Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[Ortho_Cat]

Yes. Present Matthew and we can ask him. But, as you know, all the Apostles are dead. Have been for quite some time now. I don't know how you are going to call them and cross-examine them; could you explain that? How can one dead for over 1900 years give oral testimony and be cross-examined, even if such were regarded as more reliable than what God wrote?






I see.... How do you propose that we cross-examine St. James or St. John? Even if you think their oral testimony would "trump" the written testimony of God and would be more objectively knowable than what God wrote?



.

On what basis do you know that which what was written and attributed to Matthew was actually written by him? (other than by tradition or personal opinion?)

 

[Montalban]

On what basis do you know that which what was written and attributed to Matthew was actually written by him? (other than by tradition or personal opinion?)

Cool. We're back to the self-authorising books now. One already answered that God just put these books together!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

On what basis do you know that which what was written and attributed to Matthew was actually written by him? (other than by tradition or personal opinion?)

Doesn't matter. To quote my Catholic teacher, "Scripture is authoritative because the Author is - God." We don't know who His penmen was in the great majority of cases - and it could not matter less.

When I drive, I embrace the Rule of Law. I don't know who painted the sign or even who put it up. To be frank with you - I never before even considered the question.

But I don't think this thread is about the doctrine of Scripture (which I learned in my Catholic days) OR why the RCC and EO have a totally unique concept of what books ARE and are NOT Scripture - in both cases, agreeing with none but self. It's about the most reliable way to preserve something.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Montalban]

both written records and verbal accounts can be dismissed, if the listener or reader doesn't believe it.

Absolutely. I don't think I said otherwise

I don't think the fact that a court could agree with either format, as definitive proof for either side of the argument.

Again, I agree. I'm not sure this will help a sola scipturist here. Thanks for joining.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Doesn't matter. To quote my Catholic teacher, "Scripture is authoritative because the Author is - God." We don't know who His penmen was in the great majority of cases - and it could not matter less.

When I drive, I embrace the Rule of Law. I don't know who painted the sign or even who put it up. To be frank with you - I never before even considered the question.

But I don't think this thread is about the doctrine of Scripture (which I learned in my Catholic days) OR why the RCC and EO have a totally unique concept of what books ARE and are NOT Scripture - in both cases, agreeing with none but self. It's about the most reliable way to preserve something.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

It doesn't matter? If you have to rely on tradition to authenticate the canon of scripture, isn't that a bit self-defeating to the premise of SS?

 

[Montalban]

Doesn't matter. To quote my Catholic teacher, "Scripture is authoritative because the Author is - God." We don't know who His penmen was in the great majority of cases - and it could not matter less.

We know this, because our church teaches it. How do you know it?

When I drive, I embrace the Rule of Law. I don't know who painted the sign or even who put it up. To be frank with you - I never before even considered the question.

And we're onto this cycle now.

I've already raised this before

But here I go again.

Say I have a neighbour who believes that aliens have infiltrated the government and placed their beings in all levels of power.

I on the other hand don't believe this to be true.

We both drive.

I drive and obey the rules. I think they're good rules and help road safety.

My neighbour drives too. However he's worried of being found out and 'replaced' by another alien.

That both of us do the same thing, doesn't matter. What matters is WHY we do it.

I accept the canon because my church teaches so.

You don't accept the canon for the same reason.

You're asked why you accept it and you say we all accept it's written by God. That doesn't answer the question. It's avoiding the question.

It was last time you raised this and last time I asked you why you accepted the canon.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Besides, this thread was originally about practical things, comparing lists and the like, but since we aren't doing that i guess we'll just go back to the old tried and true standard..."ss vs. tradition"...

 

[Montalban]

It doesn't matter? If you have to rely on tradition to authenticate the canon of scripture, isn't that a bit self-defeating to the premise of SS?

I know. That's weird. It means they just accept it, because they do.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It doesn't matter?

No. Do you know who wrote the law governing the speed limit of the street on which you live? Does it matter?

If you have to rely on tradition to authenticate the canon of scripture, isn't that a bit self-defeating to the premise of SS?

The premise is that each of us is accountable for what we proclaim as doctrine; how does the reality that NONE on the planet agree with your denomination on what is or is not scripture have to do with making that premise invalid? Or mean that the most reliable method of preserving doctrine is to TRY to get St. James to talk and be cross examined (does anyone know where his body is? It can't be in good shape...).

Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ It will help you a lot in understanding what the praxis is, I'm confident.

I'm still of the view that writing it down - in objective, knowable, unalterable words - is better than trying to raise up a dead man and asking him to give oral testimony. But that's just my view - I don't ask anyone to agree.

Again, when I leased my apartment, I signed a LONG written document. Written. In objective, knowable, unalterable words. In it, there is this interesting clause (I don't have it in front of me) that reads something like, "this agreement supersedes any oral agreements made by either party." Written trumps oral. There's a very good and practical reason for that (tough with those "he says/she says" situations - even tougher if they both have been died for 1900 years). Is that legal contract the inerrant words of God (typed by who knows or cares)? Nope. But, I can assure you - if there is a debate, it will be the norma normans. I kept it. It preserves what needs to be preserved. (It's called the Rule of Law)



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

No. Do you know who wrote the law governing the speed limit of the street on which you live? Does it matter?


The premise is that each of us is accountable for what we proclaim as doctrine; how does the reality that NONE on the planet agree with your denomination on what is or is not scripture have to do with making that premise invalid? Or mean that the most reliable method of preserving doctrine is to TRY to get St. James to talk and be cross examined (does anyone know where his body is? It can't be in good shape...).

Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ It will help you a lot in understanding what the praxis is, I'm confident.


Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

Yes, the governmet regulates speed laws. Just like the church canonized scripture. Do you accept that?

Accountable to who, self?

 

[Montalban]

Continually sola scripturists aren't able to answer questions.

I've asked how they know scripture is from God? Who formed the canon? When did it happen?

Apparently it 'just did'

At best the thread gets diverted as SS's try to suggest that tradition isn't a guarantee because traditionalist churches are divided.

This not only doesn't prove the SS case, it's saying that at best "If we don't know, then neither can you". This doesn't answer why then they hold a particular position.

 

[Montalban]

Yes, the governmet regulates speed laws. Just like the church canonized scripture. Do you accept that?

Accountable to who, self?

Maybe the speed signs self-authorise ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

C

I've asked how they know scripture is from God? Who formed the canon? When did it happen?

CF has rules. We aren't to hijack threads, we are to post in reply to the issue of the opening post.

AGAIN, IF you want to start a thread about your canon, please do. "Why Does NONE on the Planet Agree With My Denomination on What Is and Is Not Scripture?" An interesting topic (not one I'm likely to get involved in, however; sorry).

AGAIN, IF you want to start a thread about the doctrine of Scripture - or limit to inspiration - please do! I think you'll find a WIDE and DEEP area of agreement on that among us (that AGREEMENT DOES have some relevance to the issue here, but not the question per se).

And IF you want to present that a rule/canon/norma normans is moot unless we know who wrote it - odd as I find that - start a thread on that, perhaps entitled, "Does a Dispute over My Rent Involve My Lease Agreement If No One Knows The Full Name of the Person Who Typed it?"Or perhaps, "Does the Speed Limit Sign Matter If I Don't Know Who Painted it?" Could be an interesting thread....

But if you want to discuss Sola Scriptura, then discuss http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ And if you want to discuss how best to preserve things, discuss that. I'll just say again: I think that having a written, objectively knowable and unalterable document is better than trying to get a man dead for 1900 years to talk and cross examine him. That's MY opinion (I don't claim I can prove it - but then the opening post isn't mandating proof; and frankly, until you get that dead man to talk - I don't know how you are).





.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

CF has rules. We aren't to hijack threads, we are to post in reply to the issue of the opening post.

AGAIN, IF you want to start a thread about your canon, please do. "Why Does NONE on the Planet Agree With My Denomination on What Is and Is Not Scripture?" An interesting topic (not one I'm likely to get involved in, however; sorry).

AGAIN, IF you want to start a thread about the doctrine of Scripture - or limit to inspiration - please do! I think you'll find a WIDE and DEEP area of agreement on that among us (that AGREEMENT DOES have some relevance to the issue here, but not the question per se).

And IF you want to present that a rule/canon/norma normans is moot unless we know who wrote it - odd as I find that - start a thread on that, perhaps entitled, "Does a Dispute over My Rent Involve My Lease Agreement If No One Knows The Full Name of the Person Who Typed it?" Could be an interesting thread....

But if you want to discuss Sola Scriptura, then discuss http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ And if you want to discuss how best to preserve things, discuss that. I'll just say again: I think that having a written, objectively knowable and unalterable document is better than trying to get a man dead for 1900 years to talk and cross examine him. That's MY opinion (I don't claim I can prove it - but then the opening post isn't mandating proof).





.

Pertaining to the bolded portion, if the government put up a speed sign on the highway, that is one thing. If farmer joe bob put up a speed sign because he doesn't like the cars going fast by his house because they keep him awake at night, that is another.

The government has the authority to enforce speeding laws, joe bob doesn't. Of course, we assume the govt put up the signs, because that's what we're used to. That is the distinction.

In the old days, people wrote all kinds of things and claimed it to be authoritative. There had to be ways to determine a document's authority; and indeed there was. The church proved ultimately to be the authority which did so, working in councils and the like, just like they did in Acts.

Ok, now we can get back to discussing preserving doctrine if y'all want to...still waiting for that list

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Pertaining to the bolded portion, if the government put up a speed sign on the highway, that is one thing. If farmer joe bob put up a speed sign because he doesn't like the cars going fast by his house because they keep him awake at night, that is another.

The government has the authority to enforce speeding laws, joe bob doesn't. Of course, we assume the govt put up the signs, because that's what we're used to. That is the distinction.

In the old days, people wrote all kinds of things and claimed it to be authoritative. There had to be ways to determine a document's authority; and indeed there was. The church proved ultimately to be the authority which did so, working in councils and the like, just like they did in Acts.

Ok, now we can get back to discussing preserving doctrine if y'all want to...still waiting for that list

Um, it seems you've not yet read http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

Yes, I KNOW that no denomination on the planet agrees with yours on what is and is not Scripture, and since you (and the other Orthdox) keep bringing up this point, I SEEMS to be a point of hypersensitivity to you. I've not read all the books your denomination embraces (I have all the RC ones, they also have a unique canon; I've read most of the LDS ones, they too have a unique canon) but in the case of the RC anyway, it's just not as HUGE as you seem to think. You may use Psalm 151 if you like - you regard it as Scripture, if you embraced the Rule of Scripture - you'd embrace that. No problem for me - at least with the RC books (I can't speak for all the unique EO ones, but I have read that Psalm which is why I mention it here). When you finally get around to reading http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ you will note that Sola Scriptura doesn't teach what is or is not Scripture (it doesn't teach ANYTHING) and was just as applicable when Scripture was just two stone tablets as it is today (you'll learn much if you read that). In Lutheran/Catholic discussions, Lutherans typically have permitted Catholics to use their UNIQUE collection of books (I always do), it changes nothing. And since I understand the unique books you have has never presented a problem with your relations to the RC denomination - I doubt (but do not know) they would be problematic either. The Rule of Scripture embraces Scripture - it doesn't TEACH what Scripture is, any more than the Rule of Law TEACHES what is currently the law of every juristdiction on the planet on this day. It's a PRAXIS, it's not a TEACHING. Read the post Ive been suggesting. It's all there, it will really help you.


Again (trying to get the discussion back to the permitted topic), it is MY opinion that the best way to preserve things is to write it down, in objectable and knowable and unalterable black-and-white WORDS. That's better (IMO) than trying to dig up a man dead for 1900 years and getting him to talk and cross examine him. That's just my opinion; I don't mean to start a war over that and I (sincerely) don't mind if you disagree. It's just my opinion (which is what this thread is asking for).






.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Absolutely. I don't think I said otherwise


Again, I agree. I'm not sure this will help a sola scipturist here. Thanks for joining.

the point was, my obtuse friend, that it helps neither.

 

[Montalban]

the point was, my obtuse friend, that it helps neither.

Well if you look at the context, it's a SS arguing against eyewitness accounts.

However, for some reason, you saught to reply to my post.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Well if you look at the context, it's a SS arguing against eyewitness accounts.

However, for some reason, you saught to reply to my post.

frankly because USUALLY you have the most well thought and reasoned posts.

usually.

 

[Montalban]

CF has rules. We aren't to hijack threads, we are to post in reply to the issue of the opening post.
.

Nice one. You've not answered it on ANY thread.

 

[Montalban]

frankly because USUALLY you have the most well thought and reasoned posts.

usually.

It's that Commonwealth heritage we share