The Danger of Sola Scriptura - from bible.org

[BrianBowman]

Check out C. Michael Patton's article

 

[LadyFlynt]

good...thanks!

 

[CalsFarmer]

Patton has no idea what he believes.....

 

[BrianBowman]

He certainly is approaching the subject from "the dipsy angle".

 

[BobVigneault]

Hmmmmm,

1. You cannot subscribe to a confession without giving up your intellectual conviction? Sola absurdum.

2. He does like pictures of himself. Sola pictorum.

3. He's not afraid to revise and be innovative with history. Sola imaginatum.

4. Well, he IS a master of theology. Sola what?

5. He would have prospered well in the period of the Judges. "and each man did what he thought was right in his own eyes". Sola mio!

 

[blhowes]

It was interesting to follow the Discuss this Article Here link and read the discussion about the article. One of the posters mentioned that the danger is not sola scriptura, but solo scriptura. It sounds like that's what Mr. Patton is warning about.

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by blhowes]

 

[Bladestunner316]

mazdetail,
You cracked me up when you said "sola what?"

 

[bond-servant]

Originally posted by maxdetail
Hmmmmm,

1. You cannot subscribe to a confession without giving up your intellectual conviction? Sola absurdum.

2. He does like pictures of himself. Sola pictorum.

3. He's not afraid to revise and be innovative with history. Sola imaginatum.

4. Well, he IS a master of theology. Sola what?

5. He would have prospered well in the period of the Judges. "and each man did what he thought was right in his own eyes". Sola mio!

Right on!

 

[LadyFlynt]

Okay, maybe I missed something.

At first I was ticked as I read his article...till the end...he says that the sola scriptura is worthy and neccessary with the adverse being a turning over of our minds to others. Was there something I missed?

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Okay, maybe I missed something.

At first I was ticked as I read his article...till the end...he says that the sola scriptura is worthy and neccessary with the adverse being a turning over of our minds to others. Was there something I missed?

I thought his example at the end was good.

For example, I believe that the Definition of Chalcedon (451) is true in its representation of the dual natures of Christ to the point that I could accurately be described as a Chalcedonian Christian. But I don't believe it is infallible. I simply believe it accurately represents infallible Scripture.

That sounds like the way most reformed Christians (on this board, anyway) view the confessions. Maybe his impression of reformed people is that they only believe things because their elders and confessions teach it, without checking it out for themselves.

[Edited on 11-10-2005 by blhowes]

 

[LadyFlynt]

That's what I got out of it...that it's good as long as you continue to hold the confessions up to the word and not just hold the confessions in place of the word.

 

[BlackCalvinist]

So why don't some of us jump out of our reformed huddle here and correct the poor misled Dispensationalists ?

 

[Archlute]

Originally posted by maxdetail

2. He does like pictures of himself. Sola pictorum.

 

[Bladestunner316]

 

[Joseph Ringling]

Originally posted by OS_X
So why don't some of us jump out of our reformed huddle here and correct the poor misled Dispensationalists ?

How do you know that we're not?