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.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
Which you've done. Forunately most people regardless of denomination or external influences of various novel doctrines, etc, live as if what they choose to do, how they live their lives with the grace given, counts.no need to go off the lighted path into darkness.
I will let God be the judge of that as He is the only one who knows our heart and will be the righteous judge of all.Which you've done. Forunately most people regardless of denomination or external influences of various novel doctrines, etc, live as if what they choose to do, how they live their lives with the grace given, counts.
Exactly. So we're all to do the best we can, with the knowledge and gifts given us. I'm sure there'll be surprises for all in heaven- as to our theologies.I will let God be the judge of that as He is the only one who knows our heart and will be the righteous judge of all.
This isn’t about judging it’s about staying on the lighted path we are told to take that is lead by God’s Word so we can stand when Jesus comes.
What would you use in place of scripture to determine whether a doctrine is correct or just something someone liked and decided would make others comply with? I think there is nothing that can be considered more beneficial than the practice of basing the decision on whether a doctrine is in line with Christ's vision than by consulting the scriptures to see if it falls in line with what is written down there. Whether one considers that practice to be dogmatic or doctrinal or both does not change the validity of the practice. The geometric definition of a point is self-contradictory, something that es exists with no dimensions whatsoever, yet it is the basis for every building plan, and this self-contradictory point seems to be not only quite useful but quite necessary in deciding which planned buildings will stand and which will not. So too Sola Scriptura and doctrines. .I agree with the definitions you give, but note that all dogmas are doctrines (even though not all doctrines are dogmas). So according to your own definitions it makes no sense to say that Sola Scriptura is a dogma but not a doctrine.
Sola Scriptura is surely a doctrine. If it is a dogma-doctrine then the argument of the OP is even stronger.
I agree that there will probably be a lot of surprises in heaven, disagree on the path to get there, but pray that we all will be there.Exactly. So we're all to do the best we can, with the knowledge and gifts given us. I'm sure there'll be surprises for all in heaven- as to our theologies.
We don't add to what Scripture says.Is that how we interpret scripture- by going off what it doesn’t say instead of going by what it does say?
Scripture doesn't claim this. It is a man made idea that you are free to believe. Just don't expect us to follow along.Everything we need for salvation is found in scripture
I think Sola Scriptura is chimerical in all sorts of ways. Really I would say it just needs to be abandoned wholesale, and I don't understand how it could be compared to the geometrical point. We can easily do without Sola Scriptura, whereas geometricians cannot do without the geometrical point.What would you use in place of scripture to determine whether a doctrine is correct or just something someone liked and decided would make others comply with? I think there is nothing that can be considered more beneficial than the practice of basing the decision on whether a doctrine is in line with Christ's vision than by consulting the scriptures to see if it falls in line with what is written down there. Whether one considers that practice to be dogmatic or doctrinal or both does not change the validity of the practice. The geometric definition of a point is self-contradictory, something that es exists with no dimensions whatsoever, yet it is the basis for every building plan, and this self-contradictory point seems to be not only quite useful but quite necessary in deciding which planned buildings will stand and which will not. So too Sola Scriptura and doctrines. .
That's quite a statement. So, if I do not view Rome or others as the authority to explain Scripture, then I cannot have correct understanding?The church, east and/or west, is absolutely essential in having correct understanding.
So how, outside of direct revelation, is one supposed to discern what Christ, or the Apostles hold without consulting the scriptures? Outside of what we can read in the scriptures (and direct revelation which I, at least, have not experienced), they are not available for consultation on which doctrines are correct and which are poppycock. The Church does not seem to have unanimity of doctrine throughout its many denominations so how can a divided Church have authoritative advice? Additionally, the compilation of the scriptures was the work of the Church when those successors you mentioned were in agreement. Shouldn't we take advantage of that in deciding the matter of what doctrine may or may not conform to Christ? Certainly, we can pray for enlightenment from the Holy Spirit but trusting ourselves to be honest with ourselves about what the Holy Spirit may be telling us seems more likely to be a problem than trusting the Holy Spirit to guide us by using the scriptures. One can claim the Holy Spirit tells us something the scriptures do not, but that claim is not as solid as being able to point out the Holy Spirit tells us the same thing that scripture does.I think Sola Scriptura is chimerical in all sorts of ways. Really I would say it just needs to be abandoned wholesale, and I don't understand how it could be compared to the geometrical point. We can easily do without Sola Scriptura, whereas geometricians cannot do without the geometrical point.
The alternative paradigm is the Apostolic paradigm that Jimmy Akin presents in the OP video. Rather than grounding your authority in a book you need to ground your authority in a person, in this case Christ and his Church (the Apostles and their successors).
It’s hard to know where to start. I didn’t choose to be Catholic so much as simply found it to be the right course of action, to my own surprise. But that’s a long story. IMO the best theologians, Catholic or otherwise, have been free thinkers, using whatever methods and sources are out there to help better understand and clarify the faith. I appreciate this more or less related simple statement from Augustine, “All truth is God’s truth.”That's quite a statement. So, if I do not view Rome or others as the authority to explain Scripture, then I cannot have correct understanding?
Some months back I read a book based upon a dissertation on the debated phrase "the works of the law". The research began with Paul's writings and comparable details from the Bible, then went onward to the Church Fathers and continued onward through history to a survey of various contemporary scholars of various denominations. The conclusion was no real conclusion.
Then along comes @HARK! in a recent post revealing a [part of a] document known as 4Q-MMT, which I do not recall reading about in the 289 pages of research and discussion on the phrase. This document provides another point of view that seems well-worthy of consideration.
There is at least one organization I'm aware of that is traveling the globe in search of other manuscripts evidence yet undiscovered. There are people within the Messianic movement doing some very interesting work in ancient and more contemporary Jewish works. There are people doing interpretational work in Hebrew and Aramaic idioms that were translated into Greek and may well have lost their meanings.
Honestly, I'm at my current best as a free agent able to glean from whomever, whenever. You have been a source of better understanding of Rome for me and I have found much agreement with your POV. I think your background in Protestantism is helpful. I can't agree with your quoted statement.
It only has value to the extent it is Truth. Jesus Himself was the originator and completer of The Faith (Heb12:2) that was once for all handed down to the Holy Ones (Jude1:3). Jude goes from there to express the battle already going on to protect The Faith of Jesus Christ. There are sufficient statements in the NC to indicate several departures from The Faith were taking place in the first century. The Jewishness of The Faith is extremely difficult to ignore IMO.The faith is something we’ve inherited, and that legacy traces its history back through time to the beginning. And that legacy, that lived experience, must have some value
And those are some of my points. And none of that is contradicted by the fact that the church may well have known more than that which was recorded in Scirpture-and in fact would be expected to do so IMO. A church, the church survived, despite the weak vessels that make up her members, the church that assembed the canon of NT Scripture, the church that determined the nature of the Trintiy at Nicaea, the church that eloqently and solidly pronounced on the unequivocable necessity of grace to move man to God at the council of Orange. EtcIt only has value to the extent it is Truth. Jesus Himself was the originator and completer of The Faith (Heb12:2) that was once for all handed down to the Holy Ones (Jude1:3). Jude goes from there to express the battle already going on to protect The Faith of Jesus Christ. There are sufficient statements in the NC to indicate several departures from The Faith were taking place in the first century.
Appreciate the suggestion. I've read some of the ECF. As I mentioned before, there is a lot of eye-opening from many sources. Based upon my respect for some of your writings, I may well read some more in my varied readings, but I doubt they'll get me in submission to Rome.As far as 1st century departures, you'd have ti demonstrate it. With every bible reader being an expert on the b;liefs ad practices of the early church I suppose it might be easy enough to determine these departures. But I'd spend some time in relatively intense study of the ECFs, for one, of history, IOW, and I think it'd be eye-opening.
If others would have to demonstrate what specific 1st century departures led to, then speculation as to what may have been known would also have to be demonstrated and tied specifically to Scripture. But IMO in nearly 2 millennia that has not been accomplished to the satisfaction of many. As you know, there's been a tremendous amount of scholarly work on all sides of the arguments on this matter.the fact that the church may well have known more than that which was recorded in Scirpture
Well, writings survived, and God has used many different sources, both good and evil and even a donkey, to accomplish His objectives over time. What has also survived and existed well before Roman Catholicism is the Jewish race and their Scriptures and a people whether in or out of RC called "Christians".A church, the church survived
I'll give an example. In the EO and RCC teachings, baptism is necessary for salvation. We can argue back and forth on this going by Scripture and yet this is simply how it was received, as the norm, and believed and practiced since day one. No controversy-with ECFs either. The church would allow for ignorance or the physical impossibility of being baptized before death but this is simply what Jesus modeled and taught-and the very fact that it was a continuous belief and practice needs no defending; it’s simply part of the Way, the Tradition. No solemn dogmatic pronouncement on this matter was ever necessary.If others would have to demonstrate what specific 1st century departures led to, then speculation as to what may have been known would also have to be demonstrated and tied specifically to Scripture. But IMO in nearly 2 millennia that has not been accomplished to the satisfaction of many. As you know, there's been a tremendous amount of scholarly work on all sides of the arguments on this matter.
Yes, but it is notable that different Christians hold to different canons, and that the canon is obviously not included in Scripture. Also, we have evidence of disagreements among the early community even within the NT texts themselves, and history shows us that this did not disappear.So how, outside of direct revelation, is one supposed to discern what Christ, or the Apostles hold without consulting the scriptures? Outside of what we can read in the scriptures (and direct revelation which I, at least, have not experienced), they are not available for consultation on which doctrines are correct and which are poppycock. [...] Additionally, the compilation of the scriptures was the work of the Church when those successors you mentioned were in agreement.
Yes, I think so, and I think most Christians do. For example, in general Christians take the first seven ecumenical councils to be more authoritative than anything that came afterwards. This seems quite reasonable to me, and is one way to address the fact that Christianity is divided.The Church does not seem to have unanimity of doctrine throughout its many denominations so how can a divided Church have authoritative advice? Additionally, the compilation of the scriptures was the work of the Church when those successors you mentioned were in agreement. Shouldn't we take advantage of that in deciding the matter of what doctrine may or may not conform to Christ?
The Scriptures do have authority, but it doesn't ultimately make sense to say that they constitute the sole rule of faith ("Sola Scriptura").Certainly, we can pray for enlightenment from the Holy Spirit but trusting ourselves to be honest with ourselves about what the Holy Spirit may be telling us seems more likely to be a problem than trusting the Holy Spirit to guide us by using the scriptures. One can claim the Holy Spirit tells us something the scriptures do not, but that claim is not as solid as being able to point out the Holy Spirit tells us the same thing that scripture does.
If it stands apart from any living voice which interprets and guides, then it is 'a book'. The Protestant's ultimate authority is an isolated book, albeit inspired. In Catholicism (and elsewhere) this book is part of a tradition, and flows from the living voice of God which continues to speak today, to interpret and guide. These hard logical contradictions noted in the OP do not apply to the Apostolic paradigm. The book needs to be seen in light of a greater whole.The authority of the Bible is not the authority of a book but the authority of God's Word. It is a written account of what God has told his people about himself from the time of Adam to the time of the early Church.
Yes, but be careful not to conflate Sola Scriptura and Scripture itself. Sola Scriptura is a Protestant doctrine which is very different from Scripture itself. Scripture is useful and indispensable; Sola Scriptura is not. Protestants are blessed with the knowledge that the Scriptures are God's inspired word, and they should in no way forfeit such a divine gift.As for the point. You claim that Sola Scriptura is self-refuting and therefore not useful.
A mathematical point is not a physical object, and thus should not be expected to exist in the way that objects in the physical world exist.The point is self - refuting in that it is a said to exist without having one quality of anything that does actually exist in the physical world.
I don't see how a mathematical point can said to be "self-refuting." Does it entail some proposition which falsifies its own truth? I think not. A mathematical point is a useful abstraction that is used for the sake of other (mathematical) abstractions. It does not exist physically, nor does it's definition entail that it itself is false. Indeed, a mathematical point is a (mental) object, not a proposition, so it can't entail or refute anything.That being the case, if both are self-refuting, and being self-refuting automatically makes the one useless, how does one explain how the other is not only useful but necessary?
There was never an argument brought up against it-which is what happens when a practice or belief is controversial. And the ECFs unanimously support this. Its just history, way better supported than any opinion based strictly on Scripture."day one" being and according to who? We can debate this just as much as we can debate Scripture, can we not?
I haven't read this thoroughly, but what say you re: no disagreement among the ECF? It seems there was disagreement.There was never an argument brought up against it-which is what happens when a practice or belief is controversial. And the ECFs unanimously support this. Its just history, way better supported than any opinion based strictly on Scripture.
No, they are not strictly dealing with interpretation of Scripture. They employed Scripture, as the Church always has and as we must do today, because it's one of the few agreed on sources of revelation. Tradition, absoluely essential as it is once the matter is understood, has no possibility of being referenced in the same direct manner. But the fathers came from an entire, well, tradition, of beliefs amd practices-a way doing things-that predated the New Testament writings. Its like someone arguing with you about what your family was like when you were young just because they read a bunch about it. It doesn't work that way. And because we're dealing with written material, yes, we can find somewhere, someplace, in the ECFs, a way to supoiort a particular view even if it strays far from the majority view, just as we can with Scripture. I beleive there are sometthing like 18 million words penned by the ECFs dependng on how far forward one goes. But read them seriously, and you'll end up finding a parculiarly familiar EO/Catholic flavor to their beliefs.I haven't read this thoroughly, but what say you re: no disagreement among the ECF? It seems there was disagreement.
Early Church Fathers on Baptism and Salvation
On the other hand, I can go to another site and receive only the agreement quotes:
Necessity of Baptism — Church Fathers
But aren't they all dealing with interpretation of Scripture? And even though we debate such things today, can we not come to a conclusion as they did in interpretation? Do you need unanimity to determine what you believe?
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?