Sola Scriptura

[Pilgrim's Progeny]

I am not pointing the finger at any one person, but where does Sola Scriptura fit in exactly in our discussions on the board. When by definition all members of the board are subscriptionists. I often here people say they are bound by no creed or confession.

Where is the line between being a subscriber and not being bound by confession or creed? Or do we have such a distinction on this board?

 

[AV1611]

A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura

 

[Contra_Mundum]

We are supposed to use these Confessions as a basis for our unity and discussions. Because they are not the Bible they may not bind our consciences directly. And because there are differences in them, we have points of disagreement. But there is much unanimity in them, and they state generally what it is we think the Bible teaches.

We tell people here: don't advocate for things here on the PB that go CONTRARY to the articles we professed to hold in common when we joined the board. So, a "four-point calvinist", if he were allowed into membership in the first place, shouldn't try to argue for that position here. It is outside of the bounds of our conversation. There are other boards, other venues to try to convince people of that position.

 

[DTK]

I am not pointing the finger at any one person, but where does Sola Scriptura fit in exactly in our discussions on the board. When by definition all members of the board are subscriptionists. I often here people say they are bound by no creed or confession.

Just offering something to think about, but you might want to be more careful when posing your question not to suggest that confessional subscription is a contradiction of or to be contrasted with the principle of sola Scriptura. When people say (or really claim) to be bound by no creed or confession, I do not think they have properly thought through such a claim. For instance, what they profess to believe about the Bible being the sole infallible authority for faith and practice - is itself a creed (belief) or confession to which they recognize their conscience must be bound.

When we confess to be a confessional church, we are confessing our agreement that our confession is, what we believe to be, the best expression of the teaching of Holy Scripture. Those who hold to the "me and my Bible" position fail to realize that 1) they inevitably apply their own personal interpretations to the adjudication of doctrinal and moral controversies, and 2) such a position runs the risk of pure subjectivity based on the bias of what particular exegete deems to be the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture.

Where is the line between being a subscriber and not being bound by confession or creed? Or do we have such a distinction on this board?

If there is such a distinction to be made, then it seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. Those of us who are subscriptionists are careful (at least we ought to be) to make the distinction that Holy Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, and that our confessions themselves (that is, our subordinate standards, such as the Westminster Confession together with the catechisms) are not infallible. Holy Scripture is what norms our confessional standards, but Holy Scripture cannot be normed by them.

DTK

 

[Hippo]

I am not pointing the finger at any one person, but where does Sola Scriptura fit in exactly in our discussions on the board. When by definition all members of the board are subscriptionists. I often here people say they are bound by no creed or confession.

Where is the line between being a subscriber and not being bound by confession or creed? Or do we have such a distinction on this board?

Confessions and creeds only have value in so far as they represent the churches understanding of divine revelation.

We should not be bound by our own understanding but by the churches understanding, such as that expressed in our creeds and confessions.

This can be difficult i.e. what is the church, what about conflicting doctrinal statements, why were the reformers free to disagree with the Roman doctrines etc, but who said life would be easy.