Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Jesus never referred to scripture as a "rule".

He used it as such, by name. Some 50 times.

List for us all the times He used Eastern Orthodox Tradition as such.

Thank you.




.

 

[Thekla]

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

I have described and mentioned before my dislike of manipulative strategy in discussion - as this is the equivalent of negating discussion.

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.

The use of Jewish Tradition is "exampled" by Christ.

Hence, He "examples" the use of Scripture ineluctably bound with interpretation, but He never "examples" sola Scripture. Ever.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah

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?
​

You prove a practice by it's fruits. What is the goal of using such a practice, if not to establish doctrine and practice? How effective is this rule at doing this, based on it's track record over 500 years? Is there a general consensus of faith and practice for those who have applied this rule? Has the acceptance of this rule led to more unity or more division of faith and practice?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.

Yes. God ADDED to the corpus of Scripture during a period of 1500 years, roughly from 1400 BC to 100 AD. Have you checked your calendar lately?

Yes. In the USA, we embrace the Rule of Law. Is the "law" all completed? Probably not. But I'd love to hear the response of a policeman who stops you - noting that you were going 60 MPH in a 25 MPH zone (pointing to that big, white sign with the big black numerals and letters: "MAX SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH" and you replying, "the Rule of Law is moot because how do we know that in the year 2456, there might be a road here with the speed limit of 70 MPH?" How would the policeman respond? But it's moot - we're not having this discussion between 1400 BC - 100 AD when the corpus of Scripture was increasing. I think you know the year. Your "response" would have SOME relevance (however tiny) if you were a Mormon, but you aren't.

The only norma normans Jesus employed was Scripture. If you have an example of Him - by name - using something other normatively, give it. List them. I'm NOT saying God was not ADDING to the corpus of Scripture via the teaching of Jesus (etc.) - certainly He was, but what relevance does that have in 2011 (your not being LDS) or to Jesus using some other norma normans? Or to Eastern Orthodox Tradition being the more often referenced rule by Jesus?






.

 

[Montalban]

He used it as such, by name. Some 50 times.

Again you repeat your assertion.

He also uses parables.

Therefore by your 'rationale' of him mentioning them, it's a rule.

You can deal with this if you want, why aren't parables also rules?

 

[Thekla]

Again you repeat your assertion.

He also uses parables.

Therefore by your 'rationale' of him mentioning them, it's a rule.

You can deal with this if you want, why aren't parables also rules?

And He repeatedly uses Jewish Tradition ... including the "Golden Rule" (from Tradition).

 

[Montalban]

Yes. God ADDED to the corpus of Scripture during a period of 1500 years, roughly from 1400 BC to 100 AD. Have you checked your calendar lately?.

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

 

[Thekla]

(I can't find where Christ used the equivalent of the English term "rule" ... help anyone ?)

 

[Montalban]

(I can't find where Christ used the equivalent of the English term "rule" ... help anyone ?)

Indeed. It's the assertion that "Jesus mentioned scripture 50 times that therefore it's a rule"

However given we know he taught by parable '50 times' too, it too must also, by that measure, be a rule as well.

One can't have it both ways. Either "Jesus mentioned it 50 times" is a rule, or it's not.

That is, after-all, what a 'rule' is.

 

[Montalban]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah

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?
​

You prove a practice by it's fruits. What is the goal of using such a practice, if not to establish doctrine and practice? How effective is this rule at doing this, based on it's track record over 500 years? Is there a general consensus of faith and practice for those who have applied this rule? Has the acceptance of this rule led to more unity or more division of faith and practice?

Indeed. I don't know how some people navigate through life!

Can you imagine someone saying "I've got a car, I don't know which practice to use (driving on the left, or the right)."

"Okay, today I'll drive on the right"

CRASH

"I can't know if that was a good practice because we can't test practices. Tomorrow I'll drive on the right again"

CRASH

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Yes. God ADDED to the corpus of Scripture during a period of 1500 years, roughly from 1400 BC to 100 AD. Have you checked your calendar lately?

Yes. In the USA, we embrace the Rule of Law. Is the "law" all completed? Probably not. But I'd love to hear the response of a policeman who stops you - noting that you were going 60 MPH in a 25 MPH zone (pointing to that big, white sign with the big black numerals and letters: "MAX SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH" and you replying, "the Rule of Law is moot because how do we know that in the year 2456, there might be a road here with the speed limit of 70 MPH?" How would the policeman respond? But it's moot - we're not having this discussion between 1400 BC - 100 AD when the corpus of Scripture was increasing. I think you know the year. Your "response" would have SOME relevance (however tiny) if you were a Mormon, but you aren't.

The only norma normans Jesus employed was Scripture. If you have an example of Him - by name - using something other normatively, give it. List them. I'm NOT saying God was not ADDING to the corpus of Scripture via the teaching of Jesus (etc.) - certainly He was, but what relevance does that have in 2011 (your not being LDS) or to Jesus using some other norma normans? Or to Eastern Orthodox Tradition being the more often referenced rule by Jesus?

This would be a valid analogy if the police officer and the person getting pulled over had equal interpretive authority of the rule of law.

Then in that case, if the person said, "I think the speed limit reads more like 75 instead of 50", then the police officer would have to let that person go because he could not bind their conscience either way as to a correct interpretation of the rule, because each of their opinions are equally valid.

 

[Montalban]

Furthermore...

Jesus says to the Jews "You have heard 'Love thy neighbour'"?

Jews: "Yeah, so what?"

Jesus: "Nothing, I can only go by what scripture says"

 

[Montalban]

This would be a valid analogy if the police officer and the person getting pulled over had equal interpretive authority of the rule of law.

Then in that case, if the person said, "I think the speed limit reads more like 75 instead of 50", then the police officer would have to let that person go because he could not bind their conscience either way as to a correct interpretation of the rule, because each of their opinions are equally valid.

I'm wondering also, are we to suppose that canon was set out in 100AD?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah

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?
​

You prove a practice by it's fruits.

I see....

So, I study a cult. It has SOLID unity and FULL agreement with itself - no disagreements at all with itself, and all in it are in full, quiet, docilic, submission to it. This proves it is correct?

Yes - I can look at the RC, EO, OO, LDS and a host of cults all rejecting the the Rule of Scripture, all insisting that self is the sole authority, infallible/unaccountable, "Apostolic", when self speaks God speaks, and the practice is to just quietly, docilicly, submit to itself as unto God. And I can look at the "fruit" of this.


Friend, I think I would be a LOT happier comparing my teachings with my ubercalvinist friend both under the Rule of Scripture than you would be comparing your views with my uberLDS friend both using the denomination's "Tradition" and the rubric of quiet, docilic, submission to the denomination as unto God for when that specific, singualar denomination speaks - God speaks (actually, the LDS droped that extreme rubric about 100 years ago - my LDS friend would not be nearly as extreme on this as that).

What is the goal of using such a practice

To provide a sound norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines among us - particularly disputed ones. Read the link I've provided for you, it will help you a lot.

What is the "goal" of calling all to exempt self from the question of truth and to be in "quiet, docilic, submission" to self?

Has the acceptance of this rule led to more unity or more division of faith and practice?

Is the "goal" a big denomination or truth? What has been accomplished by exempting self from the question of truth? Have you studied any of the cults? What is accomplished by the reality that your denomination agrees with NONE but itself? What "unity" are you talking about, with self alone (as is the case with your denomination)?

IF you are trying to say, "It's easier to just lay aside the issue of Truth and smile" then I don't really disagree with you. Gaining a solid consensus on what is true is rarely the easiest pursuit. And I agree, if truth is moot - then why pursue at all? Why not just join Pontius Pilate in his satire: "what is truth?" Yes - this is hard work. Yes - it involves prayer, humility, worship, study, discussion, prayer, humility, confession, work, study, discussion, prayer, study, discussion, humility, worship, prayer - perhaps for centuries. Perhaps for milenniums. Perhaps it will NEVER be that we sinful, fallible, limited creatures will ever attain the goal of 100% of Chrsitians agreeing with 100% of Christians on 100% of issues 100% of the time. May never happen. It may not even happen among Eastern Orthodox Christians. Or LCMS Christians. Doesn't mean truth is moot or unity doesn't matter, IMO. Or that we join Pontius Pilate's satire (as you seem to be doing).

Yes - I know. Your denomination agrees with NONE but itself: it has a grand unity of just one - self, the one self alone sees in the mirror. Okay. I agree - yours is in good company, but you can hardly rebuke others for what your denomination is AT LEAST as "guilty."


Again, IF you know of something MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE ecumenically embraced (say than 50,000 denominations), MORE historically embraced (say before 1400 BC) than is Scripture - please (pray, please) present it so we can discuss it, so we can determine if it is more than Scripture, so we can see how often Jesus and the Apostles used such as the norma normans. What's your alternative (other than just quiet, docilic submission to your singular denomination or joining Pilate's satire, both essentially throwing in the towel, so to speak)? Let's discuss it.






.

 

[Montalban]

Yes. God ADDED to the corpus of Scripture during a period of 1500 years, roughly from 1400 BC to 100 AD. Have you checked your calendar lately?

My calendar says nothing at all about teaching ending in 100AD. Maybe you've got a special "Theology Caledar"?

Mine's got Queens Birthday Long Weekend coming up on 13/06/2011

Yes. In the USA, we embrace the Rule of Law. Is the "law" all completed? Probably not. But I'd love to hear the response of a policeman who stops you - noting that you were going 60 MPH in a 25 MPH zone (pointing to that big, white sign with the big black numerals and letters: "MAX SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH" and you replying, "the Rule of Law is moot because how do we know that in the year 2456, there might be a road here with the speed limit of 70 MPH?" How would the policeman respond? But it's moot - we're not having this discussion between 1400 BC - 100 AD when the corpus of Scripture was increasing. I think you know the year. Your "response" would have SOME relevance (however tiny) if you were a Mormon, but you aren't.

Where have I said that theological laws keep changing.

(If a cop told me I was doing 50mph I'd say "We use the metric system here, bud!")

The only norma normans Jesus employed was Scripture.

No. He used parables too. He also used himself, performing miracles.

In many cases his teaching was himself.

 

[Montalban]

Is the speed limit 25pmh in the USA? Could I say "Sure, it's written, but it's meant to be figurative"

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This would be a valid analogy if the police officer and the person getting pulled over had equal interpretive authority of the rule of law.

What? The Rule of Law prevails - even if the law is not yet "complete" (or ever will be). Your point that Scripture was not complete in 30 AD is moot. And seems to indicate you don't know what year it is.

Then in that case, if the person said, "I think the speed limit reads more like 75 instead of 50", then the police officer would have to let that person go because he could not bind their conscience either way as to a correct interpretation of the rule, because each of their opinions are equally valid.

What? The rule is "Max Speed 25 MPH." Yes - if there is a dispute as to this, it would go to arbitration UNDER THE RULE OF LAW - what does the LAW say? (Again, if you want to discuss arbitration - start a thread on that, as you well know, the Rule of Scripture is the embrace of Scripture as the Rule - it is not arbitration; let's stick to the topic). But before you can go to arbitration, you must determine what is the rule in such. THAT is what the Rule of Scripture concerns, it is the practice of embracing Scripture as the Rule.

If you know of a better one, one MORE inspired by God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE ecumenically embraced (than 50,000 denominations), MORE historically embrace (before 1400 BC) than is Scripture - then present it, let's discuss it, let's reference all the time when Jesus and the Apostles by name reference such and used such normatively.




.

 

[sunlover1]

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.

hmm not sure...

He thought it very important:
But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”
He called it unbreakable!
If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
He used it to defeat the devil!
"It is written, ...."

Is that scriptural, though?

He's my "shepherd"
Do you think it's Scriptural to expect God to lead us
into truth?
Do you think that He leads us?

 

[Montalban]

Parables are the rule. Jesus mentioned them 50* times


*(or so)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

The only norma normans Jesus employed was Scripture.

No. He used parables too. He also used himself, performing miracles.

Okay. List for me all the times when Jesus used parables normative, as norma normans.

In many cases his teaching was himself.

Certainly! Who ever said otherwise? Did you read the link I provided?

Yes - we all agree, the corpus of Scripture INCREASED in size from 1400 BC to 100 AD or so. None of that has any relevance to the praxis (just as the Rule of Law APPLIES even now, even though I doubt anyone on the planet believes the last law has been written). Yes - IF we were having this little discussion between 1400 BC and 100 AD OR if you were LDS - you would have a point (moot - but a point). You aren't LDS. This is 2011.

List your examples where Jesus used parables as the norma normans, specifically referencing such as such. Or give us what your alternative is for us - what is MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced than is Scripture - and we can discuss your alternative.





.