Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Many evangelicals that I have observed in several places and even here seem to think God is dead and only talks through the Bible, they don't say outright God is dead but their ideas point in that direction. They would call God a liar if he spoke audibly to them instead of writing it downWhat's wrong with extra-Biblical? Our Lord used extra-Biblical references himself. Now ANTI-Bibilical things are a different matter.
But we don't limit God to written words. He speaks, for He is a living God.
If you only want to state an opinion and then refuse to discuss it or anyone else's ideas--or the topic of the thread for that matter--this wouldn't seem to be the place for it, being that it IS a "forum."
Many evangelicals that I have observed in several places and even here seem to think God is dead and only talks through the Bible, they don't say outright God is dead but their ideas point in that direction. They would call God a liar if he spoke audibly to them instead of writing it down
Fallacy, as this thread has shown. A further, related problem is that, even if the dogma can be supported by Scripture, it may be in sufficiently uncertain or unclear terms that people disagree on it anyway. Seems like God would've provided a way to cut through this confusion. Apostolic succession is just one more case in point. And, BTW, I'd submit that, if not for the apostles who succeeded the first ones, the Christian church probably would've fallen into oblivion centuries ago. The visible church including a governmental structure was an instrumental part of its ability to carry on the torch, even with the warts and all that human institutions inevitably evince.If there are no dogmas which are not found in scripture then the scripture is all we need. Scripture itself is the authority. If there are no dogmas that the bible doesn't teach us then we are all in agreement with Sola Scripture.
If however there are things outside the scripture that we need to know then sola scripture is a fallacy. Which is it?
If there are no dogmas which are not found in scripture then the scripture is all we need. Scripture itself is the authority. If there are no dogmas that the bible doesn't teach us then we are all in agreement with Sola Scripture.
If however there are things outside the scripture that we need to know then sola scripture is a fallacy. Which is it?
Fallacy, as this thread has shown.
Going by this thread quite a few cannot be substantiated by SCRIPTURE. It's just the obvious, inconvenient, honest truth, no more.Hardly. The lack of your ability to prove your extra biblical dogmas, does not mean that sola scriptura, or the bible is insufficient. It only means you rely on extra biblical sources that cannot be proved or substantiated.
Fallacy, as this thread has shown. A further, related problem is that, even if the dogma can be supported by Scripture, it may be in sufficiently uncertain or unclear terms that people disagree on it anyway. Seems like God would've provided a way to cut through this confusion. Apostolic succession is just one more case in point. And, BTW, I'd submit that, if not for the apostles who succeeded the first ones, the Christian church probably would've fallen into oblivion centuries ago. The visible church including a governmental structure was an instrumental part of its ability to carry on the torch, even with the warts and all that human institutions inevitably evince.
Seems like God would've provided a way to cut through this confusion.
Fallacy, as this thread has shown. A further, related problem is that, even if the dogma can be supported by Scripture, it may be in sufficiently uncertain or unclear terms that people disagree on it anyway. Seems like God would've provided a way to cut through this confusion. Apostolic succession is just one more case in point. And, BTW, I'd submit that, if not for the apostles who succeeded the first ones, the Christian church probably would've fallen into oblivion centuries ago. The visible church including a governmental structure was an instrumental part of its ability to carry on the torch, even with the warts and all that human institutions inevitably evince.
If there are no dogmas which are not found in scripture then the scripture is all we need. Scripture itself is the authority. If there are no dogmas that the bible doesn't teach us then we are all in agreement with Sola Scripture.
If however there are things outside the scripture that we need to know then sola scripture is a fallacy. Which is it?
A further, related problem is that, even if the dogma can be supported by Scripture, it may be in sufficiently uncertain or unclear terms that people disagree on it anyway..
What dogmas do all sola scripturists hold in common which are unique from the ones they received from the Catholic Church?
Going by this thread quite a few cannot be substantiated by SCRIPTURE. It's just the obvious, inconvenient, honest truth, no more.
I think you can make the case for Mattias as an Apostle and for Paul - so that is 13 since Judas was a disciple but never an Apostle.
Come to think of it - that means you don't have Apostolic succession in the case of Judas -- who never made it to the level of Apostle. which means not one case of it in the NT.
Not one described in the NT, but they are known by historic records.
Wouldn't Matthias be the immediate successor to Judas? Isn't that apostolic succession?
It doesn't say that Andronicus and Junia were Apostles. It says that they were prominent among the apostles.
Matthias would be one of the TWELVE Apostles of the Lamb and Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles. (Rom 11)
I already addressed this. All dogma can be supported by Scripture to one degree or another, in one manner or another; i.e. Scripture is "materially sufficient" for this purpose. But not necessarily convincingly, or clearly, which is why Sola Scriptura adherents sometimes disagree vehemently on relevant issues.MoreCoffee has said that there are no dogmas which are not found in scripture. What are you saying? Are you saying that there are, or that there are not dogmas which are not found in scripture? Forgive me but talking to Catholics can seem frustrating. Either you believe there are dogmas or you dont. Either you believe in Sola scripture or you dont. What is the answer?
I think God did provide a way. Its called simplicity and liberty. Its the way i have chosen. Now you see why i believe the way i do. Thank you GT for showing me the light.
Because Church teaching is clear, reliable, sufficient, and universal. That's the reason God established her.Exactly like your replacement for Sola Scriptura--Holy Tradition.
So why would I give up the word of God for the word of Men...when there is nothing to be gained by doing so in the clarity, reliability, sufficiency, or universal agreement areas???
Yes, so what? JWs show from Scripture="reason from Scripture"- to prove their points!!!??? I'm sure you know that the SDA church sprang forth from the same shoot as them, in agreement at first, spinning off yet another new church again at some point, when disagreement arose, all driven by the great "unifier": Sola ScripturaI do not deny some form of church structure in the first century and beyond. Acts 15 council in Jerusalem to settle the entire church debate over gentile vs Jews and what gentiles were required to do - to be saved, for example. The Church leadership meets, the Apostles are there - and James renders his decision after all the testimony from several sources.
However There is an elephant in your living room when it comes to the idea that doctrine cannot be known/described/defined/found without someone in the Catholic church telling you about it.
Let's all look at it.
outside of the Catholic church - the rest of us actually give Bible studies on doctrine to the unchurched and to groups opposed to Bible doctrine. So lets say for example that we have a Jehovah's Witness at the door and they want to have Bible studies, or a Hindu or an Atheist visiting with us - we study with them on the subject of "you name it"... and guess what?
We never say to them "Now this doctrine is not actually found in the Bible - rather we must go ask a Catholic priest, or Pope or .... what to think on this one because there just is not enough info on it from scripture".
The fastest growing Bible based churches in the land do not work that way. Rather they show "from scripture" what the doctrine is. Not a single appeal to "a Catholic resource will need to inform us what to think here - because we just don't have this doctrine in scripture".
Does not happen.
No not once.
But in your post - that is supposedly the ONLY way that doctrine could have been taught to one of the unchurched.
Proven in real life results.
in Christ,
Bob
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?