Is this the consensus among sola scriptura folks?

[AmateurPianist]

I will check it out. However, that doesn’t fix my problem. If I am to represent SS using Keith Mathison’s understanding of it, the James White camp will simply tell me that I am still misrepresenting SS. For example, James White goes on to say: “But far more damaging is the simple fact that Mr. Ray does not know what sola scriptura is.”

But it probably fixes your problem according to these forums.

To illustrate imagine “Sola Scriptura” definitions put on a continuum. We will call one end of the continuum “Brute Force” (if it ain’t in the Bible we don’t believe it and we ain’t doing it) which a small minority of groups believe. We will call the other end of the continuum nuanced.

Now every time I have heard it said “you don’t understand SS” here anyway, it is when y’all choose a definition on the brute force side and the other guy is more nuanced.

I suggest Mathison because he has a nuanced definition of SS and you won’t be overshooting your target here most likely. White is more on the other end of the spectrum. I don’t know about the Westminster Confession I suspect it is middle of the spectrum. Alternatively the classic Lutheran definition always impressed me as nuanced…talk to your resident Lutherans on that one. Or even the classic Wesleyan one.

To summarize you will probably not get into that “you don’t understand SS thing” if you start off the bat with a nuanced view.

To further complicate matters are those who say they don’t believe in Sola Scriptura at all. There are two camps here.
(1) Those that separate Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura. I myself lean this way, not because I have issues with definitions on the nuanced end like Mathison or the Lutheran one, but because I consider Sola Scriptura to be a misleading and confusing title that I would rather not use because I sort of like clarity.
(2) Liberals who reject any authority of Scripture.

I do sympathize with you. The root cause imho is something that requires considerable explanation reduced to a misleading two word phrase.

 

[CopticChristian]

The real presence is a product of Christ’s words and the power of the Holy Spirit.
“Take and eat. This is my body”. The Magisterium here simply and rightly agrees with Christ’s words, as recorded in scripture.

Jon

Then what you are saying is that Scripture, as you point out in this passage, preceeded the event.

If I do something and it is later recorded, then the writing occurs after the action. The action even if in nascent form must have been produced by something. This something preceeded the action. No action can comes without intention. Intention cannot be produced without cause and that cause existed and emanated from that which we call the Church, even if nascent.

 

[joe370]

If there is no Universal Understanding of Sola Scriptura then it cannot be true or better said it cannot be universally understood.

If it cannot be universally understood then when applied it cannot produce universally understood meaning and teaching.

If it cannot provide universally understood meaning and teaching and we have to wait for Keith Mathison to provide a mainstream definition then who has the fullness of truth, the teachings that have been provided as Paul said, the mystery hidden for all ages, and how can anyone be led into all truth if those truths are not universally understood or taught?

Exactly my point. And in the mean time certain sola scriptura proponents continue to say to me: “Stop misrepresenting sola scriptura.”

It’s starting to tick me off a little. LOL…Just joking…

 

[AmateurPianist]

If there is no Universal Understanding of Sola Scriptura then it cannot be true or better said it cannot be universally understood.

If it cannot be universally understood then when applied it cannot produce universally understood meaning and teaching.

If it cannot provide universally understood meaning and teaching and we have to wait for Keith Mathison to provide a mainstream definition then who has the fullness of truth, the teachings that have been provided as Paul said, the mystery hidden for all ages, and how can anyone be led into all truth if those truths are not universally understood or taught?

Of course very few things (in Christianity) will have a “Universal Understanding” as long as Christianity continues to exist in multiple competing organizations as it does today.

 

[joe370]

AmateurPianist;8508232]But it probably fixes your problem according to these forums.

Just this forum? Sadly, not really… I have dialogued with plenty of what you referred to as “Brute Force” sola scriptura advocates.

To summarize you will probably not get into that “you don’t understand SS thing” if you start off the bat with a nuanced view.

Just the opposite actually. When I attempt the nuance method, such as Mary being full of Grace, meaning that she was sinless, or apostolic succession, or Purgatory etc., well you know how the rest can go…

 

[CopticChristian]

Of course very few things (in Christianity) will have a “Universal Understanding” as long as Christianity continues to exist in multiple competing organizations as it does today.

The majority of Christians in the world do not exist in multiple competing organizations. This is why the Church defines the competing organizations as “ecclesial communities”, the whole of the Body of Christ that does have a Universal Understanding…we accept that these ecclesial communities are united in a mysterious way…and as long as these competing organizations continue to provide lack of universal understanding then that unity will remain “mysterious” so as not to pollute the Universal Understanding and eliminate the chaos seen in these competing organizations.

Our God is an awesome God…He reigns from Heaven above.

Do I hear an Amen?

And all God’s children said…:harp:

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Not all protestants agree with sola scriptura.

Jon

would you please elaborate? How so? Which denominations?

 

[JHow]

…I suggest Mathison because he has a nuanced definition of SS and you won’t be overshooting your target here most likely…

Mathison defines sola scriptura partially by drawing a distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, right? That is, the idea that scripture is the only infalliable authority (former), versus scripture is the only authority (latter)? So, he might accept tradition, but only as subordinate to scripture, while a “solo” advocate would reject all but scripture?

 

[JonNC]

=CopticChristian;8508234]Then what you are saying is that Scripture, as you point out in this passage, preceeded the event.

Not at all. Christ’s words and the power of the Spirit occured before the recording of them in scripture, and before the Church at Pentecost.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Of course very few things (in Christianity) will have a “Universal Understanding” as long as Christianity continues to exist in multiple competing organizations as it does today.

True… The root problem is definitely multiple competing churches. I had actually given up on finding a consensus vis-a-vis the practice of SS until a family member said:

Joe, stop misrepresenting sola scriptura…

 

[CopticChristian]

Not at all. Christ’s words and the power of the Spirit occured before the recording of them in scripture, and before the Church at Pentecost.

Jon

Then you have agreed that as Paul points out the Church is the Body of Christ…these teachings came from Christ/Church…Amen.

 

[JonNC]

would you please elaborate? How so? Which denominations?

Some Anglicans, and some Methodists, and as already attested to Wesleyans.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Mathison defines sola scriptura partially by drawing a distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, right? That is, the idea that scripture is the only infalliable authority (former), versus scripture is the only authority (latter)? So, he might accept tradition, but only as subordinate to scripture, while a “solo” advocate would reject all but scripture?

Ahhh…Many, if I attempted to represent SS in that way, would still tell me to stop misrepresenting the practice of SS…:banghead:

 

[JonNC]

Then you have agreed that as Paul points out the Church is the Body of Christ…these teachings came from Christ/Church…Amen.

No argument. The teachings come from the Church. The real presence from Christ Himself, and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Jon

 

[joe370]

CopticChristian

Do I hear an Amen?

Are you going pentecostal on me…LOL… My sister once belonged to a Pentecostal church and I kind of liked the back and forth dialogue, but not certain teachings.

 

[JonNC]

Ahhh…Many, if I attempted to represent SS in that way, would still tell me to stop misrepresenting the practice of SS…:banghead:

Not at all, Joe. It is essentially the distinction made in the Formula of Concord, as I posted. Tradition is not rejected, but is accountable to scripture as the final norm.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Well, Joe. There wasn’t a consensus regarding really important things, like the real presence…

Jon

Come to think of it:

That all by itself is kind of scary. If the reformers couldn’t even agree on something that all Christians, up to that point, were unanimous on, then I doubt that they agreed on something fairly new to them, like SS, but I hope I am wrong.

I’ll do a little digging…

 

[joe370]

Not at all, Joe. It is essentially the distinction made in the Formula of Concord, as I posted. Tradition is not rejected, but is accountable to scripture as the final norm.

Jon

I agree that folks like yourself in the Mathison camp wouldn’t say that, but many folks in the White camp would, and do. No biggie though…I’m gonna do a little research on the reformers and see what I can discover… Like someone once said, The water is always cleaner and cooler the closer to the source, and that source is comprised of the original 16th century reformers…

 

[AmateurPianist]

Mathison defines sola scriptura partially by drawing a distinction between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, right? That is, the idea that scripture is the only infalliable authority (former), versus scripture is the only authority (latter)? So, he might accept tradition, but only as subordinate to scripture, while a “solo” advocate would reject all but scripture?

Yup…that is it as I recall.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Ahhh…Many, if I attempted to represent SS in that way, would still tell me to stop misrepresenting the practice of SS…:banghead:

…but probably not here…