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.
Certainly they had that power to do so, given them by Christ.My point is that they made a binding decree, without presenting any Scriptural citation in the letter they sent out. The letter bore their AUTHORITY and POWER, and contained no reference to Scripture.
So what is your point?
My point is that they made a binding decree, without presenting any Scriptural citation
They used Sola Scriptura. They employed NOTHING Catholic.
Read the verses the RCC seems unaware of, verses 15-19. Note what is said (a stunning example of Sola Scriptura, isn't it? Quite stunning! There are, of course, many other examples).
Well Josaiah, they sent the letter out to be obeyed even though it cited no Scripture. In the letter were requirements, which were to be submitted to.Note what is NOT said. Nothing about the Tradition of the RCC denomination (as currently chosen, defined and interpreted by the self same), nothing about any "infallible Roman Pontiff" nothing about any "keys," nothing about any "Vicar of Jesus" and nothing about self having unmitigated, unaccountable POWER so great as to require quiet, docilic submission to SELF as unto God.
I am very aware of those verses and what they do not say. Verses 15-19 mention nothing of blood or strangling or fornication, yet the Apostles make a decree about those things, and send it in a letter, and don't even cite Scripture in their letter, yet the letter is sent out to be obeyed.
Well Josaiah, they sent the letter out to be obeyed even though it cited no Scripture. In the letter were requirements, which were to be submitted to.
28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:
I think if I was hungry enough, I would eat an animal that had been strangledVerses 15-18 make no mention of eating blood, sexual immorality, or strangled animals.
Embracing Scripture alone as the Rule for norming disputed doctrines sounds good in theory...but in practice we have churches claiming baptism for infants, baptism for adults, baptism as a sacrament, baptism as a symbol, baptism as necessary for salvation, baptism as unnecessary for salvation, etc. And all of these contrary doctrines are normed by Scripture alone. It seems to me that when a Rule supports contradictory doctrines, that Rule alone is not effective.
Just my $0.02
Which baptism do you feel is correct?Embracing Scripture alone as the Rule for norming disputed doctrines sounds good in theory...but in practice we have churches claiming baptism for infants, baptism for adults, baptism as a sacrament, baptism as a symbol, baptism as necessary for salvation, baptism as unnecessary for salvation, etc. And all of these contrary doctrines are normed by Scripture alone. It seems to me that when a Rule supports contradictory doctrines, that Rule alone is not effective.
Just my $0.02
And a fine two cents. But your issue is arbitration, not the embraced norm.
Yes, one CAN say that the Jerusalem Council arbitrated the issue WRONGLY - and we know that even today, there are Christians insisting on OT Ceremonial Law. Okay, yes - I suppose one COULD conclude the Jerusalem Council arbitrated the issue WRONGLY. But what is indisputable from my perspective is that it used the Rule of Scripture and nothing remotely Catholic.
Again, if you want to discuss arbitration (even within the framework of the Rule of Scripture), that's fine. IF you want to claim that Ecumenical Councils can be wrong in their arbitration, that's fine, too. Good discussions, all. But MY point is that the Jerusalem Council used the Rule of Scripture and obviously nothing Catholic.
.
Josaiah, would you say 'Using Scripture as the sole rule is the most reliable method of preserving doctrine'?
What do you think is 'the most reliable method of preserving doctrine?'No. I think someone is confusing canning with norming.....
Christ used the norm of the Galilean tradition re: divorce.
We have at least FIFTY times recorded in the 4 Gospels where Jesus norms something with "The Scriptures state...." "It is written in Scripture.... " "Moses and the Prophets state...." Fifty examples of Sola Scriptura - just from Jesus alone, just as specifically recorded in the 4 Gospel Books.
If you think He also used "Galilean Tradition," then please quote for me all the times He stated, "it is written in Galilean Tradition" and then uses such normatively, as norma normans. And since the context here is the Jerusalem Council, please quote where James used "Galilean Tradition" normatively and quoted from such.
Thanks.
May all Easter joy, power and life be yours...
Pax
- Josiah
.
I realized after the fact that I should have objected to this, since much of the disagreement follows from it.
I think this statement is wrong. While it might be true for perfect people, it is untrue for us. I think the most reliable method of producing correct doctrine (which isn't quite the same thing) involves acknowledging that churches make errors, and provides for correcting them.
This is by its nature going to produce division, since most people won't initially agree that they're wrong.
This argument in the political realm leads to dictatorships. Democracy is always messier but I think ultimately produces better results. But there's a lot of painful problems while it's doing so.
God promises that the Church will ultimately be victorious, but he doesn't promise that the process will be painless, and in fact the NT suggests the contrary.
"Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! 52 From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; 53 they will be divided:"
[Luke 12:51-53]
Verses 15-18 make no mention of eating blood, sexual immorality, or strangled animals.
I do not disagree with James and the Apostle's decision, because I accept that they have ecclesiastical authority. So what is your point?
My point is that they made a binding decree, without presenting any Scriptural citation in the letter they sent out. The letter bore their AUTHORITY and POWER, and contained no reference to Scripture.
Certainly they had that power to do so, given them by Christ.
Glad they wrote it down rather than sending a messenger with word!
Wait, why DID they bother writing it down? Heh.
What do you think is 'the most reliable method of preserving doctrine?'
EDIT: Btw I would say that 'The Word of God' is the Norma Normans but 'The Word of God' is not found in Scripture alone.
In protestantism, there is no unity amongst the factions, no single voice, no representative.
since no one can 'bind the conscience' of another regarding interpretation of the bible
1. It is a GOAL....May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
Is Sola Scriptura leading us towards this goal, or away from it?
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?