Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[MrPolo]

Scripture is simply the norm, which is used to check things when they need checking. But our practice isn't going to be the same as Jesus' in any case.

Perhaps you missed my earlier post---Could you provide the "Liquori, charismatic, and feminist" or what it was you said that you thought were divisions in doctrine in Catholicism?

 

[Thekla]

God CAN increase the corpus of His Scriptures. And did - for some 1500 years. It's MOOT TODAY (except for LDS).

Nice question. Start a thread on that - the LDS will all jump in. I doubt any others will (so be sure to post it where LDS can post).

It is your claim, made in this thread. It is yours to support.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What about the "cult of the self" ?

Yeah. Read what the Catholic Church says about itself in the Catechism of itself - # 85, 87 for starters. About the LDS' embrace of "On the Authority of the Church" by the Apostle and Prophet of itself, Bruce McConkie. Read some of the RC and EO posts here.


But yes - if one who is registered in a congregation legally affiliated with say the United Pentecostal Church were to say, "When I speak - GOD is speaking, I alone have all the divine, unmitigated, unaccountable POWER to be exempt from accountability and all are to be in quiet, docilic, submission to ME says me" then they would be rejecting the Rule of Scripture too. Yes, not all following the RC rubric are in the RC. Some EO's here are slowly convincing me the EO does it, too. I have a friend whose mother is a self declared Apostle, Prophet and often receives "words" (revelations) directly from God. She is a Voice of God and when she speaks these "words" she is speaking as God is speaking. Somehow, I'm on her email list for these. Does she reject the Rule of Scripture? OBVIOUSLY! Passionately. Exactly for the same reasons the RCC is. No, it's not limited to the RC. It exists in all the cults (known to me), the early LDS, among some individuals, and you are convincing me in the EO, too. As one who embraces accountability, I disagree with them all (obviously) and instead embrace accountability, norming and thus the need for a sound common norma normans.






.




.

 

[cygnusx1]

Your faith icon is "Calvinist". You are declaring you follow Calvin.

you misunderstand the use of the icon , it is merely to aid others when debating Soteriology etc , it neither means I follow Calvin or that I always agree with him , I don't.

The use of the icon is a result of the label "Christian" being so wide a label that it can almost mean anything today ....

Calvinist has simply come to be known as those who adhere to the doctrines of Grace , specifically predestination and unconditional election .

It can include , Baptists ; Methodists ; Anglicans ; Prebyterians : Independants : Evangelicals and some Brethren .... maybe even some Augustinians .

 

[Thekla]

Yeah. Read what the Catholic Church says about itself in the Catechism of itself - # 85, 87 for starters. About the LDS' embrace of "On the Authority of the Church" by the Apostle and Prophet of itself, Bruce McConkie. Read some of the RC and EO posts here.


But yes - if one who is registered in a congregation legally affiliated with say the United Pentecostal Church were to say, "When I speak - GOD is speaking, I alone have all the divine, unmitigated, unaccountable POWER to be exempt from accountability and all are to be in quiet, docilic, submission to ME says me" then they would be rejecting the Rule of Scripture too. Yes, not all following the RC rubric are in the RC. Some EO's here are slowly convincing me the EO does it, too. I have a friend whose mother is a self declared Apostle, Prophet and often receives "words" (revelations) directly from God. She is a Voice of God and when she speaks these "words" she is speaking as God is speaking. Somehow, I'm on her email list for these. Does she reject the Rule of Scripture? OBVIOUSLY! Passionately. Exactly for the same reasons the RCC is. No, it's not limited to the RC. It exists in all the cults (known to me), the early LDS, among some individuals, and you are convincing me in the EO, too. As one who embraces accountability, I disagree with them all (obviously) and instead embrace accountability, norming and thus the need for a sound common norma normans.

The cult of the individual (not corporate) 'self'...

 

[MamaZ]

you misunderstand the use of the icon , it is merely to aid others when debating Soteriology etc , it neither means I follow Calvin or that I always agree with him , I don't.

The use of the icon is a result of the label "Christian" being so wide a label that it can almost mean anything today ....

Calvinist has simply come to be known as those who adhere to the doctrines of Grace , specifically predestination and unconditional election .

It can include , Baptists ; Methodists ; Anglicans ; Prebyterians : Independants : Evangelicals and some Brethren .

 

[cygnusx1]

Therefore the parables, never used before aren't based on scripture.

Therefore Jesus AS A RULE didn't just use Scripture

Thank you for participating

the parables were used for a specific reason , to hide the truth from many and reveal them only to Christians .

If any question of authority came up , as in a disagreement or challenge , Christ said "it is written" .... He didn't simply quote a tradition or a parable .

"Scripture cannot be broken" , ie, it is infallable ... tradition is not.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The cult of the individual (not corporate) 'self'...

Yup. A single denomination pointing exclusively to SELF is the same as Melba pointing to self. Interesting you call it a "cult" (If ANY Protestant did that, Staff would have them banned so fast!). Self looking in the mirror at self is self looking at self - anyway you cut it. Call it "cultic" but everyone note: THELKA is calling it that, NOT ME. And note that such is not being rejected by Thelka (this praxis is being supported by Thelka - while also being condemned by Thelka; good when the EO points to self, bad when any other does I suspect). Interesting to read you both support and condemn, affirm and ridicule the same practice.





.

 

[cygnusx1]

Ok so you believe in the Spirit-guided Tradition of the identification of the canon. Excellent. So why shall God have a problem guiding men to expound on other teachings without error? Why should I trust the same people to give me the inerrant canon but not any other teaching? Should I trust God only if He is using men to teach about the canon but nothing else? It does not make sense.

the comparison is weak , let us try a better comparison ;

should God speak from the clouds to humans , even THAT would be inferior to scripture !

why ?

because as scripture says , we have the more SURE word , which is scripture .

indicating that voices coming from clouds , or arriving in peoples heads is not the way we are to walk , it is too open to deception , unlike scripture .

2 Peter 1

[17] For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
[18] And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

[19] We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:


more sure word than a voice from heaven ? where ? what more sure word ?

[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

everyting outside of scripture is flawed , because it is not infallible ....

the argument that a few hundred Church Fathers who were not infallible somehow become infallible as a unit is illogical.

 

[Thekla]

Yup. A single denomination pointing exclusively to SELF is the same as Melba pointing to self. Interesting you call it a "cult" (If ANY Protestant did that, Staff would have them banned so fast!). Self looking in the mirror at self is self looking at self - anyway you cut it. Call it "cultic" but everyone note: THELKA is calling it that, NOT ME. And note that such is not being rejected by Thelka (this praxis is being supported by Thelka - while also being condemned by Thelka; good when the EO points to self, bad when any other does I suspect). Interesting to read you both support and condemn, affirm and ridicule the same practice.


.

I am using your terminology, to ask you questions in response to statements/claims you make. So far, no answers from you ...

 

[MrPolo]

the argument that a few hundred Church Fathers who were not infallible somehow become infallible as a unit is illogical.

Ok, then you believe the canon of your Bible is unreliable---and you disagree with your statement from yesterday that God is able to guide men in discerning such matters.

As to 2 Peter 1:19, Peter is saying the Apostles have a more sure word of prophecy than the "fables" referenced in verse 16. Not that God's word in writing is inferior to God's word from heaven. That's not even sensible.

I can agree that the passage supports the divine inspiration of Scripture, but nowhere does it make Scripture exclusively God's divine revelation.

p.s. I recognize your fallible statement that my comparison was weak.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I am using your terminology, to ask you questions in response to statements/claims you make. So far, no answers from you ...

To answer it yet AGAIN, yes - self declaring self to be the Voice of God, infallible/unaccountable with the unmitigated POWER to exempt self from the issue of truth and instead require quiet,docilic submission to self is rejecting the Rule of Scripture - whether that self is the RCC or any of the cults known to me or my friend's mother. I agree with the ridicule you are repeating endlessly - I just don't support your defense of it when self is the EO. I agree when you ridicule the rubric but not when you defend the exact same rubric.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

, but nowhere does it make Scripture exclusively God's divine revelation.

Read http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ . Read "What the Rule of Scripture is NOT." It will help dispel your several misconceptions.




.

 

[ivebeenshown]

To answer it yet AGAIN, yes - self declaring self to be the Voice of God, infallible/unaccountable with the unmitigated POWER to exempt self from the issue of truth and instead require quiet,docilic submission to self is rejecting the Rule of Scripture

Oh, so Jesus did reject Sola Scriptura.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Oh, so Jesus did reject Sola Scriptura.

I would go so far as to say Jesus was a walking Bible

Reve 19:13 And having been about cast/clothed cloak, having been dipped to blood and has been called the Name of Him, the Word/logoV <3056> of the God.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7542608/#post56946063
The Word Of God [poll]

 

[Thekla]

To answer it yet AGAIN, yes - self declaring self to be the Voice of God, infallible/unaccountable with the unmitigated POWER to exempt self from the issue of truth and instead require quiet,docilic submission to self is rejecting the Rule of Scripture - whether that self is the RCC or any of the cults known to me or my friend's mother. I agree with the ridicule you are repeating endlessly - I just don't support your defense of it when self is the EO. I agree when you ridicule the rubric but not when you defend the exact same rubric.

I'm not sure what I am supposed to be ridiculing; I am not even attempting to "ridicule. I am asking questions re: your claims and statements; I was not aware that discussion = ridicule, nor that questions = ridicule.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I've largely stopped participating in this thread, because I think it was a bait and switch. The OP wasn't interested in the question raised in the OP, but another SS foodfight. The fact is that neither apostolic succession or SS is necessary or sufficient for preserving doctrine, as we can show from a number of examples. There's no magic method. Doctrine is preserved and developed in the right direction by people with a commitment to do so, exercising good judgement, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, using whatever helps they can get including both the authority of Scripture and an appreciation for the Church's tradition. The record of both approaches is mixed, as one would expect.

However the continued mention of parables seems even stranger than most of the discussion. Jesus taught with parables. Most preachers do too. But there's a difference. Jesus is the incarnation of God. So his parables are normative. Ours aren't. It's good that jesus cited Scripture as an authority. But since he's the author of revelation, he has no obligation to cite previous revelation, whether Scripture or tradition, although it's certainly helpful for him to do so. But we shouldn't try to take everything he said as either a use of Scripture or tradition. He was free to add new things on his own authority. Indeed not everything Protestants say is Scripture either. Scripture is simply the norm, which is used to check things when they need checking. But our practice isn't going to be the same as Jesus' in any case.

Not at all, but that is what it has devolved into. I was attempting to provide a fresh approach, a practical thread where we can discuss real things, rather than theories or abstractions. Nevertheless, it seems that no one wants to discuss that...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

How does one know that God did not or will not "increase the corpus of Scripture"

And if He did, by what means would they be declared authoratitive or not? P is not in a position to, nor have they any mechanism to evaluate the truth claims of continuing revelation of any type, regardless of whether it has occurred or not. They have simply relied on what was declared previously declared authoratative by the Church in councils and likewise.

For example, why should P not accept the extra books that the LDS use, if the canon of scripture itself (by definition of SS) cannot bind the conscience of the believer?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Don't forget---the Apostles agree with the Apostles. And the Holy Spirit with the Holy Spirit. So obviously, neither of them can have the truth.

Precisely. Simply saying "self agrees with self" does not address the actual veracity of the claim.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

the argument that a few hundred Church Fathers who were not infallible somehow become infallible as a unit is illogical.

I'm sure that many have said the same thing over the years about the Council at Jerusalem recorded in Acts.