Will the real Sola Scriptura please stand up

So what is the "offical" "correct" definition of sola scriptura and how do you know this?

Throughout this thread, you have been issisting that there is only one "offical" "correct" definition for sola scriptura. You have repeatedly said that any one who has a different definition is wrong.

Now you say that your undrstanding of the definition may not be exactly correct?

That appears to be an admission that the author of this thread is correct.

Given the multitude of definitons of sola scriptura, it means whatever the sayer wants it to mean.

[ February 24, 2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Bill,

The case can not be made as long as you rely on the disunity of Protestantism as basis for your disinterest in the topic and refuse to accept there is but one definition for the term. Because, until you get past that--your classic resonse will always be--"Oh, that's what you think sola scriptura means? Joe Blow thinks it means <this>? Which of you are right?" Which completely sidesteps and dances circles around the issue. Proving disunity among differing denominations does not by default disprove sola scriptura. You're not arguing based upon evidence against sola scriptura, you are basing your argument upon the many different explanations you've received.

And as I said, proving disunity among Protestant denominations, does not disprove sola scriptura.

Well, prior to what--1851? The Immaculate Conception was not an infallibly declared dogma of the RCC. What do you propose sparked the Reformation?

To which heresies--that have come and gone--are you referring?

And I get scoffed at when I make the same admission . . . Hmmmm? So, since you openly admit this, how do you presume that the infallibility of the Pope and the Magisterium benefits you?

Um . . . I'm sorry, but if it were really that simple and cut-n-dried, I don't understand how 53 years later you could misunderstand something about your faith.

Please do not misstake my lack of response to such statements for agreement with them. This is not relevant to our discussion, so I will not address it.

Her doctrines? I always thought they were God's doctrines. Besides, Scripture exlicitly tells us that if we pray faithfully for understanding, we will receive it. Can you show me where Scripture ever tells us to go to the Church for interpretation or understanding?

That's beeCuz, you insist on comparing apples to oranges. It is a false comparison to compare one denomination to many denominations. If you narrowed your comparisons to one-on-one comparisons, you find the unity to be on equal levels.

Once again a false comparison. Take away the comparison of RCism to many differing doctrines, and stick to comparing doctrine for doctrine, and you lose all the leverage you've counted on during the many years you have practiced Catholic apologetics.

Disunity in individual perceptions and understandings of the term--and RCism is part of that disunity because Catholics also have their perception of what sola scriptura means. Whether or not you believe in or adhere to the doctrine of SS, is irrelevent. you still possess yet another understanding.

Sorry if it appears that I implied that RCs do not know Scripture. That was not my intent.

Continued . . . .

 

T2U,

Do you think there is not an official definition for sola scriptura? Do you assert that every definition is correct? What is your point? I have given my understanding? If you disagree, then please disagree--show me how my perception of sola scriptura is wrong, based upon my perception, not what 25 other people have said.

Do you disagree?

It may not be, however, that does not negate the fact there is a correct definition out there. So, what are you trying to prove/disprove? That there is no such thing as sola scriptura, or that I'm stupid? What is your goal here?

What? That many different people have and present many different understandings of the term? Whoever denied that?

Works for you doesn't it? It gives you free reign to base your faith upon bogus beliefs and practices. Searching out the true meaning/purpose of sola scriptura and God forbid, finding it would bring your little fairytale crashing down around you.

The only person suffering by your inability or unwillingness to get a proper grasp on the doctrine, is you. Because you can't prove it's wrong or right without knowing what it actually means.

So, T2U, do you or don't you infallibly understand all of RC doctrine? Does your personal ignorance negate the teachings of the RCC?

 

"There is only one offical correct definition of sola scriptura."

What is your basis for believing this?

What makes the definition "offical"?

Who coined the term?

Where can we find that person's definition?

[ February 24, 2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]

 

Being fully retired, I have the advantage of being able to work at my computer all day long.

So please take your time, Bro. Curtis...

I am sure that God, in His infinite wisdom, who is timeless in that past, present and future are all in one in the spiritural realm, He then certainly knows who will endure to the end. And He can do this without effecting our free will of choice, that we are responsible for the choices se make. Therefore, in our own flowing timeline, how we may endure to the end is not certain, defined or set in concrete. Otherwise, we are either pre-condemned at birth to hell without any free will of choice on our part, or we are saved and go to heaven, again, outside of our own free will of choice.

Who said, Faith without works, is dead"?

"Works," as Paul was talking about, spoke of the "Works of the Old Law," which does not save us, but the "works" that should come as as a result of faith is another matter. It is not enough that we simply believe in Jesus Christ or even accept Him as our personal savior. It is also a part of this greater definition of "faith" which includes "hope" and "charity."

Here is a paper done by James Akins that discusses the difference between "faith" as many Protestants vies it and "faith" as we Catholics see it. Under close analysis, there is a basis for agreement once the definitions are understood:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm

Now, when we have those verses I gave previously, looking at your quote of 1 John 5:4-5, is it just possible that we are seeing a bit of hyperbola here? John is like the football coach tells his prayers, "We have the game plan and we can't loose!"

That does not mean that it is impossible for them to loose the game, but rather, they had better stick with the game plan!

If a person is "born of God," does that mean that through serious sin, sin that leads to apostasy, that the individual is still saved? Is is possible that one who is "born of God" loose that distinction through serious sin?

Look a little further in 1 John 5:16-17 and we note John (talking to saved born again Christians by the way) explaining the situation of a "brother sinning." Please note the definition John makes between "sin that is deadly" and "sin that is not deadly."

Why speak of this if the brother, though sinning, is assurred of his salvation? What if this brother commits a sin that is "deadly"?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

T2U,

Why should I doubt it? What you think 10,000 different people all spontaneaously develop an doctrine, and pin the name sola scriptura on the doctrine, having never heard the term sola scriptura before? Every word has it's origination period. Why would SS be any different?

What does that have to do with our discussion?

I would say the leaders of the Reformation brought it to the forefront of Christianity. But, I'm not a scholar nor an expert on the subject--yet.

Do your own homework. I've provided you with links full of information--I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink.

Also, I thought I recognized the name James White when Bill mentioned him, and now I know I did. Here's an exerpt from and article of his. I wish you would go to the link and read the entire article:

Sola Scriptura in Dialogue

James White

(White's comments in normal print)

T2U, quit spinning your wheels. Either you can disprove sola scriptura or you can't. If you wish to challenge my take on the issue, then by all means, do so. Otherwise, drop it.

 

Lisa, I am quite on topic.

This thread is not about proving or disproving sola scriptura.

This thread is about finding the definition of sola scriptura.

For all your bluff and bluster, it seems that you do not have the offical correct and true definition.

If you go back through the thread, you will find that it was you, not me, who said that there is but one "offical" "correct" defintion of sola scriptura.

Either you know exactly what that definition is and the authority behind that definition ("offical") or you do not.

You have conceeded that you do not know either with certainty.

The originator of this thread makes a good point.

We do not have a sigular definition for sola scriptura.

Hence the title "Will the real sola scripura please stand up."

 

Here's an excellent article. Please read!!!

http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/debates/guthrie/rebut1guthrie.htm

Exerpt:
Shandon L. Guthrie's First Rebuttal

Resolution: "The Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is True."

Affirmative - Protestant

 

T2U,

If you say so. What is the topic? That you and Thess are befuddled by the many different explanations you have received from others? Or is the topic that not only do most RCs not have a complete grip on what SS is, but also many non-RCs don't have a firm grip? What exactly is your mission?

Then what's it about? Is it not called "Will the Real Sola Scriptura Please Stand Up?" So, if someone gives you the definition is it not going to be challenged?

And, excluding the possibility that you are willing to take someone's word for what that definition is, how do you or Thess propose finding that definition?

I believe that I do know what it means. However, I, also know that you are not going to say, "Oh, that's what it means? Okay-cool." What do you want me to say? The only people that I'm aware dare to claim infallibility is the RCC. So far, in my search especially during the last week, I have not found any logical opposition to my understanding. So, I ask you again is your mission to locate the meaning of SS, or to make others look stupid? Your going in circles here.

And I believe that? Do you not?

Am I required to know that? Have I stated that I did know that? Who are you to tell me what I do and don't know? What is your point? Whether or not I say that I have the right definition does nothing to further your journey to locate the meaning of the term.

And . . . what is your point with repeating this? What does my concession do for your argument? Your pointing out my uncertainty . . . why?

That is . . .

Doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

The purpose here was not to find the definition it was to make a point of the many different definitions you've been given by everyday laypeople . . . I'm trying to figure out why?

 

T2U,

So, are you asserting that there are many different official definitions? Because, if you're right, and there are, then we are all right.

Well, since you've established that there can be more than one correct meaning, I guess I am right.

 

Lisa, you are just pulling my leg, right?

 

T2U,

Um . . . yeah, sure . . . whatehvah you say . . .

 

To; WPutnam

Still in disagreement with you.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

I still say salvation is done, a one-shot deal. I couldn't get out of it even if I did want to. I am one of God's children. When my child disobeys, she is still my daughter. We are still his children, even when we chose to disobey. Once saved=saved once.

 

Bill, now that distractions seem to be out of the way, I will continue.

You said:

You might just have a legitimate argument if Protestantism was known as only one denomination. However, it's not. Your comparison is false, because your argument is based upon a "straw man." If you want to lump all non-RC, evangelicals into one category to use as a comparison group, then to produce a fair and balanced argument you must group all other groups that believe their church possesses and infallible authority above and beyond Scripture. Those groups would be Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormonism. I would wager that all non-RC, evangelical denominations have far more in common with each other than RCism, Mormonism, and Jehovah's Witnesses have in common.

Bill--if I restate for you what I believe the definition of SS to be, you will not address the fallacies in the doctrine as I give it to you. You will most likely do as others here have done, grab on to the fact that there are many evangelicals who disagree as to what SS means.

Which does nothing in regards to disproving sola scriptura.

Your convenience is merely a scapegoat, a distraction from the facts, a way to avoid the legitimacy of sola scriptura.

We are not bound to defend Protestantism as a whole. We are bound to defend our faith, therefore, our armour is just as solid as yours. Like I said, your tactic of attacking this supposed disunity, is a waste of time for you. It only muddles the issue, never addresses it or resolves it.

I said:

You replied:

Huge misstake on your part for banking the basis of your argument on a false dilemma. By doing so, you have obtained a false sense of victory and supremacy.

But, see, by addressing a "straw man" argument, you do nothing to further your cause or prove your point. You are arguing against a non-existant doctrine.

Yet again, you misunderstand my point. Jesus does not use oral tradition to correct followers. Jesus rebuked Satan by saying, "It is written . . . " not "Tradition teaches . . . " You example does not apply. Referring to something in the OT by a name not used in the OT does not a tradition make. I'm not seeing how this proves "Most striking."

Authoritative how? What type of authority is displayed here? Things may have factually happened, yet not be included in Scripture, but how exactly is authority applied? Truthful and factual, yes. But how does it equate to authoritative? A particular teaching or practice passed on orally constitutes a tradition--that I understand. However, how is what a particular tradition may or may not have been called become an authoritative tradition?

Wait . . . now you need to make up your mind. You have previously admitted that the Gospel formed before the Church. You however distinguish between the oral Gospel and the written Gospel.

PART of Jesus' ministry--the Gospel was delivered by Him, during His ministry--before the Church was founded. Scripture contains four gospels, Jesus' ministry in writing, all delivered before the Church was founded.

I think I pointed this out first.

Thank you! You have just admitted that there was a delay in the formation of the Church after Christ's resurrection. Further evidence that the Gospel had been delivered before the Church formed.

Not sure how this pertains to our discussion.

Not sure of your point here either.

**Time for a break for station identification** Stay tuned for the continuation of my program.

[ February 24, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

I am not sure I see where John 6:29 has anything to do with OSAS. It still takes the free will of choice to "believe on Him that is sent," certainly God assists in giving the graces that one would believe. Still, that same individual can apostate like "...The dog (that) returns to its own vomit" and "A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire" per 1 Peter 2:22.

Even while I may be in grave mortal sin, I know that God wants me back (being that I am still his "prodigal son") but like the Prodigal Son in the famous parable, what if he had not returned to his father in sorrow and remorse?

While in theory, there cannot be anything other then pure happiness in heaven, I still wonder sometimes how God must grieve and is so sad that even His own "children" will continue to abandon Him to the point of a death that never ceases for all eternity in hell.

Bro. Curtis, I never expected to change your mind on what you believe. And I am sure you realize that you will not change my mind either!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

Lisa,

I will wait until you complete your replies.

I'm not sure how I will be answering it but I think I will probably read it and then conclude with a link or two on the subject. I do believe we have just about about rendered all we can get out of this subject and simply begin repeating what we have already said.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48)

 

Hi WPutnam, I didn't mean to confuse you, or derail the thread. I have seen posts by RCCers saying works help in keeping one saved, that lack of works + losing salvation. So the verse I posted was an answer to the works thingy.

No sir, you have not changed my mind. I still am secure in my salvation. Even when I sin.

Psalms 118:18 The LORD hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death.

 

Well, they are almost right. I would say it this way: "Faith, without works, is dead." In otherwords, instead of us Catholics saying, "I am saved," we say "We are being saved." To have a faith that saves is to work at that faith.

And that brings me back to the original link I gave you that I think explains the different attitude we Catholics have about the word "faith":

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm

...A doctrine that I have see as simply a presumption of the salvation of the cross. I also perceive a doctrine that is dangerous - that one who presumes on one's salvation may very well take this salvation for granted to the point of returning the the state of sinning he/she was envolved in as before, or perhaps even a state that is worse then before.

Absolutely! God will not abandon us, but we are still able to abandon God.

David was so chastened for his adultary, and even as God forgave him (in answser to David's asking for forgiveness) David still had to be punished for it with the loss of his son.

Contemplate the situation if instead, David had hardened his heart further and plunged deeper into sin without repentance at death........

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

Bill,

Going to try to answer some more of your posts.

You said:

The New Covenant wasn't yet revealed, but not necessarily not formed.

Delivered orally by Christ. However, Christ spoke to others besides the apostles.

No, you may be able to effectively argue that the Church came before the New Testament being placed in writing, but not before the New Testament.

Compiling the texts as guided by the Holy Spirit. However, though the Church likes to claim responsibility of canonization, Scripture did not need to be canonized by the Church. God already informed disciples that all Scripture was divinely inspired.

Now you are the one dodging questions. I know Scripture was written down due to the Providence of God. But why did God chose to have Scripture written, if the Church has papal infallibility and divine protection from teaching error.

You and I may have existed in the mind of God, but He did not foreshadow you and me in the OT.

Don't understand this question.

But, why do you believe that God left things relative to our salvation out of the written text?

Yes--because the apostles, who originally believed (Paul especially) that Christ was going to return to gather His elect before their demise, eventually realized that He may not return before they passed away. Thus, they began to ensure their teachings were preserved in written form.

Due to lack of avalability of written texts, illiteracy, etc . . . . BTW, it wasn't the authority it was the mode of delivery.

Continued . . . .