Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Ortho_Cat]

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

The 7 ecumenical councils were held over the course of 450+ years and were the established standard for church doctrine during the first millenium of Christianity.

First seven Ecumenical Councils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All this doctrinal stuff was settled a long time ago, folks

 

[Hentenza]

Because scripture isn't the beginning

And you know the beginning because scripture told you.

 

[Hentenza]

The 7 ecumenical councils were held over the course of 450+ years and were the established standard for church doctrine during the first millenium of Christianity.

First seven Ecumenical Councils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All this doctrinal stuff was settled a long time ago, folks

The EC's were not inerrant nor infallible.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The 7 ecumenical councils were held over the course of 450+ years and were the established standard for church doctrine during the first millenium of Christianity.

First seven Ecumenical Councils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All this doctrinal stuff was settled a long time ago, folks

Good. Then quote for me where, in those 7 Ecumenical Councils, we have Transubstantiation declared as dogma, the Infallibility of the bishop in Rome, Purgatory, the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary - all DOGMAS in the RCC; show me where it states those things are dogmas and thus the RCC and OO are both in clear violation of the Ecumenical Councils since they don't teach those things. If THAT is the embraced norma normans in Catholicism, then lets see those DOGMAS taught by those Councils. Ah, if you are right and those ARE the best rule - then your denomination has a huge problem because NONE of what makes it the RCC, NONE of its distinctive dogmas are taught there (as any EO or OO would point out).


And show me how those 7 meetings are MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE ecumenically embraced (more denominations, for example) and MORE historically embraced (say to 1400 BC) than is Scripture - why such is a better, more sound rule/canon/norma normans than is Scripture.






.

 

[ivebeenshown]

And you know the beginning because scripture told you.

...and scripture tells us because the record of the beginning was handed down as an oral tradition prior to ever being written.

 

[Hentenza]

...and scripture tells us because the record of the beginning was handed down as an oral tradition prior to ever being written.

But once it was written oral tradition is no longer necessary.

 

[Montalban]

And you know the beginning because scripture told you.

No. I know from tradition that Scripture came about after Pentecost, and Peter began preaching.

They preached before they wrote thie Scriptural messages

 

[Montalban]

But once it was written oral tradition is no longer necessary.

Show this from Scripture

What for instance did Jesus have to say in regard to necrophilia?

 

[Hentenza]

Show this from Scripture

What for instance did Jesus have to say in regard to necrophilia?

Why do you continue to deflect? What does necrophilia have anything to do with my post? Are you appealing to emotion again?

You have that list yet?

 

[ivebeenshown]

But once it was written oral tradition is no longer necessary.

Preaching is an oral tradition which is also Apostolic.

 

[Hentenza]

Preaching is an oral tradition which is also Apostolic.

Nope.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

... 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?

They do agree and complement each other.

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

Didn't Jesus try something like that?


"They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them."

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?

Neither are accountable to each other, they are both a key part of holy tradition, but scripture is considered the most important part of tradition. We as a Church are accountable to Christ.

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.

well, we can't make EVERYONE happy, now can we?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Nope.

Really? What do you suppose the apostles did between the time of Jesus ascension and Paul's first letter? Did they all sit around for 20 years and wait for him to write it so that they could go spread the good news? If that was the case, they were certainly more patient than I would have been!

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Nope.

Btw Hentenza, I'm not sure I ever got an answer from you. Do you believe that the apostles appointed successors or not?

 

[Hentenza]

Really? What do you suppose the apostles did between the time of Jesus ascension and Paul's first letter? Did they all sit around for 20 years and wait for him to write it so that they could go spread the good news? If that was the case, they were certainly more patient than I would have been!

Preaching is not an oral tradition since it is well attested in scripture. The appeal to emotion fallacy arguments are getting tiring.

 

[Hentenza]

Btw Hentenza, I'm not sure I ever got an answer from you. Do you believe that the apostles appointed successors or not?

Nope. No one else can be apostles.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And you know the beginning because scripture told you.

Nope. I have faith in the Church and that Her testimony is reliable.

 

[Hentenza]

Nope. I have faith in the Church and that Her testimony is reliable.

What church? Yours? RC? Other? All with radically different "T"raditions. Who is right?

BTW- Have faith in the author of your salvation instead.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And you know the beginning because scripture told you.

This is truly a key difference between traditional Christians and Protestants, one places their faith in the Bible and the other places their faith in the Church.

In reality, if you don't have faith in the latter, you really don't have a good reason to have believe the former.

"For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." ~ St. Augustine

That's where your authority is. In Christ's Church, led by his apostles and their successors, with Christ at the head.

 

[Philothei]

Preaching is not an oral tradition since it is well attested in scripture

Would you consider any interpretation "orthodox' then if it was based on scripture?