Sola Scriptura Defined

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess I still must wait for someone to point us to the place we can go to get the official, authoritative definition of sola scriptura that all protestants follow. Why is this so hard? Catholics can give you the official, authoritative definition of any Catholic doctrine that all Catholics must follow. SS is a core belief in Protestantism and thus, you would think all Protestants would use the same definition. SS surely seems like a moving target. :confused:
 
mgrfin said:
Once again, you managed to take a thread way off course. You’ll get the thing closed down again.

maranatha
Click to expand...
Would it also derail the thread if I asked Ginger if she is an infallible interpreter of Scripture? If she’s not, then could she be wrong on 100% of everything she said in regards to her interpretation of Scripture?
 
Lampo said:
Would it also derail the thread if I asked Ginger if she is an infallible interpreter of Scripture? If she’s not, then could she be wrong on 100% of everything she said in regards to her interpretation of Scripture?
Click to expand...
That’s the problem with Sola Scriptura. You never know whether the Devil is talking to you, or God is.

More likely it is the Devil, for we know that he goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

peace
 
mgrfin said:
Is God speaking to those dioceses each day, like to Benny Hinn?
Are you sure you are not Nancy, who was banned a few months ago for bad-mouthing the Church (in big, bold red letters, like we can’t read)?

peace
Click to expand...
You started w/ the TBN comment and I responded in kind.
 
Lampo said:
Would it also derail the thread if I asked Ginger if she is an infallible interpreter of Scripture? If she’s not, then could she be wrong on 100% of everything she said in regards to her interpretation of Scripture?
Click to expand...
So you have to be infallible to have any certainty at all? It’s all or nothing isn’t it?

I don’t know if you have considered it yet but you are infallible and have made a decision to have faith your church. You too could be wrong…couldn’t you?
 
Reformed1 said:
The so called gift of infallibility is a huge danger, and that is probably an understatement.

You have absolutely no way to test the doctrines your church teaches. They declare it and you are stuck w/ accepting it. Now, granted, if your church were infallible, what a wonderful blessing that would be but since it isn’t, what a dangerous concept it is.
Click to expand...
Of course, you don’t understand infallibility.

The Church doesn’t speak infallibly about anything not in the deposit of faith, after the death of St. John.

We ‘test’ the doctrines Jesus taught by living them.

We are “struck” with what Jesus taught?. How blasphemous!

peace
 
Mannyfit75 said:
The Council didn’t refer to Scripture rather than the revelation revealed to Peter when God gave him a vision. “What God has made clean, you cannot call unclean.”
Click to expand...
During times in enscripturation, ss wouldn’t be applicable.

As I said, this would be similar to asking if ss was the rule while Adam was running around the garden and there was no scriptura to be sola.
 
mgrfin said:
Of course, you don’t understand infallibility.

The Church doesn’t speak infallibly about anything not in the deposit of faith, after the death of St. John.

We ‘test’ the doctrines Jesus taught by living them.

We are “struck” with what Jesus taught?. How blasphemous!

peace
Click to expand...
Yeah…sure. Please show me the evidence that any of the apostles taught that Mary was assumed into heaven or that she was immaculately conceived.
 
mgrfin said:
That’s the problem with Sola Scriptura. You never know whether the Devil is talking to you, or God is.

More likely it is the Devil, for we know that he goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

peace
Click to expand...
Ah, another catholic that can dish it out but can’t take it. The hypocrisy continues.
 
Lampo said:
I guess I still must wait for someone to point us to the place we can go to get the official, authoritative definition of sola scriptura that all protestants follow. Why is this so hard? Catholics can give you the official, authoritative definition of any Catholic doctrine that all Catholics must follow. SS is a core belief in Protestantism and thus, you would think all Protestants would use the same definition. SS surely seems like a moving target. :confused:
Click to expand...
Why don’t you start w/ one of the credal statements that deals with sola scriptura?

BTW, many non-Catholics reject ss outright.
 
Ginger2 said:
Besides, it’s 100 times nicer than most of things you have said to me.
Click to expand...
Apparently mgrfin believes it’s okay for him to behave however he likes but doesn’t like if when someone else gives it back to him. Which I suppose I shouldn’t but it’s so easy.
 
Reformed1 said:
So you have to be infallible to have any certainty at all? It’s all or nothing isn’t it?

I don’t know if you have considered it yet **but you are infallible **and have made a decision to have faith your church. You too could be wrong…couldn’t you?
Click to expand...
Holy smokes…I just realized that I gave Lampo the gift of infallibility.

I guess the way I worded myself he coudn’t be wrong.
 
Reformed1 said:
Yeah…sure. Please show me the evidence that any of the apostles taught that Mary was assumed into heaven or that she was immaculately conceived.
Click to expand...
Okay, enough is enough.

We will not accept your blasphemy any longer.
 
Reformed1 said:
Apparently mgrfin believes it’s okay for him to behave however he likes but doesn’t like if when someone else gives it back to him. Which I suppose I shouldn’t but it’s so easy.
Click to expand...
You are totally out of order.
 
Reformed1 said:
Holy smokes…I just realized that I gave Lampo the gift of infallibility.

I guess the way I worded myself he coudn’t be wrong.
Click to expand...
Cool! :highprayer: I’m not though. Just the successor of Peter is infallible. I never argue anything that is outside of Church teaching. And, since the Church teaches infallibly, I can argue that all of the doctrines and dogmas that I put forth, are indeed infallible.

The argument I make is that I can be sure that Ginger, and you, and anyone else who argues against infallibility, is not infallible. And, regarding the doctrine of infallibility, I am speaking of it only in the realms of faith and morals, which biblical interpretation would fall under. Do you not admit that any single one of your interpretations of Scripture…said interpretations being the basis of your whole theological system…could be wrong?

It is a doctrine which we see clearly in the pages of Scripture. For instance, if the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), then, by simple deduction, it is evident that the Church must have the charism of infallibility…it must have the ability to definitively decide what is and what is not truth. If there is no one who can authoritatively declare what is true and what is false in the areas of faith and morals, then what are we left with? Protestantism.

I am arguing the Pope is infallible because that is the way Jesus Christ set up His Church – with an infallible leader. Jesus gave His Church the gift of someone being able to authoritatively decide right and wrong on matters of faith and morals. And, I believe He gave this gift to His Church not just during the early years of the Church, as recorded in the Scriptures, but throughout time. Why give a gift and then take it back? And, I argue that point from Scripture and from the living tradition of the Church.

Actually, you are arguing that the best I can do is to have two fallible people arguing over Scripture. I, however, have an infallible guide to turn to. I have Scripture to back me up that Jesus gave His Church the gift of infallibility. I have the witness of history that the Pope is in a direct line of Bishops of Rome that started with Peter the Apostle. I have the witness of early Christians throughout Christendom looking to Rome for the answer to their questions and disputes and that Rome never taught any of the heresies that arose in the early Church.

But, what about you? Who told you the Bible is inerrant…the Bible? Who told you that the Bible is the Word of God…the Bible? Please tell me why you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God? Because the Bible tells you so?

I do not rely upon my fallible interpretations of Scripture for what I believe. I rely on what the Church…the Church founded by Jesus Christ and which can be historically traced back to Jesus Christ and His Apostles…I rely on what that Church teaches for the basis of my theological system. And, everything I read in the Bible confirms what that Church teaches me. Starting with the assumption that we all agree upon – that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God – when I go to the Bible, I see the church mentioned but I do not see Ginger mentioned, or you, or Billy Graham. I see the church. Could the church mentioned in Scripture be a church founded by some man or group of men in the 1500’s or thereafter? Absolutely not. So, that lets me eliminate a lot of the possibilities as to which church was actually founded by Jesus Christ and which church is being guided by the Holy Spirit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top