The Development of Doctrine

[thereselittleflower]

But this is doctrine right?

Right

So what doctrine do you either get/add/develop Sacred Tradition around.

I am not sure I am following your question. . . .what doctrine do I get Sacred Tradition around? do I add Sacred Tradition around? Develop Sacred Tradition around?

I follow the last option somewhat, but not the other two . .

What doctrine do we develop Sacred Tradition around . . right?


Sacred Tradition is itself a doctrine. . . .

We see mentioned in the scriptures where Paul tells us to stand fast and hold to the traditons that have been taught.

So I am not really following you here I gues either . . I am not understanding what you are getting at.

Are Sacred tradition Doctrine or visable manifestation of that doctine? Then to decide which doctrine(s) fit appropriately.

Warrior Poet

Sacred Traditions are our doctrines. They can include visible manifestations, such as the Eucharist.

I'm not quite following you . .


Peace to all

 

[thereselittleflower]

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.... ...

What does this have to do with anything?

Are you suggesting that Sacred Tradition, the doctrines of the Church, should all be dogmatic, officially defined by the pontif?


Peace to all

 

[JimfromOhio]

We are back at Scriptures versus Tradition?

I can see why God put together the Bible so He can correct Tradition's errors. Since the Bible came out, there have been some changes in Tradition.

The Bible is the voice of God calling us to wake up and He is saying this is the road map for the Church. Where God using His words to warn, command, rebuke, promise, encourage us. History demonstrated that every generation needs it own dramatic encounter with God, its great awakening by the Holy Spirit. Every generations need this awakening and the Holy Spirit is really working on us. There is a proverb saying that "all we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history". The history have demonstrated plainly that almost every denomination began as a revolt against theological error or formality in worship, worldliness in conduct, externalism or ecclesiastical tyranny. God's Word (the Bible) sometimes wounds us deeply and it is imperative because through the Bible, God speaks loudly. The Bible illumines the dark corners of heart and mind by exposing sin but reveals the way of rightousness. The Word of God (Bible) rebukes in order that we may see our faults in traditions and human nature. ''Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.'' Psalm 119:105 "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Sciptures we might have hope." (Romans 15:4).

 

[thereselittleflower]

Sometimes we can be wrong????? -

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

Where does John say that the Lamb of God is the Son of God? We know they are the same . . but where does it say that John the Baptist knew and understood this?

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

There is nothing here that indicates that they understood that the messiah was the Son of God as Peter revealed.

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.

Yes Nathaniel did say this . . but the context of what he said was not the same as that regarding what Peter said .

Nathanielw as looking for an earthly Messiah . . the King of Israel . . the term "son of God" does not necesearily have to refer to God the Son, but someone who is a special "son" of God . . The scriptures refer to the "sons of God" in the Old Testament . .

Nathaniel was speaking more in earthly terms.

Peter. however, said "Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God" . . he puts emphasis on Jesus' Divine Nature which was revealed by God . .

This is over and above what Nathan recognized Jesus to be . . .

I believe that Nathan, because of his purity of heart, had glimsped into this truth, but had not grasped it .. .

It was given to Peter to proclaim by God.



Peace to all

 

[Warrior Poet]

Right




I am not sure I am following your question. . . .what doctrine do I get Sacred Tradition around? do I add Sacred Tradition around? Develop Sacred Tradition around?

I follow the last option somewhat, but not the other two . .

What doctrine do we develop Sacred Tradition around . . right?


Sacred Tradition is itself a doctrine. . . .

We see mentioned in the scriptures where Paul tells us to stand fast and hold to the traditons that have been taught.

So I am not really following you here I gues either . . I am not understanding what you are getting at.




Sacred Traditions are our doctrines. They can include visible manifestations, such as the Eucharist.

I'm not quite following you . .


Peace to all

No you are following me.

What Sacred Tradition is attached with the Trinity? If any? Why not?

Does a Sacred Tradition verify a doctrine or vice verse. Do they verify themselves?

The problem with Pauls quote is that we ( me and you) have been taught differently... so in your use it should be to abandon the traditions taught and convert to the Traditions taught. So then are we resorting back to doctrine to confirm the tradition as Sacred?

Warrior Poet

 

[thereselittleflower]

We are back at Scriptures versus Tradition?

I can see why God put together the Bible so He can correct Tradition's errors. Since the Bible came out, there have been some changes in Tradition.

Where is evidence of CHANGES to SACRED Tradition . .

Please don't mix up DOCTRINES with practices that are also traditions but not Sacred Traditions . . .

The Bible is the voice of God calling us to wake up and He is saying this is the road map for the Church.

No . . it is not a road map by itself except to those who reject the Magesterial Teaching Office of the Church.

The bible itself proclaims the CHURCH is the Pillar and Foundaiton of the truth . . .

Where God using His words to warn, command, rebuke, promise, encourage us. History demonstrated that every generation needs it own dramatic encounter with God, its great awakening by the Holy Spirit. Every generations need this awakening and the Holy Spirit is really working on us.

Every individual needs CONVERSION . . there is not just ONE conversion in our lives . . our lives are to be one of continuous converison . .

This doesn't have anything to do with the validity of sola scriptura or Sacred Tradition.

There is a proverb saying that "all we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history". The history have demonstrated plainly that almost every denomination began as a revolt against theological error or formality in worship, worldliness in conduct, externalism or ecclesiastical tyranny. God's Word (the Bible) sometimes wounds us deeply and it is imperative because through the Bible, God speaks loudly. The Bible illumines the dark corners of heart and mind by exposing sin but reveals the way of rightousness. The Word of God (Bible) rebukes in order that we may see our faults in traditions and human nature. ''Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.'' Psalm 119:105 "For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Sciptures we might have hope." (Romans 15:4).

The scriptures do all this, yes . .

But that is not the question . . . the question is, are they alone sufficient to lead us to a correct understanding of doctrine, without error?

Sola Scriptura says yes . . .

Sacred Tradition and the Magesteriual Authority of the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of the truth, says no . . for the scriptures have to be interpreted . . you need some way of knowing if your interpretation is correct . ..



Peace to all

 

[thereselittleflower]

To have development of doctrine, it has to flow from something . . .


To have correct development of doctrine it has to flow from the right something . . .


What is that something?



Peace to all

 

[GraceInHim]

Where does John say that the Lamb of God is the Son of God? We know they are the same . . but where does it say that John the Baptist knew and understood this?

that was not John that was John the Baptist who said those words -

There is nothing here that indicates that they understood that the messiah was the Son of God as Peter revealed.

pretty clear to me

Yes Nathaniel did say this . . but the context of what he said was not the same as that regarding what Peter said .

Nathanielw as looking for an earthly Messiah . . the King of Israel . . the term "son of God" does not necesearily have to refer to God the Son, but someone who is a special "son" of God . . The scriptures refer to the "sons of God" in the Old Testament . .

Nathaniel was speaking more in earthly terms.

what is the difference son of God or son of living God - how many God's can there be? - this is RT

Peter. however, said "Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God" . . he puts emphasis on Jesus' Divine Nature which was revealed by God . .

OK he said it too - soo what - does not make it real - RT

This is over and above what Nathan recognized Jesus to be . . .

I believe that Nathan, because of his purity of heart, had glimsped into this truth, but had not grasped it .. .

It was given to Peter to proclaim by God

.

Sorry - seems clear to me he called him first the Son of God and only one to call him the KING - and John was with Mary and lived longer then any of them

 

[Knowledge3]

What does this have to do with anything?

Are you suggesting that Sacred Tradition, the doctrines of the Church, should all be dogmatic, officially defined by the pontif?


Peace to all

No, I just wanted to know the CC's official position of Catholic Theology on biblical creation in light of secular science and evolution. That is all.

If it is the form of a doctrinal exposition or exegetical statement, it would pertain to this thread regarding doctrine. My biblical creation belief is very important to me, so that is why I was inquiring of the official position of the CC on the topic at hand.

ps: forgot to say please.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Why did you make your font for your entire post so big?

that was not John that was John the Baptist who said those words -

Yes, I know . . that is what I said. John the

pretty clear to me

Well, I can't help that!

what is the difference son of God or son of living God - how many God's can there be? - this is RT

You have to understand that the Jews were looking for a Messiah . . they understood that this man would be special, a special son of God, but they did not have the concept that He would be God Himself . .

They do not believe in the Trinity. They do not beleive there is such a Person of the Trinity as God the Son . . .

Nathan's statement was not the same as Peter's statement . .

Context is important GIH.

OK he said it too - soo what - does not make it real - RT

Nathan was not speaking of the Divine Nature of Christ. This was first revealed to Peter.

Sorry - seems clear to me he called him first the Son of God and only one to call him the KING - and John was with Mary and lived longer then any of them

that is the context . . earthly King of Israel . . .

Nathan calling Jesus "Son of God" immediately followed by "King of Israel" has to do with Jesus being the promised Messiah from DAVID'S line.

In Psalm 2:7 David is called the Son of God

This verse is about both David and the Messiah.

Psalm 89:26-36 - speaks of the Sonship of David

Psa 89:26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

Psa 89:27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

Psa 89:28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.

Psa 89:29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.

Psa 89:30 If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;

Psa 89:31 If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;

Psa 89:32 Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.

Psa 89:33 Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail.

Psa 89:34 My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.

Psa 89:35 Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.

Psa 89:36 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.

​

This is all about David.

This is the context we need to understand Nathan's profession of who Jesus, the promised descendent of David, is . . .

Nathan was not speaking of Jesus as God the Son. But of Jesus being the Son of God as David was the Son of God, the FIRST BORN, David's heir . . KING OF ISRAEL!



Peace to all

 

[thereselittleflower]

No, I just wanted to know the CC's official position of Catholic Theology on biblical creation in light of secular science and evolution. That is all.

That would be a subject for another thread, and I believe it has been discussed already.

If it is the form of a doctrinal exposition or exegetical statement, it would pertain to this thread regarding doctrine. My biblical creation belief is very important to me, so that is why I was inquiring of the official position of the CC on the topic at hand.

Maybe it is not as important to the Catholic Church as it is to you to nail down every last detail.

The official position of the Church is that one cannot use evolution to explain the way man, made in God's image, came into being. That we had two original parents, Adam and Eve, they were created. What the Catholic Church leaves open is the possiblity that evolution played some part in God forming man from the dust of the ground . . . but, if so, Man is not a product of evolution any more than he is a product of the dust of the ground. Man, made in God's image, came into being by special creation . . . the exact "how" God formed man from the dust in the ground, a scientific issue not a theological one, is open . . that's all.


As far as it applying to the topic of development of doctrine, it is in development . . .

I'm not sure what you see of importance here regarding it.



Peace to all

 

[GraceInHim]

Yes, I know . . that is what I said. John the

OK

You have to understand that the Jews were looking for a Messiah . . they understood that this man would be special, a special son of God, but they did not have the concept that He would be God Himself . .

They do not believe in the Trinity. They do not beleive there is such a Person of the Trinity as God the Son . . .

Nathan's statement was not the same as Peter's statement . .

Context is important GIH.

see now this is Doctrine - I read the Bible and it clearly stated Nathanael called him Son of God and the King - Jesus did not even ask him like he asked Peter - this is when we get into "what this could mean" I do not do that - the words speak clearly - Jesus already knew all of them, before he met them, God gave his spirit to him - he said to Nathenael what he was doing before he seen him - God knows everything and so does Jesus - that is clear - so why listen to words of men when we got God?

Messiah means Christ - he did not say this and notice how Jesus says he has no guile -

that is the context . . earthly King of Israel . . .

Jesus was not a King - he was left alone at the cross to die for our sins - John did stay with him

 

[GraceInHim]

repost

 

[GraceInHim]

TLF - let us call this a truce - to me all 12 were great - as in Revelation they will be near our Lord - let us move on - noo bad feelings here - Just I like to read the words and understand them - thats all - nothing wrong with that - you got yours and i got mine

 

[thereselittleflower]

OK

LOL John the Baptist.

see now this is Doctrine - I read the Bible and it clearly stated Nathanael called him Son of God and the King - Jesus did not even ask him like he asked Peter - this is when we get into "what this could mean" I do not do that

While that is your approach, it is not one I would want to engage in . . I woul want to know what this could mean, for what it could mean definitely influences how we understand something.

If we hide our heads in a hole in a ground and say "I don't want to know what it could mean, I am happy with what I think it does mean", then such an approach will be fraught with error . .

If we take things on a very superficial level, and approach what someone else has written according to what WE would have met if we had written it, then we are not really trying to understand what the person, whose words we are reading, was actually trying to say.

To the Jews of the day his words would have been very clear, he was speaking of Jesus as David's heir to the Davidic Throne, the promised Messiah . . they would not have conceived of the possiblity that the words "Son of God" woudl mean that Jesus was Divine, that He was God.

A superficial reading of the words there is yielding a meaning inconistant with what a Jew such as Nathan would have understood.


GIH . .they were not looking for God the Son . . . They did not believe in a God the Son . . . . Nathan was not referring to God the Son.

- the words speak clearly - Jesus already knew all of them, before he met them, God gave his spirit to him - he said to Nathenael what he was doing before he seen him - God knows everything and so does Jesus - that is clear - so why listen to words of men when we got God?

Messiah means Christ - he did not say this and notice how Jesus says he has no guile -

I won't continue to debate something when the evidence I am presenting is being ignored like this. . . .

Here is more evidence . . . Solomon was God's son too

2Sa 7:12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

2Sa 7:13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

2Sa 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

​

​

failing to understand idioms of speach of the Ancient Hebrews will ead a modern day reader of scripture approaching scripture from a 21st century mindset to erroneous conclusions.

Jesus was not a King - he was left alone at the cross to die for our sins - John did stay with him

Are you saying that Nathan was wrong when he called Jesus King of Israel?



Peace to all

 

[Warrior Poet]

To have development of doctrine, it has to flow from something . . .


To have correct development of doctrine it has to flow from the right something . . .


What is that something?



Peace to all

Me personally or are you just asking?
Still curious to the Sacred Tradition belonging to the Trinity? If any.

Warrior Poet

 

[thereselittleflower]

TLF - let us call this a truce - to me all 12 were great - as in Revelation they will be near our Lord - let us move on - noo bad feelings here - Just I like to read the words and understand them - thats all - nothing wrong with that - you got yours and i got mine

OK


Peace to all

 

[GraceInHim]

ok -

 

[thereselittleflower]

Me personally or are you just asking?

Warrior Poet

Anyone . . I'm just asking . .


Peace to all

 

[GraceInHim]

ok who wants tlf next - lol