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.
Indeed. In that we (in some circles) are going back to the late 2nd temple Judaism that embraced both Hillel's and Shammai's points of view.
That is NOT how many take Sola Scriptura. (including myself)
It's how I have understood it. See, for example, the 39 Articles: "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."
No, I'm not familiar with CENI. Can you expand on what it means?
As used by the Church of Christ, the Christian Church and other groups from the Stone-Campbell revivalists, Nothing is allowed unless in the New Testament there is a command to do something, an example of the early church doing something, or a situation which infers something. They follow the Zwingly concept that if something does not fit that form, it MUST be condemned and disallowed.
Why would it take all these denominations who are non-denominational or who are involved in ecumenism to come to the conclusion that their strongly held doctrines may be mistaken, and those of other groups may be correct? Again, we are talking about very fundamental issues of grace, baptism, sanctification, justification, etc.
That is definitely NOT sola scriptura. Such a view is actually, as far as I can see, in direct contradiction to what we find in the New Testament. In a couple instances in the New Testament, Paul includes a couple of his own opinions. I don't have the specific references, but he comes right out and says something like, "this is from me, not God." If your view of sola scriptura were what God actually intended, then what Paul did is inexcusable and should be condemned.
Often misunderstood. That cannot be taken as totally "not from God," or just "man's opinion" and therefore useless. It meant it was from New Revelation God gave Paul; something not stated in the OT. Conversely when he said "From God, not me.." it meant it WAS in the OT.
Okay. While I'm aware of the Church of Christ and the Stone-Campbell movement, it's not a theological tradition that I've studied in any detail.
Who said anything about it being useless??
That doesn't make sense. It can't be "not from God" AND "new revelation FROM GOD" at the same time. That contradicts Paul's own words. I found one of the references - 1 Corinthians 7:25 - Paul says, "I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion." Paul directly states it IS an opinion, not any "revelation from God".
So you've already claimed. And as already pointed out, that makes no sense when we look at Paul's actual words. Simply repeating yourself doesn't refute anything.
