Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[sunlover1]

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.

Certainly they had that power to do so, given them by Christ.
Glad they wrote it down rather than sending a messenger with word!
Wait, why DID they bother writing it down? Heh.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So what is your point?

They used Sola Scriptura. They employed NOTHING Catholic.

My point is that they made a binding decree, without presenting any Scriptural citation

Read the verses the RCC seems unaware of, verses 15-19. Note what is said (a stunning example of Sola Scriptura, isn't it? Quite stunning! There are, of course, many other examples). Note what is NOT said. Nothing about the Tradition of the RCC denomination (as currently chosen, defined and interpreted by the self same), nothing about any "infallible Roman Pontiff" nothing about any "keys," nothing about any "Vicar of Jesus" and nothing about self having unmitigated, unaccountable POWER so great as to require quiet, docilic submission to SELF as unto God.




.

 

[ivebeenshown]

They used Sola Scriptura. They employed NOTHING Catholic.

Read the verses the RCC seems unaware of, verses 15-19. Note what is said (a stunning example of Sola Scriptura, isn't it? Quite stunning! There are, of course, many other examples).

I am very aware of those verses and what they do not say. Verses 15-19 mention nothing of blood or strangling or fornication, yet the Apostles make a decree about those things, and send it in a letter, and don't even cite Scripture in their letter, yet the letter is sent out to be obeyed.

Note what is NOT said. Nothing about the Tradition of the RCC denomination (as currently chosen, defined and interpreted by the self same), nothing about any "infallible Roman Pontiff" nothing about any "keys," nothing about any "Vicar of Jesus" and nothing about self having unmitigated, unaccountable POWER so great as to require quiet, docilic submission to SELF as unto God.

Well Josaiah, they sent the letter out to be obeyed even though it cited no Scripture. In the letter were requirements, which were to be submitted to.

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

 

[Philothei]

I am very aware of those verses and what they do not say. Verses 15-19 mention nothing of blood or strangling or fornication, yet the Apostles make a decree about those things, and send it in a letter, and don't even cite Scripture in their letter, yet the letter is sent out to be obeyed.

Well Josaiah, they sent the letter out to be obeyed even though it cited no Scripture. In the letter were requirements, which were to be submitted to.

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

I think the "it is written" clause would not have made an iota of meaning to the "heathen" who were unaware of what is written...like the Greeks ... so...

 

[Sidheil]

Embracing Scripture alone as the Rule for norming disputed doctrines sounds good in theory...but in practice we have churches claiming baptism for infants, baptism for adults, baptism as a sacrament, baptism as a symbol, baptism as necessary for salvation, baptism as unnecessary for salvation, etc. And all of these contrary doctrines are normed by Scripture alone. It seems to me that when a Rule supports contradictory doctrines, that Rule alone is not effective.

Just my $0.02

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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

I think if I was hungry enough, I would eat an animal that had been strangled

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
Strong's Number G4156 matches the Greek πνικτός (pniktos), which occurs 3 times in 3 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

Act 15:20But 235 that we write 1989 unto them 846, that they abstain 567 from 575 pollutions 234 of idols 1497, and 2532 [from] fornication 4202, and 2532 [from] things strangled 4156, and 2532 [from] blood 129.

Act 15:29That ye abstain 567 from meats offered to idols 1494, and 2532 from blood 129, and 2532 from things strangled 4156, and 2532 from fornication 4202: from 1537 which 3739 if ye keep 1301 yourselves 1438, ye shall do 4238 well 2095. Fare ye well 4517 .

Act 21:25As 1161 touching 4012 the Gentiles 1484 which believe 4100 , we 2249 have written 1989 [and] concluded 2919 that they 846 observe 5083 no 3367 such thing 5108, save only 1508 that they keep 5442 themselves 846 from 5037 [things] offered to idols 1494, and 2532 from blood 129, and 2532 from strangled4156, and 2532 from fornication 4202.

4156. pniktos pnik-tos' from 4155; throttled, i.e. (neuter concretely) an animal choked to death (not bled):--strangled.
4155. pnigo pnee'-go strengthened from 4154; to wheeze, i.e. (causative, by implication) to throttle or strangle (drown):--choke, take by the throat.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Embracing Scripture alone as the Rule for norming disputed doctrines sounds good in theory...but in practice we have churches claiming baptism for infants, baptism for adults, baptism as a sacrament, baptism as a symbol, baptism as necessary for salvation, baptism as unnecessary for salvation, etc. And all of these contrary doctrines are normed by Scripture alone. It seems to me that when a Rule supports contradictory doctrines, that Rule alone is not effective.

Just my $0.02

And a fine two cents. But your issue is arbitration, not the embraced norm.

Yes, one CAN say that the Jerusalem Council arbitrated the issue WRONGLY - and we know that even today, there are Christians insisting on OT Ceremonial Law. Okay, yes - I suppose one COULD conclude the Jerusalem Council arbitrated the issue WRONGLY. But what is indisputable from my perspective is that it used the Rule of Scripture and nothing remotely Catholic.

Again, if you want to discuss arbitration (even within the framework of the Rule of Scripture), that's fine. IF you want to claim that Ecumenical Councils can be wrong in their arbitration, that's fine, too. Good discussions, all. But MY point is that the Jerusalem Council used the Rule of Scripture and obviously nothing Catholic.






.

 

[sunlover1]

Embracing Scripture alone as the Rule for norming disputed doctrines sounds good in theory...but in practice we have churches claiming baptism for infants, baptism for adults, baptism as a sacrament, baptism as a symbol, baptism as necessary for salvation, baptism as unnecessary for salvation, etc. And all of these contrary doctrines are normed by Scripture alone. It seems to me that when a Rule supports contradictory doctrines, that Rule alone is not effective.

Just my $0.02

Which baptism do you feel is correct?
And what led you to this conclusion?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Josaiah, would you say 'Using Scripture as the sole rule is the most reliable method of preserving doctrine'?

 

[Thekla]

And a fine two cents. But your issue is arbitration, not the embraced norm.

Yes, one CAN say that the Jerusalem Council arbitrated the issue WRONGLY - and we know that even today, there are Christians insisting on OT Ceremonial Law. Okay, yes - I suppose one COULD conclude the Jerusalem Council arbitrated the issue WRONGLY. But what is indisputable from my perspective is that it used the Rule of Scripture and nothing remotely Catholic.

Again, if you want to discuss arbitration (even within the framework of the Rule of Scripture), that's fine. IF you want to claim that Ecumenical Councils can be wrong in their arbitration, that's fine, too. Good discussions, all. But MY point is that the Jerusalem Council used the Rule of Scripture and obviously nothing Catholic.






.

Christ used the norm of the Galilean tradition re: divorce.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Josaiah, would you say 'Using Scripture as the sole rule is the most reliable method of preserving doctrine'?

No. I think someone is confusing canning with norming....




.

 

[ivebeenshown]

No. I think someone is confusing canning with norming.....

What do you think is 'the most reliable method of preserving doctrine?'

EDIT: Btw I would say that 'The Word of God' is the Norma Normans but 'The Word of God' is not found in Scripture alone.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Christ used the norm of the Galilean tradition re: divorce.

We have at least FIFTY times recorded in the 4 Gospels where Jesus norms something with "The Scriptures state...." "It is written in Scripture.... " "Moses and the Prophets state...." Fifty examples of Sola Scriptura - just from Jesus alone, just as specifically recorded in the 4 Gospel Books.

If you think He also used "Galilean Tradition," then please quote for me all the times He stated, "it is written in Galilean Tradition" and then uses such normatively, as norma normans. And since the context here is the Jerusalem Council, please quote where James used "Galilean Tradition" normatively and quoted from such.


Thanks.


May all Easter joy, power and life be yours...


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Thekla]

We have at least FIFTY times recorded in the 4 Gospels where Jesus norms something with "The Scriptures state...." "It is written in Scripture.... " "Moses and the Prophets state...." Fifty examples of Sola Scriptura - just from Jesus alone, just as specifically recorded in the 4 Gospel Books.

If you think He also used "Galilean Tradition," then please quote for me all the times He stated, "it is written in Galilean Tradition" and then uses such normatively, as norma normans. And since the context here is the Jerusalem Council, please quote where James used "Galilean Tradition" normatively and quoted from such.


Thanks.


May all Easter joy, power and life be yours...


Pax


- Josiah




.

Can you demonstrate from Scripture that Christ stated that Scripture is the norm ?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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]

The only problem is, in democracies, we all appoint someone to make decisions for us. In protestantism, there is no unity amongst the factions, no single voice, no representative. Everyone's opinion is just as valid as another's, since no one can 'bind the conscience' of another regarding interpretation of the bible (and as we learned recently, the canon itself!) Further, isn't being called and appointed to the priesthood supposed to be something that God does, not humans? I fail to see the validity of your analogy. Besides, could you imagine having elections and campaigns for church office?

I think this verse might be relevant:

20“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

Is Sola Scriptura leading us towards this goal, or away from it?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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

Or converts not needing to be circumcised...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

This is a very important point!

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Certainly they had that power to do so, given them by Christ.
Glad they wrote it down rather than sending a messenger with word!
Wait, why DID they bother writing it down? Heh.

easier than visiting all of the places individually, i would presume.

The authority was placed in them by Christ, just as the authority of their appointed successors is also from Christ.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

What do you think is 'the most reliable method of preserving doctrine?'

EDIT: Btw I would say that 'The Word of God' is the Norma Normans but 'The Word of God' is not found in Scripture alone.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In protestantism, there is no unity amongst the factions, no single voice, no representative.

There isn't ANYWHERE. There is no ONE contemporary human "spokesperson" for all 2.2 billion Christians - alive even now, much less the billions of additional Christians no longer alive. None. Never has been, isn't now.

Yes, in MOST denominations, there is some "Official" person or organization or means that can speak for THAT specific, singular denomination (in mine, it's official declarations of conventions) but there is NO person, NO organization, NO anything that speaks in any official sense for all Christians. Never has been (although, before the 9th Century, the Ecumenical Councils came close - but even that hasn't existed for 1200 + years.

since no one can 'bind the conscience' of another regarding interpretation of the bible

Again, your "issue" seems to be arbitration (perhaps, especially such as BINDING). You keep bringing up your points in the wrong threads, IMO. Your issue is arbitration (and regarding such as universally binding) - not whatever may be embraced as the norma normans in norming OR self declaring self to have too much POWER to be accountable - to any norming by any norm.

May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

Is Sola Scriptura leading us towards this goal, or away from it?

1. It is a GOAL....


2. IF you believe that Truth matters (including for our own denomination), then you have embraced norming (the process of evaluating truth, correctness, validity, reasonableness) - and the first issue then becomes WHAT best serves as the norma normans for this process. IF you read the link that I've provided for you, all this is carefully explained. IF you have an alternative - something MORE inspired by God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by ALL and unalterable by NONE, MORE ecumenically embraced by all (say more than 50,000 denominations) and MORE historically embraced (say to before 1400 BC) than is Scripture - then present it, let's discuss it, let's see how Jesus and the Apostles specifically used that.


3. Yes, the EO is fully "united" to the EO (officially, formally, institutionally and to the extent that itself regards such). But it's united to NOTHING else but itself. Is THAT the "unity" you think Jesus was praying for? Self alone with self alone?







.