• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I just ordered this book

it's just me said:
Then you haven't been listening very hard. You don't learn much talking to people who agree with you all the time.
Click to expand...

Ok ... show me someone who has ever defined sola scriptura another way?

I mean that's just THE definition, if you don't like it, then you don't believe in Sola Scriptura ....

Sola (ONLY) Scriptura (Scripture) ... if you add tradition there then Guess what ... it's not ONLY scripture.
 
RGacky3 said:
Ok ... show me someone who has ever defined sola scriptura another way?
Click to expand...

The guy wrote a book about it. You know, you are not the center of the known universe.
 
it's just me said:
The guy wrote a book about it. You know, you are not the center of the known universe.
Click to expand...

So the guy basically just made up his own definition of Sola-Scriptura .... and then called the classical definition of Sola scriptura, the kind that everyone has always used from the reformation until now "Solo Sciptura" which is just a way of saying sola scriptura in a grammatically wrong way ... and they he pretends that this is an actual category in theology (which it isn't), and that Sola-Scriptura actually means something totally different then what it has always meant.

Why should anyone take this seriously.

No, Sola Scriptura means ONLY scripture, literally, if you don't believe it, then Guess what .... you don't believe in Sola Scriptura.
 
RGacky3 said:
Why should anyone take this seriously.
Click to expand...

For the same reason anybody should take you seriously, you're just another guy with an opinion, except you don't make money off of yours.

Matheson is a professional theologian and has identified several positions people have taken on "Sola Scriptura":

1. "Tradition I" - espoused sole, one-source revelation (Scriptura alone); Mathison argues that this was the position taken by the Magisterial Reformers who wanted to take the position of the early Church; they believed that the Canon was compiled by the early Church to prevent its tradition from meandering from orthodoxy; Canon is to be final infallible authority; "although Scripture is the sole infalliable authority, it must be interpreted by the Church within the boundaries of the ancient rule of faith or regula fidei" (Mathison 147); tradition is in subordination to Scripture and it must coincide with Scripture (e.g. the Ecumenical Creeds).

2. "Tradition II" - espoused two-source revelation—Scripture and Tradition—which was dogmatized in Council of Trent in the 15th Century (one that allows for an extra-scriptural revelation as equally authoritative as Scripture itself); Mathison posits that this was the position of Tridentine (Roman) Catholicism.

3. "Tradition III" - Scripture and Tradition are interpreted by the Magisterium with the dogma of papal infallibility from Vatican I (1870); known as "sola ekklesia"; Mathison asserts that this is the position of modern-day Roman Catholicism.

4. "Tradition 0" - position taken by Radical Reformers and many modern-day evangelicals, stripping all ecumenical creeds and church heritage and history to follow Bible only; (which includes demoting Jesus to human or angel status) termed in Mathison's book as "solo scriptura"; Mathison notes that this position can be sometimes mistaken by being linked with Tradition I.
 
it's just me said:
For the same reason anybody should take you seriously, you're just another guy with an opinion, except you don't make money off of yours.

Matheson is a professional theologian and has identified several positions people have taken on "Sola Scriptura":

1. "Tradition I" - espoused sole, one-source revelation (Scriptura alone); Mathison argues that this was the position taken by the Magisterial Reformers who wanted to take the position of the early Church; they believed that the Canon was compiled by the early Church to prevent its tradition from meandering from orthodoxy; Canon is to be final infallible authority; "although Scripture is the sole infalliable authority, it must be interpreted by the Church within the boundaries of the ancient rule of faith or regula fidei" (Mathison 147); tradition is in subordination to Scripture and it must coincide with Scripture (e.g. the Ecumenical Creeds).

2. "Tradition II" - espoused two-source revelation—Scripture and Tradition—which was dogmatized in Council of Trent in the 15th Century (one that allows for an extra-scriptural revelation as equally authoritative as Scripture itself); Mathison posits that this was the position of Tridentine (Roman) Catholicism.

3. "Tradition III" - Scripture and Tradition are interpreted by the Magisterium with the dogma of papal infallibility from Vatican I (1870); known as "sola ekklesia"; Mathison asserts that this is the position of modern-day Roman Catholicism.

4. "Tradition 0" - position taken by Radical Reformers and many modern-day evangelicals, stripping all ecumenical creeds and church heritage and history to follow Bible only; (which includes demoting Jesus to human or angel status) termed in Mathison's book as "solo scriptura"; Mathison notes that this position can be sometimes mistaken by being linked with Tradition I.
Click to expand...

tradition I is what most christian churches follow. that the bible is the sole authority on God and the scriptures.
 
ludin said:
tradition I is what most christian churches follow. that the bible is the sole authority on God and the scriptures.
Click to expand...

You couldn't prove it by reading this forum.
 
it's just me said:
You couldn't prove it by reading this forum.
Click to expand...

have to remember that there is a mix of catholic, LDS, mormon etc all of which fall into one of those catagories.

most church i have been in and the one that i follow is tradition 1.
 
Well, no. Most Christians are Catholic and they don't follow that. And I'm not even throwing in the Mormons.


ludin said:
tradition I is what most christian churches follow. that the bible is the sole authority on God and the scriptures.
Click to expand...
 
TobyOne said:
Well, no. Most Christians are Catholic and they don't follow that. And I'm not even throwing in the Mormons.
Click to expand...

yep catholics fall into catagories 2 of the catagories at least. for me the bible is cannon anything that anyone tries to say that stands outside of that is not correct.
if someone says Jesus was not God or JEsus was an angel.
or i have to go to a priest and ask for forgiveness.

i simply ask them to show me where that is biblical and move on.
 
ludin said:
yep catholics fall into catagories 2 of the catagories at least. for me the bible is cannon anything that anyone tries to say that stands outside of that is not correct.
if someone says Jesus was not God or JEsus was an angel.
or i have to go to a priest and ask for forgiveness.

i simply ask them to show me where that is biblical and move on.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody needs other than Jesus to intercede, but then there is also John 20:23's statement about how if the Apostles forgive sins, they are forgiven.
 
The Church created the Bible, the Bible didn't create the Church

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
 
it's just me said:
For the same reason anybody should take you seriously, you're just another guy with an opinion, except you don't make money off of yours.

Matheson is a professional theologian and has identified several positions people have taken on "Sola Scriptura":

1. "Tradition I" - espoused sole, one-source revelation (Scriptura alone); Mathison argues that this was the position taken by the Magisterial Reformers who wanted to take the position of the early Church; they believed that the Canon was compiled by the early Church to prevent its tradition from meandering from orthodoxy; Canon is to be final infallible authority; "although Scripture is the sole infalliable authority, it must be interpreted by the Church within the boundaries of the ancient rule of faith or regula fidei" (Mathison 147); tradition is in subordination to Scripture and it must coincide with Scripture (e.g. the Ecumenical Creeds).

2. "Tradition II" - espoused two-source revelation—Scripture and Tradition—which was dogmatized in Council of Trent in the 15th Century (one that allows for an extra-scriptural revelation as equally authoritative as Scripture itself); Mathison posits that this was the position of Tridentine (Roman) Catholicism.

3. "Tradition III" - Scripture and Tradition are interpreted by the Magisterium with the dogma of papal infallibility from Vatican I (1870); known as "sola ekklesia"; Mathison asserts that this is the position of modern-day Roman Catholicism.

4. "Tradition 0" - position taken by Radical Reformers and many modern-day evangelicals, stripping all ecumenical creeds and church heritage and history to follow Bible only; (which includes demoting Jesus to human or angel status) termed in Mathison's book as "solo scriptura"; Mathison notes that this position can be sometimes mistaken by being linked with Tradition I.
Click to expand...

1. Tradition 0 is the definition of Sola Scriptura.

2. Tradition's 1-3 has NEVER BEEN CALLED Sola scriptura .... The different "sola" terms were invented by the reformers, this is just historically accurate ... if you want to show me where Tradition 1-3 have been called Sola-scriptura historically then show me .... They are not.

THis is just missuse of Language.

Show me where tradition 1-3 have ever been called sola-scriptura historically ... where some writer defined sola scriptura as one of those traditions. (you won't find it).
 
RGacky3 said:
1. Tradition 0 is the definition of Sola Scriptura.
Click to expand...

Which positions the people who adhere to it at odds with the early church, who didn't even have the NT to refer to, since it was still being written. If you are going to take that tack you should be using the Septuagint as your Bible.
 
ludin said:
have to remember that there is a mix of catholic, LDS, mormon etc all of which fall into one of those catagories.

most church i have been in and the one that i follow is tradition 1.
Click to expand...

LDS and Mormons are the same outfit. They are closer to Tradition 0, which is the same as Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not part of the historic Church.
 
it's just me said:
Which positions the people who adhere to it at odds with the early church, who didn't even have the NT to refer to, since it was still being written. If you are going to take that tack you should be using the Septuagint as your Bible.
Click to expand...

Have you read the actual theories of sola scriptura from the reformers and the later theologians? I.e. the reasoning behind it?
 
RGacky3 said:
Have you read the actual theories of sola scriptura from the reformers and the later theologians? I.e. the reasoning behind it?
Click to expand...

Yes, have you?
 
ChezC3 said:
The Church created the Bible, the Bible didn't create the Church

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
Click to expand...

Wrong Christ told Peter that he would be the rock on which he would build his church.
the church existed before the bible was even made.
 
ludin said:
Wrong Christ told Peter that he would be the rock on which he would build his church.
the church existed before the bible was even made.
Click to expand...

:lamo

That's what I said...

:roll:
 
ludin said:
tradition I is what most christian churches follow. that the bible is the sole authority on God and the scriptures.
Click to expand...

In Tradition 1, the scriptures ARE the tradition.
 
RGacky3 said:
Have you read the actual theories of sola scriptura from the reformers and the later theologians? I.e. the reasoning behind it?
Click to expand...

This author makes a good case that both Martin Luther and John Calvin (the real reformers, not the "radical reformer" crackpots who came after them) believed in Tradition 1, which is the position that the early Church took - scripture IS the tradition, and scripture was written to protect the tradition of the NT church from Gnostics and other heretics, and that scripture is best understood in the context of the Apostolic faith. This has already been pointed out.

This confirms yet again something that I have known for quite some time - Protestantism has been going down the tubes almost since it began,the most extreme examples having devolved (for some) into a total rejection of history, scripture, tradition, AND the church. That is the "Tradition 0" the author speaks of.

Tradition 0 proponents apparently see themselves as the final arbiter of what scripture says and means despite what the apostles, the early church fathers, and even their own "reformers" wrote.
 
Last edited:
it's just me said:
This author makes a good case that both Martin Luther and John Calvin (the real reformers, not the "radical reformer" crackpots who came after them) believed in Tradition 1, which is the position that the early Church took - scripture IS the tradition, and scripture was written to protect the tradition of the NT church from Gnostics and other heretics, and that scripture is best understood in the context of the Apostolic faith. This has already been pointed out.

This confirms yet again something that I have known for quite some time - Protestantism has been going down the tubes almost since it began,the most extreme examples having devolved (for some) into a total rejection of history, scripture, tradition, AND the church. That is the "Tradition 0" the author speaks of.
Click to expand...

That's a distinction without a difference.

Of coarse from a historical perspective I believe there were oral traditions before the gospels (for example) were written ... But that doesn't make the tradition canon, only the scripture which is "breathed by God" is Canon.

Now the destinction is between Tradition 1 and Tradition 0 is only who interperates what ....

Is the tradition post scripture infallable? If not, how do we know what is and what is not? We know that by comparing it to scripture, if we interperate scripture based on tradition you're open to fallability, because the tradition is fallable, so you interperate scripture, by scripture, as well as it's historical context and so on.

Tradition 1 leads logically to Tradition 0.
 
RGacky3 said:
That's a distinction without a difference.

Of coarse from a historical perspective I believe there were oral traditions before the gospels (for example) were written ... But that doesn't make the tradition canon, only the scripture which is "breathed by God" is Canon.

Now the destinction is between Tradition 1 and Tradition 0 is only who interperates what ....

Is the tradition post scripture infallable? If not, how do we know what is and what is not? We know that by comparing it to scripture, if we interperate scripture based on tradition you're open to fallability, because the tradition is fallable, so you interperate scripture, by scripture, as well as it's historical context and so on.

Tradition 1 leads logically to Tradition 0.
Click to expand...

Once again, the scripture IS the tradition, the apostolic tradition and faith. Trying to separate the two is what gets people into trouble. When you interpret the scripture according to the Apostolic faith you are on solid ground.
 
it's just me said:
Once again, the scripture IS the tradition, the apostolic tradition and faith. Trying to separate the two is what gets people into trouble. When you interpret the scripture according to the Apostolic faith you are on solid ground.
Click to expand...

Ok, it's just semantics, scripture is tradition but it is infallable.

The Apostolic faith (whatever that is) is NOT infallable, unless it's from scripture, we get the apostolic teaching from the bible. Not from Thomas Aquinas, not from Augustine.
 
RGacky3 said:
Ok, it's just semantics, scripture is tradition but it is infallable.

The Apostolic faith (whatever that is) is NOT infallable, unless it's from scripture, we get the apostolic teaching from the bible. Not from Thomas Aquinas, not from Augustine.
Click to expand...

Let me put it another way: the Church is part of the apostolic tradition, it didn't die when the apostles did. The apostles started churches everywhere, which is still part of the apostolic tradition. This is a true historical fact, found in scripture as well as tradition. You can't deny apostolic tradition on one hand and claim to argue from it on the other, The apostolic faith (and you should know what that is if you are going to argue about it) is set forth in scripture, so if you are going to claim scripture is infallible then you have to concede that the apostolic faith is infallible. That means that the faith is infallible whether or not you agree with the men who practice it. What I mean by that is if you want to argue with Aquinas, fine. If you want to disclaim and disqualify the Church, not fine.

In other words, the Church is still Christ's teaching institution on earth. Disagree with her teachers, not with her existence. She is as valid as your scriptures are. Sooner or later her teachers will sort things out, like they did at the Nicene Council.
 
it's just me said:
Let me put it another way: the Church is part of the apostolic tradition, it didn't die when the apostles did. The apostles started churches everywhere, which is still part of the apostolic tradition. This is a true historical fact, found in scripture as well as tradition. You can't deny apostolic tradition on one hand and claim to argue from it on the other, The apostolic faith (and you should know what that is if you are going to argue about it) is set forth in scripture, so if you are going to claim scripture is infallible then you have to concede that the apostolic faith is infallible. That means that the faith is infallible whether or not you agree with the men who practice it. What I mean by that is if you want to argue with Aquinas, fine. If you want to disclaim and disqualify the Church, not fine.

In other words, the Church is still Christ's teaching institution on earth. Disagree with her teachers, not with her existence. She is as valid as your scriptures are. Sooner or later her teachers will sort things out, like they did at the Nicene Council.
Click to expand...

Yeah, apostolic tradition ended up in Arianism, Nestorianism, Marcianism, Monophysitism and so on and so froth .... It ended up With all sorts of stuff.

It Depends what you mean by the apostolic faith ... what are you refering to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom