Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

ivebeenshown · May 17, 2011

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Bingo.

Thus the fundamental flaw in your "name it/claim it" rubric, this concept of yours that if SELF alone claims stuff for self alone - ergo, it's true. And ergo self alone declaring that self alone is "the best method of preserving dogma."

You clearly do not understand what I mean when I say 'it's not that simple.'

It's not just 'if SELF alone claims stuff for self alone - ergo, it's true', because as I have told you, that only works if 'self' has such authority from God. That means I first have to establish a belief that some 'self' has this authority from God, and then I can believe that 'self' infallibly teaches truth.

sunlover1 said:
Forgeries?

Who would do that?

Pseudepigrapha... like 'Acts of Peter', or whatever...

Thekla · May 17, 2011

ivebeenshown said:
You clearly do not understand what I mean when I say 'it's not that simple.'

It's not just 'if SELF alone claims stuff for self alone - ergo, it's true', because as I have told you, that only works if 'self' has such authority from God. That means I first have to establish a belief that some 'self' has this authority from God, and then I can believe that 'self' infallibly teaches truth.Pseudepigrapha... like 'Acts of Peter', or whatever...

I guess Noah would fall under "alone agrees with self alone " ... and likely Abraham.

CaliforniaJosiah · May 17, 2011

ivebeenshown said:
Josiah said:

ivebeenshown said:

Josiah said:

ivebeenshown said:

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

Click to expand...

No. It's YOU claiming something for yourself. That's it. That's all.

Click to expand...

It's not that simple.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Thus the fundamental flaw in your "name it/claim it" rubric, this concept of yours that if SELF alone claims stuff for self alone - ergo, it's true. And ergo self alone declaring that self alone is "the best method of preserving dogma."

Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand what I mean when I say 'it's not that simple.'

It's not just 'if SELF alone claims stuff for self alone - ergo, it's true', because as I have told you, that only works if 'self' has such authority from God.

And who/what besides the RCC alone claims that the RCC alone has some "authority?"

Yes, I know that CATHOLICS submit to such (such as Mormons do the LDS), but it's still the SAME rubric (the one you are defending AND rejecting): "Self claims XYZ - and bingo, it's true." Or is it not that simple?

.

ivebeenshown · May 17, 2011

CaliforniaJosiah said:
And who/what besides the RCC alone claims that the RCC alone has some "authority?"

Yes, I know that CATHOLICS submit to such (such as Mormons do the LDS), but it's still the SAME rubric (the one you are defending AND rejecting): "Self claims XYZ - and bingo, it's true." Or is it not that simple?

I don't believe that 'Church claims X so X is true' just because the Church claims to have that authority. That's what I mean when I say 'it's not that simple.' If I were to believe that 'Church claims X so X is true' just because the Church claimed to have that authority, I would have to believe what the RCC, the LDS, and the Watchtower all said. You see? That's not how it works. It's not that simple.

Rdr Iakovos · May 17, 2011

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Thus, your rubric is rejected by you: self alone agreeing with self alone does NOT indicate that self alone is correct and is infallibly "preserving" what was correctly taught in the First Century.... It's possible to be WRONG - in spite of sincerity and passion. Thus, your rubric falls. It's just that self can designate self as immune to what self accuses everyone else of - but such ego doesn't imply correctness, either.

.

You missed the sarcasm- another participant implied that . I diagree completely, of course.
So your corrective comments are misdirected.
No apologies are necessary .

Rdr Iakovos · May 17, 2011

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Okay. I alone say that I alone am infallible and sinless. Ergo, I am?

If self claims whatever for self, ergo God agrees and it is indisputably so?

Are you embracing a radical form of "name it, claim it?"

Or perhaps considering Mormonism?

.

Are you enjoy your interview with the Strawman you just created?

Philothei · May 17, 2011

CaliforniaJosiah said:
And who/what besides the RCC alone claims that the RCC alone has some "authority?"

Yes, I know that CATHOLICS submit to such (such as Mormons do the LDS), but it's still the SAME rubric (the one you are defending AND rejecting): "Self claims XYZ - and bingo, it's true." Or is it not that simple?

.

What is the point of comparing RCC to LDS? We can do that for any denomination/church CJ...

Philothei · May 17, 2011

Yeah it seems that we are going overboad with the comparison here

Philothei · May 17, 2011

ortho_cat said:
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.

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.

Apostolic succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These communions I have included are: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Church of England (Anglican), and Assyrian Church of East. I haven't included Lutherans because this claim is disputed among them.

These common beliefs are:

-Eucharist is true body and blood of our Lord, effectual for our salvation
-Baptism remits sins and is effective for our salvation (i.e. grace is received)
-Belief in 7 sacraments*
-RC/EO/CoE agree on first 7 councils, OO on first 3, and ACOE on first 2
-Baptism of infants
-Liturgical worship
-All use deuterocanonicals canonized by RCC**
-Use prescribed church calendar (fasts/feasts)
-Salvation is not an instantaneous "event", rather a process
-Monastics (monks/nuns)
-Prayer for the dead
-Communion of saints
-Episcopal polity (church governance structure, bishop is head, priests are auxilliary of bishop, deacons assist priest)
-Declare Mary as Theotokos (birthgiver of God) and ever-virgin
-Amillenialism eschatological (end-times) view

*Baptism, eucharist, chrismation/confirmation, holy orders, confession, marriage, unction)
**CoE adds Jerome's foreward, and Ethiopian Orthodox uses a different translation of Maccabees. Also, some consider other books inspired as well, but they all agree on these.

This list is not exhaustive; there are more. If anyone finds any errors in what I've said, or if you'd like me to add anything, please let me know.

It is also worth noting that Lutheran's also share many beliefs in common with the above as well.

I would be interested to see a similar list for Protestants so we can compare it to the list I made. Keep in mind that Protestantism is pretty much confined to the West (or at least they were originally) and only have 500 years to account for, while the Apostolic Churches comprise both East and West, and account for 2000 years. Would anyone be up to the task?

Shall we stick a bit to the OP here please?

CaliforniaJosiah · May 17, 2011

ivebeenshown said:
I don't believe that 'Church claims X so X is true' just because the Church claims to have that authority. That's what I mean when I say 'it's not that simple.' If I were to believe that 'Church claims X so X is true' just because the Church claimed to have that authority, I would have to believe what the RCC, the LDS, and the Watchtower all said. You see? That's not how it works. It's not that simple.

Good. Then you're earlier point that IF self says it - it's true is a point you too reject.

Now, let's get back to your point:

I stated that what SELF says about SELF is just that - and doesn't mandate that such is ergo correct.

Now, let's review the exchange. READ it....

Josiah said:
ivebeenshown said:

Josiah said:

ivebeenshown said:

Josiah said:

ivebeenshown said:

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

Click to expand...

No. It's YOU claiming something for yourself. That's it. That's all.

Click to expand...

It's not that simple.

Click to expand...

Bingo.

Thus the fundamental flaw in your "name it/claim it" rubric, this concept of yours that if SELF alone claims stuff for self alone - ergo, it's true. And ergo self alone declaring that self alone is "the best method of preserving dogma."

Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand what I mean when I say 'it's not that simple.'

It's not just 'if SELF alone claims stuff for self alone - ergo, it's true', because as I have told you, that only works if 'self' has such authority from God.

Click to expand...

And who/what besides the RCC alone claims that the RCC alone has some "authority?"

Yes, I know that CATHOLICS submit to such (such as Mormons do the LDS), but it's still the SAME rubric (the one you are defending AND rejecting): "Self claims XYZ - and bingo, it's true." Or is it not that simple?

.

Thekla · May 17, 2011

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Good. Then you're earlier point that IF self says it - it's true is a point you too reject.

Now, let's get back to your point:

I stated that what SELF says about SELF is just that - and doesn't mandate that such is ergo correct.

Now, let's review the exchange. READ it....

And who/what besides the RCC alone claims that the RCC alone has some "authority?"

Yes, I know that CATHOLICS submit to such (such as Mormons do the LDS), but it's still the SAME rubric (the one you are defending AND rejecting): "Self claims XYZ - and bingo, it's true." Or is it not that simple?

Please; I second the notion that we bring the thread back to on-topic (Philothei).

sunlover1 · May 17, 2011

Originally Posted by sunlover1

Forgeries?

Who would do that?

ivebeenshown said:
.Pseudepigrapha... like 'Acts of Peter', or whatever...

Which is not a problem as we know that they are pseudo.
And how is this an issue, couldn't a church stoop to
forgeries?... oh wait.
sily rabbit

ivebeenshown · May 17, 2011

sunlover1 said:
Which is not a problem as we know that they are pseudo.

How do we know they are pseudo? How was the tradition of knowing which writings are authentic preserved?

sunlover1 · May 17, 2011

ivebeenshown said:
How do we know they are pseudo? How was the tradition of knowing which writings are authentic preserved?

I dont know, how did they decide that ?

And did you see my point that your church has forged documents?
Obviously your church (men) can't be trusted as the most "reliable" method
for preserving doctrine.
I'll say that our Bridegroom, who has given us His seed (Scripture)
is able and that He's already given us every thing we need for life
and godliness in Himself and in His seed.

We being "the church"

ivebeenshown · May 17, 2011

sunlover1 said:
I dont know, how did they decide that ?

Maybe it's something that should be looked into, especially if one is to contend that Scripture is their sole rule of faith.

And did you see my point that your church has forged documents?
Obviously your church (men) can't be trusted as the most "reliable" method
for preserving doctrine.

No, I did not see that.

I'll say that our Bridegroom, who has given us His seed (Scripture)
is able and that He's already given us every thing we need for life
and godliness in Himself and in His seed.

Great but what does Scripture consist of? If everything we need for life and godliness is to be found in Scripture, we better be sure we have the full and authentic body of Scripture, right? What method was used to preserve the doctrine of what is Scripture?

sunlover1 · May 17, 2011

ivebeenshown said:
Maybe it's something that should be looked into, especially if one is to contend that Scripture is their sole rule of faith.

I studied this about 11 years ago.
Not really interested in having every detail in my head
(Not that it would stay put there for long anyhow lol)

No, I did not see that.

That's cool though?
"The church" can forge documents
but you're all worried about God's Word
being messed with .. read, GOD's Word
(we dont need to worry about GODs stuff guy!)

Great but what does Scripture consist of? If everything we need for life and godliness is to be found in Scripture, we better be sure we have the full and authentic body of Scripture, right? What method was used to preserve the doctrine of what is Scripture?

Move on and dig in.
Why go backward? Have you gone from trusting
God's word to now worrying about which "methods"
were used to preserve it?
God used men.
God preserved it.
You got it.
Enjoy!

Philothei · May 17, 2011

Mod hat on

Originally Posted by ortho_cat

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.

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.

Apostolic succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These communions I have included are: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Church of England (Anglican), and Assyrian Church of East. I haven't included Lutherans because this claim is disputed among them.

These common beliefs are:

-Eucharist is true body and blood of our Lord, effectual for our salvation
-Baptism remits sins and is effective for our salvation (i.e. grace is received)
-Belief in 7 sacraments*
-RC/EO/CoE agree on first 7 councils, OO on first 3, and ACOE on first 2
-Baptism of infants
-Liturgical worship
-All use deuterocanonicals canonized by RCC**
-Use prescribed church calendar (fasts/feasts)
-Salvation is not an instantaneous "event", rather a process
-Monastics (monks/nuns)
-Prayer for the dead
-Communion of saints
-Episcopal polity (church governance structure, bishop is head, priests are auxilliary of bishop, deacons assist priest)
-Declare Mary as Theotokos (birthgiver of God) and ever-virgin
-Amillenialism eschatological (end-times) view

*Baptism, eucharist, chrismation/confirmation, holy orders, confession, marriage, unction)
**CoE adds Jerome's foreward, and Ethiopian Orthodox uses a different translation of Maccabees. Also, some consider other books inspired as well, but they all agree on these.

This list is not exhaustive; there are more. If anyone finds any errors in what I've said, or if you'd like me to add anything, please let me know.

It is also worth noting that Lutheran's also share many beliefs in common with the above as well.

I would be interested to see a similar list for Protestants so we can compare it to the list I made. Keep in mind that Protestantism is pretty much confined to the West (or at least they were originally) and only have 500 years to account for, while the Apostolic Churches comprise both East and West, and account for 2000 years. Would anyone be up to the task?

Please stay on topic or this thread will be closed for staff review!

If you wish to discuss all other peripheral topics open another thred!!

Thanks folks!!

Mod hat off

Montalban · May 17, 2011

BloodyRachel said:
The Holy Spirit gives all truth. Therefore, we can't BOTH have the Holy Spirit. God isn't the author of confusion. If a prophet tells us to follow foreign gods, we don't listen.

How do you know your truth is true?

Montalban · May 17, 2011

sunlover1 said:
Forgeries?

Who would do that?

Um? A forger?

sunlover1 · May 17, 2011

Montalban said:
How do you know your truth is true?

True!

Montalban said:
Um? A forger?

lol

Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

Expert invisible poster and thread killer

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Expert invisible poster and thread killer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Love never fails

Love never fails

Love never fails

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Beloved, Let us love one another

Expert invisible poster and thread killer

Beloved, Let us love one another

Expert invisible poster and thread killer

Beloved, Let us love one another

Love never fails

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Beloved, Let us love one another

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency