The Development of Doctrine

[joyfulthanks]

I'm interested in discussing the concept of the development of doctrine. I would like to hear the views of various groups on this issue. Do you and/or your group believe that doctrine should continue to develop over time, or do you believe that it should remain static? Why or why not?

I started to write a summary here of my own understanding of the beliefs of the various groups with regard to this concept, and then realized I was asking for a whole lot of trouble! I was sure to misrepresent somebody, and we all know what happens when you do that around here!


Please, folks, let's keep this civil.

Blessed Advent all!

With love in Christ,
Grace

 

[joyfulthanks]

Hmmm, it seems I may be the only one interested in this. That's interesting, because I think that this issue is at the very heart of all our disagreements.

 

[GraceInHim]

yes it is GMP - sad but true - too much pride and know it all's - not being guided by the spirit - The words of God and his son are my guide



I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” (John 16:7-14).

 

[joyfulthanks]

Hi Gracie!

So do I understand you to be saying that you believe that doctrine does develop (and new things are revealed) over time via the Holy Spirit guiding individuals?

Blessed Advent!

With love in Christ,
Grace

 

[Warrior Poet]

I was reading the Book of Concord online last night and I believe the section I was in was written but Luthor... who basically seemed to be saying that there are doctrine's which are to never evolve for the sake of the person (weak minded is how it was referring to them) for a change in some doctrines undo all the work that came before that. It struck me as interesting.

Ill get more specific when I get home.

Warrior Poet

 

[GraceInHim]

Hi Gracie!

So do I understand you to be saying that you believe that doctrine does develop (and new things are revealed) over time via the Holy Spirit guiding individuals?

Blessed Advent!

With love in Christ,
Grace

Oh yes, we have seen nothing yet - they develop in the Spirit filled person not of traditions of men - all people can receive it and it guides you to truth in the words of our God and his son -

 

[Lynn73]

The word of God is my guide also with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I think that new things can be revealed to people as they grow in their walk with the Lord but if it's from God none of it will nullify or contradict the written canon of Scripture. Doctrine is developled from our reading and understanding what God is saying in His word. While God can reveal things we may not have seen before I don't believe doctrine changes since the truth doesn't change. Example: Jesus said He is the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by Him. That will never change. It will always be true.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hmmm, it seems I may be the only one interested in this. That's interesting, because I think that this issue is at the very heart of all our disagreements.

I don't think it is . . . I think at the heart of our disagreements is the issue of scripture alone vs Sacred Tradition and scripture . . .



Peace to all

 

[GraceInHim]

you really cannot say on here - there are Orthodo saying thier church is true and Catholics disputing it - then Angelicans saying no no -

traditions - I skip it and go right to the source - God's words through all the books

 

[thereselittleflower]

Oh yes, we have seen nothing yet - they develop in the Spirit filled person not of traditions of men - all people can receive it and it guides you to truth in the words of our God and his son -

See what I mean GraceMercyPeace? (not attacking you GIH in anyway, just using your post as an example )

"not of traditions of men"


It all comes back to the issue of Tradition vs Scripture alone. . . what is it? How does it influence our doctrines? Is there such a thing as Sacred Tradition or are all traditions the traditons of men?


Peace in Him

 

[Warrior Poet]

It all comes back to the issue of Tradition vs Scripture alone. . . what is it? How does it influence our doctrines? Is there such a thing as Sacred Tradition or are all traditions the traditons of men?

Not (vs.) each other... emphasis on the other.
What about traditions from the Bible.. what about Jewish traditions spoken of and excercised and how are they rolled into Christianity? Then you are stuck with Gentile traditions and their mixture of jewish traditions, i.e. what ones to accept which ones not neccessary to follow. Then you have dates actually instituting doctrine, and the issue of oral traditions and their development and change.

Warrior Poet

 

[thereselittleflower]

you really cannot say on here - there are Orthodo saying thier church is true and Catholics disputing it - then Angelicans saying no no -

traditions - I skip it and go right to the source - God's words through all the books

But Grace . . that just begs the question . . how do you know you are understanding God's word in scripture rightly?





Just because there are groups who disagree on what Sacred Tradition teaches, does that mean there is not a real Sacred Tradition?


Just because groups that name the name of Christ do not all agree on the Trinity, does that make the Trinity doctrine false?


Peace to all

 

[GraceInHim]

But Grace . . that just begs the question . . how do you know you are understanding God's word in scripture rightly?





Just because there are groups who disagree on what Sacred Tradition teaches, does that mean there is not a real Sacred Tradition?


Just because groups that name the name of Christ do not all agree on the Trinity, does that make the Trinity doctrine false?


Peace to all

How do you know your's are? How did Jesus make your church the body of his?

Because Peter did not only tell Jesus he was the son of God - thier was another - before Peter was even chosen - one who was without guile -

I stick with the words of God and Jesus - for they show true light -

 

[thereselittleflower]

Not (vs.) each other... emphasis on the other.
What about traditions from the Bible.. what about Jewish traditions spoken of and excercised and how are they rolled into Christianity? Then you are stuck with Gentile traditions and their mixture of jewish traditions, i.e. what ones to accept which ones not neccessary to follow. Then you have dates actually instituting doctrine, and the issue of oral traditions and their development and change.

Warrior Poet

What I meant was Sacred Tradition vs Sola Scriptura . . what we look to as the final authoirty in matters of faith and morals.

Sola Scriptura does not do away with tradition, for it can't . . we are people, human beings, and traditions are a necessary part of our lives. We cannot do without them no matter how hard some may try to do so . . .


The issue is what do we look to as the plumbline of our faith, of our beliefs . .


You are asking it seems about how we know what is Sacred Tradition, what is to be held to.

Paul told us that we are to stand fast and hod to the traditions that have been taught, whether by word (verbally) or by letter (written ie scripture).

He is spekaing of the teaching of the Apostles, and puts what was passed down verbally and what was passed down in writing (our scriptures) on the same level . . one is not above the other.



How do we do what he tells us to do if we hold Scripture above Sacred Tradition? Or if we don't even know what Sacred Tradition is?




Peace to all

 

[GraceInHim]

oh and TLF - I love the cross - in nome di padre, figlio spirto santo amen

 

[thereselittleflower]

How do you know your's are?

I don't depend on my personal understanding of scripture.

How did Jesus make your church the body of his?

Thou art Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build My Church and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

Does this mean that all who are not Catholics are not part of the body of Christ?

No!

That is not what we are talking about here though . . that is a different issue altogether . .

We are talking about what is at the heart of our disagreements here . .

The OP suggested it was the development of doctrine . . .

but it is more fundamental than that . .


It has to do with the place we give scripture and Sacred Tradition . . . Development of Doctrine has to flow from something . . .

Because Peter did not only tell Jesus he was the son of God - thier was another - before Peter was even chosen - one who was without guile -

It is difficult to follow what you are saying here . . . no one else told Jesus that He was the Son of God . .

Peter was the first to make this announcement . . .

I stick with the words of God and Jesus - for they show true light -

I agree . . .


But you also agree that you are fallible just as I am, and we are both prone to error in our personal understanding.

(You don't claim to be infallible do you? )


So, while you stick to the scriptures, you have to ineterpret them . . your ability to do so is prone to error . . .

So how can you be sure that what you believe is indeed right?


Peace to all

 

[thereselittleflower]

oh and TLF - I love the cross - in nome di padre, figlio spirto santo amen

me too!





Peace to all

 

[Warrior Poet]

What I meant was Sacred Tradition vs Sola Scriptura . . what we look to as the final authoirty in matters of faith and morals.

Sola Scriptura does not do away with tradition, for it can't . . we are people, human beings, and traditions are a necessary part of our lives. We cannot do without them no matter how hard some may try to do so . . .


The issue is what do we look to as the plumbline of our faith, of our beliefs . .


You are asking it seems about how we know what is Sacred Tradition, what is to be held to.

Paul told us that we are to stand fast and hod to the traditions that have been taught, whether by word (verbally) or by letter (written ie scripture).

He is spekaing of the teaching of the Apostles, and puts what was passed down verbally and what was passed down in writing (our scriptures) on the same level . . one is not above the other.



How do we do what he tells us to do if we hold Scripture above Sacred Tradition? Or if we don't even know what Sacred Tradition is?




Peace to all

But this is doctrine right?
So what doctrine do you either get/add/develop Sacred Tradition around [EDIT] or vice versa. Are Sacred tradition Doctrine or visable manifestation of that doctine? Then to decide which doctrine(s) fit appropriately.

Warrior Poet

 

[Knowledge3]

I don't think it is . . . I think at the heart of our disagreements is the issue of scripture alone vs Sacred Tradition and scripture . . .



Peace to all

Hello thereselittleflower...

I would like to know the full official position of the RCC pontificate position on the Biblical Genesis and Creation VS Evolution debate? Please? Since you are very knowledgeable on teaching the CC perspective, I ask you to provide me with that specific doctrinal position....You could post here or in PM...Then an interesting discussion pertaining the thread will develop on the aspects of different doctrines.... ...

 

[GraceInHim]

It is difficult to follow what you are saying here . . . no one else told Jesus that He was the Son of God . .

Peter was the first to make this announcement . . .

Sometimes we can be wrong????? -

john 1 36And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!


37And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.

38Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

39He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.

40One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.

41He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, <--MEANS CHRIST-- which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. <--- called Peter a rock

43The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.

44Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

45Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.



46And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.



47Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!



48Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.



49Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. <--- he already knew Jesus' was Davids' Line - never mentioned Christ or Messiah - he mentioned latter days.



50Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.

51And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.