Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Montalban]

Which Lutheran church? Each Lutheran body, by its own definition, is not divided. I have yet to encounter any that freely state that they are internally divided.

Are they divided from other Lutheran churches?

 

[Montalban]

I assuredly remember your input on that thread. However, you see to have missed understanding my question, which was, "Please provide an example of a church that, by its own definition, is divided."

What do you think schism is?

I am quite unaware of any statements from Canterbury that the Anglican communion is divided.

Anglican communion divided over election of lesbian bishop in US

Anglican communion divided over election of lesbian bishop in US | The Australian

Anglican Communion News Service
Archbishop Eames meets divided US churches; Irish Bishops issue open letter on human sexuality
Anglican Communion News Service: Archbishop Eames meets divided US churches; Irish Bishops issue open letter on human sexuality

Read the book
A House Divided? The quest for unity within Anglicanism
The Anglican Church of Australia has struggled for decades with internal division and numerical decline
https://acornpress.net.au/index.php...roduct_id=116&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=32

 

[sunlover1]

That's true. But irrelevant to this thread. I take it you've no other evidence other than your supposition?

Your denomination 'is' divided though.
And so is all of Churchianity.

God's word says that a house divided against itself can't stand.
yet He said that Hell shall not prevail against His church.
So conclusion?

I have my own conclusion, but am curious to hear yours.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Which Lutheran church? Each Lutheran body, by its own definition, is not divided. I have yet to encounter any that freely state that they are internally divided.

ELCA and LCMS are not in communion with each other, they are both lutheran.

 

[Montalban]

ELCA and LCMS are not in communion with each other, they are both lutheran.

But not divided

 

[Montalban]

Your denomination 'is' divided though.
And so is all of Churchianity.

I'll weigh you opinion up against the facts too!

 

[Standing Up]

I'll weigh you opinion up against the facts too!

Do these count? There's a bunch more listed.

Russian Orthodox Old-Rite Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old Believers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An easy comparison is sorta like RCers pre and post Vatican II. You've also heard of anti-popes.

Getting out and about ...

 

[Montalban]

Do these count? There's a bunch more listed.

Even you can do better than that given you've been rebuffed on this one before.

And it's a switch on what BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB said, which he clairified.

He's not looking for churches split from other churches but churches split within themselves.

Funny that you'd have to resort to this one!

 

[Philothei]

Sunlover the EO is not divided based on dogma. The Old Calendar Orthdoox are divided due to ecclesiological split NOT dogmatic. They disagreed in practice of the new calander versus the old. In the Protestant Chruches the divisions are on dogma not practice ... That is the difference between EO and Old Calander EO but of course it is more complex... Still you will find no dogmatic difference between the two Chruches as still most of our monastic communities do follow the practice the Old calendar. So division as you describe it does not exist.

 

[Montalban]

BUMP

Let's take an Epistle of Peter.

Peter was granted a great commission from Jesus. Peter himself went around preaching the word, using the OT to show how a new covenant is with us. The OT was not enough however to convey this because it's recorded that Peter performed miracles and his teaching was not wholly within the OT - because we live in the NT, thus we eat pork, worship on a Sunday etc.

Getting back to that Epistle. Peter writes one. The first is said by some to indicate he's in Rome "Babylon". If he is, then his Epistle is not wholly for that community.

The community bears witness to the fact Peter wrote it. When another community wishes a copy it to then bears witness to the fact that they have a copy of the same Epistle that Peter wrote.

As time moved on that Epistle is circulated to many churches.

Each time it is attested to by the church that it is the genuine Epistle of Peter.

It's not the Epistle saying "This is genuine" that holds it true.

After a time other works attesting to Peter's authorship are in circulation.

There's a Gospel of Peter, and an Acts of Peter both claiming in to be of Peter.

If you're a true sola scripturist then what differentiates a claim of one book's authenticity over any other "Petrine" book?

The Gospel of Peter claims to be of Peter...
" But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ..."
The Gospel of Peter, translated by Raymond Brown

What authorises one over the other is the church.

The church's tradition of attesting to one book against the others makes one an authoritative work.

Can someone show me how the books in the Bible authenticated themselves, or how God forced men to pick those books?

 

[Rick Otto]

The problem is that Protestants here believe that they do have the HS working with them - this means that each one of them, coming to their own truth believes its true based on them believing it is so

LOL!
And you know all this because the HS told you!

THe problem describing itself?

 

[Rick Otto]

BUMP

Can someone show me how the books in the Bible authenticated themselves, or how God forced men to pick those books?

It's been tried numerous times.
I don't think you're open to even considering it.

Maybe you're not meant to.
There's probably some more fundamental issues you should get straight first.
Like the definitions of "church" & "authority".

 

[Rick Otto]

Sunlover the EO is not divided based on dogma. The Old Calendar Orthdoox are divided due to ecclesiological split NOT dogmatic. They disagreed in practice of the new calander versus the old. In the Protestant Chruches the divisions are on dogma not practice ... That is the difference between EO and Old Calander EO but of course it is more complex... Still you will find no dogmatic difference between the two Chruches as still most of our monastic communities do follow the practice the Old calendar. So division as you describe it does not exist.

It's so sad that these thousands of little differences are destroying unity.

 

[sunlover1]

So division as you describe it does not exist.

I really didn't describe it. I just agreed with bbbbb.

There truly is much division in Christiandom as we all know.
But there is only one main issue and that's world view.

There are two world views that we are concerned with
biblical
and non biblical.

So while there may be small differences, all of those with
a Biblical world view will think alike due to having the same
frame of reference.
IOW, we all agree that Jesus is God
We all know that adultry is sin.
Everyone participates in the Lord's supper...

So just as it was from the beginning, God's Words
or "Scripture" as we know it, is the main divide.

One can have a "Christian" world view and not a biblical
world view as can be clearly seen in the morality and ethics folder.

But yeah, there is some disagreement even in the Biblical worldview
group.. and that's been the same since the beginning.
I wonder if God will accept those who were sprinkled rather than
dunked.
*shrug

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I assuredly remember your input on that thread. However, you see to have missed understanding my question, which was, "Please provide an example of a church that, by its own definition, is divided."

I am quite unaware of any statements from Canterbury that the Anglican communion is divided. Nor would the pastor or members of the Westboro Baptist Church state that they are divided.

Now, that some denominations and particular church bodies state that other churches exist is not germane to my question. The EOC recognizes the existence of other denominations and churches and freely admits that they are not united with them. However, as you stated, the EOC is not divided, by its own definition.

1. The reality that not all 2.2 billion Christians all agree on all matters SHOULD be reason to embrace accountability - not renounce it. It seems to be reason to embrace norming (the evaluation of correctness) - not ridicule it. And if these two are embraced - accountability and norming - then we need to embrace the most sound rule for this process and we'd finally begin to address the issue of this thread. But first, there would need to be the embrace that truth among us matters. Some think it does, some don't. Some just want to cry about our disagreements while decrying any effort to evaluate such, it seems to me...


2. Yes, we all know that the RCC has a grand "unity" of ONE: Self alone with self alone. NO OTHER agrees with it - not even at the very highest level: dogma. It agrees ONLY with the ONE it and it itself along sees in the mirror, it agrees ONLY with self alone. And even that is limited to agreement that is formal, official, institutional, and in those matters that it itself slone currently regards as good for agreement. Ain't saying much, is it? AT LEAST AS MUCH can be said of any other denomination you might mention: the LDS for example. Yes, it is in complete agreement with itself, exclusively. It has a "grand unity" with one - itself. Just like the RCC. Just like the EO. So what? Self agreeing only with self is no indication that self is correct. Looking in the mirror solely at self will reveal self but it doesn't reveal truth - it is not a valid or sound rule in norming.



The Rule of Scripture (aka Sola Scriptura): http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

Teaching from one's own authority is not teaching from authority?

It's teaching from self.

The issue here is this: Is self ergo correct? Is self accountable or exempt from accountability if self alone so claims that self alone is?

I would rather have the collective opinion of a Church due to the Church tradition than one's man view

I tend to agree with you, but when the RCC speaks IT alone speaks - not the collective opinion of the church. When I speak, I alone speak - not the collective consensus of the church.

But again, the issue here is this: Because self speaks, is self ergo correct? Is self accountable or is self exempt from accountability if self alone so claims that self alone is?

What it seems you are saying is that you would rather have the freedom to interpret any way any one feels fit to interpret.

]
​

Actually, NONE insists on that except the RCC denomination (and the early LDS but no longer).

No, Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with self or with interpretation. It has to do with accountability, norming, and the most sound rule in norming.





.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Are they divided from other Lutheran churches?

They are divided from other churches, Lutheran and otherwise, which does not mean at all that they define themselves as being divided. They are not divided at all, by their own definition. It is unfortunate that other churches are divided from them, but they themselves are not divided.

 

[bbbbbbb]

What do you think schism is?


Anglican communion divided over election of lesbian bishop in US

Anglican communion divided over election of lesbian bishop in US | The Australian

Anglican Communion News Service
Archbishop Eames meets divided US churches; Irish Bishops issue open letter on human sexuality
Anglican Communion News Service: Archbishop Eames meets divided US churches; Irish Bishops issue open letter on human sexuality

Read the book
A House Divided? The quest for unity within Anglicanism
The Anglican Church of Australia has struggled for decades with internal division and numerical decline
https://acornpress.net.au/index.php...roduct_id=116&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=32

Well, Whoopdedoo, none of this is at all new. The most one can garner from the above articles is the statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Colin Rowe that, "(this issue) raised very serious questions". In fact, the numerous divorces of of Henry VIII also raised "very serious questions" in its day, but the RCC managed to survive quite nicely, thank you, and maintains that it is not divided, nor was the Anglican Communion divided. If anything happens (and things assuredly are happening as various Episcopal churches and one diocese have reconfigured within the Anglican Communion) the Communion will remain undivided - by its own definition and if any leave then they are outside that Communion in the same way that the Reformed Episcopal Church of American (which is an undivided church by its own definition) is not part of the undivided Episcopal Church of America.

One can equally say that there are "very serious questions" being raised at the highest levels of leadership of the Orthodox Church in America. I predict that, in the final analysis, the OCA will remain an undivided (by its own definition) church and any who depart from it will also be undivided (by their own definition).

 

[bbbbbbb]

ELCA and LCMS are not in communion with each other, they are both lutheran.

They are also both Christian as is the EOC and the RCC. None of these four are in communion with each other, but all four are undivided - by their own definition.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Philothei

What it seems you are saying is that you would rather have the freedom to interpret any way any one feels fit to interpret.
​

We don't deny that even the interpretations have to be understood (interpreted) by the individual for that individual to honestly believe them.
And the way we feels is fit to interpret is by using scripture to define itself thru multiple uses & references about a difficult word or phrase.

Same way a dictionary works.