Sola Scriptura -- what is the actual authority?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lenten_ashes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cool. Then, we agree. I’m just trying to figure out what and where the question is.
 
Wannano said:
40.png
Michael16:
Here’s a possible solution:

Imagine the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit As three distinct Persons but the same substrate substance.

Like the Essence of God is a hyperstasis upon which the three distinct Persons are.

Does that help?
Click to expand...
I don’t have to imagine that at all, it is what I have been taught and do believe. That is exactly why I am satisfied with calling Mary the Mother of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with calling her that. She is the mother of Jesus.

The “mother of God” title is important because it relates to an early heresy claiming that Mary was only the mother of His human nature, not of Him fully. Its adherents insisted on calling her “christotokos” instead of “theotokos.”

You can see why this would be a bit of a shibboleth.
 
De_Maria said:
40.png
Wannano:
40.png
Michael16:
Here’s a possible solution:

Imagine the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit As three distinct Persons but the same substrate substance.

Like the Essence of God is a hyperstasis upon which the three distinct Persons are.

Does that help?
Click to expand...
I don’t have to imagine that at all, it is what I have been taught and do believe. That is exactly why I am satisfied with calling Mary the Mother of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Basically, you’re sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling, “Lalalalalal!”

Ok.
Click to expand...
That is totally untrue and uncharitable. If you have to resort to that it only shows me you are not as secure in your superior knowledge as you think you are.
 
I wouldn’t trip about, dude. I think he was just trying to be funny.
 
HopkinsReb said:
40.png
Wannano:
40.png
Michael16:
Here’s a possible solution:

Imagine the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit As three distinct Persons but the same substrate substance.

Like the Essence of God is a hyperstasis upon which the three distinct Persons are.

Does that help?
Click to expand...
I don’t have to imagine that at all, it is what I have been taught and do believe. That is exactly why I am satisfied with calling Mary the Mother of Jesus.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with calling her that. She is the mother of Jesus.

The “mother of God” title is important because it relates to an early heresy claiming that Mary was only the mother of His human nature, not of Him fully. Its adherents insisted on calling her “christotokos” instead of “theotokos.”

You can see why this would be a bit of a shibboleth.
Click to expand...
That I can understand. Maybe an over reaction.
 
Michael16 said:
I wouldn’t trip about, dude. I think he was just trying to be funny.
Click to expand...
Seasoned posters here know that if they are just trying to be funny they should include emoji to communicate that.

Just to inform you, in my part of the world the term “dude” is inviting confrontation when spoken to a stranger. 😐
 
Michael16 said:
Therefore, for Scripture to make sense; faith and works are required.
Click to expand...
Required for what?, salvation, to be regenerated? My work did not save me…faith alone did which then produced the proof of such justification, being a perfect synthesis between Paul’s faith (alone) anf James faith and works being evident in the converted.
 
Last edited:
De_Maria said:
It doesn’t get any simpler than that.( mother of God…theotokos term)
Click to expand...
No one is challenging the term per say, only the necesity for explanation, or previous groundwork/ presumptions…just like the term " faith alone" usage by protestants.

Some might object however today, given the controversy over Marion doctrine. It is presumption for or against any possible leaven on the matter when first coined.
 
Last edited:
Again, you’re misunderstanding. Saint Paul teaches, in Romans 2:13; that works are required. Then, you look at Saint James that faith and works are required.

So, where’s the misunderstanding?
 
Michael16 said:
Okay. So, you’re agreeing that Our Lady is the Mother of God?
Click to expand...
No, God is not a God of confusion. I agree that the CC formulated the term to counteract that which Reb presented. It has introduced confusion and now has crept into theology that Mary herself would probably be uncomfortable with in my opinion.
 
How do. You’re statement seems to say the Church is knowingly lying to preserve itself against a heresy.
 
Not what I am saying at all. I am sure the motives were pure in counteracting a heresy. The result is not always from impure motives.
 
Again romans2:13 is OT, that indeed we must be obey the law, every jot and tittle to be saved, which he goes on to say leaves me and you I presume out.
 
If Mary is the mother of Jesus but not the mother of God, then Jesus is not God.

The term “mother of God” is used because it is true. It is insisted upon because it points to another truth.
 
Last edited:
Not so, mcq.

Romans, when you take all of it together in context; teaches faith and works.

Your statement on Romans 2:13 is a misunderstanding, mcq. In this verse, we can clearly read that doing of the Law is needful and taken in context with the other verse of justified by faith in Romans; you see Saint Paul isn’t truly teaching Sola Fide; as then you’d be conflicting the two verses together.
 
Yes. As faith and works justify as both Saint Paul and Saint James teaches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top