Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[heymikey80]

Sounds like a great way to create & demand uniformity of doctrine.

When the question is one of preservation, though ....

Coptic churches have claims far back into the history of the church.

Where's the Ethiopian Orthodoxy represented?

How about Armenians?

The thing is, A.S. claims are essentially an onion skin of comparative cores. Make the sample big enough and yes, it creates an "us vs. them" environment.

But it's not a great way to preserve the oldest doctrines.

According to Scripture one of the oldest doctrines is clearly the unity of believers in Jesus Christ.

I've not seen any denomination deal with that doctrine well.

How does A.S. line up with preserving that doctrine?

Hm.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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.

I have no clue either how this relates to Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is the practice of embracing Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputed doctrines. Sola Scriptura is not a method for preserving stuff (as, for example, the canning of fruits, vegetables and meats).

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.

What does any of that have to do with "preserving?" Or with truth? Does it mean that whoever claims such is exempt from accountability and the issue of truth?

These communions I have included are: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Church of England (Anglican), and Assyrian Church of East.

... and the LDS.

Of course, NONE of these agree on DOGMAS. If they are ALL "preserving" something, why do they disagree - even on the very highest level of teaching possible?








.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What exactly do you mean by the bolded, ortho? Did not the EOC also canonize the deuterocanonicals?

None agrees with the RCC on what is and is not Scripture.
None agrees with the EO on what is and is not Scripture.
These denominations have an agreement of ONE on this: self with self.

But don't be dismayed - some of us have read Psalm 151. Few are loosing too much sleep over whether it's "in" or "out." But since the "agreement" is limited to ONE denomination, there's not TOO much interest, either.





.

 

[Thekla]

subscribing

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Sola Scriptura is supposed to be the best norm or rule for establishing doctrine. If this is the case, then surely there should be a majority consensus regarding doctrine among those who profess and use this rule, no?

1. Then perhaps you've been asking the wrong question, and (along with the several Catholics and other Orthodox) SHOULD be asking about ARBITRATION?


2. No, embracing a common knowable/unalterable rule above all does not "insure" that everyone will agree with everyone on everything. I'm quite altogether at a loss to understand how you would entertain such a thought. But it DOES give us a solid, knowable, unalterable, objective RULE for the discussion - quite different than the plethora of ever-changing phantom denominational "Traditions" or self looking in the mirror at self to see if self looks like self or self declaring self to be infallible/unaccountable with unmitigated POWER and thus exempt from the issue of truth. Without a sound rule/norma normans, arbitration has no basis and amounts to nothing more than an exercise in politics.


3. Read this, including the illustrations/examples http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ It will help you GREATLY, I'm sure.






.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Sounds like a great way to create & demand uniformity of doctrine.

When the question is one of preservation, though ....

Coptic churches have claims far back into the history of the church.

Where's the Ethiopian Orthodoxy represented?

How about Armenians?

The thing is, A.S. claims are essentially an onion skin of comparative cores. Make the sample big enough and yes, it creates an "us vs. them" environment.

But it's not a great way to preserve the oldest doctrines.

According to Scripture one of the oldest doctrines is clearly the unity of believers in Jesus Christ.

I've not seen any denomination deal with that doctrine well.

How does A.S. line up with preserving that doctrine?

Hm.

These are all under the communion of Oriental Orthodox.

How do the AS deal with unity? Not too bad. After 2000 years, there are only 5 major divisions which I've listed here. God willing, the EO and OO will be among the first to be reconciled.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

1. Then perhaps you've been asking the wrong question, and (along with the several Catholics and other Orthodox) SHOULD be asking about ARBITRATION?


2. No, embracing a common knowable/unalterable rule above all does not "insure" that everyone will agree with everyone on everything. I'm quite altogether at a loss to understand how you would entertain such a thought. But it DOES give us a solid, knowable, unalterable, objective RULE for the discussion - quite different than the plethora of ever-changing phantom denominational "Traditions" or self looking in the mirror at self to see if self looks like self or self declaring self to be infallible/unaccountable with unmitigated POWER and thus exempt from the issue of truth. Without a sound rule/norma normans, arbitration has no basis and amounts to nothing more than an exercise in politics.


3. Read this, including the illustrations/examples http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ It will help you GREATLY, I'm sure.






.

I'm not asking for everybody to agree on everything, obviously this is not the case. I want to see what those who hold to your rule do agree on. If there is little if any agreement on doctrinal issues amongst you, then what does that say about the effectiveness of using sola scriptura for establishing doctrine? 500 years should be long enough to determine the efficacy of this rule. Now I'm asking to see, what are the fruits? Does embracing this rule bring Christians closer together, or is it driving them further apart? Does it lead to division, or to unity of the faith?

 

[Lion King]

List as AS churches are EO, RCC, OO and Anglicans. Then there are the Protestants, those who follow the doctrines and traditions of Christ as put together by those of the Protestant Reformation.

If you are not Protestant, then fine.

Perhaps you can help us understand better. What doctrines do you hold that are different from those held by the churches of the Refiormation (Reformed, Lutheran and anabaptist)?

I believe in God.
I believe in Jesus Christ.
I believe in the Holy-Spirit.
I believe that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy-Spirit are one.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of Man.
I believe that Jesus Christ died and rose again.
I have faith in Jesus Christ.
I believe the Bible is the word of God.
I believe that Jesus Christ paid for us all.
I believe in Love (God first and then neighbor).
I believe in baptism.
I believe that Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary.
I believe in the law of Christ.
I believe in being born again in water and Spirit.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the bread of life.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life.
I believe that God is the creator of all things.
I believe in prayer to God only.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and man.
I believe that God alone can save us.
I believe only God can redeem us.
I believe there is no power greater than the Lord's.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Those are the doctrines that I hold.....

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Of course, NONE of these agree on DOGMAS. If they are ALL "preserving" something, why do they disagree - even on the very highest level of teaching possible?

Not sure what you mean by this. Even Orthodox don't distinguish between doctrine and dogma...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I believe in God.
I believe in Jesus Christ.
I believe in the Holy-Spirit.
I believe that God, Jesus Christ and the Holy-Spirit are one.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of Man.
I believe that Jesus Christ died and rose again.
I have faith in Jesus Christ.
I believe the Bible is the word of God.
I believe that Jesus Christ paid for us all.
I believe in Love (God first and then neighbor).
I believe in baptism.
I believe that Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary.
I believe in the law of Christ.
I believe in being born again in water and Spirit.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the bread of life.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life.
I believe that God is the creator of all things.
I believe in prayer to God only.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and man.
I believe that God alone can save us.
I believe only God can redeem us.
I believe there is no power greater than the Lord's.
I believe that Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Those are the doctrines that I hold.....

Very well, but you are aware that there are Christians who hold to the same canon that you do, and who also hold to Sola Scriptura, yet do not believe in the Trinity, such as Oneness Pentecostals for example?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I'm not asking for everybody to agree on everything, obviously this is not the case. I want to see what those who hold to your rule do agree on.

1. I'm not following you at all. In America, we use the Rule of Law. It is our praxis here in dealing with civil behavior and contracts. Let's apply your question there: "What do all people in all nations that employ the Rule of Law agree upon?" Well - they agree that they are all accountable and that the rule is the law: that's the critical issue. Does it mean they all drink Harps beer? That they all give their mothers a dozen roses on Mother's Day? Probably not all.....


2. Yes. I know the EO ONLY agrees with the EO. We all know that. So what? I really fail to see what that reality has to do with anything... especially Truth?

500 years should be long enough to determine the efficacy of this rule. Now I'm asking to see, what are the fruits? Does embracing this rule bring Christians closer together, or is it driving them further apart? Does it lead to division, or to unity of the faith?

Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ I think it will help you a lot! I'm very confident of it. Where does it say that Sola Scriptura teaches that all will agree on everything? Where do you get these ideas?

Have you studied any of the cults? I think it would be helpful to you. Submission to power (and, ergo, dismissing the issue of truth) is in no sense related to truth. YES - I don't doubt it for a second but instead STRONGLY agree - such can form a STRONG and very united group! Study the cults - you'll see this displayed in a very stunning way. But, perhaps we just disagree. IMO, docilic submission to one claiming unmitigated and unaccountable POWER for self alone does not insure truth - in fact, I'd go so far as to say it is entirely unrelated to it (at least MY study of the cults powerfully leads ME to that conclusion). IMO, the true teacher comes into the light and welcomes the light, perhaps confident that God's Truth will shine in the light. It is the false teacher (indeed, the one who knows he is false!) who will insist that self be shielded from the light, will hide in the dark, will build around self huge, thick, tall walls of remarkable claims of self for self - all to reinforce the POWER of self, the requist docilic SUBMISSION of others to self, and the unaccountability of self (exclusively).


Yes, I realize that while the corpus of agreement among Christians is stunningly large, it's also true that it is not absolute or perfect - not even on the very highest level (DOGMA). The RCC and EO for example disagree about several DOGMAS: both of them ONLY agree with SELF exclusively (even when this is limited only to dogmas!). Yup. Now, you can say that tossing out accountability and substituting docilic submission to all the unmitigated, unaccountable POWER that self alone claims for self alone is the "answer" but MY study of Catholicism, Mormonism, and also of the cults tells ME that just deletes the question and issue of truth (POWER having "trumped" that) but IMO (and my study of life has confirmed this, lol), humble accountability, open discussion, a sound rule and arbitration are better. I'm sure we fundamentally disagree.






.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Updated my list to include Amillenialism eschatology.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

1. I'm not following you at all. In America, we use the Rule of Law. It is our praxis here in dealing with civil behavior and contracts. Let's apply your question there: "What do all people in all nations that employ the Rule of Law agree upon?" Well - they agree that they are all accountable and that the rule is the law: that's the critical issue. Does it mean they all drink Harps beer? That they all give their mothers a dozen roses on Mother's Day? Probably not all.....


2. Yes. I know the EO ONLY agrees with the EO. We all know that. So what? I really fail to see what that reality has to do with anything... especially Truth?







Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ I think it will help you a lot! I'm very confident of it. Where does it say that Sola Scriptura teaches that all will agree on everything? Where do you get these ideas?

Have you studied any of the cults? I think it would be helpful to you. Submission to power (and, ergo, dismissing the issue of truth) is in no sense related to truth. YES - I don't doubt it for a second but instead STRONGLY agree - such can form a STRONG and very united group! Study the cults - you'll see this displayed in a very stunning way. But, perhaps we just disagree. IMO, docilic submission to one claiming unmitigated and unaccountable POWER for self alone does not insure truth - in fact, I'd go so far as to say it is entirely unrelated to it (at least MY study of the cults powerfully leads ME to that conclusion). IMO, the true teacher comes into the light and welcomes the light, perhaps confident that God's Truth will shine in the light. It is the false teacher (indeed, the one who knows he is false!) who will insist that self be shielded from the light, will hide in the dark, will build around self huge, thick, tall walls of remarkable claims of self for self - all to reinforce the POWER of self, the requist docilic SUBMISSION of others to self, and the unaccountability of self (exclusively).


Yes, I realize that while the corpus of agreement among Christians is stunningly large, it's also true that it is not absolute or perfect - not even on the very highest level (DOGMA). The RCC and EO for example disagree about several DOGMAS: both of them ONLY agree with SELF exclusively (even when this is limited only to dogmas!). Yup. Now, you can say that tossing out accountability and substituting docilic submission to all the unmitigated, unaccountable POWER that self alone claims for self alone is the "answer" but MY study of Catholicism, Mormonism, and also of the cults tells ME that just deletes the question and issue of truth (POWER having "trumped" that) but IMO (and my study of life has confirmed this, lol), humble accountability, open discussion, a sound rule and arbitration are better. I'm sure we fundamentally disagree.






.

EO does not just agree with EO. EO agrees with many other apostolic churches on many other things, as I've shown.

What are the fruits of SS? Unity or division of faith?

 

[heymikey80]

These are all under the communion of Oriental Orthodox.

How do the AS deal with unity? Not too bad. After 2000 years, there are only 5 major divisions which I've listed here. God willing, the EO and OO will be among the first to be reconciled.

There aren't a whole lot of major divisions among Protestants. No more so than all the squabbles occurring among the Orthodox, especially when, like the Orthodox, we deprecate those big divisions we consider to be heresies.

The Ethiopian canon is different from yours.

I'm still looking for how the concept of theotokos emerged into phrases like, "Mary, Mother of God, save us", which doesn't seem to come from many of the ECFs.

That would tend toward an expansion of a specific idea about Mary, and not be an original doctrine traceable to the Apostles.

 

[Thekla]

There aren't a whole lot of major divisions among Protestants. No more so than all the squabbles occurring among the Orthodox, especially when, like the Orthodox, we deprecate those big divisions we consider to be heresies.

The Ethiopian canon is different from yours.

I'm still looking for how the concept of theotokos emerged into phrases like, "Mary, Mother of God, save us", which doesn't seem to come from many of the ECFs.

That would tend toward an expansion of a specific idea about Mary, and not be an original doctrine traceable to the Apostles.

I tend to think that a disagreement on even having a creed, the teaching of baptism - as examples - tend to be a bit toward the "major" side.

As for the phrase "save us", it is implicitly understood (in the EO, and per what I know, the OO) that it is meant by her prayers (indeed, her 'actions' have as their result our salvation, as the Incarnation was part of the method willed by God for our salvation).

 

[Ortho_Cat]

There aren't a whole lot of major divisions among Protestants. No more so than all the squabbles occurring among the Orthodox, especially when, like the Orthodox, we deprecate those big divisions we consider to be heresies.

The Ethiopian canon is different from yours.

I'm still looking for how the concept of theotokos emerged into phrases like, "Mary, Mother of God, save us", which doesn't seem to come from many of the ECFs.

That would tend toward an expansion of a specific idea about Mary, and not be an original doctrine traceable to the Apostles.

If there aren't a whole lot of major divisions then it should be easy to list all the beliefs they share in common.

I addressed the Ethiopian canon in my OP.

The reference to Mary is OT.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

I tend to think that a disagreement on even having a creed, the teaching of baptism - as examples - tend to be a bit toward the "major" side.

As for the phrase "save us", it is implicitly understood (in the EO, and per what I know, the OO) that it is meant by her prayers (indeed, her 'actions' have as their result our salvation, as the Incarnation was part of the method willed by God for our salvation).

Indeed, there is a forum section here for those who belief just that-no creed but Christ.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

1. I'm not following you at all. In America, we use the Rule of Law. It is our praxis here in dealing with civil behavior and contracts. Let's apply your question there: "What do all people in all nations that employ the Rule of Law agree upon?" Well - they agree that they are all accountable and that the rule is the law: that's the critical issue. Does it mean they all drink Harps beer? That they all give their mothers a dozen roses on Mother's Day? Probably not all.....


2. Yes. I know the EO ONLY agrees with the EO. We all know that. So what? I really fail to see what that reality has to do with anything... especially Truth?







Read this: http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ I think it will help you a lot! I'm very confident of it. Where does it say that Sola Scriptura teaches that all will agree on everything? Where do you get these ideas?


Have you studied any of the cults? I think it would be helpful to you. Submission to power (and, ergo, dismissing the issue of truth) is in no sense related to truth. YES - I don't doubt it for a second but instead STRONGLY agree - such can form a STRONG and very united group! Study the cults - you'll see this displayed in a very stunning way. But, perhaps we just disagree. IMO, docilic submission to one claiming unmitigated and unaccountable POWER for self alone does not insure truth - in fact, I'd go so far as to say it is entirely unrelated to it (at least MY study of the cults powerfully leads ME to that conclusion). IMO, the true teacher comes into the light and welcomes the light, perhaps confident that God's Truth will shine in the light. It is the false teacher (indeed, the one who knows he is false!) who will insist that self be shielded from the light, will hide in the dark, will build around self huge, thick, tall walls of remarkable claims of self for self - all to reinforce the POWER of self, the requist docilic SUBMISSION of others to self, and the unaccountability of self (exclusively).


Yes, I realize that while the corpus of agreement among Christians is stunningly large, it's also true that it is not absolute or perfect - not even on the very highest level (DOGMA). The RCC and EO for example disagree about several DOGMAS: both of them ONLY agree with SELF exclusively (even when this is limited only to dogmas!). Yup. Now, you can say that tossing out accountability and substituting docilic submission to all the unmitigated, unaccountable POWER that self alone claims for self alone is the "answer" but MY study of Catholicism, Mormonism, and also of the cults tells ME that just deletes the question and issue of truth (POWER having "trumped" that) but IMO (and my study of life has confirmed this, lol), humble accountability, open discussion, a sound rule and arbitration are better. I'm sure we fundamentally disagree.

EO does not just agree with EO.

List for me all the non-EO denominations that agree with the EO in all matters....


Yes, the EO agrees with the EO in all things that the EO currently regards as good for the EO to agree upon - officially, formally and institutionally anyway. So what? The LDS agrees with itself in all things that the LDS currently regards as good for the LDS to agree upon - officially, formally, institutionally, anyway. I can't think of one denomination that doesn't agree with itself! So what?

Now, IF you are saying that the EO is correct because the other 49,999 denominations are all in full agreement with it in all matters - okay (I'm not sure I agree with the premise, but the premise is understood), then substantiate that such is the case (it's SURE not what I was taught in the Catholic Church, btw).

What are the fruits of SS?

What is the "fruit" of the Rule of Law?

What is the "fruit" of self declaring self to have unmitigated, unaccountable, divine POWER - requiring all to be in "quiet, docilic submission" to SELF, demanding self? Have you studied any of the cults? Do they all agree in all matters? Are they all True? Does THAT rubric result in truth or unity? Study the cults before you give your final answer.... You might even study the RCC before you do; the EO and RC have different DOGMAS (disagreements even on the very highest, most important level - and you might want to look up what happened in 1054).


Frankly, I strongly suspect I'd be MUCH happier compare my "agreements" with my ubercalvinist friend both employing the Rule of Scripture than you would be comparing your "agreements" with my fundamentalist LDS friend both employing the rule of POWER and docilic submission to such (both of you shouting about "Apostolic Succession" notwithstanding)


Yes, I realize that while the corpus of agreement among Christians is stunningly large, it's also true that it is not absolute or perfect - not even on the very highest level (DOGMA). The RCC and EO for example disagree about several DOGMAS: both of them ONLY agree with SELF exclusively (even when this is limited only to dogmas!). Yup. Now, you can say that tossing out accountability and substituting docilic submission to all the unmitigated, unaccountable POWER that self alone claims for self alone is the "answer" but MY study of Catholicism, Mormonism, and also of the cults tells ME that just deletes the question and issue of truth (POWER having "trumped" that) but IMO (and my study of life has confirmed this, lol), humble accountability, open discussion, a sound rule and arbitration are better. Yes, it seems we fundamentally disagree.






.

 

[heymikey80]

I tend to think that a disagreement on even having a creed, the teaching of baptism - as examples - tend to be a bit toward the "major" side.

Why would they be major? Certainly you can see that prior councils have creedally attacked specific factions of the Orthodox communions ortho_cat says the church hopes to reunite.

The fact that even by the Fourth Century, some people could attribute delay in baptism to Constantine would pretty-much demand that such variations exist in the church catholic.

That would mean you had major divisions as late as the fourth century ...?

As for the phrase "save us", it is implicitly understood (in the EO, and per what I know, the OO) that it is meant by her prayers (indeed, her 'actions' have as their result our salvation, as the Incarnation was part of the method willed by God for our salvation).

Um, even today I can find exemplars of people praying to Mary and meaning something entirely different -- in the Orthodox tradition. For instance, prayer for salvation through Mary's child, that seems to be argued.

So, ah, what's the Apostolic tradition preserved when the permissible statements seem to have varian motives? It doesn't sound like it's being preserved -- rather, it seems like it's shifting. When pre-Nicene fathers didn't say such things, what's the tradition preserving, again?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Updated my list to include Amillenialism eschatology.

Tis just as "strange" a doctrine as Pre-mil in my most humble view...but wat da heckz doo I knowz

http://www.christianforums.com/t7522417-12/#post57252363
Amillennialism blown away by Revelation 20

Then why isn't that doctrine viewed as "unorthodox/heretical" here on CF

Or is it?