Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[Dorothea]

Except that we, as individuals, still have to interpret the Scriptures. That will be completely subjective.

We topple another's tradition and set up our own.

We as individuals, have to?

 

[Steve Petersen]

We as individuals, have to?

I don't buy the notion that somehow the Holy Spirit will give us the correct understanding of the texts if that is where you were headed.

 

[sunlover1]

Except that we, as individuals, still have to interpret the Scriptures. That will be completely subjective.

We topple another's tradition and set up our own.

Hi..
So IYOO, how CAN one preserve the doctrines given by God?

 

[Dorothea]

I don't buy the notion that somehow the Holy Spirit will give us the correct understanding of the texts if that is where you were headed.

I wasn't headed there (or maybe I was...), I was just wondering if you were meaning that our own interpretations were the right ones. But from what I just read, you do not believe so. I would agree. My personal opinion is, God leads us to the truth and revealed it to us, and so it is out there, and somebody or group has it and has preserved it. I believe it to be my Church, of course, or I wouldn't be a member of it. If God didn't reveal the truth to us and say "it is finished" and He did all he did and entrusted His people to preserve it, and it is that particular teaching that is true, then relativism would have crept in (as it has in some areas), and making it to seem like God did not reveal the correct and real truth. JMO.

Anyhow, just my thoughts. I wonder if that made any sense. Seems like I was rambling. Oh well.

 

[joyfulthanks]

The best way to preserve doctrine?

Don't let any of us in GT get ahold of it!

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Except that we, as individuals, still have to interpret the Scriptures. That will be completely subjective.

We topple another's tradition and set up our own.

I concur Steve.

Good reply to a very facetious statement (mine)

"Truth" apprehension comes with many problems, regardless of vehicle/system.
Problems of epistemology do not spare matters theological.

 

[Philothei]

An innovation in dogma answers a question as: what if....
i.e. what if we have tolll houses....What if Mary is "the mediator"
A explanation of dogma tends to be a "reaction" to what is 'orthodox dogma" and what is not. It forms as 'issues" come along. example: the iconclastic contraversy, the monophysite contraversy etc.

If the toll houses become a 'problem' then we will have to deal with it in a counsel... The church/pope cannot decided on this all "issues" of dogma have to be "taken into a conciliar" venue.

 

[Philothei]

Is the formulation of the Trinity as homoousious an innovation? We CC and EO all agree on that formulation, no?

I think they are talking apples and oranges here... Dogma is different from some praxis... of the Church. Liturgical praxis is not dogma ... Maybe i am missing something here... The toll houses are NOT officially accepted by the EO that would indeed need a council to conviene to approve it..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think they are talking apples and oranges here... Dogma is different from some praxis...

Odd how neither Orthodox or Catholic seem to know that when discussing Protestant practices - such as embracing Scripture as the rule in norming....



Getting back to the issue here, if someone knows of a more sound rule - one MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and unalterable by any, MORE ecumencially embraced (say that 50,000 denomintions) MORE historically embraced (say before 1400 BC) than in Scripture - or even EQUAL in every sense - I wish they would present it so we could discuss it.


Thanks!


Pax


- Josiah




.

of the Church. Liturgical praxis is not dogma ... Maybe i am missing something here... The toll houses are NOT officially accepted by the EO that would indeed need a council to conviene to approve it..[/quote]

 

[Philothei]

Odd how neither Orthodox or Catholic seem to know that when discussing Protestant practices - such as embracing Scripture as the rule in norming....

<snip>
of the Church. Liturgical praxis is not dogma ... Maybe i am missing something here... The toll houses are NOT officially accepted by the EO that would indeed need a council to conviene to approve it..

[/quote]


They are not that was my point If it ever becomes an "issue" then it will be dealed in a council... I guess I was unclear

 

[ivebeenshown]

Getting back to the issue here, if someone knows of a more sound rule - one MORE inspired, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and unalterable by any, MORE ecumencially embraced (say that 50,000 denomintions) MORE historically embraced (say before 1400 BC) than in Scripture - or even EQUAL in every sense - I wish they would present it so we could discuss it.

Well, to determine if there is anything like what you are asking for, we would have to first know what Scripture is?

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Well, to determine if there is anything like what you are asking for, we would have to first know what Scripture is?

Game Set Match.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Please, don't let this turn into another thread about what Sola Scriptura "is" and what it "is not"!!!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well, to determine if there is anything like what you are asking for, we would have to first know what Scripture is?

You might start with your own Catechism for the doctrine of Scripture. It's one of the most universally accepted doctrines in Christianity.

As for the CONTENT of Scripture - what is and is not - yes, I realize that this troubles a few Catholics, Orthodox and Mormons. Understandable, in a way, since these are denominations that agree with NONE but SELF alone on this topic. But, while this IS an issue for Mormons, it's not for you. You certainly may regard your unique set of Scriptures as such, I don't think any Protestant here cares (I don't). And sure - the Orthodox may regard Psalm 151 as such. I've read it - I'm not too concern, they may regard it as Scripture, as they do; not a problem. Now, IF you were Mormon - this might be an issue, and if you convert, please let us know, until then... it's a non issue.







.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

All the apostolic churches accept the deuterocanonicals listed at Carthage in 397 as scripture. Most protestants do not.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

These include 7 books, and additional portions to Daniel and Esther. Some use more than these, but they all include these.

 

[Thekla]

Please, don't let this turn into another thread about what Sola Scriptura "is" and what it "is not"!!!

Ditto !!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

All the apostolic churches accept the deuterocanonicals listed at Carthage in 397 as scripture. Most protestants do not.

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.





.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

All the apostolic churches accept the deuterocanonicals listed at Carthage in 397 as scripture. Most protestants do not.

Which leads me ask if the EOC and RCC all accept the same amount of books? And how many is ever enough? Thanks

Kindgdom Bible Studies Lambs Book of Life Part 1
*SNIP*
........ The wise man said, "...of the making of many books there is no end..." (Eccl. 12:12).

The book stores are filled to overflowing today with all types of books dealing with every aspect of earthly life.

Even in the church world there are books setting forth every kind of viewpoint relating to God, the Bible, doctrine, Christian experience, and church order.

However the subject material of most of these books largely contains a message of religious tradition and spiritual death.

 

[ivebeenshown]

You might start with your own Catechism for the doctrine of Scripture. It's one of the most universally accepted doctrines in Christianity.

Which part?

As for the CONTENT of Scripture - what is and is not - yes, I realize that this troubles a few Catholics, Orthodox and Mormons. Understandable, in a way, since these are denominations that agree with NONE but SELF alone on this topic. But, while this IS an issue for Mormons, it's not for you. You certainly may regard your unique set of Scriptures as such, I don't think any Protestant here cares (I don't). And sure - the Orthodox may regard Psalm 151 as such. I've read it - I'm not too concern, they may regard it as Scripture, as they do; not a problem. Now, IF you were Mormon - this might be an issue, and if you convert, please let us know, until then... it's a non issue.

Anyways, if I am to provide an answer to your challenge, that is, 'to provide something more or equally inspired, reliable, etc.' than Scripture, I need to know what 'Scripture' is.