The Development of Doctrine

[Warrior Poet]

Anyone . . I'm just asking . .


Peace to all

Can you answer your own question?

Warrior Poet

 

[joyfulthanks]

It seems it's impossible to start a thread on any topic in GT without it turning into a sola scriptura vs. tradition debate.

I'm sorry I started this thread. I thought perhaps we could have a discussion on a slightly different aspect of all of this without having to rehash everything that has already been said ad naseum about sola scriptura and tradition. It seems I was wrong.

Please, carry on, but without me. I think I'll just head back to the GT Christmas-Season Cease Fire Thread.

Blessed Advent everyone!

With love in Christ,
Grace

 

[Warrior Poet]

It seems it's impossible to start a thread on any topic in GT without it turning into a sola scriptura vs. tradition debate.

I'm sorry I started this thread. I thought perhaps we could have a discussion on a slightly different aspect of all of this without having to rehash everything that has already been said ad naseum about sola scriptura and tradition. It seems I was wrong.

Please, carry on, but without me. I think I'll just head back to the GT Christmas-Season Cease Fire Thread.

Blessed Advent everyone!

With love in Christ,
Grace

I am extremely curious to who is going to finally "man up" and just say either Tradition comes from Doctrine or Doctrine from Tradition. Either way it would be quite the argument. There was no other direction this could have gone. I see that Doctrine = Sola Scripture and Tradition = Catholics... but the real issue is what came first Tradition or doctrine. The answer to the OP lies in that discussion.

For instance I know of no tradition practiced that represents or is attached to the Trinity. Yet it is considered doctrine... how did we get there?

Warrior Poet

 

[joyfulthanks]

I see that Doctrine = Sola Scripture and Tradition = Catholics... but the real issue is what came first Tradition or doctrine.

Okay, disheartened though I am, I'm back - but probably only for a moment.

I don't agree with your statement that "doctrine equals sola scriptura and tradition equals Catholic." The Catholic Church, for example, believes in the notion of the development of doctrine - that you can have a doctrine or truth that is present or implied in early Christianity, but not fully developed. An example of this would be the Marian doctrines. They might explain that these doctrines are like a baby who later grows to be a man. The person (doctrine) is fully present in infancy, though not fully developed.

Most Protestants (those who accept sola scriptura, anyway) theoretically don't believe in the development of doctrine. They believe that doctrine is given fully matured in the Bible, and subject to no further development.

I say that they theoretically believe this, because the whole notion of sola scriptura means that each person is individually deciding what doctrine is, so as people grow and change, their doctrines do develop.

Also, many Protestants believe in the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit. So the typical approach in this case would be that the Holy Spirit guides in understanding doctrine, but it will never contradict scripture.

I can't say for sure for the Orthodox, but I'm guessing that the concept of the development of doctrine, if present at all, would have ceased with the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Please forgive me for the frustration I expressed in my earlier thread. I had hoped that we could each inform others about our own beliefs, or those of our church, without necessarily debating the beliefs of others. I was hoping for more of an educational discussion than a debate, but I realize this was an unrealistic hope.

I also realize that it was unrealistic to hope that we could focus on this issue without rehashing tradition/sola scriptura.

Blessed Advent all!

With love in Christ,
Grace

 

[thereselittleflower]

No you are following me.

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

It is not a matter of attaching Sacrred Tradition to a doctrine . .

Doctrines ARE our Sacred Tradition. The Trinity is part of our Sacred Tradition.

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

They are one and the same.

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?

Taught differently, how? I was taught differently when I was a protesant in some ways, yes . . . But that is not the case now in Catholicism.

I know you don't see this, it is not what you believe. I believe that the teachings of the Church are those handed down both by word and letter as Paul describes.

I beleive they have developed over time, withstood assualts, like the Trinity.

The Trinity was not fully developed at its inception. It developed over time.

That does not mean the Church changed its teaching over time. It didn't . . .

It means there is more doggy, not less . . . not something else.

A puppy is a dog. As it matures, it grows and fills out and looks more mature.

But it is the same dog. It didn't turn into something else.


I don't know if this is helping or not. I think you have the wrong concept of Sacred Tradition . . . Are you thinking more of the Magisterium of the Church?



Peace to all

 

[thereselittleflower]

I am extremely curious to who is going to finally "man up" and just say either Tradition comes from Doctrine or Doctrine from Tradition.

Its neither. It's both.

How can one pick when the choice given is false?

Either way it would be quite the argument. There was no other direction this could have gone. I see that Doctrine = Sola Scripture and Tradition = Catholics... but the real issue is what came first Tradition or doctrine. The answer to the OP lies in that discussion.

Sacred Tradition is doctrine. Doctrine is Sacred Tradition

For instance I know of no tradition practiced that represents or is attached to the Trinity. Yet it is considered doctrine... how did we get there?

Warrior Poet

I don't understand your question. . . .

Do you think that Sacred Tradition is about Practices?


No . .

Practices are different type of tradition, ecclesial tradition that can be changed . . .

Yet there are things we do that are part of our Sacred Traditions like the Eucharist . .these are not ecclesial practices.


What "practice" would you expect to see for a Doctrine such as the Trinity?

I don't understand.



Peace to all

 

[Warrior Poet]

Okay, disheartened though I am, I'm back - but probably only for a moment.

I don't agree with your statement that "doctrine equals sola scriptura and tradition equals Catholic." The Catholic Church, for example, believes in the notion of the development of doctrine - that you can have a doctrine or truth that is present or implied in early Christianity, but not fully developed.

This I dont have a problem with. The reject or deniel that our knowledge grows or stops I dont think is accepted by anyone. Knowledge affecting doctrine now I see the demila. But in both Protestant and Catholic you have constantly changing understanding of doctrine. Wether changed or clarified, or interpreted different it still is in a constant form of change.

My goal was to get you back I dont really agree with that statement either but it looked as if we were headed that way.

Most Protestants (those who accept sola scriptura, anyway) theoretically don't believe in the development of doctrine. They believe that doctrine is given fully matured in the Bible, and subject to no further development.

I say that they theoretically believe this, because the whole notion of sola scriptura means that each person is individually deciding what doctrine is, so as people grow and change, their doctrines do develop.

I see the similarities in both examples more then the contrasts.

But they do recognize mature leaders. Being that in the past and present there will be those more mature with a better understanding of the Doctrine being taught/developed.

Also, many Protestants believe in the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit. So the typical approach in this case would be that the Holy Spirit guides in understanding doctrine, but it will never contradict scripture.

I guess this would be our turning point. Because as far as I can tell Sacred Tradition or simply tradition is often, and seems to be, defended on Biblical basis' and scripture, doctrine. No?

I can't say for sure for the Orthodox, but I'm guessing that the concept of the development of doctrine, if present at all, would have ceased with the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

About the 5th Century right?

Warrior Poet

 

[thereselittleflower]

Okay, disheartened though I am, I'm back - but probably only for a moment.

I don't agree with your statement that "doctrine equals sola scriptura and tradition equals Catholic." The Catholic Church, for example, believes in the notion of the development of doctrine - that you can have a doctrine or truth that is present or implied in early Christianity, but not fully developed. An example of this would be the Marian doctrines. They might explain that these doctrines are like a baby who later grows to be a man. The person (doctrine) is fully present in infancy, though not fully developed.

Exactly.

Most Protestants (those who accept sola scriptura, anyway) theoretically don't believe in the development of doctrine. They believe that doctrine is given fully matured in the Bible, and subject to no further development.

Yep.

I say that they theoretically believe this, because the whole notion of sola scriptura means that each person is individually deciding what doctrine is, so as people grow and change, their doctrines do develop.

Also, many Protestants believe in the personal guidance of the Holy Spirit. So the typical approach in this case would be that the Holy Spirit guides in understanding doctrine, but it will never contradict scripture.

Yes, that is what they believe, but it begs the question, how can this be true if there are thousands of conflicting interpretations all claiming that they Holy Spirit guided them and their interpretation doesn't contradict scripture?

I can't say for sure for the Orthodox, but I'm guessing that the concept of the development of doctrine, if present at all, would have ceased with the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

That is pretty much how they see it.

Please forgive me for the frustration I expressed in my earlier thread. I had hoped that we could each inform others about our own beliefs, or those of our church, without necessarily debating the beliefs of others. I was hoping for more of an educational discussion than a debate, but I realize this was an unrealistic hope.

I also realize that it was unrealistic to hope that we could focus on this issue without rehashing tradition/sola scriptura.

Blessed Advent all!

With love in Christ,
Grace

It can be tried, but it is going to come up . . it is impossible not to. I am not the one who introduced the issue into the thread to begin with. . . it came up before I posted.



Peace to all

 

[Warrior Poet]

Its neither. It's both.
How can one pick when the choice given is false?
Sacred Tradition is doctrine. Doctrine is Sacred Tradition

Kinda the beauty of it. I wasn't making you choose one.. your answer was fine.

I don't understand your question. . . .

Do you think that Sacred Tradition is about Practices?
No . .
Practices are different type of tradition, ecclesial tradition that can be changed . . .
Yet there are things we do that are part of our Sacred Traditions like the Eucharist . .these are not ecclesial practices.
What "practice" would you expect to see for a Doctrine such as the Trinity?
I don't understand.

You might not understand but you are answering my questions.

Doesn't it have to be about practices as well, perhaps not every time, but as you just stated, about the Eucharist, there are outward signs of our doctrine. Why not the Trinity? Or others for that matter. I know there are some in my doctrine as well.

If we separate the two types of "traditions" where does the doctrine intersect with "practices" and make them no longer ecclesial but "Sacred" or as Protestants call them "Basic"? At inception? Is that possible?

We both believe they developed over time withstanding.... why did traditions such as the ones Christ himself partook in, many being jewish, not stand the test of time in Gentile churches, but were thought to be Sacred to many "christians" at the time. At some point they must have been deemed ecclesial, and no longer a part of developing doctrine? At what point do you determine when the practice either holds no value or is preventing the growth of the doctrine?

Warrior Poet

 

[thereselittleflower]

Kinda the beauty of it. I wasn't making you choose one.. your answer was fine.



You might not understand but you are answering my questions.

Doesn't it have to be about practices as well, perhaps not every time, but as you just stated, about the Eucharist, there are outward signs of our doctrine. Why not the Trinity?

The Eucharist requires outward signs . . .

What about the Trinity would require an outward sign as part of the doctrine itself?

Or others for that matter. I know there are some in my doctrine as well.

If we separate the two types of "traditions" where does the doctrine intersect with "practices" and make them no longer ecclesial but "Sacred" or as Protestants call them "Basic"? At inception? Is that possible?

As part of what the doctrine is, in regards to what the doctrine itself requires.

For intance, the Doctrine regarding Baptism requires water. The Doctrine regarding Holy Orders requires the laying on of hands. The Doctrine regarding Annointing the Sick requires Holy Oil.

What distinguishes practices that are not required and those outward signs that are, is what the dodtrine itself requires.

We both believe they developed over time withstanding.... why did traditions such as the ones Christ himself partook in, many being jewish, not stand the test of time in Gentile churches, but were thought to be Sacred to many "christians" at the time.

Please give me an example of what you are talking about . .

In general though, I would suspect that it had to do with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and most of the Jewish Christians . . . One would not expect to see traditions Jewish Chrstians may have cherished, but were not part of the doctrines of the Christian faith, to have transferred over to Gentile Christians.

Does this make sense?

At some point they must have been deemed ecclesial, and no longer a part of developing doctrine?

Not knowing specifically what you are referring to, it is hard to address specfics, but they would never have been part of the developing doctrine of the Church. . .

At what point do you determine when the practice either holds no value or is preventing the growth of the doctrine?

Warrior Poet

Please give me an example of what you are talking about for your question makes no sense the way I understand Sacred Tradition and its outward signs.


Peace to all

 

[CaDan]

The Eucharist requires outward signs . . .

What about the Trinity would require an outward sign as part of the doctrine itself?

I would think most of the Fathers would consider the words in the Divine Liturgy as an outward sign.

 

[Knowledge3]

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



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

Thank you very much thereselittleflower.

The participants in this thread are more interested in a general topic not related to what I wanted to discuss...I thought the CC had a specific and official doctrinal statement regarding Creation...Not to worry, I will be taking this to OBOB.

In that thread,I am going to inquire about the complete Theological position on the Catholic Trinity as compared to the Theological position of the Trinity regarding different Christian faiths and teachings...I hope you visit it...

Carry on:

 

[linssue55]

"You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine." -Titus 2:1(NIV)​

​

Bible doctrine, the body of teaching drawn from a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, is the standard for spiritual truth. Bible study provides spiritual nourishment for the believer (Matthew 4:4, 1 Peter 2:2, John 6:27).

The importance of Bible doctrine cannot be overemphasized (Psalm 138:2). God commands the Christian to be inwardly transformed (Romans 12:2). This transformation requires renewing the mind daily through learning and applying Bible doctrine as found in the Word of God (2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 4:23).

 

[thereselittleflower]

I would think most of the Fathers would consider the words in the Divine Liturgy as an outward sign.

I was thinking along the lines of something physical . . sorry, I didn't make myself clearer.


Peace to all

 

[thereselittleflower]

"You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine." -Titus 2:1(NIV)​

Bible doctrine, the body of teaching drawn from a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, is the standard for spiritual truth. Bible study provides spiritual nourishment for the believer (Matthew 4:4, 1 Peter 2:2, John 6:27).

We disagree as to what Doctrine is drawn from.

"A literal interpretations of the scriptures is the standard afor spiritual truth"
​

Please show us where this is stated in the scriptures ?

The importance of Bible doctrine cannot be overemphasized (Psalm 138:2). God commands the Christian to be inwardly transformed (Romans 12:2). This transformation requires renewing the mind daily through learning and applying Bible doctrine as found in the Word of God (2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 4:23).

Let's look at what you said here:

"The importance of Bible doctrine cannot be overemphasized (Psalm 138:2). "

Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
​

Where does the verse you referenced above even speak about scripture (ie the bible)?

"God commands the Christian to be inwardly transformed (Romans 12:2). "

Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
​

Where are the scripture mentioned there at all? Where does it say that the scriptures are necessary for the renewing of our minds?

"This transformation requires renewing the mind daily through learning and applying Bible doctrine as found in the Word of God (2 Corinthians 4:16; Ephesians 4:23)"


​

2Co 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

Eph 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;


​

Where do either of these verse even mention the scriptures in any way?


You have not presented on scripture that supports your position that one has to rely on a literal interpretation of scripture as the standard of biblical truth let alone prove that one needs scripture for the renewing of their mind . . . . .




Peace to all

 

[Warrior Poet]

The Eucharist requires outward signs . . .

What about the Trinity would require an outward sign as part of the doctrine itself?

So this doctrine has no requirements that go with it then? Except for us to view the Trinity as doctrine? I read what CaDan said and that was not the first time I heard this, kinda why I was staying with this line of questions.

As part of what the doctrine is, in regards to what the doctrine itself requires.

For intance, the Doctrine regarding Baptism requires water. The Doctrine regarding Holy Orders requires the laying on of hands. The Doctrine regarding Annointing the Sick requires Holy Oil.

What distinguishes practices that are not required and those outward signs that are, is what the dodtrine itself requires.

So in reference to what the Doctrine requires, the finer points must be made. For example for Baptism water is required but what about the water holds significance to that Doctrine? What do you do with the water? Its purpose is?

In the Annointing of the Sick it requires Holy Oil but what is its purpose? A requirement of doctrine must have been made a requirement out of purpose, or one can argue necessity but if that be the case it underlines the importance of that requirements purpose. No?

In general though, I would suspect that it had to do with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and most of the Jewish Christians . . . One would not expect to see traditions Jewish Chrstians may have cherished, but were not part of the doctrines of the Christian faith, to have transferred over to Gentile Christians.

Does this make sense?

Yes it makes sense. So then the development of Doctrine has steps it must take. Like step one would be inception. So where did/does the inception of Doctrine take place? Is it born a puppy, inception, and starts to get fed, grow, and develop. At what point are the requirements outlined as simply requirements and no longer just traditions associated with it? Were the requirements always present and always recognized as such?

Not knowing specifically what you are referring to, it is hard to address specfics, but they would never have been part of the developing doctrine of the Church. . .

I am not trying to be specific, this is about Doctrine and at this point am trying to stay away from specific Doctrine... that can be discussed elsewhere. I think this is where I disagree. If the jewish christians had traditions which were kept, at some point, they must have been deemed either non applicable or simply traditions. But then don't we have to run with the notion that it was "part" of the developing doctrine, because it was present in the beginning at inception? Wether is stood the test of time is a different matter.

Please give me an example of what you are talking about for your question makes no sense the way I understand Sacred Tradition and its outward signs.

Take the Eucharist or Communion as I grew up calling it.
It is a Sacred Tradition a Basic, doctrine. It requires Christ's "flesh" the bread, wafer.... and Christ's "blood" the wine, or grape juice..... It requires the partakers. It requires the giver. It requires previous knowledge of Christ.

To me these are essential requirements to the doctrine or Sacred Tradition... we have evidence of its inception, multiple times in the Bible, so at what point did these requirement make a cohesive doctrine. In other words did its development and outlining of requirements came as it withstood time?

But then I am left asking is the Doctrine or Sacred Tradition fully present at its inception?

In other words the dog is fully grown now, and at some point that will become a full reality to him. He can no longer run all day, or fit under the coffee table. Because the dog has not realized its fully grown does that mean its still a puppy?

Warrior Poet