Please explain. I'm here to learn.

AGC said:

---

And 50 minutes later I stand corrected.

---

That was exactly what I expected lol. Couldn't have planned it more beautifully

Then we take it a step further with contraception and you are likely on his side of the debate. So we end up with bajillions of different opinions and no verifiable way of knowing which camp is right. Hence my stance on Catholicism.

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?

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.

---

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 they're extra-biblical?

That doesn't really answer my question, respectfully.

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?

---

I appreciate the courtesy. I'm either not being clear or I am misunderstanding what is being said. I don't believe that extra-biblical tradition can be deemed necessary for salvation, but I'm not aware of how extra-biblical tradition refutes my stance. Explain it to me as if I were 5 as they say.

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!

---

No they did not. They did help choose the canon. Divinely inspired men wrote the Bible.

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.


Anyhow, we (RCC) base understandings, teachings, dogma- on scripture and tradition. Some of it is right out of scripture, "Thou shall not..." Some of it is across scripture and inspired by the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised to send to us when left this world.

+++

Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:15-17)

15 "If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever 17 the Spirit of truth.

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.

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.

---

I agree wholeheartedly. I never intended to suggest that there is anything necessary for salvation that is not found in Scripture.

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:

---

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

---

Got it. And that makes sense.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

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.

---

I agree wholeheartedly. I never intended to suggest that there is anything necessary for salvation that is not found in Scripture.

---

The ida that anything necessary for salvation must be found in scripture is not a teaching found in scripture. EVERYONE uses extra-scriptural sources for their belief.

Just to confirm, RCC does not teach "double predestination" -in case that was not clear. Our understanding of "predestination" may be different, because we understand it to be more like "God's Plan for Salvation" and not an elimination of man's will.

Helpful video:

dermdoc said:

---

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

---

Got it. And that makes sense.

---

Sorry again for not responding sooner. Especially if it came across as combative. You're good people

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.

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

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.

Ooh I'll go.

"This is my Body". Y'all all agree on that, right?

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.

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.

---

Agree. But the question becomes is what is really important and what is secondary.

I stick by the creeds.

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.

---

You are correct. And that is why I believe double predestination is bad theology.

dermdoc 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.

---

Agree. But the question becomes is what is really important and what is secondary.

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.

Serviam said:

---

dermdoc 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.

---

Agree. But the question becomes is what is really important and what is secondary.

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.

---

And that is why the creeds are so important.

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?

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?

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?

---

Sola scriptura has half of the truth to it. Even the Catholic Church would agree that we can not offer teaching contrary to scripture. In that, we can say the Bible has final authority. We can agree with Protestants here with enough distinctions made.

The other half is what you are saying. The Bible wasn't written by Jesus and was not made canon by the apostles. It required a Holy Spirit lead living authority to make certain it was comprised and interpreted correctly. This is where most Protestants get off the rails. The whole "perpiscuity of scripture" was a nonsense thought from the beginning. Imagine saying that all a man needed to do was read the Bible 1500 after Christ when all 1500 years had some level of conflict about theology and scripture. It was clear an authority outside of the Bible was needed, so the bible, in that respect, is not the end all be all.

That's why hearing from AGC is nice because he shows a more traditional view of Sola Scriptura. I still don't think his view withstands scrutiny but it's much more reasoned than the modern "solo" scriptura types.

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'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.

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?

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

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'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.

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?

---

Just curious if you are Reformed. And if so, your thoughts on double predestination.

Thanks.

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.

---

You might want to check out Reformed theology and what it says on the subject. And ask your pastor his belief on the subject.

They will claim God chooses the elect and passes over the other people but the result is the same especially if you believe in eternal hell.

With Reformed theology, if you are not of the elect then you have no chance to escape eternal torment. I do not believe that is Scriptural if you take the Bible as a whole. Why I am not Reformed.

And why I would never let my kids or grandkids get exposed to double predestination theology.

1 Timothy 2 3-4

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.

---

I'm glad you don't believe that. Your tradition certainly did and there is a good chunk of current Calvinist that hold to it. Here is your issue: who interpreted scripture better? You or Calvin? How do we reach that conclusion? Is this an area Christians can agree to disagree? If not, why not?

I don't mean to pepper you with questions but this is a really good example of the issues I have with sola scriptura. If two sets of Christians read the Bible and come to different conclusions on the very nature of God and His desire to save all people, what do we do with that?