Posted on 06/11/2007 3:29:03 AM PDT by markomalley
That is the first time I've ever heard of "Solo Scriptura." My working definition of "sola scriptura" is "the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice." Can you please highlight (a) if I'm wrong in my working definition and (b) what the differences are between "Sola Scriptura" and "Solo Scriptura?" (That is if you weren't simply employing a sense of humor that is far too sophisticated for my plebian mind ;) )
It doesn’t matter whether you authored the material or not. You posted it. And it begins in a provocative way. “In kind” responses ought to be expected. It doesn’t excuse the responders; however the poster bears responsibility for his chosen material.
Had you decided to post material that edifies everyone and offends no one, then you might have a case for having ruffled feathers. However, it would be a short-lived thread with few views and fewer replies.
The applications of this statement are legion!
It is explained in Mathieson’s book “The Shape of Sola Scriptura,” which is a very well reasoned book explaining the doctrine (Mathieson is an Evangelical Protestant if I recall correctly)
Please do explain it though, because it’s been a while since I read the book.
It begins in a provocative way, not in a rude and attacking way. It is possible to be one and not the other; if the poster chooses to be both provocative and rude, or opts toward simply being rude, then the fault lies solely on the poster.
You know, there are many who could make that statement. From sources that a sola(o) scriptura person wouldn't expect, as well.
At one time or another, I've come across people who say the Bible says those contradictory things. That's the author's whole point!
What you're getting caught on is his "hook," that opening phrase which is intended to catch your eye and keep you reading until he can begin making his real point. You can't read the "hook" and go no further, unless you want to completely misunderstand what the author has to say.
Note that, after the offending lines, he goes on to say: "Wait a minute! How can so many contradictory statements be based on the teachings of one book?"
This one, perhaps?
Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. John 8:43-45
Not terribly "admiring" if that's the one you had in mind....
The Real Presence is the doctrine that Christ is really present in the elements of the Eucharist, rather than is symbolized or memorialized by them.
The Real Presence doctrine leaves this as a mystery, while Transsubstantiation attempts to attach certain aristotelian logic to it in order to explain it, namely that the substance of bread and wine changes at the consecration while the appearance does not change. The scripture leaves the Real Presence unexplained.
The scriptural support for it is in the words of Christ at the last supper, in all the synoptic Gospels, and repeated by St. Paul: “This is my body, etc.”. Real Presence is not any kind of theological elaboration on them, but simply a literal reading of these words. The literal reading is also reinforced by the discourse in John 6, where the question of literal giving of flesh to eat is raised and answered.
I read past the "wait a minute" but even there he didn't correct his "hook" with saying those statements aren't given like that in the Bible. It just seems to be very misleading.
John 8:43-45 - Not terribly "admiring" if that's the one you had in mind....
Thank you for trying to find it but, no, that isn't the one. It'll probably come to me in the middle of the night, if at all. It seems the older I get the more often that happens.
Agreed. Man's pre-disposition toward error and bad behavior respect no doctrinal boundary.
I wonder how many authors and posters clothe their attacks in provocative, even incendiary statements? Could it be that someone accustomed to such tactics might react badly to a provocative post where no ill was intended?
That doesn’t excuse bad behavior, but might raise the awareness of one intending to post.
It does not mean that the Bible is the sole location where truth can be found.
It does not mean that the Bible is equally understandable to everyone.
It does not mean that the instruction of the Church is not helpful.
What it does mean however, is that the Scriptures are our only ultimate authority for faith and practice. The Scriptures are our final authority and they are infallible. All other authorities (including Tradition), even though they may also be valid, are subordinate to the Scriptures and are fallible. If Tradition violates the teaching of Scripture, then I must follow Scripture.
The question of sufficiency lies at the heart of the concept of Sola Scriptura. The Protestant understanding is that the Scriptures are complete and that they are absolutely sufficient for all that we require for teaching in righteousness, faith and salvation. They may not contain ALL truth, but they contain the TRUTH which is necessary and sufficient for our salvation.
I believe God has given us the Church as a blessing. I've learned much from tradition, which very often, has illuminated and enriched my faith and prayer life. But all too often, I've found traditions that seem to run counter to and have distracted me from, or even made me doubt, the clear meaning of Scripture. In these situations, I must consider Scripture as my final authority.
I'm not a theologian, just a Believer trying to explain my beliefs...I hope it was "sufficient." :)
Thanks! I don’t think I ever seen such a thorough explanation.
I can see where someone might wish to assign a special "presence" to the Lord's Supper. I can't get past the fact that Christ's Real Presence is already amongst the Believers gathered to observe it.
Matthew 18:20 -- For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.
It seems that any further presence is, well, redundant.
Also, I can recall no specific Scripture that supports the idea of "Real Presence". The passages you refer to, and all the ones I can recall, lend no such direct support. It seems that the idea of "Real Presence" is derived from speculation rather than Scripture-supported.
I'd be interested in a more thorough analysis, if anyone cares to elaborate. Please be kind and stick to Scriptural evidence. External dogma doesn't add value to my understanding.
A reasonable explanation. Kudos to Flo!
For elaboration see The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
If you think that the scripture saying "this is my body" does not mean it, you have no reason to demand further scriptural evidence.
ping, since you asked about this too
Very true; that could be the case... but when one finds that people find one’s posts incendiary (especially if it happens frequently), shouldn’t that be a hint that there is a problem that lies somewhere other than the other posters?
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.