Most reliable method of preserving doctrine?

[Rick Otto]

How do you know your truth is true?

How do you know you know what you think you know?

 

[sunlover1]

Hod you know you know what you think you know?

Amen bro
There are absolutely no absolutes.

 

[Thekla]

Well, there is One absolute ...

 

[Rick Otto]

Amen bro
There are absolutely no absolutes.

Absotively, posilutely.

 

[Montalban]

How do you know you know what you think you know?

I'm not the one making those comments about the Holy Spirit. I do enjoy you interjecting to my posts. It's nice to feel loved

 

[Montalban]

Amen bro

So you agree with the poster I was replying to re: the Holy Spirit

There are absolutely no absolutes.

Thanks for the paradox

 

[Montalban]

BUMP

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.

I'm forwarding this so that two posters might care to state why they seem to agree with it, or more why they seem to disagree with me.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Rick Otto How do you know you know what you think you know?

I'm not the one making those comments about the Holy Spirit. I do enjoy you interjecting to my posts. It's nice to feel loved

Nice duck.

 

[Montalban]

Well, there is One absolute ...

Absolutely!

 

[sunlover1]

So you agree with the poster I was replying to re: the Holy Spirit

absolutely .. NOT!
I just wanted to get in on some of the wordplay fun.

Thanks for the paradox

Thought you'd enjoy it.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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

What is the Topic again?

 

[sunlover1]

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.

Hi BR.
What if we both have the Spirit of God in us but one of us sins?
God is not the author of sin, OR confusion.
KWIM?

I don't think I said WHO has the Holy Spirit. I just said not everyone can have him. That's true if people disagree about really important topics.

I can understand how you might come to this conclusion.
But a more logical conclusion, IMO, due to what I've read
in the Bible, is that one has studied and learned to rightly
divide the Word while another is just learning.. perhaps?

There are different stages and levels in the fam!
Some are just more skilled than others.
..for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in
the word of righteousness, since he is a child

IMO.

 

[Montalban]

Thought you'd enjoy it.

Immeasurably

 

[Montalban]

What is the Topic again?

Nice car!

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Nice car!

Thanks!

 

[patricius79]

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:
....
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?

that's interesting. the divisions among the reformers were pretty serious and bitter even on fundamental issues like free will and the means of salvation, baptism, Lord's Supper, etc, were they not?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That's right.

The RCC has a "grand unity" of ONE: itself alone with itself alone, agreement only, solely, uniquely, with the ONE it itself sees in the mirror: itself. And even that is ONLY formally, officially, institutionally, on dogmas - and only on those that it itself currently regards as good to agree upon it. It agrees with NO other.

The WORSE that can be said of any other denomination that might be mentioned is that it's like the RCC in this regard.




.

 

[heymikey80]

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.

And you don't correct that perception by claiming some other group has some authority it doesn't have.

Recognizing that, reveals that what's preserved is not original doctrine. It's doctrine with mixture of error. So it's not preserved -- it's added-to.

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

ROFL! Nobody's said my view is infallible -- your icon, however ...! To claim one is equivalent to the other is simply wrong. I claim Presbyterianism because well, it's clearly Biblical. Y'wanna tell me where Paul tells someone to appoint bishops, and give them infallible authority when they make decisions as a group?

Failing that, what's preserved is not original doctrine. It's derivative doctrine.

And you escape that, how?

Pointing to the original. Focusing on the original. Using fallible methods to reach closer to the original.

It's better than claiming some entity's infallible when it isn't. Because it isn't.

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

No, I'm saying I'm LESS prone to human error by noting carefully where human error could occur. Then I can seek it out on the assumption that it's there. I'm certainly of the opinion that's far better than claiming some entity arbitrarily doesn't have human error and pursuing an errant path on the assumption that it's inerrant. Do you think I could demonstrate that instructionally from Scripture? "He who thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall", maybe? The Apostolic instruction is to take heed. Not to assume infallibility.

Is it better to search for human error or ignore it?

With those errors included, what's preserved is not original doctrine. It's fallible doctrine.

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?

And you have the temerity to claim my views are not being assailed, while at the same moment trying to assail them. I note again that strategy. It's not well-reasoned. Once again, if you're going to do something like this, please permit your opposition to react in kind. If you mention it, expect the mention back to you.

 

[heymikey80]

The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church -- surely this means the Church is infallible?
Why would God let the pillar and foundation of truth be something which is fallible?

So -- when the Assyrians did not prevail against the gates of Jerusalem -- then Jerusalem was infallible? Or was Jerusalem relying on her God?

 

[sunlover1]

Most reliable method of preserving any teaching, is to tell your friends, and then have
them tell theirs and on and on as such.
Everyone knows that, that's why we dont bother with silly things like records.