If that is the definition of Sola Scriptura, then I have no issues with it.Sola Scriptura is not a difficult thing to grasp. Imagine a man who is washed up on a desert island; also, for the sake of argument, assume he’s never been baptised or exposed to the gospel. Now, alonside of him a Bible washes up. The question is: is the information contained in the Bible sufficient for him to receive the gospel? Or, does he need human intercession?
Sola Scripture says that the Holy Spirit could use the Gospel to bring the man to salvation. He would not need to be baptized (he couldn’t, he’s alone on the island), confess to a priest, partake in the sacrament of communion, or say any man-made prayer.
That’s all; it does not state, countary to the wishes of some of the posters on this thread, that the Bible contains all truth or only things in the Bible are profitable. It’s about sufficiency for salvation.
Look, if I had a dime for every time a Catholic said something different than what the Catholic church teaches, I could retire. Does it really surprise you that non-Catholics do the same?If that is the definition of Sola Scriptura, then I have no issues with it.
But again, I have read other definitions.
But I would like to observe that if that is the definition you want to use, then Sola Scriptura is not a good title for it.
Ok. I understand about inerant source.It seems as if some of you are deliberatly trying to misstate the doctrine for your own purposes. Soft of like if I came here and said the doctrine of the RCC was to worship Mary. I’d be spreading falsehood - so are some of you.
Sola Scripture does not say all true is recorded in the Bible, nor does it imply that everything God wants us to know is there. Simply, we state that only Scripture, the living, breathing Word of God, is the only inerrant souce of knowledge of God. Everything else, traditions, revelations, teachings and rumors, must be tested against that source and cannot be elavated to the same level of authority.
So, please stop spreading falsehoods.
I’m not sure why it is unnecessary - I did not say Sola Scripture meant that the Bible was sufficient to explain itself it us; I was talking about the Gospel. I love the creeds we’ve been handed down for hundreds of years; I love the Westminster Confession of Faith. These things are simply tools, for the called and chosen, to help us more fully understand what God has written. Thereis much good in the works of man regarding the Bible. We have a historical record of fantastic teaching of our fathers and brothers - a rich storehouse for us. They do not, however, take away from what SS means.Ok. I understand about inerant source.
But I think Westminster Confession of Faith would not be created, because it’s unnecessary.
Luther would agree that it was unnecessary:Ok. I understand about inerant source.
But I think Westminster Confession of Faith would not be created, because it’s unnecessary.
Can you enlighten me to how this has anything to do with Sola Scriptura? Might as well tell me what Aunt Martha thinks about the cost of beans. It seems like an attempt to change the subject.Luther would agree that it was unnecessary:
You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and** my will is reason enough.** I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).
I’m just pointing out the fallacy of sola scriptura.Can you enlighten me to how this has anything to do with Sola Scriptura? Might as well tell me what Aunt Martha thinks about the cost of beans. It seems like an attempt to change the subject.
Last I checked, the Reformed beliefs are not riding on 100% agreement with Luther. I find his place in Church history to be one of interest, nothing more. He was used of God, yet like so many that are, he was flawed in his own ways.
The Luther “fixation” so many Catholics seem to have makes me chuckle.
Well, I have gone back through this thread and found what I think are definitions in posts 4, 14, 15 (a more in depth article), 17 (sort of I think), and 40. None of these definitions are the same. Nor do they logically mean the same.I’m not saying you have to agree with Sola Scrpiture, all I want is for people to stop distorting what it means. Read my previous few posts for the precise nature of what SS means.
I have usually answered in the context of the post I quoted. I believe all are logically the same.Well, I have gone back through this thread and found what I think are definitions in posts 4, 14, 15 (a more in depth article), 17 (sort of I think), and 40. None of these definitions are the same. Nor do they logically mean the same.
Just observing…
I am not sure I understand this post. I’ll try, but it is confusing to me.In Westminster is the same contents as in Bible or not?
If the same, it’s unnecessary
If not - unecessary too.
But let’s think
I don’t know is the same or not the same. I can have opinion only if I know/understand/etc Bible better then Westminster’s writers** and** I haven’t be suggested.
If i was suggested by sth or something I couldn’t be sure thet I really understand Bible.
II. Why Sola Scriptura is week (practical)
Two protestants have diffent opionion about something. They 2 heve Bible’s verses, different. So they must attack interlocutor by personal things, hi doesn’t understant, is stupid, no Holy Spirit etc.
Now, now, now.Sola scriptura actually means “whatever I say it means”.
Hm. Luter’s believing about Sola Scriptura was specyfic and typical (quite).Luther would agree that it was unnecessary:
No, it doesnt surprise, but in the end, we have an Authority, chosen by Christ himself, in which it doesnt matter what we say if it is not inline with the Magesterium.Look, if I had a dime for every time a Catholic said something different than what the Catholic church teaches, I could retire. Does it really surprise you that non-Catholics do the same?
OK once moer:I am not sure I understand this post. I’ll try, but it is confusing to me.
The WCC is not the same as the Bible, as anyone who has read it would know. The Bible says nothing specific about the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, while the WCC has a lot to say (none of it good, as you can surmise). (Edit, wrong letter, sorry)
The WCC is profitable to Christians as it sets down an excellent understanding of the truths contained in the Bible. As I have said, time and time and time and time and time again, having teachings about the Bible is not contrary to SS. you might wish it were, but wishing it does not make it so.
OK.Point II was lost on me. I truely did not understand the words, they almost seemed incoherent. Perhaps you could restate it and I’ll try. Any anwer I gave you right now would be my interpretation of gibberish.
But these definitions are not logically the same. Now admittedly they are not all yours. So let’s backtrack.I have usually answered in the context of the post I quoted. I believe all are logically the same.
This does not mean that the Bible contains all truth, that any teaching outside of the Bible is by nature unprofitable, that Scripture tells us all that can be known of God, that traditions do not have value, that teaching is not a good thing, that having man-made authority to help us understand the Bible is wrong.
- Scripture Alone is sufficient for the Holy Spirit to regenerate us; the message of the Gospel is fully contained within scripture.
- Only Scripture is inerrant.
- No man made document, tradition, teaching or postion is of equal position with Scripture
I cannot define SS for all non-Catholic Christians. I can only tell you what my faith, the Reformed Faith, hold true - and I put down the three items I hold to in a post just a few moments ago.But these definitions are not logically the same. Now admittedly they are not all yours. So let’s backtrack.
Post 4: The Bible alone is infallible OR inerrant. Applies to both holiness and salvation.
I could ask how a any document could be infallible since the word infallible seems to me to apply to a repeatible process. With inerrant I could ask to what extent (theological only or theological, historical, and scientific inerrancy)
Post 14: Included infallible but omits inerrant. Does not provide scope. But it adds a condition of the authority level of the Bible being above competing sources.
Post 15: Article. It also drops the word inerrant but adds the words final and authoritative with respect to “only”
Post 17: Goes with other Solas. So are we adding to Sola Scriptura a dependency on Sola Fide. If so, then we need a definition of Sola Fide. What if your denomination (like Church of Christ) rejects Sola Fide, is it impossible for them to believe in Sola Scriptura.
Post 40: Here the scope is specifically limited to salvation only. Does it apply at all anywhere else?
SS is not about interpreting the Bible, so your arguments are not valid or approrpiate. Who cares if two people differ on the meaning of Scripture - it does not change the nature of Scripture. Please see my posts where I have tried to define SS in the Reformed view. None of it is about interpreting it or banning books and teachings. I think you’re arguing with someone else in your head. We’re not speaking the same language.OK once moer:
In WCC is the same ideas as in Bible or not?
If the same, WCC is unnecessary - because all ideas are in Bible so Bible is enough.
If not the same - WCC is harmful, because it may be wrong.
I don’t know WCC is true or false. So if I do reseach I must understand Bible at first.
- Perspective for each homan, dragon, dwarf etc.
For example I.
Second time I analyze WCC. I couldn’t read WCC before I understand Bible because I would be suggested by WCC.
So WCC is useless.
WCC is exemple, the same problems are with books, sermons, discussions, internet forums.
OK.
Let’s seen 2 protestants: P1 and P2. P1 believes in predestination P2 not.
P1 has some Bible versets but P2 has too.
So in Bible is not obvious answer.
So we heve next stage:
P1: - My verses are better then your’s because** I**'m wise/enlightenment and you are stupid/darkstar
SS is not about interpreting the Bible. Not - as in the opposite of “is”. I urge you to re-read some of the posts that have already been made. I understand you would like SS to be about individual interpretation and the defination I have given you rejects that, but it is what it is and trying to make it something else is just frustrating both of us.Chosenandcalled
No, it doesnt surprise, but in the end, we have an Authority, chosen by Christ himself, in which it doesnt matter what we say if it is not inline with the Magesterium.
So the difference here is that we Catholics, or some, can go back and forth, back and forth until we are blue in the face, but it doesnt matter because it is what the Church teaches, not us. If we are not inline, then its nonsense.
As for non-catholics, well, they can go back and forth until they are blue in the face and nothing will come out of it because there is no proof for anything they are saying, because it is each individual interpretation, no Authority, no one to say “Hey, that is not correct”
Sola Scripture, the Holy Bible, cannot talk, hold a conversation.
We have Truth passed on for 2000 years that doesnt change, yet non-catholics, well someone right now is changing something and popping up another church.
Peace of Christ