Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

But you see all the common doctrines over 2000 years across different faiths and regions? That is preserving...

Again, from the moment that SS was enacted, what doctrine has been preserved from then until today?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

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.

In other words, you do not think there are any doctrines which all SS adherents hold in common?

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.

By true I mean real.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But you see all the common doctrines over 2000 years across different faiths and regions? That is preserving...

There's NONE with whom your denomination agrees.... Not even on just doctrines of the very highest level - dogma.

As I survey the 2,875 separate paragraph statements of the 1994 edition of the Catholic Church - I doubt 5% of them can be documented as existing for over 2000 years. A

Again, from the moment that SS was enacted, what doctrine has been preserved from then until today?

1. There is no such doctrine.

2. Sola Scriptura has been used since 1400 BC. That's older than most of the unique, distinctive dogmas of the EO - I suspect.

3. Actually, unlike the RCC Catechism that is changed every FEW years, not one punctuation mark, not one letter of the Lutheran Catechism has been changed in nearly 500 years - NOTHING added, NOTHING deleted, NOTHING altered. The whole of Lutheran doctrine (the Book of Concord) similarly since 1580. That may be "new" from the perspective of the Syrian Orthodox Church but not from Catholicism - which has never stopped messing with and changing its position (last officially in 1950, I believe - but otherwise constantly) - and likely never will.

4. As noted earlier, you are imposing a non-Protestant idea on Protestants. We do not affirm that EVERYTHING now taught was taught as such by the 12-14 Apostles and we're just "preserving it." That's an entirely baseless, completely unsubstantiated claim of EO's (and to a lesser degree, RC's). If you want to assume that Jesus TAUGHT everything that the EO now teaches - the "burden of proof" is on you to prove that to be the case (and it CERTAINLY would include that nothing has changed in what you teach since 31 AD - not a letter, not a punctuation mark, nothing added or developed or defined or changed or added - nothing; you are "preserving" what was - as is. Since it's YOUR claim (and not a Protestant one), the "ball" is totally and solely in your court.






.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

There's NONE with whom your denomination agrees.... Not even on just doctrines of the very highest level - dogma.

We agree on alot, not everything.

1. There is no such doctrine.

Ok thanks

 

[heymikey80]

1. The Protestant tendency to not recognize typology in Scripture (and hence many figures therein of Mary, the Church, sin, the Eucharist, etc...).

What tendency? Again, the typological view of historicist eschatology comes from Protestantism. Making a general claim without a clear application just doesn't establish anything.

But the idea of pressing allegory as if it's typology, that's quite a leap of Roman Catholic thought.

2. The Protestant notion that no one can authoritatively interpret Scripture, i.e. Christ did not establish a visible Church with that authority.

That's not the case.

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 don't observe this at all in the Protestant position.

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

I see no evidence that Catholics who are captivated by the ideas of Roman authority are any more correct.

The church has not been granted infallible judgment on God's words. It has been granted limited authority, and shall be judged when Christ returns.

People do grow as they grow in Christ, but to expect the church to balance some kind of intergenerational growth beyond what the Christ has delivered to us, seems quite a stretch beyond what the Scriptures seem to say.

 

[ivebeenshown]

2. Sola Scriptura has been used since 1400 BC. That's older than most of the unique, distinctive dogmas of the EO - I suspect.

Prove it? Even Christ acknowledged that the Pharisees were authoritative.

Matthew 23
1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

 

[OpenDoor]

Prove it? Even Christ acknowledged that the Pharisees were authoritative.

Matthew 23
1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

When they teach the law of Moses they were authoritive, when they teach their own law they were not.

 

[Steve Petersen]

When they teach the law of Moses they were authoritive, when they teach their own law they were not.

Deuteronomy 17: God gave the priests and elders the authority to make legal rulings for the community. They could not contradict Torah, but were for situations to which the Torah did not directly address. There is actually at least one example where even Moses had to go back to God for clarification with regard to the man who died without sons and had only daughters to inherit his estate.

 

[sunlover1]

When they teach the law of Moses they were authoritive, when they teach their own law they were not.

CLEARLY Christ was not telling them to obey those pharisees OUTSide of
when they taught the Word.

The entire rest of that chapter is Christ making it very clear that they are "blind guides"
He would that they would follow "Blind" guides.
Nah.
Interesting too is how Jesus was letting these religious
leaders have it, but you NEVER see Him after the sinners..
People have things so goofed up.
The accusers of the brethren He dissed.
The sinners, He offered grace to ..

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5“Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteriesa wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’
8“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.b 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.c
15“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.’ 19You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22And he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.
23“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. 28In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’d”

 

[OpenDoor]

Deuteronomy 17: God gave the priests and elders the authority to make legal rulings for the community. They could not contradict Torah, but were for situations to which the Torah did not directly address. There is actually at least one example where even Moses had to go back to God for clarification with regard to the man who died without sons and had only daughters to inherit his estate.

As a Messianic would you view those rulings as divine or infallible?

 

[Steve Petersen]

As a Messianic would you view those rulings as divine or infallible?

Not necessarily; but I would view them as authorized.

There were sacrifices required of priests and elders in the case of an incorrect ruling. The people were still required to follow that ruling until the elders corrected it. The sin was not attributed to the people, but to the elders.

 

[ivebeenshown]

When they teach the law of Moses they were authoritive, when they teach their own law they were not.

Sorry, but that doesn't seem to be what is said here:

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

And you are saying that he said "NOT all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, observe and do."

 

[OpenDoor]

CLEARLY Christ was not telling them to obey those pharisees OUTSide of
when they taught the Word.

It's very unlikely that IBS practices what the pharisees taught.
If Jesus wanted us to do as the pharisees taught, He probably would have practiced the hands washing ceremony before eating.

When the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal.
Luke 11:38

 

[ivebeenshown]

It's very unlikely that IBS practices what the pharisees taught.
If Jesus wanted us to do as the pharisees taught, He probably would have practiced the hands washing ceremony before eating.

When the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal.
Luke 11:38

You're missing the point... Jesus told someone to observe and do all of whatever the Pharisees bid, because they sat in the seat of Moses.

 

[Steve Petersen]

It's very unlikely that IBS practices what the pharisees taught.
If Jesus wanted us to do as the pharisees taught, He probably would have practiced the hands washing ceremony before eating.

When the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal.
Luke 11:38

Not all traditions had the force of law. If there had been no legal ruling on handwashing by the Sanhedrin, local custom generally ruled.

 

[OpenDoor]

Sorry, but that doesn't seem to be what is said here:

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

And you are saying that he said "NOT all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, observe and do."

Do you practice all of what the pharisees taught?

 

[sunlover1]

Sorry, but that doesn't seem to be what is said here:

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

And you are saying that he said "NOT all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, observe and do."

Sorry but did you read the rest of the chapter?
Jesus would not tell them to obey those things they did or taught
EXCEPT that which was from God.
Gotta use logic here too.

 

[OpenDoor]

You're missing the point... Jesus told someone to observe and do all of whatever the Pharisees bid, because they sat in the seat of Moses.

In the context of listen to them, but do not do as they do.

 

[OpenDoor]

The sin was not attributed to the people, but to the elders.

Interesting

Edit: If the people did not listen because they believed the elders in error, would they be justified (before God) in disobeying or not?

Jeremiah probably falls into this category...

 

[Steve Petersen]

Interesting

Edit: If the people did not listen because they believed the elders in error, would they be justified (before God) in disobeying or not?

No. Not according to Torah.

Jeremiah probably falls into this category...

But Jeremiah had a commission from God. God also had told Israel to obey the prophets as long as they promoted obedience to the Law. (Deuteronomy 18:15-19)