Clarifying sola Scriptura

For those deep thinkers out there.

Moderator: tuttle

Post Reply
User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18743
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Post by wosbald » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:30 am

+JMJ+
coco wrote:Perhaps you should re-read Basil without Holy Tradition glasses on. But that is rather difficult, isn't it? We all have worldviews, given to us by our communities. Without them, we could see nothing. But even with them, we do not see perfectly.
That's the whole problem with SS, in a nutshell. It completely glazes over the transition of the Natural Man to the Supernatural (or Regenerate) Man. It presupposes Christian Identity.

So sure, if one presupposes one's own Christian Identity, then one may end up reaching for the epistemic skepticism card. For just as SS separates the Church into the Invisible Church (the true Church) and the Visible Church (the rough, imperfect analogue), it also separates Doctrine/Dogma into evanescent Invisible Doctrine and its rough and imperfect analogue: Visible Doctrine.

However, those that don't skip over and presuppose Regeneration, those who had to approach their respective communities in order to gain their Christian Identity, could never conceive of interpreting the Scriptures without the glasses of that community which initiated them into Christ/made them Regenerate.

So the real question is not whether the Fathers believed in Sola Scriptura, the real question is whether or not the Fathers believed in Incarno-Sacramentalism (operatively efficacious Sacraments).




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Theology Room Mod
Theology Room Mod
Posts: 12536
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Post by tuttle » Fri Aug 30, 2013 8:46 am

jo533281 wrote:The Fathers and the Orthodox both believe in the primacy of Scripture. I affirm every quote they say about the Divine Scriptures... and I don't hold to sola scriptura.
But primacy is exactly what we're talking about here. (Unless you are giving it a different definition than the fact of being primary, preeminent, or that which is most important.) But it sounds like you're contradicting yourself. To say the Fathers believe in the primacy of Scripture is the exact same thing as saying the Fathers believe in what we now call sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny Tradition, it keeps it in check, accountable. And that's something we see in the Fathers which is why they are quoted.
"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27899
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Post by coco » Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:43 am

jo533281 wrote:
coco wrote:
jo533281 wrote:
coco wrote:
Thoth wrote:
Cleon wrote:
tuttle wrote:
Thoth wrote:
tuttle wrote:I found a great article talking about the myths surrounding sola scriptura and thought, hey that would be a great contribution to the "Clarifying Sola Scritpura" thread!

and then I re-skimmed this whole dang thing :?

I think there are some great meaty chunks of discussion throughout, but it's a bit spoiled by the dead flys in the soup...

So yeah, I'm not posting the article here :lol:
Are you going to post it anywhere?
ok...I'm a pushover. here go

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2 ... scriptura/
I predict that points 5 and 6 are going to cause some heart attacks. :lol:
More like a stroke... :P

Yeah that article left me with more questions than answers... (and the link for more quotes of the fathers supporting sola scriptura... pretty sure they weren't arguing sola scriptura since the canon of scripture did not exist during their lifetime)
Doctrines exist long before the first big discussion about them happens. For example, Christians believed in the deity and humanity of Jesus long before any heretic brought such into question. The formal proceedings with respect to the heretic did not create the doctrine, it just stated what the church had long believed with respect to the Bible. It should not surprise us, then, to see the Fathers state that they placed their full reliance on Scripture. After all, they certainly demonstrated that reliance as they wrote.
:wink:
Thoth wrote:Rather discuss this over a pint and pipe
Next time you and your fiance are in Florida, perhaps.
:D
They demonstrated sola scriptura when they wrote? Have you ever read St. Basil's "On the Holy Spirit" for example? He specifically uses Holy Tradition to defend the Holy Spirit's Godhood. And St. Vincent of Lerins demonstrated it by applying the (now-called) Vicentian Canon? Methinks you need to reread them without your sola scriptura glasses on. Modern Orthodox theologians use the Scriptures as much as the Fathers did, and they don't hold to that particular Reformation doctrine anymore than the Fathers did.

EDIT: Their references to the Fathers are taken out of context. How about they cut and paste more than two lines from a Church Father so that we can see the sum total of what they wrote. I can quote snippets from the Bible that prove Unitarianism is true... provided I ignore the rest of the context and content of the Bible.

Interesting article though. Nothing new from my perspective but informative none-the-less.
Perhaps you should re-read Basil without Holy Tradition glasses on. But that is rather difficult, isn't it? We all have worldviews, given to us by our communities. Without them, we could see nothing. But even with them, we do not see perfectly.

At times, the Fathers took a position that would later be called sola scriptura. At times, they simply did not. One of the difficulties with a Holy Tradition position is figuring out which of the existing positions within the Holy Tradition is the "correct" one.

Oh, and the author of the article provides a link to fuller quotations.
I have read those quotes. They were less than convincing. If they really believed in Sola Scriptura, why would they retain the liturgy, the veneration of the saints/Theotokos, etc?
They were inconsistent. All of us are inconsistent from time, to time. Thus, we need a means by which we can be corrected. Though we did not deserve it, God has given us a means of correction, his Holy Word.
JO#s wrote:By the logic of your second to last paragraph, then coco, I could easily say that the Bible, at times, teaches universalism, or what would later be called as such and, at times, it does not.
You could say that the Fathers taught Universalism at times, and you would be correct. They did. You could also say that well-meaning spiritual communities teach Universalism from time to time, due to worldview blindness, and you would be correct. They do. You could not, however, say that the Bible teaches Universalism. It simply does not. Universalistic readings of Scripture are due to sin in the interpreter and/or his hermeneutical community, the failure to read scripture in submission to the Holy Spirit.
Jo wrote:The Fathers and the Orthodox both believe in the primacy of Scripture. I affirm every quote they say about the Divine Scriptures... and I don't hold to sola scriptura. The problem here, I think, is that any affirmation of the Scriptures as primary is seen as sola for you guys, rather than getting a fuller context by reading a majority of what any particular Father wrote.
If scripture is really primary, it must be used to correct Tradition and us. So, if something or another is to be accepted as true, then our acceptance should not be based in the thing being taught by Tradition, nor should our acceptance be based on personal preference, but only because that thing is taught by scripture.
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
jo533281
like R2D2, just not as cool
like R2D2, just not as cool
Posts: 3115
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 6:00 pm
Location: Grand Rapids, MI

Post by jo533281 » Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:12 pm

Okay fellas, we are going in circles, I think.

Primary, according to your definition, means one thing. You then deduce by your definition sola sciptura (SS). Primary, by the definition of the EOC and the Church Fathers, means something else. It leads to prima scriptura, an entirely different concept. You say that if I mean primary, I must mean your definition. I think it is obvious that I don't. Even if you don't like my definition of primary (and I yours) I hope we can at least try to understand one another's definition. Wit that:

For an idea of what I mean by Prima Scriptura you can read the following link. It is long (though it seems longer if you add the comments) and for that I apologize. But if you would like an idea of what I mean when I say primary it's a solid start. Given my, or the EO, definition of primacy, the Church Fathers' comments on Scripture make sense and are not shown to be outlandishly inconsistent. They are only inconsistent when you try to force your definition of primacy and the idea of SS on them, rather then letting them speak for themselves.


Here is the link: http://orthodoxbridge.com/contra-sola-s ... rt-2-of-4/

Perhaps we can continue this conversation at another time. For now, we are talking past one another and it is creating confusion.

Also, I think, Tuttle, that I have high-jacked your thread a bit. It does seem to be quite off the OP and for that I apologize. Perhaps I should have moved this discussion elsewhere? If you would like, I would be happy to move it. This, from what I recall, isn't a thread debating SS but clarifying it. My bad.
"This is not facebook, we are not here to boost your self esteem or hang on your every word." -Zed-

"It's all right, Andy! It's just bolognaise!"

Most Likely to Draw Pirates with a Post

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27899
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Post by coco » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:37 pm

jo533281 wrote:Okay fellas, we are going in circles, I think.

Primary, according to your definition, means one thing. You then deduce by your definition sola sciptura (SS). Primary, by the definition of the EOC and the Church Fathers, means something else. It leads to prima scriptura, an entirely different concept. You say that if I mean primary, I must mean your definition. I think it is obvious that I don't. Even if you don't like my definition of primary (and I yours) I hope we can at least try to understand one another's definition. Wit that:

For an idea of what I mean by Prima Scriptura you can read the following link. It is long (though it seems longer if you add the comments) and for that I apologize. But if you would like an idea of what I mean when I say primary it's a solid start. Given my, or the EO, definition of primacy, the Church Fathers' comments on Scripture make sense and are not shown to be outlandishly inconsistent. They are only inconsistent when you try to force your definition of primacy and the idea of SS on them, rather then letting them speak for themselves.


Here is the link: http://orthodoxbridge.com/contra-sola-s ... rt-2-of-4/

Perhaps we can continue this conversation at another time. For now, we are talking past one another and it is creating confusion.

Also, I think, Tuttle, that I have high-jacked your thread a bit. It does seem to be quite off the OP and for that I apologize. Perhaps I should have moved this discussion elsewhere? If you would like, I would be happy to move it. This, from what I recall, isn't a thread debating SS but clarifying it. My bad.
I would politely suggest that you recommend another source in the future.
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 33753
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Post by UncleBob » Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:48 pm

Whoa! Jo#'s is posting in the Theology Forum.

Assemble the Pirates.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." -Mark Twain

User avatar
Jester
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1096
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Jester » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:43 pm

I read this whole thread today. CPS history is fun.
I smoke a cigar because the body is a temple and the temple needs incense. -Michael Knowles

Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

We almost solved the Mary issue. -FredS

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 16268
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by hugodrax » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:52 pm

Jester wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:43 pm
I read this whole thread today. CPS history is fun.
Some of it is. Some of it can be painful. But in light of the fact most everybody here thinks the other guy is wrong, it's amazing what a Christian community we have. Each of you has prayed for me in difficult times and I will gladly pray for all of you. At the end of the day, I can't say enough about both how grateful I've been and how amazingly Christian the board actually is when we get right down to it.

So keep it up, weirdos. Pipe smoking members of the world's weirdest club, you're all ok by me.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
j1n
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: southeast of the northwest territories
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by j1n » Thu May 03, 2018 5:02 pm

I know this thread is kinda old, but it touches on one of the many things that have been coming up for me.
If one goes by sola scriptura, what need does one have for a pastor? Cuz aren't 10 different Protestant pastors that went to 10 different Protestant seminaries likely going to give you 10 different slants on what a passage of Scripture means?
I'm your huckleberry

Ruin my dinner and I'll ruin your life.
- my wife

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27899
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by coco » Thu May 03, 2018 5:13 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:52 pm
Jester wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:43 pm
I read this whole thread today. CPS history is fun.
Some of it is. Some of it can be painful. But in light of the fact most everybody here thinks the other guy is wrong, it's amazing what a Christian community we have. Each of you has prayed for me in difficult times and I will gladly pray for all of you. At the end of the day, I can't say enough about both how grateful I've been and how amazingly Christian the board actually is when we get right down to it.

So keep it up, weirdos. Pipe smoking members of the world's weirdest club, you're all ok by me.
:)
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27899
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by coco » Thu May 03, 2018 5:16 pm

j1n wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:02 pm
I know this thread is kinda old, but it touches on one of the many things that have been coming up for me.
If one goes by sola scriptura, what need does one have for a pastor? Cuz aren't 10 different Protestant pastors that went to 10 different Protestant seminaries likely going to give you 10 different slants on what a passage of Scripture means?
The question is not whether or not differences of opinion exist, the question is the way forward. Protestants say that God has given no higher authority than the Bible (his very word), while Catholics say that the church itself is meant to provide authoritative interpretation.
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
j1n
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: southeast of the northwest territories
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by j1n » Fri May 04, 2018 6:05 pm

coco wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:16 pm
j1n wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:02 pm
I know this thread is kinda old, but it touches on one of the many things that have been coming up for me.
If one goes by sola scriptura, what need does one have for a pastor? Cuz aren't 10 different Protestant pastors that went to 10 different Protestant seminaries likely going to give you 10 different slants on what a passage of Scripture means?
The question is not whether or not differences of opinion exist, the question is the way forward. Protestants say that God has given no higher authority than the Bible (his very word), while Catholics say that the church itself is meant to provide authoritative interpretation.
Coco, I forget what tradition you are coming from. I guess knowing that would put your response into better context for me.
As someone who has been through MANY different Protestant denoms, non-denoms, sects, etc, I can honestly say that I think it's a much better system to have someone (or a council/organization) to determine, guided by the Holy Spirit, what Scripture is saying. Ive witnessed men with particular biases teaching their slant based on those biases. I'd hazard a guess that of the multitude of Protestant groups, sub-groups, and sects, there are about a million different things being taught. I'm in the process of inquiring (and then RCIA) with the Catholic Church. I feel like there is a foundation there that puts us in contact with what Jesus and his disciples taught. And I think that connection is the way forward.
I'm your huckleberry

Ruin my dinner and I'll ruin your life.
- my wife

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27899
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by coco » Fri May 04, 2018 6:46 pm

j1n wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 6:05 pm
coco wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:16 pm
j1n wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:02 pm
I know this thread is kinda old, but it touches on one of the many things that have been coming up for me.
If one goes by sola scriptura, what need does one have for a pastor? Cuz aren't 10 different Protestant pastors that went to 10 different Protestant seminaries likely going to give you 10 different slants on what a passage of Scripture means?
The question is not whether or not differences of opinion exist, the question is the way forward. Protestants say that God has given no higher authority than the Bible (his very word), while Catholics say that the church itself is meant to provide authoritative interpretation.
Coco, I forget what tradition you are coming from. I guess knowing that would put your response into better context for me.
As someone who has been through MANY different Protestant denoms, non-denoms, sects, etc, I can honestly say that I think it's a much better system to have someone (or a council/organization) to determine, guided by the Holy Spirit, what Scripture is saying. Ive witnessed men with particular biases teaching their slant based on those biases. I'd hazard a guess that of the multitude of Protestant groups, sub-groups, and sects, there are about a million different things being taught. I'm in the process of inquiring (and then RCIA) with the Catholic Church. I feel like there is a foundation there that puts us in contact with what Jesus and his disciples taught. And I think that connection is the way forward.
The Protestant might respond that it matters little what you think is a better system if your favored system is not indeed what God has put in place. The Catholic might respond that God leads and guides one church and one only, and to abandon that church at your own peril. Which is right? Why?
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 36728
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Del » Fri May 04, 2018 10:24 pm

coco wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 6:46 pm
j1n wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 6:05 pm
coco wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:16 pm
j1n wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:02 pm
I know this thread is kinda old, but it touches on one of the many things that have been coming up for me.
If one goes by sola scriptura, what need does one have for a pastor? Cuz aren't 10 different Protestant pastors that went to 10 different Protestant seminaries likely going to give you 10 different slants on what a passage of Scripture means?
The question is not whether or not differences of opinion exist, the question is the way forward. Protestants say that God has given no higher authority than the Bible (his very word), while Catholics say that the church itself is meant to provide authoritative interpretation.
Coco, I forget what tradition you are coming from. I guess knowing that would put your response into better context for me.
As someone who has been through MANY different Protestant denoms, non-denoms, sects, etc, I can honestly say that I think it's a much better system to have someone (or a council/organization) to determine, guided by the Holy Spirit, what Scripture is saying. Ive witnessed men with particular biases teaching their slant based on those biases. I'd hazard a guess that of the multitude of Protestant groups, sub-groups, and sects, there are about a million different things being taught. I'm in the process of inquiring (and then RCIA) with the Catholic Church. I feel like there is a foundation there that puts us in contact with what Jesus and his disciples taught. And I think that connection is the way forward.
The Protestant might respond that it matters little what you think is a better system if your favored system is not indeed what God has put in place. The Catholic might respond that God leads and guides one church and one only, and to abandon that church at your own peril. Which is right? Why?
Well.... the Bible tells us that Jesus established one Church, and that Church is not supposed to have factions and divisions. And we know that this Church was given a sacred Scripture, "The Bible." And that's how we know the Bible is inspired by God -- because the Church says so.

And the Bible itself says that this Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

So if I believe what the Bible says and I want to be sure of what the Bible means, then I have to cling to that Church which Jesus founded.

And not go looking at some other Church, founded by somebody who wasn't Jesus, claiming that the "the Bible says something different" from what Jesus's Apostles taught.

And then we look for a miracle or two to help confirm our faith. We note that the Western Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are still very similar keeping our Apostolic faith, in spite of a thousand years of schism and separation. No human institution can match this.

In contrast, the Protestant sects diverged like shrapnel from a hand grenade a mere decade after Martin Luther's initial rebellion. It was like the Tower of Babel.

That's why this thread exists, until this day -- because the fundamentalism of American Evangelicals is so very different from the Sola Scriptura of the Protestant Fathers.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"I shall not wear a crown of gold where my Master wore a crown of thorns." - Godfrey de Bouillon

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 21388
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Two places at once.

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by Thunktank » Fri May 04, 2018 10:52 pm

Del wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 10:24 pm
coco wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 6:46 pm
j1n wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 6:05 pm
coco wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:16 pm
j1n wrote:
Thu May 03, 2018 5:02 pm
I know this thread is kinda old, but it touches on one of the many things that have been coming up for me.
If one goes by sola scriptura, what need does one have for a pastor? Cuz aren't 10 different Protestant pastors that went to 10 different Protestant seminaries likely going to give you 10 different slants on what a passage of Scripture means?
The question is not whether or not differences of opinion exist, the question is the way forward. Protestants say that God has given no higher authority than the Bible (his very word), while Catholics say that the church itself is meant to provide authoritative interpretation.
Coco, I forget what tradition you are coming from. I guess knowing that would put your response into better context for me.
As someone who has been through MANY different Protestant denoms, non-denoms, sects, etc, I can honestly say that I think it's a much better system to have someone (or a council/organization) to determine, guided by the Holy Spirit, what Scripture is saying. Ive witnessed men with particular biases teaching their slant based on those biases. I'd hazard a guess that of the multitude of Protestant groups, sub-groups, and sects, there are about a million different things being taught. I'm in the process of inquiring (and then RCIA) with the Catholic Church. I feel like there is a foundation there that puts us in contact with what Jesus and his disciples taught. And I think that connection is the way forward.
The Protestant might respond that it matters little what you think is a better system if your favored system is not indeed what God has put in place. The Catholic might respond that God leads and guides one church and one only, and to abandon that church at your own peril. Which is right? Why?
Well.... the Bible tells us that Jesus established one Church, and that Church is not supposed to have factions and divisions. And we know that this Church was given a sacred Scripture, "The Bible." And that's how we know the Bible is inspired by God -- because the Church says so.

And the Bible itself says that this Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

So if I believe what the Bible says and I want to be sure of what the Bible means, then I have to cling to that Church which Jesus founded.

And not go looking at some other Church, founded by somebody who wasn't Jesus, claiming that the "the Bible says something different" from what Jesus's Apostles taught.

And then we look for a miracle or two to help confirm our faith. We note that the Western Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are still very similar keeping our Apostolic faith, in spite of a thousand years of schism and separation. No human institution can match this.

In contrast, the Protestant sects diverged like shrapnel from a hand grenade a mere decade after Martin Luther's initial rebellion. It was like the Tower of Babel.

That's why this thread exists, until this day -- because the fundamentalism of American Evangelicals is so very different from the Sola Scriptura of the Protestant Fathers.
Del, don’t you have a thread to start in the youth room about the fine art of Catholic drinking?
Image

User avatar
GiantNinja
Dragon Warrior
Dragon Warrior
Posts: 2491
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:00 pm
Location: Behind you. Really.
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by GiantNinja » Fri May 04, 2018 11:19 pm

Interesting that this old zombie thread was raised while I was lurking here.

Strange reading.

Reminded me what I love about this place. And what I hate about it.
And what is good, Phaedrus? And what is not good?
Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 18743
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by wosbald » Sat May 05, 2018 6:22 am

+JMJ+
coco wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 6:46 pm
The Protestant might respond that it matters little what you think is a better system if your favored system is not indeed what God has put in place. …
Why do you keep bringing the "centrism" — the crux of the issue — back to "God" and not back to "Jesus"? Jesus may well be God, but in this instance, this seems beside the point, since you certainly don't seem to be appealing to that which Jesus "put in place".

IOW, is Protestantism prepared to make the claim that Jesus "put the Bible in place"? (And that thus — Jesus being God — God can be said to have "put the Bible in place"?)

And if not, does that mean that Protestantism's centrality — that place from which it begins it's "way forward", as you said — would not be a Christocentric place, but rather, some other sort of centrality? A "God-centrality" or Theocentric position? Or some other sort of centrality perhaps?




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27899
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by coco » Sat May 05, 2018 7:05 am

GiantNinja wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 11:19 pm
Interesting that this old zombie thread was raised while I was lurking here.

Strange reading.

Reminded me what I love about this place. And what I hate about it.
Good to hear from you, old friend.
:D
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

tim_witten
Congregation
Congregation
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:45 pm
Location: Southwest Virginia

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by tim_witten » Sat May 05, 2018 3:49 pm

GiantNinja wrote:
coco wrote:
Del wrote:While we're at it.... What is "proof text"?
A "proof text" is a biblical text used to support a given teaching. The early church fathers used such texts extensively, though many today have not continued the practice.
I think Del is asking about the verb, not the noun.

What is 'proof texting'?

My (working) definition of proof texting: the taking of a single verse (or part of a verse) of Scripture out of context for the sake of defending one's preconceived notion(s)
Scripture without context is a pretext...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User avatar
coco
Uniquely Duggish
Uniquely Duggish
Posts: 27899
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Contact:

Re: Clarifying sola Scriptura

Post by coco » Sat May 05, 2018 4:06 pm

tim_witten wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 3:49 pm
GiantNinja wrote:
coco wrote:
Del wrote:While we're at it.... What is "proof text"?
A "proof text" is a biblical text used to support a given teaching. The early church fathers used such texts extensively, though many today have not continued the practice.
I think Del is asking about the verb, not the noun.

What is 'proof texting'?

My (working) definition of proof texting: the taking of a single verse (or part of a verse) of Scripture out of context for the sake of defending one's preconceived notion(s)
Scripture without context is a pretext...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"Proof-texting" is often used as Giant Ninja defines it, using a text in a way inappropriate to its context to derive an illegitimate teaching. At the same time, it is perfectly fine to use a verse in a way appropriate to its context to derive a legitimate teaching and to thereby use the verse to prove one's point. Most doctrines, Catholic or Protestant, use verses a proof.
"Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a cob with a forever lucite stem." (Pipverbs 1:1)
"No more signatures that quote other CPS members." - Thunk

Post Reply