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.
For those teaching, or for those receiving the teaching, or for both ?
I not only challenged your question, I also eventually preemptively answered the question you and ortho_cat, while making implications and dancing around it, would not actually ask and take a honest look the dividing issues. I even asked for clarity on a comment you made which made no sense (probably because of a typo).
So it seems that if anyone is not answering questions here, it's you brother.
so you are saying that it does actually work? That the divisions among protestant should be consider non-essential, and thus they are essentially of one mind despite their division?
I appreciate the emphasis you place on the authority of the church, but as we discussed, the ultimate authority for the sola scripturian is scripture, therefore, the authority of the church is always secondary at best.
The types of church governments you mentioned do assert church authority to so some extent, but that is not because they adhere to SS, as I can show you plenty of churches who hold to SS, which do not assert the type of ecclesial authority that you mention.
I'm not sure what definition of SS you adhere to, but I did not see anywhere in the 'authoritative definition' of sola scriptura provided by CJ which said that sola scriptura mandates ecclesial authority or defines such a role; in fact, whenever I would ask him about the role of ecclesial authority w.r.t. sola scriptura he would always ignore my question or say that it is 'moot'. I think the fact that many different churches who subscribe to SS have differing roles of the authority of the church is evidence to the fact that the idea of church authority is not essential to the doctrine of sola scripture.
I would agree that we can find the doctrines of the apostles in the scriptures, yes, but the proper interpretation thereof (i.e. context) is found in the writings of the saints and in the life of the church.
I don't think one can reliably extract the doctrines of the apostles from the scriptures alone, because once a foreign context is placed thereupon, the meaning becomes distorted and mis-interpreted. Context is everything! In the case of the reformers, it appeared that much of formulation of their doctrine was reactionary, that is, in reaction to the abuses of the Catholic Church IMO, and not in the spirit (concensus teachings) of the ECF's. Yes, there was some quotes used from selected father's (mainly Augustine) to support the sola doctrines; i.e. the fathers were used to support later doctrinal innovations.
We can all go to the fathers. But we should not go to them in attempt to support our later innovations (sola's, etc), but to sincerely search for the faith which was preserved by the apostles.
I would argue that the scriptural support for sola scriptura or sola fide requires more eisegesis to justify itself than the doctrine of apostolic succession. But this isn't really relevant to the conversation. I think apostolic succession is another 'safeguard' in the process to preserve apostolic doctrine, of course, as I said earlier, I do not think it is a 'fix-all' solution.
Again, where in the definition of SS does it say so? Further, where does it say that the authority of the church is to be under scripture? Perhaps this is the context in which the reformers understood it (to some extent, anyways), but I do not think it is necessary for the rule to be enforced. Unless you disagree?
so you are saying that it does actually work? That the divisions among protestant should be consider non-essential, and thus they are essentially of one mind despite their division?
Then they need more training
In this case, Scripture, which is perfectly calibrated.or their measuring devices need calibration.
How about the divisions among the "T"radition plus scripture churches"? Are you saying that those using "T"radition plus scripture despite their divisions are essentially of one mind?
Well, didn't Luther have such a "veto button"? Was he not a nuda scripturian then? If not, what authority was he bound to during the reformation (besides his own)? His only authority was scripture and his conscience....
How would you define the role of church authority, then?
Ah yes, here's the rub. If the church cannot bind the conscience of the believer regarding doctrinal matters, then they are free to make up their own, no, and still be a part of said church? If not, then the church would be binding the believers conscience, wouldn't they?
So in the area's where the individual is not subservient to the church, what are they subservient to, other than their own fanciful interpretations of scripture?
Ok then, I will ask you these questions, as I have above. Can you speak for all those who adhere to SS, though?
.
Good question!
IF this is a valid point, then why don't the 4 denominations that all insist that Tradition is the rule (the OO, the EO, the RC and LDS) all agree on all dogmas?
Even if we exclude the OO and LDS, leaving just two denominations (out of 50,000), both with valid "Apostolic Tradition" right from the Apostles and divinely protected from all error, and with full and valid Apostolic Succession - the RC and EO - there are DOGMAS (matters of highest importance) that are not mutually embraced: The INFALLIBILITY of the Papacy, Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Assumption of Mary - DOGMAS - of which there is not agreement, issues at the very highest level, right from Infallible Apostolic Tradition protected by Valid Apostolic Succession....
I think that Hentenza (a Calvinist) and I (a Lutheran) - both embracing accountability and the Rule of Scripture - are in greater agreement on dogmas than the RCC and LDS are - both rejecting accountability (for self anyway), both rejecting the Rule of Scripture, and both insisting that if self agrees with self then self is correct. I'm very confident of it.
.
Who's accountably for each's interpretation? Are the Baptist's accountable to the Lutheran's for their interpretations? Are the Lutheran's Accountable to Mormons or the Pentacostals for their intrepretations?
You have to add to this question which differences you're referring to. The you have to ask if the issue is an "essential"?
but then one could counter that the Church's that use the Rule of Scipture as the final Authority should be of one mind. But clearly by the 50,000 and growing Church Denominations, Groups, and Home Cells, that this is not true.
Who's accountably for each's interpretation? Are the Baptist's accountable to the Lutheran's for their interpretations? Are the Lutheran's Accountable to Mormons or the Pentacostals for their intrepretations?
Because let's be honest here Lutherans are a heck of alot closer to the RCC then they are to let's say the Southern Baptist Church.
So if the Lutheran's aren't accountable to the Baptist's for their intrerpretations and their doctrines then who are they accountable to? Who has to agree to them? Hmm this may seem odd but they would be accountable to themselves and have to agree with themselves?
Now why does that last part sound so familiar.
What's wrong with having an alter call or not having an alter call?sure
Baptism
Eucharist
Alter Calls or No alter calls
yeah I would have to say they are pretty much essential
"In necessary things unity; in uncertain things freedom; in everything compassion". -- Rupertus MeldeniusYes. The divisions amongst orthodox evangelicals are over non-essentials. This is why you have non-denominational churches and the ecumenical movement.
Heterodox groups (like SDAs for example) are heterodox because they reject (or at least did traditionally) sola gratia/sola fide. Groups that are Lutheran, Reformed, or Arminian all accept sola gratia/fide (which we would say is clear from Scripture), though they differ over the timing of the event (which only the zealots would dispute that it is clear from Scripture).
That being said, shall we make a list of EO "non-essentials" and ask the question if you are also of one mind?
What's wrong with having an alter call or not having an alter call?
I assume you refer to some churches offering folks to come up front
for prayer if they don't know God?
Interesting. So who or what is the RC accountable to? Southern Baptists? Lutherans? EO? OO? How about the EO and the OO? Who or what are they accountable to?
How about the divisions among the "T"radition plus scripture churches"? Are you saying that those using "T"radition plus scripture despite their divisions are essentially of one mind?
that's what I was asking California Joshia. He seems to demonize the Catholic Church because it agrees with itself.
Does your Baptist Church consult the Church of England and seek their agreement with your Church's interpetations of Scripture and Doctrine or does it agree with itself?
No. They are not of one mind. They are not in communion. The differences are consider essential to the faith by at least one side if not both. The schism is lamented, and efforts are constantly underway to re-unify.
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?