Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

I have participated in several discussions on the TAW board where the subject was the difference between dogma and doctrine.

As I recall, the words "dogmatic error" is reserved for serious issues of heresy. On one thread, it was said that there were no dogmatic issues between EO and the RCC. There are clearly serious church-dividing doctrinal issues. There are neither dogmatic issues nor doctrinal issues separating EO from OO, only differing theological opinion, misunderstandings and a bit of history.

ortho_cat said:

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

Click to expand...

ortho_cat said:

Amillennialism has been widely held in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches as well as in the Roman Catholic Church, which generally follows Augustine on this point and which has deemed that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught."[4] Amillennialism is also common among "mainline" Protestant denominations such as the Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican churches. It is also common among groups arising from the 19th century American Restoration Movement such as the Churches of Christ,[15]:125 Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. It even has a significant following amongst Evangelical Christian denominations. Partial Preterism is sometimes a component of amillennial hermeneutics. Amillennialism declined in Protestant circles with the rise of Postmillennialism and the resurgence of Premillennialism in the 18th and 19th centuries, but it has regained prominence in the West after World War II.

wiki

Click to expand...

I suppose that is one reason I never delved much into the early ECFs as most here appeared to have...I am strictly Solo Scriptura

http://www.christianforums.com/t6730673-140/#post42616669
Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

ortho_cat said:

Amillennialism has been widely held in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches as well as in the Roman Catholic Church, which generally follows Augustine on this point and which has deemed that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught."[4] Amillennialism is also common among "mainline" Protestant denominations such as the Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican churches. It is also common among groups arising from the 19th century American Restoration Movement such as the Churches of Christ,[15]:125 Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. It even has a significant following amongst Evangelical Christian denominations. Partial Preterism is sometimes a component of amillennial hermeneutics. Amillennialism declined in Protestant circles with the rise of Postmillennialism and the resurgence of Premillennialism in the 18th and 19th centuries, but it has regained prominence in the West after World War II.

wiki

Click to expand...

ortho_cat said:

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.

Click to expand...

I previously pointed out that an enforced unity in ever-widening lists of beliefs doesn't really reflect well on preservation. Preservation of Apostolic doctrine doesn't mean preservation of accretions afterward.

Which Apostle was a monk?

As for unity, y'ever read the 39 Articles?

"Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel"
"Commonly called Sacraments but not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel"

And then there are Calvinistic Anglicans, who would probably have a much stronger retort to your assertions than I would.

Even from my view, from Presbyterian interests, the church catholic is much more fragmented than asserted on paper here. Its substantial issues would tend to be problematic for ya.

But then, just skin the onion differently and I'm sure you can find unity among a smaller group of denominations claiming Apostolic Succession.

ortho_cat said:

I think many considered St. John the Baptist a monastic.

There was no enforced unity among the groups after they split. They were free to make changes as they saw fit. They were not accountable to each other.

Apostolic succession has to be historically verifiable, it can't just be claimed.

Anglicans recognize 2 sacraments to be institued by Christ, yes, as we all do (baptism, eucharist) but they still believe the 7 sacraments I listed.

Click to expand...

Does the EOC/OOC agree with the RCC's view of Apostolic Succession

http://www.christianforums.com/t722607-4/#post8529379
Roman Apostolic Succession

Here I have compiled a series of selections from Eusebius's Church History, books II-III which proves that the line of the early episcopate at Rome is correct. These only prove the first 5 popes.

heymikey80 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, whether or not to physically baptize seems a pretty big 'difference' to me (plus, the question of "what is" baptism ...)

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.

Click to expand...

This is not the same as the issue of whether or not to physically baptize (and Constantine was a convert - the "if" of physical baptism was not an issue but the "when", and the "when" re: converts is to some extent a matter for the bishop -- ie, there is not a doctrinal difference demonstrated by your example).

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

Click to expand...

Not a doctrinal division (see above).
Some denominations do not physically baptize, others will not baptize infants or children.

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.

Click to expand...

huh
Pray means ask -- asking Mary for her prayers is done (I'm not sure why this is a difference, as ACs do this). Mary's "life as prayer" (ie living a life in God) is of particular demonstrable benefit to all Christians. IE, I was giving an "aside" point.

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?

Click to expand...

The practice of asking the righteous for their prayers well predates the ECFs (Judaism)-- and you seem to be arguing against something having more than one understanding (ie a deeper understanding, or more than one benefit). It seems that the understanding you present "sits on the surface", and thus sees any deeper meaning as actually a variety of meanings.

ortho_cat said:

I think many considered St. John the Baptist a monastic.

Click to expand...

He certainly wasn't cloistered.

ortho_cat said:

There was no enforced unity among the groups after they split. They were free to make changes as they saw fit. They were not accountable to each other.

Click to expand...

Yeah. And they did.

The idea of a Reformation is to reform in order to remove the verdigris of pious ramblings, and get back to the brilliant flame of Christ's death and resurrection for our sins.

So there's less support for such positions among the Apostolic writings -- and thus more support for limiting to those positions the Apostles supported.

ortho_cat said:

Apostolic succession has to be historically verifiable, it can't just be claimed.

Click to expand...

Um, yeah. Verification requires interpretation. So you're looping in on yourself. "Who are my brothers?"

ortho_cat said:

Anglicans recognize 2 sacraments to be institued by Christ, yes, as we all do (baptism, eucharist) but they still believe the 7 sacraments I listed.

Click to expand...

Without considering them sacraments, they're just "commonly called sacraments". But hey, good try. Those holding to the 39 Articles don't really consider them sacraments, although anglo-Catholics do consider them sacraments of some sort.

Again, it's a unification of divided opinions.

You've no doubt noticed that lots of churches believe in marriage, too. They just don't call it a sacrament.

heymikey80 said:

He certainly wasn't cloistered.

Click to expand...

Maybe you're thinking of a narrower idea of monasticism ...

You've no doubt noticed that lots of churches believe in marriage, too. They just don't call it a sacrament.

Click to expand...

A question -- betrothal is a contract (was in Judaism iirc, and still is in the EO), and marriage (which is after the betrothal, which is when the vows are said and sealed) is the sacrament (presently, betrothal and marriage are done at the same time though were and still can be done separately) -- are "protestant" services the parallel of betrothal, marriage, or both ?

ortho_cat said:

Well, if lists are not going to be compared, then what do you think of this comparision argument?

Apostolic Churches: Longer timeframe (2000 years), larger geographical distribution (East,West), more uniformity of belief, less division (sects).

Sola Scriptura Churches: Shorter timeframe (500 years), smaller geographical distribution (West), less uniformity of belief, more division (sects).

Would anyone like to propose a counter argument to this?

Click to expand...

Sure.

Apostolic Churches: longer timeframe, greater timeframe under centralized authorities, more uniformity of teachings developed during their periods of association.

Sola Scriptura Churches: shorter timeframe, dramatically more information distribution about what Apostolic writings actually said, wider spread of those doctrines and interpretations among their people, and divisions triggered by the desire to preserve and project those views over against those doctrines perceived to not be supported by what the Apostles wrote. Tendency to reduce the number of unsupported doctrines and increase the value of clearly-written Apostolic teaching. Lack of central authority structure due to lack of a clear authority structure during the Apostolic period. Central consideration of Scriptural text and unity over those items.

The direction of AS churches is natural, but grows doctrines that aren't always Apostolic. The direction of SS churches is natural, but removes doctrines that aren't clearly Apostolic.

Apostolic Successionists might also have trouble dealing with the Elizabethan and Cromwell period with respect to the Anglican church.

ortho_cat said:

Well, if lists are not going to be compared, then what do you think of this comparision argument?

Click to expand...

1. Yes, the EO only agrees with the EO. Just like the LDS only agrees with the LDS. What I don't understand is WHY you think this has some significance? The EO doesn't agree with a single other denomination on the planet - not one of the other 49,999 (if some Catholic's insistence that there are 50K denominations is to be accepted) - at least not fully (or even if we were to limit that ONLY to DOGMAS). Self agrees with self - exclusively (and even that is limited to officially, formally and institutionally). Now, I agree - that's true for a goodly number of other denominations, too! There are some others just as "guilty" here as yours. But again, I just don't follow you (sorry!) - why is that a GOOD thing?

Apostolic Churches: Longer timeframe (2000 years), larger geographical distribution (East,West),

Click to expand...

1. At another site, a Syrian Orthodox pretty much convinced me that his is the oldest denomination. So what? Hinduism is older than the Syrian Orthodox Church. Ford is an older company than Toyota - does that mean that Ford is infallible/unaccountable/exempt from truth? Or even ergo "better?"

2. As to which is more "geographically" disputed, I again fail to see your point (sorry, again). SO WHAT? And I think it has a lot to do with how such is incorporated in various political jurisdictions. Actually, the LDS claims to be present in nearly every country on the planet, does that make it "better" than The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod" which is only incorporated in 50 US States (beyond that, it has "partner" churches - but not the same denomination)? When Christianity was limited to a VERY small area (what today is largely Israel), was it then invalid and wrong - only to become "right" in the 18th century when it became a truely world-wide religion? I'm just not following you at all....

more uniformity of belief

Click to expand...

Well, if you want to hand pick 3 denominations out of 50,000 - and say "These 3 have a lot in common," well - I think any of us here could do that, and never mention your denomination. And remember: your denomination agrees with NONE but ITSELF - even if we limit that solely to official DOGMAS. NO denomination on the planet - none of the 50,000 - is worse than yours in that regard (not a lot of them better, either - I realize). How does that reality mean that your denomination has.....anything?

Sola Scriptura Churches: Shorter timeframe (500 years)

Click to expand...

Churches can't use Scripture, only Christians can.... But I disagree with you. Moses used Sola Scriptura - and he predates the Syrian Orthodox Church by some 1400+ years. Jesus used it at least 50 times (that the NT records) - and He predates the Syrian Orthodox denomination. I think that using Scripture normatively is MUCH older than a denomination declaring self to have so much POWER as to mandate a "pass" on truth and quiet, docilic, submission to self - insisting that all regard that whenever self speaks, GOD is speaking.


Which has more "sects?" Sadly, the later - as any study of the cults will reveal.


Again, I'd be willing to compare my "agreements" with the ubercalvinist friend both using Scripture normatively to your agreement with my uberLDS friend both looking to the "authority" of your denomination. We'll see just where more agreement is found.






.

MamaZ said:

Jesus said continue in my word and ye shall know the truth. And the truth shall set you free.

Click to expand...

There you are! G'day, I was waiting for you to post on this thread.

Isolation said:

I have always found it offensive to be honest when someone calls me a protestant. I am not a protestant and I hold little to no similar views...

Click to expand...

According to NewWineskin there arne't any one set of views that one could call Protestant.

So if you don't hold to their views, I'm not sure where that leaves you.

Lion King said:

I believe in God, His Son and the Holy-Spirit. I believe that the Bible is the word of God. Does that make a protestant?

Click to expand...

Yes

hedrick said:

Going back to the original question, the only way I know of to preserve a set of doctrines is to adopt them as authoritative. Apostolic succession alone doesn't do it; in addition, the people involved have to be committed to preserving the doctrine. Remember, the Anglican Church has the succession. The only way to avoid saying that they have a valid Apostolic Succession is to say that they violated the intention of the succession by changing doctrines.

The Lutheran and Reformed traditions also maintain a set of doctrines by being confessional churches. They don't require a literal succession, although in practice I believe the existing Lutheran and Reformed churches can all be traced back to the Reformation churches. Rather, their constitutions are based on the concept of being a confessional church.

There are conservative and liberal Lutheran and Reformed churches, but there's nothing in the Apostolic Succession to specify exactly how literally later people will agree with the earliest holders of the doctrine. Indeed the current understanding of "no salvation outside the church" is almost certainly a liberalized interpretation, and there are other areas where interpretation have changed over time as well.

The Orthodox have probably stayed the closest to unchanging doctrine. They tend to emphasize unchanging doctrine as a goal. It sounds to me like they place a higher priority on doctrinal continuity and a lower one on physical continuity, although they do have that.

Of course this whole discussion somewhat missed the point from a Protestant point of view, since our goal is conformity to the teachings of Jesus and the original Apostles, more than doctrinal continuity. In practice Protestants tend to be Nicene, because we see the Nicene Creed as containing things that are Scriptural. But continuity with the Nicene Creed, or preserving doctrine in general, is not in itself a goal for us.

Click to expand...

This is what always gets me though; you can't really say that the extremely liberal/conservative Lutheran/Reformed churches aren't actually Lutheran or Reformed. Simply because there is no centralized authority in either group to definitively state that they have strayed to far, and some churches may accept the liberal/conservative groups and others might not. However, you can clearly identify what churches are and are not Catholic either because they have broken away or been excommunicated as a whole.

Another example is how some Baptists congregations claim to be Reformed, but yet they belong to a Baptist convention; so you're forced to wonder whether they are Baptist or Reformed.

I'm not trying to be rude but the ambiguity in Protestantism about what Protestants as a whole believe really bugs me. They are very few doctrines that you can state that Protestants believe without someone saying "not all Protestants believe that."

Again, I'd be willing to compare my "agreements" with the ubercalvinist friend both using Scripture normatively to your agreement with my uberLDS friend both looking to the "authority" of your denomination. We'll see just where more agreement is found.

Click to expand...

The LDS sprung out of a Protestant Restorationist movement so how can you compare them to the RCC/EO? It's an even more unlikely comparison because of the claims of Joseph Smith. If anything you should be comparing the LDS to the Church of Christ since they both sprung from the same movement.

Lion King said:

No, but it seems for some reason unbeknownst to me, I am labelled a protestant simply for not conforming to the RCC.

I prefer the Christian tag, that's all.

Click to expand...

The problem with that is it leads to a false dichotomy.

Too many times I hear Protestants refer to "Christians and Catholics". Catholics are Chrisitan.

In general, if your church adheres to sola fide, and sola scriptura, you're a Protestant