Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[Montalban]

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.

Where's it say "That which is of God is only written"?

 

[sunlover1]

Where's it say "That which is of God is only written"?

I didn't say that it is.
Read the rest of the Chapter
and you' will see what I am
referring to.

 

[Montalban]

Do you practice all of what the pharisees taught?

Sola scriptura?

 

[Montalban]

I didn't say that it is.
Read the rest of the Chapter
and you' will see what I am
referring to.

Perhaps you can explain it?

 

[sunlover1]

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.

Where is this found?
I'm unsure what you refer to.

 

[sunlover1]

Perhaps you can explain it?

It's very easy to understand.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Where is this found?
I'm unsure what you refer to.

Leviticus 4:3.

 

[Montalban]

It's very easy to understand.

But not to explain?

 

[MrPolo]

some kind of intergenerational growth beyond what the Christ has delivered to us, seems quite a stretch beyond what the Scriptures seem to say.

Ok, basically your post says the Apostolic Churches have bad doctrine because they don't adhere to Prebysterian hermeneutics. Fine.

Prehaps I am a little guilty of straying away too, but the question and topic of this thread remains what method of preservation of doctrine---whether it be good doctrine, like the Presbyterian's have, or horrible doctrine, like the Catholics have----based on commonality in beliefs over time. Has that been done by exercising some form of Tradition and Scripture with an authoritative body or by applying sola scriptura? If I'm not mistaken, you have not given your opinion.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by OpenDoor Do you practice all of what the pharisees taught?

Sola scriptura?

Btw, whatever happened to them dudes

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

NIV)Matthew 16:6 "Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of the tormenting of Them is ascending into Ages to-Ages..........
[Ezekiel 39:12/Luke 16:24,26]

 

[sunlover1]

Leviticus 4:3.

"If the high priest sins, bringing guilt upon the entire community,
he must give a sin offering for the sin he has committed.

I thought this commentary was interesting... in case anyone else might:
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary4:1-12 Burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, and peace-offerings, had been offered before the giving of the law upon mount Sinai; and in these the patriarchs had respect to sin, to make atonement for it. But the Jews were now put into a way of making atonement for sin, more particularly by sacrifice, as a shadow of good things to come; yet the substance is Christ, and that one offering of himself, by which he put away sin. The sins for which the sin-offerings were appointed are supposed to be open acts. They are supposed to be sins of commission, things which ought not to have been done. Omissions are sins, and must come into judgment: yet what had been omitted at one time, might be done at another; but a sin committed was past recall. They are supposed to be sins committed through ignorance. The law begins with the case of the anointed priest. It is evident that God never had any infallible priest in his church upon earth, when even the high priest was liable to fall into sins of ignorance. All pretensions to act without error are sure marks of Antichrist. The beast was to be carried without the camp, and there burned to ashes. This was a sign of the duty of repentance, which is the putting away sin as a detestable thing, which our soul hates. The sin-offering is called sin. What they did to that, we must do to our sins; the body of sin must be destroyed, Ro 6:6. The apostle applies the carrying this sacrifice without the camp to Christ, Heb 13:11-13.

 

[Montalban]

Ok, basically your post says the Apostolic Churches have bad doctrine because they don't adhere to Prebysterian hermeneutics. Fine.

Prehaps I am a little guilty of straying away too, but the question and topic of this thread remains what method of preservation of doctrine---whether it be good doctrine, like the Presbyterian's have, or horrible doctrine, like the Catholics have----based on commonality in beliefs over time. Has that been done by exercising some form of Tradition and Scripture with an authoritative body or by applying sola scriptura? If I'm not mistaken, you have not given your opinion.

They're main argument for thier side is that they claim the 'other' side is at fault

 

[heymikey80]

Ok, basically your post says the Apostolic Churches have bad doctrine because they don't adhere to Prebysterian hermeneutics. Fine.

Prehaps I am a little guilty of straying away too, but the question and topic of this thread remains what method of preservation of doctrine---whether it be good doctrine, like the Presbyterian's have, or horrible doctrine, like the Catholics have----based on commonality in beliefs over time. Has that been done by exercising some form of Tradition and Scripture with an authoritative body or by applying sola scriptura? If I'm not mistaken, you have not given your opinion.

I've given my opinion. The radical view of solo scriptura is all that's being assailed here. When there's an address of sola scriptura -- that one's infallible, and the other's a redeemed witness -- the answer's pretty clear. Requiring tradition to be infallible instead of humanly credible is simply treading out of bounds.

"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mk 7:6-7

But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, 46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. Lk 12:45-46"

Preservation includes purity. Otherwise the item we intended to preserve becomes corrupted, or spoiled. Focusing specifically on what comes from God suppresses human sinfulness and power-mongering, and the end result is simply better.

Does it create a lot of variants? Sure it does. "For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part it's something I'm relying on. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you." 1 Cor 11:18-19 Tradition suppresses variants using human power. But sola scriptura brings out the reality of human reception of God's truth: it's partial, incomplete, and contains human error and willfulness.

Would we pick one of these human views over and above others? Is that really preservation? Of what? When we pitch God's view by requiring one human interpretation above it, then we're not preserving doctrine. We're preserving human opinion.

 

[Sidheil]

I mentioned this in another thread, and I think it applies here as well...there's a difference between following a tradition because we think it's correct, and following it because we think it's infallible. I can openly and freely follow Presbyterian (Methodist, Baptist, etc.) tradition because I think it's correct without thinking it's the infallible voice of God.

That last part really wasn't meant to sound sarcastic, so I apologize if it comes across that way.

 

[Montalban]

I mentioned this in another thread, and I think it applies here as well...there's a difference between following a tradition because we think it's correct, and following it because we think it's infallible. I can openly and freely follow Presbyterian (Methodist, Baptist, etc.) tradition because I think it's correct without thinking it's the infallible voice of God.

That last part really wasn't meant to sound sarcastic, so I apologize if it comes across that way.

Traditions that are correct are only of man.

Traditions that are infallible are from God.

 

[Sidheil]

Traditions that are correct are only of man.

Traditions that are infallible are from God.

Hence sola scriptura. Traditions are man-made, though may be correct. They are not from God so they may be incorrect as well. I dunno, I still don't really know what to believe yet.

 

[Montalban]

Hence sola scriptura. Traditions are man-made, though may be correct. They are not from God so they may be incorrect as well. I dunno, I still don't really know what to believe yet.

Scripture is infallible.

Sola scritura is man-made, hence it's not even found in scripture and was devised sometime in the 1500s because Luther didn't like RCC innovations, so rather than get back to the original church he invented new ways of expressing Chrisitanity.

The church is infallible, it's what gave us scripture... unless you can show infallible scripture choosing itself.

 

[sunlover1]

Scripture is infallible.

Sola scritura is man-made,..[/quote] but I think that it's a God thing
to live by Scripture

The church is infallible, it's what gave us scripture... unless you can show infallible scripture choosing itself.

[/QUOTE]
Church is us.
WE are not infallible.
WE did not give us Scripture
God did.

imo
with love

 

[Montalban]

We live by Scipture in tradition

Tradition determines how we can know scripture, otherwise it's a matter of being one's own personal pope

 

[ivebeenshown]

Church is us.
WE are not infallible.
WE did not give us Scripture
God did.

imo
with love

The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church -- surely this means the Church is infallible?
Why would God let the pillar and foundation of truth be something which is fallible?