Good --glad we agree. And God inspired them (so God certainly knows which ones).
Gee, I don’t know. Will you tell me?
It would be good to know yes.
Gee, I don’t know…will you tell me?
You go first :tiphat:Gee, I don’t know…will you tell me?
Gee, I don’t know…will you tell me?
You’re projecting.
Ok --it seems you do not want to answer now.
I explained the “so what” in another post. The person I was initially responding to was responding similarly to those who claim that there is a historical precedent, back to OT and NT times, for sola Scriptura. I have showed that there is not.
Why would I need to do that? Perhaps I am missing your point. Your assertion to me was that Peter was using Scripture in Acts when he made his decision, and I showed that, although he could have been referring to OT Scripture to refer to the Laws, he did NOT rely on Scripture to come up with a decision to allow Gentiles to not be circumcised. So I don’t understand why you ask for all the OT Law that isn’t written.
I’ll go with that.
He indeed was not using Scripture. Again, the importance here is that this refutes, in my mind, the claim by some that there is this Biblical/historical precedent for sola Scriptura. This becomes important because we now have to know where sola Scriptura came from…and when. That might not matter to you, but it does matter to other Protestants who may be reading this thread. In other words, if they are believing in SS, and at the same time condemn any teaching that is a novelty (a “new” thing in relation to the age of Christianity) they are in conflict when they realize that SS is a novelty. My assertion that it is a novelty can be supported by the quotes I pulled from Jimmy Akin’s article and posted here in this very thread a few posts back.Well, my question to those who believe that Peter was relying on Scripture (and this may not represent you, now) is:
But if my private interpretation directly conflicts with someone else’s, I cannot simply stick with my private interpretation. One of us is wrong and there can be only 1 correct version. This is one point that Jimmy Akin points out…a reason that SS fails. There indeed ARE opposing views of Scriptural teachings by those who practice SS. How do they resolve these using SS?
In fairness, it could likewise be said that you are avoiding the question. He asked a question, which you not only did not answer, but also simply shot the question back at him…more than once. He reminded you that he asked first, and as a matter of courtesy, I would assert that the average person would understand that the originator of the question deserves the first answer…unless it was agreed that you would answer his question directly after he answered one of yours. However, we see there is no such agreement, but that he stated that since he asked first, he would appreciate an answer from you, after which he would answer you in turn.
SS has been around for more than 500 years.I explained the “so what” in another post. The person I was initially responding to was responding similarly to those who claim that there is a historical precedent, back to OT and NT times, for sola Scriptura. I have showed that there is not.
Why would I need to do that? Perhaps I am missing your point. Your assertion to me was that Peter was using Scripture in Acts when he made his decision, and I showed that, although he could have been referring to OT Scripture to refer to the Laws, he did NOT rely on Scripture to come up with a decision to allow Gentiles to not be circumcised. So I don’t understand why you ask for all the OT Law that isn’t written.
I’ll go with that.
Well, my question to those who believe that Peter was relying on Scripture (and this may not represent you, now) is:
Which OT Scripture was he referring to that allowed him to decide the Gentiles do not have to be circumcised? Please show me which OT Scripture says that either 1) Gentiles don’t have to be circumcised or 2) Peter (or any person) is allowed to make such an exception for the Gentiles.
But if my private interpretation directly conflicts with someone else’s, I cannot simply stick with my private interpretation. One of us is wrong and there can be only 1 correct version. This is one point that Jimmy Akin points out…a reason that SS fails. There indeed ARE opposing views of Scriptural teachings by those who practice SS. How do they resolve these using SS?
Sure, right after you answer it. It would be uncharitable for me to do otherwise.Will you tell me the answer?
Yes, for 500 years. This is “new” in relation to Christianity, which has been around for nearly 2,000 years. So, the question becomes, by what Authority was this new belief added to the Christian Faith…a new belief that rejects Sacred Tradition? We all know about the corruption that was taking place, but by what Authority was SS established at the exclusion of the oral Tradition?
No one here can tell you how you * know what books say make up the New Testament How you *know that they are indeed inspired.Will you tell me the answer?
Well, I realize that nothing I say will make SS go away. But that doesn’t mean I should just ignore it, does it? If we see obvious flaws in a teaching, should we not call attention to them? Should we not test all things to be sure they are really true, or if they are doctrines of man? Should we not ask for some proof of authority from those who suddenly decided that, after 1,500 years of Sacred Tradition, the oral Tradition gets trumped by what has been written? Should we not inquire when a novel idea is presented to us?
