“[#650] Easily, by using the Creed as a handy guide that can be tossed aside (or modified at will) if and to the degree that one finds it to be in disagreement with one’s interpretation of Scripture. Many people hear the Creed and assume it is authoritative, but don’t stop to think about the basis for its authority. Protestants who treat the Creed as authoritative have not realized that given sola scriptura, there is no basis (in their theological system) for the Creed’s authority. They are free to disagree with it or modify it or make up their own, because given the denial of apostolic succession, the Nicene Council has no more authority than the individual reading the Bible at his kitchen table.”
“We’re up to 650+ comments. I suggest that you take a break from commenting, step back and spend some time reflecting carefully on the article and all the comments. What I wrote in #650 sums up the flaw we have argued in our article is intrinsic to sola scriptura.”
So that sums on the intrinsic flaw in sola Scriptura. Very well then.
It’s pretty hilarious that a convert to Catholicism would presume to invoke the authority of the Nicene creed as a cudgel to bonk Protestants over the head.
After all, one of the primary objections which Eastern Orthodox have to the filioque is how the church of Rome treated the Nicene creed as a handy guide to be “modified at will” when it intruded the filioque clause into the text after the fact.
So after 600+ comments on his thread, Bryan’s parting shot against the Protestant rule of faith is to deploy an argument which ricochets right back on his own rule of faith. Nice going, Bryan!