P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Thanks for your post Randy.Pwrlftr-
Congratulations on joining the Church…I made the same decision 30 years ago come August.
Regarding sola scriptura, I think one of the difficulties that Catholics have with this doctrine (aside from the error itself) is that there does not seem to be a single definition of sola scriptura.
Dave Armstrong recently posted three definitions by prominent Protestant apologists that were similar in many respects but still different in wording and emphasis.
I understand why you have taken issue with some Catholics who “dish it out” but can’t “take it”…that is a separate problem.
However, it is also understandable that Catholics are mischaracterizing sola scriptura given that Protestants themselves are not in complete agreement over what it means.
Peace.
It is true that there is no “one” definition of sola scriptura. I haven’t paid a lot of attention to Dave on this issue (or many others for that matter) so if you could provide a link I would appreciate it. Is it a case of a distinction without a difference or maybe there are real differences?
That said, a decent place to start looking at “sola scriptura” would be the confessions that came out of the reformation. In American evangelicalism there seems to be a general departure from the prinicples of the reformation so I would bet you that a large number of protestants have never even heard the phrase “sola scriptura” much less know what it means. Another place to look would be the various debates between the Pacwa’s and Madrid’s of the Catholic apologetic world on the topic of sola scriptura.
While there are no doubt protestants who engage in “solo scriptura”, I don’t know of many. A common misconception is that if a protestant uses some type of study aide such as a commentary he is somehow violating the principle of sola scriptura.
There should be some type of rule so that at the beginning of every thread on SS a definition must be posted of what SS is going to be for that thread and it’s participants.