AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.

---

This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?

---

There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.

---

And is there a current analog to this?

(Disclosure, I am Catholic and believe the Papacy began with Peter, long before any "Papal revolution" but if I were wrong, I would be seeking a single teaching authority)

---

Yes, I'm aware you're roman catholic. It's hard to offer something palatable to you when you're 1000 years downstream of the papal revolution and hugely invested in it.

---

I'm not looking for "palatable". I'm looking for truth. Is there a current analog to what you believe existed as the teaching authority of the Church in the first centuries after the resurrection?

---

I don't have to 'believe' something existed. We know about the counsels and who went to them to discuss heresy and agree upon doctrine. We know the administration process across the church universal before the schism and papal revolution. We know about the three fold offices of bishop, priest, and deacon and how they exercised their authority. Why would I present a 'current' analog? That structure is preserved in other traditions and was in the roman church for a long time too.

Edit: I view your desire for certainty to be a western artifact as well, not specific just to Rome. The church fathers didn't always agree on everything, and not all things must be agreed upon as not all are clear in scripture. Can we be comfortable in the tension where scripture does not plainly explain everything, leaving something to mystery and recognizing it is not perfect theology that brings us closer to God but the practice of our faith with our belief?

---

My "desire for certainty"???

I started by pointing out that the statement "No Christian can contradict scripture" is an untenable and illogical position unless there is a single central authority that can rule/determine what "contradicts scripture". The logical conclusion is that no one could call themselves a Christian because there will always be someone, somewhere who would say that such and such belief you hold contradicts scripture.

Ecclesial authority predates scripture. I believe that authority still exists on earth.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.

---

This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?

---

There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.

---

And is there a current analog to this?

(Disclosure, I am Catholic and believe the Papacy began with Peter, long before any "Papal revolution" but if I were wrong, I would be seeking a single teaching authority)

---

Yes, I'm aware you're roman catholic. It's hard to offer something palatable to you when you're 1000 years downstream of the papal revolution and hugely invested in it.

---

I'm not looking for "palatable". I'm looking for truth. Is there a current analog to what you believe existed as the teaching authority of the Church in the first centuries after the resurrection?

---

I don't have to 'believe' something existed. We know about the counsels and who went to them to discuss heresy and agree upon doctrine. We know the administration process across the church universal before the schism and papal revolution. We know about the three fold offices of bishop, priest, and deacon and how they exercised their authority. Why would I present a 'current' analog? That structure is preserved in other traditions and was in the roman church for a long time too.

Edit: I view your desire for certainty to be a western artifact as well, not specific just to Rome. The church fathers didn't always agree on everything, and not all things must be agreed upon as not all are clear in scripture. Can we be comfortable in the tension where scripture does not plainly explain everything, leaving something to mystery and recognizing it is not perfect theology that brings us closer to God but the practice of our faith with our belief?

---

My "desire for certainty"???

I started by pointing out that the statement "No Christian can contradict scripture" is an untenable and illogical position unless there is a single central authority that can rule/determine what "contradicts scripture". The logical conclusion is that no one could call themselves a Christian because there will always be someone, somewhere who would say that such and such belief you hold contradicts scripture.

Ecclesial authority predates scripture. I believe that authority still exists on earth.

---

It's really not as illogical as you make it sound. The church fathers write a great many things and the Church accepts several explanations of theological propositions without a central authority (as I said before, penal atonement vs christus victor is one such example). Emphasizing one as opposed to the other isn't wrong and one can be a Christian even accepting both propositions! Is that really that challenging? Should we delve into Augustine deeply to check if he was a Christian?

The Church is the authority; hence the councils. Yes, there are always heresies, different ones for different ages, but no, my disagreement on transubstantiation shouldn't be a deal breaker simply because a material explanation for mystery was needed.

I accept tradition and church authority as much as the next man. What I reject is the notion that without agreeing to the correct theological principles, without thinking all the exhaustive right things, without accepting one bishop as completely authoritative above all others, that you could conclusively or decisively put me outside the church.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.

---

This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?

---

There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.

---

And is there a current analog to this?

(Disclosure, I am Catholic and believe the Papacy began with Peter, long before any "Papal revolution" but if I were wrong, I would be seeking a single teaching authority)

---

Yes, I'm aware you're roman catholic. It's hard to offer something palatable to you when you're 1000 years downstream of the papal revolution and hugely invested in it.

---

I'm not looking for "palatable". I'm looking for truth. Is there a current analog to what you believe existed as the teaching authority of the Church in the first centuries after the resurrection?

---

I don't have to 'believe' something existed. We know about the counsels and who went to them to discuss heresy and agree upon doctrine. We know the administration process across the church universal before the schism and papal revolution. We know about the three fold offices of bishop, priest, and deacon and how they exercised their authority. Why would I present a 'current' analog? That structure is preserved in other traditions and was in the roman church for a long time too.

Edit: I view your desire for certainty to be a western artifact as well, not specific just to Rome. The church fathers didn't always agree on everything, and not all things must be agreed upon as not all are clear in scripture. Can we be comfortable in the tension where scripture does not plainly explain everything, leaving something to mystery and recognizing it is not perfect theology that brings us closer to God but the practice of our faith with our belief?

---

My "desire for certainty"???

I started by pointing out that the statement "No Christian can contradict scripture" is an untenable and illogical position unless there is a single central authority that can rule/determine what "contradicts scripture". The logical conclusion is that no one could call themselves a Christian because there will always be someone, somewhere who would say that such and such belief you hold contradicts scripture.

Ecclesial authority predates scripture. I believe that authority still exists on earth.

---

There is plenty of disagreement on this board in areas like eschatology, hell, the process of salvation, age of the earth, baptism, etc. I believe the majority of us don't view differing interpretations as contradictions of Scripture. There is no way I am correct in every single theological stance I take, and I believe the same is true for all humans.

On the other hand, the Bible is abundantly clear in many areas such as the Resurrection, the deity of Christ, justification by faith, etc. To deny these would be a contradiction. Denying the return of Christ is a contradiction. Differing views of how/when that takes place is not.

---

Some sanity. I approve.

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.

---

This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?

---

There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.

---

And is there a current analog to this?

(Disclosure, I am Catholic and believe the Papacy began with Peter, long before any "Papal revolution" but if I were wrong, I would be seeking a single teaching authority)

---

Yes, I'm aware you're roman catholic. It's hard to offer something palatable to you when you're 1000 years downstream of the papal revolution and hugely invested in it.

---

I'm not looking for "palatable". I'm looking for truth. Is there a current analog to what you believe existed as the teaching authority of the Church in the first centuries after the resurrection?

---

I don't have to 'believe' something existed. We know about the counsels and who went to them to discuss heresy and agree upon doctrine. We know the administration process across the church universal before the schism and papal revolution. We know about the three fold offices of bishop, priest, and deacon and how they exercised their authority. Why would I present a 'current' analog? That structure is preserved in other traditions and was in the roman church for a long time too.

Edit: I view your desire for certainty to be a western artifact as well, not specific just to Rome. The church fathers didn't always agree on everything, and not all things must be agreed upon as not all are clear in scripture. Can we be comfortable in the tension where scripture does not plainly explain everything, leaving something to mystery and recognizing it is not perfect theology that brings us closer to God but the practice of our faith with our belief?

---

My "desire for certainty"???

I started by pointing out that the statement "No Christian can contradict scripture" is an untenable and illogical position unless there is a single central authority that can rule/determine what "contradicts scripture". The logical conclusion is that no one could call themselves a Christian because there will always be someone, somewhere who would say that such and such belief you hold contradicts scripture.

Ecclesial authority predates scripture. I believe that authority still exists on earth.

---

There is plenty of disagreement on this board in areas like eschatology, hell, the process of salvation, age of the earth, baptism, etc. I believe the majority of us don't view differing interpretations as contradictions of Scripture. There is no way I am correct in every single theological stance I take, and I believe the same is true for all humans.

On the other hand, the Bible is abundantly clear in many areas such as the Resurrection, the deity of Christ, justification by faith, etc. To deny these would be a contradiction. Denying the return of Christ is a contradiction. Differing views of how/when that takes place is not.

---

Some sanity. I approve.

---

You have quite the disdain for double predestination, yes? And many sincere Christians hold this view, yes? Why is that an insane disagreement as compared to other, more palatable disagreements?

And to Mostly Peaceful: the great thing about having a Church with authority means YOU don't have to be perfect. You simply trust the Holy Spirit guided the Church from the beginning until now and that the teachings are reliable. There seems to be a lot less stress in that view (at least for me) than hoping my interpretation is right.

---

I believe you are Catholic and forgive me if I am incorrect.

From my reading the Catholic Church does not believe in double predestination and I agree with them.

I do not see the problem.

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.

---

This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?

---

There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.

---

And is there a current analog to this?

(Disclosure, I am Catholic and believe the Papacy began with Peter, long before any "Papal revolution" but if I were wrong, I would be seeking a single teaching authority)

---

Yes, I'm aware you're roman catholic. It's hard to offer something palatable to you when you're 1000 years downstream of the papal revolution and hugely invested in it.

---

I'm not looking for "palatable". I'm looking for truth. Is there a current analog to what you believe existed as the teaching authority of the Church in the first centuries after the resurrection?

---

I don't have to 'believe' something existed. We know about the counsels and who went to them to discuss heresy and agree upon doctrine. We know the administration process across the church universal before the schism and papal revolution. We know about the three fold offices of bishop, priest, and deacon and how they exercised their authority. Why would I present a 'current' analog? That structure is preserved in other traditions and was in the roman church for a long time too.

Edit: I view your desire for certainty to be a western artifact as well, not specific just to Rome. The church fathers didn't always agree on everything, and not all things must be agreed upon as not all are clear in scripture. Can we be comfortable in the tension where scripture does not plainly explain everything, leaving something to mystery and recognizing it is not perfect theology that brings us closer to God but the practice of our faith with our belief?

---

My "desire for certainty"???

I started by pointing out that the statement "No Christian can contradict scripture" is an untenable and illogical position unless there is a single central authority that can rule/determine what "contradicts scripture". The logical conclusion is that no one could call themselves a Christian because there will always be someone, somewhere who would say that such and such belief you hold contradicts scripture.

Ecclesial authority predates scripture. I believe that authority still exists on earth.

---

There is plenty of disagreement on this board in areas like eschatology, hell, the process of salvation, age of the earth, baptism, etc. I believe the majority of us don't view differing interpretations as contradictions of Scripture. There is no way I am correct in every single theological stance I take, and I believe the same is true for all humans.

On the other hand, the Bible is abundantly clear in many areas such as the Resurrection, the deity of Christ, justification by faith, etc. To deny these would be a contradiction. Denying the return of Christ is a contradiction. Differing views of how/when that takes place is not.

---

Some sanity. I approve.

---

You have quite the disdain for double predestination, yes? And many sincere Christians hold this view, yes? Why is that an insane disagreement as compared to other, more palatable disagreements?

And to Mostly Peaceful: the great thing about having a Church with authority means YOU don't have to be perfect. You simply trust the Holy Spirit guided the Church from the beginning until now and that the teachings are reliable. There seems to be a lot less stress in that view (at least for me) than hoping my interpretation is right.

---

I know that I am saved by grace through faith in the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, so I don't stress at all knowing that my eschatology could be off. I don't see a Biblical basis for infant baptism, or the idea that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Nor do I find support for the veneration of Mary or praying to the dead for that matter.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.

---

This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?

---

There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.

---

And is there a current analog to this?

(Disclosure, I am Catholic and believe the Papacy began with Peter, long before any "Papal revolution" but if I were wrong, I would be seeking a single teaching authority)

---

Yes, I'm aware you're roman catholic. It's hard to offer something palatable to you when you're 1000 years downstream of the papal revolution and hugely invested in it.

---

I'm not looking for "palatable". I'm looking for truth. Is there a current analog to what you believe existed as the teaching authority of the Church in the first centuries after the resurrection?

---

I don't have to 'believe' something existed. We know about the counsels and who went to them to discuss heresy and agree upon doctrine. We know the administration process across the church universal before the schism and papal revolution. We know about the three fold offices of bishop, priest, and deacon and how they exercised their authority. Why would I present a 'current' analog? That structure is preserved in other traditions and was in the roman church for a long time too.

Edit: I view your desire for certainty to be a western artifact as well, not specific just to Rome. The church fathers didn't always agree on everything, and not all things must be agreed upon as not all are clear in scripture. Can we be comfortable in the tension where scripture does not plainly explain everything, leaving something to mystery and recognizing it is not perfect theology that brings us closer to God but the practice of our faith with our belief?

---

My "desire for certainty"???

I started by pointing out that the statement "No Christian can contradict scripture" is an untenable and illogical position unless there is a single central authority that can rule/determine what "contradicts scripture". The logical conclusion is that no one could call themselves a Christian because there will always be someone, somewhere who would say that such and such belief you hold contradicts scripture.

Ecclesial authority predates scripture. I believe that authority still exists on earth.

---

There is plenty of disagreement on this board in areas like eschatology, hell, the process of salvation, age of the earth, baptism, etc. I believe the majority of us don't view differing interpretations as contradictions of Scripture. There is no way I am correct in every single theological stance I take, and I believe the same is true for all humans.

On the other hand, the Bible is abundantly clear in many areas such as the Resurrection, the deity of Christ, justification by faith, etc. To deny these would be a contradiction. Denying the return of Christ is a contradiction. Differing views of how/when that takes place is not.

---

Some sanity. I approve.

---

You have quite the disdain for double predestination, yes? And many sincere Christians hold this view, yes? Why is that an insane disagreement as compared to other, more palatable disagreements?

And to Mostly Peaceful: the great thing about having a Church with authority means YOU don't have to be perfect. You simply trust the Holy Spirit guided the Church from the beginning until now and that the teachings are reliable. There seems to be a lot less stress in that view (at least for me) than hoping my interpretation is right.

---

I know that I am saved by grace through faith in the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, so I don't stress at all knowing that my eschatology could be off. I don't see a Biblical basis for infant baptism, or the idea that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Nor do I find support for the veneration of Mary or praying to the dead for that matter.

---

The natural response is that the Bible and canon was ratified by the church universal as being inspired by the Holy Spirit, a church which already existed when the epistles were written. Some of these practices are uncontroversial; it's likely that no epistle was needed to tell people to baptize infants. We shouldn't treat the Bible as an exhaustive Christian practice since that's not the purpose of it. The tradition doesn't subvert or undermine scripture and is your inheritance as a Christian; infant baptism is a blessing God bestows upon us as His work (rather than ours). This is how Sola scriptura should be used, rather than solo which is how you're treating it.

I stand with this writeup:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-does-sola-scriptura-mean

Quote:

---

Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the Apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. Thatno more, no lessis what sola Scriptura means.

---

I think the discussion likely needs to revolve around moreso what the RCC and other denominations are ADDING or TAKING AWAY from scripture.

The Banned said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

AGC said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture.

---

This statement makes the position untenable and contradictory in itself.

Some argue that the Bible contradicts itself. With no central or single teaching authority, schisms are created within Christianity based on variations in interpretation.

Who is the final arbiter on what "contradicts" scripture?

---

There was an episcopal structure that didn't have a central or single teaching authority prior to the papal revolution (hence the original councils) and it seemed to do ok.

---

And is there a current analog to this?

(Disclosure, I am Catholic and believe the Papacy began with Peter, long before any "Papal revolution" but if I were wrong, I would be seeking a single teaching authority)

---

Yes, I'm aware you're roman catholic. It's hard to offer something palatable to you when you're 1000 years downstream of the papal revolution and hugely invested in it.

---

I'm not looking for "palatable". I'm looking for truth. Is there a current analog to what you believe existed as the teaching authority of the Church in the first centuries after the resurrection?

---

I don't have to 'believe' something existed. We know about the counsels and who went to them to discuss heresy and agree upon doctrine. We know the administration process across the church universal before the schism and papal revolution. We know about the three fold offices of bishop, priest, and deacon and how they exercised their authority. Why would I present a 'current' analog? That structure is preserved in other traditions and was in the roman church for a long time too.

Edit: I view your desire for certainty to be a western artifact as well, not specific just to Rome. The church fathers didn't always agree on everything, and not all things must be agreed upon as not all are clear in scripture. Can we be comfortable in the tension where scripture does not plainly explain everything, leaving something to mystery and recognizing it is not perfect theology that brings us closer to God but the practice of our faith with our belief?

---

My "desire for certainty"???

I started by pointing out that the statement "No Christian can contradict scripture" is an untenable and illogical position unless there is a single central authority that can rule/determine what "contradicts scripture". The logical conclusion is that no one could call themselves a Christian because there will always be someone, somewhere who would say that such and such belief you hold contradicts scripture.

Ecclesial authority predates scripture. I believe that authority still exists on earth.

---

There is plenty of disagreement on this board in areas like eschatology, hell, the process of salvation, age of the earth, baptism, etc. I believe the majority of us don't view differing interpretations as contradictions of Scripture. There is no way I am correct in every single theological stance I take, and I believe the same is true for all humans.

On the other hand, the Bible is abundantly clear in many areas such as the Resurrection, the deity of Christ, justification by faith, etc. To deny these would be a contradiction. Denying the return of Christ is a contradiction. Differing views of how/when that takes place is not.

---

Some sanity. I approve.

---

You have quite the disdain for double predestination, yes? And many sincere Christians hold this view, yes? Why is that an insane disagreement as compared to other, more palatable disagreements?

And to Mostly Peaceful: the great thing about having a Church with authority means YOU don't have to be perfect. You simply trust the Holy Spirit guided the Church from the beginning until now and that the teachings are reliable. There seems to be a lot less stress in that view (at least for me) than hoping my interpretation is right.

---

I know that I am saved by grace through faith in the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, so I don't stress at all knowing that my eschatology could be off. I don't see a Biblical basis for infant baptism, or the idea that the sacraments are necessary for salvation. Nor do I find support for the veneration of Mary or praying to the dead for that matter.

---

This is exactly what the OP was about. Your interpretation of the Bible says it has to be directly in the Bible while others disagree. It makes theological discussion very difficult.

---

No it doesn't. I hold multiple theological positions with a very open hand as I see Biblical support for differing interpretations. I do not see any Biblical support for infant baptism. To make it necessary adds to Scripture.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I stand with this writeup:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-does-sola-scriptura-mean

Quote:

---

Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the Apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. Thatno more, no lessis what sola Scriptura means.

---

I think the discussion likely needs to revolve around moreso what the RCC and other denominations are ADDING or TAKING AWAY from scripture.

---

This is awash in contradiction.

On the one hand scripture is silent on important things. On the other, when anglicans or the RCC talk about important things, they must be adding to scripture (thus it's rejected).

We are told to baptize, so it's in scripture. But it doesn't say when to baptize (I can wait as long as I want or need to) or to baptize children explicitly so we can assume it's extra. Of course it could be an implicit mechanism - the commandment to baptize households would include children and slaves. How do you determine which is correct or commanded?

These summaries never escape the original criticism: we as individuals are not the best arbiter for these things.

AGC said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I stand with this writeup:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/what-does-sola-scriptura-mean

Quote:

---

Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary. Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the Apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture. It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take away from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). To add to it is to lay on people a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved and all that we must do in order to glorify God. Thatno more, no lessis what sola Scriptura means.

---

I think the discussion likely needs to revolve around moreso what the RCC and other denominations are ADDING or TAKING AWAY from scripture.

---

We are told to baptize, so it's in scripture. But it doesn't say when to baptize (I can wait as long as I want or need to) or to baptize children explicitly so we can assume it's extra. Of course it could be an implicit mechanism - the commandment to baptize households would include children and slaves. How do you determine which is correct or commanded?

---

Even in the reformed community there is not a consensus on baptism.

I don't think this is evidence for Petrine primacy. This is evidence for Patriarchal primacy. Hippo would have belonged to the Roman hierarchy, I believe.

By the same token, a church in Greece saying a council would need to consult the church in Constantinople wouldn't be evidence against Petrine primacy.

Quote:

---

You've given multiple. There can't be multiple authorities. How are differences between them decided. There is 1 truth, not many. While you mentioned multiple, you seemingly pointedly left out two of the oldest -- Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.

---

Christ is the single authority of the church.

What you have presented is an argument against Christ as the sole head of the Church. Essentially you're saying that He is insufficient as the sole authority, so in addition to Him we need a single human authority. I think this is a problem, in theory and as evidenced in history.

Also, for a funny related lighten up moment. I love this meme. It's a screenshot from Breaking Bad when Walt says "Jesse….what the hell are you talking about"

Perhaps, but you wrote "One of my favorite examples of Petrine primacy is from the council of Hippo in the late 4th century."

Zobel said:

---

Perhaps, but you wrote "One of my favorite examples of Petrine primacy is from the council of Hippo in the late 4th century."

---

ah, yes that was presented for an example of Petrine primacy, I didnt' see which post you'd linked to. I had though you linked to the lengthier one I posted after that just a few moments ago.

Quote:

---

The logical conclusion is that no one could call themselves a Christian because there will always be someone, somewhere who would say that such and such belief you hold contradicts scripture.

---

I had a discussion about this with someone last week.

For categories to exist and have meaningful use, there must be criteria to distinguish something within the category from something without. And for a group like Christianity to exist in a coherent way as a category that criteria "belongs" to those in the group, not outside of it.

So I see your argument analogous as saying that without a monarchial head, no group of people can function or even self-define. But of course this is false. Democracies exist. Republics exist. Even dual monarchies existed (like in Sparta). It isn't even necessary in a republic to have a single executive - the most successful republic in history had two simultaneous executives (Rome).

For a matter of voluntary association it doesn't matter what someone outside the group says. What matters is inside the group, and the group itself has the only right to determine who is in and out, and what the criteria are -- and who within the group decides. Otherwise you get the meaningless nonsense we have today where the only criterion of being considered a Christian by the world is self-identifying as one. But that doesn't make you a Christian any more than declaring yourself a citizen of Montenegro does.

There is a persistent misunderstanding that the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church is catholic by virtue of sum of parts. But this misunderstands the word catholic itself. The Church is one because it is universal, not one because it has all parts. As St Ignatius wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church." The Church is One insofar as it relates to Christ. The Church is catholic and universal because of its relationship to Christ's Oneness. The Church exists with the bishop, in the place and a type of Christ, and the people, forming the assembly (the ecclesia). There is no need for a central universal bishop, or a single vicar - the bishop and the people form the Church, and that Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic in and of itself. Unity is found through Christ, not through a centralized hierarchy, and certainly not through a self-styled universal bishop.

As a separate thought. There did grow up a very distinct difference between East and West before the Schism, and probably driving it, in how people thought about theology. There's a great book called Aristotle East and West that talks about one aspect of it. Runciman's "The Great Church in Captivity" shows it over and over.

The West, leading to and under the influence of scholasticism, absolutely drove to a need for certainty that the East never became comfortable with. The West wanted a summa type approach with clarity and precision on every topic, with an eye toward the mechanistic understanding. That persists today, all of us Americans are affected by it because it is a presupposition in our education methods.

The East was content with apophatic theology and mysticism. The Protestants who reached out to the East (Lutherans and Anglicans, along with other groups in Poland and Ukraine) found that they really only had anti-Roman sentiment in common. The East could not and would not definitively answer them to their own litmus test beliefs on Predestination, the matter of the nature of the change at the Eucharist, when the change happened (epiklesis or before?), the existence of purgatory, and so on. The confessions of Cyril Lucaris and Dositheos were the attempts of the East to answer these, but they were in reaction to Western pressure on them to do so.

I think this desire for certainty is a strong driver of the fracture that occurred after the Reformation within Protestantism. Once you do not subordinate this desire to obedience to a singular authority, any structure becomes incoherent. So the positions here make perfect sense. Once "I want to know" becomes the driver, the only functional structure is "then you must submit to Rome".

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

The logical conclusion is that no one could call themselves a Christian because there will always be someone, somewhere who would say that such and such belief you hold contradicts scripture.

---

There is a persistent misunderstanding that the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church is catholic by virtue of sum of parts. But this misunderstands the word catholic itself. The Church is one because it is universal, not one because it has all parts. As St Ignatius wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church." The Church is One insofar as it relates to Christ. The Church is catholic and universal because of its relationship to Christ's Oneness. The Church exists with the bishop, in the place and a type of Christ, and the people, forming the assembly (the ecclesia). There is no need for a central universal bishop, or a single vicar - the bishop and the people form the Church, and that Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic in and of itself. Unity is found through Christ, not through a centralized hierarchy, and certainly not through a self-styled universal bishop.

---

This portion seems to contradict what we just spoke about though. Why did the findings of councils need to be approved by a Patriarch, I believe there were only 3 patriarchates at the time of the Council of Hippo; Rome, Antioch and Alexandria; why did one of these 3 need to sign off? St. Augustine was obviously there, as a Bishop he didn't need to kick it up the latter; but he did; and to Rome.

That is evidence of a hierarchy amongst bishops.

Sure, for a matter of administration there is an episcopal hierarchy.

We need to read the acts of the councils of Carthage where they say things like:

Quote:

---

Alypius, bishop of the Tagastine Church, and legate of the province of Numidia, said: On this matter there has been some legislation in former sessions of our council, and we profess that we shall ever observe what was decreed by the Nicene Council; yet I remember that when we examined the Greek copies of this Nicene Synod, we did not find these the words quoted Why this was the case, I am sure I do not know. For this reason we beg your reverence, holy Pope Aurelius, that, as the authentic record of the decrees of the Council of Nicaea are said to be preserved in the city of Constantinople, you would deign to send messengers with letters from your Holiness, and not only to our most holy brother the bishop of Constantinople, but also to the venerable bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, who shall send to us the decrees of that council with the authentification of their signatures, so that hereafter all ambiguity should be taken away, for we failed to find the words cited by our brother Faustinus; notwithstanding this however we promise to be ruled by them for a short time, as I have already said, until reliable copies come to hand. Moreover the venerable bishop of the Roman Church, Boniface, should be asked likewise to be good enough to send messengers to the aforementioned churches, who should have the same copies according to his rescript, but the copies of the aforementioned Nicene Council which we have, we place in these Acts.

---

Or the canon that says...

Quote:

---

Canon 125. (Greek cxxvi.)
That presbyters and clerics are not to appeal except to African Synods

Item, it seemed good that presbyters, deacons, or other of the lower clergy who are to be tried, if they question the decision of their bishops, the neighbouring bishops having been invited by them with the consent of their bishops, shall hear them and determine whatever separates them. But should they think an appeal should be carried from them, let them not carry the appeal except to African councils or to the primates of their provinces. But whoever shall think of carrying an appeal across seas he shall be admitted to communion by no one in Africa.

---

Or their letter to Boniface..

Quote:

---

[There are] things which have been inserted in the acts until the arrival of the most accurate copies of the Nicene Council, which things, if they are contained there (as in the Commonitory, which our brethren directed to us from the Apostolic See alleged) and be even kept according to that order by you in Italy, in no way could we be compelled either to endure such treatment as we are unwilling to mention or could suffer what is unbearable: but we believe, through the mercy of our Lord God, while your holiness presides over the Roman Church, we shall not have to suffer that pride. And there will be kept toward us, what should be kept with brotherly love to us who are making no dispute. You will also perceive according to the wisdom and the justice which the most Highest has given you, what should be observed, if perchance the canons of the Council of Nicaea are other [than you suppose]. For although we have read very many copies, yet never have we read in the Latin copies that there were any such decrees as are contained in the commonitory before mentioned. So too, because we can find them in no Greek text here, we have desired that there should be brought to us from the Eastern Churches copies of the decrees, for it is said that there correct copies of the decrees are to be found. For which end we beg your reverence, that you would deign yourself also to write to the pontiffs of these parts, that is of the churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople, and to any others also if it shall please your holiness, that thence there may come to us the same canons decreed by the Fathers in the city of Nice, and thus you would confer by the help of the Lord this most great benefit upon all the churches of the West. For who can doubt that the copies of the Nicene Council gathered in the Greek empire are most accurate, which although brought together from so diverse and from such noble Greek churches are found to agree when compared together? And until this be done, the provisions laid down to us in the Commonitory aforesaid, concerning the appeals of bishops to the pontiff of the Roman Church and concerning the causes of clerics which should be terminated by the bishops of their own provinces, we are willing to allow to be observed until the proof arrives and we trust your blessedness will help us in this according to the will of God.

---

Or another letter:

Quote:

---

Let your Holiness reject, as is worthy of you, that unprincipled taking shelter with you of presbyters likewise, and the inferior clergy, both because by no ordinance of the Fathers has the Church of Africa been deprived of this authority, and the Nicene decrees have most plainly committed not only the clergy of inferior rank, but the bishops themselves to their own Metropolitans. For they have ordained with great wisdom and justice, that all matters should be terminated in the places where they arise; and did not think that the grace of the Holy Spirit would be wanting to any Province, for the bishops of Christ wisely to discern, and firmly to maintain the right: especially since whosoever thinks himself wronged by any judgment may appeal to the council of his Province, or even to a General Council [i.e. of Africa] unless it be imagined that God can inspire a single individual with justice, and refuse it to an innumerable multitude of bishops assembled in council. And how shall we be able to rely on a sentence passed beyond the sea, since it will not be possible to send there the necessary witnesses, whether from weakness, or advanced age, or any other impediment? For that your Holiness should send any on your part we can find ordained by no council of Fathers. Because with regard to what you have sent us by the same our brother bishop Faustinus, as being contained in the Nicene Council, we can find nothing of the kind in the more authentic copies of that council, which we have received from the holy Cyril our brother, Bishop of the Alexandrine Church, and from the venerable Atticus the Prelate of Constantinople, and which we formerly sent by Innocent the presbyter, and Marcellus the subdeacon through whom we received them, to Boniface the Bishop, your predecessor of venerable memory. Moreover whoever desires you to delegate any of your clergy to execute your orders, do not comply, lest it seem that we are introducing the pride of secular dominion into the Church of Christ which exhibits to all that desire to see God the light of simplicity and the day of humility.

---

They oughta call Carthage the show-me state.

At any rate, if you read the whole of the discussion the earnest desire is for unity in how the church governs itself, including what they read as scripture. Hence, the canon on scripture saying:

Quote:

---

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

---

Basically means - our scripture should hopefully be the same as any other church's please confirm.

Zobel said:

---

Basically means - our scripture should hopefully be the same as any other church's please confirm.

---

Your responses are always so great and I appreciate them. I want to focus in on the last little part as it's where I think there's some confusion on my part.

Our two bibles are different, I believe there are other Churches as well within Orthodoxy who have a slightly different canon, please correct me if I'm wrong. The core books are the same, but I believe there are some who don't read Revelation, or at least don't consider it appropriate for teaching during Divine Liturgy.

Because of this we know that there are no issues, among Orthodoxy with slightly different biblical canons based on the traditions of the local Church, so I don't see the reasoning behind kicking it up to a Patriarch UNLESS there's a hierarchical difference.

This is probably the only thing I find "dishonest" about Orthodoxy, every other difference I chalk up to a genuine good-faith disagreement and frictional philosophical outlooks. The issue i'm speaking of is the "First Among Equals" nature of the Ecumenical Patriarch. There is no such thing as a first among equals; that's why they're equal. This issue really grabbed my intention when ROCOR and Constantinople severed communion over Patriarch Bartholomew granting autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and establishing a region in Ukraine that reported directly to Constantinople. I got into the weeds a bit and saw that a lot of this was related to a decision made by a Synod to revoke the approval of the Muskovan Patriarch to ordain the Kievan Patriarch way back in the 17th century.

In short, the Ecumenical Patriarch seems to swing a very strong stick concerning matters that impact Orthodoxy as a whole and not just the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

We have some of these issues in on the Eastern side of the Catholic Church as well. The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (which considers itself Orthodox but in communion with Rome) is constantly complaining about the title of it's Bishop, Sviatoslav Shevchuk. He wants to be called a Patriarch, the vatican has determined he's a Major Archbishop/Metropolitan, but he's still using the title Patriarch during his official duties.

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.

---

Good thing the RCC wrote that Bible then!

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.

---

How would adherents of this understanding advise its members with regards to a surrogate pregnancy?

PabloSerna said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.

---

How would adherents of this understanding advise its member with regards to a surrogate pregnancy?

---

'Read the Old Testament and see what happened when people took having children into their own hands', sounds like a reasonable take to me even as an Anglican. Is the next question about marijuana?

AGC said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.

---

How would adherents of this understanding advise its member with regards to a surrogate pregnancy?

---

'Read the Old Testament and see what happened when people took having children into their own hands', sounds like a reasonable take to me even as an Anglican. Is the next question about marijuana?

---

I hope the winky tongue face is because you know it's obviously not that widely believed by modern Christians and that they would point out all the differences in the situation lol

AGC said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.

---

How would adherents of this understanding advise its member with regards to a surrogate pregnancy?

---

'Read the Old Testament and see what happened when people took having children into their own hands', sounds like a reasonable take to me even as an Anglican. Is the next question about marijuana?

---

I think we are on the same side of the issue here.

Infertility/delayed pregnancy in the Old Testament was not what I was asking about, rather how someone would point to scripture and say (maybe) "Just pray about it and wait, look at Sarah or Rachel." Almost all of which ended in a pregnancy. At which point, maybe the couple would ask if God is the author of life, how is then that some can choose surrogacy and be blessed with life?

For some women, putting off having children and then running out of time to have children (for heath reasons) is not uncommon. It would seem that advancements in medicine have made the ability to have both more common. However, there are some ethical and moral dimensions to that choice.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.

---

How would adherents of this understanding advise its member with regards to a surrogate pregnancy?

---

'Read the Old Testament and see what happened when people took having children into their own hands', sounds like a reasonable take to me even as an Anglican. Is the next question about marijuana?

---

I hope the winky tongue face is because you know it's obviously not that widely believed by modern Christians and that they would point out all the differences in the situation lol

---

I imagine, living in Texas and still being heavily connected with the large evangelical community in my town, that the supposed variability is far less than hoped for when searching for a divisive idea. Adoption and fostering are big in our community and surrogacy is pretty much unheard of. In fact, I didn't hear it spoken of at all; it wasn't a thought because the other options were considered the only alternatives and churches gave money to couples for those purposes (in addition to other members who adopted that formed support groups). This particular discussion stayed very much in line with our history.

Appreciate your posts too!

Yes, there is no one set canon in Orthodoxy. Different Orthodox traditions have different canons.

Most don't read Revelation, some Old Testament texts are different.

Quote:

---

Because of this we know that there are no issues, among Orthodoxy with slightly different biblical canons based on the traditions of the local Church, so I don't see the reasoning behind kicking it up to a Patriarch UNLESS there's a hierarchical difference.

---

Right, but your patriarch is still your patriarch. Within the Greek church there is one canon, within the Russian church there is one canon. Here, Rome is their patriarch... in effect, Rome is the "fathers" that they received the things to be read in church from.

Quote:

---

There is no such thing as a first among equals; that's why they're equal.

---

Well, I think it is possible to have good faith disagreement here. The speaker of the house is an example of first among equals, as was the title of the leading member of the Roman senate (princeps senatus). Even the president of the US is an example of first among equals - he is just a citizen, after all. It is where we get "Prime" minister from (primus, first). It's also the same concept as the chief justice on the supreme court. The Holy Roman Emperor was also considered first among equals with other Catholic monarchs in Europe.

In some cases it is just a title. Sometimes it is honorary only, sometimes the person gets to speak first, or lead debate.

A false example of first among equals is the Caesars / Emperors of Rome after Augustus who styled themselves merely "first citizen" - but that was with intent, because it was a direct denial of kingship (king being a... ha... four letter word to Romans).

So I think there absolutely is a sense of first among equals that can be real, and work, and be a functional distinction. And this is what we see even today between the patriarchates of the east. And, I think that the Bishop of Rome consistently interpreted it more along the lines of Princeps hearkening to Augustus. No "among equals". Just first.

Quote:

---

This issue really grabbed my intention when ROCOR and Constantinople severed communion over Patriarch Bartholomew granting autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine and establishing a region in Ukraine that reported directly to Constantinople. I got into the weeds a bit and saw that a lot of this was related to a decision made by a Synod to revoke the approval of the Muskovan Patriarch to ordain the Kievan Patriarch way back in the 17th century.

---

Yeah, read Runciman's "Great Church In Captivity" for all the sordid details there. So much intrigue, bribery, political machination as the Patriarch of the Greeks sought to maintain coherent identity, political power, and mere existence against the Turks, the constant pressure of the Jesuits, and European catholic intrigues as a way to gain power in Istanbul.

Russia has seen itself as the Third Rome and "THE" Orthodox Church as a matter of state and church policy since the 17th century. Then came under the thumb of Peter the Great and didn't even have a patriarch (patriarch became a bit too powerful for the likes of the Tsar) until the revolution...

Quote:

---

In short, the Ecumenical Patriarch seems to swing a very strong stick concerning matters that impact Orthodoxy as a whole and not just the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

---

But, you'll notice that was a dispute between Moscow and Constantinople, not joined by Antioch or anyone else. Just like when Antioch and Jerusalem have disputes that's their own thing.

At any rate yeah... they're fallible men.

I think the difference is that first among equals could even possibly extend to administrative matters like determining discipline or autocephaly. But when it comes to matters such as being supreme / universal pontiff and concepts of infallibility as a hard charism of the office... that's where it's no longer equals at all. And it becomes untenable.

PabloSerna said:

---

Mostly Peaceful said:

---

Simply put, sola scriptura means that no "Christian" teaching can contradict Scripture. The Bible is the sole authority. It makes more sense in the context of the reformation. The 5 solas were a rejection of the man made traditions instituted by the RCC.

---

How would adherents of this understanding advise its members with regards to a surrogate pregnancy?

---

That's a good question. Obviously there are times when surrogacy is clearly immoral, but can a blanket ban be justified from Scripture? If so, I'm all for it.

If not, it's an area where Christians should be able to agree to disagree. Anyone considering surrogacy should do so prayerfully and seek advice from their pastors/fellow believers. Any objections to that?

And 50 minutes later I stand corrected.