Sola Scriptura

Montalban said:

That's also not even touching upon the nature of the Council itself which is not based on scripture.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Montalban

That's also not even touching upon the nature of the Council itself which is not based on scripture.

Click to expand...

CaliforniaJosiah said:

Again, it seems you may disagree with the Apostles regarding arbitration. Understood. Interesting, your disagreement with their arbitration, but a discussion for another day and thread (not permitted here).

Read verses 15-19. What rule/canon/norma normans did they use? Scripture? RCC Tradition? Greek Orthodox Tradition? Or did they simply regard that if one insists that self alone is exempt from the issue of truth that one ergo is? .

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by ivebeenshown To Josiah: Using Scripture to evaluate a doctrine necessarily entails interpretation of Scripture and of the doctrine.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Good point. Renew the mind also comes to mind

Click to expand...

Fireinfolding said:

Yeah, and thinking

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

I am not so infallible

Click to expand...

xristos.anesti said:

Here we go again.

Click to expand...

Montalban said:

Yes, I understood this sinuous use of evidence already.

You have Mossaic law. Somehow they're abrogating Mossaic law and going back to Noachide law, although some have argued that the council itself is based on Moses' time.

This isn't even touching upon the fact that even if true is not so obvious because the Jews certainly didn't think that Gentiles would be so exempted, because they had laws saying that Gentiles coming under their control (such as slaves) would be burdened with the same law.


I didn't ask anything in that post.

Click to expand...

Montalban said:

So if I can work this out....

In Acts 15 they relied upon scripture saying that circumcision wasn't necessary - though they don't evidence this at all. They took scripture from either Romans - which wasn't written yet (and itself relies on what OT evidence???) or from something prior to Moses which itself isn't so apparent because the Jews themselves reading that same scripture had practiced circumcision for so long that it's likely that even the Apostles themselves had been circumcised.

That they came together in the way they did, not itself dependent upon scripture shows that they norma normans believed in sola scriptura?

Click to expand...

Anoetos said:

Noahide laws « Ger Tzedek Ger Tzedek

As I mentioned it was and is common practice for Gentiles who wanted to associate with Israel either without complete conversion or as a stage on their way to conversion. So, it's not a regression to a pre-mosaic legal prescription, but the application of an existing legal state to Gentile believers in Christ as a recognition that they were not full Jews and that they were not to be expected to be. It's entirely biblical.

So, what now?

Click to expand...

dollarsbill said:

The Bible states that it is the very words of God.

Click to expand...

Anoetos said:

And, there is a vast difference between people in ones household (slaves, servants, children) and ones neighbors. There was no mosaic prescription for the forced circumcision of gentile free men.

Click to expand...

dollarsbill said:

The Bible states that it is the very words of God.

Click to expand...

steve_bakr said:

But where does it say in Holy Scripture that we are to rely on Scripture alone, as opposed to (the Roman Catholic view of) the three pillars of Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and the teacing authority of the Church?

Click to expand...

steve_bakr said:

But where does it say in Holy Scripture that we are to rely on Scripture alone, as opposed to (the Roman Catholic view of) the three pillars of Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, and the teacing authority of the Church?

Click to expand...

dollarsbill said:

There are lots of VERY different churches. They are to be judged by the Bible. The Bible is not judged by the churches that can't agree on much of anything.

Click to expand...

Montalban said:

What was used to judge before the Bible was compiled?

Click to expand...

dollarsbill said:

Please tell us.

Click to expand...

dollarsbill said:

Please tell us.

Click to expand...

Montalban said:

What was used to judge before the Bible was compiled?

Click to expand...

steve_bakr said:

The answer is countained in the following Scripture verse, which identifies the Church as "the pillar and the foundation of truth.":

1 Timothy 3:15 CPDV
"But, if I am delayed, you should know the manner in which it is necessary to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and the foundation of truth."

Click to expand...