Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[Dark_Lite]

It's not hard to see that Oral Tradition cannot perfectly preserve doctrine, ask a RC, EO, OO, or LDS which is the true Oral Tradition...

This fallacy was addressed in the first iteration of this thread. Just because there are differing ideas on what constitutes Tradition does not mean there isn't a correct one, nor does it mean that Tradition is not capable of preserving doctrine. You have basically claimed that because because humans have different interpretations of a single source of information, that source is therefore incapable of producing truth or doesn't even exist. That doesn't make much sense, does it?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

It's not hard to see that Oral Tradition cannot perfectly preserve doctrine, ask a RC, EO, OO, or LDS which is the true Oral Tradition...

And ask the JWs, SDAs, Calvinists and Arminians what scripture CLEARLY SAYS about the Sabbath, salvation, and the like.

Uh huh.

 

[OpenDoor]

This fallacy was addressed in the first iteration of this thread. Just because there are differing ideas on what constitutes Tradition does not mean there isn't a correct one, nor does it mean that Tradition is not capable of preserving doctrine. You have basically claimed that because because humans have different interpretations of a single source of information, that source is therefore incapable of producing truth or doesn't even exist. That doesn't make much sense, does it?

Isn't that exactly the same argument which is being used against SS?

 

[OpenDoor]

And ask the JWs, SDAs, Calvinists and Arminians what scripture CLEARLY SAYS about the Sabbath, salvation, and the like.

Uh huh.

Thank you
You just showed my point

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

This fallacy was addressed in the first iteration of this thread. Just because there are differing ideas on what constitutes Tradition does not mean there isn't a correct one, nor does it mean that Tradition is not capable of preserving doctrine. You have basically claimed that because because humans have different interpretations of a single source of information, that source is therefore incapable of producing truth or doesn't even exist. That doesn't make much sense, does it?

True- but those that employ logical fallacies are not as much concerned with logic or even 'truth' as they are concerned with winning or wounding, or both.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Thank you
You just showed my point

Yes, I showed your point-- to be absurd and untenable.
You're most welcome.

 

[OpenDoor]

True- but those that employ logical fallacies are not as much concerned with logic or even 'truth' as they are concerned with winning or wounding, or both.

and here I thought we could be friends

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Isn't that exactly the same argument which is being used against SS?

No one contends that truth is not attainable through merely reading the Word. It is a question of degrees, not a dichotomy.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

and here I thought we could be friends

Why not? I enjoy opening doors- and minds.

 

[OpenDoor]

No one contends that truth is not attainable through merely reading the Word. It is a question of degrees, not a dichotomy.

That the same view I have on Oral Tradition.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Isn't that exactly the same argument which is being used against SS?

I don't know. Is it? Let's find out.

The argument that you (and plenty of others) have posited is that since there are different interpretations of Tradition, it simply cannot be correct, or it cannot be reliable, or some other similar claim.

If we are to say that the same argument is being used against Sola Scriptura, then that argument would be the following: since there are so many interpretations of Scripture, it cannot be correct, or it cannot be reliable. This is just as fallacious as the above argument, for the same reasons.

Just because there are different interpretations doesn't mean that there is a correct one, or that the correct one can't be known. The question should instead be "Can the true interpretation be derived from the source (Tradition or Sola Scriptura)?" That question is much more difficult to answer, and would require quite a bit of philosophy.

The main objection to Sola Scriptura is that for all its claim of being a measuring stick, the units on the measuring stick are unknown. Despite all attempts to downplay it, what goes into the canon is extremely important for Sola Scriptura. The contents of the canon define the units of your measuring stick.

It is unreliable not because there are many different interpretations of Scripture. It is unreliable because the source of information has no basis. Tradition has a single basis: the ecumenical councils. They are what defined doctrine, based on what was handed down. Different interpretations of the Councils exist, of course. And variation in those interpretations eventually resulted in splits or certain Councils being recognized by one Church and not by others. That does not diminish the basis of the source, though.

 

[OpenDoor]

I don't know. Is it? Let's find out.

The argument that you (and plenty of others) have posited is that since there are different interpretations of Tradition, it simply cannot be correct, or it cannot be reliable, or some other similar claim.

If we are to say that the same argument is being used against Sola Scriptura, then that argument would be the following: since there are so many interpretations of Scripture, it cannot be correct, or it cannot be reliable. This is just as fallacious as the above argument, for the same reasons.

Just because there are different interpretations doesn't mean that there is a correct one, or that the correct one can't be known. The question should instead be "Can the true interpretation be derived from the source (Tradition or Sola Scriptura)?" That question is much more difficult to answer, and would require quite a bit of philosophy.

The main objection to Sola Scriptura is that for all its claim of being a measuring stick, the units on the measuring stick are unknown. Despite all attempts to downplay it, what goes into the canon is extremely important for Sola Scriptura. The contents of the canon define the units of your measuring stick.

It is unreliable not because there are many different interpretations of Scripture. It is unreliable because the source of information has no basis. Tradition has a single basis: the ecumenical councils. They are what defined doctrine, based on what was handed down. Different interpretations of the Councils exist, of course. And variation in those interpretations eventually resulted in splits or certain Councils being recognized by one Church and not by others. That does not diminish the basis of the source, though.

Good post.

but remember it's to the extant that you use your measuring stick. In your case you (probably) measure with the RC measuring stick, just like a Baptist will measure with a Baptist measuring stick.

The advantage I see with honestly and fairly using scripture is that (I believe) it should lead a person to the true measuring stick.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

That the same view I have on Oral Tradition.

Same here.

So we proceed, looking at the merits of each argument.

SS, as it has been promoted by some, contends to be what kanona is, in essence. That is to say, there is a group of writings which we hold to be sacred, and hold to be the measure of faith and truth.

That's faith statement #1.

SS proponents go on to say that Traditions vary and are not to be trusted as canonical.

This is faith statement #2.

Members of communions that hold fast to some stated set of tradition (EO, OO, RC, and to some extent, Anglicans and some Lutherans) contend that it is impossible to understand Scripture's true meaning and intent apart from their respective interpretive traditions.

This is faith statement #3


While each of these faith statements are JUST THAT- they are not objective statements of fact- they each have evidence and logic working for them.

Except for this small foundational problem with #2. If tradition cannot be trusted, then one views scripture through the lens of culture, history, and language- without any guides, without any nets.

SS proponents balance this by appointing their own historians, linguists, and of course, commentaries, so as to get 'a feel' for what was really being said.

The question becomes this:
Do I trust the commentaries of God-fearing, holy men and women, or the studies of theological academics.

It's a faith question, isn't it.

 

[MrPolo]

It's not hard to see that Oral Tradition cannot perfectly preserve doctrine, ask a RC, EO, OO, or LDS which is the true Oral Tradition...

Wait a second. If the Apostles preserved oral tradition for 20-30-40 years or whatever before Scripture was even written....AND...there were rogue groups teaching a different oral tradition at that time like the early gnostics.....how does that make the Apostolic preservation inadequate? Why should I measure the validity of a tradition based on whether or not competing traditions merely exist?

Also, I would submit, as have others in this thread, that the Churches that do believe the Word is also passed down via tradition are FAR more unified in doctrine than the world of SS can even begin to resemble.

In other words, I think this is what the world of doctrinal unity looks like:

Perfect Unity

Unity of Apostolic Churches

Unity of sola scriptura groups

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


MrPolo -


1. The RCC agrees with NONE but itself. One denomination in agreement with none but ITSELF - exclusively, solely, uniquely, only - and ONLY in those issue that SELF alone CURRENTLY regards as good to agree upon. You call THAT "unity?" IF so, then the LDS and the RCC are just as united, and if you are implying that self alone agreeing with self alone equals self being correct, then by your rubric, the LDS is correct.


2. I'd be pleased to compare the "unity" of WELS with RCUS (both embracing the practice of Sola Scriptura) with the "unity" of the RCC and LDS (both insisting that since Jesus founded the denomination, it is protected from error in these matters and exempt from accountability, both shouting on and on about "Apostolic Succession" and "oral Tradition").


3. You may not know this, but you can't find even ONE denomination that the RCC agrees with - even just with DOGMAS (the highest level and most important teachings) - in fact, it disagrees on several with the EO and even more with the various OO's. You might not know about 451 and 1054.


4. With the opening poster, you seem to share a common RCC/EO/LDS assumption that Jesus (and perhaps the 12-14 Apostles) taught all sorts of DOGMAS that the Holy Spirit (in His wisdom) choose to not include in His Scripture to us - these secret dogmas. (Mormons like to suggest He taught these during the 40 days between Easter and Ascension). And that somehow (we're never told how) these got leaked to a specific denomination (was that the LDS or RCC or EO or OO or ???? - there seems to be CONSIDERABLE debate on that, none with ANYTHING to support their claim) and that denomination EVENTUALLY (often many centuries later) decided to finally tell Christians of this dogma. This whole concept of secret dogma the Holy Spirit (wisely) chose not to include in Scripture is quite foundational to these denominations. But it's NOT a concept shared by Protestants (a point it seems some here simply don't know).


5. As to the question, it seems likely to ME the best way to preserve teachings is to write them down - inscripturate them, in knowable/unalterable words.







.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

.


MrPolo -
I'd be pleased to compare the "unity" of WELS with RCUS (both embracing the practice of Sola Scriptura) with the "unity" of the RCC and LDS (both insisting that since Jesus founded the denomination, it is protected from error in these matters and exempt from accountability, both shouting on and on about "Apostolic Succession" and "oral Tradition").

Pardon me if I cut in, the music is jangled and off meter.

Rome's claim's to continuity are significantly more historically credible on many levels than those proposed on golden plates.

I may disagree with Rome on its conclusions through history, but comparing Rome- or Luther- with the LDS can only regarded as the guilt by asssociation fallacy that it most certainly appears to be.

4. With the opening poster, you seem to share a common RCC/EO/LDS assumption that Jesus (and perhaps the 12-14 Apostles) taught all sorts of DOGMAS that the Holy Spirit (in His wisdom) choose to not include in His Scripture to us

FULL STOP.
This is a falsehood. EO makes it very clear that all matters of Dogma are to be found within the pages of holy scripture, either literal or inferred.

Your reckless characterization of 'secret knowledge' has, as we know, Gnostic connotations. I will presume that this was unintended on your part.
Sometimes we misspeak when we speak at length on things we know the short and skinny of, at best.

IOW- you're over your head with us. Please refrain from further collective ad hominems.
ereni

 

[Rhamiel]

1. The RCC agrees with NONE but itself. One denomination in agreement with none but ITSELF - exclusively, solely, uniquely, only - and ONLY in those issue that SELF alone CURRENTLY regards as good to agree upon. You call THAT "unity?" IF so, then the LDS and the RCC are just as united, and if you are implying that self alone agreeing with self alone equals self being correct, then by your rubric, the LDS is correct.

that is true wuth any denomination or church, it agrees with itself and does not agree with others
well there are probably many baptist denominations that agree with other baptist denominations but are seperate for political or national reasons
you are just acting trollish constantly comparing the Catholic Church to the LDS

 

[MrPolo]

but comparing Rome- or Luther- with the LDS can only regarded as the guilt by asssociation fallacy that it most certainly appears to be.

Indeed...although I would say Josiah doesn't just try to discredit the Apostolic Churches by association----he tries to discredit any church that claims to have the truth on the basis that other claimants even exist. His argument at it's core is against the Apostles. For they claim to have truth. They claim to be Christ's ambassadors. The Apostles agree with the Apostles. And because the Gnostics or LDS who make similar claims merely exist, he must conclude the Apostles are liars. I think that's what makes it such a terrible, irrational argument.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

READ what I said. It has been ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY twisted to "imply" what was never stated OR implied.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

that is true wuth any denomination or church, it agrees with itself and does not agree with others
well there are probably many baptist denominations that agree with other baptist denominations but are seperate for political or national reasons

Yup.

Therefore, I disagree that because self only agrees with self ergo self is correct or more virtuous or whatever.... I simply disagree with the assumption - whether it is applied to the RCC or LDS or WELS or Martin Luther or me.




.