N
Novocastrian
Guest
That it was, in fact? No.
That it might have been? Yes.
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.
That it might have been? Yes.
Possible? Sure. Probable, no. I see no reason to equate right with infallible.Were humans involved in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15?
Is it possible that their decision was erroneous?
Jon
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
That it was, in fact? No.
That it might have been? Yes.
:bigyikes:Possible? Sure. Probable, no. I see no reason to equate right with infallible.
Jon
You guys really don’t believe what was said in scripture?
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
So, how do you know their decision was right, then?Possible? Sure. Probable, no. I see no reason to equate right with infallible.
Jon
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Just curious: do you think there is such thing as fallible knowledge? Can a true belief be fallible and justified?So, how do you know their decision was right, then?
M
marywarfield
Guest
Seems to me one of the most glaring defenses against
Sola Scriptura is Jesus speaking in parables. Why
use parables if one expects literal interpretations?
Under Sola Scriptura therefore all priests should
actually be grain farmers!
Sola Scriptura is Jesus speaking in parables. Why
use parables if one expects literal interpretations?
Under Sola Scriptura therefore all priests should
actually be grain farmers!
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Yes. I just happen to think that when God says something, or endorses something, it’s true.Just curious: do you think there is such thing as fallible knowledge? Can a true belief be fallible and justified?
S
steido01
Guest
Sola Scriptura does not mean literalism.Seems to me one of the most glaring defenses against
Sola Scriptura is Jesus speaking in parables. Why
use parables if one expects literal interpretations?
Under Sola Scriptura therefore all priests should
actually be grain farmers!
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Great. Don’t think you’ll find us disagreeing with you there.Yes. I just happen to think that when God says something, or endorses something, it’s true.
M
marywarfield
Guest
Again the problem with those propounding sola ScripturaSola Scriptura does not mean literalism.
there is the division in which gasp literalism is intended.
And actually with most fundamentalist I’ve met literal
is the only recognized form of interpretation. Except
oddly enough the Eucharist.
Therefore if Mary and His brothers arrive to take
Jesus home, obviously Mary had more children.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
But you just did. Or, you allowed for the possibility.Great. Don’t think you’ll find us disagreeing with you there.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Er, no. That doesn’t follow at all. The Apostles were fallible human beings. They were perfectly capable of error. They could, for example, have ignored the Holy Spirit.But you just did. Or, you allowed for the possibility.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So how do you know when what they proposed was erroneous?Er, no. That doesn’t follow at all. The Apostles were fallible human beings. They were perfectly capable of error. They could, for example, have ignored the Holy Spirit.
So, for example, when Peter says that “baptism saves you now”, was he erring?
S
spina1953
Guest
I am not sure if main line Protestants use sola scriptura but it does seem to me that the great majority of the fringe denominations in Protestantism do use sola scriptura as the main basis for their private interpretations. They have grown up believing that the Bible only and that every one has the right to interpret as they see fit. If they think that someone does not go along with their interpretation they are just plain wrong. Just think of all of the churches where there is preaching’s against others or the catholic Church or of the Jews, or of the races etc… that I think is where the real problem might lay.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
Er, no? At no point has anyone said that they were in error.So how do you know when what they proposed was erroneous?
So, for example, when Peter says that “baptism saves you now”, was he erring?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then they conform to the Catholic understanding of infallibility.Er, no? At no point has anyone said that they were in error.
And therefore you believe that men can be infallible. And have been multiple times.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
No I don’t! I don’t know why you can’t see what I’m saying. Fallibility is the capability of error. The Apostles were capable of error. Therefore they were fallible.Then they conform to the Catholic understanding of infallibility.
And therefore you believe that men can be infallible. And have been multiple times.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So where did they err? What part of 1 Peter and 2 Peter is erroneous?No I don’t! I don’t know why you can’t see what I’m saying. Fallibility is the capability of error. The Apostles were capable of error. Therefore they were fallible.
N
Novocastrian
Guest
*Capable *of error does not mean actually erroneous.So where did they err? What part of 1 Peter and 2 Peter is erroneous?
P
PRmerger
Guest
So the encyclicals 1 and 2 Peter were infallible? Or do you believe they contained error?*Capable *of error does not mean actually erroneous.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.