Not all. Only if such were contrary to what the Bible teaches. It’s alright to cite and believe extra-biblical sources of knowledge, even the Reformers and contemporary Protestant/Evangelical scholars use them as aids and references to things where Scripture is silent.
The only problem is, the NT was not written in Aramaic but in Greek. Translating it and concluding something out of it is purely conjecture.
It’s already included in the discussion on the necessity of faith.I’d like to know why they didn’t put on the list: the necessity of Repentance.
Can we be saved without repentance?
I thought you might say that.It’s already included in the discussion on the necessity of faith.
That rock was Christ. I find it fascinating that Christ, who is the Rock, names Simon to be the Rock of His Church.
There are very few “essentials” greater than the real presence in the Eucharist, and the salvific nature of Baptism along with the need to baptize infants.
'zactly!
He may have meant this:
Thanks. I suspect you are right.
Could you please give me the authoritative list of non-essential doctrines, (found in the holy bible as opposed to the book to which you referred in your last post? The bible is the word of God and can be trusted; the book to which you referred is merely the opinion of a man.
This is arbitrary and capricious, at best, just as would be the case if I said, the non-essentials were such and such, **while failing to provide an authoritative list of non-essentials found in the bible, **from a sola scriptura point of view.
Transubstantiation (not found in the bible) - is simply a word, like the Trinity, (also not found in the bible) - used by the CC to identify a doctrine; it simply means that the bread and wine (transubstantiated) - truly become the flesh and blood of our savior. You do not believe this? If not, then who or what settled this matter for you, once and for all?Agreement or consensus is one thing, but the right to arbitrate/evaluate and determine whether or not these Christian assemblies are cults is something else altogether. Who or what has the authority to make the final decision/determination of whether or not these Christian assemblies are cults? After all, they will simply say the same about your church. Who or what has the authority to settle the matter, once and for all? It’s not the bible for the bible is used as the final authority/benchmark by all PC’s (with the exception of a few) - and these church leaders are all divided doctrinally speaking (not on all doctrines of course). The bible cannot arbitrate, evaluate or determine anything on it’s own. Only fallible people belonging to Jesus’ church, (Matthew 16) - forever guided by the HS into all truth, can arbitrate, evaluate and ultimately resolve doctrinal differences.
"*Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the SCRIPTURES or by clear arguments (since I believe neither the Pope nor the councils alone; it being evident that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound in the Word of God: I can not and will not recant anything, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do any thing against the conscience
Md, let’s assume that you are right and the CC cannot be trusted. Help me find the church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the holy spirit, into all truth, as opposed to some truths or partial truths (regarding the teachings of Christ) - in the world today, that can arbitrate, evaluate and ultimately resolve doctrinal differences when necessary? Remember, we are assuming that the CC is an apostate church, and is not to be trusted since, as you say, the Pope and the councils of the CC have often erred and contradicted themselves. Let’s dig our heels in and find that church?Please don’t tell me that the church of Matthew 16 is the catholic church (small c) - comprised of all believers, regardless of church affiliation or when these churches were established. I am being genuinely sincere when I ask this question; maybe I am wrong, and maybe you can point me in the direction of the church founded by Jesus Christ, where all truth can be found.
Josiah:
."
In norming, normally the first issue is WHAT will be embraced as the “norma normans” (as it’s called in epistemology). WHAT will serve as the “rule” (straight edge) or “canon” (measuring stick)? WHAT will be the standard, the plumbline? My degree is in physics. For us, the norma normans is math and repeatable, observable experimental evidence. If I write a scientific paper, taking a position, I must norm my position according to one or both of those things in a convincing way. Everyone else has the responsibility to tear it apart (the purpose of publishing a paper - to open myself to critical review) and then I MUST support my position - or remove it. The “burden of proof” is ENTIRELY mine. It is generally upheld that the “best” canon/rule is the most objective (the least subjective), historically embraced, broadly embraced, accepted as reliable by all parties invovled in the evaluation, ABOVE and OUTSIDE all parties so that none can alter such.
Illustration: Bob has a contract to build a wall six feet tall. He has now completed the wall and claims that it is six feet tall (that is his position). The question now becomes: is it? Is his position correct? (Norming). The first question in the process, the praxis, is to determine WHAT we will use as the rule/canon/norma normans, the canon (“measuring stick”)? Perhaps we all agree with use the standard Sears Measuring Tape. THAT, then, would be the embraced canon/rule.
Sola Scriptura is the praxis of embracing Scripture as the canon (“measuring stick”), rule (“straight edge”) or norma normans (as it’s called in epistemology). That praxis is called Sola Scriptura.
Evaluation,. IMHO, Scripture is an excellent canon for norming. It is ABOVE and BEYOND all parties. All literate people know the words of Romans 3:23; I can’t change them, you can’t change them., no one can change them - they are there in black and white for ALL to see and know. All Christians accept this as the inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of GOD Himself. It has a very historic and broad embrace. IMHO, it is a better canon than each party simply exempting self alone from the issue of whether self is correct, displacing that issue with the demand of self alone that self alone is infallible, unaccountable, incapable of error and thus exempt from any evaluation of such. And IMHO, such is more sound that each self designating it’s own positions (often called “Tradition”) and it’s own self (perhaps called “Our Magisterium”) as the rule/canon for the evaluation of the positions of self since that merely creates a perfect circle of self-authentication (especially if self alone appoints self alone as the sole arbiter). Again, all disciplines agree that the best canon is one OUTSIDE and ABOVE all parties, objective and knowable, unalterable, historically embraced, accepted by all parties. Scripture alone qualifies. Self does not. The exemption of self for self does not.
.
.
Help me find the church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the holy spirit, into all truth,
The offical statis of the CC in regards to all other “christian” churches is: