Please explain. I'm here to learn.
AGC said:
And 50 minutes later I stand corrected.
Zobel said:
I'm curious why you think everything should be justified by scripture. I don't think that is actually scriptural.
There are several places however that say to submit to your spiritual leaders. And there are many, many references in the scriptures to extra-scriptural traditions which seem to directly refute your stance.
So I'm curious how exactly your approach is coherent as a whole?
Mostly Peaceful said:Zobel said:
I'm curious why you think everything should be justified by scripture. I don't think that is actually scriptural.
There are several places however that say to submit to your spiritual leaders. And there are many, many references in the scriptures to extra-scriptural traditions which seem to directly refute your stance.
So I'm curious how exactly your approach is coherent as a whole?
Extra-scriptural traditions do not refute my stance unless they are deemed necessary for salvation.
Mostly Peaceful said:Zobel said:
I'm curious why you think everything should be justified by scripture. I don't think that is actually scriptural.
There are several places however that say to submit to your spiritual leaders. And there are many, many references in the scriptures to extra-scriptural traditions which seem to directly refute your stance.
So I'm curious how exactly your approach is coherent as a whole?
Extra-scriptural traditions do not refute my stance unless they are deemed necessary for salvation.
Serviam said:Mostly Peaceful said:Zobel said:
I'm curious why you think everything should be justified by scripture. I don't think that is actually scriptural.
There are several places however that say to submit to your spiritual leaders. And there are many, many references in the scriptures to extra-scriptural traditions which seem to directly refute your stance.
So I'm curious how exactly your approach is coherent as a whole?
Extra-scriptural traditions do not refute my stance unless they are deemed necessary for salvation.
You seem like a nice guy so I'm not going to post "wat" with the laughing face emoji, but that doesn't make any sense.
How would they be deemed necessary for salvation in the universe of sola scriptura if their extra-biblical?
No they did not. They did help choose the canon. Divinely inspired men wrote the Bible.fc2112 said:Mostly Peaceful said:
Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.
Good thing the RCC wrote that Bible then!
I agree wholeheartedly. I never intended to suggest that there is anything necessary for salvation that is not found in Scripture.PabloSerna said:
Maybe what they are saying is - that if it is necessary for salvation, then is must be in scripture, not outside of it as you indicated.
dermdoc said:
And I am still trying to figure out why you called me out on double predestination when I agree with the Catholic theology on that.
Got it. And that makes sense.The Banned said:dermdoc said:
And I am still trying to figure out why you called me out on double predestination when I agree with the Catholic theology on that.
Sorry, didn't mean to skip that.
It's not a theology example, but a process example. If Christians are free to disagree on anything not explicitly in the Bible, and one faction of Christians say they find double predestination to be taught in the Bible, what process do we have to say they're wrong? I used DP because I, like you, find it reprehensible. I simply adhere to a system that can definitively teach against it by using extra-scriptural authority in their interpretation. Lutherans (and I guess Anglicans to my new found knowledge) follow a true Sola Scriptura that would allow for extra-scriptural sources. But the modern Baptist/non-denom doesn't really have that. So I don't see on what grounds you can tell them they are wrong. It's personal interpretation at that point
Mostly Peaceful said:I agree wholeheartedly. I never intended to suggest that there is anything necessary for salvation that is not found in Scripture.PabloSerna said:
Maybe what they are saying is - that if it is necessary for salvation, then is must be in scripture, not outside of it as you indicated.
dermdoc said:Got it. And that makes sense.The Banned said:dermdoc said:
And I am still trying to figure out why you called me out on double predestination when I agree with the Catholic theology on that.
Sorry, didn't mean to skip that.
It's not a theology example, but a process example. If Christians are free to disagree on anything not explicitly in the Bible, and one faction of Christians say they find double predestination to be taught in the Bible, what process do we have to say they're wrong? I used DP because I, like you, find it reprehensible. I simply adhere to a system that can definitively teach against it by using extra-scriptural authority in their interpretation. Lutherans (and I guess Anglicans to my new found knowledge) follow a true Sola Scriptura that would allow for extra-scriptural sources. But the modern Baptist/non-denom doesn't really have that. So I don't see on what grounds you can tell them they are wrong. It's personal interpretation at that point
The Banned said:
So I don't see on what grounds you can tell them they are wrong. It's personal interpretation at that point
10andBOUNCE said:The Banned said:
So I don't see on what grounds you can tell them they are wrong. It's personal interpretation at that point
Well someone is right and someone is in fact wrong. It isn't a choose your own adventure.
The Banned said:10andBOUNCE said:The Banned said:
So I don't see on what grounds you can tell them they are wrong. It's personal interpretation at that point
Well someone is right and someone is in fact wrong. It isn't a choose your own adventure.
Exactly. That's the whole point of this thread. When "it must be found in the Bible" is the standard, we have no way to make sure we have the right interpretation, so it's a free for all. Now the original Lutheran view is much more tenable. I still think it's off by a few degrees but much closer than modern Sola Scriptura
Mostly Peaceful said:The Banned said:10andBOUNCE said:The Banned said:
So I don't see on what grounds you can tell them they are wrong. It's personal interpretation at that point
Well someone is right and someone is in fact wrong. It isn't a choose your own adventure.
Exactly. That's the whole point of this thread. When "it must be found in the Bible" is the standard, we have no way to make sure we have the right interpretation, so it's a free for all. Now the original Lutheran view is much more tenable. I still think it's off by a few degrees but much closer than modern Sola Scriptura
It's not a free for all. There are select areas of Scripture with a limited number of varying interpretations that can be reasonably gleaned from the text. For those who believe the Bible to be authoritative, doctrinal differences are trivial.
Agree. But the question becomes is what is really important and what is secondary.10andBOUNCE said:The Banned said:
So I don't see on what grounds you can tell them they are wrong. It's personal interpretation at that point
Well someone is right and someone is in fact wrong. It isn't a choose your own adventure.
You are correct. And that is why I believe double predestination is bad theology.The Banned said:Mostly Peaceful said:The Banned said:10andBOUNCE said:The Banned said:
So I don't see on what grounds you can tell them they are wrong. It's personal interpretation at that point
Well someone is right and someone is in fact wrong. It isn't a choose your own adventure.
Exactly. That's the whole point of this thread. When "it must be found in the Bible" is the standard, we have no way to make sure we have the right interpretation, so it's a free for all. Now the original Lutheran view is much more tenable. I still think it's off by a few degrees but much closer than modern Sola Scriptura
It's not a free for all. There are select areas of Scripture with a limited number of varying interpretations that can be reasonably gleaned from the text. For those who believe the Bible to be authoritative, doctrinal differences are trivial.
The difference between double predestination and not is a massive deal. Hence why brought that up with derm. Either God wants all to be saved and some reject Him or God specifically desires to damn a certain segment of creation to hell, never giving them a chance. Can't waive that one away. And you can't say "well THAT one doesn't have multiple interpretations, but these over here do" because that is specifically not in the Bible. Again, you are using outside authorities. Either your pastor, church history or your own belief. Not Bible passages.
Again: EVERYONE is using extra-biblical sources to confirm their belief. Everyone. The Bible NEVER says that everything needed for salvation is in the Bible. If you believe this, it is extra-biblical.
Once that is understood, we can get on with the business about who actually has the authority to determine what true Christian teaching is.
dermdoc said:Agree. But the question becomes is what is really important and what is secondary.10andBOUNCE said:The Banned said:
So I don't see on what grounds you can tell them they are wrong. It's personal interpretation at that point
Well someone is right and someone is in fact wrong. It isn't a choose your own adventure.
I stick by the creeds.
And that is why the creeds are so important.Serviam said:dermdoc said:Agree. But the question becomes is what is really important and what is secondary.10andBOUNCE said:The Banned said:
So I don't see on what grounds you can tell them they are wrong. It's personal interpretation at that point
Well someone is right and someone is in fact wrong. It isn't a choose your own adventure.
I stick by the creeds.
That's fine, but remember in ACTS the apostles thought it necessary to get together and convene a council to appoint a replacement for Judas, AND discuss circumcision and whether or not gentiles needed to follow mosaic law. And the creeds were functions of Councils, of which there were a bunch, that determined a lot of things.
Mostly Peaceful said:
Please explain. I'm here to learn.
Serviam said:
Tracking back to Sola Scriptura, im still having such a hard time making sense of it. Scripture cannot know about the Bible. If any single book were to make the claim that "only this book is to be considered authoritative" it would automatically exclude every other book in the Bible.
It makes no sense to hold up scripture as the highest authority; when an authority higher than it was needed to put it together.
So many Protestants I speak to (likely none on this board) think the Bible came down from Mt Sinai like the 10 commandments put together like a novel. It's a compendium it's a curated collection of teaching documents, but how can the compendium be more authoritative than the curator when the compendium doesn't exist without the curator?
I'm still having a tough time understanding why my position is so egregious. Does sola scriptura hold that Scripture has a definitive answer for every scenario that may arise in life? Spending time in prayer and seeking counsel from other believers is jettisoning Scripture? Maybe I should have included spending time in God's Word.AGC said:Mostly Peaceful said:
Please explain. I'm here to learn.
You trotted out sola scriptura and then pivoted to 'prayerful consideration' and consultation of friends and believers when uncertain, which is not the same thing. We jettisoned scripture real quick for a 'modern' problem.
Tradition (democracy through time, as Chesterton calls it) carries far more weight than consulting your friends on a subject because it has more depth and breadth than you can glean from a single generation of believers.
In fact, what makes your selected friends and self-selected pastor any sort of authority in liquid modernity? They're all chosen by you, just like an interpretation, no?
Just curious if you are Reformed. And if so, your thoughts on double predestination.Mostly Peaceful said:I'm still having a tough time understanding why my position is so egregious. Does sola scriptura hold that Scripture has a definitive answer for every scenario that may arise in life? Spending time in prayer and seeking counsel from other believers is jettisoning Scripture? Maybe I should have included spending time in God's Word.AGC said:Mostly Peaceful said:
Please explain. I'm here to learn.
You trotted out sola scriptura and then pivoted to 'prayerful consideration' and consultation of friends and believers when uncertain, which is not the same thing. We jettisoned scripture real quick for a 'modern' problem.
Tradition (democracy through time, as Chesterton calls it) carries far more weight than consulting your friends on a subject because it has more depth and breadth than you can glean from a single generation of believers.
In fact, what makes your selected friends and self-selected pastor any sort of authority in liquid modernity? They're all chosen by you, just like an interpretation, no?
I feel like we are going round in circles at this point, and that is okay. I genuinely appreciate the conversation as I know I have so much to learn, but that doesn't lend me to be dogmatic in areas lacking strong Scriptural support. I certainly don't agree with being dogmatic in anything that conflicts with Scripture. For example, Mary's perpetual virginity. Not only do I find zero support for this in the Bible, mentions of Jesus' siblings and Matthew 1:24-25 seem like a direct contradiction. But I should believe it anyway because that's the position of the Catholic Church?
Quote:
Just curious if you are Reformed. And if so, your thoughts on double predestination.
Thanks.
Mostly Peaceful said:Quote:
Just curious if you are Reformed. And if so, your thoughts on double predestination.
Thanks.
Yes, reformed. In regard to double predestination, I don't believe God desires to damn people to hell as it was described in this thread. I believe the elect are predestined to salvation, and I do not/cannot understand much beyond that at this point. I'm not aware of anything in Scripture that says that God predestines anyone to hell.
Mostly Peaceful said:Quote:
Just curious if you are Reformed. And if so, your thoughts on double predestination.
Thanks.
Yes, reformed. In regard to double predestination, I don't believe God desires to damn people to hell as it was described in this thread. I believe the elect are predestined to salvation, and I do not/cannot understand much beyond that at this point. I'm not aware of anything in Scripture that says that God predestines anyone to hell.