Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No, we share many beliefs and practices in common with other apostolic churches, a clear indication of good preservation.

1. Does the EO fully agree with ANY denomination but itself? Is there even ONE other denomination to which yours has full agreement just on DOGMAS?


2. WHICH are "preserved?" The DOGMA of the infallible/superior Roman Pontiff? Purgatory? Original Sin? Transubstantiation? Immaculate Conception of Mary?


3. The RCC issues a new Catechism every few years - always with lots of additions, as well as editing. The Lutheran Catechism has not changed ONE letter - adding, deleting, changing a single letter or puntuation mark in nearly 500 years. Which do you think is less "preserving?" (I realize you aren't Catholic, of course - but the question is nonetheless relevant since you claim it is "perserving" right dogma).


4. Do you sincerely think that if one dug through the 50,000 denominations, one could not come up with at least 7 things that 2 of them agree on (I think you list was 7)? Is that SINCERELY your thought? And if I could find 7 things two denominations agree on (in spite of several DOGMAS they disagree on), what would that prove to you?






.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

1. Does the EO fully agree with ANY denomination but itself? Is there even ONE other denomination to which yours has full agreement just on DOGMAS?


2. WHICH are "preserved?" The DOGMA of the infallible/superior Roman Pontiff? Purgatory? Original Sin? Transubstantiation? Immaculate Conception of Mary?


3. The RCC issues a new Catechism every few years - always with lots of additions, as well as editing. The Lutheran Catechism has not changed ONE letter - adding, deleting, changing a single letter or puntuation mark in nearly 500 years. Which do you think is less "preserving?" (I realize you aren't Catholic, of course - but the question is nonetheless relevant since you claim it is "perserving" right dogma).


4. Do you sincerely think that if one dug through the 50,000 denominations, one could not come up with at least 7 things that 2 of them agree on (I think you list was 7)? Is that SINCERELY your thought? And if I could find 7 things two denominations agree on (in spite of several DOGMAS they disagree on), what would that prove to you?

I listed what we share in common, take it for what it's worth. The point is, there are 2 main camps into which we can distinguish the body of believers; those who profess tradition/apostolic succession, and those who profess sola scriptura. Both are means of preserving/regulating doctrine and practice. This thread is a comparison study to first determine what the individual camps share in common amongst themselves, and then cross compare the lists between the 2 camps. For you to take 5 denominations out of the 30,000 and compare them would not be an accurate comparision to what I did. The challenge is take all Christians who profess SS and compare their beliefs and come up with a list for what they share in common. Finding commonalities is the first step to unity. After all, that's what we want, right? That's what Christ wanted for his Church, anyways.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I listed what we share in common, take it for what it's worth.

Here is what I note...


Your admission that your denomination fully agrees ONLY with itself and no other...


You seeming admission that your denomination agrees with no other even on DOGMAS (it certainly disagrees with the RCC on several)...


While you seem able to find 7 things your denomination agrees with the RCC one about, you seem to not disagree that it's probably possible (among the 50,000 denominations some Catholics insist exist) to find two denominations that agree on 7 things (while also disagreeing on several DOGMAS - issues of highest importance)

Both are means of preserving/regulating doctrine and practice

I invite you to read the following http://www.christianforums.com/t7544221/ . Show me where it says ANYTHING about "preserving" anything.

Since NONE of the denominations that claim some version of "Apostolic Succession" agree with ANY other even on DOGMAS, I fail to see how any such version "preserves" anything - much less makes self exempt from the issue of truth.





.

 

[Montalban]

"Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?"

scripture .

everything else is flawed.

It's illogical.

Peter went and preached. He went from place to place. He was a witness.

Your reply would be "But how can I know what you saw, it's not written down!"

 

[Montalban]

That would be all of us really.

Why's it not "Acts of All the Believers"?

The NT is written by Apostles, or their companions, and Paul, who bore special witness.

Hosea the Mule-skinner who might have followed Jesus for three years - would you read his account?

 

[sunlover1]

But God did use the Church as a means to preserve the scriptures, along with her doctrines and practice.

God DID use Christians to preserve Scripture.. Thank GOD He didn't
use donkeys.. that would just be weird!

Why's it not "Acts of All the Believers"?

AFAIK, God didn't give Book titles with Scripture but IIRC this book
has often been called Luke's Second Book, as it is the second
volume of Luke's Account.

The NT is written by Apostles, or their companions, and Paul, who bore special witness.

Yes and it's written by God actually, and it's written, as is the OT, for OUR
benefit. Not for Matthew's or Mark's or Paul's...

Hosea the Mule-skinner who might have followed Jesus for three years - would you read his account?

Certainly, but unless it was God breathed, it would be devoid of life, and so
not as valuable to me..

 

[Thekla]

Is God breathed Scripture of benefit to the hearer also in a language the hearer does not understand ?

 

[sunlover1]

Is God breathed Scripture of benefit to the hearer also in a language the hearer does not understand ?

Good question. I don't have the answer.

God has given us so many promises in His Word.
I say promises because God doesn't lie.
But it seems like unless one knows and believes a promise,
then it's not manifested in their situation...
I could be wrong but if the truth will set you free...
CAN it set you free if you can't "hear" it?

What do you think?

 

[Montalban]

God DID use Christians to preserve Scripture.. Thank GOD He didn't
use donkeys.. that would just be weird!

I agree. And he chose well.

AFAIK, God didn't give Book titles with Scripture but IIRC this book
has often been called Luke's Second Book, as it is the second
volume of Luke's Account.

Odd that God inspired the book, but not the title But anyway, if you get a chance to read it, it's about the Apostles and the early church, and the church under their direction.

Yes and it's written by God actually,

But not the title!

and it's written, as is the OT, for OUR benefit. Not for Matthew's or Mark's or Paul's...

That's missing the point. It's NOT an account of Nathaniel the Gourd-Seller who followed Jesus for three years.

Each book is written by one of the 12 Jesus chose, or someone who wrote on their behalf, and Paul, also chosen

Certainly, but unless it was God breathed, it would be devoid of life, and so not as valuable to me..

How do you know it's God breathed?

When was it canonised?

 

[cygnusx1]

It's illogical.

Peter went and preached. He went from place to place. He was a witness.

Your reply would be "But how can I know what you saw, it's not written down!"

and just where does it say Peter went from place to place preaching ? scripture ! everything else is flawed .

 

[cygnusx1]

'Everything else' including the un-inspired interpretation of Scripture.

of course .

 

[cygnusx1]

By this I suppose you mean the practice of Sola Scriptura. How is it's track record for preserving doctrine among the believers who adhere to it?

It doesn't promise to preserve doctrine outside of itself .... men are permitted to differ and get things wrong , unlike scripture .

Perhaps you could list for me some of the doctrines that the believers share in common.

believers are flawed .....

 

[Montalban]

and just where does it say Peter went from place to place preaching ?

It actually doesn't address what I wrote about the illogic of your position.

Actually we have other accounts of the Christian community spreading.

And we have 'tradition' that for instance Peter went to certain places and founded churches.

Not just Peter, all of the Apostles. We have a tradition that Thomas went to India. And it's backed up by the appearence of churches around the time tradition says that Thomas was there.

 

[jsimms615]

Not to be disrespectful to who started this thread, but the most reliable way to preserve doctrine is by the power of the Holy Spirit. If you rely on man, you would always get things fouled up.

 

[Montalban]

It doesn't promise to preserve doctrine outside of itself .... men are permitted to differ and get things wrong , unlike scripture .

Why would Jesus leave us in the dark like that?

 

[cygnusx1]

Is God breathed Scripture of benefit to the hearer also in a language the hearer does not understand ?

no.

edification and understanding go hand in hand [ 1 Cor 12-14 ]

One of the first things the Reformers did was to translate scripture into the language of the people they were ministering to .... this was almost always opposed !

 

[Montalban]

Not to be disrespectful to who started this thread, but the most reliable way to preserve doctrine is by the power of the Holy Spirit. If you rely on man, you would always get things fouled up.

It begs the question of how do you know it's the work of the Holy Spirit.

James talks of the demons of the air who tremble and believe, so just having belief is not enough

 

[MrPolo]

It doesn't promise to preserve doctrine outside of itself .... men are permitted to differ and get things wrong , unlike scripture .


believers are flawed .....

According to your statement here, the very canon of Scripture is flawed since it is man who received and identified said books. And the books themselves have to be flawed, since men like Matthew, Mark, Luke, or Isaiah, etc. penned them. So you must reject the reliability of Scripture to maintain consistency in your statement. Otherwise, you must admit that God is capable of preserving His truth through men.

 

[cygnusx1]

Why would Jesus leave us in the dark like that?

you have scripture , therefore how are you in the dark ?

have you never heard of the perspecuity of scripture ?

man is the problem not scripture .

 

[Montalban]

you have scripture , therefore how are you in the dark ?

have you never heard of the perspecuity of scripture ?

man is the problem not scripture .

You just gave your own answer.

According to you we're in the dark because although we have a perfect scripture we're all imperfect so that there's no guarantee that any one's interpretation of perfect scripture is correct.

You've not addressed tradition, such as of St. Thomas.

You've not addressed the illogic of Peter preaching imperfectly until he wrote it down.