Name a doctrine that you used to believe in but dont anymore.

[Albion]

Isn't the above a proposal advocating a kind of relativism?

Quite the opposite, I'd say.

You have your POV I have mine and so we have my truth and your truth but they are opposites on the question that's on the table. One or both will be untrue. Both cannot be true.

That's exactly what comes of setting the Bible aside in favor of man's opinions. They run the gamut, and one church says this tradition is the right one while the next one says that there's a different tradition to follow instead. With the Scriptures we at least have one single God-given authority. Disciples may differ on what they take from it, of course, but it's one source for all men of all times and comes with the highest power behind it...which almost all of us say we agree to.

But if we open to door to there being any number of supplements, we don't even agree on what it is that we should look to for doctrine.

 

[Albion]

This argument assumes that the Bible is a certain thing and that it is supposed to accomplish a certain thing.

That is correct. It is what it is. To be more precise, it is what it itself CLAIMS to be and what every church that I know of except for some fringe types says it believes to be true.

God did not use Scripture to reveal anything to us.

You don't need to recite your own religious beliefs to me. I have no intention of trying to talk you out of them. On the contrary, I have simply explained my own belief and, because you inquired further, explained why I have concluded as I have.

That is not what it is. God's revelation to us is the act of showing Himself to us. That revelation is complete because Christ is complete. The Scriptures, on the other hand, are the record of some of the encounters that man has had with God's revelation. The prophets encountered God and His revelation of Himself. That encounter was the revelation. They subsequently wrote about that revelation, but the written account of God's revelation is not the revelation.

I'm sorry, but IMO that cannot be sustained by a reading of the Bible. It refers to itself repeatedly as the highest authority, as God's will and intention made known to us, as pure gold, as that which we should turn to, etc. etc. To reduce it to a historical narrative or as something with a strictly limited objective that does not include guidance for Christ's church and disciples on manners, morals, and necessary doctrine is IMO simply not what the Bible itself testifies to.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That's exactly what comes of setting the Bible aside in favor of man's opinions.

No doubt setting aside the bible in favour of opinions is bad medicine but who is advocating that?

They run the gamut, and one church says this tradition is the right one while the next one says that there's a different tradition to follow instead.

A battle of tradition is how you see it? seems more like there's a battle of biblical interpretations raging around us in GT and in pulpits. Opinions about what the text means are way more numerous than ancient church traditions.

With the Scriptures we at least have one single God-given authority.

With the bible we have one form of revelation from God. That is not in dispute. But scripture is not the only form of revelation that God gave.

The ancient churches contend that scripture is not the only infallible (or inerrant, not sure which word is the one that is most in vogue at the moment) revelation that God gave to the church.

Disciples may differ on what they take from it, of course, but it's one source for all men of all times

The ancient churches agree that scripture is one source for the church over the centuries but they do not contend that it is the only infallible one.

and comes with the highest power behind it...which almost all of us say we agree to.

All of us proclaim by our membership in GT that we accept apostolic tradition as expressed in the creed. The creed does not include a clause on the scriptures being the only infallible source of revealed truth from God.

But if we open to door to there being any number of supplements, we don't even agree on what it is that we should look to for doctrine.

The ancient churches are not in agreement with those who advocate a theology that posits scripture as the sole infallible source of revelation that God has given to the church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'd lean towards the one that more closely embraces the words given us by our Creator.

So do I but I want all the words that God gave and not just some of them.

 

[Tzaousios]

I'm sorry, but IMO that cannot be sustained by a reading of the Bible. It refers to itself repeatedly as the highest authority, as God's will and intention made known to us, as pure gold, as that which we should turn to, etc. etc. To reduce it to a historical narrative or as something with a strictly limited objective that does not include guidance for Christ's church and disciples on manners, morals, and necessary doctrine is IMO simply not what the Bible itself testifies to.

That sounds like more of a reduction of what he has said rather than proving anything about his actual post being a reduction. Perhaps he does need to recite his beliefs to you?

 

[Pteriax]

Traditional Methodist theology affirms the Real Presence, the writings of John Wesley as well as general, official, Methodist statements of faith affirm it:

"Jesus Christ, who “is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Hebrews 1:3), is truly present in Holy Communion. Through Jesus Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit, God meets us at the Table. God, who has given the sacraments to the church, acts in and through Holy Communion. Christ is present through the community gathered in Jesus’ name (Matthew 18:20), through the Word proclaimed and enacted, and through the elements of bread and wine shared (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). The divine presence is a living reality and can be experienced by participants; it is not a remembrance of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion only."

Further:

"Christ’s presence in the sacrament is a promise to the church and is not dependent upon recognition of this presence by individual members of the congregation. Holy Communion always offers grace. We are reminded of what God has done for us in the past, experience what God is doing now as we partake, and anticipate what God will do in the future work of salvation. “We await the final moment of grace, when Christ comes in victory at the end of the age to bring all who are in Christ into the glory of that victory” (By Water and the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism, in BOR; page 875), and we join in feasting at the heavenly banquet table (Luke 22:14-18; Revelation 19:9).

The Christian church has struggled through the centuries to understand just how Christ is present in the Eucharist. Arguments and divisions have occurred over the matter. The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully. John and Charles Wesley’s 166 Hymns on the Lord’s Supper are our richest resource for study in order to appreciate the Wesleyan understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. One of these hymns expresses well both the reality and the mystery: “O the Depth of Love Divine,” stanzas 1 and 4 (The United Methodist Hymnal, 627):

O the depth of love divine,
the unfathomable grace!
Who shall say how bread and wine
God into us conveys!
How the bread his flesh imparts,
how the wine transmits his blood,
fills his faithful people’s hearts
with all the life of God!
Sure and real is the grace,
the manner be unknown;
only meet us in thy ways
and perfect us in one.
Let us taste the heavenly powers,
Lord, we ask for nothing more.
Thine to bless, ’tis only ours
to wonder and adore.

Article XVI of The Articles of Religion of The Methodist Church describes the sacraments as “certain signs of grace, and God’s good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him” (BOD; page 63).

Article XVIII describes the Lord’s Supper as “a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ” (BOD; page 64). (See section “The Communion Elements” in this paper for related material.)

Article VI of The Confession of Faith of The Evangelical United Brethren Church speaks similarly of the sacraments: “They are means of grace by which God works invisibly in us, quickening, strengthening and confirming our faith in him. . . . Those who rightly, worthily and in faith eat the broken bread and drink the blessed cup partake of the body and blood of Christ in a spiritual manner until he comes” (BOD; page 68)." - This Holy Mystery, Part Two, UMC.org

-CryptoLutheran

I have been to over two dozen individual Methodist churches that would disagree. Check your sources again - they seem to be wrong. Or at least out of date, Methodists have a habit of changing things all the time.

 

[Johnnz]

That sounds like more of a reduction of what he has said rather than proving anything about his actual post being a reduction. Perhaps he does need to recite his beliefs to you?

Good spoke within history. His words and acts as recorded in Scripture were for us but not to us. Therefore, it is essential we recognise their historical context before attempting to apply their principles to us.

For example, the Mosaic law and sacrificial system was applicable for a period, until supreceded by Jesus and the New Covenant. 'Family' in biblical times did not mean the nuclear family we have today in some societies.

It is wrong to reduce the Scriptures to merely historical stories, as some liberals have done, but just as wrong to discard history completely.

John
NZ

 

[Albion]

Opinions about what the text means are way more numerous than ancient church traditions.

I doubt that. They may be more openly discussed, however, which could give that impression. The numerous doctrinal disagreements and gray areas in Catholic theology have to be couched in "I don't really mean this but I was thinking 'what if..." terms so as not to bring down any condemnation from the powers that be.

With the bible we have one form of revelation from God. That is not in dispute. But scripture is not the only form of revelation that God gave.

Well, that's your opinion. I don't share it. Neither do I find anywhere in the Bible that tells us to seek elsewhere for guidance that's equal to the Bible.

 

[Rev Randy]

So the gr34t ap0st4cy occurred between Nicea I and Constantinople I now?

Must be in the New and very abridged history book

 

[Rev Randy]

Quite the opposite, I'd say.



That's exactly what comes of setting the Bible aside in favor of man's opinions. They run the gamut, and one church says this tradition is the right one while the next one says that there's a different tradition to follow instead. With the Scriptures we at least have one single God-given authority. Disciples may differ on what they take from it, of course, but it's one source for all men of all times and comes with the highest power behind it...which almost all of us say we agree to.

But if we open to door to there being any number of supplements, we don't even agree on what it is that we should look to for doctrine.

And countless interpretations.

 

[Albion]

And countless interpretations.

Why don't people understand that knowing where to look and what to trust is critical? -- even if there are a hundred different interpretations--as there are with ANYTHING that men read and have to comprehend, right down to the yellow pages or the explanation at the top of the test form.

Why don't they understand that with the alternative--Tradition--you not only get the "countless interpretations" but, in addition, there is no consensus or agreement on what the authority, the source, IS?

Every church that goes that way is making its own tradition into an alternative to the Bible or a supplement to be added to it! And then you get the interpretations anyway.

 

[Rev Randy]

Why don't people understand that knowing where to look and what to trust is critical? Even if there are a hundred different interpretations--as there are with ANYTHING that men read and have to understand?

Why don't they understand that with the alternative--Tradition--you not only get the "countless interpretations" but, in addition, there is no consensus or agreement on what the authority, the source, IS?

Every church that goes that way is making its own tradition into an alternative to the Bible or a supplement to be added to it? And then you get the interpretations anyway.

In our Tradition we are in complete agreement. That others have different traditions doesn't concern me.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Opinions about what the text means are way more numerous than ancient church traditions.

I doubt that. They may be more openly discussed, however, which could give that impression. The numerous doctrinal disagreements and gray areas in Catholic theology have to be couched in "I don't really mean this but I was thinking 'what if..." terms so as not to bring down any condemnation from the powers that be.

Sacred Tradition (also known as Apostolic Tradition) is the deposit of divine revelation that the apostles left to the church as a kind of patrimony (having received it from the Lord, Jesus Christ). Opining about theology is not sacred tradition.

With the bible we have one form of revelation from God. That is not in dispute. But scripture is not the only form of revelation that God gave.

The ancient churches contend that scripture is not the only infallible (or inerrant, not sure which word is the one that is most in vogue at the moment) revelation that God gave to the church.

Well, that's your opinion. I don't share it. Neither do I find anywhere in the Bible that tells us to seek elsewhere for guidance that's equal to the Bible.

Knee-v appears to be in agreement with the idea that the ancient churches contend that scripture is not the only infallible revelation that God gave to the church. He wrote:

That is not what it is. God's revelation to us is the act of showing Himself to us. That revelation is complete because Christ is complete. The Scriptures, on the other hand, are the record of some of the encounters that man has had with God's revelation. The prophets encountered God and His revelation of Himself. That encounter was the revelation. They subsequently wrote about that revelation, but the written account of God's revelation is not the revelation.​

 

[Rev Randy]

This argument assumes that the Bible is a certain thing and that it is supposed to accomplish a certain thing. God did not use Scripture to reveal anything to us. That is not what it is. God's revelation to us is the act of showing Himself to us. That revelation is complete because Christ is complete. The Scriptures, on the other hand, are the record of some of the encounters that man has had with God's revelation. The prophets encountered God and His revelation of Himself. That encounter was the revelation. They subsequently wrote about that revelation, but the written account of God's revelation is not the revelation. And it's the same with the New Testament. God's full revelation of Himself is the person of Jesus. People encountered Him and subsequently wrote about it, and now we have the New Testament. But it is the act of appearing to us which is the revelation, not the subsequent writings that bare witness to it.

Great post!

 

[MoreCoffee]

This argument assumes that the Bible is a certain thing and that it is supposed to accomplish a certain thing. God did not use Scripture to reveal anything to us. That is not what it is. God's revelation to us is the act of showing Himself to us. That revelation is complete because Christ is complete. The Scriptures, on the other hand, are the record of some of the encounters that man has had with God's revelation. The prophets encountered God and His revelation of Himself. That encounter was the revelation. They subsequently wrote about that revelation, but the written account of God's revelation is not the revelation. And it's the same with the New Testament. God's full revelation of Himself is the person of Jesus. People encountered Him and subsequently wrote about it, and now we have the New Testament. But it is the act of appearing to us which is the revelation, not the subsequent writings that bare witness to it.

Great post!

Too right!

God bless you my brother.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

So do I but I want all the words that God gave and not just some of them.

I note your Catholic icon and realize that you recognize as canon some additional books I have never studied--even though I went to a parochial school for a short time when I was a child. Our family was not Catholic, but I was being bullied a lot at public school, and my mother hoped a Christian environment would change that. (It didn't. Kids are kids, and being the only non-Catholic in the class, not eligible to participate in sacraments when everyone else does, will call attention to an outsider.)

Please tell me, what major doctrines are included in the additional books that are not in the 66 of the King James and others?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I note your Catholic icon and realize that you recognize as canon some additional books I have never studied--even though I went to a parochial school for a short time when I was a child. Our family was not Catholic, but I was being bullied a lot at public school, and my mother hoped a Christian environment would change that. (It didn't. Kids are kids, and being the only non-Catholic in the class, not eligible to participate in sacraments when everyone else does, will call attention to an outsider.)

Please tell me, what major doctrines are included in the additional books that are not in the 66 of the King James and others?

Why does there need to be any doctrine in the canonical books that a 66 book bible does not have?

 

[Rev Randy]

Why does there need to be any doctrine in the canonical books that a 66 book bible does not have?

Now that is keeping those worms in the Can.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Why does there need to be any doctrine in the canonical books that a 66 book bible does not have?

Well, I figured that must be why the additional books make a difference.

But if the worms should stay in the can, that's fine.

 

[Knee V]

Please tell me, what major doctrines are included in the additional books that are not in the 66 of the King James and others?

I would say that the issue is not whether there are additional doctrines in those books. After all, you will find things in the Psalms that are not in Deuteronomy, and things in Isaiah that are not in Ruth. And you will find some things in Wisdom of Solomon that are not in Daniel, for example. The reason that those books are there is not because we nees them in order to prove certain doctrines. Rather, we have them for the same reason we have the rest of the Old Testament: they are part of Israel's collection of sacred writings. Just as parts of the 39 were written when Israel was in exile and in a language that was not Hebrew, many of these books were written when much of Israel was in diaspora and in a language that was not Hebrew.