Sola Scriptura
Pinpointing the Differences Between Catholics and Protestants
© Brian Tubbs
Jan 10, 2008
Tracing the belief differences between Catholics and Protestants to the belief in Sola Scriptura or the Scripture Alone.
Do you want to know how and why Roman Catholics and Protestants differ so widely on so many issues? The reason involves two words: Sola Scriptura.
That two-word term, Sola Scriptura, is Latin for "by Scripture alone," and it was among the principal mottos of the Protestant Reformation. One can trace virtually every major difference in belief between mainstream Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism to Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura is, of course, only one of the five "solas" that Protestant Reformers championed during the Reformation period. The others were:
- Sola fide ("by faith alone")
- Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
- Solus Christus ("Christ alone")
- Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")
Yet these other declarations stand on an understanding of divine revelation that hinges on that first Sola - Sola Scriptura.
The Rise of Rome
After the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the death of Jesus' remaining apostles, the church in Rome emerged as the leading Christian congregation of the Roman world. With the rise of Constantine, the Christian church became institutionalized and the rest of the Christian community increasingly looked to Rome for leadership. (And also to Byzantium, which partly explains the East-West split). When the western Roman Empire fell, the medieval Christian church became the most solid institution in Europe. It was also, at this time, being called more and more the "catholic" (or universal) church.
Apostolic Succession
Christians in the medieval church grappled with the doctrine of apostolic succession, along with other pressing theological matters. Did the successors to the apostles carry the same authority as the original apostles? And did the institutional church (specifically its leadership) have the authority to designate who those successors were?
Advocates of apostolic succession pointed to Paul's exhortation to Timothy: "The things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (II Timothy 2:2)
One of the leading voices for a strong apostolic succession was Irenaeus, a deeply influential leader of the second-century Christian church. However, it was expected one would stay consistent with the teachings of the original apostles.
Toward the beginning of the third century, Tertullian, an early Christian leader and theologian, wrote: "No other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation." In other words, those preachers, elders, and presbyters authorized to teach must teach according to the "apostolic foundation" of the church.
The Protestant Reformation
One of the frustrations that led Martin Luther to challenge the Roman Catholic Church was the apparent abuse of apostolic succession and consequent ecclesiastical authority. Luther became convinced that the Scriptures alone were authoritative, and that the Church must bow to them. "God's Word shall establish articles of faith," wrote Luther, "and no one else, not even angel can do so."
Today, most Protestant Christians (including many who don't even like to call themselves "Protestant," such as the Baptists) hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Though their interpretations of Scripture often vary, they do not accept the ecclesiastical authority of a hierarchical body (such as the Vatican) to dictate the meaning of Scripture, nor do they accept the right of the Pope (or any other institutional officer) to announce new revelation from God.
Of course, some Protestant denominations are more hierarchical than others, such as the Anglican Church. Nevertheless, for most Protestant Christians (especially those coming from an evangelical perspective), it's Sola Scriptura - the Scriptures alone.
*****
For more on this issue, consult:
A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, edited by David W. Bercot
The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez
The copyright of the article
Sola Scriptura in
Protestantism is owned by
Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish
Sola Scriptura in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Jan 13, 2008 8:54 AM
Pink :
.
All of which brings us back--full circle--to questions about how the Bible came to be considered the Word of God.
.
In the final analysis, it's <i>Sola Fide</i> no matter how you slice it; but, the questions here are about what it is in which a person places their faith.
.
Generally, most honest persons are able to agree that the Gospel of Jesus was about an individual's ability to have a personal relationship with God outside the authority of any extrinsic thing.
.
Jan 13, 2008 5:50 PM
Migisi :
.
Quoting Brian's article: <b>"Luther became convinced that the Scriptures alone were authoritative, and that the Church must bow to them."</b>
.
Which Scriptures?
.
Quoted from: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/canon.html
....
"Most Christians believe that all of the books of the Bible, and only the books of the Bible, have been accepted as canonical by all Christians. And yet, how far from this is the truth! In every age of the church there have been Christians, eminent for their piety and learning, who either rejected some of these books, or who accepted as canonical books not contained in the Bible.
.
"Not one of the five men who contributed most to form the canon, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Jerome, and Augustine, accepted all of these books.
.
"Late in the second century Melito, Bishop of Sardis, a contemporary of Irenaus, was deputed to make a list of the books belonging to the Old Testament. His list omitted Esther and Lamentations. The Muratori canon, which is supposed to belong to the third century, omitted Hebrews, James, First and Second Peter, and Third John. The Apostolic canon omitted Revelation, and included First and Second Clement and the Apostolic Constitutions.
.
"Of Origen, the great Christian Father of the third century, "Chambers' Encyclopedia" says: "Origen doubted the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the Epistle of James, of Jude, of the Second of Peter, and the Second and Third of John; while, at the same time, he was disposed to recognize as canonical certain apocryphal scriptures, such as those of Hermas and Barnabas." In addition to the apocryphal books named, Origen also accepted as authoritative the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Egyptians, Acts of Paul, and Preaching of Peter.
.
"The Rev. Jeremiah Jones, a leading authority on the canon, says: "Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and the rest of the primitive writers were wont to approve and cite books which now all men know to be apocryphal." (Canon, p. 4).
.
"Theodoret says that as late as the fifth century many churches used the Gospel of Tatian instead of the canonical Gospels. Gregory the Great, at the beginning of the seventh, and Alfric, at the close of the tenth century, accepted as canonical Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans.
.
"Early in the fourth century the celebrated church historian, Eusebius, gave a list of the acknowledged and disputed books of the New Testament. The disputed books-- books which some accepted an
Jan 13, 2008 7:37 PM
redback :
<i>"Do you want to know how and why Roman Catholics and Protestants differ so widely on so many issues?"</i>
A helpful introduction, Brian. :)
Just how functional is the loss of Papal authority? The Pope is replaced with eg Moderators and other Primates of whatever name...Archbishops etc...in other churches. Same result...different title? There are organisations unifying same-name churches within a country. I cynically feel the Anglican Church Property Trust is such an umbrella Anglican organisation here.
In effect, haven't all churches, including Baptists, still have some level of heirachy where someone is recognised as either the...leading or most senior 'minister'...or universal disendorsement as NOT a leader? And with such leadership...isn't the tone and focus of faith slanted until new leadership provides a "new path".
In OZ, the Roman Catholic Church is re-named the Australian Catholic Church (Property Trust) altho the full when and why of it is hard to pin down. I understand some part is less Papal authority here but could be wrong. Another aspect is a semantic(?) separation of the Catholic Anglican and Roman Catholic?
There seems such an ancient, entrenched divergence between denominations, any merger seems unrealistic. So, talk of successful mergers (where the 'majority' of leaders seek compromise of faith issues and unity...the flock will tag along) is still alive???
<i>"Not one of the five men who contributed most to form the canon, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement, Jerome, and Augustine, accepted all of these books..."</i>
It seems to me from your post, Migisi, there are not only Books of inclusion and exclusion...but Books of higher and lesser authority. So, the five above may have only come to qualified agreement when it came to specific scripture.
But there is (anecdotal?) consensus all agreed on all matters that mattered.
Jan 14, 2008 10:55 AM
Migisi :
.
<b>But there is (anecdotal?) consensus all agreed on all matters that mattered.</b>
.
In a way, yes -- ecumenical councils were convened to decide on doctrine. But their decisions didn't settle the matters that mattered. Schisms and sects sprang up shortly after Jesus' death. Paul confirms it in his letter to the Corinth church.... "What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, "I follow Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:12). And he complains frequently about 'false teachings' and 'other gospels', confirming that there was little consensus even among the early churches.
.
A couple of centuries later, dissenters ('heretics') in matters that mattered were seriously punished by the Church with excommunication, banishment, loss of property, and execution. Who would dare risk that? Some did. The Hispanic Priscillian of Avila was the first person to be executed for 'heresy', a mere sixty years after the First Council of Nicaea in 385. 'Heresy' was defined by Thomas Aquinas as "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas." Spanish schoolmaster Cayetano Ripoll was the last known person to be executed for heresy (1826).
.
The Church usually destroyed all 'heretical' treatises and letters, so we often only get an ~annecdotal~ glimpse of their 'heresies' through responses declaiming them, written by the Church's pious authorities.
.
The Church has a long history of turmoil and has never been united in doctrine. There have been major schisms over single points of doctrine, particularly regarding the Trinity, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the immaculate conception.
.
The major Protestant doctrines that the Catholic Church considers 'heretical' today (as Bri mentioned) are the belief that the Bible is the sole source and rule of faith ("sola scriptura"), that faith alone can lead to salvation ("sola fide") and that there is a universal priesthood of believers.
.
So, I wouldn't conclude that there is consensus on all matters that mattered at any time, or now. Just my POV, of course.
Jan 14, 2008 6:28 PM
redback :
<b>In a way, yes..."</b>
In many ways - no? :) It seems "matters that matter" can be subjective. The history (maybe repeating itself) is interesting to me. For me, it seems to go to a question of joining any church...as distinct from accepting a specific belief in a faith or having faith in a belief...to the extent these terms don't overlap.
<i>"Transubstantiation"</i> (by any name)
If God can manifest himself into eg human form...then why not bread and wine...or a Holy river etc? If one believes these <i>'accidents'</i> happened, seems a benign ritual to continue the symbolism. Or do they believe the bread & wine miraculously (aka accident) transforms in 2008 and so claim they actually can taste the difference? Belief aside, does it actually happen...is also the perennial question.
<i>"universalisms"</i>
I'm a bit underwhelmed about the contrasts between the Roman Catholic Church and others over the 'universal priesthood' per my earlier post. The lay 'priest' masses accede to the heirachal ordained 'priest', don't they.
<i>"Sole fide"</i>
to me, is about a substantive difference in interpretation of the Bible. The thin edge of the wedge that implies other interpretations also <b>validly</b> co-exist. And what if they fly off on a tangent from Roman Catholic or Protestant mainstream belief or in fact any organised 'church' belief.
<i>"sola scriptura"</i>
Well, I can see from the discussions here and offline the Bible is the <b>primary</b> source document. But is it better to be dependent on different views from only one source or seek a number of views from a number of sources then look for endorsement from the accredited primary source.
Solely relying on a scripture poorly interpreted is within the doctrine of sola scriptura.
Jan 15, 2008 7:38 AM
Pink :
.
<i>Sole fide:
to me, is about a substantive difference in interpretation of the Bible. The thin edge of the wedge that implies other interpretations also validly co-exist. And what if they fly off on a tangent from Roman Catholic or Protestant mainstream belief or in fact any organised 'church' belief.
</i>I'm confused wondering if you're using faith as a word to describe denomination.
.
I see "Sole Fide" to mean that the individual considers their belief to be based on 100% faith--nothing else.
.
And, the question gets to be about what it is on which the person has based their faith. It appears that there has been a major shift in American Christianity regarding what is a proper foundation for faith. It looks like the Bible's authenticity has come to be that foundation--forget anything else.
.
In fact, the challenge is if you don't put your faith in the
bible, then, you're not worthy to call yourself a Christian.
.
The title, Christian, has come to be a synonym for Biblicist. Or is it the other way around.
.
Can someone show me a person who is accepted as a Christian by any Evangelical who doesn't subscribe to the idea that the Bible is the Revealed Word of God/
.
Jan 15, 2008 8:44 AM
Migisi :
.
<b>It seems "matters that matter" can be subjective.</b>
.
One man's trash is another man's treasure?
.
<b>The history (maybe repeating itself) is interesting to me.</b>
.
And to me, especially the 'repeating' of it i.e. the possibility that the church and state will merge and become the political governing body, as in the Middle Ages.
.
<b>For me, it seems to go to a question of joining any church...as distinct from accepting a specific belief in a faith or having faith in a belief...to the extent these terms don't overlap.</b>
.
IMO, when/if one does join a church, it's presumed and expected that the joiner fully accepts that church's doctrine (whatever it is). If not, why bother joining -- except for the social or business connections it might provide.
.
<b>"Transubstantiation"... If God can manifest himself into eg human form...then why not bread and wine...or a Holy river etc? </b>
.
Some believe God is present in everything - human, animal, vegetable, air, water, dirt, rock, etc. since God created it all. The Church considers this belief 'pagan' (pantheism). Yet, Church dogma insists that God is present in bread and wine - which is made from nature's grain and grape?
.
<b>Belief aside, does it actually happen...is also the perennial question.</b>
.
That seems the be the core controversy. Is it real or is it Memorex? (wink) But other questions plague the theology. First, it violates the law given to Noah against blood eating. Some of Jesus' disciples, taking what he said literally, left him because of that law. Secondly, the ancients in many 'pagan' cultures believed (in modern terms) 'you are what you eat', or one could at least obtain desirable attributes/spirit of the one you ate, i.e. one could obtain courage from eating lion, or stealth from a tiger, etc. In John 6, Jesus says "...he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him". Bringing the pagan concept forward, can Jesus' ~nontangible~ spirit 'abide in' someone simply by consuming wafer and wine - even IF his physical 'substance' ~is~ actually present? And it ~could~ be present ... given that all that exists(ed) consists of common basic chemical and atomic elements (everything's made of the same 'stuff').
.
<b>The lay 'priest' masses accede to the heirachal ordained 'priest', don't they.</b>
.
From what I've observed and read, just about every church, temple, synagogue, had and has a man-made government - a chain of command, positions of authority o
Jan 15, 2008 11:59 AM
Migisi :
.
Looks like it's just you, me, and spider now. :)
.
I'll be back. Chores to do.
Jan 15, 2008 5:47 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Redback, obviously, I'm limited in my Suite101 articles (in terms of length) and therefore can't address all the different aspects of these issues.
Do other denominations / faiths have their own form of "papal authority" (whether centered on one figure or several - whether global, national, or local)? The answer is...YES.
This fact explains (partly) the wide diversity of beliefs within Protestant circles.
It does not, however, change the fact that one of the PIVOTAL points of divergence between Catholics and Protestants is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura contrasted with the perspective of "Sacred Tradition" and the practice of papal authority.
Jan 15, 2008 5:50 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>Solely relying on a scripture poorly interpreted is within the doctrine of sola scriptura.</i>
You've identified the Achilles' Heel of Sola Scriptura - its primary weakness and danger.
However, this is why Protestants (by and large - there are exceptions) and especially Baptists and nondenominational evangelicals emphasize the free agency of the individual believer and the local autonomy of the church.
Jan 15, 2008 10:51 PM
redback :
<i>"...Redback, obviously, I'm limited in my Suite101 articles..."</i>
Thanks for your responses, Brian. I appreciated your article as an introduction to this topic.
<i>"You've identified the Achilles' Heel of Sola Scriptura - its primary weakness and danger."</i>
I feel there are relative strengths and weaknesses to everything. Wasn't the Boy Scout's motto "Be Prepared!"
Jan 16, 2008 12:53 AM
redback :
<i>"I'm confused wondering if you're using <b>faith</b> as a word to describe <b>denomination</b>."</i>
No, I'm not. In fact, I didn't use 'faith' in what you cited!?! Please clarify.
I don't know if you've been able to follow the exchanges between Migisi and myself because I would have thought they add clarity to what I'm saying and where my interests lie. It's therefore hard to know where to start given the chalk and cheese differences in the two terms you think I've mixed up.
If the Bible is open to sufficient interpretation that some will because of their understandings, follow a life of poverty or primitive lifestyle, some will claim Tom Cruise and his money, some will ensure their obscene wealth is protected from church-based litigation, some will not rely on blood products to save their lives, some will kill others etc etc etc, <b>then we end up with...denominations, cults etc.</b>
Now, that may prompt a raft of discussions but I'm responding to sole fide and its cousins.
<b>"I see "Sole Fide" to mean that the individual considers their belief to be based on 100% faith--nothing else."</b>
I can't make sense of this as a stand-alone statement. See what 'salvation' - strings or no strings - is about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation
I'm not a sotereologist to untangle the different meanings for 'salvation' and this and other doctrinal terms aren't part of my usual lexicon. I'm not a Christian, let alone one in any denomination, including the non-denominational denomination.
<i>"And, the question gets to be about..."</i>
different things for different people.
Jan 16, 2008 5:43 AM
Pink :
.
I haven't followed all the conversations you and Migisi have with each other. Some of it gets to be social and off topic; so, it's sorted out as being none of my business in a sense. Sorry if I've missed something. My fault.
.
For some reason, there is a sense that the word, faith, is being bandied about as a group thing; so, that ends up being denominational to me. Seems like I'm the one who is confused on what others are saying.
.
Faith, to me, is believing something is real without any concrete foundation that it is so ~ plus an expectation that it is the absolute truth. It is an intrinsic experience.
.
The fact of <i>Sole Scriptura</i> is that one <b>MUST</b> have faith that the Scripture is what someone has said it is. So, just WHO is THAT someone?
.
Jan 16, 2008 11:30 AM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>Faith, to me, is believing something is real without any concrete foundation that it is so ~ plus an expectation that it is the absolute truth.</i>
We have a different definition of faith. I agree with the last part, but not the first.
My definition (and one I think is consistent with Hebrews 11)...
Faith is a decision to trust in a reality you cannot directly see or scientifically prove.
In fact, you could edit out the last part and focus on the first. Faith is (at its root) a decision to trust.
For SOME, they make that decision "without any concrete foundation." Others thoroughly examine the evidence that's available, the alternative explanations, etc. - and decide that X is the most plausible, most likely, most compelling - and then they put their trust in X. I consider myself a part of that latter group.
Jan 16, 2008 11:49 AM
Pink :
.
Here's what you have written as a definition of faith, <i>"Faith is a decision to trust in a reality you cannot directly see or scientifically prove."</i>
.
Can we dissect that statement without you walking away from the issue?
.
You speak, in your statement, of a "reality [a person] cannot directly see or scientifically prove", in opposition to the first point of my statement, <i>"Faith, to me, is believing something is real without any concrete foundation that it is so ~ plus an expectation that it is the absolute truth."</i> I could also say, "Belief is faith plus expectation."
.
To the point, how does any person come to a place where they are able to know there IS such a reality if it doesn't come from believing that it exists?
.
I'm not trying to be argumentative; but, I do think we should be able to get our terms straight.
.
We COULD say that reality is the result of faith in what one perceives as being real.
.
For example, to say that the Bible is the Revealed Word of God is to operate on Faith that what one believes is realty. You just cannot get away with saying something is a reality that "...cannot directly [be seen] or scientifically prove[n]". That is a contradiction of terms and not reasonable logic. A child my swallow that; but, no mature person should.
.
Jan 16, 2008 1:06 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>Can we dissect that statement without you walking away from the issue?</i>
Can we dissect this issue without cheap shots?
<i>You speak, in your statement, of a "reality [a person] cannot directly see or scientifically prove", in opposition to the first point of my statement, "Faith, to me, is believing something is real without any concrete foundation that it is so ~ plus an expectation that it is the absolute truth." I could also say, "Belief is faith plus expectation."</i>
It's the phrase "without any concrete foundation" that I have the most problem with. Particularly the word "any."
<i>To the point, how does any person come to a place where they are able to know there IS such a reality if it doesn't come from believing that it exists?</i>
A person can't KNOW something for sure until they experience it. I agree. And I thought Paper Turtle did a great job addressing this in another thread.
<i>I'm not trying to be argumentative; but, I do think we should be able to get our terms straight.</i>
Absolutely. Very reasonable
<i>We COULD say that reality is the result of faith in what one perceives as being real.</i>
I'm chewing on that. I think that perception becomes a person's reality. It's real to them. But perception does not equate to objective reality.
<i>For example, to say that the Bible is the Revealed Word of God is to operate on Faith that what one believes is realty. </i>
Choosing to accept the Bible as the "Revealed Word of God" is most certainly a step of faith, but it is not a blind leap of faith - or (I should say) it does not HAVE to be a blind leap of faith. There are sound reasons to persuade a person to take that step of faith.
<i>You just cannot get away with saying something is a reality that "...cannot directly [be seen] or scientifically prove[n]". That is a contradiction of terms and not reasonable logic. A child my swallow that; but, no mature person should.</i>
Let's dissect that. If I tell you that I'm typing this message on a Sony VAIO laptop at Buffalo Wild Wings in Wilmington, Ohio, I've just presented a claim that there is NO way for you to "directly see" or "scientifically prove" without you YOURSELF somehow coming to Wilmington, Ohio in the next few minutes to verify it. And yet...
It IS the reality. I am at Buffalo Wild Wings in Wilmington, Ohio and I am typing on a Sony VAIO laptop.
Jan 16, 2008 1:47 PM
Pink :
.
<i>It IS the reality. I am at Buffalo Wild Wings in Wilmington, Ohio and I am typing on a Sony VAIO laptop.</i>
.
I'll take your word for it; but, I don't know it to the extent that I would create a life style around the idea that you are even in Wilmington, Ohio. It's not a point for contention. That the Bible is the Revealed Word of God is.
.
There are subjects not only around which some not only build their own life styles; but, that are used to convince others to build their life around them as well--even to the extent that they engender great problems in our world. So, I think it is important for us to dissect such ideas so that no person that isn't well enough equipped intellectually ever gets sucked in.
.
A case in point is the rabble rousing and hate mongering John Hagee of the Cornerstone Chuch in Texas. This man is promoting and teaching some of the worst prejudices the world has ever known. He buttresses a mindset of an unconscientious extreme that is fueling a good amount of the force behind some of America's most damaging foreign policies.
.
As long as he is allowed to get away with that by other clerics, he is seen to have their support.
.
Why is he able to get away with that? Our secular U.S. Constitution makes it all possible. But, does anyone equate his messages to crying, "Fire!!", in a crowded theater when there is none?
.
I do.
.
I think ~~ strongly and fervently ~~ that there should be a ground swell within the Christian Right regarding such hate mongering.
.
Religion seems to be the only political area in which it is not correct to stand up in opposition to such ideas. And, Religion IS a political arena.
.
Preachers and other religious leaders around America should make a definite stand against men like John Hagee and other like minded opportunists that are milking a gullible public of hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of dollars and leading millions of Americans in to hating other peoples around the world.
.
.
Jan 16, 2008 2:09 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I'm not a devotee of John Hagee. I'm obviously familiar with him, but have never listened to his sermons, read any of his books, or anything like that.
My favorite public preacher-teachers are John MacArthur, Charles Swindoll, and then (not pastors) Gary Habermas and Ravi Zacharias. I also have great respect for Billy Graham and very much appreciated (theologically more so than politically) the late Jerry Falwell. (I realize I am alone on that here, and several here have strong anti-Falwell feelings, but my perspective is different - as a distance-learning seminarian with Liberty and as one who has met the man, heard him preach several times in person, and who has rubbed shoulders with many who knew Falwell personally).
As for your point on hate-mongering, I agree insofar as we agree on that term. NO CHRISTIAN LEADER (or individual, for that matter) should preach a message of hate or personal intolerance and personal judgmentalism. The Apostle Paul makes this clear in his letters. Christians are called to speak the truth in LOVE, and that is sadly lacking in some Christian circles.
Jan 16, 2008 2:23 PM
Pink :
.
I only gave Hagee as an example. He represents a major example the politicking from the pulpit.
.
He uses the claim that the Bible is the Revealed Word of God to push his hate filled messages on the gullible. He interprets scriptures in such a way ao as to prove his points and he sure knows how to move an audience. You SHOULD watch him and his son to see just how effect he is in his approach to sway millions of people to hate Iran which just happens to be a major part of his message. Did you know he has a replica of part of the Wailing Wall on his church's campus?
.
http://www.thevoicemagazine.com/Apostolic_Moments_Articles/John_Hagee_Ministry_interview.html
.
The man is a study in what is a major problem with Biblicism, i.e., Sole Scriptura.
Jan 16, 2008 8:50 PM
redback :
<b>"Some of it gets to be social and off topic"</b>
I'll leave your contrasting style to another day. :) ABC
There is much to-topic <b>substance</b> within the Migisi/Jeff posts too, Pink. The social chatter on the periphery implies some mutual understanding between us on that substance. And that's helpful to me to know I'm being understood. But to repeat, I didn't mention 'faith' in the section you cited, so how am I to know when you in response, don't "clarify" as asked.
Instead you add: <i>"For some reason, there is a sense that the word, faith, is being <b>bandied about</b> as a group thing..."</i>
so if you're still referring to me...what are the related comments you're drawing on? So far it seems a generalisation that you have somehow swept me up into. :)
But I will concede some of my posts are off-topic to what interests YOU. :)
Please remember I can't use any doctrinal terms with any degree of ease so I go for functional definitions.
<b>FAITH</b>: Some tell me Christianity is a faith as distinct from a 'religion'. So, I may refer to 'the Christian faith' in deference...but as a word interchangeable with 'religion' making sense within the substance of my post.
FAITH and BELIEF are interchangeable <b>secular</b> terms per my dictionary where more than one definition exists. 'Faith' can be a confidence or trust in (God) or more generically...a belief which is not based on proof. BELIEF refers to something one believes in on whatever grounds satisfies. TRUTH and PROOF are different concepts again.
<b>"...plus an expectation that it is the absolute truth"</b>
The 'expectation' is the faith in it, isn't it??? You're using "faith" here in the context of some doctrine, aren't you? If it truly exists, it's what's called a 'special purpose' definition ie it doesn't take on an ordinary meaning. There's myriads of them when you deal with bureaucracy and thay make sense WITHIN a defined context.
BUT I just don't see the conflict when Christians mix and match those terms...as I believe they do. Harder for me is unravelling the bee in your bonnet to answer you the way you want rather than the way I need to. :) :)
<b>"The FACT of Sole Scriptura is that one MUST have faith that the Scripture is what someone has said it is. So, just WHO is THAT someone?"</b>
Is this hyperbole??
If someone told me exactly the same thing...I'd immediately know they were a stranger to me or I'd know their name. All I've got within discussions
Jan 17, 2008 6:23 AM
Pink :
.
<i>
Is <b>[The FACT of Sole Scriptura is that one MUST have faith that the Scripture is what someone has said it is. So, just WHO is THAT someone?]</b> hyperbole??</i>
.
Doesn't hyperbole mean extreme exaggeration?
.
How can it be shown that Scripture is something on which one can found their belief in anything?
.
This entire area of discussion is ALL relative to semantics--what these words mean.
.
Which brings us full circle around to the idea that we live in post modern times where we can only understand the things we are saying to each other based on the context in which they are presented. BUT! We have to come back to the meaning of the words we're using.
.
And, THIS is PRECISELY where we're running into trouble. We cannot agree on the meaning of the word, faith. So, it follows that we cannot carry on any discussion in such a way so we understand each other as long as any of us wants to use the word, faith.
.
Until ~ and unless ~ we agree on the meaning of the word, faith, there doesn't seem to be any way we can communicate our thoughts to each other.
.
We need to come to an agreement. And, if you and I do that, what happens when Migisi or Brian comes in with still another meaning?
.
Let me suggest a meaning for the word. See if anyone can agree on it.
.
<b> XXXXX </b> To have faith in any thing is to <b><i>make</i></b> believe that it represents truth whether--in reality--and without regard to the fact that it does or it does not represent truth.<b> XXXXX </b>
.
If we can come to an agreement on that, then--I say--we will be able to move on. Other than that, we're stymied.
.
.
Jan 17, 2008 9:30 PM
redback :
I am very mindful of how you play here, Pink. Please let me repeat it is <b>NOT</b> my way. :) :)
In good faith:
<b>"How can it be shown that Scripture is something on which one can found their belief in anything?"</b>
This to me is an entirely different topic....an open-ended philosophical one on how we base our beliefs. Have I read it wrong...again?
If we as a group are as confused with the concept of 'faith' as you seem to think we as a group are...than we're on a hiding to nothing if you think we'll get a groupthink version of 'faith'...then stuff it up immediately it's used in a sentence.
For me, the issue is NOT over the word 'faith'. It's over certain scripture, dogma or doctrine or whatever the term is, that you (or I or Migisi etc) doubt or disbelief has anything to do with truth. And which Brian etc have full faith in.
Well...I can have a discussion on that without bogging down on one word per my approach in the earlier post.
<i>"This entire area of discussion is ALL relative to semantics--what these words mean."</i>
Remember, this particular thread between us started over a word 'faith' I did not use but maybe you believed I did. :) The discussion I'm responding to relates to the sola scriptura and whether it makes sense TO ME so we surely part company on WHY we are here if you think I only want to play word games. It IS kinda insulting but I'm not mad at you...to coin a phrase.
Jan 17, 2008 10:00 PM
redback :
Pink
I've noticed you have now referred to the subjunctive and indicative moods...the 25-page link you referred me to on why people go to websites like(???) suite101 and the reference to semantics.
I am honestly confused as to why you are here where a reply to-topic doesn't satisfy.
But I'll get through it. :)
PS: HOW we formulate our beliefs seems the focus of the bolded citation prior post. WHAT we focus on and WHY are more important to me.
Jan 18, 2008 6:05 AM
Pink :
.
I'm trying to relate with you in an honest and straight forward way.
.
I have short comings and don't always do a good job of it.
.
Jan 18, 2008 2:28 PM
redback :
In reality, there's only 3 regulars here now..all trying to discuss things with each other. None of us exhorting the values of Protestantism...in any real way...except for any residual value in questioning.
This is hardly a viable role for the discussion boards here and to be frank, I'd still like it to be value-added for me too.
<b>"I'm trying to relate with you in an honest and straight forward way."</b> and I don't doubt it. And if we compare "short comings" it'd be a tough battle to see who has more. Believe it! :)
<b>BUT</b> I think the bigger battle you have with issues of religion and how you seem to be analysing what you call the <i>"new media"</i> called the internet and coming up with a make-believe definition of 'faith', checking our subjunctive etc 'moods'...and throwing them all in the mix...muddy the waters in your exchanges with me when I am trying to keep to topic eg sola scriptura.
It's where I get some explanation why you don't understand my posts. I mean the posts you actually read given you stated you haven't read my open/public exchanges with Migisi. And for example, I read all your posts all topics to try to understand your views better and I aim for my views to be consistent across all topics.
But days have passed without moving on...treading water in dial-up internet is costly for me. :)
Jan 18, 2008 3:15 PM
Pink :
.
You might be mistaken that there are only three regulars here.
.
There could be so-called, lurkers, and others who are considering it they should join or not.
.
And, if I understand this new media we call the 'Net, these discussion threads will be scrutinized by others in the future.
Another important point--or maybe even a fact--is that as we express ourselves in print, we get to learn more about who it is that we are and are becoming.
.
Jan 18, 2008 3:42 PM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>You might be mistaken that there are only three regulars here.</i>
Very true, Pink
.
<i>There could be so-called, lurkers, and others who are considering it they should join or not.</i>
I can attest, from the Suite page view info I have access to, that many (not all) of these discussion threads are read by a lot of people - a couple hundred hits or more (unique) each month in some cases.
<i>
And, if I understand this new media we call the 'Net, these discussion threads will be scrutinized by others in the future.</i>
Yup
Jan 18, 2008 3:55 PM
redback :
Pink...in an ealier exchange with Brian, you state:
<b>"So, I think it is important for us to dissect such ideas so that no person that isn't well enough equipped intellectually ever gets sucked in."</b>
This may be <b>"a subjunctive - a statement contrary to fact, a wish, a mandative statement"</b> of yours, right? :)
In any event, one such idea you referred to was the claim the Bible is the <b>Revealed Word of God</b> (RWoG).
My ponderings:
What satisfactory evidence of RWoG could ever exist or be available to me. Having faith in RWoG as a fact doesn't make it a fact. If it's a fact, it simply means one's faith is justified, doesn't it? I reckon the shops'll be there when I go up later so I have faith in getting my groceries. Without that faith, I'd stay home...after all, it's raining.
And what particular 'fact' is referred to? Every verse in every version of the Bible? That RWOG is only confined to an (ancient) Bible? That RWOG must be interpreted in only one way for all people currently on Earth? That Earth was created (some evidence of it exists) ...or man will go to Hell or 'redemption' unless he does X?
---------------------
For me, we can explore all the variations of these statements and end up in a flaky discussion on 'faith' per se or silly circular semantics. <b>OR</b> we examine the reasonings behind the claims and come to our own conclusions. In that sense, 'faith' is the end result - the conclusion.
And faith is a negative as well as positive concept eg full disbelief in RWoG.
And we can play silly buggers over 'facts' generally. Like my shopping above or the claim there really is a <b>United</b> States of America...with Brian on his laptop etc.
But for this topic, I came for the information on the sola scriptura and related doctrines.
Jan 18, 2008 4:02 PM
redback :
I stated there were 3 regulars <b>here</b>. I'm well aware of the possibility of thousands 'there' because that's what the revealed word of suite101 claimed. Possibly falsely. :)
When will your "new" media be old? False advertising?
Brian:
<b>I can attest, from the Suite page view info I have access to, that many (not all) of these discussion threads are read by a lot of people - a couple hundred hits or more (unique) each month in some cases.</b>
Maybe 'here' means 'over there' for you...and whatever the quality of a hit for you, who cares as long as you're hit?
Jan 19, 2008 7:51 AM
Pink :
.
You seem to do a good job of keeping your bread buttered on both sides.
.
It's almost admirable.
.
I've never been able to do that.
.
:)
.
Brian seems to be a regular even though he spreads his butter too thin and on more than two sides. heh heh heh (Is he an over achiever?)
.
He does have responsibilities to Suite101 to monitor every thread at his site in case anyone didn't know that.
.
Jan 19, 2008 3:34 PM
redback :
Who knows what your "butter" comment meant...but it never actually happens in my place or my mind. :)
<i>"He does have responsibilities to Suite101 to monitor every thread at his site in case anyone didn't know that."</i>
I'm sure you had a mysterious purpose for including that comment. ABC :)
Jan 19, 2008 3:57 PM
Pink :
.
You seem to have ulterior motives. Want to talk about that?
.
:)
.
I wrote, "[Brian] does have responsibilities to Suite101 to monitor every thread at his site in case anyone didn't know that."
.
And, you responded with, <i>I'm sure you had a mysterious purpose for including that comment.</i>
.
I only meant that he was a "regular" as you say and that it makes four of us.
.
You can make of it whatever you like.
.
Jan 19, 2008 5:43 PM
redback :
You have added "make believe" to your eclectic mix...and I played along. So, you missed my ABC and smilie?
<b>"You seem to have ulterior motives. Want to talk about that?"</b>
Dear Pinky! <b>ABC</b> :) :) You now want to isolate one word 'regular' for dissection from my original post? You now agree with me...despite your conflicting earlier post...there are very few who are regulars here? You now understand my posts sufficient to believe them of ulterior purpose?
And you don't wonder why I'm confused with you?
I'm currently making believe you're really Brian...and I understand you better! TIC ABC :) :)
For the record, here's the full quote you and Brian so "carefully" dissected out of context. I appreciate '3' and 'regular' are far easier concepts to tackle but to do so really stuffs up what I was saying. "You do see that?" to coin a phrase?
<i>"In reality, there's only 3 regulars here <b>now..all trying to discuss things with each other. None of us exhorting the values of Protestantism...in any real way...except for any residual value in questioning</b>."</i>
If Brian believes he fits the described group...tis confusing but it's up to him. If Brian thinks he's in regular <b>discussion</b> with me...it's up to him. But for me, while he is here frequently and I read all his posts and articles...tis not the same thing IMO.
Yours in conspiracies. TIC
Jan 19, 2008 6:29 PM
Pink :
.
Somehow this place reminds me of a cookoo nest.
.
:)
.
Jan 19, 2008 6:30 PM
Brian Tubbs :
I suppose there are DEGREES of regularity. Some are more regular than others.
Wow. I realize I'm opening myself up for some humor and wisecracks on that one. :) Unintended double meanings.
Jan 19, 2008 6:33 PM
Pink :
.
Don't feel bad.
.
Did you ever hear the Woody Woodpecker Song?
.
http://woodpeckersfromspace.ytmnd.com/
.
I have learned to laugh at myself.
.
Jan 19, 2008 7:58 PM
redback :
OK...slowly now...let's now totally re-focus...on...'regularity'. A 5-syllable word over here but how many syllables would your President use and would he use the term in context? :)
Crikey...I was hoping you guys would either want to dissect the word 'dissect' or try to respond to some of the substantive issues. But I have no faith you would want to do either.
Pink: A brilliant movie - 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest'. Some people laughed through it while I thought it predominantly sad. highly recommended if you haven't seen it. But tis a pity we mainly discuss the how of our dialogue, rather than the topic itself.
It is not beyond my ken that thousands of people "here" within this topic, may be hanging on my every word for the immeasurable joy it may bring them. Please note no further discussion will be entered into by me on what has now become a Yank-wank.
RIP topic.
ABC
37 Comments
