Are you familiar with the iota (Homoiousios vs Homoousios) that helped defined the Trinity at Nicaea, prior to the canonization of the bible? If you really wish not to be Catholic you might want to rethink being Trinitarian. I would.
Under whose authority do you have the right to tell us our traditions are wrong?
So we should use (before all other methods) a non scriptural technique or method for reading scripture? Wouldn’t that go against the very principle sola scriptura attempts to establish?
You don’t have to participate
It isn’t the individual, at least in Lutheranism. I’ve referenced twice the confessional understanding of what we practice in this regard. It is important enough to us to make it clear. What other communions or individuals do isn’t under our control.But doesn’t the very notion of having the Individual themselves pick which definition of Sola (or Solo - it matters little) Scriptura strike you as strange?
To me, it shows the falsehood of Sola (or Solo) Scriptura. The Individual picks how they’re going to approach the Bible and understand it. This very notion places the Individual’s authority above or before that of Scripture.
The ideas in your answer are just about the same as what I get from other non-Catholic Christians I talk to. Is the definition of “Sola Scriptura” a non-essential then?
God Bless
PoorKnight for Christ and His Church
Participate in what? Your comment was that you don’t see a scripture verse to support SS.
Whatever. Its important to me
First, it doesn’t go against scripture. It is a practice of holding doctrine, teaching accountable.
If in scripture we find what we see in the pre reformation churches, a reliance not only on the written word but also the spoken word, ie tradition and as you admit your principle of Sola scriptura as a practice is not scriptural, what method should we go by?
Where did I see it isn’t important? I said an explicit statement isn’t necessary because it is not an article of faith that binds the conscience.
Who said SS excludes Tradition? It doesn’t, if properly practiced.
This is what protestants cannot and will not understand, my friend. I should know, I used to be one of them
I got it. I understand you have a position. I’m not going to tell you “so what?”
I never said Sola scriptura excludes tradition. The question is to whether or not it is a biblical practice. Would you be willing to admit scripture treats as equally valid the verbal words which the church received concerning the gospel as well as the written words? If this is admitted, how can you advocate sola scriptura, that is scripture primarily should judge all things, even if were those words of the apostles (I would say relating to worship, practice and the like, preserved by the church throughout the ages)?
I would think that as a presbyterian you would know that John Calvin insisted on not teaching anything that wasnt stated in scripture (this was his reason for not insisting that Mary remained an ever-virgin, for example)I think this article might be helpful for clarifying the various differences. It explains various Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant views quite succinctly. It also separate the orthodox Protestant understanding of ***Sola ***Scriptura from some ill-informed “Solo Scriptura” versions articulated among some Protestants.
For those Catholics who have thus far only seen and understood the ridiculous “Solo Scriptura” version, I hope that you will recognize that the actual informed Protestant tradition is much different. With all due respect, the criticisms of Sola Scriptura seems to me to often hinge upon an understandable misunderstanding of the Protestant viewpoint, just as many criticisms of Catholicism hinge upon misunderstandings of the actual Catholic position (in both cases, unfortunately promulgated by a group of misinformed individuals in both groups). Perhaps churches (Protestant or Catholic) ought to concentrate a bit more on theological education, methinks?
reclaimingthemind.org/content/Parchmentandpen/In-Defense-of-Sola-Scriptura.pdf
Here’s a tidbit:
No need to be hostile. Did you read the article? Even if you disagree with its defense, the first part about the differences is very well articulated and might do you good.
I apologize. I did not intend in any way to be hostile, nor to present a straw man argument. and I did in fact read the article
Thank you; Regarding Calvin, after reading through the Wikipedia page on him, I think a preliminary reading of his theology suggests he rejected it not simply because it was tradition, but rather because he thought it wrong based on reason and evidence. Whether or not he was right is, naturally, up for debate, but I think his rejection of some traditions and acceptance of other is consistent more with Sola Scriptura than the rightly mocked “Nuda Scriptura.”
