V
Verita
Guest
That’s why I’m joining the Church.
- Status
T
tequilamac
Guest
Hurraaaayyyy!That’s why I’m joining the Church.
And now the envelope please-
And the winner is:
Verita for her upcoming role in Christianity.:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:
R
rtconstant
Guest
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. Calling the Bible the “Word of God”. The Bible may be the word of God but it isn’t the “Word of God”. We do have a “Word of God” that unlike the Bible is available to everyone His name is Jesus.
Oh and I’m not directing this too you Mrs. Abbott I know you were just posting a definition.
T
tequilamac
Guest
Jesus is the Word. I have no problem with the capitalization of either one.
V
VociMike
Guest
What we criticize is not a thing as much as a lack. We criticize the rejection of Christ’s Church in whatever form it might take. This includes any and all versions of sola Scriptura. The exact definition doesn’t matter for every definition rejects the authority and full revelation placed into the hands of the Church by God.
F
Fidelis
Guest
Shucks! Protestants can’t even agree among themselves what it is, and it’s their doctrine. Anything we (or your fellow Protestants, for that matter) would come up with (based on what we’ve heard from Protestant’s themselves) would be attacked as a distortion or misunderstanding because any given Protestant could (and probably would) disagree with it!
Just for chuckles, let me offer the following definition [Disclaimer to my fellow Catholics: I am providing this only for the purposes of answering the OP’s question. *I do not hold this doctrine, nor do I think the OP wants to debate it – though it’s flaws are embarassingly obvious. He is simply asking for an example]:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
A Latin term meaning “scripture alone.” It is one of several Protestant beliefs to come out of the reformation. This Protestant doctrine says that scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice. It holds that the Bible is infallible, that it is sufficient, and that it is clear. It is this last point that is disputed by the Roman Catholic Church, which holds that while the Bible contains all truth necessary for salvation, its meaning is not clear and must be interpreted by an infallible teaching authority, the magisterium of the Church.
Happy now?
L
Liberian
Guest
Martin,
Sola Scriptura in one sense means that ALL beliefs and practices must be found in Scripture. This is never practiced by anybody unless he is attacking somebody else’s beliefs or practices and asks “Where do you find that in the Bible?”
In another sense, Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the final authority for judging the correctness of a doctrine or the propriety of a practice. This begs the question of “whose interpretation of the Bible do you go by,” generally leading to the primacy of private interpretation. Practitioners of this form of Sola Scriptura vigorously deny that this happens, but I have never seen any good protection against it.
Sola Scriptura in one sense means that ALL beliefs and practices must be found in Scripture. This is never practiced by anybody unless he is attacking somebody else’s beliefs or practices and asks “Where do you find that in the Bible?”
In another sense, Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the final authority for judging the correctness of a doctrine or the propriety of a practice. This begs the question of “whose interpretation of the Bible do you go by,” generally leading to the primacy of private interpretation. Practitioners of this form of Sola Scriptura vigorously deny that this happens, but I have never seen any good protection against it.
- Liberian
P
Philthy
Guest
There is no one with the authority to infallibly define it on earth and God chose to ignore it completely in sacred Scripture so we Catholics are left with as many competing variations as have been offered by Protestants.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and I am the sole fallible interpreter of Scripture that I will listen to, i.e.
No Council, no Creed, no Church Father or Saint, no Pastor, no Bishop, no Pope, and no tradition or “biblical interpretation” past nor present can bind my conscience on what I am to believe. I define “Christianity” and “Christian doctrine” for myself and by myself with the Bible (the 66 book Protestant canon).
How’s that?
Of course Reformed author Keith Mathison (The Shape of Sola Scriptura) disagrees, I’ve brought that up before. He says the visible Church is the sole authentic interpreter of Scripture. The question is, which visible Church?
Phil P
No Council, no Creed, no Church Father or Saint, no Pastor, no Bishop, no Pope, and no tradition or “biblical interpretation” past nor present can bind my conscience on what I am to believe. I define “Christianity” and “Christian doctrine” for myself and by myself with the Bible (the 66 book Protestant canon).
How’s that?
Of course Reformed author Keith Mathison (The Shape of Sola Scriptura) disagrees, I’ve brought that up before. He says the visible Church is the sole authentic interpreter of Scripture. The question is, which visible Church?
Phil P
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Wow! So instead following the sure teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, you have set yourself up as “Pope” of your own denomination! Have you claimed infallibility for yourself, as well?Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and I am the sole fallible interpreter of Scripture that I will listen to, i.e.
No Council, no Creed, no Church Father or Saint, no Pastor, no Bishop, no Pope, and no tradition or “biblical interpretation” past nor present can bind my conscience on what I am to believe. I define “Christianity” and “Christian doctrine” for myself and by myself with the Bible (the 66 book Protestant canon).
How’s that?
Of course Reformed author Keith Mathison (The Shape of Sola Scriptura) disagrees, I’ve brought that up before. He says the visible Church is the sole authentic interpreter of Scripture. The question is, which visible Church?
Phil P
Tell me, what authority is explicitly contained in the following verses:
"Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:17-19 NIV)
One more thought, your bible: where did it come from and by whose authority was its “table of contents” established? Are you free to add to it, subtract from it or make any changes to it in any way? If not, then is the Canon of Scripture itself binding upon your conscience, and was it not established by a Church council?
T
The_Augustinian
Guest
FYI: Phil’s a Catholic apologist. Those are not his views. In fact, he did a good job of showing how ridiculous sola scriptura is.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Um…I knew that…I was just practicing my own apologetics!
Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Yeah, that’s the ticket!
M
mark_a
Guest
Can I take a stab?
First though, I must tell you that I really don’t know. My guess is kinda what I’ve gathered.
For example, is Mary a perpetual virgin? Is there a purgatory? How can three persons be one God, a Trinity?
Practitioners of sola scriptura, I’m guessing, might say that it’s not explicit in scripture (Catholics know it’s implicit). So, we’re (sola’s) going to play it safe and not pronounce one way or the other.
But the problem is easy to see just from these examples.
Scripture interpretation with tradition is much like a supreme court decision using precedent.
Howzat?
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Randy << Wow! So instead following the sure teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, you have set yourself up as “Pope” of your own denomination! Have you claimed infallibility for yourself, as well? >>
Yes, I am the Pope, though fallible, like everyone else. I am the sole authentic “non-infallible” interpreter of Scripture, and I may have every single doctrine wrong, but that’s all I got. Me, myself, and Irene with my “only infallible rule” the Bible. :whacky:
Randy << Tell me, what authority is explicitly contained in the following verses >>
Everyone can see Jesus was speaking to Peter as representative of all believers. Peter, the supposed first Pope, wrote by the only infallible interpreter the Holy Spirit of God that all believers are “little stones” built upon the sure foundation, Jesus (1 Peter 2, that’s in the New Testament in case you forgot).
From your own Douay-Rheims translation, which I am told comes from the fallible Latin Vulgate:
“Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him shall not be confounded.”
OK, by the authority of my “non-infallible” interpretation, this disproves the Catholic priesthood, and proves that Jesus is the cornerstone, and that all believers are rocks, not just Peter. Don’t forget Ephesians 2:19-20, that’s ALSO in the New Testament.
Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah don’t give your Catholic nonsense about Matthew 16 again. :whacky:
Randy << One more thought, your bible: where did it come from and by whose authority was its “table of contents” established? >>
God establishes canon, men recognize canon. And they could recognize that 2nd Peter and James may not belong to the canon. In fact, I might recognize that right now. But maybe not. I’ll decide that, thank you. :banghead:
Randy << Are you free to add to it, subtract from it or make any changes to it in any way? If not, then is the Canon of Scripture itself binding upon your conscience, and was it not established by a Church council? >>
NO, the canon is not binding. I hereby add the Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip (c. 250 AD) to the canon of Scripture. The New Testament now contains 30 books, a nice round number divisible by 3 and 10 and 5 and 6.
Phil P
Yes, I am the Pope, though fallible, like everyone else. I am the sole authentic “non-infallible” interpreter of Scripture, and I may have every single doctrine wrong, but that’s all I got. Me, myself, and Irene with my “only infallible rule” the Bible. :whacky:
Randy << Tell me, what authority is explicitly contained in the following verses >>
Everyone can see Jesus was speaking to Peter as representative of all believers. Peter, the supposed first Pope, wrote by the only infallible interpreter the Holy Spirit of God that all believers are “little stones” built upon the sure foundation, Jesus (1 Peter 2, that’s in the New Testament in case you forgot).
From your own Douay-Rheims translation, which I am told comes from the fallible Latin Vulgate:
“Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him shall not be confounded.”
OK, by the authority of my “non-infallible” interpretation, this disproves the Catholic priesthood, and proves that Jesus is the cornerstone, and that all believers are rocks, not just Peter. Don’t forget Ephesians 2:19-20, that’s ALSO in the New Testament.
Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah don’t give your Catholic nonsense about Matthew 16 again. :whacky:
Randy << One more thought, your bible: where did it come from and by whose authority was its “table of contents” established? >>
God establishes canon, men recognize canon. And they could recognize that 2nd Peter and James may not belong to the canon. In fact, I might recognize that right now. But maybe not. I’ll decide that, thank you. :banghead:
Randy << Are you free to add to it, subtract from it or make any changes to it in any way? If not, then is the Canon of Scripture itself binding upon your conscience, and was it not established by a Church council? >>
NO, the canon is not binding. I hereby add the Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip (c. 250 AD) to the canon of Scripture. The New Testament now contains 30 books, a nice round number divisible by 3 and 10 and 5 and 6.
Phil P
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Amen, Bishop!
T
tequilamac
Guest
I am sorry. I declare you wrong and not a bible believing Christian. I am therefore declaring myself Popess, with the full infallibility due to such an honorable station. I am an inclusive type of Popess, therefore I declare your canon incomplete as you have not included the Testament according to Joseph Smith and the book of Mormon. Believing that God takes anybody as He is hard up for company, I think it wise to include all books claiming to be the True Word whether or not they directly contradict and lead one on a wild goose chase rather than a Way of the Cross.Randy << Wow! So instead following the sure teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, you have set yourself up as “Pope” of your own denomination! Have you claimed infallibility for yourself, as well? >>
Yes, I am the Pope, though fallible, like everyone else. I am the sole authentic “non-infallible” interpreter of Scripture, and I may have every single doctrine wrong, but that’s all I got. Me, myself, and Irene with my “only infallible rule” the Bible. :whacky:
Randy << Tell me, what authority is explicitly contained in the following verses >>
Everyone can see Jesus was speaking to Peter as representative of all believers. Peter, the supposed first Pope, wrote by the only infallible interpreter the Holy Spirit of God that all believers are “little stones” built upon the sure foundation, Jesus (1 Peter 2, that’s in the New Testament in case you forgot).
From your own Douay-Rheims translation, which I am told comes from the fallible Latin Vulgate:
“Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him shall not be confounded.”
OK, by the authority of my “non-infallible” interpretation, this disproves the Catholic priesthood, and proves that Jesus is the cornerstone, and that all believers are rocks, not just Peter. Don’t forget Ephesians 2:19-20, that’s ALSO in the New Testament.
Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah don’t give your Catholic nonsense about Matthew 16 again. :whacky:
Randy << One more thought, your bible: where did it come from and by whose authority was its “table of contents” established? >>
God establishes canon, men recognize canon. And they could recognize that 2nd Peter and James may not belong to the canon. In fact, I might recognize that right now. But maybe not. I’ll decide that, thank you. :banghead:
Randy << Are you free to add to it, subtract from it or make any changes to it in any way? If not, then is the Canon of Scripture itself binding upon your conscience, and was it not established by a Church council? >>
NO, the canon is not binding. I hereby add the Epistle of Barnabas and the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip (c. 250 AD) to the canon of Scripture. The New Testament now contains 30 books, a nice round number divisible by 3 and 10 and 5 and 6.
Phil P
I have declared this infallibly by the authority invested in me by me and with me and through me on this day November 29 the Year of our Lord 2006.
Amen so be it.
And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Academy, the Producers and the directors and my channeling advisors in contact with the ascended Masters. Last but not least I would like to thank my make up professionals and wardrobe designers for this lovely golden cassock with the puff sleeves and princess collar.
S
scylla
Guest
As a former attendee of Calvary Chapel I can give you this, which is different from Reformed Baptist tradition and several other Protestant positions.
“At Calvary Chapel, we believe that the Bible is the final authority and the complete Word of God for His church today, and that no prophecy or teaching can ever supersede it”
We reject 5 point Calvinism, amillennialism", post-millennialism, as well as a mid or post-tribulation rapture view as this is not taught by the Bible.
The imminent rapture of His Church is found in Scripture"
This is what was preached at Calvary Chapel where I live except they rejected the once saved always saved view that is stated by most of Calvary Chapel.
In Christ
Scylla
“At Calvary Chapel, we believe that the Bible is the final authority and the complete Word of God for His church today, and that no prophecy or teaching can ever supersede it”
We reject 5 point Calvinism, amillennialism", post-millennialism, as well as a mid or post-tribulation rapture view as this is not taught by the Bible.
The imminent rapture of His Church is found in Scripture"
This is what was preached at Calvary Chapel where I live except they rejected the once saved always saved view that is stated by most of Calvary Chapel.
In Christ
Scylla
M
Mr.Ex_Nihilo
Guest
I’ve been asking for a while, but I still haven’t received a straight answer that doesn’t inevitably contradict itself yet.
Consequently, the most most accurate description of Sola Scriptura I can present, based on what other Sola Scripturists have disagreed with, is that only the Bible has proven trustworthy over the last 2000 years.
Even this claim falls apart with further scrutiny-- and as a Catholic I do not beleive in Sola Scriptura, unless one is claiming that Sola Scriptura equals Sacred Tradtion.
But at least the claim that only the Bible has been proven trustworthy presents Sola Scriptura not so much as a claim that the Scriptures make about themselves. Rather it presents the Scriptures within the light of being infallible despite the claims of the Scripture’s critics. It means that whenever people claim the Scriptures are wrong, the accuracy of the Scripture’s divine authority will prove their claims against the Scriptures wrong.
Sola Scripturists beleive that only the Bible has been proven trustworthy throughout the history of Christianity-- and this, of course, means that only their interpretation of the Scriptures are trustworthy too.
sigh
Consequently, the most most accurate description of Sola Scriptura I can present, based on what other Sola Scripturists have disagreed with, is that only the Bible has proven trustworthy over the last 2000 years.
Even this claim falls apart with further scrutiny-- and as a Catholic I do not beleive in Sola Scriptura, unless one is claiming that Sola Scriptura equals Sacred Tradtion.
But at least the claim that only the Bible has been proven trustworthy presents Sola Scriptura not so much as a claim that the Scriptures make about themselves. Rather it presents the Scriptures within the light of being infallible despite the claims of the Scripture’s critics. It means that whenever people claim the Scriptures are wrong, the accuracy of the Scripture’s divine authority will prove their claims against the Scriptures wrong.
Sola Scripturists beleive that only the Bible has been proven trustworthy throughout the history of Christianity-- and this, of course, means that only their interpretation of the Scriptures are trustworthy too.
sigh
A
AussieCatholic
Guest
I’ve always been told that all Catholic doctrine is biblical. So in this sense don’t we also adhere to sola scriptura?
- Status