Is this the consensus among sola scriptura folks?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe370

Guest
I am often told that I do not understand and therefore do not properly and accurately portray the Protestant position of Sola scriptura. Is the following breakdown of Sola Scriptura, by Dr. James White, the universally definitive understanding of Sola Scriptura?

After all, if I am going to be accused of misrepresenting Sola Scriptura then I suppose I should get my facts straight. If I can’t get a universally firm definition of Sola Scriptura no one has the right to accuse me of misrepresenting Sola Scriptura:

"The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. **Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. **The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church (to be fair he should have said churches) - looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church(es) is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby."
 
joe370 said:
I am often told that I do not understand and therefore do not properly and accurately portray the Protestant position of Sola scriptura. Is the following breakdown of Sola Scriptura, by Dr. James White, the universally definitive understanding of Sola Scriptura?

After all, if I am going to be accused of misrepresenting Sola Scriptura then I suppose I should get my facts straight. If I can’t get a universally firm definition of Sola Scriptura no one has the right to accuse me of misrepresenting Sola Scriptura:

"The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. **Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. **The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church (to be fair he should have said churches) - looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church(es) is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby."
Click to expand...
Oh the notorious James White and his adamant belief that SS is the sole rule of faith. I do not know how many times that man has been put in his place and shown his arguments hold no historical accuracy at all. I have learned to ignore any rants and raves from Mr. White because does not matter how many times he debates,he is always arrogant and flat out rude! A sign that the man simply cannot swallow his pride and admit he is dead wrong! He annoys me and frankly I find his positions weak.
 
joe370 said:
I am often told that I do not understand and therefore do not properly and accurately portray the Protestant position of Sola scriptura. Is the following breakdown of Sola Scriptura, by Dr. James White, the universally definitive understanding of Sola Scriptura?

After all, if I am going to be accused of misrepresenting Sola Scriptura then I suppose I should get my facts straight. If I can’t get a universally firm definition of Sola Scriptura no one has the right to accuse me of misrepresenting Sola Scriptura:

"The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. **Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. **The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church (to be fair he should have said churches) - looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church(es) is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby."
Click to expand...
I like the point you make, “…if I can’t get a universally firm definition of SS then I cannot be accused of misinterpreting it”. Excellent.

Where James White says, “The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church…” Does he cite WHERE in the bible this claim is made? Not arguing with him (yet), just drilling down on his statement.

Thanks. 🙂
 
Me again…I guess I just have to go on and throw a blanket requestto Mr. White: Mr. White, BACK UP everything you just said, else it is only your opinion stated on no authority but your own and therefore cannot be considered a universal definition.
 
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church
Click to expand...
Funny how I hear such a comment and I have yet to read where the Bible ever states such a thing?
 
Nicea325 said:
Oh the notorious James White and his adamant belief that SS is the sole rule of faith. I do not know how many times that man has been put in his place and shown his arguments hold no historical accuracy at all. I have learned to ignore any rants and raves from Mr. White because does not matter how many times he debates,he is always arrogant and flat out rude! A sign that the man simply cannot swallow his pride and admit he is dead wrong! He annoys me and frankly I find his positions weak.
Click to expand...
I have a solution. Invite him not to debate, but to host a question/answer session. MAKE HIM BACK UP E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-NG he utters.

Don’t let him change the subject.

Hold him to his answers and make him BACK THEM UP. :mad:
 
Normally I would have agreed with everything James White says - he was instrumental in me becoming a calvinist. But you all make a good point that I can’t believe I never noticed before. The bible doesn’t actually make those claims for itself, and couldn’t as it doesn’t even self define the contents page.
 
Little_Mary said:
I have a solution. Invite him not to debate, but to host a question/answer session. MAKE HIM BACK UP E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-NG he utters.

Don’t let him change the subject.

Hold him to his answers and make him BACK THEM UP. :mad:
Click to expand...
Yes that would be better approach. I can bet all of my retirement $$$ he would not be able to back up half of the stuff he utters.😉
 
Eruvande said:
Normally I would have agreed with everything James White says - he was instrumental in me becoming a calvinist. But you all make a good point that I can’t believe I never noticed before. The bible doesn’t actually make those claims for itself, and couldn’t as it doesn’t even self define the contents page.
Click to expand...
Amen! Many simply want the Bible **to say what they want it to say **and cannot take it at face value for it says and does not say.
 
… protestants can come to a consensus? lol.

Not all protestant denominations agree on their definition of sola scriptura.
 
James White’s arguments failed to convince even his own sister, who is a convert to the Catholic Faith. You’ll find her story here:

catholic-convert.com/community/conversion-stories/

Her name is Patty Bonds. The stories are in alphabetical order by first name. She has written her conversion story in two parts, and a third story about her childhood sexual abuse at the hands of her father, a Baptist preacher. Patty is a member of my parish.

Sola Scriptura is a fallacy found nowhere in Scripture.

Jim Dandy
 
joe370 said:
I am often told that I do not understand and therefore do not properly and accurately portray the Protestant position of Sola scriptura.
Click to expand...
That seems about right
Is the following breakdown of Sola Scriptura, by Dr. James White, the universally definitive understanding of Sola Scriptura?
Click to expand...
nope
After all, if I am going to be accused of misrepresenting Sola Scriptura then I suppose I should get my facts straight.
Click to expand...
agreed
If I can’t get a universally firm definition of Sola Scriptura no one has the right to accuse me of misrepresenting Sola Scriptura:
Click to expand...
wrong…after you get your facts straight, you might want to get your reasoning in order too. For instance, if you said something like: Everyone who follows sola scriptura believes X…then you have possibly misrepresented SS b/c either: a) you are so out to lunch that no SS proponent believes X; or b) you have failed to take into account the variations that exist and realize that only some SS proponents would believe X. Have you ever said anything like that? If so and if either (a) or (b) applied, then you were rightly accused.
 
joe370 said:
I am often told that I do not understand and therefore do not properly and accurately portray the Protestant position of Sola scriptura. Is the following breakdown of Sola Scriptura, by Dr. James White, the universally definitive understanding of Sola Scriptura?

After all, if I am going to be accused of misrepresenting Sola Scriptura then I suppose I should get my facts straight. If I can’t get a universally firm definition of Sola Scriptura no one has the right to accuse me of misrepresenting Sola Scriptura:

"The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. **Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. **The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church (to be fair he should have said churches) - looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church(es) is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby."
Click to expand...
There is no universal understanding of Sola Scriptura. If you want something that is at least more mainstream I would suggest “The Shape of Sola Scriptura” by Keith Mathison over James White. If you use that you should not be far off at least as far as most folks on these forums go.
 
How about the Westminster Confession of Faith? The first chapter deals with scripture.
VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
Click to expand...
IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
Click to expand...
X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Click to expand...
 
I get a chuckle at times listening to the “Bible Answer Man” on the non-Catholic Bott Radio programming.

Hank Hanegraaff comes unglued at various well known ministers who don’t hold to his interpretation of Sola Scriptura.
 
Barbkw said:
I get a chuckle at times listening to the “Bible Answer Man” on the non-Catholic Bott Radio programming.

Hank Hanegraaff comes unglued at various well known ministers who don’t hold to his interpretation of Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...
Prompted by your post, I was reading Hanegraaf’s bio online and found this:
Hanegraaff and his wife, Kathy, live in Charlotte, North Carolina and are parents to twelve children.
Click to expand...
Right on. He can’t be all bad. Not sayin’ he’s right on sola sciptura, but all the same.
 
JHow said:
How about the Westminster Confession of Faith? The first chapter deals with scripture.
Click to expand...
And then the Formula of Concord:
  1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.
Click to expand...
It is the standard by which all teachers and doctrines are judged. It does not eliminate teachers and doctrines.
2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.
Click to expand...
Writings, teaches, etc. are witnesses to the pure doctrines preserved by prophets and apostles.
3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.
Click to expand...
We pledge ourselves to the creeds, and the doctrines of the Church of God.

Doesn’t sound much like White to me.

Jon
 
Radical…
wrong…after you get your facts straight, you might want to get your reasoning in order too.
Click to expand...
I have been told that too by SS proponents. You said no to the following question:

“Is the following breakdown of Sola Scriptura, by Dr. James White, the universally definitive understanding of Sola Scriptura?”

OK. Clearly there is more than one interpretation of SS which means yours could be wrong - right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top