Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

So how has this worked out so far, in practice? What are the results from your theory? Has there been any resolution among you regarding the "disputed" doctrines (I supose this would include baptism, eucharist, etc.)? If so, can you provide me with evidence for this resolution after 500 years of arbitration using sola scriptura?

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

Friend, I am neither quiet nor docilic. I am part of the EOC because I sought out the truth and found it. I recognized her voice and followed her. No coersion, no mindgames, no pressure tactics. I evaluated her claims and found them to be persuasive. All are free to come and see, and to stay or to leave. Ultimately though, none of us are accountable to self, rather we are accountable to Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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

Tis all in the interpretation

The Pope flies in to a town to visit in an airplane.
Well, the mayor spares no expense welcoming the Pope. Sure, the red carpet was nice, and tarmac was pleasant to kiss. But the special treat was the limo. The mayor got the best limo he could get. A truly awe-inspiring, gold trimmed, jewel encrusted, white-white limo.

As the Pope walked across the tarmac toward the limo he had to catch his breath. It was such a lovely car that he found himself compelled. The Pope steps over to the chauffeur and breaks protocol by asked if he could drive the limo. Not daring to deny the Pope, the chauffeur helps the Pope into the driver's seat and then gets in the back.

With screeching tires, the marvelous limo, with the Pope at the wheel, takes off speeding onto the highway, easily taking the heavenly car to over a hundred miles per hour.
Not more than a minute or two later, the Pope sees flashing red and blue lights in the rear view mirror and pulls over.
"Is there a problem, officer?" the Pope asks.
Quite taken aback, the officer stammers and says "uhh..I..I...excuse me sir...I...Uhh... no, nothing's wrong. I...just wanted to welcome you to our fine city."
As the officer gets back into his cruiser the limo peels out and high-tails it once again.
"Why didn't you give that guy a ticket?!?" the officer's partner asks.
"Oh, no, you don't give THAT guy a ticket. He's way too big." the officer says.
The partner asks "Oh? Who was it? Was it the mayor?"
"heh, no, not the mayor. This guy is WAY bigger than the mayor!"
"Who was it then, the President? Bill Gates???"
"Noway. this guy's way bigger than them."
"Well who was it??" insists the partner. The officer admits "Well, ok, I don't actually know who was in the limo...but he had the Pope for a chauffeur!!"

 

[Montalban]

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

This is another bogus challenge.

It's circular logic you're using - when he mentions scriptures, he's using them as a rule, because he is.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Just a reminder, this thread is meant to be about results, not theories. We want to see the proof in the pudding, so to speak.

 

[Montalban]

Well the proof of sola scriptura is endless divisions

 

[Montalban]

And confusion, such as selective rules

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Just a reminder, this thread is meant to be about results, not theories. We want to see the proof in the pudding, so to speak.

Are you volunteering to jump into the pudding to get the proof

http://www.christianforums.com/t7549607-41/#post57160176

We don't need to have lengthy "intellectual" debates with people about God. In fact most people in general know little about the world we live in. All we need to do is point at creation, the proof is in the pudding we don't need to do all this research. The answer is right there in people's faces. The wise are put to shame because creation is a simple answer to the big question "is there a God?"

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So how has this worked out so far, in practice?

Let's see....

The RC, the EO, the OO, the LDS, every cult known to me..... Yup, there's the same denominational rubric: quiet, docilic submission to self as unto God. "When I speak, God speaks." A look to the views of self as defined by self and interpreted by self (some call this their current denomination's "Tradition"). Where has that gotten us? Yes - your denomination agrees with itself (and no other) - this makes it AT LEAST as "bad" in this regard as any other denomination you can name. But, IMO, self alone agreeing with self alone or self declaring that self is exempt from the issue of truth aren't related to truth (I suspect we strongly disagree on that).

IF your point is: "ALL Christians don't agree with ALL Christians on ALL issues" then we agree. But to ME - that suggests someone just might be wrong (claims of self alone alone for self alone notwithstanding). Now, yes - if you want to abandon truth and either join Pontius Pilate in his satire OR become a radical relativist - then chuck it (it's moot anyway). BUT, if truth matters, if unity matters - then we need a common, objective, knowable rule that is outside and above and beyond all us "self". Will THAT alone "solve" the issue - of course not (and who EVER said it would?). But how do you suggest we even begin without such? With WHAT? WHAT is more inspired by God, more reliable, more objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, more ecumenically embraced (say more than 50,000 denominations) and more historically embraced (say before 1400 BC) than Scripture? What is your alternative?

after 500 years of arbitration

You continue to ask questions in the wrong context. IF you want to discuss arbitration, start a thread on that. But yes - the discussion is entirely pointless unless you first determine the rule for such.

Yes - to reach UNITY, a lot more is needed than a commonly embraced norma normans!!!! Obviously!!!! It may be that an issue cannot be adequately determined by such (meaning we are left with permitted "pious opinions" as we refer to such in Protestantism - neither DOGMA or HERESY) - well, there's several possibilites (I can't discuss more here without violating rules of CF). But how do we do this without a rule? And if you reject Scripture, what do you embrace as more sound?

Let's look at 500 years of the RCC, LDS, EO, OO, and every cult known to me - all rejecting Scripture (or anything other than self) as a rule. What HAS that accomplished?





.

 

[Montalban]

Are you volunteering to jump into the pudding to get the proof

I will, as long as it's chocolate.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well the proof of sola scriptura is endless divisions

I take it, then, that you also reject the Rule of Law since we have endless court cases - it would be better for each to declare self alone as unaccountable and just right cuz just one says so (self)....

Let's see. How such unity does the EO have? It is in full agreement with how many other denominations? Even after all these years?




.

 

[Thekla]

.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Let's see....

The RC, the EO, the OO, the LDS, every cult known to me..... Yup, there's the same denominational rubric: quiet, docilic submission to self as unto God. "When I speak, God speaks."

There's only one guy I know who said this:

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]"My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ" (O'Hare PF. The Facts About Luther, 1916--1987 reprint ed., pp. 203-204). [/FONT]

 

[Montalban]

I take it, then, that you also reject the Rule of Law since we have endless court cases - it would be better for each to declare self alone as unaccountable and just right cuz just one says so (self)....

We need laws because people don't act 'ideally'. I support peace, but we're not ideal, so I wouldn't disband the army (small though the Aussie defence force is).

However, the ideal, with scripture is unity. Paul keeps calling the people to unity of faith.

Protestants on the other hand seem to actually celebrate their divisions.

 

[hedrick]

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.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.

Yes, it appears this is yet another attack on several mistaken ideas of Sola Scriptura.

The fact is that neither apostolic succession or SS is necessary or sufficient for preserving doctrine

Of course, as continually noted, no one claims that the praxis of Sola Scriptura "preserves" anything. This notion that Jesus and the Apostles taught everything the RCC teaches at any current moment (the RCC is just "preserving" such) is a notion not shared in Protestantism - the whole premise of the thread is the imposition of a non-Protestant (and entirely baseless claim) on Protestantism. And the repeated reminder of this is constantly and totally ignored - all to try to attack several mistaken concepts of Sola Scriptura (while constantly ignoring Sola Scriptura). It's hard to have meaningful discussions this way.

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.

One of MANY incredibly strange points made here.... Ignoring that those parables are a part of SCRIPTURE. But it's related to a common Catholic misconception (what is even more frustrating is that the Catholics and Orthodox here KNOW it's a wrong misconception - but use it anyway).

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.

Jesus is God. The RC and EO and LDS are not.

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

Yes - the only rule Jesus used was Scripture (as our friends have admitted by the constant refusal to present any other rules used by Him). Now, He ADDED to the corpus of Scripture, He didn't norm every one of HIS OWN teachings by the OT, but when He did norm a teaching (His own or otherwise), that's the only rule He used. Note that it's our friends who keep asking what Jesus and the Apostles DID 2,000 years ago (in spite of them KNOWING He used Scripture normativey 50 times and never once used theirs) - it really isn't critical what Jesus DID in terms of sound practices for us (here we are chatting on the internet - Jesus never DID that), but odd they'd keep harping on what was done 2,000 years ago when all it does is point to Sola Scriptura, over and over and over.

He was free to add new things on his own authority.

Exactly. The corpus of Scripture increased during the period from 1400 BC to about 100 AD. No one denies that. And yes - "is there more?" would be a relevant question if we lived in that period. I think some of our friends just forget what year it is.

Indeed not everything Protestants say is Scripture either

We don't claim that when I speak, God is speaking. The RCC does. We don't claim that our ideas are God's revelation and equal to Scripture - this is an idea found in the RCC, in all the cults known to me and in the early LDS (and our Orthodox friends here seem to be suggesting in the EO, too). It's why the Rule of Scripture is rejected (and any other rule other than self) - self regards self as the mode of God's revelation, God's mouth (CCC 87, "On the Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, etc.).

Scripture is simply the norm, which is used to check things when they need checking.

Sola Scriptura.







.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There's only one guy I know who said this

Read The Catholic Catechism # 87 for starters. Read "On the Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle and Prophet Bruce McConkie. Read the claim of nearly every Christian cult. Read your own posts.





.

 

[Thekla]

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

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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

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).


Does the EO believe that God has inscriptured numerous books - and still does and always will - besides those in it's Bible? If not, why do you as an EO ask the question (or do you disagree with your denomination there)?


Let me ask you: Do you accept the Rule of Law? Are you SURE that never again will a new law be enacted? If not, does that cause you to regard the Rule of Law as moot and unsound?





.

 

[Thekla]

What about the "cult of the self" ?

 

[MrPolo]

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?

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.