Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[Montalban]

Yes, if the decision is clear from scripture, why did Paul have to go and consult with the others? The fact is, you cannot pull the decision from Acts explicitly from that verse of scripture. It simply isn't there. The scripture was cited to show that that God desires the salvation of all men. In fact, if you go through the entire OT, nowhere in there does it make a provision for a convert to the faith not to be circumcised. Why would it? A convert to Judaism in the OT would have always gotten circumcised.

The apostles came to a decision under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and used scripture to support their decision, as has been done in later councils as well.

And James would have only cited scripture as part of his decision. He doesn't. He says Peter, Paul AND scripture agree.

Although it's only a particular interpreation of scripture. And it's so unclear that Peter later reverses course and Paul rebukes him because they'd made a decision

 

[hedrick]

I think the assumption is that the most reliable method of preserving doctrine will produce less division. It's not so much Protestant vs. Catholic as it is Sola Scriptura vs. Apostolic Succession.

I realized after the fact that I should have objected to this, since much of the disagreement follows from it.

I think this statement is wrong. While it might be true for perfect people, it is untrue for us. I think the most reliable method of producing correct doctrine (which isn't quite the same thing) involves acknowledging that churches make errors, and provides for correcting them.

This is by its nature going to produce division, since most people won't initially agree that they're wrong.

This argument in the political realm leads to dictatorships. Democracy is always messier but I think ultimately produces better results. But there's a lot of painful problems while it's doing so.

God promises that the Church will ultimately be victorious, but he doesn't promise that the process will be painless, and in fact the NT suggests the contrary.

"Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! 52 From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three; 53 they will be divided:"
[Luke 12:51-53]

 

[MrPolo]

I was responding to claims that the Catholic Church had a superior way to maintain unity. The fact that some of the unity is unacceptable to you doesn't change the fact that it exists.

What I actually argued was that an eye-winker disagreeing with the Pope was no different than an early elder disagreeing with the Apostles. In other words, I would think that if you were going to make a criticism of Catholicism, I don't think it works to point out a characteristic they have in common with the Apostolic Church.

The examples I gave, Liquori, Catholic charismatics and Catholic feminists, involve some variations that are acceptable under Catholic doctrinal standards and some that are not.

I completely disagree with your earlier comment that the Catholic Church prefers "organizational unity higher than theological unity." I think that's conjecture. And I didn't see you make any argument about Liquori or feminists that would fit the definition of actual theological disunity. I maintain that you have to measure the Magisterium contradicting the Magisterium just as you would measure the Apostles vs. Apostles instead of Apostles vs. this or that non-authoritative dissenter to prove disunity.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

When the Catholic Church split from us they were happy calling themselves "Catholic" rather than Protestant

1. A Greek Orthodox priest told me that the RCC was "the first and original Protestants." You seem to disagree with him; I'm sure there is LOTS of disagreement in the EO...


2. Those that embraced Sola Gratia- Solus Christus - Sola Fide called themselves "Evangelicals." The term "Protestant" referred originally to certain German princes that "protested" an edict making it illegal for them to worship; later it was a CATHOLIC term of disparagement used for those whom the RCC excommunicated, dividing their own denomination; fortunately it soon lost that disparaging and misleading concept - except for a few fundamentalist, anti-other Catholics (where it is STILL used in this odd and disparaging way).


Now, what does that have to do with any of the plethora of concepts of "Apostolic Succession" and of the praxis of embracing Scripture as the norma normans as disputed doctrines are evaluated?










.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.



Ortho_cat...

1. I'm not following you at all. In America, we use the Rule of Law. It is our praxis here in dealing with civil behavior and contracts. Let's apply your question there: "What do all people in all nations that employ the Rule of Law agree upon?" Well - they agree that they are all accountable and that the rule is the law: that's the critical issue. Does it mean they all drink Harps beer? That they all give their mothers a dozen roses on Mother's Day? Probably not all.....


2. Yes. I know the EO ONLY agrees with the EO. We all know that. So what? I really fail to see what that reality has to do with anything... especially Truth?


Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ I think it will help you a lot! I'm very confident of it. Where does it say that Sola Scriptura teaches that all will agree on everything? Where do you get these ideas?


Have you studied any of the cults? I think it would be helpful to you. Submission to power (and, ergo, dismissing the issue of truth) is in no sense related to truth. YES - I don't doubt it for a second but instead STRONGLY agree - such can form a STRONG and very united group! Study the cults - you'll see this displayed in a very stunning way. But, perhaps we just disagree. IMO, docilic submission to one claiming unmitigated and unaccountable POWER for self alone does not insure truth - in fact, I'd go so far as to say it is entirely unrelated to it (at least MY study of the cults powerfully leads ME to that conclusion). IMO, the true teacher comes into the light and welcomes the light, perhaps confident that God's Truth will shine in the light. It is the false teacher (indeed, the one who knows he is false!) who will insist that self be shielded from the light, will hide in the dark, will build around self huge, thick, tall walls of remarkable claims of self for self - all to reinforce the POWER of self, the requist docilic SUBMISSION of others to self, and the unaccountability of self (exclusively).


Yes, I realize that while the corpus of agreement among Christians is stunningly large, it's also true that it is not absolute or perfect - not even on the very highest level (DOGMA). The RCC and EO for example disagree about several DOGMAS: both of them ONLY agree with SELF exclusively (even when this is limited only to dogmas!). Yup. Now, you can say that tossing out accountability and substituting docilic submission to all the unmitigated, unaccountable POWER that self alone claims for self alone is the "answer" but MY study of Catholicism, Mormonism, and also of the cults tells ME that just deletes the question and issue of truth (POWER having "trumped" that) but IMO (and my study of life has confirmed this, lol), humble accountability, open discussion, a sound rule and arbitration are better. I'm sure we fundamentally disagree.

EO does not just agree with EO.

​

List for me all the non-EO denominations that agree with the EO in all matters....


Yes, the EO agrees with the EO in all things that the EO currently regards as good for the EO to agree upon - officially, formally and institutionally anyway. So what? The LDS agrees with itself in all things that the LDS currently regards as good for the LDS to agree upon - officially, formally, institutionally, anyway. I can't think of one denomination that doesn't agree with itself! So what?


Now, IF you are saying that the EO is correct because the other 49,999 denominations are all in full agreement with it in all matters - okay (I'm not sure I agree with the premise, but the premise is understood), then substantiate that such is the case (it's SURE not what I was taught in the Catholic Church, btw).


​

​

Hmm I could ask the same question for Lutherans?


​

​

Lost me (sorry)....


Where did I indicate that the LCMS is infallible/unaccountable/exempt from the issue of truth/filled with unmitigated POWER to mandate quiet, docilic, submission to self because it alone agrees with it alone? Yes, most of the world's 300 or so Lutheran denominations ascribe to exactly the same (verbatim!) statement of doctrine: it is the Book of Concord of 1580. However, not all 70 million Lutherans agree with all 70 million Lutherans on EVERYTHING. And I never indicated that they do. Where did anyone so indicate?



READ what I posted. YOU said that the EO does NOT just agree with itself. It was your only response to anything I posted. It was your sole point. So, I asked for the list of all the denominations in which it is in full and complete agreement. You still haven't provided that.


I think, fundamentally, where I'm not following you is in this: YES - I agree, the EO only agrees with the EO (as is true with the LDS, RCC and many other denominations, true enough). Now, why does that reality prove that the EO is correct (as thus, so is the RCC, LDS, LCMS and any other that agrees with at least itself)?










.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


Originally Posted by ortho_cat

SS was claimed to be the norm by which we evaluate and establish doctrine, so I wanted to see how that compared to those who profess AS..


​

It COULD be you simply are not asking the question(s) you actually have? Frustrated you and everyone else?


As for the praxis of Sola Scriptura, read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ IF you do, I'm VERY confident a LOT of the "odd" (from the Protestant) questions - moot and irrelevant ones often - would end, and we'd begin to discuss the same things. Sola Scriptura is not a preservative. It's not arbitration. It's not hermeneutics. It is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule/norma normans as we evaluate doctrines among us - especially disputed ones. Read the post. Just read it. The illustrations and examples. Read what it IS and what it is NOT. If you do so, I'm very confident so much of these threads and your posts will be MUCH more productive.


No one has said that if we look to Scripture normatively, ergo everyone will agree with everyone on everything - and there will be salvation for all and heaven on earth. I honestly don't know where you ever got that idea - but it's not a teaching of Sola Scriptura (NOTHING is a teaching of Sola Scriptura, it's not a teaching - it's a practice). Read http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ It will help you a lot.


Embracing a common, knowable/unalterable norma normans does not mean all will agree. That's an issue for arbitration, and Sola Scriptura is not arbitration. Read the link and that would be obvious. In California, we embrace the Rule of Law. Does that mean that ergo all 32,000,000 Californians agree with all 32,000,000 Californians on all issues? We dress the same, talk the same, eat the same, have all exactly the same religious, political, social views as all others, exactly and absolutely? No. Does that mean that ergo the Rule of Law is moot - and it would be better if each of the 32,000,000 establsihed their own rule ("Tradition") as each defined and understood such OR if each simply declared self alone to be infallible/unaccountable/exempt from the issue of truth and correctness, whatever self says/does is what GOD says/does (Catholic Catechism # 87 for example)?


The Rule of Scripture is a practice of embracing Scripture as the norma normans. IF you read http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ and just don't understand what this means, post in that thread - I will do my very best to try to help you to understand this embrace of Scripture as the Rule. IF you want to discuss arbitration - start a thread on that. IF you want to discuss hermeneutics - start a thread on that. IF you want to discuss the theology of Scripture - start a thread on that. IF you want to discuss Sola Scriptura, first read the thread on that.


NO, Clem's looking to God's Scripture does NOT insure Clem will be infallible. Nor will Clem looking to some denomination insure that Clem will be infallible. IF you agree that truth matters (and you seem to - thus being on the same 'page' with Protestants here and altogether variant from our Catholic friends who insist that submission is what matters), then the issue is truth. "I think....." even if based on Scripture is not assurance of such. There are many other issues BESIDES what is embraced as the norma normans, as many have pointed out to you over and over for a very long time now - but if you want to discuss what rule to embrace, then let's discuss what rule to embrace - not all these side shows that do nothing but evade and divert (and often confuse). IF you have something that you believe is MORE inspired by God, MORE inerrant, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE ecumenically embraced (say by more than 50,000 denominations) and MORE historically embraced (say before 1400 BC) and thus MORE sound than Scripture, then let us know what it is. Compare that to Scripture in all those areas. Show how the people of the OT and Jesus and the Apostles used THAT rather than Scripture.



I hope this helps....






.

 

[mark46]

I have always been taught this paradigm.

I WAS SAVED when I accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior (justification)
I AM BEING SAVED every day of my life (santification or theosis)
I WILL BE SAVED when He comes again (glorification)
----------------------------------------------------
I have come to understand that the process of salvation started even before I accepted Jesus. For me, it started with the gift of prevenient Grace. For others, baptism comes before any affirmation of faith. So, for them, the process salvation begins at baptism.

From what I've learned, there are different uses for the word "saved" in the Bible. It doesn't always mean salvation in the sense of what Christ did on the Cross, which we would say was Redemption, and salvation is the realization of what Christ did on the Cross. There are passages in the Bible that talk about one saving another, and obviously it doesn't mean this person is Christ and can save in this manner. When that is said in our hymns, it is asking her to pray to her Son for the salvation of our souls.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

In Acts 15.....

The Apostles, Elders and others used Sola Scriptura.

"With this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,says the Lord, who makes these things 18 known from of old.’ Therefore...."

We aren't told exactly who made the decision or any of the details of the arbitration, but we ARE told - very explicitely - what the rule was. "with THIS the words of the prophets agree....." Then some of which is verbatim quoted. Then, on that basis, the ".... THEREFORE" (Grammatically, the "therefore" goes back to "with this the words of Scripture agree.") The Rule was Scripture. You know what that's called, when a view is normed via the norma normans of Scripture, when Scripture is the Rule? Yes, it's called "The Rule of Scripture" (or "Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it). Now, notice what was NOT said, what was NOT used: "Because this agrees with the words of the Infallible Vicar of Jesus...." "Because this agrees with the words of Peter who has the Keys...." "Because this agrees with Syrian Orthodox Tradition of this moment as currently defined and interpreted by the self same...."

It doesn't mean Christ's Church was disunited on doctrine in the first century.

1. There has never been a time when ALL Christians agreed with ALL Christians on ALL issues. If such had ever been the case, there would have been no heretics, no disagreements, no Councils (and likely, few NT books).


2. I've never met two Catholics that agree. Even now. I doubt anyone has.


3. The RCC does agree with ITSELF - officially, formally, institutionally, currently and on those issues that it itself alone currently feels is good for agreement. The same can be said for any other denomination, too. AT LEAST. And for any date. So what?

This echoes Paul's statement that anyone who teaches "another gospel" should be "accursed"---which is the language of anathema (Gal. 1:8-9). Such a person is disunited from the Church.

THAT would mean any who teachings "another Gospel" than what Paul taught to the Galatians. Are you CERTAIN that all 2,875 points of the Catholic Catechism was taught as such by Paul to the Galatians? SURE? If not, read what you posted..... But you are FAR, FAR harder on the RCC than I would be in this regard, your words FAR more condemning of Catholicism than I would ever think (and certainly post).



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*SNIP*........I hope this helps....
.

Me too

 

[ivebeenshown]

The Apostles, Elders and others used Sola Scriptura.

False. Scripture was not in itself the sole rule used in leading the early Church. The Apostles had received oral instruction from Jesus himself (Acts 1:1-3) and it was with this unwritten Word of God from Jesus in combination with Scripture, the written word of God, that the Apostles led the Church. There are no written instructions pertaining to whose approval is required for the ordaining of a bishop, for example.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

False. Scripture was not in itself the sole rule used in leading the early Church. The Apostles had received oral instruction from Jesus himself (Acts 1:1-3) and it was with this unwritten Word of God from Jesus in combination with Scripture, the written word of God, that the Apostles led the Church.

They also chose 7 spirit filled followers to help 'em spread the Good News of the Gospel

Acts 6:4 and we to prayer, and to the ministration of the word, will give ourselves continually.'
5 And the thing was pleasing before all the multitude, and they did choose
Stephen/stefanon <4736> , a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, Stephen = "crowned"
and Philip/filippon <5376> , Philip = "lover of horses"
and Prochorus/procoron <4402> , Prochorus = "leader of the chorus"
and Nicanor/nikanora <3527> , Nicanor = "conqueror"
and Timon/timwna <5096> , Timon = "honourable"
and Parmenas/parmenan <3937>, Parmenas = "abiding"
and Nicolaus/nikolaon <3532>, a proselyte of Antioch, Nicolas = "victor of the people"
6 whom they did set before the apostles, and they, having prayed, laid on them [their] hands.
7 And the word of God did increase, and the number of the disciples did multiply in Jerusalem exceedingly; a great multitude also of the priests were obedient to the faith.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

False. Scripture was not in itself the sole rule used.

Here's the pronouncement (verbatim)....


"With this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it,that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name,says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’ Therefore...."

We aren't told exactly who made the decision or any of the details of the arbitration, but we ARE told - very explicitely - what the rule was. "with THIS the words of the prophets agree....." Then some of which is verbatim quoted. Then, on that basis, the ".... THEREFORE" (Grammatically, the "therefore" goes back to "with this the words of Scripture agree.") The Rule was Scripture. You know what that's called, when a view is normed via the norma normans of Scripture, when Scripture is the Rule? Yes, it's called "The Rule of Scripture" (or "Sola Scriptura" as Luther and Calvin called it). Now, notice what was NOT said, what was NOT used: "Because this agrees with the words of the Infallible Vicar of Jesus...." "Because this agrees with the words of Peter who has the Keys...." "Because this agrees with Syrian Orthodox Tradition of this moment as currently defined and interpreted by the self same...."





.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Josaiah, I found your word-for-word reiteration to be excessive, as I did read your previous post in entirety and with full comprehension.

Furthermore, you say "Here's the pronouncement, word-for-word", but can it really be word for word when you exclude particular verses from it? Specifically, the very preceding verse:

14 Simon (Peter) has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 &#8220;&#8216;After this I will return
and rebuild David&#8217;s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things&#8217;&#8212;
18 things known from long ago.
19 &#8220;It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

James' judgment was based off of not Scripture only, but Peter's testimony and Scripture. Peter's testimony agreed with Scripture, yes, but Peter's testimony was spoken, not written. Even furthermore, an excerpt from their letter:

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul&#8212; 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

The Apostles wrote that it seemed good to them and the Holy Spirit to bind the Gentiles with those requirements, without so much as a single citation of Scripture to support their official and authorized (contrasted with the unauthorized men mentioned in v.24) decree.

 

[sunlover1]

False. Scripture was not in itself the sole rule used in leading the early Church. The Apostles had received oral instruction from Jesus himself (Acts 1:1-3) and it was with this unwritten Word of God from Jesus in combination with Scripture, the written word of God, that the Apostles led the Church. There are no written instructions pertaining to whose approval is required for the ordaining of a bishop, for example.

What might that mean?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

, you say "Here's the pronouncement, word-for-word", but can it really be word for word when you exclude particular verses from it? Specifically, the very preceding verse:

14 Simon (Peter) has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
18 things known from long ago.
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

James' judgment was based off of not Scripture only, but Peter's testimony and Scripture.

I disagree.

Peter shared a view - which clearly was seen as accountable. To WHAT? To the Rule of Scripture (you, of course, know what that praxis is called). It was determined that a view was "in accord WITH SCRIPTURE." (You DO know what that is called). The "judgment" flows from a "therefore" - which grammatically connects with "this is in accord with Scripture."

Yup. A rather stunning example of Sola Scriptura. What it is NOT is an example of anything Catholic. What is equally stunning is what was NOT said. Nothing remotely Catholic. Note what was NOT used: "Because this agrees with the words of the Infallible Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff...." "Because this agrees with the words of Peter who alone has the Keys...." "Because this agrees with RCC Tradition of this moment as currently defined and interpreted by the self same...." "WHATEVER I say is just to be accepted with quiet, docilic submission to ME as the one with unmitigated, unaccountable POWER and whatever I say is what God says..." Nope. Views were all heard, all held accountable - the Rule of Scripture. The Rule of Scripture, aka "Sola Scriptura."

without so much as a single citation of Scripture to support.

Read the verses the RCC never mentions, 15-18.

What is stunningly MISSING is anything - anything whatsoever - that is Catholic. Read the above. A rather stunning case of Sola Scriptura - yes.





Thank you.


May the joy, power and life of this season be yours....


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Read the verses the RCC never mentions, 15-18.
What is stunningly MISSING is anything - anything whatsoever - that is Catholic. Read the above. A rather stunning case of Sola Scriptura - yes. Thank you.

Verses 15-18 make no mention of eating blood, sexual immorality, or strangled animals.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Verses 15-18 make no mention of eating blood, sexual immorality, or strangled animals.

IF you disagree with the arbitration (and regard Ecumenical Councils as potentially WRONG) then start a thread about arbitration or the Ecumenical
Councils. This discussion is about the rule in norming.


YOU decided to refer us to one of the most stunning examples of Sola Scriptura in the NT - as used by the First Ecumenical Council. Peter shared a view - which clearly was seen as accountable. To WHAT? To the Rule of Scripture (you, of course, know what that praxis is called). It was determined that a view was "in accord WITH SCRIPTURE." (You DO know what that is called). The "judgment" flows from a "therefore" - which grammatically connects with "this is in accord with Scripture."

Yup. A rather stunning example of Sola Scriptura. What it is NOT is an example of anything Catholic. What is equally stunning is what was NOT said. Nothing remotely Catholic. Note what was NOT used: "Because this agrees with the words of the Infallible Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff...." "Because this agrees with the words of Peter who alone has the Keys...." "Because this agrees with RCC Tradition of this moment as currently defined and interpreted by the self same...." "WHATEVER I say is just to be accepted with quiet, docilic submission to ME as the one with unmitigated, unaccountable POWER and whatever I say is what God says..." Nope. Views were all heard, all held accountable - to the Rule of Scripture. The Rule of Scripture, aka "Sola Scriptura."







.

 

[Dorothea]

I have always been taught this paradigm.

I WAS SAVED when I accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior (justification)
I AM BEING SAVED every day of my life (santification or theosis)
I WILL BE SAVED when He comes again (glorification)
----------------------------------------------------
I have come to understand that the process of salvation started even before I accepted Jesus. For me, it started with the gift of prevenient Grace. For others, baptism comes before any affirmation of faith. So, for them, the process salvation begins at baptism.

Yes, We have been taught that paradigm as well, mark.

 

[ivebeenshown]

IF you disagree with the arbitration (and regard Ecumenical Councils as potentially WRONG) then start a thread about arbitration or the Ecumenical Councils. This discussion is about the rule in norming.

I do not disagree with James and the Apostle's decision, because I accept that they have ecclesiastical authority. So what is your point?

My point is that they made a binding decree, without presenting any Scriptural citation in the letter they sent out. The letter bore their AUTHORITY and POWER, and contained no reference to Scripture.

 

[Philothei]

My point is that they made a binding decree, without presenting any Scriptural citation in the letter they sent out. The letter bore their AUTHORITY and POWER, and contained no reference to Scripture.

True dat...