It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RedBert said:
so on Judgment Day , when we are all standing in front of the Throne of Christ , and Jesus opens up the Book, be sure point to Him that you were just following church approved traditions.
Click to expand...
Since Jesus established the Church (not churches), I believe that is EXACTLY what He expects us to do.
 
RedBert said:
when were you ever told not to think for yourselves?

In summary . no matter what verses any one will reference , your answers will always be the same. "The Church doesn’t interpret it that way"

so why ask for scripture, or why have this debate ? so you can repeat the official “debate- killing” RCC answer?

I really hopes this works out for you.

I tried these forums for a week, there is no honest examination of issues going on here
(see my previous attempts in this thread to even agree to use a WIKI definition of sola scriptura )

blessings and good bye

( i would leave with a verse, but why bother)
Click to expand...
Taking your ball and going home, eh?

Sorry, but if you expect to convert us to your way of thinking, you’re going to have to work harder and provide stronger arguments.

Or, you can claim that we don’t know what we’re talking…yeah, that’s the ticket…and go tell all your friends about how the Catholics at Catholic.com refused to discuss the real issues. :rolleyes:
 
Ignatius said:
First of all, even Wikipedia states “most protestants look at scripture alone and no other authority”. And No, we should use the most widely held variant, ‘Bible Alone’ Sola Scriptura.

What you guys should really do is get together and come up with an Authoritative definition so that you can have unity in this Essential n-C doctrine.
Click to expand...
What YOU guys should really do is stop trying to make Sola Scriptura into something it isn’t, and was never meant as.
Fat chance of that happening, though…if a discussion can be derailed, why not use a wrong definition? 🤷
 
40.png
RedBert:
so can we use Wiki?
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture. However, Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.

It is kind of hard to accept as a “definition” a string of qualifications that seems to attempt to hold two diametrically opposed principles at the same time?

How does this definition simply not boil down to the first sentence?

“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture.

“Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.”

What is the point of all of the extra verbiage?

If “the Bible is the only authority” then playing lip service to other authorities only seems to confuse the issue.

You can’t claim the bible to be the “only” authority and then allow for other authority at the same time.

Finally, in the first sentence, I can accept inerrant, but a book cannot offer infallibility since it is incapable of making a judgment or pronouncement on any issue up for debate.

Chuck
 
clmowry said:
It is kind of hard to accept as a “definition” a string of qualifications that seems to attempt to hold two diametrically opposed principles at the same time?

How does this definition simply not boil down to the first sentence?

“Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by scripture alone”) is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture.

“Sola Scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.”

What is the point of all of the extra verbiage?

If “the Bible is the only authority” then playing lip service to other authorities only seems to confuse the issue.

You can’t claim the bible to be the “only” authority and then allow for other authority at the same time.

Finally, in the first sentence, I can accept inerrant, but a book cannot offer infallibility since it is incapable of making a judgment or pronouncement on any issue up for debate.

Chuck
Click to expand...
Short and simple:

What you want a certain phrase to mean is pretty much irrelevant if that’s not what those who use it mean.
Therefore, that you seem determined to read a meaning into “Sola Scriptura” that it hasn’t got, is a problem with your reading and understanding of it. Not the doctrine itself.
 
LutheranDK said:
What YOU guys should really do is stop trying to make Sola Scriptura into something it isn’t, and was never meant as.
Fat chance of that happening, though…if a discussion can be derailed, why not use a wrong definition? 🤷
Click to expand...
Could you please point us all towards the official Protestant definition of sola scriptura, which all Protestant faith traditions adhere to? It’s hard to hit a moving target.
 
Lampo said:
Could you please point us all towards the official Protestant definition of sola scriptura, which all Protestant faith traditions adhere to? It’s hard to hit a moving target.
Click to expand...
That’s a disingenuous question and you know it!
 
Drawmack said:
That’s a disingenuous question and you know it!
Click to expand...
How so? Because I already know the answer? There isn’t an official Protestant definition of sola scriptura that all Protestant faith traditions adhere to. That’s one fruit if Protestantism.
 
Lampo said:
How so? Because I already know the answer? There isn’t an official Protestant definition of sola scriptura that all Protestant faith traditions adhere to. That’s one fruit if Protestantism.
Click to expand...
The Protestant Reformation was actually multiple movements that happened relatively closely in time. They were even removed from one another by place. They were also removed from one another by doctrine. So asking for a unified Protestant stance on something is, in essence saying, “Since my organization (the Catholic Church) says you all belong to this one group (even though you really are not a unified group and never have been) I need you to provide me with a definition that everyone in this group (which I say exists, is unified, and that you are a member of) agrees with.” That is why it is a disingenuous question.
 
Drawmack said:
The Protestant Reformation was actually multiple movements that happened relatively closely in time. They were even removed from one another by place. They were also removed from one another by doctrine. So asking for a unified Protestant stance on something is, in essence saying, "Since my organization (the Catholic Church) says you all belong to this one group (even though you really are not a unified group and never have been) I need you to provide me with a definition that everyone in this group (which I say exists, is unified, and that you are a member of) agrees with." That is why it is a disingenuous question.
Click to expand...
Please provide the official Catholic Church teaching stating what I bolded. Was that a disingenuous claim on your part?
 
Lampo said:
Please provide the official Catholic Church teaching stating what I bolded. Was that a disingenuous claim on your part?
Click to expand...
That Catholic Church lumped the reformers together as Protestant. This is not a fact that anyone seriously disputes!
 
Drawmack said:
The Protestant Reformation was actually multiple movements that happened relatively closely in time. They were even removed from one another by place. They were also removed from one another by doctrine. So asking for a unified Protestant stance on something is, in essence saying, “Since my organization (the Catholic Church) says you all belong to this one group (even though you really are not a unified group and never have been) I need you to provide me with a definition that everyone in this group (which I say exists, is unified, and that you are a member of) agrees with.” That is why it is a disingenuous question.
Click to expand...
DM, how come no criticism for LDK? After all, he’s the one here asserting that there’s but one definition to the SS doctrine, no?
 
Drawmack said:
That Catholic Church lumped the reformers together as Protestant. This is not a fact that anyone seriously disputes!
Click to expand...
Where’s the part where my “organization” (the Church) says that all Protestant faith traditions are unified?
 
Lampo said:
Where’s the part where my “organization” (the Church) says that all Protestant faith traditions are unified?
Click to expand...
By lumping them under the same title. But, if it wasn’t your organization it was you and either way it is a disingenuous question. What are you hoping to prove by pursuing this line of questioning?
 
Drawmack said:
By lumping them under the same title.
Click to expand...
That does not equate to the group being unified. Can you not have a group of unified groups?
Drawmack said:
But, if it wasn’t your organization it was you and either way it is a disingenuous question.
Click to expand...
Still not a disingenuous question because of the point I was trying to make.
Drawmack said:
What are you hoping to prove by pursuing this line of questioning?
Click to expand...
Just responding to your statement.
 
Lampo said:
That does not equate to the group being unified. Can you not have a group of unified groups?

Still not a disingenuous question because of the point I was trying to make.

Just responding to your statement.
Click to expand...
Was your point that the Protestant movement never should have been lumped under the same name and thereby had the clear implication made that it was a single instance of dissidence when that is not the case?
 
Drawmack said:
Was your point that the Protestant movement never should have been lumped under the same name and thereby had the clear implication made that it was a single instance of dissidence when that is not the case?
Click to expand...
My point was to show that there is not a single, definitive definition of sola scriptura that all those who believe in sola scriptura adhere to. It was also to show what Protestantism leads to - ultimately, chaos, fracturing, splintering and more schism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top