Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan

[Montalban]

I don't get it.
You don't have a pope either.

You do. You have you.

 

[Montalban]

Is that what you've been doing

Apparently

 

[Standing Up]

You do. You have you.

Playing fast with definitions again I see. There's only one infallible pope and he's not part of P or EO last I heard. You?

 

[Montalban]

Have you gotten a Bible verse saying something to the effect of "use only Scripture" yet? Preferably with a definition of "Scripture".

Maybe I've got a different Bible - unless I want to do a Simpsons quote here if asked where it is...

Homer : Uh ... Somewhere in the back

 

[Montalban]

Playing fast with definitions again I see.

Skimming over the posts I see

There's only one infallible pope and he's not part of P or EO last I heard. You?

If you had read the many comments by Sunlover about not trusting men, etc. but the Bible and you think this would still include puting herself under ANY authority other than herself* then you're reading something I'm not.


*-excepting the Trinity - which is the relationship the Pope claims to have with God - no one between him and God

 

[Standing Up]

*-excepting the Trinity - which is the relationship the Pope claims to have with God - no one between him and God

What?

 

[stewardship10]

Theology and doctrine are very important, but we cannot get so lost in them we forget that they exist to help us continue to reach the lost. With all that is going on in the world, wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes in diverse places, and even nuclear fallout we have to remember to continue to reach the lost. If you need evangelism ideas you can get them at howtoevangelize.com

 

[sunlover1]

Well, there is,

His Beatitude Theodoros II, Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa

But in this case, "Pope" isn't like the Roman Catholic Pope; its just a title. So there you go, trivia fact of the day.


​

It's just a title for the other one too.

You do. You have you.

I have GOD.. He is all I need...Without God, I am undone.
WITH God, I can do all things, through Christ...

Psalm 47:7
For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding.
8 God reigneth over the heathen: God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness.

Theology and doctrine are very important, but we cannot get so lost in them we forget that they exist to help us continue to reach the lost. With all that is going on in the world, wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes in diverse places, and even nuclear fallout we have to remember to continue to reach the lost. If you need evangelism ideas you can get them at howtoevangelize.com

Love is the answer.
Amen!
God bless you Stewardship

 

[laconicstudent]

It's just a title for the other one too.

No it isn't.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

It's just a title for the other one too.


I have GOD.. He is all I need...Without God, I am undone.
WITH God, I can do all things, through Christ...

Psalm 47:7
For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding.
8 God reigneth over the heathen: God sitteth upon the throne of his holiness.



Love is the answer.
Amen!
God bless you Stewardship

YouTube - I believe

 

[sunlover1]

Awesome OC
Rock on!
(that one was a tear jerker!)
Here's one for you..
God bless you.

YouTube - casting crowns- if we are the body

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You either accept unbiblical "T"raditions like the Theotokos into your visible local church or you don't.

ACCOUNTABILITY....


It only matters if truth does. If truth doesn't matter, the entire issue of this (and similar) threads won't matter. It will be ignored or treated in a light, humorous way or perhaps enormous efforts to change the subject and get any attention off the issue of truth and accountability (at least for self or the denomination of self).


Some suggest that the "Tradition" of self is MORE inerrant, MORE inspired by God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE ecumenically (say to 50,000 denominations) and historically (say to 1400 BC) embraced than is Scripture: If I agree with me, I'm ergo correct. It's silly on the face of it - besides the reality that obviously no one knows what this "tradition" is, there is no agreement beyond a current understanding of a single denomination, so how can it be a rule (at least beyond that singular denomination)?


Some other just skip that and argue that while accountability is absolutely critical for every OTHER view and every OTHER teacher/denomination, self simply exempts self from the whole thing (defending that contradiction in creative, prideful, purely circular ways).




.

 

[Chaplain David]

MOD HAT ON​

Hello Everyone. This is a reminder that in our discussions we debate/discuss topics and not each other.

Accusatory or condemnatory "you statements" are out of bounds and they detract from good discussion.

Making fun of others or their denominations isn't really nice and it's also against the rules.

Let's all let the love of Jesus guide us in our interactions with each other remembering that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. If you have a question about the rules feel free to pm me. Thank you.


***Mod Hat edited to add that this thread has gone through a mini clean up. If you notice a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up. Please remember the Board Rules when posting.

Documentation of thread clean up is HERE for staff only!!***

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Dark_Lite]

ACCOUNTABILITY....


It only matters if truth does. If truth doesn't matter, the entire issue of this (and similar) threads won't matter. It will be ignored or treated in a light, humorous way or perhaps enormous efforts to change the subject and get any attention off the issue of truth and accountability (at least for self or the denomination of self).


Some suggest that the "Tradition" of self is MORE inerrant, MORE inspired by God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE ecumenically (say to 50,000 denominations) and historically (say to 1400 BC) embraced than is Scripture: If I agree with me, I'm ergo correct. It's silly on the face of it - besides the reality that obviously no one knows what this "tradition" is, there is no agreement beyond a current understanding of a single denomination, so how can it be a rule (at least beyond that singular denomination)?


Some other just skip that and argue that while accountability is absolutely critical for every OTHER view and every OTHER teacher/denomination, self simply exempts self from the whole thing (defending that contradiction in creative, prideful, purely circular ways).




.

I know I'm going to regret getting on the rhetoric merry-go-round, which is probably why I'll only reply to you once.

Your understanding of history and the nature of Tradition is poor at best. You have it so ingrained in your head that tradition somehow equals people coming up with beliefs out of nowhere and then deciding that those beliefs are divinely revealed/authoritative/whatever. In fact, you have it completely backwards.

If the beliefs of Christianity are found in tradition, then they come from an organic source: Christ. It is not an artificial creation. The "accountability" that you keep harping about is adherence to that tradition. It is not "self agreeing with self" nor is it a rejection of any accountability.

The crux of all of your problems is this: "If I agree with me, I'm ergo correct." "It's silly on the face of it" because you're presenting a straw man. It's easy to knock down one of those. Base everything on this single misunderstanding, and you can win any argument. At least as long as people agree with your strawman definition.

Tradition is the collected beliefs, practices, and teachings of the Church over the centuries. Scripture is a part of it. The difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is not because we have different Tradition; it is because we interpret Tradition differently.

It's the same problem found in the Protestant denominations. All of them have the same Scripture, but they all interpret it differently. Their accountability is to Scripture alone, which is ironic, but I digress. The "accountability" of the ancient Churches is to Tradition, of which Scripture is a part. Differences arise because of different interpretations of that Tradition.

The doctrinal differences in the various apostolic Churches is not because we cannot agree on what constitutes Tradition. Tradition is embodied in the Scriptures, the, ECFs, and the Councils of the Church. The differences arose because of schisms, and theology divided from there. Councils continued to be authoritative, but the schismed groups rejected each other's Councils. That is the problem you take and try to twist into something it isn't.

I also notice that that you base your acceptance of Sola Scriptura on the idea of there being less variance in the Bible than in Tradition. Newsflash: the majority of Christians have a different canon than you. Protestantism's 66 book canon is a minority. Catholicism has a 72 book canon, Orthodoxy has a 73 (I think) book canon. Ethiopian Orthodox have an even larger canon.

The whole of Christendom does not agree on what constitutes the canon. If your whole idea is to use Scripture as a praxis because everybody agrees on what's in it, you're out of luck.

 

[ivebeenshown]

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Good. Then it would be the same everywhere - in all 50,000 denominations and for all 2000 years. Can you list those for me?


We'll see. List for us exactly what Tradition is embraced by all 50,000 denominations for all 2000 years (even the past 1500 years). We'll see if what you say is correct or not.

Friend, as far as I'm concerned, your denomination is welcomed to use it's unque canon of books since the 16th century. Lutherans have never objected at all. It changes nothing. The RCC still rejects accountability to it (even it's OWN canon) and nothing in those RCC books changes the discussion at all. It's fine with me, fine with Lutherans. Go ahead and use them, if you used YOUR Scriptures as the rule it would be such a massive, huge improvement over using nothing. The ONLY denomination where what is embraced as Scripture is anything of a potential issue is the LDS (their additional books would make a difference) but like the RCC, it refused to use even it's own Bible as the Rule for itself - so it's moot there.


The Rule of Scripture in Norming: Why Scripture?


In epistemology (regardless of discipline), the most sound norma normans is usually regarded as the most objective, most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose. My degree is in physics. Our norma normans is math and repeatable, objective, laborative evidence. Me saying, "what I think is the norm for what I think" will be instantly disregarded as evidential since it's both moot and circular. I would need to evidence and substantiate my view with a norm fully OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND me - something objective and knowable. This is what The Handbook of the Catholic Faith proclaims (page136), "The Bible is the very words of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God Himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.... the authority of the Bible flows directly from the Author of the Bible who is God; it is authoritative because the Author is." Those that accept the Rule of Scripture tend to agree. It's embrace as the most sound Rule flows from our common embrace of Scripture as the inscriptured words of God for God is the ultimate authority.

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very, very, broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

It is knowable by all and alterable by none. We can all see the very words of Romans 3:25 for example, they are black letters on a white page - knowable! And they are unalterable. I can't change what is on the page in Romans 3:25, nor can any other; what is is.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming ( the RCC and LDS, for example ) have no better alternative (something more inspired, more inerrant, more ecumenically/historically embraced by all parties, more objectively knowable, more unalterable), they have no alternative that is clearly more sound for this purpose among us.

To simply embrace the teachings of self (sometimes denominational "tradition" or "confession") as the rule/canon is simply self looking in the mirror at self - self almost always reveals self. In communist Cuba, Castro agrees with Castro - it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Castro is correct. We need a Rule outside, beyond, above self.


Why do some so passionately reject it?


Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative. Rather the rejection tends to be because each rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone. From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Catholic Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." IF self declares that self is unaccountable and that self is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes moot (for self). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by self for self).









.

QFT

 

[Dark_Lite]

Good. Then it would be the same everywhere - in all 50,000 denominations and for all 2000 years. Can you list those for me?

We'll see. List for us exactly what Tradition is embraced by all 50,000 denominations for all 2000 years (even the past 1500 years). We'll see if what you say is correct or not.

Friend, as far as I'm concerned, your denomination is welcomed to use it's unque canon of books since the 16th century. Lutherans have never objected at all. It changes nothing. The RCC still rejects accountability to it (even it's OWN canon) and nothing in those RCC books changes the discussion at all. It's fine with me, fine with Lutherans. Go ahead and use them, if you used YOUR Scriptures as the rule it would be such a massive, huge improvement over using nothing. The ONLY denomination where what is embraced as Scripture is anything of a potential issue is the LDS (their additional books would make a difference) but like the RCC, it refused to use even it's own Bible as the Rule for itself - so it's moot there.

<stuff>

And this is why I don't debate with you. You take tiny snippets of people's posts out of context, completely ignore everything else, and then repeat exactly what you've already repeated numerous times before. I knew I would regret getting on the rhetoric merry-go-round. Luckily, I can jump off at any time I want. So, that's what I'll do.

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Why Sola Scriptura isn't God's plan (2)"