P
PRmerger
Guest
There is nothing in the above post that I would disagree with, in essence.
It still shows that you have relied on something* outside *of Scripture in your theology.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
It still shows that you have relied on something* outside *of Scripture in your theology.
J
joe370
Guest
But that’s just it. If sola scriptura would have been all the rage, as it is today, back then, Arius, or anyone for that matter (and there were plenty) - would have had every right to believe what he believed and to promulgate that bogus belief, for the simple fact that scripture would have been his final authority as opposed to the church.Really? Ok, then, please show me how Scripture is tenuous in presenting the doctrine of the Trinity. Find even one Christian from Arius’ birth until 100 years after Nicaea that says that the Arians “could affirm every single verse of Scripture” or couldn’t be refuted from Scripture alone.
The religious perspicuity of the ancient Scriptures caused them (the Arians) no shame. - Alexander of Alexandria.
You know what I mean, maybe?
A
Augsburg1530
Guest
I would not make a determination of doctrine on an argument of silence. Scripture no where presents to us the idea of praying to those in heaven in order for them to grant our petitions. It only does so in relation to God.That is indeed one form of prayer–worship of the divine.
But there is nothing in Scripture–not a single word–that says that prayer has to be only worship of God. Prayer, esp. in English, involves petition. And, there’s nothing in Scripture–not a single word–that conflicts with petitioning another to lift us up before the Lord.
No. But you know the context of how I am using the term veneration.What about veneration is contradictory to Scripture? Having a picture of a saint in your home is contradictory to Scripture? Naming you baby after a saint is contradictory to Scripture? Having a church named after a saint is contradictory to Scripture?
A
Augsburg1530
Guest
Of course. Doesn’t everyone?There is nothing in the above post that I would disagree with, in essence.
It still shows that you have relied on something* outside *of Scripture in your theology.
A
Augsburg1530
Guest
He did have the right to believe it. And the church had the right to declare him a heretic for holding to it. Ultimately, God had the authority of sending him to Hell for believing it. I’m not sure what your point is here. Did Arius ever accept the teaching of Nicea?But that’s just it. If sola scriptura would have been all the rage, as it is today, back then, Arius, or anyone for that matter (and there were plenty) - would have had every right to believe what he believed and to promulgate that bogus belief, for the simple fact that scripture would have been his final authority as opposed to the church.
You know what I mean, maybe?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, Augsburg, this is different from your original argument.I would not make a determination of doctrine on an argument of silence. Scripture no where presents to us the idea of praying to those in heaven in order for them to grant our petitions. It only does so in relation to God.
You initially stated that the veneration of the saints was in conflict with Scripture.
Where does it conflict? What verses say veneration of the saints is illicit?
A
Augsburg1530
Guest
It conflicts with the fact that in a positive sense, we are commanded only to pray to God/Christ. It is only through Him that Scripture presents any form of grace being given to mankind.Well, Augsburg, this is different from your original argument.
You initially stated that the veneration of the saints was in conflict with Scripture.
Where does it conflict? What verses say veneration of the saints is illicit?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed they do!Of course. Doesn’t everyone?
Not a single person who advocates “The Bible is my sole rule of faith” really believes it.
It’s a contradiction.
The Catholic Church, which proclaims there are 2 channels of God’s Word: Scripture and Tradition, has it right. It is to that, which, really, “everyone” adjures.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Scripture commands that we WORSHIP only God. Not pray/petition to God alone.It conflicts with the fact that in a positive sense, we are commanded only to pray to God/Christ.
Indeed. If we receive grace it is through Jesus and His atoning blood. But saints can be the channel of this grace.It is only through Him that Scripture presents any form of grace being given to mankind.
Just like life is given by God and God alone, but humans are the channel of this life, yes?
A
Augsburg1530
Guest
I’m sure they really believe it, regardless of the inconsistencies it may cause them. The discussion you and I are having is not whether there are other rules of faith, it is whether there are other infallible rules of faith.Indeed they do!
Not a single person who advocates “The Bible is my sole rule of faith” really believes it.
It’s a contradiction.
The Catholic Church, which proclaims there are 2 channels of God’s Word: Scripture and Tradition, has it right. It is to that that, really, “everyone” adjures.
A
Augsburg1530
Guest
That saints can be a channel of this grace is what I would contend is in conflict with Scripture. The apostles no where present the idea of prayer to another individual - whether living or dead - as being legitimate. In order to do so, you need to change the context of how the word prayer is used.Scripture commands that we WORSHIP only God. Not pray/petition to God alone.
Indeed. If we receive grace it is through Jesus and His atoning blood. But saints can be the channel of this grace.
Just like life is given by God and God alone, but humans are the channel of this life, yes?
P
PRmerger
Guest
watchtower.org/e/ti/article_03.htmReally? Ok, then, please show me how Scripture is tenuous in presenting the doctrine of the Trinity.
gospeloutreach.net/optrin.html
suite101.com/content/the-mormon-alternative-to-the-trinity-a126543
P
PRmerger
Guest
You originally professed:Sorry, should have clarified. The entire church meaning the church as a community of faith down through history. The average peasant is part of the church. The word “church” in Scripture does not denote a caste system
This is not borne out by history, Augsburg. The “entire church”, including peasants, was not involved in discerning the canon of Scripturethe church (the entire church) was led to recognize the inspired writings as canonical, then yes.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Again, you are making a different argument. You are saying “it’s not found in Scripture”. And we’ve already established that you’re ok with doctrines not being found in Scripture, such as infant baptism.That saints can be a channel of this grace is what I would contend is in conflict with Scripture. The apostles no where present the idea of prayer to another individual - whether living or dead - as being legitimate. In order to do so, you need to change the context of how the word prayer is used.
That’s quite different than “it conflicts with Scripture”; IOW: Scripture says “A” and the CC professes “not-A”. You’ve proposed that veneration of the saints conflicts with Scripture.
Where? What verses?
A
Augsburg1530
Guest
This doesn’t offer any substantive presentation of the Biblical doctrine. It doesn’t include any proof texts. It’s a bunch of quotes that deny the Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible. Who cares about that? When the JW’s don’t have to change John 1 to make their argument, I will take them seriously.
This is an argument against Modalism.
I know what Mormons believe on the subject. As with the JW’s, when they don’t have to add to God’s word in order to support their unbiblical beliefs, I will take them seriously. The Scriptures, when taken together, are clear on the doctrine of the Trinity.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ok.I’m sure they really believe it, regardless of the inconsistencies it may cause them. The discussion you and I are having is not whether there are other rules of faith, it is whether there are other infallible rules of faith.
So we are agreed that Sola Scriptura is not tenable?
And we agree that the Church discerned the Scriptures?
We just need to discuss how we know the Church has the charism of infallibility?
A
Augsburg1530
Guest
No, they only preached, copied, studied, used them in liturgy, etc. I don’t see how that did not contribute to the historical development of what was accepted into the canon.You originally professed:
This is not borne out by history, Augsburg. The “entire church”, including peasants, was not involved in discerning the canon of Scripture
P
PRmerger
Guest
No, I admit that I do not know the context of how you are using the term veneration.I But you know the context of how I am using the term veneration.
To what do you object?
A
Augsburg1530
Guest
The definition you are presenting of sola Scriptura, which is not the definition I accept, is untenable.Ok.
So we are agreed that Sola Scriptura is not tenable?
And we agree that the Church discerned the Scriptures?
We just need to discuss how we know the Church has the charism of infallibility?
P
PRmerger
Guest
The point is that even in the 5th century Sola Scriptura wouldn’t have worked out. If the reformers had been around at that time and started the reformation, then we might not have the truth of the Trinity.He did have the right to believe it. And the church had the right to declare him a heretic for holding to it. Ultimately, God had the authority of sending him to Hell for believing it. I’m not sure what your point is here. Did Arius ever accept the teaching of Nicea?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.