“Are you not familiar with what Scripture refers to as “disputable matters”?”
Yes, and this isn’t one of them. Think about it. Disposition of souls and the proper way to use scripture to understand doctrine: those are not “disputable matters”. They are not unimportant.
“So, sorry, Vlad, as much as you seem to relish the thought that disputable matters trashes the authority of Holy Scripture, you are proven wrong once again BY Holy Scripture.”
So, sorry, boatbums, as much as you seem to relish the thought of passing off criticism of sola scriptura as the trashing of the authority of Holy Scripture, you are proven wrong again and again. Not only does Holy Scriptutre NEVER teach sola scriptura, but I have never trashed the authority of Holy Scripture.
The "proper" way to use Scripture to understand doctrine is certainly indisputable, it carries the understanding that Scripture IS our authority because it is God's word revealed to us. Specifics about the "disposition of souls" can be disputable matters when Scripture isn't precise enough to warrant a black or white answer. Case in point, Catholics differ on what "Purgatory" is - where it is, how long it lasts, is there or is there not suffering, etc.. Is this not something concerning dispositions of souls? At one time, Catholicism taught a place called "Limbo" existed and said the souls of unbaptized babies went there. Now, they don't teach that anymore. Is that not also dealing with the disposition of souls? If you can allow for differences among fellow Catholics and not be concluding them in heresy or apostasy because they may not agree with what you believe, why is it not also something non-Catholic Christians can do? Like I already said, Elsie and I have discussed our differences and agree to disagree. Let's not forget that this was only brought up because you insisted nobody ever dared challenge his views on the topic because it was more important to present a unified face. Will you admit you were wrong about that?
So, sorry, boatbums, as much as you seem to relish the thought of passing off criticism of sola scriptura as the trashing of the authority of Holy Scripture, you are proven wrong again and again. Not only does Holy Scriptutre NEVER teach sola scriptura, but I have never trashed the authority of Holy Scripture.
Do you deny you impugned sola Scriptura on the basis that non-Catholics could disagree on non-essentials? If you truly do accept the authority of Scripture, then you should also accept that it is our primary rule of faith specifically because it, alone, is God-breathed, Holy Spirit inspired writing. Roman Catholicism places Holy Scripture along side tradition and the magesterium as equally authoritative. Yet we have the writings of the early church fathers that say Scripture MUST be the judge of truth and is the sole and final arbiter of truth because it is infallible and the ultimate authority. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies stated:
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.
I don't see how anyone can honestly deny that Scripture certainly DOES proclaim, because it is inspired by God, it is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (II Tim. 3:16). I don't see anything man can devise that competes with THAT authority.