"Sola Scriptura" - The Rule of Scripture in Norming

[Josiah]

Why Scripture?


In epistemology (regardless of discipline), the most sound norma normans is usually regarded as the most objective, most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose. My degree is in physics. Our norma normans is math and repeatable, objective, laborative evidence. Me saying, "what I think is the norm for what I think" will be instantly disregarded as evidential since it's circular. I would need to evidence and substantiate my view with a norm fully OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND me - something objective and knowable. This is what The Handbook of the Catholic Faith proclaims (page 136), "The Bible is the very words of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God Himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.... the authority of the Bible flows directly from the Author of the Bible who is God; it is authoritative because the Author is." Those that accept the Rule of Scripture tend to agree. It's embrace as the most sound Rule flows from our common embrace of Scripture as the inscriptured words of God for God is the ultimate authority.

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very, very, broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

It is knowable by all and alterable by none. We can all see the very words of Romans 3:25 for example, they are black letters on a white page - knowable! And they are unalterable. I can't change what is on the page in Romans 3:25, nor can any other; what is is.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming ( the RCC and LDS, for example ) have no better alternative (something more inspired, more inerrant, more ecumenically/historically embraced by all parties, more objectively knowable, more unalterable), they have no alternative that is clearly more sound for this purpose among us.

To simply embrace the teachings of self (sometimes denominational "tradition" or "confession") as the rule/canon is simply self looking in the mirror at self - self almost always reveals self. In communist Cuba, Castro agrees with Castro - it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Castro is correct. We need a Rule outside, beyond, above self.




Why do the RCC, LDS and additionally also the "cults" so passionately reject this practice?


Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative. Rather the rejection tends to be because each rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone. From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Catholic Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." IF self declares that self is unaccountable and that self is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes entirely irrelevant (for itself). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by itself for itself, exclusively).

This is probably THE most rejected, repudiated, condemned practice in Protestantism by the Roman Catholic Denomination. But typically, strawmen are created then destroyed - all the hide the real issue, the real thing the RCC so passionately, so foundationally rejects: accountability of it itself exclusively.




- Josiah





.

 

[Josiah]

MoreCoffee,

Arbitration will often be a part of this evaluative process (part 3 of it), but it is IMPOSSIBLE and cannot even be considered until and unless the first 2 parts are considered. It's irrelevant and fruitless and impossible to have any arbitration at all unless it is first determined if the parties involved in the dispute are accountable AND specifically WHAT will be used as the norma normans, the rule. Of course, the RCC and LDS (and additionallly also all "cult" known to me) "bail" on the first point - insisting that all others are fully accountable but there is ONE (and just one) who is fully, completely exempt (itself) because it itself insists that it itself can't be wrong (in official, formal doctrine AT LEAST). See the above two posts and the opening post.

Again, here are the 3 essential steps in norming:

1. All parties involved in the dispute are regarded as ACCOUNTABLE - potentially wrong. This is the step the RCC and LDS reject (exemption one from such: self)
2. A common rule, standard, norma normans is embraced. The sole, only and exclusive issue of the Rule of Scripture (Sola Scriptura)
3. A common arbitration process accepted by all parties.


MoreCoffee, as a Catholic, it is critical to skip the first 2 steps - and so that's what you are trying to do. But it only makes the third step impossible, irrelevant and meaningless. If self alone simply looks in the mirror at ONE it alone insists is incapable of being wrong, there is only one outcome and NOTHING is resolved or CAN be resolved which is the whole purpose - to lock all into disagreement and protect self alone from any accountability.



Back to the subject of the thread....



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

.

 

[Josiah]

The answer is that holy scripture cannot serve as the rule by which a dispute about credobaptism Vs paedobaptism is decided.

1. Read the 3 posts above yours. Evidently you entirely missed the point about arbitration (perhaps you didn't read those posts - you've admitted you often don't read posts to you - or just choose to evade it). Let me use this illustration (I admit I've used it MANY times before to you but... again.... you've told me several times you often don't read what is posted to you): The RULE OF LAW establishes the words of the written law as the canon in disputes in civil behavior - it does NOT provide the arbitration. You really to end your absurd confusion about that. But there can be no arbitration AT ALL unless and until there is FIRST the established Rule (a point you HOPE we'll forget). Read posts 20, 21 and 22 Don't skip over the red font, either.


2. IF this thread were about Arbitration (and it's not - as a Catholic you just NEED to evade the entirely to this issue, as you persistently do), IF it were about arbitration, it would be admitted that HUMAN ARBITRATION according to inerrant Scripture is not ergo inerrant.... No one claims that human decisions are inerrant (well, the RCC and LDS claim that SELF as institutions are). And of course, there will be issues where it might be arbitrated that Scripture is not sufficiently clear to permit a clear arbitration. OF course, the same is true of any rule. But again, as a Catholic, you NEED to evade the issue of Accountability (your denomination's rejection of it no doubt embarrasses you) and you NEED to dodge the issue of the best Rule (because you have no better alternative and as a Catholic it's irrelevant anyway since you denomination rejects accountability) so you TRY to hijack the discussion to the third step (which you shouldn't because the RCC rejects that TOO)

If you want to set the holy scriptures as the final arbiter

Ah. You admit you often don't read what is posted to you. This proves your point. You just ignore it. Try READING the opening post - actually READING it, you know, the written WORDS on the page. If y0u had (ever) you could not have written such an absurd, silly sentence as you did, especially after I just posted 3 posts to show you this has NOTHING to do with arbitrartion (final or otherwise). Try READING posts #1, 20, 21, 22. A whole world of understanding will unfold for you - a real epiphany may result!

Of course, obviously, undeniable - because you are Catholic - you MUST reject all of this, we know that - your denomination (and also the LDS one as well as every "cult" known to me) all reject all of this for the identical same reason (I quoted your denomination on this) it itself rejects accountability - the first step in the process - and in lieu of that, in place of that, in stead of that, it itself simply foundationally insists that it itself uniquely can't be wrong (conditionally) - rendering the ENTIRE issue of truth irrelevant.




Back to the issue of this thread: The best rule for norming.




- Josiah



.

 

[popsthebuilder]

What seems to be called norming here reminds me of how we are told in scripture to test the works and words of man. Seems right on point to me. But it seems that very many different views can be said to be backed scripturally, so the question goes from do you use scripture to verify a thing, to how do you know in what way or direction to interpret said scripture. One must have a constant in order to rightly discern I think. I also think that constant is taught and shown in the teachings and example of the Christ, Jesus.

Peace

 

[MoreCoffee]

.

 

[Rens]

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

 

[popsthebuilder]

And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Awesome!

 

[Josiah]

Christ is the norm by which all other things are measured. Christ is the rule of interpreting the holy scriptures. Christ is the way to heaven. He is the truth. discerning him in our lives, teaching, worship is the only way to do what is right. The only way to get it right. Yet if we rely on inner voices, urges, leadings, feelings we know that divisions will arise. If we rely on what is written we know that divisions will arise. If we separate one from another when we disagree we know that divisions will arise, deepen, and become settled, permanent. Who will discern? Individuals, communities, the whole church, leaders, a leader? The way one answers will decide if one accepts divisions and participates in them.

Undeniable proof you are totally evading everything this thread is about.... or have simply never read a word of it.

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #14 on Page 2, Josiah presented:

Then WHAT specifically do you regard as a better norm for us to use when evaluating conflicting dogmas among us? What specifically do you regard as MORE objectively knowable, MORE reliable for theology, MORE inerrant, MORE inspired by God, MORE universally accepted by all parties in the debate? What "trumps" Scripture as the best norm for this process? What is your alternative?

And in Post #15 on the same page (the very next post), he repeated those questions, and added (whatever it is supposed to mean):

Bump especially for Pedrito

Note the individual questions (below) – questions asked by someone who refers to church councils for authority regarding church doctrines (but not all church councils) – questions aimed at someone who constantly upholds God’s Holy Revelation (Scripture) as being the only source of authority regarding things spiritual, and continually promotes the proper, in-context reading and evaluation of that Scripture.

==============================================================================================

"Then WHAT specifically do you regard as a better norm for us to use when evaluating conflicting dogmas among us?”

Obviously, the Bible as God had it written, as I have been saying all along. Were it considered seriously and obeyed, the “conflicting dogmas” would be overridden.

“What specifically do you regard as MORE objectively knowable, MORE reliable for theology, MORE inerrant, MORE inspired by God, MORE universally accepted by all parties in the debate?”

I consider nothing to be more objectively knowable regarding spiritual matters, or more inerrant, or more inspired by God, than the unadulterated Bible.

Nor is there anything more reliable for “theology”. However, when the simple yet comprehensive, internally consistent, message from God is permitted to unfold via the consideration of nothing but in-context Scripture, the need for “theology” disappears. Everything is simple and easily understood. God designed it that way.

And as for “MORE universally accepted by all parties in the debate”. That can only be considered to be a deliberately deceptive statement. Josiah knows full well that the Bible is not universally accepted by all parties in the debate. Were it so, there would be no divisions. Human "theology" has been given preeminence.

“What "trumps" Scripture as the best norm for this process?”

Another statement that can be considered to be deceptive. Josiah well knows that my perspective has always been that God’s Holy Scripture trumps all else.

“What is your alternative?”

How can one answer a question like that? How can such a question be sensibly asked of a person who has constantly promoted God’s Inspired Revelation as being the unique, stand-alone source of all God-given spiritual wisdom? Not even as an alternative among other possibilities (including post-apostolic “church councils”).

==============================================================================================


I therefore restate, regarding the “Sola Scriptura” flag that is waved by persons and organisations who in fact pay only lip service to God’s Holy Revelation when it suits them:

"Sola Scriptura"? "My foot!"

 

[Josiah]

"Then WHAT specifically do you regard as a better norm for us to use when evaluating conflicting dogmas among us?”

Obviously, the Bible

That's called "Sola Scriptura." I'm glad we're on the same page.

I consider nothing to be more objectively knowable regarding spiritual matters, or more inerrant, or more inspired by God

Me, too.

Josiah knows full well that the Bible is not universally accepted by all parties in the debate.

Sure, there are "liberals" who accept nothing as reliable. But I think among most, there is the same opinion of Scripture that you and I share. And while the RCC (for example) refuses to use Scripture normatively, this is not AT ALL because it doesn't view Scripture as we do but because it doesn't permit accountability in the sole case of it itself (and thus norming to ANY rule, norm, standard) rather in lieu of this, in place of this, in stead of this, all are to regard it itself individually and uniquely as infallible/unaccountable (conditionally) and just swallow with docility whatever it itself alone currently says cuz it itself currently does. THAT's why it rejects Scripture in norming - not because it has a lower opinion/view of Scripture than others.

"Sola Scriptura"? "My foot!"

Then what is your alternative rule? What do you regard as MORE inspired by God, MORE objectively knowable by all (black and white words), MORE inerrant, MORE reliable? If not Scripture, what?




- Josiah

 

[Pedrito]

Honesty.

How important is it?

For example, in Post #31 on Page 4, Josiah responded to Pedrito’s Post #30 on Page 3. Pedrito’s post, in answer to Josiah’s deceptive questions in Post #14 on Page 2, emphasised the Bible alone as being the sole authority (and not church councils, for instance).

Remember that Josiah has placed great store in nominated “church councils”, and related, evolving, post-apostolic doctrines.

So in Post #31, where Josiah acknowledges Pedrito’s stated stance that the Bible is the only source of truth, by stating that he agrees with Pedrito’s statements, doesn't that acknowledgement appear a little insincere?

Especially since he later repeats his conflicting mantra:

Then what is your alternative rule? What do you regard as MORE inspired by God, MORE objectively knowable by all (black and white words), MORE inerrant, MORE reliable? If not Scripture, what?

==============================================================================================

Also, in response to Pedrito’s “Josiah knows full well that the Bible is not universally accepted by all parties in the debate”, Josiah attempted to divert attention away from the “normal” churches whose divergent teachings expose reliance on “traditions” rather than on the Bible, by focussing on “liberals” and the RCC.

And what are we to make of Pedrito's:

I therefore restate, regarding the “Sola Scriptura” flag that is waved by persons and organisations who in fact pay only lip service to God’s Holy Revelation when it suits them:

"Sola Scriptura"? "My foot!"

being twisted by Josiah (contrary to his prior acknowledgement) thus:

"Sola Scriptura"? "My foot!"

Then what is your alternative rule? What do you regard as MORE inspired by God, MORE objectively knowable by all (black and white words), MORE inerrant, MORE reliable? If not Scripture, what?

Pedrito has said elsewhere that he believes honesty has a prime position in God’s perception of things.

Is that view shared by the Reader?


Continued...

 

[Josiah]

Honesty. How important is it?

Arbitration typically mandates a "norma normans" - the standard, rule, plumbline. If it's not Scripture, then the question becomes: what is it?

Pedrito’s post, in answer to Josiah’s deceptive questions in Post #14 on Page 2, emphasised the Bible alone as being the sole authority

But then you keep stressing, "Sola Scriptura, my foot!" So, while you claim that Scripture is the "sole authority" you seem to passionately and consistently believe it must not be used as the rule in norming. Thus, I've asked - what alternative for that do you suggest? But so far....

So in Post #31, where Josiah acknowledges Pedrito’s stated stance that the Bible is the only source of truth, by stating that he agrees with Pedrito’s statements, doesn't that acknowledgement appear a little insincere?

Not at all. You seem to accept that Scripture is the only "authority" and that's nice, but of course that's not the issue of this thread, the issue is WHAT specifically is to serve as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines.... "Sola Scriptura" says that SCRIPTURE is to serve in that role, that function in that process. But you keep posting, "Sola Scriptura - MY FOOT!"

Also, in response to Pedrito’s Josiah knows full well that the Bible is not universally accepted by all parties in the debate”

I am aware of that. Buddhist, Atheists, etc. certainly would not care what the Christian Scriptures state. It's also true that many "liberals" don't care much. And in Catholicism and Mormonism, it's irrlevant because each of those insist that there is one denomination whose official/formal doctrines are exempt from norming by any norm since each insists that it itself can't be wrong. But again..... what is your alternative? What do YOU see as more inspired, more reliable, more objectively knowable, more accepted, more above/outside the disputing parties? Since you reject Scripture as the rule, what do you propose as the better alternative?

Pedrito has said elsewhere that he believes honesty has a prime position in God’s perception of things.

I think Mormons are typically sincere and "honest" as they view things.... I disagree with you that ERGO they are correct and all in disagreement with them are ergo wrong.






.

 

[Pedrito]

Honesty. Honesty in action.

In Post #33 on Page 4, Josiah made the following statements:

"Arbitration typically mandates a "norma normans" - the standard, rule, plumbline. If it's not Scripture, then the question becomes: what is it?"

"But then you keep stressing, "Sola Scriptura, my foot!" So, while you claim that Scripture is the "sole authority" you seem to passionately and consistently believe it must not be used as the rule in norming. Thus, I've asked - what alternative for that do you suggest? But so far....”

“You seem to accept that Scripture is the only "authority" and that's nice, but of course that's not the issue of this thread, the issue is WHAT specifically is to serve as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines.... "Sola Scriptura" says that SCRIPTURE is to serve in that role, that function in that process. But you keep posting, "Sola Scriptura - MY FOOT!"”

==============================================================================================

As Josiah well knows, but apparently feels compelled to ignore (as does Lämmchen who keeps registering “likes” for Josiah’s posts), Pedrito’s "Sola Scriptura, my foot!" statement is aimed fairly and squarely at the claims by various churches that they are using the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Scriptures alone “as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines”. Those claims are clearly false, because the reason that the “norming” has not been successful is simply because traditions embraced by the individual churches override the plain, in-context statements of that very same Holy Scripture.

Pedrito’s "Sola Scriptura, my foot!" statement is not declaring that Holy Scripture should not be used as the basis for all doctrine and norming, but is simply pointing out that Holy Scripture is not actually being used as the one and only base as is consistently being claimed.

The failure does not lie with Holy Scripture. The failure lies with churches refusing to bow to it.

The fact that they do not so bow, leads to the confusion we now have within Christendom. There can be no other cause. Could it be that the churches would prefer to have that confusion continue, rather than face the possibility that in-context Scripture could expose their deficiencies?

==============================================================================================

“Sola Scriptura”? Pedrito proclaims: Yes!! Yes!! Yes!!

Is it actually being practiced? The inescapable evidence proclaims: No!! No!! No!!


(Let's see if that can be twisted.)

 

[Josiah]

“Sola Scriptura”? Pedrito proclaims: Yes!! Yes!! Yes!!

I see. It might have been clearer if you had posted that instead of "Sola Scriptura? MY FOOT!"


If you were in agreement with the opening post, perhaps it would have been more helpful to understanding if you said you agreed rather than "MY FOOT!" Perhaps????


Oh, well....


Glad you didn't mean "MY FOOT" but "Yes! Yes! Yes!"



Blessings to you....



- Josiah

 

[Pedrito]

…Continued from Post #32 on Page 4


Now that the diversion has been put to bed (Posts 34 and 35 on Page 4), we can at last refocus our attention on the concept and claim of “Sola Scriptura” proclaimed by many non-RCC and non-Orthodox churches.

Pedrito once again presents for consideration (emphasises) that the Bible alone is the sole authority (and not church councils, for instance).

Remember that Josiah more than once has placed great store in nominated “church councils”, and the related, evolving, post-apostolic doctrines. It would seem that the denomination to which he portrays loyalty places similar store in those same councils and emerging tradition-based doctrines.

==============================================================================================

And with respect to “norming” (however expressed), we actually need look no further to see the reason why, after (how many) hundreds of years of discussion among churches spouting the “Sola Scriptura” mantra, nothing has been achieved. Absolutely nothing. Except to agree to disagree. To some extent. No practical resolution has resulted.

And the clear reason is that all those churches, instead of basing their doctrines and practices on in-context Holy Scripture alone, base at least a subset of their doctrines and practices on post-apostolic traditions and understandings. Even “Evangelical” churches.

The problem is that the churches cannot agree on which set of held traditions is correct. Each “Sola Scriptura” church dives back into Holy Scripture looking for ways that its post-apostolic bases can be shown to be scriptural. And isn’t it amazing? They all succeed in doing so! Each church can extract out-of-context statements from the Bible to support its particular perspective. The Bible can be made to support all of them!

==============================================================================================

Did God leave us with a jumbled, confusing, self-contradictory message?

If so, then appealing to the Bible is meaningless because it has no clear-cut message, and God is the author of confusion. The claim of “Sola Scriptura” is therefore meaningless.

If not, then Pedrito’s point is proven, and the “Sola Scriptura” claim made by various churches is actually a sham.

==============================================================================================

Pedrito also deems it lamentable that adherents of various denominations feel it necessary to rely on tactics such as we have seen employed in this thread and others, to shield their established doctrines and practices from the penetrating light of actual, pure, unadulterated “Sola Scriptura” – “Sola Scriptura” in its glorious, truth-filled, God-inspired, in-context originality.

==============================================================================================

Pedrito contends that organisations which cannot claim a “Sola Scriptura” stance with any degree of honesty, can be readily identified. How can that be done?


...Continued


(Pedrito believes that God is not the author of confusion, and that His message to us in the Holy Bible is straightforward and clear.)

 

[Josiah]

Pedrito

Your mockery of using Scripture normatively is AGAIN noted. So AGAIN, I will asked.... what is your alternative? Precisely WHAT in your view is MORE reliable in theology than Scripture, what is MORE inspired by God than Scripture, what is MORE universally embraced than Scripture, what is MORE objectively knowable and unalterable than the black-and-white written words of Scripture? What is a BETTER norma normans for the corpus of Christians to use as the divine Standard in the norming of disputed dogmas among us than Scripture? What is your proposed alternative? Or are you simply mocking Scripture but have no alternative?



- Josiah

 

[Pedrito]

Pedrito wishes to request the Reader’s help.

Pedrito has declared a number of times, with clarity, that:
- He believes that unadulterated, in-context, Holy Scripture can be the only basis for determining doctrine and practice.
… - And therefore the concept of “Sola Scriptura” is both admirable and compulsory.
- Churches who tout the “Sola Scripturs” mantra are guilty of actually not using Holy Scripture as their only basis for doctrine and practice.
… - That fact is the obvious and only explanation for the continued lack of “norming of disputed dogmas among us”.

==============================================================================================

Yet Josiah has once again (Post #37 on Page 4) ignored what Pedrito has clearly said, by making the following statements:
“Your mockery of using Scripture normatively is AGAIN noted.”
“ So AGAIN, I will asked.... what is your alternative? Precisely WHAT in your view is MORE reliable in theology than Scripture, what is MORE inspired by God than Scripture, what is MORE universally embraced than Scripture, what is MORE objectively knowable and unalterable than the black-and-white written words of Scripture?”
“ What is a BETTER norma normans for the corpus of Christians to use as the divine Standard in the norming of disputed dogmas among us than Scripture?”
“ What is your proposed alternative?”
“ Or are you simply mocking Scripture but have no alternative?”

(All that, despite the fact that Pedrito has clearly stated that unadulterated, in-context, Holy Scripture can be the only basis for determining doctrine and practice, but that the churches are not honestly employing it.)

==============================================================================================

Here is where Pedrito asks the Reader for help.

For anyone to continually ignore another person’s plain statements – ignore them again and again and again, and actually issue accusations that imply those statements have not been made, can only mean one of two things:
- The person doing the ignoring is suffering from inarguable mental incapacity. Or
- The person doing the ignoring is practicing deliberate diversionism (engaging in activities that divert attention from a primary focus).

Pedrito believes the latter to be the case – deliberate diversionism because Holy Scripture threatens cherished beliefs.

Which of the two possibilities does the Reader think is true in the current situation?

 

[Josiah]

Pedrito has declared a number of times, with clarity, that:
- He believes that unadulterated, in-context, Holy Scripture can be the only basis for determining doctrine.
… - And therefore the concept of “Sola Scriptura” is both admirable and compulsory.

Then we are essentially in agreement on the praxis.



Thank you.

 

[MoreCoffee]

.