Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[heymikey80]

This is a good list, which I think many SS adherents would subscribe to. But would all of the SS denominations do so? Especially to the first two points? I can think of a few exceptions that would most likely not...

I can think of dozens of churches from the ECF period that divided from your list as well.

The Coptic church's departure for millenia comes to mind, being accused of monophysitism.

These churches, who are in ecumenical dialogue concerning the split of the church, prefer to be called "non-Chalcedonian." The Oriental Orthodox churches include:

The Coptic Church of Egypt
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church
The Syrian Orthodox Church
The Armenian Orthodox Church
The Malankara (Indian) Orthodox Church
​

also the reference to sacraments in 5) would probably be contested by quite a few evangelicals that I know...

They'd jump to a word like "ordinance".

But the RCC is the church from who the reformation was born...not all of the AS churches. Besides, just because there was schisming in the West, this does not imply that preservation of doctrine has been lost...even among the RCC. They still preserve all that you see in common with the other churches in my OP.

Again, preservation of doctrine is rather different from development and enforcement of doctrine -- something that's pretty reflective of the "7/5/2" acceptance of ecumenical councils among A.S. churches.

 

[Dark_Lite]

All of the Oriental Orthodox are one "denomination." Your list of approximately 5 I'd actually a list of 1.

 

[Montalban]

Since doctrine is communicated via the holy spirit there is the factor of cultural corruption so nowadays to totally begin again with ideas if they're more than two years old is basically what i go with .

It's totally humbling to begin again . i know the traditions could never do this . but i trust God to communicate something that is needed today . and that He's still the same God he always was . so there's no need to idolize ideas communicated based on outdated cultural customs .

preservation is in preserving what people need in any time period to inquire of God what they need to know to do what is specifically written of them .

this is the kingdom that the forces of darkness cannot assail . because it cannot be discerned carnally . all else will be subverted .

It sounds like you're talking about continuous revelations

 

[sunlover1]

Since doctrine is communicated via the holy spirit there is the factor of cultural corruption so nowadays to totally begin again with ideas if they're more than two years old is basically what i go with .

Not sure I am following this.

It's totally humbling to begin again . i know the traditions could never do this . but i trust God to communicate something that is needed today . and that He's still the same God he always was . so there's no need to idolize ideas communicated based on outdated cultural customs .

But how do you know which are based on "cultural customs"?

preservation is in preserving what people need in any time period to inquire of God what they need to know to do what is specifically written of them .

Can't follow this one again, sorry.

this is the kingdom that the forces of darkness cannot assail . because it cannot be discerned carnally . all else will be subverted .

A lot of truth here!
But we do test the spirits..
God felt it needed to be
Written...

(Thank God that even though He began in stone, He switched
to scrolls )

 

[patricius79]

A lot of truth here!
But we do test the spirits..
God felt it needed to be
Written...

(Thank God that even though He began in stone, He switched
to scrolls )

Scripture also refers to what is written in the New Covenant without pen and ink. 2 Jn 12, 3 Jn 13, Heb 8:10

 

[11822]

Scripture also refers to what is written in the New Covenant without pen and ink. 2 Jn 12, 3 Jn 13, Heb 8:10

Having the law in our hearts means hoping in Jesus for righteousness and not the law and it also means obeying Gods law from the heart which means obeying for the right reasons. The right reasons are because we fear the lord and because of that we obey the command, but God also puts the commandment in our heart and makes us obey because we want to love others, because the Holy Spirit wants to obey and as we abide in Christ we are transformed and begin to want what He wants. Obeying the law because of love is having the law in our heart. Aside from the 2 greatest commandments abstaining from fornication, adultery and idolatry is the only law we have. But then again all other law hangs on those two commandments and when we obey the 2 from the heart we also naturally obey the rest at the same time.


Eph 6:6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

Ro 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Ro 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

2Co 5:12 For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart

2Co 9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

Ro 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
Ro 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Ro 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Mt 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also

Lu 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I can think of dozens of churches from the ECF period that divided from your list as well.

The Coptic church's departure for millenia comes to mind, being accused of monophysitism.

These churches, who are in ecumenical dialogue concerning the split of the church, prefer to be called "non-Chalcedonian." The Oriental Orthodox churches include:

The Coptic Church of Egypt
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church
The Syrian Orthodox Church
The Armenian Orthodox Church
The Malankara (Indian) Orthodox Church
​

They'd jump to a word like "ordinance".

Again, preservation of doctrine is rather different from development and enforcement of doctrine -- something that's pretty reflective of the "7/5/2" acceptance of ecumenical councils among A.S. churches.

Can you show what part of my initial post is incorrect, with respect to the OO's?

Development is debatable (i'd say clarification), enforcement, not sure what you mean by that. I think Paul was an enforcer to some extent. What measures would you take to preserve the pearl of great price?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Well, now that this thread has been revived (thanks! )

what do you all think of this idea, which i posed in another thread:

Let me give you a procedure for examining the claim of AS held by various orthodoxies. All the orthodoxies have distinct teachings unique to themselves, yet all share many common elements. Then if AS is true, what is held in common between all the orthodoxies should be considered apostolic.

The things which are not shared in common may either be a) not apostolic, or only apostolic in one or several bodies, but not in all. However, for now, let's consider only the common teachings amongst them.

One could make the claim that it is possible for each of the orthodoxies to teach varying things, yet all still retain the core apostolic teachings (i.e. those essential teachings which they share in common).

I am not advocating this position, but am merely presenting it, for those who might be interested to discuss it, and maybe give some fresh material for the thread. I know this is an argument that protestants use quite often, to say that all protestants agree on the "core issues". So now I will apply this to the AS churches for the sake of argument and see if it brings out some interesting discussion.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.


BEST way to preserve things?

Well, when I rented may apartment, much "oral" was shared with the manager. NONE of it meant zip. There is a CONTRACT - a written, black and white, objective, knowable, unalterable document. It even contains a sentence to this effect: "This contact supersedes any oral agreements, implied or stated." When God gave the Ten Commandments, He wrote them. Literally. In stone. Literally. He didn't tell someone mystery person who told some mystery person who told some mystery person who told some mystery person who said "whatever I say is morality."

I can understand why one would want to do away with the Constitution, with all laws, contracts, etc - and replace it with the "Tradition" of self, but I don't think that's typically better.






.

 

[Montalban]

Well, now that this thread has been revived (thanks! )

Just when I was enjoying myself

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I added a few more common beliefs to the list in my OP...

 

[Montalban]

.


BEST way to preserve things?.

Oral contracts are still legally binding

 

[ivebeenshown]

Maybe doctrine is best preserved in honey. You know, like manna.

 

[Montalban]

Maybe doctrine is best preserved in honey. You know, like manna.

time to separate the sheep from the goats

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Oral contracts are still legally binding

Trumped by written contracts.


My rental contact even contains a clause something like this: "This agreement supersedes any oral agreements."



.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

so scripture is a written contract now?

and in the case of contracts, a written one only supercedes a oral one if they contradict...this says nothing if the oral contract includes something that the written one doesn't mention.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

so scripture is a written contract now?

Read the title of the thread.




.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Read the title of the thread.




.

i added more to my recent reply. I see nothing abour written contracts in the OP title...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

and in the case of contracts, a written one only supercedes a oral one if they contradict...this says nothing if the oral contract includes something that the written one doesn't mention.

I studied Mormonism for about a year. I discovered nothing in LDS Tradition that contradicted Scripture. By your rubric, it's all true then. I disagree with your rubric (thus, I'm not LDS).

I disagree with you that the most sound way to preserve doctrine is to be silent and do nothing. I think God had a good reason to write the Ten Commandments on those two tablets - very soon after literacy arose, and it probably had something to do with preserving. Maybe not.



.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I studied Mormonism for about a year. I discovered nothing in LDS Tradition that contradicted Scripture. By your rubric, it's all true then. I disagree with your rubric (thus, I'm not LDS).

He did not say that 'what does not contradict Scripture must be true', he did not say that at all. You either misunderstood what he said or you are putting words in his mouth to further your own agenda, or that was a false dichotomy. Which is it?