Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[Montalban]

The example is Christ using it (as illustrated 50 times, just as recorded in the 4 Gospel Books) - that's the example.

That's a novel take.

It's turning from where he cites scripture to suggest he only does that.

I suppose on has to go through the Gospels and scratch out all his parables, because he's teaching and not using OT scriptures.

But where are the examples of Him using RCC or EO Tradition normatively (or even just MENTIONING it entirely in passing in regard to nothing)?
.

That challenge has no value. It's as asking

Where does he mention the Nicene Creed?
or
Where does he mention the Trinity?

You've gone from being unable to show your point to attempt to raise problems with our method, to using challenges that mean nothing

 

[sunlover1]

Originally Posted by ortho_cat

Precisely. If you trust that God can work through men in the church to canonize scripture, then why don't you trust that he can work through them to establish other doctrines?
​

"Other" doctrines...
Do you mean extra-biblical doctrines?

For example, at the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397, the 27 NT writings we acknowledge today were canonized. Why do many protestants reject the OT canon also established at this council, and on what basis?

• The Council of Carthage, called the third by Denzinger,[4] on 28 August 397 issued a canon of the Bible quoted as, "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Chronicles, Job, the Davidic Psalter, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Ezra, 2 books of Maccabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 letter of his to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and one book of the Apocalypse of John."

Councils of Carthage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can't know why protestants do what they do, and I am not one.

I've read some of the deutro and also have read some of the arguments
both ways and tbh, i don't think that most of it is par with Scripture...
So for ME, I use what I am pretty sure IS..

BUT, the great thing about God is that He is wayy cooler than you and
I and there's not much He wont work out with us, even if we get it a bit
goofed up.

His GREATEST desire is that we walk in truth and prosper.. so He can be
trusted to help us to achieve that goal.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

So, which is it? Is the list of Books IDENTICAL in the OO, EO and RC or not?

Which is "following" the Third Synod of Carthage? Which accepts the exact books - and only those books - mentioned at that meeting? The EO? The RC? The OO?

Why does NONE agree with the EO on what is and is not Scripture? It has a "grand" agreement of just one - itself with itself, exclusively, solely, uniquely - in that matter. Why?

As I mentioned before, all of the apostolic churches listed in the OP accept the books presented at Carthage (the RCC canon). My position has been clear since the beginning of the thread. Whether a few of them consider other writings to be inspired or not is beside the point. They all share these in common.

You seem to continue shifting the burden of proof to me, without ever answering my initial question. Why reject the some of the OT books at Carthage, and accept all the NT ones?

 

[Montalban]

I can't know why protestants do what they do, and I am not one.

I don't know why Protestants deny that they are.

If they follow sola scriptura and sola fide, then they're Protestants, born out of the reaction to the Catholic Church of the 1500s.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That's a novel take.

Yes, He used Scripture normatively FIFTY times (as indicated in the 4 Gospels). How often did He even MENTION Eastern Orthodox Tradition - for or concerning ANYTHING? When did He even MENTION the "infallible Roman Pontiff" or the Eastern Orthodox Church or The Roman Catholic Church for or about anything?

It's turning from where he cites scripture to suggest he only does that.

Could you list for me (with verbatim quotes, if you will) where He used any other rule? And specifically, where He used Eastern Orthodox Tradition normatively - by name (as He did Scripture some 50 times)?

I suppose on has to go through the Gospels and scratch out all his parables, because he's teaching and not using OT scriptures.

Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

IF we were having this discussion in 321,598 BC, I suppose we'd both agree that Scripture is not the most sound norma normans for the evaluation of disputed doctrines among us. And yes - if we were having this little discussion between 1400 BC and 100 AD, there would be the issue of a growing corpus of Scripture. But have you checked the calendar lately?


No one has said that GOD reveals new teachings by only quoting from previous Scriptures. I have NO CLUE where you would ever have gotten such an idea. I suggest you read the link above, it will help you enormously. BUT the only rule Jesus used is Scripture - some 50 times. IF you had examples of where He used some other norma normans - specifically - you would have given it (or at least someone would have noticed such in the past many centuries). Yes - the point I made is that He used it some 50 times. He never used EO Tradition - or even so much as mentioned that for or about or concerning anything, normative or otherwise. Nor did any Apostle. I think you know that.




.

 

[Montalban]

As I mentioned before, all of the apostolic churches listed in the OP accept the books presented at Carthage (the RCC canon). My position has been clear since the beginning of the thread. Whether a few of them consider other writings to be inspired or not is beside the point. They all share these in common.

You seem to continue shifting the burden of proof to me, without ever answering my initial question. Why reject the some of the OT books at Carthage, and accept all the NT ones?

I still don't get this. It's like saying "I can't prove SS, so I'll try and find problems with tradition".

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Not that I would claim EO is 'the true Church', but as we have previously discussed, self agreeing with self does not necessitate that self is correct -- though if self does not agree with self, then self is moot (i.e., an invisible Church which disagrees on the nature and definition of the Trinity, aka God himself, or Baptism)

Well this argument goes both ways obviously. He is guilty of the very thing he is accusing us of. Why are there no other churches which completely agree with Lutherans? Lutherans agree with Lutherans, and are accountable to no other body. Why are there no churches who agree completely with one definition of Sola Scriptura? Or one interpretation of scripture?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

As I mentioned before, all of the apostolic churches listed in the OP accept the books presented at Carthage (the RCC canon).

Actually, there is not a single denomination on the planet that agrees with the RC or the EO on what is and is not Scripture. The RC only and exclusively agrees with itself. The EO only and exclusively agrees with itself. Why is that?




.

 

[Montalban]

Yes, He used Scripture normatively FIFTY times (as indicated in the 4 Gospels). How often did He even MENTION Eastern Orthodox Tradition - for or concerning ANYTHING? When did He even MENTION the "infallible Roman Pontiff" or the Eastern Orthodox Church or The Roman Catholic Church for or about anything?

I just addressed that. All you've done is repeat the claim.

He uses parables too.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Yes, He used Scripture normatively FIFTY times (as indicated in the 4 Gospels). How often did He even MENTION Eastern Orthodox Tradition - for or concerning ANYTHING? When did He even MENTION the "infallible Roman Pontiff" or the Eastern Orthodox Church or The Roman Catholic Church for or about anything?




Could you list for me (with verbatim quotes, if you will) where He used any other rule? And specifically, where He used Eastern Orthodox Tradition normatively - by name (as He did Scripture some 50 times)?






Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/

IF we were having this discussion in 321,598 BC, I suppose we'd both agree that Scripture is not the most sound norma normans for the evaluation of disputed doctrines among us. And yes - if we were having this little discussion between 1400 BC and 100 AD, there would be the issue of a growing corpus of Scripture. But have you checked the calendar lately?


No one has said that GOD reveals new teachings by only quoting from previous Scriptures. I have NO CLUE where you would ever have gotten such an idea. I suggest you read the link above, it will help you enormously. BUT the only rule Jesus used is Scripture - some 50 times. IF you had examples of where He used some other norma normans - specifically - you would have given it (or at least someone would have noticed such in the past many centuries). Yes - the point I made is that He used it some 50 times. He never used EO Tradition - or even so much as mentioned that for or about or concerning anything, normative or otherwise. Nor did any Apostle. I think you know that.




.

Jesus never referred to scripture as a "rule".

 

[Thekla]

Yes, He used Scripture normatively FIFTY times (as indicated in the 4 Gospels).

.

But this, of course, leaves aside the numerous references and actions of Christ from Jewish Tradition -- it is something you should research in order to make a fair ans accurate comparison before jumping to a conclusion.

And I don't see that Christ teaches Sola Scriptura anywhere in the Scriptures -- though He repeatedly demonstrates interpretation of Scripture and the necessity of "right interpretation" (which, per your description is not part of Sola Scriptura - ie the use of SS apparently does not agree with Christ on this matter, as right interpretation is per demonstration of Christ central to the use of Scripture).

 

[ivebeenshown]

Well this argument goes both ways obviously. He is guilty of the very thing he is accusing us of. Why are there no other churches which completely agree with Lutherans? Lutherans agree with Lutherans, and are accountable to no other body. Why are there no churches who agree completely with one definition of Sola Scriptura? Or one interpretation of scripture?

I know, after all why would someone want to be part of the pillar and foundation of Truth if they can't even be 100% certain that they have the whole and entire Truth available to themselves? A book can't say "Hey, you're interpreting me correctly" but a learned and stable teacher guided by the Holy Spirit can.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Actually, there is not a single denomination on the planet that agrees with the RC or the EO on what is and is not Scripture. The RC only and exclusively agrees with itself. The EO only and exclusively agrees with itself. Why is that?




.

With all respect, I will not answer any more of your questions until you answer mine.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I still don't get this. It's like saying "I can't prove SS.

How does one "prove" a practice? How would you "prove" your typically driving on the right hand side of the road or "prove" answering the phone with "hello" or "prove" sending your mother a card on Mother's Day? How do you suggest one "proves" a practice?


Read http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ If you have an alternative that is MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE ecumenically embraced (than 50,000 denominations), MORE historically embraced (before 1400 BC) than is Scripture, then please present it - let's discuss it's soundness as a norma normans for disputed doctrines (several of them in your denomination, several of them disputed between "Apostolic" denominations).








.

 

[Montalban]

Jesus never referred to scripture as a "rule".

And he taught from parables. Like the Good Samaritan. The "Love thy neighbour" rule the Jews understood was not enough.... their understanding was wrong.

Jesus had to use a parable to explain what God wants.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But this, of course, leaves aside the numerous references and actions of Christ from Jewish Tradition

Okay. Then list for us all the references where Jesus states, "Jewish Tradition states....." and uses thus normatively.

I don't see that Christ teaches Sola Scriptura anywhere in the Scriptures

Um, practices are rarely TAUGHT (nor do they need to be in order to be sound), but they might be exampled. Sola Scriptura certainly is.

This is just a very short (and very partial) list just from the NT. Space does not allow all the listings.

Matt 21:42
Matt 22:29
Matt 26:54
Matt 26:56
Matt 2:5
Matt 4:4
Matt 4:6
Matt 4:7
Matt 4:10
Matt 11:10
Matt 21:13
Matt 26:24
Matt 27:37

Mark 12:10
Mark 12:24
Mark 14:49
Mark 15:28
Mark 1:2
Mark 7:6
Mark 9:12
Mark 9:13
Mark 11:17
Mark 14:21
Mark 14:27

Luke 4:21
Luke 24:27
Luke 24:32
Luke 24:45
Luke 2:23
Luke 3:4
Luke 4:4
Luke 4:8
Luke 4:10
Luke 4:17
Luke 7:27
Luke 10:26
Luke 18:31
Luke 19:46
Luke 20:17
Luke 21:22
Luke 22:37
Luke 23:38
Luke 24:44
Luke 24:46


John 2:22
John 5:39
John 7:38
John 7:42
John 10:35
John 13:18
John 17:12
John 19:24
John 19:36
John 19:37
John 20:9
John 2:17
John 6:31
John 6:45
John 8:17
John 10:34
John 12:14
John 12:16
John 15:25
John 19:20
John 20:30
john 20:31
John 21:25

Acts 1:16
Acts 8:32
Acts 8:35
Acts 17:2
Acts 17:11
Acts 8:24
Acts 18:28
Acts 1:29
Acts 7:42
Acts 13:29
Acts 13:33
Acts 15:15
Acts 23:5
Acts 24:14
Acts 13:46

Romans 1:2
Romans 4:3
Romans 10:11
Romans 11:2
Romans 15:4
Romans 26:26
Romans 1:17
Romans 2:24
Romans 3:4
Romans 3:10
Romans 4:17
Romans 4:23
Romans 8:36
Romans 9:13
Romans 10:15
Romans 11:8
Romans 11:26
Romans 12:19
Romans 14:11
Romans 15:3
Romans 15:9
Romans 15:21

1 Cor. 15:3
1 Cor. 15:4
1 Cor. 1:19
1 Cor 1:31
1 Cor. 2:9
1 Cor. 3:19
1 Cor. 4:6
1 Cor. 9:9
1 Cor. 9;10
1 Cor. 10:7
1 Cor. 10:10
1 Cor. 14:22
1 Cor. 15:45
1 Cor. 15: 54

2 Cor. 4:13
2 Cor. 8:15
2 Cor. 9:9

Gal. 3:8
Gal. 3:22
Gal. 4:30
Gal. 3:10
Gal. 3:13
Gal. 4:22
Gal. 4:27

1 Tim 5:18

2 Tim 3:16

James 2:8
James 2:23
James 4:5

1 Peter 2:6
1 Peter 1:16

2 Peter 1:20
2 Peter 3:16

This is just a very partial list of just NT examples, there are MANY more.


Now, would you please do the same for Eastern Orthodox Tradition? We can then compare.


Thanks.





.

 

[Montalban]

How does one "prove" a practice? How would you "prove" your typically driving on the right hand side of the road or "prove" answering the phone with "hello" or "prove" sending your mother a card on Mother's Day? How do you suggest one "proves" a practice?

Easy. If I practice driving on the right, I'll crash head-on to another car (we drive on the left).

Such practices are proved by the results.

Your practice is to suppose that the words of God wafted unknown from the lips of Peter till they were written down.

Then somehow everyone was able to just know that these were Peter's words because they floated around self-proving themselves.

Furthermore you're agruing AGAINST a practice, or using tradition.

 

[Thekla]

How does one "prove" a practice? How would you "prove" your typically driving on the right hand side of the road or "prove" answering the phone with "hello" or "prove" sending your mother a card on Mother's Day? How do you suggest one "proves" a practice?


Read http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ If you have an alternative that is MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE ecumenically embraced (than 50,000 denominations), MORE historically embraced (before 1400 BC) than is Scripture, then please present it - let's discuss it's soundness as a norma normans for disputed doctrines (several of them in your denomination, several of them disputed between "Apostolic" denominations).








.

Shouldn't one be able to prove the "praxis" of SS has a basis in Christ ? Because it doesn't ...

 

[sunlover1]

Originally Posted by ortho_cat

Jesus never referred to scripture as a "rule".
​

What did He refer to it as?

I know, after all why would someone want to be part of the pillar and foundation of Truth if they can't even be 100% certain that they have the whole and entire Truth available to themselves? A book can't say "Hey, you're interpreting me correctly" but a learned and stable teacher guided by the Holy Spirit can.

How bout myself guided by God Himself?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

What did He refer to it as?

hmm not sure...

How bout myself guided by God Himself?

Is that scriptural, though?