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.
Foregoing being a member of the One True Church because of a language barrier?Probably when I learn Greek.
Hello lismore. But Christians will agree that the Scriptures should not be contradicted whether they hold to Sola Scriptura or not. That question has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.Hello Zippy. I hope you're well. IMHO almost every church/denomination/believer would be reluctant to openly and quickly propagate a doctrine that directly contradicts the scriptures. In this sense I would say that almost every church clearly recognizes Sola Scriptura to an extent. It's more than a doctrine it's like an obvious, unassailable safeguard. Whenever a church leader quickly and openly produces a doctrine that directly contradicts scripture almost every church would see them as a crank.
Some denominations through long tradition and perhaps losing access to the scriptures find themselves step by step by step to be in a doctrinal position seemingly directly opposed to the scriptures on numerous counts, as perhaps the Israelites of old found themselves in before the scroll was found in Josiah's day. The choice then is to repent or to continue to obfuscate. But even those who continue to obfuscate will treat the scriptures seemingly as something they are reluctant to be seen to directly contradict.
God Bless
Hello Zippy. If a church believes that the scriptures shouldn't be openly contradicted, basically saying everything new they present must align carefully with scripture, I don't believe that's too many degrees removed from Sola Scriptura. Indeed if the new material aligns with scripture some would say why not just use scripture.Hello lismore. But Christians will agree that the Scriptures should not be contradicted whether they hold to Sola Scriptura or not. That question has nothing to do with Sola Scriptura.
You seem to think that a doctrine must either contradict Scripture or else already be present within Scripture. You seem to have forgotten about the third case where a doctrine neither contradicts Scripture nor is present within Scripture. The question of Sola Scriptura is concerned with precisely this third category, and not with the first or second categories.Hello Zippy. If a church believes that the scriptures shouldn't be openly contradicted, basically saying everything new they present must align carefully with scripture, I don't believe that's too many degrees removed from Sola Scriptura. Indeed if the new material aligns with scripture some would say why not just use scripture.
Thank you. The PB's are in serious decline for a number of reasons. As you noted, they are cessationist in theology. Although you were unable to find an explanation, they do have a defence of their position. One of the primary recent foundational documents is The Believer's Bible Commentary by William MacDonald in which he addresses a relatively full gamut of biblical issues. The PB's in Britain originated long before pentecostalism came onto the scene in the United States. Thus, it has never been much of an issue within PB circles.I did not specifically describe my association with Plymouth brethren but listed them as ones I have attended. I attended a group in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania from 1985-1987. I had nothing to do with the administration of the Friendship Gospel Chapel, but soon after I left, they went bankrupt due to low attendance, and the building was sold.
What I remember of them was that they denied the baptism in the Holy Spirit and could not explain their reasons for doing so. This corresponds to the Catholic sacrament of Confirmation, but at that time in my life, I went to the Assembly of God. The other thing I remember of them was that they were against works. The were against penance, and their justification was the thief on the cross. They said he did not do anything, and Jesus promised him paradise the same day. What they failed to note was that the thief was in mortal agony and receiving the just punishment for his sins right next to Jesus. This was by the thief's own admission. I am sure that there are brethren that pursue holiness, but the ones that I encountered had strong worldliness and saw no need for penance. They were not outwardly evil by any means, and by the world's standard, decent people, but I got a feeling of lukewarm, neither hot nor cold. There was a don't rock the boat mentality.
Henry Ford said that history is bunk. History is only the opinion of the dominant culture. Church history has been written either by RCC or Protestant cessationist historians who have written their versions of history according to their own theologies. Ever since the church moved from being motivated by the Holy Spirit to man directed ritual and ceremony, it has been like that ever since, so unless it changes dramatically I am not optimistic about its future. In that regard, the youth has nothing significant learn from elders who are stuck in ritual and ceremony, doing their own planning, and closed off to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, in the light of that, we have only the Bible to give us reliable guidance on how to be genuinely converted to Christ and to live a life pleasing to God.ok, so your opinion is that history is meaningless. The way that the Church behaved in the past has no bearing on how she will behave now or in the future? It's the Bible only, and every man for himself? The youth can learn nothing from their elders? Is that what I am hearing?
Thank you for your explanation, but you do realize that position is unscriptural?Henry Ford said that history is bunk. History is only the opinion of the dominant culture. Church history has been written either by RCC or Protestant cessationist historians who have written their versions of history according to their own theologies. Ever since the church moved from being motivated by the Holy Spirit to man directed ritual and ceremony, it has been like that ever since, so unless it changes dramatically I am not optimistic about its future. In that regard, the youth has nothing significant learn from elders who are stuck in ritual and ceremony, doing their own planning, and closed off to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So, in the light of that, we have only the Bible to give us reliable guidance on how to be genuinely converted to Christ and to live a life pleasing to God.
I don’t necessarily agree with Pentecostalism, even the Catholic charismatic movement, but there is biblical support for the baptism in the Holy Spirit after the baptism with water. In the Catholic Church it is celebrated as the sacrament of Confirmation.Thank you. The PB's are in serious decline for a number of reasons. As you noted, they are cessationist in theology. Although you were unable to find an explanation, they do have a defence of their position. One of the primary recent foundational documents is The Believer's Bible Commentary by William MacDonald in which he addresses a relatively full gamut of biblical issues. The PB's in Britain originated long before pentecostalism came onto the scene in the United States. Thus, it has never been much of an issue within PB circles.
You have given evidence of Sola Scriptura by quoting the Bible as the basis of your argument. You have used the authority of the Bible to put your point.Thank you for your explanation, but you do realize that position is unscriptural?
God commands us to honor our father and mother. The first casualty of your position is the destruction of the family.
Proverbs teaches us to train a child in the way that he should go, and he will not depart from it.
1peter5 tells us to respect elders, Ephesians6 tells us to obey parents. The Bible gives many good reasons to pay attention to history
Have you studied the writings of any of the saints? If not, how do you know that you disagree with them?
Your position is more in line with Karl Marx and George Orwell’s 1984 than the Bible. Have you thought jt through? It leads to a bunch of individuals arguing over what the Bible means rather than any unified Body of Christ. The writings of Paul are strongly against it. I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Christ. Is Christ divided? God forbid.
I will pray for you, for the path you are on does not lead to truth though you think it does.
Proverbs warns us that there is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof are the ways of death. Pray and consider your position.
I have used the Bible because you said it was the only thing you would accept. I wanted to show you that even the Bible which you claim to adhere, does not give your explanation of history.You have given evidence of Sola Scriptura by quoting the Bible as the basis of your argument. You have used the authority of the Bible to put your point.
I have nothing more to offer. I don't want to offend our RCC brethren by arguing against RC theology or tradition which they hold dearly.I have used the Bible because you said it was the only thing you would accept. I wanted to show you that even the Bible which you claim to adhere, does not give your explanation of history.
The Bible itself states that it is not comprehensive. It is only a frame work. The Church is the authority because that is the meaning of Apostle, one who is sent. The Bible is not God’s ambassador, an Apostle is.
A book does not have enough capacity, and the Bible admits it. John 21:25
Who is an Apostle? One who is descended from Peter by succession of the laying on of hands.
Um, there is no offense when this is the place to discuss it. It is why we are here in denomination specific theology. Catholics love the truth, we don’t hold to our tradition and faith because we want our feelings soothed. We follow because it is the faith which was once delivered to the saints.I have nothing more to offer. I don't want to offend our RCC brethren by arguing against RC theology or tradition which they hold dearly.
Most, if not all, sacramental denominations would agree with the idea that the Holy Spirit is part and parcel of the new birth which Jesus described in John 3 to Nicodemus and they further associate the Holy Spirit with Baptism, such that at the moment of baptism in water, one is also baptized in the Holy Spirit. They do not teach that the Holy Spirit only comes to a Christian at their confirmation.I don’t necessarily agree with Pentecostalism, even the Catholic charismatic movement, but there is biblical support for the baptism in the Holy Spirit after the baptism with water. In the Catholic Church it is celebrated as the sacrament of Confirmation.
The Plymouth Brethren that I was with had no explanation. They said that there was baptism with water, and that was it. It was not a sacramental faith.
In the Catholic Church, there are seven sacraments and they are divided into the sacraments of the living and the sacraments of the dead.
The sacraments of the dead can be received while in a state of mortal sin, as they by the act provide forgiveness of sin. These are Baptism, Confession, and Anointing of the sick. The sacraments of the living must be received while in a state of sanctifying grace or it becomes a grave sacrilege. These are the Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony, and Holy Orders.
A Christian is to live a life free from sin, and the Sacraments are there to assist us toward that end.
This is the explanation from the Catechism with appropriate Biblical references includedMost, if not all, sacramental denominations would agree with the idea that the Holy Spirit is part and parcel of the new birth which Jesus described in John 3 to Nicodemus and they further associate the Holy Spirit with Baptism, such that at the moment of baptism in water, one is also baptized in the Holy Spirit. They do not teach that the Holy Spirit only comes to a Christian at their confirmation.
This thread has wandered way off track.I recently watched a debate on Sola Scriptura, which admittedly wasn't very good. That said, the argument Jimmy Akin gave is succinct and incisive:
P1. Sola Scriptura says that all doctrines must be derivable from Scripture.P2. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.C1. Therefore, Sola Scriptura must be derivable from Scripture.P3. But Sola Scriptura is not derivable from Scripture.C2. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, and hence false.
What do you think?
For those who defend Sola Scriptura, which of the three premises of the argument would you attack and why?
I would really like for this to be a thread about this particular argument, so I will redirect or ignore responses that do not address it. That said, inevitably users will post other arguments for or against Sola Scriptura and derail the thread until the cows come home. Oh well!
Is what forbidden? Contraception? Jesus tells us that to look on a woman with lust is sin. Contraception has no function but to facilitate lust, therefore it is forbidden ... The natural use of the woman is motherhood and not satisfaction as an object of lust.
The Church does not teach that all sexual activity has to be motivated to become pregnant, ughBy that line of reasoning, any and all sexual activity that is not motivated to become pregnant is sin. No wonder non-believers see us Christians as a bunch of uptight prudes!
The Church does not teach that all sexual activity has to be motivated to become pregnant, ugh
without the sexual act being open to life, it almost always leads to sex becoming a selfish act. Removing the pro-creative element of sex reduces it to a pleasure only act. And once you do that, the gender of both participants become irrelevant.
If sexual activity is rightly ordered, non-believers would look upon Christians with admiration as they see how complete and fulfilling marriage can be. It is YOUR incorrect definition you used above that causes confusion with non-believers.
Yes they do but we are called to chastity. That does not mean that we never have sex. Sexual activity must be brought under the bounds of the will and reason. Rule your appetites or you will be ruled by them. One thing people are forgetting is that a woman gets pregnant once. They could have unlimited sex until the child is born. Not every act must be procreative, but artificial contraception serves no purpose but to facilitate sin. Just look around at the divorce, casual sex and abortion, and you can see the fruits.By that line of reasoning, any and all sexual activity that is not motivated to become pregnant is sin. No wonder non-believers see us Christians as a bunch of uptight prudes!
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?