I'm bemused by your idea of what Sola Scriptura must mean. I've never studied logic formally, so I don't know the philosophical term which I think would be correct to describe it, sophistry, maybe. ( I can certainly think of some earthy terms which would describe it. )
I do know that it isn't at all a fair description of how classical Protestantism has viewed it. It doesn't even sound like an idea from the farthest vaudevillian excesses of Pentecostalism.
My understanding of sola scriptura is pretty broadly accepted at least among non-denominational Protestantism. More rigid denominations enforce Biblical interpretation (either with a pope-like figure or a councilor process) but only within their own church, which doesn't really solve the problem.
What's your response to Milton's summary of sola scriptura?
Thanks for the boost! I appreciate your insights. FYI, if someone did a deep dive into evolutionary biology and decided they agreed with Darwin, I wouldn't care. Several Church Fathers rejected the literalist reading, including Cyprian of Carthage and Clement of Alexandria.
I mind it when a Christians sneers at Creationists—especially when he himself knows nothing about the subject except what he learned in his freshman science class. So much the more when he claims that Church Fathers who professed YAC would agree with him if they were alive today.
Not a worry! And thank you, Brian. I've gotten a few of your readers emailing me, trying to disabuse me of my belief in the papacy. They've all been extremely polite and were glad to hear that I'd come around on my own. :)
"Catholics have a Pope! If Pope Francis declares ex-cathedra that “the Earth is 6800 years old”, Catholics are required to uphold this as true, even against all scientific evidence."
Papal infallibility is confined to the field(s) of "faith and morals." It is not clear to me how any such hypothetical definition could come into that ambit, any more than a papal definition that "the Sun revolves around the Earth" would do so.
That later bit refers to Galileo's brush with the Inquisition. Galileo was condemned for his insistence that he had "proved" that the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather than vice-versa. The Inquisition insisted that the relative mathematical simplicity of a heliocentric model compared to a geocentric model did not constitute "proof" (as Galileo believed), and ordered Galileo, if he returned to the subject in the future, to treat heliocentrism as an hypothesis rather than a fact. He did, and he didn't. That was what brought down the full weight of the Inquisition upon him in 1633. There never was any "dogmatic definition" of geocentrism; it was simply assumed that the geocentric system was the view in possession, and that any challenge to it would have to be proved in a clear way. I have read (years ago) that heliocentrism was not "proved" in that sense until 1838, although others date it a century earlier.
Wow! I didn't know that. So this turns out to be an intra-Orthodox squabble after all. In that case, I probably should have kept my mouth shut, as I am neither qualified nor interested in getting involved in that,.
I'm bemused by your idea of what Sola Scriptura must mean. I've never studied logic formally, so I don't know the philosophical term which I think would be correct to describe it, sophistry, maybe. ( I can certainly think of some earthy terms which would describe it. )
I do know that it isn't at all a fair description of how classical Protestantism has viewed it. It doesn't even sound like an idea from the farthest vaudevillian excesses of Pentecostalism.
My understanding of sola scriptura is pretty broadly accepted at least among non-denominational Protestantism. More rigid denominations enforce Biblical interpretation (either with a pope-like figure or a councilor process) but only within their own church, which doesn't really solve the problem.
What's your response to Milton's summary of sola scriptura?
Thanks for the boost! I appreciate your insights. FYI, if someone did a deep dive into evolutionary biology and decided they agreed with Darwin, I wouldn't care. Several Church Fathers rejected the literalist reading, including Cyprian of Carthage and Clement of Alexandria.
I mind it when a Christians sneers at Creationists—especially when he himself knows nothing about the subject except what he learned in his freshman science class. So much the more when he claims that Church Fathers who professed YAC would agree with him if they were alive today.
Despite my small audience here, I appreciate the sentiment. My apologies for not realizing you had joined Orthodoxy, Michael. Congratulations.
Not a worry! And thank you, Brian. I've gotten a few of your readers emailing me, trying to disabuse me of my belief in the papacy. They've all been extremely polite and were glad to hear that I'd come around on my own. :)
"Catholics have a Pope! If Pope Francis declares ex-cathedra that “the Earth is 6800 years old”, Catholics are required to uphold this as true, even against all scientific evidence."
Papal infallibility is confined to the field(s) of "faith and morals." It is not clear to me how any such hypothetical definition could come into that ambit, any more than a papal definition that "the Sun revolves around the Earth" would do so.
That later bit refers to Galileo's brush with the Inquisition. Galileo was condemned for his insistence that he had "proved" that the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather than vice-versa. The Inquisition insisted that the relative mathematical simplicity of a heliocentric model compared to a geocentric model did not constitute "proof" (as Galileo believed), and ordered Galileo, if he returned to the subject in the future, to treat heliocentrism as an hypothesis rather than a fact. He did, and he didn't. That was what brought down the full weight of the Inquisition upon him in 1633. There never was any "dogmatic definition" of geocentrism; it was simply assumed that the geocentric system was the view in possession, and that any challenge to it would have to be proved in a clear way. I have read (years ago) that heliocentrism was not "proved" in that sense until 1838, although others date it a century earlier.
Davis became Orthodox in June 2024:
https://sthughofcluny.org/2024/07/michael-warren-davis-orthodox.html
Wow! I didn't know that. So this turns out to be an intra-Orthodox squabble after all. In that case, I probably should have kept my mouth shut, as I am neither qualified nor interested in getting involved in that,.
https://yankeeathonite.substack.com/p/why-i-became-orthodox