St. Paul Demonstrating Sola Scriptura In Scripture

[Montalban]

C'mon, surely you know this is a red herring.

Only because after the fact you know which books are scripture

In 200 you aren't "given an Epistle to read." You go to Church, where you hear an Epistle read; otherwise you either have no contact with any of the NT, or you are a very special person indeed.

So when Paul wrote, no one read them?

 

[Montalban]

Perhaps we need to have a sticky regarding what 'circular reasoning' is because some don't seem to know what it means.

Asking about how you know if a text is genuine and then just citing a text is circular reasoning.

 

[Kepha]

Well, the same rules aren't being applied. I said that this way---I've agreed to use first-mention tradition, but what I'm finding is that first tradition does not match later tradition that groups claim to use. There's numerous examples of pick and choose and development.

That's how I understand it. The church quit using the same rules. In fact, the definition of apostolic succession changed from ... to ... , well we're not here to discuss this again. The church quit using the same rules.

You're still avoiding my question by trying to bait me like some little fish which won't work.

So I'll copy/paste my question again.

Why the need for even one binding council on sola Scripture folks who've already accepted Christ and thereby believe they're being lead by the Holy Spirit when they interpret? And in today's world, how do the non denoms like yourself settle important doctrinal disputes when such matters arise? Certainly the Apostles knew this would happen so if you suggest that self + Holy Spirit is all we have along with some 'possible' suggestions from others where self + Holy Spirit would once again have to discern the truth, what makes you better than NT Christians where they actually needed a Council and you don't. And if you don't, how are you so sure?

 

[razeontherock]

And I'll again point out that this was answered (quite well) in the post directly above the first time you posted this

 

[Rick Otto]

No need by me. Liberty in Christ + Freedom of Religion renders disputes only what you allow them to be. Councils are only as binding as we allow them to be.
Anyone wo can exercise critical thinking can be as sure as anyone else can be. Anyone with faith in God can be as sure as anyone else with faith in Church.
Being sure isn't the same as being right & being right isn't that difficult or we wouldn't even have law, never mind revelation.
Some of us are just bound to have a better relationship with church than with God, both bein' saved. I can hang with that.
Why hold on to the body when you can hold on to the Head where the body gets its supply?

 

[Montalban]

Which formula of the Trinity do you use?

 

[Rick Otto]

Don't need one. Been fine without one so far.
What'll it cost me? Denial of communion somewhere depending?

 

[Montalban]

It'd only matter on debates over the issue.

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't deny anyone communion. Neither do I offer it to everyone.

 

[razeontherock]

Don't need one. Been fine without one so far.
What'll it cost me? Denial of communion somewhere depending?

Pretty sure we got a special indulgence just for the likes of you ...

 

[Rick Otto]

Pretty sure we got a special indulgence just for the likes of you ...

CAn I get fries with that?

 

[Montalban]

If you don't offer communion to everyone you either are

a) denying it to some

or

b) not offering it to anyone.

 

[Montalban]

Pretty sure we got a special indulgence just for the likes of you ...

Did you read "In praise of Folly"?

 

[razeontherock]

If you don't offer communion to everyone you either are

a) denying it to some

or

b) not offering it to anyone.

I think this DOES demonstrate good, clear thinking, and I surmise it means Rick doesn't actually offer Communion at all. (Was that your gist, Rick?)

 

[razeontherock]

Did you read "In praise of Folly"?

I don't think so, but the name does sound familiar

 

[Standing Up]

You're still avoiding my question by trying to bait me like some little fish which won't work.

You're misreading my response; perhaps projecting into it.

So I'll copy/paste my question again.

Why the need for even one binding council on sola Scripture folks who've already accepted Christ and thereby believe they're being lead by the Holy Spirit when they interpret?

In order to show us what the pattern is. Discuss, evidence, does it line up? It is written.

And in today's world, how do the non denoms like yourself settle important doctrinal disputes when such matters arise?

No idea how others settle disputes. I try to use scripture and earliest tradition. Obviously Councils or Popes aren't enough to settle "doctrinal disputes" that arose over the years, but, like I said, the rules they used at Nicea weren't the ones the apostles and elders used in Acts 15.

Certainly the Apostles knew this would happen

What? That the church would schism?

so if you suggest that self + Holy Spirit

which I don't.

is all we have along with some 'possible' suggestions from others

There's numerous extant early works to use.

where self + Holy Spirit would once again have to discern the truth, what makes you better than NT Christians where they actually needed a Council and you don't. And if you don't, how are you so sure?

Better? As in dumber? Sure. When you don't know anything, you might can learn something. The folks who have it all figured out, yet contradict the other folks who have it all figured out, well, yeah. Dumber for sure.

 

[Montalban]

Acts 15 used rules not found in the OT

 

[Standing Up]

Acts 15 used rules not found in the OT

Unlike Nicea, their decision also pleased the whole church (as someone noted).

 

[Montalban]

Acts 15 - and still Peter backslided later on

I'm not sure what the point of mentioning that some people will disagree means.

 

[iLogos]

I find it amazing any one would put any thing over scripture short of direct contact with an apostle, angel, or Jesus Himself! Yet this is what we are debating here?