Need a little definition of terms here, you just previously said:
It is one of the truly wonderful paradoxes of Scripture, that it does not teach the doctrine of "sola Scriptura" --- which is, itself, an unBiblical doctrine of men.
But, when Ravenwolf stated what is the real meaning behind sola Scriptura - that anything contrary to what the Scriptures say is not the truth - you gave an AMEN. What IS the definition of sola Scriptura then? Nobody says that ONLY the Bible can be used to understand the tenets of the Christian faith, just that as, for example, Cyril of Jerusalem states:
"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)
“For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech,
If i build my message around a scripture, i need to be able to prove my message by that scripture and other scripture which are of the same text.
As i heard a preacher say once.
( i believe many things but you will never hear me speak of them because i can not prove them by scripture )
That is what i believe.
Thanks for the message from Cyril of Jerusalem.
That’s well said -— by you and by Cyril of Jerusalem. I’ll embrace your definition even as I reject the ones proposed by — hmm -— several FReepers who shall remain unnamed :o/