The Bereans

[ivebeenshown]

If not, then were do you support that some OTHER rule is being employed in Acts 15:15-19 and that specifically, it is current RCC "Tradition?"

I already responded: http://www.christianforums.com/t7496252-28/#post58300206

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why do you limit it to those five verses, huh? Can you not handle the rest of the chapter?

Because those are the verses under discussion. You're comment is that they don't review only Scripture being the rule - what else does Acts 15:15-19 note and use as such? You haven't said.


Sure. You can look to the entire Chapter. Do you have a specific reference to RCC Tradition and to it being verbatim quoted?



.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7496252-28/#post58300206

 

[ivebeenshown]

Because those are the verses under discussion. You're comment is that they don't review only Scripture being the rule - what else does Acts 15:15-19 note and use as such? You haven't said.

But I have said.

Sure. You can look to the entire Chapter. Do you have a specific reference to RCC Tradition and to it being verbatim quoted?

I'm currently arguing against Sola Scriptura, not for 'RCC Tradition.'

Do I support RCC Tradition? Yes.
Is my current goal to argue for it? No.
Is my current goal to argue against Sola Scriptura? Yes.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm more opposed to the spiritual wickedness Sola Scriptura inspires in the hearts of people . a good majority of my thoughts consist of scripture .

 

[ivebeenshown]

I'm more opposed to the spiritual wickedness Sola Scriptura inspires in the hearts of people . a good majority of my thoughts consist of scripture .

Please clarify?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Please clarify?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7584240-18/#post58296297

 

[Dorothea]

I'm more opposed to the spiritual wickedness Sola Scriptura inspires in the hearts of people . a good majority of my thoughts consist of scripture .

Yes, because the ego takes over, not the guiding of the HS. There are few exceptions because we have the tendency to feed our own egos. This is why we submit to our elders because it puts down our own will in obedience to others. This helps kill our egos.

PS: don't know how I ended up with two different posts. Dang computer.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes, because the ego takes over, not the guiding of the HS.

amen to that

 

[Dorothea]

db

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm more opposed to the spiritual wickedness Sola Scriptura inspires in the hearts of people . a good majority of my thoughts consist of scripture .

I'm more concerned with the spiritual wickedness that the alternative inspires - this insistence that "When I alone speak GOD is speaking (CCC 87, etc.)." When I alone speak, all should just embrace it with docility!" "I appoint ME as the sole interpreter of Scripture in the heart of myself (CCC 85, 113, etc.)!" "YOU are accountability cuz you can be wrong, but I alone say there is one alone who CAN'T be wrong about this stuff, that I alone insist that one is ME!" My study of the cults and of the early LDS strongly taught me of the danger and "spiritual wickedness" of such ego, such self-centeredness, such fear of accountability. I was active in the RCC in those days, too. I left.


I don't know what you fear about accountability or about Scripture. I CAN see why you might be afraid of those who exclude SELF from accountability and norming - but you need to take that up with the denominations that do that, none of which are Protestant.






.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm more concerned with the spiritual wickedness that the alternative inspires - this insistence that "When I alone speak GOD is speaking (CCC 87, etc.)." When I alone speak, all should just embrace it with docility!" "I appoint ME as the sole interpreter of Scripture in the heart of myself (CCC 85, 113, etc.)!" "YOU are accountability cuz you can be wrong, but I alone say there is one alone who CAN'T be wrong about this stuff, that I alone insist that one is ME!" My study of the cults and of the early LDS strongly taught me of the danger and "spiritual wickedness" of such ego, such self-centeredness, such fear of accountability. I was active in the RCC in those days, too. I left.


I don't know what you fear about accountability or about Scripture. I CAN see why you might be afraid of those who exclude SELF from accountability and norming - but you need to take that up with the denominations that do that, none of which are Protestant.

.

Interesting double speak . but evangelicals and mainline protestants are very much into this "making the bible into a law" and i see this a bunch on this forum also . you can try to project your point of view on me . but i understand things from a truth perspective . in that . truth sets free .

whatever you're peddling . regardless of label . sets no one free .

i am free . and as many enter my matrix i will continue to become free in them .

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm more concerned with the spiritual wickedness that the alternative inspires - this insistence that "When I alone speak GOD is speaking (CCC 87, etc.)." When I alone speak, all should just embrace it with docility!" "I appoint ME as the sole interpreter of Scripture in the heart of myself (CCC 85, 113, etc.)!" "YOU are accountability cuz you can be wrong, but I alone say there is one alone who CAN'T be wrong about this stuff, that I alone insist that one is ME!" My study of the cults and of the early LDS strongly taught me of the danger and "spiritual wickedness" of such ego, such self-centeredness, such fear of accountability. I was active in the RCC in those days, too. I left.


I don't know what you fear about accountability or about Scripture. I CAN see why you might be afraid of those who exclude SELF from accountability and norming - but you need to take that up with the denominations that do that, none of which are Protestant.

evangelicals and mainline protestants are very much into this "making the bible into a law" and i see this a bunch on this forum also .

Odd, because I've not seen even ONE poster say or do that - except for you suggesting that someone did (but no one has).

whatever you're peddling . regardless of label . sets no one free .

True. And that's what the RCC and LDS want as they so passionately reject accountability and the Rule of Scripture in norming. Read the quote below, especially the last section (I'lll put it in larger font for you):

The Rule of Scripture in Norming (What Luther and Calvin called "Sola Scriptura")




The Definition:


The Rule of Scripture is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm that norms) as it is called in epistemology, as we examine and evaluate the positions (especially doctrines) among us.


Here is the official, historic definition: "The Scriptures are and should remain the sole rule in the norming of all doctrine among us" (Lutheran Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Rule and Norm, 9). "We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged" (ditto, 3).




What it IS:

1. An embrace of accountability for the doctrines among us (especially those in dispute).

2. An embrace of norming (the process of examining positions for truth, correctness, validity).

3. An embrace of Scripture as the best, most sound rule/canon/norma normans for this process.


What it is NOT:

1. A teaching that all revelation or truth is found in Scripture. It's not a teaching at all, it is the PRACTICE of using Scripture as the rule in the norming of doctrines. Scripture itself says that "the heavens declare the glory of God" but our visual reception of the stars is not used as the norma normans for the evaluation of doctrines among us in the practice of Sola Scriptura.

2. A teaching that Scripture is "finished." It's not a teaching at all. While probably all that practice Sola Scripture agree with all others that God seems to have inscribed His last book around 100 AD and doens't seem to be adding any more books, the Rule of Scripture was just as "valid" in 1400 BC when Scripture consisted of just two stone tablets as it is today - only the corpus of Scripture is larger, that has no impact on the practice of embracing it as the rule/canon/norma normans in our evaluation of doctrines among us. The Rule of Scripture embraces the Scripture that is.

3. Hermeneutics. The Rule of Scripture has to do with WHAT is the most sound rule/canon/norma normans for the evaluation of the doctrines among us, it is not a hermeneutical principle. Obviously that Scripture needs to be interpreted, but that's a different subject or another day and thread. The Rule of Scripture has to do with norming, not interpreting.

4. Arbitration. Obviously, some process of determining whether the doctrine under review "measures up" (arbitration) to the "measuring stick" (the canon). This is also beyond the scope here, the Rule of Scripture is the embrace of Scripture AS that canon, it does not address the issue of HOW it is best determined if a position "measures up" to that canon.




An illustration:


Let's say Dave and Fred are neighbors. They decided that they will hire a contractor to build a brick wall on their property line, six feet tall. Dave and Fred hire Bob the Builder. He agrees to build the wall on the property line - six feet tall.

Bob is now done. He claims the wall is six feet tall. Does it matter? If it doesn't, if his work and claim are entirely MOOT - then, nope - truth doesn't matter. And can just ignore what he said and did. OR we can consider that of the nearly 7 billion people in the world, there is ONE who is incapable of being wrong about measurements - and that ONE is Bob the Builder, claims ONE - Bob the Builder. IF Bob the Builder alone is right about what he alone claims about he alone here, it's pretty much a waste of time to wonder if what he said about this is true or not. But, IF truth matters and IF Bob the Builder will permit accountability (perhaps because he is confident the wall IS six feet tall), then we have the issue of accountability: Is the wall what we desire and what Bob the Builder claims it is?

If so, we just embraced norming. Norming is the process of determining correctness of the positions among us. For example, Bob claiming the wall is 6 feet tall. Is that correct? Addressing that question is norming.


Norming typically involves a norm: WHAT will serve as the rule (straight edge) or canon (measuring stick) - WHAT will be embraced by all parties involved in the normative process that is the reliable standard, the plumbline. Perhaps in the case of Fred and Dave, they embrace a standard Sears Measuring Tape. They both have one, Bob does too. Dave, Fred and Bob consider their carpenter's Sears Measuring Tape as reliable for this purpose, it's OBJECTIVE (all 3 men can read the numbers), it's UNALTERABLE (none of the 3 can change what the tape says) and it's OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND all 3 parties. Using that could be called "The Rule of the Measuring Tape." The Sears Measuring Tape would be the "canon" (the word means 'measuring stick') for this normative process.



Why Scripture?


In epistemology (regardless of discipline), the most sound norma normans is usually regarded as the most objective, most knowable by all and alterable by none, the most universally embraced by all parties as reliable for this purpose. My degree is in physics. Our norma normans is math and repeatable, objective, laborative evidence. Me saying, "what I think is the norm for what I think" will be instantly disregarded as evidential since it's both moot and circular. I would need to evidence and substantiate my view with a norm fully OUTSIDE and ABOVE and BEYOND me - something objective and knowable. This is what The Handbook of the Catholic Faith proclaims (page136), "The Bible is the very words of God and no greater assurance of credence can be given. The Bible was inspired by God. Exactly what does that mean? It means that God Himself is the Author of the Bible. God inspired the penmen to write as He wished.... the authority of the Bible flows directly from the Author of the Bible who is God; it is authoritative because the Author is." Those that accept the Rule of Scripture tend to agree. It's embrace as the most sound Rule flows from our common embrace of Scripture as the inscriptured words of God for God is the ultimate authority.

The embrace of Scripture as the written words of God is among the most historic, ecumenical, universal embraces in all of Christianity. We see this as reliable, dependable, authoritative - it as a very, very, broad and deep embrace as such - typically among all parties involved in the evaluation. (See the illustration above).

It is knowable by all and alterable by none. We can all see the very words of Romans 3:25 for example, they are black letters on a white page - knowable! And they are unalterable. I can't change what is on the page in Romans 3:25, nor can any other; what is is.

It is regarded as authoritative and reliable. It is knowable by all and alterable by none. Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming ( the RCC and LDS, for example ) have no better alternative (something more inspired, more inerrant, more ecumenically/historically embraced by all parties, more objectively knowable, more unalterable), they have no alternative that is clearly more sound for this purpose among us.

To simply embrace the teachings of self (sometimes denominational "tradition" or "confession") as the rule/canon is simply self looking in the mirror at self - self almost always reveals self. In communist Cuba, Castro agrees with Castro - it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Castro is correct. We need a Rule outside, beyond, above self.



Why do some so passionately reject it?


Those that reject the Rule of Scripture in norming tend to do so not because they reject Scripture or have an alternative that is MORE inerrant, MORE the inscripturated words of God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable, MORE unalterable, MORE ecumenically embraced as authoriative. Rather the rejection tends to be because each rejects accountability (and thus norming and any norm in such) in the sole, singular, exclusive, particular, unique case of self alone. From The Handbook of the Catholic Faith (page 151), "When the Catholic is asked for the substantiation for his belief, the correct answer is: From the teaching authority. This authority consists of the bishops of The Catholic Church in connection with the Catholic Pope in Rome. The faithful are thus freed from the typically Protestant question of 'is it true' and instead rests in quiet confidence that whatever the Catholic Church teaches is the teaching of Jesus Himself since Jesus said, 'whoever hears you hears me'." The Catholic Church itself says in the Catechism of itself (#87): Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”, The faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." IF self declares that self is unaccountable and that self is exempt from the issue of truthfulness, then the entire issue of norming (and the embraced norma normans in such) becomes irrelevant (for self). The issue has been changed from truth to power (claimed by self for self).

.

.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

When you make the bible the only way to see God . that in itself is a law . it places God in a box shaped with human hands . and binds his actions to our own understanding . but regardless of this God still does not change

 

[Fireinfolding]

All scripture is given for reproof, it says...

Prov 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: (((behold))) I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

And likewise did the Lord open he their understanding in repects to the same. Then they preached him out of the law and the prophets

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The prophets show a way that doesn't work . (i.e. they prophesied people's errors but nobody listened, Jeremiah being the best example, maybe there was something wrong with their approach?)

Jesus shows us a more excellent way .

 

[sunlover1]

When you make the bible the only way to see God . that in itself is a law .

We go from "searching Scripture daily"
to
Making the Bible the " ONLY WAY TO SEE GOD"

We should all remember to be very cautious with our words.
While discussion can be fun and lively, God does still hate bs...
probably even moreso when it's involving Him.

Ask me how i KNOW what God desires.

All scripture is given for reproof, it says...

Prov 1:23 Turn you at my reproof: (((behold))) I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

And likewise did the Lord open he their understanding in repects to the same. Then they preached him out of the law and the prophets

I detect some nobility here.

 

[Fireinfolding]

The prophets show a way that doesn't work . (i.e. they prophesied people's errors but nobody listened, Jeremiah being the best example, maybe there was something wrong with their approach?)

Jesus shows us a more excellent way .

No doubt He is the way, the prophets like Jeremiah were defending the former prophets whereas Hannaniah was going on saying "thus saith the Lord' when the Lord had not spoken, it does say that the same (which was before) would likewise arise among ourselves, showing falshood existing in the same sphere.

And it says here likewise of Jesus

Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

They too admonish here likewise...

2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

And we know this is said of him later

Luke 13:27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

Let two or three speak, the others judge, prove all things, is good advice

Jerm 23:28 The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully.

What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD.

Then ofcourse the burning of the chaff (but the wheat into His barn). These are very compareable in many many ways.

God bless

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The prophets show a way that doesn't work . (i.e. they prophesied people's errors but nobody listened, Jeremiah being the best example, maybe there was something wrong with their approach?)

Jesus shows us a more excellent way .

Jeremiah is a kewl Prophet ehehe

Jeremiah 4:13 "Behold, He shall come up like clouds, and his chariots like a whirlwind. His horses are swifter than eagles.
Woe to us, for we are plundered!"
[Matt 26:64/Daniel 7:13/Revel 1:7]

Revelation 1:7 Behold! He is coming with the clouds and shall be seeing Him every eye.........
[Jeremiah 4:13/Matt 24:30/26:64]

Reve 9:12 The one woe departs
Behold!, is coming still two woes after these.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I just meant Jeremiah preached 20 years .. he was right .. but nothing good came from it . the nation was still destroyed .

 

[Fireinfolding]

Here as well, this speaking of Jesus Christ

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

God bless