently and in those issues that it itself alone regards as appropriate for self to agree with self concerning)? Why?










Is not your point that the RC denomination is correct because it agrees with itself, all formed on the premise that if self agrees with self ergo self is correct? Then, yes - the LDS is correct. I agree. I just disagree with your premise (however popular in Catholicism it may be). All you've done is establish is that truth belongs to any who agree with the one self sees in the mirror. Yes, I get your point: if that premise is true then the RCC is true - as also the LDS, every cult you could name, etc. They are all true since in each case, self agrees with self (officially, formally, institutionally, currently and in what self alone regards as appropriate for agreement with self, anyway). I just think your premise is absurd (even though it seems the single most popular apologetic in Catholicism)

So you mean NO ONE has to agree with the luthern Church when it makes it's Doctrines and Norms?

READ what I posted.


Provide the quotes.


Reply to the points.





.

 

[Thekla]

(Demonize/tr verb which can conceptually act as an adverb is not the same as demon/noun which conceptually acts as a 1 to 1 correlation.)

demonize |ˈdēməˌnīz|
verb [ trans. ]
portray as wicked and threatening : seeking to demonize one side in the conflict.

 

[Philothei]

It is true that the EO can take communion in an RC church, however, the EO does not believe in transubstantiation so the allowance seems a bit political to me.

An EO cannot take communion at the RC if he/she wants to be still member of EO I do not care what the RC accepts we do not allow for our members to take communion to any other Church..

 

[Kristos]

(Demonize/tr verb which can conceptually act as an adverb is not the same as demon/noun which conceptually acts as a 1 to 1 correlation.)

demonize |ˈdēməˌnīz|
verb [ trans. ]
portray as wicked and threatening : seeking to demonize one side in the conflict.

and you don't have to actual use the word "demon"

 

[GandolftheWhite]

So? JPII had no authority on any one except for the RC. His opinion was his own. It is true that the EO can take communion in an RC church, however, the EO does not believe in transubstantiation so the allowance seems a bit political to me.
It's not that the RCC and the EO are in disagreement of what the Eucharist is, the EO don't agree on attaching a term to the mystery, but they do agree on the fact that it most certainly is the body of Christ and the blood Christ and the theology of the Eucharist, the difference is the EO just stop any sort of defining nature of the Eucharist.
You make it sound as if they are in complete opposite of each other. That is simply not true.




Where did you get that from my post? The EO claims that it was your denomination that schism.
From your statement that the EO vehemently dispute that they are separated brethen. So I took if they dispute they are separated then they would never would have been together in the first place. The two Churches are in Schism.



That is the problem with the catechism. It explains the official position of your church that many do not practice as printed.
Sure there are some who hold on to that just as there are many upon many Baptists who thing Catholics are Christians or think that Catholicism isn't Christianity. Does that mean it's the official teaching of the Southern Baptist Church. As I stated in my last edit above if you were to start a thread in the Baptist forum titled Is Catholicism Christianity, what do you believe the overwhelming response would be? So again pointing out garbage in ones backyard but yet ignoring the garbage in your own backyard, is nothing more than tit for tat. I know first hand that there many Baptist who do not think for a minuet the Orthodox and Catholics are true Christians.



Nothing. We do not have a local church excommunication process. Most do leave the SBC simply because they do not agree with the SBC ethical and theological stand.

I have to disagree with you, the SBC would strip them of their affiliation.


,

 

[Philothei]

Nothing. We do not have a local church excommunication process. Most do leave the SBC simply because they do not agree with the SBC ethical and theological stand.

Excatly what happens MOST of the times with the EOs they are NOT excommunicated either...as who keeps records of that...They leave the Church they will have to get reinstated with a prayer if they decide to come back....

Schisms that took place through the history with the EO mostly group of congregations just "left" they were not perse excommunicated... ONLY through concils some did who were presistant to remain within the communion of the EO despite their heretical teachings... ....

 

[Hentenza]

I agree with you ... I think you are saying that the "basis" for the interpretation in Churches with SS is the scripture and that sets the norm... right?

Yes. We believe that the scripture is the sole authority in all matters of the faith.

Given we can never have the 100% God's Truth... I agree no one does...The only thing for our Church is that we don't believe we have 100% but we come along a way so we do have the richness of all the Tradition of the Church. Same can be said though for all of us who came from the common "root" that is prior to the Schism IMHO 1054 We all have that common Tradition. The church was historically ONE in the "visible" and "invisible" sense of the tern

Yes, it makes sense from the 'one true church" side of the argument but even here we do not agree since it is my position that the early church was autonomous and governed by a plurality of elders which is a far cry from the hierarchical style of government that historically progressively emerged.

BTW- The 1054 "T"radition is not in scripture.

I hope I did not offend anyone stating this Actually that common ancestory that springs from Christ and His Apostles is what it binds us as brother and sisters in Chirst. In my understanding the Bible is there as a guide so we can communicate the Truth of God and Christ...Makes sense?

The bible is not just a guide since it makes us complete to do the works of righteousness. The argument for SS is that only the word of God is infallible therefore it has a unique authority over "T"raditions. Most here (am not implying you lol) misunderstand solo vs. sola scriptura. Sola has no issues with "T"raditions while solo does not allow for them which I think is an untenable position since even solo scripturists use extra biblical materials to help them understand scripture. All churches have "T"raditions but these "T"raditions are subject to the authority of scripture.

 

[sunlover1]

Look at the NT Church in the Scriptures in Acts. They were all of one mind. All were taught the same teachings by the Apostles that were Christ's teachings.

They were encouraged to be of one mind but they weren't always of one mind.
I always too encourage others to be of one mind.

Are you saying that division is a sin?

I am.
Unless I misunderstand what sin is. yeah.
(what is sin?)
And your own church too, is in sin as long as they are divided against
the rest of the body of Christ.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
If the Bible says it cant. then it cant.
We need to be ONE.. IN Christ.
Amen.

 

[GandolftheWhite]

.

​

Yes, so quote me where I post that?











I agree, quote me where I said that.










READ what I posted.


Provide the quotes.


Reply to the points.





.

I said you were protraying them in that light, which you were, at least man up to your actions.


But anyway you proved my point the Lutheran Church only has to agree with the Lutheran Church ALONE, itself ALONE and AGREES ALONE just like the LDS.

 

[Kristos]

They were encouraged to be of one mind but they weren't always of one mind.
I always too encourage others to be of one mind.


I am.
Unless I misunderstand what sin is. yeah.
(what is sin?)
And your own church too, is in sin as long as they are divided against
the rest of the body of Christ.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
If the Bible says it cant. then it cant.
We need to be ONE.. IN Christ.
Amen.

I agree. But it seems like the other SS folks here think that it's okay...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

I said you were protraying them in that light

You would quote me if I EVER, remotely, used such language. I know it. We all know it.

And if I EVER posted that it's "demonic" for self to agree with self - you would have posted that quote from me. But you can't. I never, remotely, even indicated that it's wrong or bad or unexpected for self to agree with self. What I posted is that I don't agree that if self alone agrees with self alone, ergo self is correct: I'm disagreeing with your premise that since the RCC alone agrees with the RCC alone (and that ONLY officially, formally, institutionally and in those matters that the RCC alone currently regards as appropriate for the RCC to agree with itself concerning) ERGO it is correct - anymore than I'd say the exact same thing about the LDS even though it too agrees with itself alone in the same very limited sense ERGO it is correct. Yes, you used probably the most popular Catholic apologetic there is, but I find the whole premise absurd: it's generally true that self agrees with self (even in a sense FAR less limited than in the case of the RCC), I disagree that such indicates correctness.

But anyway you proved my point the Lutheran Church only has to agree with the Lutheran Church .

If you bothered to READ anything I posted, you'd know I specifically stated that NO ONE has to agree with any denomination. If you think I'm saying the exact opposite of what I repeatedly have posted to you, you are wrong.



Now, why does a denomination (such as the RCC or LDS) agreeing with self alone indicate that such is ergo correct? We all KNOW that the RCC alone agrees with the RCC alone - a grand agreement of self alone with self alone - and that ONLY officially, formally, institutionally, and in what self alone currently regards as appropriate for self to agree with self about. Okay. Why does that reality make the RCC and LDS correct?








.

 

[sunlover1]

I agree. But it seems like the other SS folks here think that it's okay...

Not sure what everyone else thinks.
But division can't be okay, not in light
of what Jesus said about oneness.

I think that as Jesus builds His church
we should embrace each member of the
body as we come into contact with him
or her.

He said that they'd know who are HIs by our love
for each other. Not by how much water we use
for baptism etc.
So while division is not alright, I believe that we
should embrace truth as we learn it but not shove
our own views onto others insisting we're right.
But rather pray for the other and allow him or
her some time to come to the truth (or us, sometimes
it's ourselves that THINK we're in the know...

I hope I was able to make you understand that I
believe division is sin because it misses the mark
of the high calling in Christ and that where there
are misunderstandings we should choose truth
in love over division.

I can love you and fellowship with you and even do
Bible study with you yet, still believe you're a bit
confused about some things. Did God ask me to
be the judge of you or to love you?

*shrugs

 

[Hentenza]

It's no that the RCC and the EO are in disagreement of what the Eucharist is, the EO don't agree on attaching a term to the mystery, but they do agree on the fact that it most certainly is the body of Christ and the blood Christ and the theology of the Eucharist, the difference is the EO just stop any sort of defining nature of the Eucharist.
You make it sound as if they are in complete opposite of each other. That is simply not true.

Both theologies can not be equally true. There are essential differences between real presence and transubstantiation. Again, it seems quite political to me.

BTW- Have you ever seen an EO taking communion at your parish?

From your statement that the EO vehemently dispute that they are separated brethen. So I took if they dispute they are separated then they would never would have been together in the first place. The two Churches are in Schism.

Ok.

Sure there are some who hold on to that just as there are many upon many Baptists who thing Catholics are Christians or think that Catholicism isn't Christianity. Does that mean it's the official teaching of the Southern Baptist Church. As I stated in my last edit above if you were to start a thread in the Baptist forum titled Is Catholicism Christianity, what do you believe the overwhelming response would be? So again pointing out garbage in ones backyard but yet ignoring the garbage in your own backyard, is nothing more than tit for tat. I know first hand that there many Baptist who do not think for a minuet the Orthodox and Catholics are true Christians.

That is true. All of us have a penchant of appropriating God's purview.

I have to disagree with you, the SBC would strip them of their affiliation.

Citation please. Opinions don't count.

 

[Hentenza]

I agree. But it seems like the other SS folks here think that it's okay...

The difference is that you believe that your church is THE church so you consider all other denominations to be divisive by not agreeing with your denomination. The problem is that denominational divisions are just local churches not agreeing with each other in the finer points of theology which happened even in the NT church. To be in schism with the church is to be in schism with the universal church which is composed of all believers not just a local denomination.

 

[GandolftheWhite]

1. there is no difference in theologies, the theology is the same behind the Eucharist, it's just that the Catholic Church took to another level of defining the Eucharist, in order to battle heretical views of the times where the Orthodox is basically it's a Mystery, but the theology is the same.

and to you other part sadly No, and I agree in part it is political. but it is their belief that one must be in Full Communion, I respect it, just wish it wasn't so.

And do you really think the Governing Board of the SBC would not do a thing if one of their affiliated Churches had a Homosexual Pastor?

 

[Hentenza]

1. there is no difference in theologies, the theology is the same behind the Eucharist, it's just that the Catholic Church took to another level of defining the Eucharist, in order to battle heretical views of the times where the Orthodox is basically it's a Mystery, but the theology is the same.

Well, I guess we are going to continue to disagree here.

and to you other part sadly No, and I agree in part it is political. but it is their belief that one must be in Full Communion, I respect it, just wish it wasn't so.

Ok.

And do you really think the Governing Board of the SBC would not do a thing if one of their affiliated Churches had a Homosexual Pastor?

No citation eh?

 

[Kristos]

The difference is that you believe that your church is THE church so you consider all other denominations to be divisive by not agreeing with your denomination. The problem is that denominational divisions are just local churches not agreeing with each other in the finer points of theology which happened even in the NT church. To be in schism with the church is to be in schism with the universal church which is composed of all believers not just a local denomination.

So you don't think that division is a sin?

 

[Hentenza]

So you don't think that division is a sin?

Huh? Division from what? I listed two kinds of divisions in the post that you replied to. One would be a sin the other is merely diversity.