Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

bbbbbbb · Mar 21, 2011

Montalban said:
Huh???

You wanted internal divisions, I gave them to you. The church is on the brink of major internal schisms.

What this has to do with Henry VIII is beyond me. When he had 'numerous divorces' it was a problem, and his church split from the RCC.

The point, friend, is that none of the examples you have provided admit to being divided, by their own definition of what is constituted as division. If this were the case then the Episcopal Church in America would not be strenuously attempting to establish property ownership of dissenting congregations. They would, instead, agree that there is division and that each side is separate, but equal. As it is, they have particular means to affirm their lack of division, as determined by themselves.

If every example of disagreement in a church body was determined by that church body to be division, according to its own definition of division, all church bodies, including your own could be clearly shown to be divided. However, to do so would be to apply a definition of division from outside that body because no body (as well as nobody) has been known to admit to division - according to its own definition.

Hentenza · Mar 21, 2011

ortho_cat said:
This is truly a key difference between traditional Christians and Protestants, one places their faith in the Bible and the other places their faith in the Church.

In reality, if you don't have faith in the latter, you really don't have a good reason to have believe the former.

That's where your authority is. In Christ's Church, led by his apostles and their successors, with Christ at the head.

False dichotomy. I have faith in Jesus and His church. I just don't have faith in your denomination and your traditions.

Ortho_Cat · Mar 21, 2011

Hentenza said:
What church? Yours? RC? Other? All with radically different "T"raditions. Who is right?

BTW- Have faith in the author of your salvation instead.

Not instead, also.

"I believe in one God...and I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church..."

CaliforniaJosiah · Mar 21, 2011

Hentenza said:
False dichotomy. I have faith in Jesus and His church. I just don't have faith in your denomination and your traditions.

Hello, Hentenza....

.

Hentenza · Mar 21, 2011

Philothei said:
Would you consider any interpretation "orthodox' then if it was based on scripture?

Sure but based only on scripture.

Philothei · Mar 21, 2011

Hentenza said:
Sure but based only on scripture.

Arius heresy was based on scripture alone too

Hentenza · Mar 21, 2011

ortho_cat said:
Not instead, also.

That doesn't address my post. The Nicene creed, while a great summary of the faith, is not an infallible and inerrant document. Secondly, I also believe in one holy (of God and for God), catholic (universal, composed of ALL believers), and apostolic (teaching of the apostles) church.

Hentenza · Mar 21, 2011

Philothei said:
Arius heresy was based on scripture alone too

It wasn't. Arius redefined John 1.

Ortho_Cat · Mar 21, 2011

Hentenza said:
Preaching is not an oral tradition since it is well attested in scripture. The appeal to emotion fallacy arguments are getting tiring.

This is similar to saying,

"I said something once, and later it was written down in a book. Therefore, now that it's written, it is no longer something I said."

How do you think that the words of Jesus were remembered and written down some 40 years after the fact? Sometimes in the OT things were written hundreds of years after the fact. How were such things preserved? By oral tradition! In fact, much of the scriptures is exactly that, documented oral tradition!

CaliforniaJosiah · Mar 21, 2011

Hentenza said:
That doesn't address my post. The Nicene creed, while a great summary of the faith, is not an infallible and inerrant document. Secondly, I also believe in one holy (of God and for God), catholic (universal, composed of ALL believers), and apostolic (teaching of the apostles) church.

Yup.

While I embrace the Nicene Creed, it is not MORE inerrant, MORE inspired directly by God, MORE reliable, MORE historically (say to 1400 BC) and ecumenically embraced (MANY Protestants don't) than is Scripture. It's good - but not as good or better than Scripture.

.

Philothei · Mar 21, 2011

Hentenza said:
It wasn't. Arius redefined John 1.

You said that any interpretation ... accroding to the Gospel you did not say anything about "redefining" Arius probably thought he was using SS

Ortho_Cat · Mar 21, 2011

Hentenza said:
It wasn't. Arius redefined John 1.

Sounds like he just interpreted the verses his own way.

Arius appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". And also Colossians 1:15: "Firstborn of all creation." Thus, Arius insisted that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with Him.

Arius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ortho_Cat · Mar 21, 2011

Hentenza said:
That doesn't address my post. The Nicene creed, while a great summary of the faith, is not an infallible and inerrant document. Secondly, I also believe in one holy (of God and for God), catholic (universal, composed of ALL believers), and apostolic (teaching of the apostles) church.

Are you trying to say that there is something specifically you have a problem with in the creed? I'm glad you agree with me according to the letter of the creed. However, context is everything.

Hentenza · Mar 21, 2011

ortho_cat said:
Sounds like he just interpreted the verses his own way.

Arius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So? The plethora of competing "T"raditions do the same. In fact, one large general "rule" of hermeunetics is to not import one's bias into scripture but to allow scripture to interpret scripture. The result of importing ones biases usually results in eisegesis. Arius imported his bias into scripture resulting in eisegesis.

Hentenza · Mar 21, 2011

ortho_cat said:
Are you trying to say that there is something specifically you have a problem with in the creed? I'm glad you agree with me according to the letter of the creed. However, context is everything.

I have no issues with the creed and I gave you the context in parenthesis to the portion that you quoted. Do you disagree?

Ortho_Cat · Mar 21, 2011

Hentenza said:
Nope. No one else can be apostles.

Well of course, no one can be you or I either.

However, do you have scripture references to support your belief that the apostolic office was intended to be discontinued?

Montalban · Mar 21, 2011

Hentenza said:
False dichotomy. I have faith in Jesus and His church. I just don't have faith in your denomination and your traditions.

You have faith in Jesus and an invisible church divided?

Montalban · Mar 21, 2011

Hentenza said:
Nope. No one else can be apostles.

What about 'equal to'?

Ortho_Cat · Mar 21, 2011

Hentenza said:
I have no issues with the creed and I gave you the context in parenthesis to the portion that you quoted. Do you disagree?

By context, I was referring to the author's intentions and understanding when they formulated it.

Montalban · Mar 21, 2011

Hentenza said:
It wasn't. Arius redefined John 1.

Arius had a different interpretation of scripture, but his teachings were based on such.

Not just him, Nestorius as well.

Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

bbbbbbb

Guest

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Orthodox Christian

Well-Known Member

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Love never fails

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Orthodox Christian

Well-Known Member

Love never fails

Orthodox Christian

Orthodox Christian

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Orthodox Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Christian

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency