Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Oral contracts are legally binding

and in the case of contracts, a written one only supercedes a oral one if they contradict...this says nothing if the oral contract includes something that the written one doesn't mention.

I studied Mormonism for about a year. I discovered nothing in LDS Tradition that contradicted Scripture. By your rubric, it's all true then. I disagree with your rubric (thus, I'm not LDS).

.

He did not say that 'what does not contradict Scripture must be true', he did not say that at all.

The premise is that the written ONLY applies if a contradiction. If the written is silent, the oral stands as legally binding. Now read what I posted.




.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The premise is that the written ONLY applies if a contradiction. If the written is silent, the oral stands as legally binding. Now read what I posted.

I did read what you posted.

"I studied Mormonism for about a year. I discovered nothing in LDS Tradition that contradicted Scripture. By your rubric, it's all true then. I disagree with your rubric (thus, I'm not LDS)."

orthocat did not say that 'if something doesn't contradict Scripture, then it's all true' as you are implying. He posed no such 'rubric'. Why don't YOU read what HE posted now?

 

[Montalban]

The premise is that the written ONLY applies if a contradiction. If the written is silent, the oral stands as legally binding. Now read what I posted.

What is written doesn't automatically supersede what is spoken.

I already went over this some time ago regarding chains of "best evidence" here

 

[Montalban]

Trumped by written contracts.


My rental contact even contains a clause something like this: "This agreement supersedes any oral agreements."

If you have a clause in that contract then probably yes, it might in that case. To then assume that a written contract supersedes an oral contract is a mistake.

Further something can be explictly stated in a written contract that is not enforceable in law.

For example you could draw up a written contract saying that you are going to make regular monthly payments on a car and pay in cocaine.

This, despite being written would not be enforceable because it is illegal.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What is written doesn't automatically supersede what is spoken.

I see. When does it and when doesn't it?


Because I found nothing in Mormonism that contradicts Scripture. I don't think ANY of the difference between the EO and RC (remember 1054) countradict Scripture and they both were said so are they both correct?


When WHAT/WHO speaks? Joseph Smith? The Orthodox Church? Jim Jones? Pope Benedict? Martin Luther? Mary Baker Eddy? The Anglican Church? Arius? Ignatius? Origen? The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod?


WHICH Tradition? EOC? OOC? RCC? LDS?




.

 

[Montalban]

I see. When does it and when doesn't it?

That would depend on your jurisdiction, what the area of law is, and so on.

Because I found nothing in Mormonism that contradicts Scripture. I don't think ANY of the difference between the EO and RC (remember 1054) contradict Scripture and they both were said so are they both correct?

That's your own argument turned on your own stance.

You keep repeating this logical fallacy that two different and opposing beliefs some how mean either
a) neither are right
or
b) we can't know who is right.

If you want to discuss WHICH is right, that's the subject of a totally different discussion.

I don't know why you keep repeating this fallacy - perhaps you've no other point to discuss.

But here's something for you... show me why two opposing theories are both wrong

To give you an example of what comes up all the time.... currently in the theory of evolution there are two mutually exclusive ideas regarding the rise of man - an 'Out of Africa' hypothesis (aka Mitochondrial Eve), and a Multi-regional theory (aka Diregional theory). Science doesn't seize up because of this. Both could be wrong. But that there are two mutually exclusive claims doesn't mean both are automatically wrong

But I'd like to see how you think that they would be.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

put it in a jar and seal it tight.

 

[Rick Otto]

put it in a jar and seal it tight.

& put it in a Qumran Cave.

 

[Montalban]

put it in a jar and seal it tight.

I think someone did that one already

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

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 (Traditional 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
-Jesus descended into Hades after death
-Refer to spiritual elders as Father/Mother
-Primary day of weekly worship is Sunday (Day of Resurrection)
-Eucharist is a sacrifice (a re-presentation of Christ's single sacrifice)

*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?

put it in a jar and seal it tight.

& put it in a Qumran Cave.

I think someone did that one already

Like who?




.

 

[brinny]

hide it in yer heart, like David did.