Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

heymikey80 said:

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.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!!

And by self alone insisting that self alone is infallible/unaccountable/exempt from the issue of truth - self is simply exempting self from the whole issue (while typically insisting upon it for all OTHERS). For such, it has NOTHING to do with "truth" (new, old, original or invented) - it's all about evading the question in the sole case of self. "I agree with ME - so I must be right" is as close as they get. It MAY be the preserving of the view of SELF - at most - but it has nothing to do with truth or with Jesus or with the Apostles. Self looking in the mirror and appointing self to determine if self looks like self - that's it, that's all.





.

heymikey80 said:

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.

Click to expand...

You've removed the problem from corporate fallibility to individual fallibility.
There is no logical advantage to preferring individual, historically and culturally narrowed views to views that have roots in the culture, language and time of the writing and experience of the apostolic, primitive Christian community.

You still perceive the scripture partially, in an incomplete manner, with human error and weakness.

Would we pick one of these human views over and above others?

Click to expand...

You have. Look at your faith icon. And if you change views, you've still chosen.

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.

Click to expand...

And you escape that, how?
What you're suggesting is that you're LESS prone to human error by chosing what you chose than by chosing what we have.

IOW, you present yourself as more spiritual, smarter, and less gullible.
And you had the temerity to say that YOUR views were "being assailed."
Really?

CaliforniaJosiah said:

EXACTLY!!!

And by self alone insisting that self alone is infallible/unaccountable/exempt from the issue of truth - self is simply exempting self from the whole issue (while typically insisting upon it for all OTHERS). For such, it has NOTHING to do with "truth" (new, old, original or invented) - it's all about evading the question in the sole case of self. "I agree with ME - so I must be right" is as close as they get. It MAY be the preserving of the view of SELF - at most - but it has nothing to do with truth or with Jesus or with the Apostles. Self looking in the mirror and appointing self to determine if self looks like self - that's it, that's all.
.

Click to expand...

And your group reading and "arbitrating" escapes this dilemma, how?
What a farce.

Perfect instrument will always be wielded by imperfect people.
Ergo, self.
The danger with 'high-horse' proclamations is the impact when one falls.

I've always believed that God implants doctrine into us. We know what's true because we have Holy Spirit.

BloodyRachel said:

I've always believed that God implants doctrine into us. We know what's true because we have Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

then why is there so many disagrements on doctrine?

BloodyRachel said:

I've always believed that God implants doctrine into us. We know what's true because we have Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But our perception of truth is always balanced by outer witness, dovetailed with the inner witness.

Paul went to those "reputed to be pillars" to "see if (he) had run (his) race in vain." This in keeping with the principle of "in the mouth of two or three witnesses is (it) established." The reason why there is a Nicene Creed is that we as the household of God needed some parameters by which to establish what is (biblical) truth.

So what we have with SS is the idea that we can ignore the community part and just ehstablish the measuring stick. Believe it or not, we have essentially the same measuring stick.

But no one really does ignore the community part. Virtually no one practices Solo Scriptura. We all have some community that we partake of, and are informed by.

So what is the best method to preserve teaching? The answer is obvious: the text book remains unchanged- but the students require a teacher. The student who says "I believe my textbook, not the teacher" is a good fact checker, but an unlearned student.

But NO ONE practices faith like that. It's three card monte. We ALL follow teaching, even if we switch schools of thought.

Certain members, Like CJ, like to give say that Catholics, for example, don't have scripture as a textbook in their class. He reads their liner notes and teacher's guide and quotes bits to make it appear as if they have no textbook. I'm not certain that he intentionally distorts the truth, but he does distort it.

OTOH, there are Catholic and Orthodox members who assertions. hat Protestants follow only their opinions. Not true, either. Protestants follow the tradition that was given them, until they find something else that makes more sense- just as I did. Raised Lutheran, worked as Pastor in a non-denom, found a teaching that made much more sense to me.

There is not a 'most reliable method' there is truly only one method being used. Human beings read sacred literature and teach it according to their views.

The better question is "what is the most reliable teaching among all the teachers." That is a matter of opinion, but there are elements of evidence.

I'd be happy to explore that:
1. Continuity of practice and belief over time
2. Proximity of origin to the founders and founding documents
3. Proximity to the teachings of those more approximate to the time when the documents were written.
4. Evidence of effectiveness and spiritual fruit

None of these are logical "proofs"-there is no such thing. They are evidentiary elements. For example, regarding #3- when we want to know what the Founding Fathers intended in the Constitution, we read their letters and other writings.

Anyway, that is my reasoned response for which I will no doubt be excoriated by those who deny they have a tradition. They amuse me.

Rdr Iakovos said:

Josiah said:

EXACTLY!!!

And by self alone insisting that self alone is infallible/unaccountable/exempt from the issue of truth - self is simply exempting self from the whole issue (while typically insisting upon it for all OTHERS). For such, it has NOTHING to do with "truth" (new, old, original or invented) - it's all about evading the question in the sole case of self. "I agree with ME - so I must be right" is as close as they get. It MAY be the preserving of the view of SELF - at most - but it has nothing to do with truth or with Jesus or with the Apostles. Self looking in the mirror and appointing self to determine if self looks like self - that's it, that's all.


.

Click to expand...

And your group....

Click to expand...

.... doesn't declare self as.... anything at all. No declarations of self alone that self alone is infallible or unaccountable or exempt from truth; no appointment of self alone by self alone as the sole, individual interpreter of Scripture; no appointment of self alone by self alone for self alone as the sole arbiter; no proclaimation of self alone that when self alone speaks God is speaking.


If you declare such declarations and appointments as "high horse" and to be rejected, you might want to look to a bit closer to home?





.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

.... doesn't declare self as.... anything at all. No declarations of self alone that self alone is infallible or unaccountable or exempt from truth; no appointment of self alone by self alone as the sole, individual interpreter of Scripture; no appointment of self alone by self alone for self alone as the sole arbiter; no proclaimation of self alone that when self alone speaks God is speaking.

Click to expand...

It's not 'self alone' appointing 'self alone', it's God who established his Church and gave it authority. 'Self alone' merely maintains that fact.

CaliforniaJosiah said:

.... doesn't declare self as.... anything at all.

Click to expand...

That's obviously not so. If you were not declaring self as anything, you would not be here declaring how you declare yourself as nothing.

You declare that you believe the bible, but that shell game doesn't fool anyone. You believe what you believe about the bible.

No declarations of self alone that self alone is infallible or unaccountable or exempt from truth; no appointment of self alone by self alone as the sole, individual interpreter of Scripture; no appointment of self alone by self alone for self alone as the sole arbiter; no proclaimation of self alone that when self alone speaks God is speaking.

Click to expand...

That's argle-bargle intended as pejorative, and has no relevance to the EOC. It might to Rev Sun-Yung Moon, not sure.

If you declare such declarations and appointments as "high horse" and to be rejected, you might want to look to a bit closer to home?
.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. IKYBWAI doesn't fly, guy.

Rdr Iakovos said:

That's obviously not so. If you were not declaring self as anything, you would not be here declaring how you declare yourself as nothing.

Click to expand...

I do.


You seem to join in the rebuke of a rubric - which (oddly) you also defend.





.

ivebeenshown said:

It's not 'self alone' appointing 'self alone', it's God who established his Church and gave it authority. 'Self alone' merely maintains that fact.

Click to expand...

It's SELF alone declaring what God did or said (with SELF ALONE designating self alone as the SOLE one to interpret what is in the heart of self alone and then appointing self alone as the arbiter for correctness of the intepretations of self alone of what is in the 'heart' of self alone to support the claim of self alone for self alone). Yes, self alone claims it for self alone, then self alone uses such as a perfect circle. Studied any of the cults? Studied the early LDS?




.

Seven laborers, 3 carpenters, an electrician and her assistant, a plumber, an architect, and a contractor are all at a work site. There is a building going up in plain view, there's even a sign out front that says "Salem Lutheran- Missouri Synod." One can see each member of the team busy planning the completion of the building.

I happen to walk by and see the impressive structure.

"So- nice church" I say. "Looks like it seats about 2 million."
"The building is nothing" says the contractor." "Check out my tape measure."
"Yeah, my tools are what really matters."
"Well," I say, "I have that same tape measure. I also own that saws-all and that tri-fold ladder. Good, reliable stuff. Of course, the tools are there to build something, right?"
"Absolutely," says the contractor, and shows me his blueprint.

Really, CJ?

CaliforniaJosiah said:

It's SELF alone declaring what God did or said (with SELF ALONE designating self alone as the SOLE one to interpret what is in the heart of self alone and then appointing self alone as the arbiter for correctness of the intepretations of self alone of what is in the 'heart' of self alone to support the claim of self alone for self alone). Yes, self alone claims it for self alone, then self alone uses such as a perfect circle. Studied any of the cults? Studied the early LDS?

Click to expand...

If I told you that my employer appointed me to be a service technician, it's not me appointing myself.

Anyways, did you ever figure out what 'Scripture' was, so that I can try to find something that is more or equally reliable and whatnot?

CaliforniaJosiah said:

It's SELF alone declaring what God did or said (with SELF ALONE designating self alone as the SOLE one to interpret what is in the heart of self alone and then appointing self alone as the arbiter for correctness of the intepretations of self alone of what is in the 'heart' of self alone to support the claim of self alone for self alone). Yes, self alone claims it for self alone, then self alone uses such as a perfect circle. Studied any of the cults? Studied the early LDS?




.

Click to expand...

Self worship???

Sounds confusing to me and maybe I got it wrong but that explanation seems to be self absorbed.

ivebeenshown said:

If I told you that my employer appointed me to be a service technician, it's not me appointing myself.

Anyways, did you ever figure out what 'Scripture' was, so that I can try to find something that is more or equally reliable and whatnot?

Click to expand...

Oh, heavens NO.
The blueprints just showed up.
No need to know where they came from, who authorized them or drew them up- clearly, it was God.

Why do I believe that? Because 49,997 other builders (allegedly) believe as I do- so we must be right.

Rdr Iakovos said:

Seven laborers, 3 carpenters, an electrician and her assistant, a plumber, an architect, and a contractor are all at a work site. There is a building going up in plain view, there's even a sign out front that says "Salem Lutheran- Missouri Synod." One can see each member of the team busy planning the completion of the building.

I happen to walk by and see the impressive structure.

"So- nice church" I say. "Looks like it seats about 2 million."
"The building is nothing" says the contractor." "Check out my tape measure."
"Yeah, my tools are what really matters."
"Well," I say, "I have that same tape measure. I also own that saws-all and that tri-fold ladder. Good, reliable stuff. Of course, the tools are there to build something, right?"
"Absolutely," says the contractor, and shows me his blueprint.

Really, CJ?

Click to expand...

Good story... but I am waiting for the punch line.

BloodyRachel said:

I've always believed that God implants doctrine into us. We know what's true because we have Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Law on our hearts... hmmm.

Posted by heymikey80

There is only one brand, unless of course you're mis-interpreting, or unless you believe scripture is only opinion & the truth doesn't have to be true.

Rdr Iakovos said:

Oh, heavens NO.
The blueprints just showed up.
No need to know where they came from, who authorized them or drew them up- clearly, it was God.

Why do I believe that? Because 49,997 other builders (allegedly) believe as I do- so we must be right.

Click to expand...

God or not, they work or they don't & who contracted you? It is his responsibility to provide you with intelligeable plans if he wants intelligible results.
The rules for blueprints & languages are not revelation, and they are held in common by all reputable builders. Buyer beware.
Revelation doesn't change the rules of either.

Rick Otto said:

God or not, they work or they don't & who contracted you? It is his responsibility to provide you with intelligeable plans if he wants intelligible results.
The rules for blueprints & languages are not revelation, and they are held in common by all reputable builders. Buyer beware.
Revelation doesn't change the rules of either.

Click to expand...

Not all builders are created equal. Cavear emptor, indeed.