Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[cygnusx1]

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

you have read the last words of scripture , about adding to scripture ?

 

[ivebeenshown]

you have read the last words of scripture , about adding to scripture ?

'This book' refers to 'Revelation', not 'the Bible.' Revelation was a stand-alone book at first.

Revelation 22
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

you have read the last words of scripture , about adding to scripture ?

That was particularly pertaining to the book or revelation, no?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I would go so far as to say Jesus was a walking Bible

Reve 19:13 And having been about cast/clothed cloak, having been dipped to blood and has been called the Name of Him, the Word/logoV <3056> of the God.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7542608/#post56946063
The Word Of God [poll]

Like this?

 

[hedrick]

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

Is this an attempt to add the usual "Protestants have no way to define the canon" to the discussion? Does every discussion have to turn into a general Protestant-Catholic food fight?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Is this an attempt to add the usual "Protestants have no way to define the canon" to the discussion? Does every discussion have to turn into a general Protestant-Catholic food fight?

For some....

ALL know that Sola Scriptura does not teach what is and is not Scripture (any more than the Rule of Law teaches what is and is not the law - at that moment and in that jurisdiction); and it's moot since none of us here embrace that the canon is "unfinished" - and haven't for a lot longer than any of us have been alive. It's a diversion from those that KNOW it's a diversion.

IMO, if they had an alternative - something MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE ecumenically and historically embraced - they would have suggested it.





.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Is this an attempt to add the usual "Protestants have no way to define the canon" to the discussion? Does every discussion have to turn into a general Protestant-Catholic food fight?

It seems like a new twist on that idea...after all Jesus told us to be ready and watching.


Did someone say food fight!?!

 

[Thekla]

Is this an attempt to add the usual "Protestants have no way to define the canon" to the discussion? Does every discussion have to turn into a general Protestant-Catholic food fight?

I was responding to a particular claim made by another poster; my question - in all honesty - had nothing to do with "Protestants ... defining the canon". Instead, I wondered if the poster was of the opinion that God could not or would not "deem" other/more Scripture at some future time. (I don't recall God "stating" this in Scripture.)

 

[Ortho_Cat]

For some....

ALL know that Sola Scriptura does not teach what is and is not Scripture (any more than the Rule of Law teaches what is and is not the law - at that moment and in that jurisdiction); and it's moot since none of us here embrace that the canon is "unfinished" - and haven't for a lot longer than any of us have been alive. It's a diversion from those that KNOW it's a diversion.

To me, it doesn't have to do so much with being unfinished, but recognizing what has already been written and distinguishing inspired writings from non.

You admitted scripture does not teach what is and what is not scripture. Therefore, according to the definition of SS (what is not found in scripture cannot bind the conscience of the believer), the canon of scripture cannot be binding on the believer. Do you agree?

 

[Montalban]

you have read the last words of scripture , about adding to scripture ?

Verses about 'adding to' also appear written by Moses, making every other book of the OT disobedience to that

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

To me, it doesn't have to do so much with being unfinished, but recognizing what has already been written and distinguishing inspired writings from non.

... fair enough. A completely different subject for another day and thread, but a fair question. IF you want to discuss it, be sure to do so in a thread that Mormons may post in since it's only an issue for them.

You admitted scripture does not teach what is and what is not scripture.

Um.... no. I don't disagree with that but I don't think in ANY of my over 13,000 posts here have I ever stated that. What I said is that the praxis of Sola Scriptura doesn't teach that (it doesn't teach ANYTHING, no practice does). Did you read the link I gave you? There's a whole section on this point there vis-a-vis Sola Scriptura. And there are several posts in this thread on that.

Therefore, according to the definition of SS (what is not found in scripture cannot bind the conscience of the believer), the canon of scripture cannot be binding on the believer. Do you agree?

Binding? Where did you see anything about "binding" in the definition of Sola Scriptura? I continue to be largely lost by the posts you make. Do you know what Sola Scriptura is?

Do you know what every law is now in force in the world - right now? IF not, does that mean that the Rule of Law is moot and unsound? In my field (physics) we use laborative evidence and math as our norma normans (not even in the same ballpark as Scripture in terms of a sound rule!), do I KNOW what every bit of laborative evidence in the world is? Nope - no one does. Do I know everything in math? Nope - no ones does. Does that mean such is an unsound rule for the norming of scientific positions? No. Does it mean that everyone should rather declare SELF to be unaccountable for their views, incapable of error, exempt from the issue of correctness? Or that if self agrees with self (and disagreement with every one else) then self MUST be correct? Not in my opinion.....

Read the link I provided for you. Read what the practice of Sola Scriptura IS and what it is NOT. I'm very confident it will REALLY help you - and our discussion.






.

 

[Montalban]

Are we agreed that practices can be tested?

 

[cygnusx1]

That was particularly pertaining to the book or revelation, no?

not really , if you consider God not only inspired scripture but the CLOSED canon , it makes perfect sense .

'The faith once delivered to the saints' , as well as other statements exhibit the closed canon .

If there is no closed canon then prepare to be duped .

 

[hedrick]

Read http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ . Read "What the Rule of Scripture is NOT." It will help dispel your several misconceptions.
.

That expresses my view as well. Particularly the concept that a major use of Scripture is to provide accountability for doctrinal development. Not that such development is wrong, but that there needs to be a control.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Are we agreed that practices can be tested?

Sure.

Some embrace accountability - others don't (well, for self - they insist upon it for every other teacher)...

Some embrace Scripture as the Rule, others embrace nothing (usually because they don't accept accountability), others embrace the views of self as the best rule for evaluating the views of self.

Sure. I'd be GLAD to compare the RCC and LDS to the RCUS and WELS - thus comparing two different embraced rules. Id be GLAD to compare Melba (the self designated Apostle and Prophet mother of a friend of mine) and her rule with the LCMS and it's rule. But you need to begin a new thread to do that.

Perhaps a better approach to your question (and one that seems permitted within this thread) is to present your alternative to Scripture as the norma normans - what you regard as more inspired, more reliable, more objectively knowable by all and unalterable by all, more ecumenically embraced by all among us and historically embraced (before 1400 BC) than is Scripture. Present your alternative for the evaluation of disputed dogmas among us (several of them a part of your denomination and it's "Tradition") and we can discuss it vis-a-vis the inscripturated words of God.





.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I think it's safe to assume the most reliable method of preserving doctrine is unmitigated power and forceful application.

this of course, doesn't speak to whether or not the doctrines are sound, only that they are enforced.
YouTube - God Wills It!

 

[sunlover1]

I think it's safe to assume the most reliable method of preserving doctrine is unmitigated power and forceful application.

this of course, doesn't speak to whether or not the doctrines are sound, only that they are enforced.
YouTube - God Wills It!

lol.
So you've stopped by to see how the more things change
(not) the more they stay the same? Or did you wonder
if there was anything new under the sun?

Which makes the rest of us what?

 

[Uphill Battle]

lol.
So you've stopped by to see how the more things change
(not) the more they stay the same? Or did you wonder
if there was anything new under the sun?

Which makes the rest of us what?

ultimately, I stopped in because I'm rather bored this evening. I'm under no illusion that anything changes!

 

[sunlover1]

ultimately, I stopped in because I'm rather bored this evening. I'm under no illusion that anything changes!

Then we won't expect you to be "dis" illusioned.
always did love that word.
Have fun.. lot's of new faces.

 

[Montalban]

not really , if you consider God not only inspired scripture but the CLOSED canon , it makes perfect sense .

'The faith once delivered to the saints' , as well as other statements exhibit the closed canon .

If there is no closed canon then prepare to be duped .

Then one needs to say that the books of Moses were complete, and everything afterwards shouldn't have been added

Deuteronomy 4:2