Sola scriptura advocates: Acts 15, & doctrinal guidance?

[ignatius777]

Matthew 18:
15 ¶ "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
16 "But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ {#De 19:15}
17 "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Having your presupposition, I see how you think you have the correct understanding. However, there’s NO evidence that this verse is for the CC and the CC only.

Just once it would be nice for you to admit that the major doctrines of all non-catholic Christian (not just by name, that is) have the same core doctrines as you do.

So we agree with the church that we must reconcileour sins through a priest? Excellent

 

[elvisman]

Matthew 18:
15 ¶ "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
16 "But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ {#De 19:15}
17 "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Having your presupposition, I see how you think you have the correct understanding. However, there’s NO evidence that this verse is for the CC and the CC only.

Just once it would be nice for you to admit that the major doctrines of all non-catholic Christian (not just by name, that is) have the same core doctrines as you do.

Doki:
**That’s because they CAME FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE FIRST PLACE. **

**Haven’t you *ever *read about the Protestant Reformation? **
Are you not aware that Protestants came into being after some 1500 years of the Catholic Church?
WHO do you think they broke away FROM??
That’s why you have the SOME of the same core doctrines as us.

As for the verses you supplied above from Matt. 18 - that’s an excellent example of Church Authority. Remember - Jesus only established ONE Church - the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

Matthew 18:
15 ¶ "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.
16 "But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ {#De 19:15}
17 "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 "Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Having your presupposition, I see how you think you have the correct understanding. However, there’s NO evidence that this verse is for the CC and the CC only.

Just because you refuse to accept the evidence does not mean there is no evidence. Jesus only founded One Church, and it was Catholic. All other ecclesial communities exist after separating themselves from Catholicism. They believe they took the authority with them.

Just once it would be nice for you to admit that the major doctrines of all non-catholic Christian (not just by name, that is) have the same core doctrines as you do.

I think this is certainly true in many cases. However, who is to decide what the “major doctrines” are? The Apostles taught that one of these was that scritpure should never be interpreted apart from the One Faith that produced it. SS, a “major doctrine” of the Reformation, says the exact opposite.

The Aposltes believed that it was their responsibility to define doctrine and to govern the Church. They believed that the authority to do this was passed down through the laying on of hands. This apostolic succession was lost to most Protestants during the Reformation. To Protestants, this does not constitute a ‘major doctrine’.

 

[Dokimas]

So we agree with the church that we must reconcileour sins through a priest? Excellent

I don’t mean to be silly here but if it’s so easy for you to misunderstand me, maybe you’ve not understood those verses.

 

[Dokimas]

Doki:
That’s because they CAME FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE FIRST PLACE.

**Haven’t you *ever ***read about the Protestant Reformation?
Are you not aware that Protestants came into being after some 1500 years of the Catholic Church?
WHO do you think they broke away FROM??
That’s why you have the SOME of the same core doctrines as us.

As for the verses you supplied above from Matt. 18 - that’s an excellent example of Church Authority. Remember - Jesus only established ONE Church - the Catholic Church.

Presupposition lead the way into beliefs which is fine if we have the correct presuppositions. I’m not convinced you have the correct presuppositions. You have not persuaded me to follow you.

 

[Dokimas]

Just because you refuse to accept the evidence does not mean there is no evidence. Jesus only founded One Church, and it was Catholic. All other ecclesial communities exist after separating themselves from Catholicism. They believe they took the authority with them.

I think this is certainly true in many cases. However, who is to decide what the “major doctrines” are? The Apostles taught that one of these was that scritpure should never be interpreted apart from the One Faith that produced it. SS, a “major doctrine” of the Reformation, says the exact opposite.

The Aposltes believed that it was their responsibility to define doctrine and to govern the Church. They believed that the authority to do this was passed down through the laying on of hands. This apostolic succession was lost to most Protestants during the Reformation. To Protestants, this does not constitute a ‘major doctrine’.

Correct, denying evidence doesn’t negate it. Thinking something is evidence doesn’t make it evidence either.

 

[elvisman]

Presupposition lead the way into beliefs which is fine if we have the correct presuppositions. I’m not convinced you have the correct presuppositions. You have not persuaded me to follow you.

I’m not asking you to follow me.
I am pointing out an historical fact. Study up on the Reformation and you’ll see that I’m right.

 

[Dokimas]

I’m not asking you to follow me.
**I am pointing out an historical **fact. Study up on the Reformation and you’ll see that I’m right.

I’m not following the reformation so, thank you for the suggestion, but I’m not interested.

 

[elvisman]

I’m not following the reformation so, thank you for the suggestion, but I’m not interested.

**You are absolutely following the Reformation. **

Unless you are Catholic or Orthodox - your current church or ecclesial community can only be traced to the Reformation, friend. You can’t go back any further than that.

 

[guanophore]

Correct, denying evidence doesn’t negate it. Thinking something is evidence doesn’t make it evidence either.

No, it does not, but the fact that the history of the Church, secular history, and the writings of the Early Fathers support the Catholic position seems as if evidence exists apart from my “thoughts”.

It is amazing that, to espouse the view that you do, you must relegate so many of the facts into non-existence.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not asking you to follow me.
**I am pointing out an historical **fact. Study up on the Reformation and you’ll see that I’m right.

I’m not following the reformation so, thank you for the suggestion, but I’m not interested.

This is a very good example of a refusal to examine one’s presuppositions.

In fact, Doki, you are following in a faith stream that emanates from heresies spawned during the Reformation. If you were to closely examine how your beliefs follow in the course of that steram, you would probably have to abandon some of them.

 

[Dokimas]

You are absolutely following the Reformation.

Unless you are Catholic or Orthodox - your current church or ecclesial community can only be traced to the Reformation, friend. You can’t go back any further than that.

Thanks for your opinion. I have a different opinion.

 

[elvisman]

Thanks for your opinion. I have a different opinion.

It’s not an opinion - it’s an historical fact.

If you wish to persist in saying that it is merely my opinion - then prove me wrong - with HISTORY.
PROVE that your church can be traced back to the Apostles, like I can.

**The plain fact, Doki, is that you can’t because history shuts you down. That is one thing that can’t be faked - it is what it IS.

 

[Dokimas]

It’s not an opinion - it’s an historical fact.

If you wish to persist in saying that it is merely my opinion - then prove me wrong - with HISTORY.
PROVE that your church can be traced back to the Apostles, like I can.

**The plain fact, Doki, is that you *can’t ***because history shuts you down. That is one thing that can’t be faked - it is what it IS.

I’m afraid we are off topic. Private message me and we’ll ‘talk’ or start another thread.

 

[guanophore]

I’m afraid we are off topic. Private message me and we’ll ‘talk’ or start another thread.

I am not so sure, Doki. The question of the OP goes back to the authority that Jesus gave to the Church,

The reformers were disgusted by the behavior of their local clerics, and were yearning for a more authentic faith experience. They replaced those placed in authority through the apostolic succession with the Scripture, claiming that it should be the final authority.

They claimed that God had taken away the authority He left with the Catholic Church, and gave it to those who were more obedient (bible christians). Unlike Paul and Barnabas, who deferred to the authority of the Church, they rejected that any such valid authority existed.

 

[elvisman]

I’m afraid we are off topic. Private message me and we’ll ‘talk’ or start another thread.

**I have to agree with Guanophore here. I don’t feel that this is off topic because the entire question of the OP rests on Church Authority and you can’t have true Authority without valid Apostolic Succession.

 

[joe370]

I have to agree with Guanophore here. I don’t feel that this is off topic because the entire question of the OP rests on Church Authority and you *can’t *have true Authority without valid Apostolic Succession.

Exactly, and that succession is biblical. We see Paul telling Timothy and Titus to take charge of the local churches. Paul commands them to ordain presbyters/bishops and to exercise general oversight, telling Titus to “rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15). We know that the office of bishop was already quite distinct from that of priest in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch who died in 107AD, and by the middle of the 2nd century all the main centers of Christianity were headed by bishops assisted by presbyters.

We see, in time, an organic development taking place, to handle Jesus’ Church as it expanded over time. What worked for a small group of persecuted Christians had to adapt as the entire roman empire became Christian.