Sola Scriptura

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

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?





.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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

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? .

Inquiring minds want to know

.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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

That is what I always thought

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Standing Up Good point. Renew the mind also comes to mind

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

Thou mayest be more infallible than ya think

http://www.christianforums.com/t5793095/
Infallibility

Here we go again.

 

[Anoetos]

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.

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?

 

[Anoetos]

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.

 

[steve_bakr]

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?

...and where is sola scriptura located in Holy Scripture?

 

[dollarsbill]

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

 

[Montalban]

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?

None of this explains how Scripture guided them to go back passed Mossaic law

 

[Montalban]

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

Jesus is the Word of God.

If Bible = Word of God

and

Word of God = Jesus

than

Bible = Jesus

 

[Montalban]

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.

Even if this were true then slaves owned by Jews would still be covered by Mossaic law except for some as yet un-explained reason from you that they guided by scripture to ignore Mossaic law in the matter of circumcision in all circumstances.

 

[steve_bakr]

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

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 teaching authority of the Church?

 

[Montalban]

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?

People confuse two things

a) the bible contains the word of God

with

b) the bible contains all of the word of God


The first is true. The second is not. They'll often cite passages supporting a) to think that they support b)

 

[dollarsbill]

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?

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.

 

[Montalban]

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.

What was used to judge before the Bible was compiled?

 

[dollarsbill]

What was used to judge before the Bible was compiled?

Please tell us.

 

[Montalban]

Please tell us.

I'm not the one with the problem of what happened before the bible came into being.

 

[steve_bakr]

Please tell us.

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."

 

[steve_bakr]

What was used to judge before the Bible was compiled?

And also, who was it that compiled and canonized the Bible?

 

[dollarsbill]

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."

But which 'church'?