Posted on 10/04/2005 7:51:36 PM PDT by JohnRoss
***Can there be no discussion of the problems of sola scriptura....***
Evidently not since YOU refuse to discuss Sola Scriptura. When you want to start discussing Sola Scriptura and quit discussing Solo Scriptura, then get back to me. Until then, I'll simply continue to point out that what you are talking about is NOT Sola Scriptura even if you label it as such.
As for an excellent beginners source to begin to understand the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, may I refer you to the introduction of "Putting Amazing back into Grace" by Mike Horton ( from which I have already cited on this thread ).
The debate has revolved around the Catholic/Protestant aspect of the issue for several reasons.
1) With a little tweaking of the author's POV, there is little difference is his stance and that of a Catholic. Some observational asides of his about papal authority notwithstanding.
2) Given that substantial agreement, and given that most of the people taking the non-Sola Scriptura position here happen to be Catholic, it naturally follows that most of these folks will base their claims against Sola Scriptura from within their own confessional boundaries.
3) Fr. Whitehead being the exception that proves the rule, there is generally very little debate on record between Protestants and Orthodox on this, or any other issue. The Orthodox do not really have a horse directly involved in the debates with Protestants over the last 500 years, and they show little inclination to so engage. They mostly engage themselves and Catholics over nuances involving the first seven Ecumenical Councils, or, again with Catholics, with the remaining Catholic Ecumenical Councils and their disagreements with them. Sola Scriptura does not figure in, since neither Church professes it.
4) Realistically, in North America at least, this debate has *always been* something of a turf war between Catholics and Protestants. The author's background notwithstanding, his basic points will be seized upon by Catholics as relevant to their own continual debate with Protestants on this issue.
Without even reading the article I can understand what the problem is. You all don't see things the way I do.
Pinging you to my post #111.
I think that is an apt analogy. By the time Luther had come along the Church had become a overweight behemoth where tradition no longer supplemented scripture, but in many cases had replaced it. Personally I like the fact that there are hundreds of different sects within what ought to be called orthodox christianity. I think it minimizes error inasmuch as nearly every sect including the right honorable Roman sect has at least some error but most of those errors involve ancillary rather than primary doctrinal disputes. (Of course most of those sects split off because they considered those ancillary positions to be primary).
The emergence of sectarian division has not divided the church, but in many ways it has united it. It has given us all the opportunity to "prove all things and hold fast that which is good." In Luther's day, if you tried to "prove all things" and disagreed with the powers that be, often the only thing you would prove is that human flesh reaches flash point at about 500 degrees Farenheit.
Each individual believer is admonished to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. Each individual believer is admonsished to prove all things. Each individual believer is admonished to search the scriptures to know whether these things be true. In a centralized heirarchy, "The Thinking Has Been Done." When you reach that point, you have reached the pinnacle of the Tower of Babel. It is then time to scatter the masses.
Yep.
The way I see it in Heaven the Catholics will be in charge of the ceremony, the Reformers in charge of the teaching, the Methodists in charge of the music, and the PDL crowd in charge of the Powerpoint presentations. :O)
Yours is not a very good witness for the Christ!
b'shem Y'shua
So they're the ones who will volunteer for all that bull entrail cleaning, huh?
We baptists will be in charge of taking the offering, communion (so there will be no hard stuff for the Presbyterians and Episcopalians), baptisms (no baby stuff)and the coffee bar.
***Is this Protestant bashing week on Free Republic?
Perhaps we should post some chapters from Alexander Hislop's Classic Scottish Presbyterian thesis on Babylon.***
The Two Babylons!
Let's show the Salt Lake people that we can discuss and argue scripture without hitting the "abuse" button and crying "He's saying bad things about my religion", which is why we don't have any "good times" with them anymore.
I do not consider Jehovah's Witnesses as Christian as they deny the Trinity. As for Seventh -day... considered a cult by many. I don't think they are "Protestant". I may be wrong.
***I'm asking a very simple question. If scripture alone as a sole rule of faith is sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity, why are there hundreds of disagreeing sects based upon the bible?***
And I answered your question. I do not believe that there are "Hundreds" of competing sects, but there are many. And most of them differ in their government, or in the interpetation of some text or the application of various things. Some, like your mention of the difference in the ELCA and the LCMS, have to do with a liberal verses conservative application to the Bible. (Just like in your church).
***The only difference between Saddleback, the local PCA congregation, the local Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is a minor and insignificant disagreements over leadership structure?***
I didn't say this was the "Only" difference, those are your interpetations of what I said.
Let them have it. :O)
The point though is this, PROTESTant churches are not Sola Scriptura in the sense that many think, to include modern Evangelicals.
(My original question still stands)
The hundreds of Catholic churches who claim to be the true Church.
Not according to the Council of Trent. Seems like we are anathema.
Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone...let him be anathema.
Canon 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins...or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.
Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy (supra, chapter 9), which remits sins for Christ's sake...let him be anathema.
Canon 24. If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase, let him be anathema.
Canon 30. If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.
Canon 32. If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, and eternal life...let him be anathema.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.