No argument with the first, but the word must be preached to be believed, as scripture tells us, faith comes by hearing. To that extent, Mackbrislawn was correct, that it isn’t and shouldn’t be only a solitary reading, which is what I was responding to.
Because that’s the practice of the church.
And 3 and 4 Macc? And Psalm. 151 and the other books your denomination removed from the scriptures?
The apostles and Christ never mentioned them or quoted from them at all. They obviously didn’t think they were that important, and neither do I.
I agree scripture is to be read in church. I also know of no Christian church that doesn’t read scripture in church. But we are also to read it and meditate on it ourselves.
Again I’m talking about the Scriptures as Christ
How do you know when they were written? They were included in the LXX? Why don’t you use the LXX?
Jesus used the Hebrew Old Testament, so did the apostles. Even quoted from it. They never quoted from the deuterocanon at all. They must not have though it was very important, and neither do I. Certainly nothing to get grumpy about.
He never read the deuteros, or if he did he didn’t care enough to quote them, and neither did any apostle.
Again I’m speaking of the OT as used AT the time of
Be blessed on this Mother’s Day, Mary. I am sure your children have been blessed to have a mother with faith such as yours.
Indeed. The problem comes in determining what it is that scripture really teaches. It seems that since scripture teaches so many different things for so many different readers, it follows that if scripture is true, then truth must be relative to the reader.
That paid-for indulgences give access to the treasury of merit - specifically as understood by a 16th century German peasant. Though one can argue that this issue was just the consequence of poor teaching - and not of doctrine.
Yes, the whole proposition of this thread is biased from the get go. Might as well say that “Roman Catholicism leads to moral relativism,” makes about as much sense, i.e. non-sense.
The large number of Protestant denominations would seem at first glance to attest to the relativistic tendencies of Sola Scriptura. And I will fully admit that many people have formed new denominations because of their disagreement with the interpretation of Scripture by their parent. That is why the Presbyterian faith is a confessional faith. Ideally we hold to the Westminster Confessions of Faith and the traditional Creeds of the Church. Note, I say ideally. Unfortunately I will grant that many times moral relativism raises its ugly head and causes many people to try to bend the Bible to their favorite cause.
No? From where do you think all of Western Protestantism has come? And what do you make of ‘Cafeteria Catholics?’ You know, the type who “believe the same thing as the Roman Catholic Church on everything except X, Y and Z?” Each and every one of those individuals is a denomination of one living inside your ecclessial body. Now, what’s worse? A group of people visibly splitting off and dying on their own, or countless thousands rotting a church from the inside? Answer: both are detrimental to His church.
Of course the original Protestant denominations broke off of the RCC, but since then the vast majority have splintered from one another without any relation to the RCC and for reasons associated with the denomination from which they split from, not RCC theology.
Every Church community has “pickers and choosers”. Its irrelevant. They don’t reflect the authentic beliefs of their respective churches.
I understand that SS and private interpretation are different things. What I was arguing was that the most most morally relativistic Christian denominations embrace SS (and to be clear I am talking about denominations whose official teachings are are morally relativistic, not “cafeteria catholics” and the like). That’s simply a fact. Based on this, can we honestly say that there is no correlation between moral relativism and SS? After all that is what this thread is about. Does SS necessitate moral relativism? No. Does it have the potential to lead to moral relativism? Absolutely.
This renders your previous point moot, then. Agreed; judging a group by those who have broken with it is an argument that has no merit and cannot be defended.
Agreed. Glad to be putting that dog down.
I disagree, and I think the proof is in the pudding. Groups that practice Sola Scriptura (LCMS, WELS, ELS, etc.) are most definitely not morally relativistic - because they see the Truth of Scripture to be unchanging. Groups that are relativistic/pluralistic (Unitarian Universalists, United Church of Christ, ELCA to a degree, etc.) do not regard Scripture to be the very Word of God, but only to contain it. This is an enormous fundamental difference. The former allows Scripture to dictate how Scripture is interpreted; the latter requires a human source to “interpret” what is ‘actually’ contained in Scripture.
There is no causation nor correlation between Sola Scriptura adherents and moral relativism. The correlation, and its causation, can be found when groups abandon Sola Scriptura for worldly pursuits, or submit themselves to human rulers teaching error.
I just don’t see how this can be asserted as an absolute.