Sola Scriptura...

[bookgirl32]

If you did come upon said verse, what would compel you to believe it in opposition to Roman Catholicism?

Nothing would, b/c I believe that the scriptures NEED to be interpreted. If there was no need for interpretation, then there would be no separate churches. Words on a page cannot interpret themselves, and private interpretation, again, only leads to disagreement.

I don’t need the Bible to tell me that sola scriptura is incorrect, although I believe that it does. I’m just pointing out what I see to be a hole in your argument.

And if you want to, post the verses, that’s fine with me.

 

[bookgirl32]

So is this the tactic? Dodge every question posed and ask another? We could play all day at this… but to what end. If you feel like actually conversing with me, I’m up for it, but if you intend on a one way conversation without the slightest bit of give, sorry, I’ve got better things to do.

Actually no, I’m not dodging your other questions. I honestly feel like you’re not dealing with the original issue that I’m talking about, sola scriptura as you define it. Remember, you started the thread.

 

[VociMike]

Fallacy. One cannot read a math textbook today and declare “2 + 2 = 5!” Words have meaning, and the meaning of the text of Scripture is not unclear

So those who e.g. deny the Trinity are as obviously wrong as those who claim 2+2=5. But let’s get real. Is there one person on the planet, in possession of normal mental facilities, who actually claims 2+2=5? Now, is there one person on the planet, in possession of normal mental facilities, who denies the Trinity? Yes, plenty of them, even some on this forum. So your comparison doesn’t fly.

Furthermore, we can prove 2+2=5 to be false using certain axioms. How can we prove that denial of the Trinity is false? What axioms can we apply, and do those axioms not then become a higher standard than scripture?

So the 2+2=5 analogy may be a good debating point, but it is actually a red herring with no application to the question.

Now you hinted that the age of beliefs, or the relative acceptance of beliefs, somehow lends weight to those beliefs. Well that sure shoots down Protestantism! In 1520 the age of beliefs and relative acceptance of beliefs was totally on the Catholic side, but that didn’t stop the Protestants! The very history of Protestantism says that nothing can stand in the way of a “bible-only” Christian denying the Trinity. Protestant history is the very model of such a radical rejection of older, more widely accepted beliefs.

Face it, there is nothing in sola Scriptura that prevents a Christian from denying the Trinity. You can’t appeal to history or training or councils or authority, because scripture trumps them all. All you can do is sling verses back and forth, and nothing ever gets resolved.

 

[bookgirl32]

Face it, there is nothing in sola Scriptura that prevents a Christian from denying the Trinity. You can’t appeal to history or training or councils or authority, because scripture trumps them all. All you can do is sling verses back and forth, and nothing ever gets resolved.

This is exactly what I’ve been trying to say.

 

[clmowry]

I made careful effort not to insult you, or your beliefs and to present a positive case for sola Scriptura. While I have certainly contrasted what I believe is the case with Rome vs Protestantism, I’ve not used the kind of language and sarcasm that you are using here. Given this attitude you’re taking, I will no longer communicate with you.

My apologies if I have offended you.

Just in case you are unaware, there is a wonderful tool on the forum called the ignore list.

Add my nickname to the list and you will not see any of my posts.

Judicious use can save you from many an uncharitable thought.

That said, if you are really trying to make “careful effort not to insult” then let me offer the following suggestion.

You might want to avoid phrases like:

“It seems you want someone to tell you what, when, and how to believe, but the principle undergirding sola Scriptura is that you are in fact responsible to read, listen and believe.”

So basically YOU called ME a blind follower who’s abandoned my responsibilities to listen to scripture.

That may or may not have been your intent but is certainly “seems” to be the case and I take both accusations a highly insulting.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

You want me to write “Roman Catholic Church” every time?

Seriously? Even when Roman Catholic apologists don’t? Why do you insist on holding others to standards that you do not apply to yourselves?

You could always type “RC” or “RCC” instead of “Rome”. It is a readily identifiable acronym on the forum.

You can avoid insulting those who might be and save typing a letter or two to boot.

You may also see n-C or a-C used as well. i.e. non-Catholic and anti-Catholic.

There was a thread on the subject many moons ago.

Several n-C’s took offense to being called “protestant”. i.e. “I’m not protesting against Rome.”

In any case "non Catholic” Christian was perceived by the offended party (at least at the time) as a fair alternative.

We settled in on “Roman Catholic” Christian / Church rather than simply “Catholic” because of objections to this “universal” term being applied to “only” the RCC.

So despite the fact that all churches in communion with the See of Rome are not “Roman Rite” we settled in o RCC.

Worked for me any way.

Meanwhile, back to your regularly scheduled dialogue…

Chuck

 

[upciguy26]

What I stated in the other thread was not that I didn’t believe in sola Scriptura, rather that I don’t believe in SOLO Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does not mean that there are no other authorites, rather, Scripture is the final authority. The Reformed believe that Scripture is quite clear on the primary issues and through careful study of the text’s grammar and context on can usually come to a consensus on what a specific text means.

Other authorites include pastors, teachers, elders, and old dead guys like the Reformers and the ECFs.

Sometimes sola Scriptura is characterized as “me and my bible” interpretation, and while that surely occurs and is taught by unstable men, it is not what the principle indicates or stands for.

Agreed, sola scripture does not mean just the Bible… rather all teachings must pass the Bible test but certainly ideas that derive from a relationship with Christ and his church are not always explicitly written down word for word.

A book wouldn’t contain that.

However the book will clarify it in one way or another.

 

[upciguy26]

So those who e.g. deny the Trinity are as obviously wrong as those who claim 2+2=5. But let’s get real. Is there one person on the planet, in possession of normal mental facilities, who actually claims 2+2=5? Now, is there one person on the planet, in possession of normal mental facilities, who denies the Trinity? Yes, plenty of them, even some on this forum. So your comparison doesn’t fly.

Furthermore, we can prove 2+2=5 to be false using certain axioms. How can we prove that denial of the Trinity is false? What axioms can we apply, and do those axioms not then become a higher standard than scripture?

So the 2+2=5 analogy may be a good debating point, but it is actually a red herring with no application to the question.

Now you hinted that the age of beliefs, or the relative acceptance of beliefs, somehow lends weight to those beliefs. Well that sure shoots down Protestantism! In 1520 the age of beliefs and relative acceptance of beliefs was totally on the Catholic side, but that didn’t stop the Protestants! The very history of Protestantism says that nothing can stand in the way of a “bible-only” Christian denying the Trinity. Protestant history is the very model of such a radical rejection of older, more widely accepted beliefs.

Face it, there is nothing in sola Scriptura that prevents a Christian from denying the Trinity. You can’t appeal to history or training or councils or authority, because scripture trumps them all. All you can do is sling verses back and forth, and nothing ever gets resolved.

Exactly and thats why I do not embrace the Trinity. The apostles or the immediate followers did not. That sets an alarm already.

It isn’t just Bible that may disagree, its the early church fathers of the first and second century.

Many of Justin’s arguments assert two rather than three. Ignatius and Polycarp appeal more to a oneness standpoint as does Iranaeus.

Interesting…

The main proponent of hypostasis… Tertullian… was a Montanist herectic after his contribution to Trinitarian dialect.

 

[VociMike]

Exactly and thats why I do not embrace the Trinity. The apostles or the immediate followers did not. That sets an alarm already.

It isn’t just Bible that may disagree, its the early church fathers of the first and second century.

Many of Justin’s arguments assert two rather than three. Ignatius and Polycarp appeal more to a oneness standpoint as does Iranaeus.

Interesting…

The main proponent of hypostasis… Tertullian… was a Montanist herectic after his contribution to Trinitarian dialect.

So what do you say to Christians who doubt that you are Christian and who are positive that the Holy Spirit is not guiding you to your conclusions? What do you say when they tell you that the Trinity is fundamental Christian dogma and is definitely found in the bible?

 

[bnapgh]

On the Apologetics forum I have posted TWO polls to help me understand the thinking of PROPONENTS of SOLA SCRIPTURA.

I would appreciate any & all Sola Scriptura proponents participating.

‘‘First Poll on the CLARIFICATIONS of Sola Scriptura

bnapgh:

I am linking a thesis from the website called ‘‘The-Highway.com’’, which I understand is sponsored by the Calvinists.

The thesis is called

**‘‘What Do We Mean by Sola Scriptura?’’ **

LINK

And was written by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

I have copied the fifth paragraph, which I call his ‘‘Preamble’’ below.

Here is my question:

Do all supporters of Sola Scriptura subscribe to the clarifications in this preamble?

If not, please explain why.

The ‘‘Preamble’’ found in Paragrapgh 5

Let me begin with certain clarifications so as not to be misunderstood. I am not arguing that all truth is to be found in the Bible, or that the Bible is the only form in which the truth of God has come to His people. I am not arguing that every verse in the Bible is equally clear to every reader. Nor am I arguing that the church — both the people of God and the ministerial office — is not of great value and help in understanding the Scripture. As William Whitaker stated in his noble work: “For we also say that the church is the interpreter of Scripture, and that the gift of interpretation resides only in the church: but we deny that it pertains to particular persons, or is tied to any particular see or succession of men.” 1

The last quote was from William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Cambridge,: University Press, 1849) P. 411.

These are Dr. W. Robert Godfrey’s credentials

Dr. W. Robert Godfrey is President of Westminster Theological Seminary in Escondido, California. He is also Professor of Church History. He received the A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees from Stanford University, and the M.Div. degree from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. He has taught at Westminster Theological Seminary (both in Pennsylvania and California) for over twenty years. He is an ordained minister in the Christian Reformed Church. Dr. Godfrey was a contributor to John Calvin: His Influence on the Western World; Reformed Theology in America; and Scripture and Truth. He edited the Westminster Theological Journal for several years, and is a frequent speaker at Christian conferences. Dr. Godfrey is a native of California. He and his wife Mary Ellen have three children: William, Mari, and Robert.

Thanks

**Second Poll on the CRITERIA for choosing advisors **

bnapgh:

CRITERIA for choosing the others you listen to when interpreting Scripture.