Will the real Sola Scriptura please stand up

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by thessalonian, Feb 14, 2003.

  1. thessalonian

    thessalonian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    I ran accross something rather interesting today. Earlier I defined sola scriptura in this manner, expecting it to cause a bit of a stir because from my understanding this definition would be more on the Lutheran end of the spectrum.

    Thessalonian says:
    "Sola Scriptura says that the Bible, the written word of God is the final authority in religious matters."

    Now Lisa respoinded to my post and hit me right between the eyes with:

    "Really? Sola equals final?"

    Then she says:

    "This is rich you scorn a non-RC who dares to enlighten you on the facts, yet you consider yourself qualified to define our beliefs for us."

    (interestingly enough I noticed DHK (a Protestant) used the same definition.

    As in, you stupid Catholic, you don't even know what Sola Scriptura means.

    Then Helen comes along:

    "Sola Scriptura means the Bible is the FINAL authority, not the only authority, first of all. In other words, if there is a disagreement between what the Bible says and what any other authority says, the Bible wins. It is the final authority."

    Note the caps on that word FINAL. She's pretty sure about this.

    Interestingly enough Curtis has been using a working definition that if it isn't in scripture then you can't believe it. This may be on the spectrum of Lisa's definition but I am not sure. But it does not allow for items that are not in scripture but are not contrary to scripture. So the question is what is the offical infallible definition of Sola Scriptura? You should at least be able to all agree on that I would hope.

    I will just sit back and let you Protestants work this out.

    Blessings.
     
  2. 3AngelsMom

    3AngelsMom
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/3mom.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thessalonian,

    BREATHE.

    Ok, I am not too sure if I really adhere to the whole 'Sola Scriptura' thing, and this is based on MY understanding of it.

    It means ONLY the Bible.

    No future revelations, no prophetic gifts in the end times, no doctrines that arise out of prophetic understanding.

    NOTHING.

    The Bible and the Bible ONLY.

    SOLA.

    ONLY.

    I can't agree with that. We are promised future prophecies, and visions, and understanding and wisdom.

    THOSE aren't in the 66 books.

    "despise NOT prophecyings"

    God Bless
     
  3. Bible-belted

    Bible-belted
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thess,

    Tempest in a teacup. Stop trying to make something out of nothing.

    Now maybe you'd like to define Tradtion for us...
     
  4. trying2understand

    trying2understand
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I personally think that it is worth at least a friendly discussion.

    1 Only authority

    2 Final authority

    3 Scripture Alone


    Another definition which I have seen on this board is something like: the norm against which all norms are normed.

    Not sure I understand it but I think that I have fairly accurately presented it.

    Do we have any other definitions?
     
  5. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just to clarify, 3Angels believes in continuing public revelation. While a Catholic and the majority of non-Catholic Christians recognize the continuing presence of private revelation (e.g. prophesying), this is not considered binding public revelation. The Mormons (LDS) believe in continuing public revelation.
     
  6. trying2understand

    trying2understand
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    I personally think that it is worth at least a friendly discussion.

    1 Only authority

    2 Final authority

    3 Scripture Alone


    Another definition which I have seen on this board is something like: the norm against which all norms are normed.

    Not sure I understand it but I think that I have fairly accurately presented it.

    Do we have any other definitions?
    </font>[/QUOTE]Just for fun, I'm going to look around and see if I can find more definitions. (I will use only those given by parties who claim to hold to sola scriptura.

    5 Scripture alone is sufficient to gain salvation

    6 Scriptures are sufficient to serve alone as the church's rule of faith on matters of doctrine and practice

    7 Sola Scriptura is the essential Reformation doctrine that only the Scriptures have authority for the establishment of doctrine.

    [ February 14, 2003, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: trying2understand ]
     
  7. thessalonian

    thessalonian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Tempest in a teacup. Stop trying to make something out of nothing."

    Nothing? So you say that all Protestants who believe in Sola Scriptura agree to what it is. I find that very odd since I have documented evidence about that with three different Protestants I have gotten three different explanations. Certainly if the concept of Sola Scirptura is biblical, the Bible must also tell us exactly what Sola scriptura means. Do you have a verse for a definitoin.


    "Now maybe you'd like to define Tradtion for us..."

    There are threads for that already bible belted. I guess you can't answer the questoin.
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Carson says
    Just to clarify, 3Angels believes in continuing public revelation. While a Catholic and the majority of non-Catholic Christians recognize the continuing presence of private revelation (e.g. prophesying), this is not considered binding public revelation. The Mormons (LDS) believe in continuing public revelation.


    Carson, you are wimping out on us.

    #1. The RCC itself has a statement on "God's Word as the final authority on all matters of faith and practice". Why aren't you sharing that?

    #2. Your statement above "appears" to be a "distinction without a difference". The RCC believes that the dead (as in the Dead In Christ mentioned in 1Thess 4) CAN and DO appear on earth and prophesy. They also believe that humans on earth can speak - what they have been told by God or Angels - prophesy. The Mormons teach similiar things. What was the point you were trying to make?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. LisaMC

    LisaMC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thess,

    First, I want to let you know that I know you really care nothing about understanding the concept of sola scriptura. Your intent is to demean and mock others. But, that's besides the point.

    Folks, this is the comment I made to Thess, to which he is referring:

    Thess said:
    I said:
    I later commented:
    Then I said:
     
  10. LisaMC

    LisaMC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thess,

    Here's a reply I made to you on the sola scriptura thread which you conveniently ignored.

    You:
    Me:
    You:
    Me:
    You:
    Me:
    Would it be too much trouble for you to address my responses?
     
  11. Frank

    Frank
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thessalonian:
    Protestants have dificulty with "Sola Scriptura" because they also have synods, councils, conventions, which must uphold their creeds and articles of faith. Therefore, the Bible is not their only authority or final authority, if the Bible were the only and final authority, they would not need conventions, councils, synods.
    However,as a Christian, not as a protestant, I affirm the Bible is all-sufficient to meet the spiritual needs of man. II Tim. 3:16,17.
     
  12. 3AngelsMom

    3AngelsMom
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/3mom.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    What 'public' revelations did I say I believe in, in my post?

    Please let me speak for myself. [​IMG]

    Thanks [​IMG]
     
  13. LisaMC

    LisaMC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yet another person who does not understand sola scriptura.
     
  14. LisaMC

    LisaMC
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's a definition of sola scriptura from an interdenominational apologetics site.

    A.Defining Sola Scriptura
    1. A definition: Scripture, which is by definition the only written Word of God, is the only publicly accessible, visible infallible verbal expression of God’s truth in the world; only those truths about God and our saving relationship with him, which are clearly taught in Scripture or shown to follow from the teaching of Scripture, may be required of Christians to believe.

    Check out this link. It goes into depth as to what SS is and isn't:

    http://www.atlantaapologist.org/index2.html
     
  15. thessalonian

    thessalonian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lisa said:

    "First, I want to let you know that I know you really care nothing about understanding the concept of sola scriptura
    . Your intent is to demean and mock others. But, that's besides the point."


    Ah, when Lisa's beliefs get questioned she cries foul. Sniff sniff, you just don't care. Well if you mean demeaning and mocking others and being condescending and displaying exemplary biggotry, you certainl wouldy know about that Lisa dear. You wrote the book. But what's the point. As for not really caring what sola scriptura is, you wrote the book also on totally ignoring what Catholics say the teaching of their Church is and throwing the same worn out lines at them. As far as understanding Sola Scriptura I do. You see it is easy believism Protestantism at it's finiest and it is a lie, causing cancerous division of Christianity for now going on 600 years. It is a festering cancerous sore. Satan's divide and conqure strategy. But we know God wins in the end.


    I said:
    I later commented:
    Then I said:
    </font>[/QUOTE]Lisa once again implies that Thessalonian, that dastartly Catholic is trying to hide something. He just can't be trusted. I quoted your comment and mine Lisa if you read the top of the thread. What's your point lisa. I didn't say you didn't give me a definition of Sola Scirptura. I am just asking that those on this board reconcile there differences about it, which you all are claiming there are none. If that is the case then the definition of SS is the only thing you Prots agree on. This thread is not about you per sey but about a conflict in definitions between what you and Helen and Curtis say. Your not dealing with the issue.


    Blessings

    [ February 15, 2003, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]
     
  16. Frank

    Frank
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lisa MC:
    It is obvious you donto understznd the following:
    1. Sola scriptura is not a Biblical term.
    2. The concept that scripture is all-sufficient for every and all needs of man spiritually is in the Bible. II Tim. 3:16,17.
    3. There is no other AUTHORITY IN SPIRITUAL MATTERS THAN CHRIST. Mat. 28:18-20. Therefore, all things ( matters of faith) must be judged in the light of it. Jesus said in John 12:48, He that rejecteth me and recieveth not my words hath one that judgeth him the WORDS that I have spoke the same shall judge him in the last day. This, contrary to your misguided statements, does eliminate the need for councils, synods,conventions, the magisterium as they are words of men. These things are not authorized any more than false teaching. Both are unautorized and not sufficient to any good work. The Bible is all that is needed for this. It is the scriptures that furnish us and completes us for every good work. II Tim. 3;16,17.
    Question:
    1.What spiritual need is not met by the all-sufficient word of God?
    2. Can a man be complete and perfected by that which is not complete and perfect? If so, How?
    3. Does the Bible teach that men are complete and perfect unto:
    a. Some good works
    b. Many good works
    c. A few good works
    d. Every good work

    Sola is not even a greek word. The Bible (new testament) was written in Greek. The Latin word Sola is not in the bible. However, the greek words for complete and perfect are in the bible. They do imply all-sufficiency. Funny, You use a non- biblical term and try to define it form a non -biblical source and have the effrontery to claim others do not understand it. It appears you are the one with the problem of understanding.
     
  17. thessalonian

    thessalonian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Here's a reply I made to you on the sola scriptura thread which you conveniently ignored."

    Ah yes, the Catholic ignores the really tough posts. Lisa I have 7 kids. If you think I am going to respond to every comment you make your dreaming. I just don't have the time for all of your pontifications. Sorry if that offends. I wasn't looking for a definition of Sola Scriptura in that thread and explictly stated that that was not what the thread was about. I know what it means. As you so aptly stated it is a simple concept. Easy believism at it's best. And this thread is about you people hammering out the definition of your doctrine so I can know which of the several definitions is the correct one. Your post once again does not deal with the intention of the thread but satisfies your insatiable appetite for deaming and belittling Catholics. You care little about truth as exemplified by your not willing to deal with a Protestant who defines Sola Scriptura in a manner contradictory to yours.



    "Thess, all things that are eventually put in writing began as a thought or a verbal statement."

    No kidding. I dont see the point of this. Are all thoughts and verbal statements written down? Don't some statements assume a certain amount of knowledge. My wife says go to the store and get some milk. Why would she have to write down, go up x avenue, down x street, after you have put the key in the car and started the engine... I could write a book on the trip to the store. Further, it is very apparent from the differences in denominations that teach Sola Scirptura, using the exact same scriptures, that there is a teaching that goes with the scriptures. This is expressed many times in scripture itself but most importantly in Psalm 78, 2 Tim 2:2, 2 John 1:10, Titus 1:9, etc. etc. This teaching is passed on Orally. The implications of what you people say is that we Catholics agree that there are things in our religion that contradict the Bible. I have not found one yet.


    "Nobody claims that Scripture just appeared in written form on paper without ever being spoken aloud. We agree that what was new at the time of the Bereans/thessalonians, etc . . . may have yet to have been committed in its entirety to paper."

    Once again read the end of John.

    John 21:25
    And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.

    Imagine the experience gained by the Apostles from all that they saw. They wrote some things down so that we might believe. But the understanding that they had gained could not all be written down, though all of it I will say was at least implicit in scripture.

    [/QUOTE]You:
    Me:
    So then you would say that those things trasmitted orally, ala tradition were authorative at that time and they were not operating 100% under sola scriptura?

    "why do you presume certain things were never written down?"


    Well, obviously there were things that were not written down. If you read what Paul wrote it can be done in a couple of hours. Paul walked this earth as a Christian for perhaps 20-30 years. I am sure he had much to say that was not explicitly written down, though not contradictory to scripture. At the end of John's Gospel, we are told that the things that were said and done by Jesus would have filled the world with all the books. Imagine what the APostles learned with all of this. Obviously they didn't write it all down. And captured only a very small portion of Jesus words.
    The fact of the matter is that I see everything in Catholicism as at least implicit in scripture but that does not cut the grade for most Protestants unless of course it is the things that they believe that are only implicitly taught.
    The Bereans would have had to have seen the spiritual sense (i.e. implicitness) of many things in the Old Testament to come up with everything that Paul orally spoke to them being scriptural.

    Would it be too much trouble for you to address my responses?

    When they deal with the topic at hand and are not a rehash of things I have already dealt with with many protestants on other boards, perhaps I will. ONce again this one has gotten off topic.
     
  18. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is not a good argument. 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term either.

    Neal
     
  19. Frank

    Frank
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    1,441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Neal:
    Yes, it is a good arguement as I do not use trinity either. One should use and call Bible things by Bible names. I use the Biblical concept and term of Godhead. SEE Col. 2:9. When one uses terms that are not biblical he must use secular sources to define it. Therefore, when one does this he is simply stating an opinion. That is not to say men cannot be right in their books, but they may also be wrong. And, opinions are like noses everyone has one.
    For example, take the number of people who believe premillennial dispensationalism as opposed to historic dispensationalism. They both are different in belief. Logic dictates both cannot be right. In fact, both may nad are in error. How does one know this? The scriptures do not support dispensationalism.
    Jesus said to search the scriptures. John 5:29. Acts 17:11. If one does not use the scriputes, he will never find the truth. The scriptures do not support dispensationalism.
    I Thes. 5:21 says, Prove all things hold fast that which is good. To prove a thing there must be an objective standard. Without God's word, there is no standard. Objective truth is found in the all-sufficient word of God. II Tim. 3:16,17. It never changes. Man and his definitions change like the weather. To use a secular book as the basis for one's argument or premise is useless. It is like Solomon said in the book of Eccl. It is striving in the wind. It is useless.
     
  20. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, Godhead is a KJV term. The Greek literally means deity or divine nature. I guess it depends on which translation you use as to what is a Biblical term. [​IMG] As for concept, I think the Trinity is a fairly clear concept, as well as going to God's Word and judging things according to His Word.

    Neal
     

Share This Page

Loading...