Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by ortho_cat

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

Isn't the Body of Christ, The One True Church?
The EO & RCC are not in communion with each other.
Are they both Christian?

 

[Montalban]

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

THe problem describing itself?

I don't recall making that calim.

 

[Montalban]

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

Again you claim to an answer given somewhere else. Cite one!

 

[Montalban]

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.

Huh???

You wanted internal divisions, I gave them to you. The church is on the brink of major internal schisms.

What this has to do with Henry VIII is beyond me. When he had 'numerous divorces' it was a problem, and his church split from the RCC.

 

[Philothei]

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.

So the word of God can be itnerpreted in many ways one sees fit...even it that would mean it is contradictory... So agenda driven translations are not decietful... then right? I am just saying then that Christ is not the son of God would not be a problem to you? I am surprised as many mainstream Protestant Churches insist on the 'orthodox" dogma like that of the Holy Trinity and also Christ being God -man. If the sky is the limit how then the individual Protestant chruches are NOT sectarian ?? Like some like to blame the EO Church to be? I am a bit confused here

 

[Montalban]

Same way a dictionary works.

That's dreadful that Jesus would leave his message open to so many interpretations!

That's how the dictionary works (your example), I can say something and you won't get the subtle use of the word.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I vote that the "norm" we should use for inter-faith dialogue is the first 7 ecumenical councils as well as scripture. Anyone else with me?

 

[Montalban]

I vote that the "norm" we should use for inter-faith dialogue is the first 7 ecumenical councils as well as scripture. Anyone else with me?

Where do I sign?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I vote that the "norm" we should use for inter-faith dialogue is the first 7 ecumenical councils as well as scripture. Anyone else with me?

IF those Councils are the norm for Scripture, then that would make us all Eastern Orthodox.....

Most Christians would be united - with the world's Catholics being converted to Orthodoxy. Personally, I would not lament that, lol - I think it would be a general improvement.





.

 

[sunlover1]

I vote that the "norm" we should use for inter-faith dialogue is the first 7 ecumenical councils as well as scripture. Anyone else with me?

Why not Scripture?
What were the 7 EC's for?
(I am not familiar with the 7 councils so will reserve judgement)

 

[Montalban]

What's it mean that Councils are the norm for Scripture?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What's it mean that Councils are the norm for Scripture?

... if the Councils are the rule - and Scriptures must agree with such.
Or is Scripture the rule - and the Councils are to agree with such?

You can't have TWO equal riders of a horse, you can't have TWO equal drivers of a car.

IMO, I'd get a lot of credence to the Councils as a sound interpretation and application of Scripture (but then I tend to embrace Sola Scriptura) but I would place God above man, Gods' words above our words - and thus Scripture above Councils. Are the Councils accountable to Scripture or Scripture accountable to the 7 Councils?

Not much help with the distinctive RCC DOGMAS - the issues of the highest level that make the RCC the RCC: Purgatory, Transubstantiation, the INFALLIABILITY of the Pope in the city of Rome, the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, etc. But of some significance to the EO. And to the OO if we're only looking at the first 4.





.

 

[Standing Up]

... if the Councils are the rule - and Scriptures must agree with such.
Or is Scripture the rule - and the Councils are to agree with such?

You can't have TWO equal riders of a horse, you can't have TWO equal drivers of a car.

IMO, I'd get a lot of credence to the Councils as a sound interpretation and application of Scripture (but then I tend to embrace Sola Scriptura) but I would place God above man, Gods' words above our words - and thus Scripture above Councils. Are the Councils accountable to Scripture or Scripture accountable to the 7 Councils?

Not much help with the distinctive RCC DOGMAS - the issues of the highest level that make the RCC the RCC: Purgatory, Transubstantiation, the INFALLIABILITY of the Pope in the city of Rome, the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, etc. But of some significance to the EO. And to the OO if we're only looking at the first 4.
.

The non-ecuemenical councils (after 1054) may be dismissed along the same lines that we dismiss LDS. If Roman Catholics would like to defend their councils, please have at it. If you don't, then obviously you can't.

What has to be shown is contradictions, if any, between the first 7 and scripture. Then, the decision about which to follow becomes easier.

 

[Standing Up]

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.

Is is is

 

[sunlover1]

The non-ecuemenical councils (after 1054) may be dismissed along the same lines that we dismiss LDS. If Roman Catholics would like to defend their councils, please have at it. If you don't, then obviously you can't.

What has to be shown is contradictions, if any, between the first 7 and scripture. Then, the decision about which to follow becomes easier.

But why not just use Scripture to begin with?
That's what I'm talkin about!

 

[Ortho_Cat]

IF those Councils are the norm for Scripture, then that would make us all Eastern Orthodox.....

Most Christians would be united - with the world's Catholics being converted to Orthodoxy. Personally, I would not lament that, lol - I think it would be a general improvement.

Actually the RC's, the EO's, and the Old Catholic (Anglican) all accept the 7 councils, and all of which claim apostolic origin (coincidence?)

 

[Hentenza]

I vote that the "norm" we should use for inter-faith dialogue is the first 7 ecumenical councils as well as scripture. Anyone else with me?

Nah, just scripture.

 

[Montalban]

... if the Councils are the rule - and Scriptures must agree with such.
Or is Scripture the rule - and the Councils are to agree with such?

You can't have TWO equal riders of a horse, you can't have TWO equal drivers of a car.

False analogy.

Scriptures fit in tradition.

I can give a way of analogy from the world.

Here in Australia we have a Constitution. It is the highest body of law. It sets out how Australia operates. However a lot of what we do is unwritten. It's called 'convention'. For instance the Constitution has as the head of our military the Governor-General. However by convention the GG never controls the military.

It's not an 'either' 'or' situation. The two work in harmony.

You would be someone who reads our constitution and concludes (rightly from reading it out of context) that our GG has absolute powers and is head of the military.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The non-ecuemenical councils (after 1054) may be dismissed along the same lines that we dismiss LDS. If Roman Catholics would like to defend their councils, please have at it. If you don't, then obviously you can't.

What has to be shown is contradictions, if any, between the first 7 and scripture. Then, the decision about which to follow becomes easier.

Right.

I'm not suggesting, of course, that these ecumenical councils are moot to anything and everything. But they aren't going to help us with the unique, distinctive RCC dogmas (what makes the RCC the RCC) since NONE of those were ever addressed (much less endorsed) by any of them.

But, TRYING (still) to get the subject on topic, it's moot to the issue of the Rule of Scripture. And, IMO, the views of self (typically called "Tradition") being used as the rule for the views of self (Tradition) is just self looking in the mirror at self - yeah, self usually looks like self but it's not necessary a good thing, lol. Castro agrees with Castro - no one denies that - but does THAT make Castro correct? No, while tradition need not be ignored - it is not the most sound norma normans for the evaluation of tradition, the views of SELF are not the most sound rule for the evaluation of the views that self proclaims.






.

 

[Montalban]

But why not just use Scripture to begin with?
That's what I'm talkin about!

Because scripture isn't the beginning