Endless disputes; that is my "pet peeve". Pick a topic, find one who opposes your view and both are firm in their opinion and there's the recipe for endless disputes. Chat forums, such as this, lead to many such endless disputes. As an example, were I to state that "Sola scriptura is not explicitly taught in holy scripture nor is it explicitly taught by the Catholic Church or by holy tradition and so ought to be either rejected or approached with great caution because it is not taught by the Catholic Church" a runaway endless dispute would very likely begin
If it's YOUR statement, the "burden of proof" is on YOU, but of course, what happens is that you will repeat it - over and over and over and over and over, as endless din - never once indicating you give a rip as to whether your position is actually true.
And what you are apt to do is take the position of ANOTHER and falsely state it (as here, since Sola Scriptura CANNOT be taught - it's impossible - Sola Scriptura is a PRACTICE and thus
cannot be taught, it can only be done or not done) - THIS is a great problem, a strawman is invented and the inventor refuses to accept that it is false, so a FALSE concept is presented and thus corrected but to no avail. "I'M claiming I'M uniquely incapable of being wrong so I'M incapable of being wrong thus I'M not wrong - no matter how much it is shown otherwise" For example, Catholics are shown - over and over and over and over and over - their strawman they call "Sola Scriptura" is false but they don't care, don't give a rip, it's ENTIRELY moot to them because some RCC teacher said it and thus they swallow it and not even God in heaven above can tell them otherwise. Yup, THAT leads to endless, fruitless discussions.
There is always TWO issues: the position and its status. For example, IF the RCC had left its new, unique position of Transubstantiation/Accidents as ONE POSSIBLE THEORY or POSSIBLE explanation (as those medieval, western, Roman "scholastics" intended and as it was in Luther's day), then there would be little problem: you could choose to accept it, I could choose not to. But in 1551, a few years after Luther's death, the singular, individual, particular, unique RC Denomination made it DOGMA, a "line drawn in the sand" as a statement of highest importance and certainty, mandated to accept, associated with salvation - and suddently, we had a whole new enchlildada. Indeed, MUCH of the "division" between Catholicism and Lutheranism for example is not so much Catholic positions but the STATUS the individual RC Denomination NOW gives them. Catholics thus need to defend both the view AND its status - but they never do, they evade (like the Plague) that second issue, they WILL NOT discuss it.
But you see: here's the central issue: It's IMPOSSIBLE to discuss the issue of truth with those to whom truth is irrelevant, moot, immaterial - with those who replace the entire issue of Truth with docilic obedience to a single, individual church, denomination, sect, cult, teacher among us. The discussion becomes fruitless since for that person, whether the position is true or not is a point they've never considered and couldn't possibly care less about, their sole issue of whether they are docilicly swallowing and accurately echoing whatever their individual denomination/sect/cult/church is telling them 'cuz it itself is. Rarely does one question that they are accurately echoing, parroting the position but rather whether it is TRUE but that discussion is entirely irrelevant to the one for whom Truth is irrelevant, entirely displaced by another rubric: whether self is docilicly swallowing whatever their individual denomination says and accurating parroting it. THIS is why discussion of truth with some is fruitless.
Thank you.
Pax
- Josiah
