B
Bookcat
Guest
Huh?
I am referring to the doctrine…not the words. Not some needful verse using those words.
Nope.
And actually the Sacred Scriptures point to outside of themselves as well as to what is within them.
- Status
I am referring to the doctrine…not the words. Not some needful verse using those words.
Nope.
And actually the Sacred Scriptures point to outside of themselves as well as to what is within them.
W
William_C
Guest
You’re quibbling, and in my opinion, dishonestly so.
The doctrine is composed of words, which words you believe are self-refuting.
Again, the only statement from scripture with which you’ll be satisfied is, Scripture is the final authority on faith and morals.
Nothing less will satisfy you.
That specific verse is not found in Scripture.
Nevertheless, and in spite of your desires not being met, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is logical, and reasoned from Scripture.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Sola Scriptura is a self -refuting doctrine.
Thus it is by definition not logical.
And it is a doctrine foreign to the writers of the New Testament …as well as their first audience.
Thus it is by definition not logical.
And it is a doctrine foreign to the writers of the New Testament …as well as their first audience.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Nope I have explained above. Such is not what I am saying.
The doctrine is not found there…and that refutes what the very doctrine holds.
W
William_C
Guest
Again, the only statement from scripture with which you’ll be satisfied is, Scripture is the final authority on faith and morals.
Nothing less will satisfy you.
That specific verse is not found in Scripture.
Nevertheless, and in spite of your desires not being met, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is logical, and reasoned from Scripture.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Hum --I specifically said I am not speaking of some particular formulation.
But the proposed doctrine.
Such is not taught in the Bible.
Sola Scriptura is self-refuting. Thus it is not logical.
B
Bookcat
Guest
L
Link0126
Guest
You’re missing the point. The problem isn’t that believing won’t get you into heaven. The problem is there is no assurance b/c you’re faith could be fake (ie. you could fall away in the future meaning you were never REALLY saved, you just THOUGHT you were). Or, it’s possible that you may not have a “saving faith” as you put it.
L
Link0126
Guest
(sigh) why did you guys let this troll turn another thread into a sola scriptura argument?
Pointless.
Pointless.
W
William_C
Guest
Again, the only statement from scripture with which you’ll be satisfied is, Scripture is the final authority on faith and morals.
Nothing less will satisfy you.
That specific verse is not found in Scripture.
Nevertheless, and in spite of your desires not being met, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is logical, and reasoned from Scripture.
W
William_C
Guest
I’m missing the point?
Let’s see. The apostle you can know you have eternal life, isn’t that right? Or no?
W
William_C
Guest
Did you read the OP?
B
Bookcat
Guest
Sola Scriptura is foreign to Scripture
– and to those in the first century who where the original audience of the various books and letters that make up the New Testament.
It is neither a teaching of Sacred Scripture (and thus is self-refuting) nor was it the approach of the Christians of the earliest times or those they taught.
– and to those in the first century who where the original audience of the various books and letters that make up the New Testament.
It is neither a teaching of Sacred Scripture (and thus is self-refuting) nor was it the approach of the Christians of the earliest times or those they taught.
M
mdcpensive1
Guest
I guess that the Council of Jerusalem in Acts had the letter that Paul took with him to the gentiles determined from the bible??? Did that come from scripture? Remember, they only had the old testament at that time.
mdcpensive1
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
In that case, it was divine revelation. Why? Because the Bible says so.
I think it is this sort of implicit circular reasoning behind these arguments that confuses me most.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Ok --well such is not a “sola Scriptura” approach then. So if one is not sticking to such an approach -then no need to discuss Sola Scriptura.
A
ahs
Guest
It’s not divine revelation “because the Bible says so”, per se. We can accept it as such “because the Bible says so”, but this does not have to imply “Bible ALONE”, and in fact, can’t…unless such was only true after the Book of Acts was written and accepted as the Word of God. The Bible as we know it didn’t exist when that took place, and didn’t exist for the first Christians who accepted the doctrines of the Church. You, perhaps, accept this as divine revelation “because the Bible says so”, but before the Bible said so, the Church said so. And then that Church, some 300-400 years later, decided which writings should be included in the Canon of Scripture that we now know as the Bible. As was mentioned earlier by Bookcat, the “Scriptura” presupposes a Church with the Authority to determine what is to be considered as the Canon of Scripture.
There was a person who posed a question once regarding SS (sola Scriptura) that involved all the depth and variety that this thread has taken on. Within this discussion of SS, we also see a side debate on what I think is OSAS. The question asked went something like this:
There are at least two camps of Protestant Christians in regards to OSAS. Both hold directly conflicting views of OSAS and both base their views on sola Scriptura. Using sola Scriptura, how is this conundrum resolved?
What I found while reading the responses was that each camp claiming SS was relying on tradition to come up with the “correct” interpretation or understanding of the Scriptures. They either had been taught via a tradition how to properly interpret the Scriptures, or they were relying solely on their own interpretation without any outside influence (which ironically is also condemned in Scripture). But just for fun, would anyone care to take a swing at resolving the conundrum using SS?
W
William_C
Guest
Scripture teaches that the Catholic Church is the one true Church; therefore, the Catholic Church alone has the authority to correctly interpret Scripture.
Why? Because the Catholic Church says so.
Does that circular reasoning also confuse you?
Or does it cause your heart to sing?
M
Micah11
Guest
That may be but what you are completely omitting is the cultural aspect behind their decision which is based on scripture. (pagan worship rules vs.Jewish worship rules)
The Jerusalem council didn’t just conjure a plan out of the blue for the sake of peace.
What does that authority mean for you today? Are you restricted to reading only these books? Of course not.
Where?
“These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,** He will teach you all things, **and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. ~ John 14
Now, how many people actually practice this? Jesus didn’t say the pope will teach you, or Billy Graham will teach you, or Guru Yashiki will teach you.
How many people depend solely on the Holy Spirit and nothing else?
B
Bookcat
Guest
Such is your way of formulating things. Not ours.
And before the New Testament existed?
Before there was a Canon of the Bible?
- Status