Quadrilateral support of ****sexuality?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

The erosion of Tradition has lead to the denial of certain canonical books found in the O.T. and as such also eroded some doctrinal support that is wholesome.

I've got no beef with you over the Apocrypha.

I consider mainstream Protestants to be my seperate brother and sister in Christ only when the core moral and doctrinal positions are the same. Hence, if a Protestant is against abortion, euthenasia, ****sexuality and affirms the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, his Resurrection, and those things that unite the common Christological and theological positions of the Church, I welcome them even when they may deny me the same courtesy.

I'm glad you're able to recognize that the family of God is bigger than your own tribe.

I would, however, question your list of "core moral and doctrinal positions". Where does your list come from? The focus on "abortion, euthenasia, ****sexuality" reads more like a list of hot-****on issues of the Religious Right than something that has been the traditional standards of Christian morality through the centuries. It would have been more credulous for you to cite sexual fidelity/chas***y, nonviolence (or committment to Just War theory, or something of the sort)...

As for your "Christological and theological positions" which you view as necessary, they are indeed the majority report of Christian doctrine over the centuries, but it's an interesting study to see the various formulations that were "required" as orthodox Christian faith over time - both within Scripture and in the first few hundred years of Church history, with the Ecumenical Councils. (See: the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, the Pauline formulations, the Didache, the Councils...)

It appears to me, for example, that within the Bible itself, there is much more support for saying that the "essentials" of the faith are the Lordship of Jesus and the Resurrection. There is some support for such doctrines as the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, etc, but their prominence as the bedrock of Christian doctrine was not present until much later.

As Scripture was written over four thousand years and compiled into one binding or collection, so Tradition remains until today and into tomorrow. Scripture does not refute Scripture and Tradition does not refute Tradition; and together they only compliment each other without contradiction.

I disagree. Scripture does refute, or at least supersede, itself in points. More on that soon.

Since you listed Scripture and Tradition as two parts of your quadrilateral, each must be equally inerrent for the foundation to be solid.

I don't hold inerrancy to be a requisite to consider something authoritative. My parents were not inerrant, infallible individuals, but they were my "authority" in my formative years. They provided me a guiding framework that enabled me to grow and learn, and ultimately to make decisions for myself. Nowhere in there was their "foundation" unsolid due to the fact that their guiding framework was fallible.

Reason and experience can be found in both the writings of Scripture, just as we see the teleological argument about a designer in the Psalms and Prophets and the cosmological argument found in Romans 1 and even supported by reasoning in Tradition as many Christian apologists throughout history and Popes have demonstrated. St. Thomas Aquinas has done this using Scripture and quoting doctors of the Church and attempting to use the prominent reasoning of his age... subverting the Muslim philosophers who were themselves Aristotelian. I have a rich Tradition from which to back up my claims against ****sexuality and I am not sure what sort of Tradition you can back up yours.

Yes, but we also have a rich Tradition of resisting change to our presuppositions until our denial is no longer tenable. See: Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin...

I would think it a mistake of you to deny a position of the Church held for two milliniums in regards to the shared morality just to embrace today's media talking points and ****sexual lobbyist's playbook.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

I've got no beef with you over the Apocrypha.



I'm glad you're able to recognize that the family of God is bigger than your own tribe.

I would, however, question your list of "core moral and doctrinal positions". Where does your list come from? The focus on "abortion, euthenasia, ****sexuality" reads more like a list of hot-****on issues of the Religious Right than something that has been the traditional standards of Christian morality through the centuries. It would have been more credulous for you to cite sexual fidelity/chas***y, nonviolence (or committment to Just War theory, or something of the sort)...

As for your "Christological and theological positions" which you view as necessary, they are indeed the majority report of Christian doctrine over the centuries, but it's an interesting study to see the various formulations that were "required" as orthodox Christian faith over time - both within Scripture and in the first few hundred years of Church history, with the Ecumenical Councils. (See: the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, the Pauline formulations, the Didache, the Councils...)

It appears to me, for example, that within the Bible itself, there is much more support for saying that the "essentials" of the faith are the Lordship of Jesus and the Resurrection. There is some support for such doctrines as the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, etc, but their prominence as the bedrock of Christian doctrine was not present until much later.



I disagree. Scripture does refute, or at least supersede, itself in points. More on that soon.



I don't hold inerrancy to be a requisite to consider something authoritative. My parents were not inerrant, infallible individuals, but they were my "authority" in my formative years. They provided me a guiding framework that enabled me to grow and learn, and ultimately to make decisions for myself. Nowhere in there was their "foundation" unsolid due to the fact that their guiding framework was fallible.



Yes, but we also have a rich Tradition of resisting change to our presuppositions until our denial is no longer tenable. See: Galileo, Copernicus, Darwin...

Asdf, so your pillar of Scripture is lacking a solid foundation. As far as Tradition is concerned, it applies to moral and doctrinal positions that is without error, not the science or the particular -ism from which the apologist is using. I already gave such an example with St. Aquinas being an Aristotelian using such resources to combat the Muslim Aristotelians of his age. So as far as Galileo and the others you mentioned, it is not applicable to the Tradition. Its main concern is only as far as the moral and doctrinal position of the Church as it is maintained. As far as my supposed Rubric of calling fellow Protestants Christian, I think it pretty obvious that the Scriptures endorse a moral lifestyle and equally important is that they have the right God. Periphial doctrines aside, professing Christians in an active ****sexual lifestyle is prohibited. It is one thing to have fleshly hormonal desires, its another to affirm these as wholesome. Trinity's excepts of the Catechism of 2538 is only one except. 2357 and 2359 also state something about ****sexuality. In fact the last sentence of 2357 states in no uncertain terms:

"Under no circumstance can they (****sexual acts) be approved."

Trinity is absolutely right in his references.

[ActRaiser]

"Under no circumstance can they (****sexual acts) be approved."

This is true, but why must the negative consequence of sin for someone who accepts Jesus'es death on the Cross and Ressurection be Hell?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

As far as Tradition is concerned, it applies to moral and doctrinal positions that is without error, not the science or the particular -ism from which the apologist is using...So as far as Galileo and the others you mentioned, it is not applicable to the Tradition. Its main concern is only as far as the moral and doctrinal position of the Church as it is maintained.

You're making an artificial distinction between "moral and doctrinal" positions and "scientific" positions.