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

[Ortho_Cat]

I never said this. You and brother kristos did. I was pointing out that the differences between Protestant sotierological views all revolve around timing, and yet all still hold to sola gratia/sola fide (and the order there is important, grace precedes faith).

Heterodox groups (like SDAs for example) are heterodox because they reject (or at least did traditionally) sola gratia/sola fide. Groups that are Lutheran, Reformed, or Arminian all accept sola gratia/fide (which we would say is clear from Scripture), though they differ over the timing of the event (which only the zealots would dispute that it is clear from Scripture).

At least in this case, this seems to me to be the distinguishing criteria between heterodox and orthodox evangelicals IYO. Are there other distinguishing criteria? Again, forgive me if I misunderstood.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Aw, that's too bad. And I thought we were just starting to get somewhere... Oh well.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Anyways, I will finish this up for the benefit of our listeners then.

So say you. Yup, you're back to repeating the party line so I think the dialogue is dead.

Actually, I believe that scripture clearly illustrates each main point that I mentioned above, and that this is the historical interpretation of the role of the church.

I addressed this in response to kristos above that this is a problem of people and one which exists in all churches, including EO.

You compare people schisming over calendars with people disagreeing about the very nature of salvation and the sacraments, which occurs in protestantism? Apples to oranges. IMO, calendar issues should not separate us, but some people are dead set on it, so be it I guess. Like you said, unnecessary schism IMO.

It tells me they've abandoned monergism for semi-pelagainsm (or synergism if you prefer). It also tells me that you're sadly ignorant of what Augustine taught and which the church upheld in council, only to latter follow Cassian into semi-pelagainsm.

Neither the Catholics or the Orthodox practice semi-pelagianism. You were correct to use the term synergism.

Synergism and the language of scripture:

James Akin

Yup. Some were necessary, many were not. Again, this is a sin problem, not a doctrinal one....

Well, I'd argue that it's both.

The point was that schism happens and that it's a necessary consequence of an adherence to objective truth when two parties cannot come to an agreement.

Point taken, although I'm not sure quite sure what this "objective truth" is.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Lost me.....


At least as I've read, heard and understood the words (and I realize some Christians feel free to give words ANY definition desired)....


Pelagian: Because of the atoning work of Jesus - it is possible for us to save ourselves. As Catholics not infrequently state: "Jesus open the door to heaven, but it is up to us to walk through it." Pelagianism is technically a heresy since the 5th Century, I think, although it seems to ME very, very few Catholics know that, the majority known to me often proclaim it.


Semi-Pelagianism: Because of the atoning work of Jesus, the Holy Spirit works WITH our spirit in a cooperative effort, an interaction, which together results in our justification. "God helps those who help themselves." WE are doing it but because GOD is so empowering. Salvation is a cooperative effort: God and each person work together, helping each other, to achieve the goal. Jesus is part Savior, we are part Savior. This is what I was taught by all of my Catholic teachers. I now understand this was also condemned as heresy in the 6th Century, if I recall correctly.


Synergism: Because of the atoning work of Jesus, the Holy Spirit works WITH our spirit in a cooperative effort, an interaction, which together results in our justification. WE are doing it but because GOD is so empowering. Salvation is thus a cooperative effort: God and each person work together, helping each other, to achieve the goal. Jesus is part Savior, we are part Savior. This is what I was taught by all of my Catholic teachers.



Now, I'm not sure how any of this relates to the issue before us, could someone explain that to me? If truth doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter if these are doctrine or heresy, true or false - if a teacher is exempt from truth if the self same so insists that the self same is, then why are we discussing if these things are true? Or discussing them at all (they thus don't matter)? But, if truth matters - and we are subjecting them to norming, then we need a rule/canon/norma normans in order to do so - a sound one we all embrace, one we all regard as reliable (divinely inspired and inerrant would be the best, absolutely ideal), one that is objectively knowable and unalterable (written in black-and-white words would be best, absolutely ideal) and one with a strong ecumenical and historical embrace (say by 50,000 denominations and to 1400 BC). What should we embrace as such? Oh, heck - THAT'S the issue here!







.



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Aw, that's too bad. And I thought we were just starting to get somewhere... Oh well.

After 264 posts and 27 pages, you would think so

 

[heymikey80]

You compare people schisming over calendars with people disagreeing about the very nature of salvation and the sacraments, which occurs in protestantism? Apples to oranges. IMO, calendar issues should not separate us, but some people are dead set on it, so be it I guess. Like you said, unnecessary schism IMO.

So, ah, not an infallible council this?

Neither the Catholics or the Orthodox practice semi-pelagianism. You were correct to use the term synergism.

Synergism and the language of scripture:

James Akin

The problem is, of course, the article doesn't even reach to the nature of the Calvinist complaint.

Interestingly enough, the article doesn't even realize that the Five Points of Calvinism are actually a response to five points of the Remonstrance. They're not Calvinistic -- they're responses to Arminians.

And the assertion that Calvinists think all graces are irresistible is again, patently false.

But welcome to the cacophony of theology.

As to synergism: 5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness Rom 4:5

 

[Ortho_Cat]

So, ah, not an infallible council this?

The problem is, of course, the article doesn't even reach to the nature of the Calvinist complaint.

Interestingly enough, the article doesn't even realize that the Five Points of Calvinism are actually a response to five points of the Remonstrance. They're not Calvinistic -- they're responses to Arminians.

And the assertion that Calvinists think all graces are irresistible is again, patently false.

But welcome to the cacophony of theology.

As to synergism: 5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness Rom 4:5

Sigh, Paul is contrasting the OT law with faith in Christ (obedience) here and elsewhere in Romans. Do you think this verse automatically nullifies all the others in the article about co-operating with God's grace? They all must be reconconciled somehow, you can't have Paul speaking out of both sides of his mouth, or Paul disagreeing with James about the teaching of salvation.

 

[heymikey80]

=Sigh= Abraham precedes law, Paul's argument has to hearken back to works.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't think so. The 7 churches of revelation being a case in point.

No problem. I admire you for typing from your phone. It is hard enough for me to keep typos using my regular keyboard. lol

Why is solo/sola scriptura such a hot topic on the GT board?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7322018-101/
Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

 

[heymikey80]

Why is solo/sola scriptura such a hot topic on the GT board?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7322018-101/
Is SOLO Scriptura Scriptural?

Because it tends to deflect from the fallibility of tradition?

Seriously, it spins around wildly if you look at the way the arguments work.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why is solo/sola scriptura such a hot topic on the GT board?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7322018-101/

... accountability lies at the heart of the Protestant/Catholic divide. Catholicism crashes without it's foundational, keystone claim: that IT cannot err (in matters of doctrine, anyway). It's passionate stress that all OTHER teachers are fully and immediately accountable for what is taught, but it insists on ONE radical, complete, total, absolute exception to it's own insistence: Itself. For all OTHERS - it's all about truth and accountability, for SELF it's all about unmitigated POWER and docilic submission to SELF as unto God. CCC 87 for starters.... Without this foundational claim, without this "180" standard - Catholicism becomes open to evaluation: something it will REJECT to the very core of it's existence, from my experience.



That's my perspective....


Pax


- Josiah




.




.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Is Papal infallibility really the key foundation of Roman Catholicism though? I don't think it is. It wasn't even proclaimed until 1870 and even then (and now) not all Roman Catholics accept it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Is Papal infallibility really the key foundation of Roman Catholicism though? I don't think it is. It wasn't even proclaimed until 1870 and even then (and now) not all Roman Catholics accept it.

I am unaware of any Catholics who reject papal infallibility, as it is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Are there any here on CF?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I am unaware of any Catholics who reject papal infallibility, as it is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Are there any here on CF?

I'm sure many Catholics do believe it now. What about prior to 1870 though? If it is central to Roman Catholicism why wasn't it there from the start? The people who knew nothing of it were still Roman Catholic. Seems to be more of a development and strenghtening of one stream of thought that was present in the Roman Catholic tradition. Thus it can't be too central.


There have been Roman Catholic theologians who questioned and even rejected the concept even after it was promulgated at the council though. Franz Von Baader, Hans Kung, Lord Acton are examples of that .

The "Old Catholics" reject it as well.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

"recent (1989–1992) survey of Catholics from multiple countries (the United States, Austria, Canada, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Spain and Switzerland), aged 15 to 25 showed that 36.9% accepted the teaching on papal infallibility, 36.9% denied it, and 26.2% said they didn't know of it."

Papal infallibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ishraqiyun]

double post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility#Opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_papal_infallibility

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

"recent (1989–1992) survey of Catholics from multiple countries (the United States, Austria, Canada, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Spain and Switzerland), aged 15 to 25 showed that 36.9% accepted the teaching on papal infallibility, 36.9% denied it, and 26.2% said they didn't know of it."

Papal infallibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MY experience is that there are VERY few Catholics in the RCC....

The Catholic Catechism # 87 describes what a "faithful Catholic" does. Few do. SOME of us - as an act of honesty and integrity - ergo left. Some knowingly stay with a "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy - at best "unfaithful Catholics" or as my deacon put it, either "Cafeteria Catholics" or worse "Protestants hiding in the Church" - both he considered to be the biggest threats to the RCC since Gnosticism.





.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I'm sure many Catholics do believe it now. What about prior to 1870 though? If it is central to Roman Catholicism why wasn't it there from the start? The people who knew nothing of it were still Roman Catholic. Seems to be more of a development and strenghtening of one stream of thought that was present in the Roman Catholic tradition. Thus it can't be too central.


There have been Roman Catholic theologians who questioned and even rejected the concept even after it was promulgated at the council though. Franz Von Baader, Hans Kung, Lord Acton are examples of that .

The "Old Catholics" reject it as well.

Exactly. The Polish National Catholic Church split from the RCC on this very issue. Unfortunately IMO the RCC has a progressive view of divine revelation which permits previous generations leeway to not believe things that were later "revealed" as essential to the faith. These things include more important issues than papal infallibility, such as the Dogma of the Assumption and the Dogma of Perpetual Virginity.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

MY experience is that there are VERY few Catholics in the RCC....

The Catholic Catechism # 87 describes what a "faithful Catholic" does. Few do. SOME of us - as an act of honesty and integrity - ergo left. Some knowingly stay with a "don't ask, don't tell" philosophy - at best "unfaithful Catholics" or as my deacon put it, either "Cafeteria Catholics" or worse "Protestants hiding in the Church" - both he considered to be the biggest threats to the RCC since Gnosticism.

Sounds rather judgmental, no?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

What if the Roman Catholics who reject papal infallibility are actually the "real" Roman Catholics or embrace the true Roman Catholic tradition ? Not saying this is the case but they certainly consider themselves Roman Catholics. Who are we as outsiders to tell them that they really aren't?