Budge

[DAF]

I think the yelling was prompted by my comment, which I admit, the tone was uncharitable and I do apologize, but I can't imagine that he's not upset at at least a few people here.

Btw, there hasn't been a Protestant post since Eutychus' constructive contribution there. (But, you know, excluding him, I think the argument is over, unless Budge has something else to say)

[pyranima]

We shall see if he does, i think he knows he cannot rightly argue soundness of Scritpure alone so i believe he might have abandonded this thread. a rather typical response to most protestants. if you cant answer... ignore.

[DAF]

Well his abandonment of this thread is understandable if that's what he did. It's very exhausting to be arguing on like 30 fronts the way we've expected him to.

[Eutychus]

[quote name='DAF' post='1039383' date='Aug 7 2006, 06:22 PM']
I think the yelling was prompted by my comment, which I admit, the tone was uncharitable and I do apologize, but I can't imagine that he's not upset at at least a few people here.

Btw, there hasn't been a Protestant post since Eutychus' constructive contribution there. (But, you know, excluding him, I think the argument is over, unless Budge has something else to say)
[/quote]

First of all, there was a REQUEST that YOU define what YOU THINK, "Sol*A* Scriptura" is, means, and how it is applied.

To date, I have yet to engage a Roman Catholic who did not confuse Sol*O* Scriptura with Sol*A* Scriptura.

So, how can one discuss something, when YOU have a completely different understanding of, and description for, a term than the other side. Rather like "grace" which means two diametrically opposed things to a dyed in the wool romanist than to a normal Christian.

So, what DOES Sol*A* Scriptura MEAN to you guys, just how would you define it?

[DAF]

To date I have yet to meet an evangelical who didn't confuse the two either.

What makes Sol*o* scriptura better than sol*a* scriptura? Solo is just a liberalized version of sola.

sola= scripture is sole infallible authority
solo= scripture is sole basis of authority (which is what Budge uses as sola)

solo scriptura is a relatively new invention by evangelicals in the scheme of things, appearing in the last 150 years or so, and it's just a reform of sol*a*

Edited August 8, 2006 by DAF

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1039431' date='Aug 7 2006, 09:27 PM']
First of all, there was a REQUEST that YOU define what YOU THINK, "Sol*A* Scriptura" is, means, and how it is applied.

To date, I have yet to engage a Roman Catholic who did not confuse Sol*O* Scriptura with Sol*A* Scriptura.

So, how can one discuss something, when YOU have a completely different understanding of, and description for, a term than the other side. Rather like "grace" which means two diametrically opposed things to a dyed in the wool romanist than to a normal Christian.

So, what DOES Sol*A* Scriptura MEAN to you guys, just how would you define it?
[/quote]
this is what it means to us

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/646"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/646[/url]

have fun

[Justified Saint]

I am not sure where the actual term/idea of "sol[b]o[/b] scriptura" comes from, but in the apologetic world it is a red herring at best.

For the life of me I can't tell any meaningful different between:

1. The Bible is the only infallible authority (sola)
2. The Bible is the only authority (solo)

The former logically reduces to the latter. As far as I am concerned, sola scritptura simply can't resist being reduced to solo scriptura since for all its insistence on the "usefulness" of creeds and church councils, the Bible (conceived of as some kind of separate, ontological entity) trumps all. Thus the two positions are basically saying the same thing -- the Bible has the last word in all matters (of faith).

Edited August 8, 2006 by Justified Saint

[DAF]

JS, you misread the definitions.

Sola means that the Bible is the only authority. Period.
Solo means that the Bible is the only legitimate [i]basis[/i] for authority. Meaning that, as Budge put it, "all truths necessary for salvation are stated in the Bible" leaving room for the implication that truth exists outside of the Bible, but the bible's really all that you need. The latter is a bastardized version of the former, and like I said, is an evangelical product of the last 150 years or so. This is what Budge defined as sol*a*

But you're right, at the end of the day, the two are really the same thing, which is why logical people use the terms interchangably.

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='DAF' post='1039528' date='Aug 7 2006, 09:04 PM']
JS, you misread the definitions.

Sola means that the Bible is the only authority. Period.
Solo means that the Bible is the only legitimate [i]basis[/i] for authority. Meaning that, as Budge put it, "all truths necessary for salvation are stated in the Bible" leaving room for the implication that truth exists outside of the Bible, but the bible's really all that you need. The latter is a bastardized version of the former, and like I said, is an evangelical product of the last 150 years or so. This is what Budge defined as sol*a*

But you're right, at the end of the day, the two are really the same thing, which is why logical people use the terms interchangably.
[/quote]

DAF,

I haven't read every post in this thread so I don't know if that is how the definitions are being used, but I have never heard the terms defined as such -- but in the reverse as you present them. Protestants always try to deflect the charge of solo scriptura because it is the more extreme of the two positions (i.e. that the Bible is the only authority) whereas the reformers upheld sola scriptura and thus are much less radical because they do not reject the authority of church councils, creeds etc. (or so we are told), but only reject their infallibility.

Oh well, we agree that they are basically the same thing so that is all that matters.

[Aloysius]

why not make it simple: we reject sola and solo scriptura.

and I seriously doubt there is any difference between the two, at least as far as they go in Latin... changing the gender of "scriptura" doesn't seem to mean much. I could be missing something, though

the point of this thread is simple: hundreds of christian writings emerged in the first three centuries, many with ties directly to the first century (as many ties as any one of the writings that were canonized). the Catholic Church held an ecumenical council called by the Emporor with the authority of the Pope convening all of the world's Catholic bishops. it was proclaimed there as doctrine that there were 27 books to be read in the assembly and 27 books that were inspired directly by God Almighty regarding Jesus Christ. to believe this is to believe in a doctrine of the Catholic Church that has no more backing or authority than any other doctrine the Catholic Church teaches. they are both built solely upon the logic that the Church has authority from God to teach such things.

[Budge]

The problem with Catholicism and while there is so much confusion is it has no foundation but ITSELF.

a church is to be tested BY God's WORD {this is how we know if we are being taught falsely and the Bible teaches us how to test the spirits}

NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Budge' post='1039662' date='Aug 8 2006, 07:39 AM']
The problem with Catholicism and while there is so much confusion is it has no foundation but ITSELF.

a church is to be tested BY God's WORD {this is how we know if we are being taught falsely and the Bible teaches us how to test the spirits}

NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
[/quote]

The interaction between Scripture, Tradition, and Magesterium naturally entails a kind of circularity, but it is not the vicious circularity of private interpretation and Sola Scriptura.

Catholicism is like a system of checks and balances while some forms of Protestantism are unbridled (spiritual, intellectual etc.) tyranny.

[Budge]

[quote]The interaction between Scripture, Tradition, and Magesterium naturally entails a kind of circularity, but it is not the vicious circularity of private interpretation and Sola Scriptura.[/quote]

Yes circular logic forms the underpinnings of Rome.

Really they look to themselves as the base of all belief [u]by adding their traditions of men and their own leadership as being equal to Gods Word.[/u]

it is a shame you dont realize how blasphmous that is.

Honestly what do you have to test the teachings of Rome by?

Really nothing because they teach you-- you are not to compare their teachings with that of scripture.

Do you realize that one commonality of false religions is that the guru, leadership and more are never to be questioned?

They have full power and no accountability. {well they really will have that one day when they face God for deceiving so many millions}

Im going with Gods Word over the circular logic that forms the underpinnings of Roman Catholicism confusion. I feel sorry for you folks how your hearts have been chained away from Gods life changing Word.

[size=5]Act 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.[/size]

[Justified Saint]

[quote name='Budge' post='1039679' date='Aug 8 2006, 08:01 AM']
Yes circular logic forms the underpinnings of Rome.

Really they look to themselves as the base of all belief [u]by adding their traditions of men and their own leadership as being equal to Gods Word.[/u]

it is a shame you dont realize how blasphmous that is.

Honestly what do you have to test the teachings of Rome by?

Really nothing because they teach you-- you are not to compare their teachings with that of scripture.

Do you realize that one commonality of false religions is that the guru, leadership and more are never to be questioned?

They have full power and no accountability. {well they really will have that one day when they face God for deceiving so many millions}

Im going with Gods Word over the circular logic that forms the underpinnings of Roman Catholicism confusion. I feel sorry for you folks how your hearts have been chained away from Gods life changing Word.

[size=5]Act 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.[/size]
[/quote]


You misunderstand, a certain kind of circularity is necessary -- we just need to disabuse ourselves of the vicious circularity of Sola Scriptura.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

The Church compiled the Bible. Without the Church, we have loads of early writings and no idea which ones are inspired.

[SJP]

Just curious,

Did Budge or Eutychus tell us where the bible came from, or how they know which books belong in the bible? Maybe it's in another thread??? I can't seem to find it.

[Eutychus]

[quote] Did Budge or Eutychus tell us where the bible came from, or how they know which books belong in the bible? Maybe it's in another thread??? I can't seem to find it.[/quote]

You didn't know? Odd, I thought everyone did.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Jude, James, Paul and perhaps Barnabas or Apollo { Hebrews } and of course Jesus Christ as the spokesperson in Revelation.

There, does that help you out at all? Oh, none of them were in your denomination by the way.

And we have that supporting role being played by the Holy Spirit of course.

Edited August 9, 2006 by Eutychus

[SJP]

Actually, I wasn't asking the question to be sarcastic, I had noticed that you had not fully responded to the original question.


"You didn't know? Odd, I thought everyone did.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Jude, James, Paul and perhaps Barnabas or Apollo { Hebrews } and of course Jesus Christ as the spokesperson in Revelation."

Perhaps you could expand on this answer. How was the Bible compiled? Did the NT writings perhaps coincide with the Traditions of the first Christians?

"And we have that supporting role being played by the Holy Spirit of course"

Sorry, but I will once again need clarification. Who do you mean by "we", which one of the thousands of Protestant denominations are supported by the Holy Spirit? If God is Truth, then how can the Truth tell a lie, or a few thousand lies for that matter?

[SJP]

How can it be that all Protestant denominations are supported by the Holy Spirit when we know all too well that Protestants disagree with each other on fundamental issues? Does the Holy Spirit lie?? Of course not, so how can Protestants claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit when they teach doctrines that are completely opposed to one another. You can't all be right. There can only be one Truth.

It is not my intent to engage in name calling of any sort, I'm really curious to know how Protestants reconcile this obvious problem. Should a person trust the Baptist Church? the Methodist Church? The Pentecostal Church? They all appeal to the same authority (the Bible) but teach different things.

Lets engage in an honest charitable discussion

[Seven77]

[quote name='Budge' post='1039662' date='Aug 8 2006, 08:39 AM']
The problem with Catholicism and while there is so much confusion is it has no foundation but ITSELF.

a church is to be tested BY God's WORD {this is how we know if we are being taught falsely and the Bible teaches us how to test the spirits}

NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!
[/quote]

Brother Budge---[b]a challenge[/b]: test the Catholic Church by God's word. You ought to know God's word backwards and forwards.

And for the record:

1 Tim.3[15] But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in [b]the house of God, which is the [u]church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth[/u][/b]