Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[heymikey80]

Yet they cannot agree amongst themselves what the correct doctrines are, because the ultimate authority lies is in the individual interpretation, each of which is just as valid as another.

The only way to circumvent this issue is to recognize the authority Christ placed in his apostles, who subsequently handed their authority down to their successors to guide the church and guard her doctrines. (IMO)

It's clear that the early church had the same issue among those who were handed authority. The Monophysite & Arian controversies both bear the stamps of Apostolic Successionist congregations objecting to one anothers' doctrines.

An interpretation narrowing what's left to us by the Apostles would not be an Apostolic interpretation, but a revision. We either find these views among the Apostles, or we don't find them.

There's an interesting quantity of unity among those who do believe in Sola Scriptura, too. For instance, here's a listing among evangelical churches:

1. We believe in one God, the sovereign Creator and Sustainer of all things, infinitely perfect and eternally existing in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To Him be all honor, glory and praise forever!
2. Jesus Christ, the living Word, became flesh through His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit and His virgin birth. He who is true God became true man united in one Person forever. He died on the cross a sacrifice for our sins according to the Scriptures. On the third day He arose bodily from the dead, ascended into heaven, where, at the right hand of the Majesty on High, He now is our High Priest and Mediator.
3. The Holy Spirit has come to glorify Christ and to apply the saving work of Christ to our hearts. He convicts us of sin and draws us to the Savior. Indwelling our hearts, He gives new life to us, empowers and imparts gifts to us for service. He instructs and guides us into all truth, and seals us for the day of redemption.
4. Being estranged from God and condemned by our sinfulness, our salvation is wholly dependent upon the work of God's free grace. God credits His righteousness to those who put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation, thereby justifies them in His sight. Only such as are born of the Holy Spirit and receive Jesus Christ become children of God and heirs of eternal life.
5. The true Church is composed of all persons who through saving faith in Jesus Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit are united together in the body of Christ. The Church finds her visible, yet imperfect, expression in local congregations where the Word of God is preached in its purity and the sacraments are administered in their integrity; where scriptural discipline is practiced, and where loving fellowship is maintained. For her perfecting, she awaits the return of her Lord.
6. Jesus Christ will come again to the earth-personally, visibly, and bodily-to judge the living and the dead, and to consummate history and the eternal plan of God. "Even so, come, Lord Jesus." (Rev. 22:20)
7. The Lord Jesus Christ commands all believers to proclaim the Gospel throughout the world and to make disciples of all nations. Obedience to the Great Commission requires total commitment to "Him who loved us and gave Himself for us." He calls us to a life of self-denying love and service. "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." (Eph. 2:10)

Interesting to note that churches can be anything, expansions on the freedom of religion in the modern world granted the existence of quite a number of churches that went beyond the Reformation views.

But they went beyond Reformation views. One might just as well say Apostolic Successionist churches resulted in the Protestant churches, and is thus to be blamed for all the denominations. In which case -- tradition is not a reliable method of preserving religious doctrine, either.

 

[MrPolo]

tradition is not a reliable method of preserving religious doctrine, either.

Do you mean Apostolic Secessionist? I'm confused how you are arguing against Tradition in your whole post there.

And as to above quote, are you arguing that there is no reliable method to preserve doctrine....?

 

[Dorothea]

It's clear that the early church had the same issue among those who were handed authority. The Monophysite & Arian controversies both bear the stamps of Apostolic Successionist congregations objecting to one anothers' doctrines.

An interpretation narrowing what's left to us by the Apostles would not be an Apostolic interpretation, but a revision. We either find these views among the Apostles, or we don't find them.

Sure, history shows many arguments about preserving the truth and defending it against those who brought up things not taught from the beginning. It happened and happens within the Church (speaking from an EO POV obviously for me). The thing is, on Pentacost, the Holy Spirit descended upon His Church and was promised to lead it. That the gates of hades would not prevail against it. So, even if we had a time in history as in the time of Arius where 3/4s of the churches fell to that heresy, we still had a small group who didn't and preserved the truth. Why? Because of the guidance of God. God's promise to us. And it will be so until His return.

 

[heymikey80]

Do you mean Apostolic Secessionist? I'm confused how you are arguing against Tradition in your whole post there.

And as to above quote, are you arguing that there is no reliable method to preserve doctrine....?

Simply taking the Apostolic Successionist view to its inconsistent result -- which you've found as well, that on successionist reasoning turned to evaluate itself, that there is no reliable method to preserve doctrine.

I tend to disagree, by rejecting successionist assumptions and in some cases its reasoning.

 

[OpenDoor]

I'm still waiting for any SS to show when their canon was developed, and by whom (although one said it was just done by God).

I presume I would have a similar answer as you...

 

[OpenDoor]

Continually sola scripturists aren't able to answer questions.

I've asked how they know scripture is from God? Who formed the canon? When did it happen?

SS recognize the scriptures as scripture. Same as the ECF did...

 

[Montalban]

SS recognize the scriptures as scripture. Same as the ECF did...

Yes, I've gone over the same point twice with CaliforniaJosiah.

The important thing is I want to know WHY you recognise scripture as scripture.

Here's an analogy.

Two people; both drive. We both obey the law.

I obey the law because I think it's a good system.

Another person thinks aliens control the government.

Clearly the reason why we both obey the law is important in this case, because although we both accept the same laws, one of us might be mad.

Also you don't, in all probability, recognise, for instance the Book of Tobit as scripture, as well.

 

[Montalban]

I presume I would have a similar answer as you...

Really? So you accept that the church, inspired by God and commissioned by Jesus, in examining the books recognised the inspiration in God in those books because they were in conformity with tradition?

 

[sunlover1]

Yes, I've gone over the same point twice with CaliforniaJosiah.

The important thing is I want to know WHY you recognise scripture as scripture.

.

Said the spider to the fly...

(I'm on to you Montalban!)

 

[Montalban]

NONE on the planet agrees with your denomination on what is and is not Scripture. I know that. You know that. We ALL totally understand that this upsets you greatly - but I sincerely don't think it NEEDS to. And it's moot to the issue here (so, I hope you'll take it to another thread, perhaps begin one: "Why Does NONE on the Planet Agree with My Denomination on What Is and Is Not Scripture?" I really don't consider it much of an issue and probably won't post in it, but maybe someone can help you.





.

ROFL!

 

[Ortho_Cat]

But they went beyond Reformation views. One might just as well say Apostolic Successionist churches resulted in the Protestant churches, and is thus to be blamed for all the denominations. In which case -- tradition is not a reliable method of preserving religious doctrine, either.

But based on the evidence presented in this thread at least, AS appears to have been more reliable at preserving doctrine than SS, no?

 

[Montalban]

Said the spider to the fly...

(I'm on to you Montalban!)

I've no idea about your response. It's not an answer to my question, either.

And you've still not told me what non-Biblical Godly words you follow

 

[Rick Otto]

I posted this on the other thread, but I changed my mind and decided the topic deserves its own thread. So what is the most accurate/reliable/trustworthy method of preserving doctrine based on similarity of beliefs; Apostolic Succession or Sola Scriptura? I have posted the case for AS below, I would appreciate it if someone else could post the case for SS eventually.

OK, as promised, I have come up with a list which shows some of the things that the apostolic churches share in common over the last ~2000 years. By apostolic church, I mean those who claim and adhere to apostolic succession:

Apostolic succession (Hebrew: האפיפיור הירושה‎, Greek: Αποστολική διαδοχ&#942 is a doctrine, held by some Christian denominations, which asserts that the chosen successors (properly ordained bishops) of the Twelve Apostles, from the first century to the present day, have inherited the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon them by the Apostles, who in turn received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ.

Apostolic succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These communions I have included are: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Church of England (Anglican), and Assyrian Church of East. I haven't included Lutherans because this claim is disputed among them.

These common beliefs are:

-Eucharist is true body and blood of our Lord, effectual for our salvation
-Baptism remits sins and is effective for our salvation (i.e. grace is received)
-Belief in 7 sacraments*
-RC/EO/CoE agree on first 7 councils, OO on first 3, and ACOE on first 2
-Baptism of infants
-Liturgical worship
-All use deuterocanonicals canonized by RCC**
-Use prescribed church calendar (fasts/feasts)
-Salvation is not an instantaneous "event", rather a process
-Monastics (monks/nuns)
-Prayer for the dead
-Communion of saints
-Episcopal polity (church governance structure, bishop is head, priests are auxilliary of bishop, deacons assist priest)
-Declare Mary as Theotokos (birthgiver of God) and ever-virgin
-Amillenialism eschatological (end-times) view

*Baptism, eucharist, chrismation/confirmation, holy orders, confession, marriage, unction)
**CoE adds Jerome's foreward, and Ethiopian Orthodox uses a different translation of Maccabees. Also, some consider other books inspired as well, but they all agree on these.

This list is not exhaustive; there are more. If anyone finds any errors in what I've said, or if you'd like me to add anything, please let me know.

It is also worth noting that Lutheran's also share many beliefs in common with the above as well.

I would be interested to see a similar list for Protestants so we can compare it to the list I made. Keep in mind that Protestantism is pretty much confined to the West (or at least they were originally) and only have 500 years to account for, while the Apostolic Churches comprise both East and West, and account for 2000 years. Would anyone be up to the task?

I don't think the task is profitable because I think it is misdirected. Keep in mind Protestantism isn't as closely defined except in some critical areas like ecclesiology, soteriology, & possibly sacramentology, and then we have large denominations that have doctrinaly devolved back into orthodox doctrines.

Eucharist is true body and blood of our Lord

By "true", do you mean "literal"? Because it is factualy not.
In fact, the idea is conceptualy antithetical in that it invokes sacrifice where memorial is being instituted. It is the reality & power of the truth being conveyed metaphoricaly that is 'true' miracle.
Please don't hate me for believing this way.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

By "true", do you mean "literal"? Because it is factualy not.

Actually, we don't know what it is- it is Mystery.

I can't measure a weight difference after HS comes on board- is that factual proof that He does not abide?

You are making the obverse error of the Transubstantialists

 

[Thekla]

In fact, the idea is conceptualy antithetical in that it invokes sacrifice where memorial is being instituted. It is the reality & power of the truth being conveyed metaphoricaly that is 'true' miracle.
Please don't hate me for believing this way.

Then why don't the Scriptures use the word for "memorial"

 

[OpenDoor]

Really? So you accept that the church, inspired by God and commissioned by Jesus, in examining the books recognised the inspiration in God in those books because they were in conformity with tradition?

Change "conformity with tradition", to "conformity with the faith". Then that would sound almost exactly like my position.

I don't think anyone believes that the bible fell out of the sky.

 

[heymikey80]

But based on the evidence presented in this thread at least, AS appears to have been more reliable at preserving doctrine than SS, no?

No. It clearly has a tendency to mix human teaching with doctrine.

When you preserve something, you have to protect it from corruption -- not simply carry it forward along with more and more infection and infiltration. AS clearly has not done that.

 

[MrPolo]

Simply taking the Apostolic Successionist view to its inconsistent result -- which you've found as well, that on successionist reasoning turned to evaluate itself, that there is no reliable method to preserve doctrine.

I tend to disagree, by rejecting successionist assumptions and in some cases its reasoning.

I don't know how you are meaning Apostolic Successionist, nor am I following how it discredits Tradition or supports sola scriptura. And I'm still not sure if you are arguing that there is no reliable method to preserve doctrine.

When you preserve something, you have to protect it from corruption -- not simply carry it forward along with more and more infection and infiltration. AS clearly has not done that.

In order for this statement to be "clearly" the case, the Protestant would have to be correct on at least 3 things:

1. The Protestant tendency to not recognize typology in Scripture (and hence many figures therein of Mary, the Church, sin, the Eucharist, etc...).
2. The Protestant notion that no one can authoritatively interpret Scripture, i.e. Christ did not establish a visible Church with that authority.
3. The Protestant notion that a doctrine cannot be better understood as the Church grows and builds upon the foundation (except of course for the canon of Scripture, the Trinity, and maybe 1 or 2 other doctrines )

I see no evidence that Protestants who adhere to any of these ideas are correct on any one.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

In order for this statement to be "clearly" the case, the Protestant would have to be correct on at least 3 things:

1. The Protestant tendency to not recognize typology in Scripture

Off topic and divertive, but.....

No, what some Protestants disagree with the RCC and LDS about is that words God inspired are moot - rather what is important is the "interpretation" that self alone gives; the "interpretation" of self is the rule - not what God actually inspired.

In your denomination, importance is given exclusively to what the RCC alone says that the Scripture in the heart of itself means; shockingly little importance is given to the words God inscripturated. Have you studied any of the cults?

But we are WAY off topic.

2. The Protestant notion that no one can authoritatively interpret Scripture

Again, an attempt to divert the discussion but I can't resist (lol)....

Your right: In Protestantism, there is a discomfort with self alone appointing self alone as the sole, individual, unaccountable "interpreter" of the "Scripture" in the "heart" of itself. All that is Catholicism (CCC 85, 87, 113, etc.) and Protestants tend to be pretty uncomfortable about it. "I (alone) says" may be passionate and sincere, but it does not automatically mean it is true - much less unaccountable and exempt from the issue of whether it is true.

3. The Protestant notion that a doctrine cannot be better understood as the Church grows

What an AMAZING thing for a Catholic to post!!! I'm stunned, I really am...

It's the RCC that insists that NOTHING changes in it; that it is simply "preserving" what the 12-14 Apostles taught, "theology NEVER changes" is a hallmark of the RCC. It's CATHOLICS who rebuke Protestants for holding positions that perhaps cannot be documented as being precisely taught as such in the First Century.


Sorry for participating in the diversion (cut me some slack, Staff!)






.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

mispost.