The first of a few Questions, this time about the developement of organised religion.

[Mastodon12]

My question is simply this: accepting the premise that the doctrine professed as Christianity has a large number of facets (the trinity, the rapture, essentially all the individual doctrines that make up the whole canon) of which many were produced at came into being at different times. Accepting this premise, I have a few queries. 1) Do you believe that each of these doctrines, for example, the idea of of the trinity, circa 4th century, or the notion of a Pope, were always true, and were simply revealed at different times, and if so, why? 2) Also, at what point are new doctrines no longer valid? For example, could a doctrine claiming God existed in 5 forms, building on the trinity, come to be accepted if it was introduced now? If not, why not? Thanks.

 

[seajoy]

My question is simply this: accepting the premise that the doctrine professed as Christianity has a large number of facets (the trinity, the rapture, essentially all the individual doctrines that make up the whole canon) of which many were produced at came into being at different times. Accepting this premise, I have a few queries. 1) Do you believe that each of these doctrines, for example, the idea of of the trinity, circa 4th century, or the notion of a Pope, were always true, and were simply revealed at different times, and if so, why? 2) Also, at what point are new doctrines no longer valid? For example, could a doctrine claiming God existed in 5 forms, building on the trinity, come to be accepted if it was introduced now? If not, why not? Thanks.

1. There is no 'idea' of the Trinity, it is a fact. John 10:30 "I and the Father are one." Also look at the great commission, Matthew 28:16-20 ...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit....(three Persons in One God). Just because there was a name invented for something that already exsisted, doesn't mean it was a new idea.

2. There is nothing new to introduce...it's all in the bible already.

Also, the doctrines that are incorrect are already invalid...they have been since they were thought up.

 

[AnarKiss]

1) Do you believe that each of these doctrines, for example, the idea of of the trinity, circa 4th century, or the notion of a Pope, were always true, and were simply revealed at different times, and if so, why? 2) Also, at what point are new doctrines no longer valid? For example, could a doctrine claiming God existed in 5 forms, building on the trinity, come to be accepted if it was introduced now? If not, why not? Thanks.

Good questions Mastodon!

Lets be clear on one thing firstly. Doctrines are human conceptions. At best they are designed to express something about the Ultimate Mystery we call 'God' - and how God relates to humans and life. At worst they exist to protect man's own selfish interests.

How much truth doctrines hold is debatable. Obviously 'God' is far to big to be contained within any human doctrine - so doctrine should never be used to limit God. Rather, doctrine should be used to expand human's ideas about God. If they fail this, then I guess it could be said that they have lost their 'truth' - and lost their validity.

 

[Rafael]

Iy is a very good point that we just cannot limit God to the mere dimensions of a man. The "Trinity" is simply the name given to the Godhead - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit of the One God. It is shown in scripture from the very begining in Genesis when God said that He would make man in "our" image and likeness. This is reflected in many other scriptures of the Bible, too.

Ge 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Genesis 11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Col.2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Isaiah 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!

Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Light is unlike any other form of matter. It has three properties. These properties are inseparable, without them, there is no light. Just like God.
Without the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, there would be no God. Each is coequal, coeternal, and co infinite.
Light's three properties are the Actinic (analogous to the Father), Luminiferous (analogues to the Son), and the Calorific (analogous to the Holy Spirit). The actinic property is the property of light which is neither seen nor felt. The luminiferous property of light is both seen and felt, while the calorific property is not seen but it is felt.

 

[Silent Enigma]

Generally speaking, I say the older the better. But that, of course, has its limits as there are varying interpretations of the "oldest" doctrines. So, well,hmmm.

Anyway, you may get away with a 5 part diety if you had an audience that wanted to mix, say, Christianity with Hinduism. But y'know, "Pentity" doesn't have as nice of a ring as "Trinity", now does it?

 

[Key]

My question is simply this: accepting the premise that the doctrine professed as Christianity has a large number of facets (the trinity, the rapture, essentially all the individual doctrines that make up the whole canon) of which many were produced at came into being at different times. Accepting this premise, I have a few queries.

As it stands, all Doctrines must be validated by the Bible Scriptures. If they do not mesh with the Scriptures, they are rejected. As it stands, for the most part, they exist to explain things about the scripture to the common man (Who for a great length of time could not read and had only simple knowledge). I hate to say this, but they are more like 'Dummied down" Scripture, designed in ways to allow the uneducated to get a better grasp of God, and thus have a closer relationship with their creator and redeemer.

1) Do you believe that each of these doctrines, for example, the idea of of the trinity, circa 4th century, or the notion of a Pope, were always true, and were simply revealed at different times, and if so, why?

All Doctrine must be supported by Scripture. Doctrine for the most part is not a means to add to scripture, but to expound or simplify it so that all may understand.

2) Also, at what point are new doctrines no longer valid? For example, could a doctrine claiming God existed in 5 forms, building on the trinity, come to be accepted if it was introduced now? If not, why not? Thanks.

When they disagree with the Scripture. Doctrine is not the idea of adding, but deducing from scripture. If you wanted to make a doctrine about a 5 form god, then you are approaching the scriptures the wrong way.

But if scripture had always spoke of a 5 form God, and no one realized it, and you figured it out from scripture, then you could introduce it as your own private doctrine, but no other Christians need to accept it.

Doctrines are introduced by the different denominations for them, if others realize they possess truth, and accept them, then wonderful, if they reject them, then wonderful.

There is no “Time” validation, but there is Scripture Validation which is timeless.

God Bless

Key

 

[Mastodon12]

Thank you all very much for your replies, you have very much suprised me in that through my experience with local religion in my area I have met very many reactionary Christians unwilling to delve into theological matters. It is very relieving to find they were unrepresentative. I hope that didn't sound too patronising (!).

As for the question in hand I accept a lot of what you are saying, and am very receptive especially to (I think it was poster Anarkiss') notion of doctrine's only being tools. The only thing is, it was my understanding that the Trinity as a formalised notion only came into being via three Turkish scholars and theologians in the 4th century. This is what is cited in Karen Armstrong's book 'The History of God' and therefore I would not agree that the idea is outlined in the Bible, as it is not the same as God simply describing himself and man collectively as 'we', though I respect your point of view.

I am very fascinated by this notions of doctrine's having to be supported by the Bible. To that extent, what is the Biblical basis for:

1) A pope, and a hierarchy of priests, bishops etc.
2) The welath of the Vatican
3) The persecution shown by the Church at various times in history.

Thank you.

 

[Key]

Thank you all very much for your replies, you have very much suprised me in that through my experience with local religion in my area I have met very many reactionary Christians unwilling to delve into theological matters. It is very relieving to find they were unrepresentative. I hope that didn't sound too patronising (!).

Respected, many people end up getting a very bad sampling, and that can live with them for the rest of their life.

As for the question in hand I accept a lot of what you are saying, and am very receptive especially to (I think it was poster Anarkiss') notion of doctrine's only being tools. The only thing is, it was my understanding that the Trinity as a formalised notion only came into being via three Turkish scholars and theologians in the 4th century. This is what is cited in Karen Armstrong's book 'The History of God' and therefore I would not agree that the idea is outlined in the Bible, as it is not the same as God simply describing himself and man collectively as 'we', though I respect your point of view.

It's an odd thing, yes the "Term" was dumbed, but the idea was always there. It is along the lines of "Action Figure" before then, there were "Dolls" for boys, a wooden superman doll from the 1940's is proof of that, however, the "Action Figure" or "Male Doll" was around, the trem was not dumbed till later. Same idea with the Trnity.

I am very fascinated by this notions of doctrine's having to be supported by the Bible. To that extent, what is the Biblical basis for:

1) A pope, and a hierarchy of priests, bishops etc.

This is explained first in Leviticus, when Moses appointed "Lower" or "Other" people to deal with smaller civil matters of the people, later, this idea was built upon agian by Jesus with the 12 Apostles, who would continue with hsi work.

The first Pope was Simon (The Rock) AKA: Peter. This the 12 Arch Bishops are suppsoed to be the 12 Apostles, the Pope being the Continue of Christ. This is a Tradition.

2) The welath of the Vatican

Umm, I do not believe that is an issue of Doctrine.

3) The persecution shown by the Church at various times in history.

Thank you.

I would like to say the only people that have been killed for the Name of Jesus, were Saints, people who died because they chose death over rejection of Christ.

All the killings done in the name of any religion were done because a single (or too few) people were placed into a positiosn of power and chose to persue Personal, Polotical, or Social agendas, hiding behind the name of God and Christ.

The same holds true today, where people use the concept of "Faith" as a tool for attaining power.

God Bless

Key

 

[heron]

Hi, Mastadon--
Each of us on CF is from a different background. Not being Catholic, I haven't been brought up with the teachings that the Pope is necessary.

I respect him as a wise person and a spiritual leader, but do not consider him my authority.

Protestant practice is much more democratic, in that the higher-ups are administrators and facilitators, and the decisions of a church are made by a board of elders. The denomination offices collect a certain amount of money, but this is usually spent on payroll, running church camps, and helping sagging congregations pull themselves back up.

I do find financial accountability a concern, especially when a church has dominant leaders. We are all human, and even the most spiritual leader can slip, ignore what's going on, or just be careless.


Persecution... well, that's another story. The world is full of persecution at every level and in every corner. I don't like to admit Christianity's past, but each group had to deal with what faced them,. and we simply don't know what kind of oppression they were under that would cause them to retaliate so harshly.

From history class, we have learned that individuals and governments have chosen religion to sway the people, to hold control over them, to rev them up for a cause, to bring in funds, and to make them feel guilty. And lead them to war.

Doctrine--mankind has a long history of taking simple truths and making complicated doctrines of them. Along the lines of what Key said, people like to have the scriptures dummied down and organized and cleaned up.

This was one of Jesus' passions: he criticized the leaders for complicating the law, and losing the heart behind God's standards.


​

 

[Calminian]

As for the question in hand I accept a lot of what you are saying, and am very receptive especially to (I think it was poster Anarkiss') notion of doctrine's only being tools. The only thing is, it was my understanding that the Trinity as a formalised notion only came into being via three Turkish scholars and theologians in the 4th century. This is what is cited in Karen Armstrong's book 'The History of God' and therefore I would not agree that the idea is outlined in the Bible, as it is not the same as God simply describing himself and man collectively as 'we', though I respect your point of view.

Doctrines in history were only formalized when challenged. Apart from the Bible there is no formal authoritative body. These were just a way to hammer out those doctrines that were obvious in scripture, but recently challenged. Even the apostle Paul, the author of two thirds of the new testament, was subject to testing by ordinary people reading the Bible.

Acts 17:10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Denominationalism is probably one of the best things that could have happened to the church. Many may be shocked by that statement, but they served to prove that the essentials of christianity could be preserved even in an environment of freedom. The agreement the multiple denominations have on issues of the nature of God and the way of salvation are remarkable. Yes there are peripheral disagreements but were are given instruction on how to handle those (Rom. 14).

I am very fascinated by this notions of doctrine's having to be supported by the Bible. To that extent, what is the Biblical basis for:

1) A pope, and a hierarchy of priests, bishops etc.

The N.T. church is a completely different entity than Israel. The priesthood was a national office. The church, on the other hand, is to function within other nations (Rom. 13)

2) The welath of the Vatican

Nothing in scripture.

3) The persecution shown by the Church at various times in history.

Christians have acted wrongly at various times in history. We are sinners and vulnerable to misapplications of scripture.. But I think over all the church has been a force for good in history.

 

[Alcamo]

Mastodon12,

I'm afraid I don't have time right now to read each post in detail, but two things come to mind to mention.

First, those who teach that certain doctrines did not come into being or that certain books of the new testament were not written until centuries after Christ are grossly ignorant of history. While it's true that the Bible is the final authority, doctrines of Christ's deity, the trinity (though they did not use that word), etc. are explicitly mentioned and discussed by the earliest church fathers whose writings survive (late first and early second centuries), as well as every subsequent generation.

While it is true that the final recognition of which books belonged in the new testament did not happen for roughly 350 years or so, there are many understandable reasons why. If you're really interested, I recommend Normam Geisler and William Nix's (?) book General Introduction to the Bible.

I hope to have time to write more soon.

 

[MikeMcK]

Do you believe that each of these doctrines, for example, the idea of of the trinity, circa 4th century, or the notion of a Pope, were always true, and were simply revealed at different times, and if so, why?

I really don't know how to answer this question except to say that the Trinity is neither "the notion of a pope" nor "circa 4th century."

It is taught all throughout the scriptures.

2) Also, at what point are new doctrines no longer valid? For example, could a doctrine claiming God existed in 5 forms, building on the trinity, come to be accepted if it was introduced now? If not, why not? Thanks.

All doctrine is to be measured in light of the objective standard of scripture. It either matches or it doesn't.

If it does, then it is to be accepted. If it doesn't, then it is to be rejected.

 

[MikeMcK]

I am very fascinated by this notions of doctrine's having to be supported by the Bible. To that extent, what is the Biblical basis for:

1) A pope, and a hierarchy of priests, bishops etc.
2) The welath of the Vatican

There is none. These are inventions of men.

In fact, the Bible says that every believe is a priest so there is no need for a special order of priests, such as Roman Catholicism teaches.

3) The persecution shown by the Church at various times in history.

There is none. Sinners just act like sinners sometime.

 

[heron]

New doctrines appear every day. As Calminian implied, they're just way to handle situations and clarify, but sometimes they gain too much strength and bowl us over.

In fact, the issues that you see here are cause for similar re-evaluation, and it's insight like yours that causes reshaping of doctrine.


There are 67 verses using the word "saints," usually referring to the believers.

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=e...as&oq=jer%206:14&new=1&sr=1&nb=jer&ng=6&ncc=6

Ps 34:9
O fear the Lord, you His saints; for to those who fear Him there is no want.

Romans 1:7
To all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints...

1Pe 2:5
You also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.​

 

[stray bullet]

To answer the question of origins, Jesus appointed 12 apostles and from these men, the Vatican, the Pope, all the bishops and even the priests not only come from, but derive their authority from.

Peter was made the head of the Christian Church, able to confirm his brethern, as we see in Matthew 16:18, he is given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and his role in the faith is the foundation of the Church.

At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles and their mission began. First they spread the Gospel to the local jews, but when the jews did not accept Christ as a whole, they began preaching to the Gentiles.

Local Churches began sprouting up around the world, as the apostles and disciples began preaching. As we see recorded in the bible, the regional Churches had bishops in charge of them. Bishops are men appointed by apostles and carry the authority that Christ gave to the first twelve.

During this time, the Gospel was spread and it was later recorded in the four Gospels we know today. Some of the stories of the apostles, narrated by Luke, became the Acts (of the apostles). Paul, who went around the world preaching, wrote numerous letters to the various Churches and these made up the bulk to the New Testament. Finally, other letters were written directed at all Churches, which became known as the "Catholic letters", as they were meant for the univeral Christian audience. Finally, John wrote Revelation while on Patmos and the scriptures that make up our bible today were written.

During that time, Peter (along with Paul) and his brother Andrew went to the two capitals of the Roman Empire- Rome and Constantinople, respectively. There the men established Apostolic Seats = Sedes = Sees. Peter had already gone and established one in Antioch, while James is credited with the first, at Jerusalem. Mark also established a See at Alexandria.

Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome and their successors have stayed there for the last 2000 years. The Vatican is what we call Peter's See, because Peter's successors later built their buildings on Vatican hill, where Peter was buried. Just as Benedict XVI replaced John Paul II, this process has been going on since Peter founded it (who was replaced by Linus).

Each priest in the Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic Churches was appointed by a Bishop and each Bishop was appointed by an earlier Bishop, which goes all the way to the apostles. This is called "apostolic succession".

What is taught in these three Churches is Holy Tradition, teachings given to us by the apostles. Most of what they taught was recorded in the bible in some way. Whenever controversy came up in the Church, Ecumenical Councils were called to deal with it. The fives Sees founded by the apostles would send bishops, who, inspired by the Holy Spirit, would cover the issues. What was produced is called "doctrine".

These Councils latered ruled on what texts would be considered inspired. This canon of texts declared to be inspired are what make up our bible today.

In the 5th Century, the Churches of North Africa departed from the rest of Christianity and became known as the Coptic church.

In the 11th Century, the Churches of the east departed from the Churches of the west and became known as the Orthodox church. The west Churches retained the name "Catholic Church", which had been used to refer to the Churches that make up Christianity since the 1st Century.

In the 16h Century, King Henry VIII of England had his nation pull out of the Catholic Church and became the head of the parishes there, forming the Anglican Church.

Calvin, Martin Luther and other men either looking to reform the Catholic Church or begin their own churches also started tearing away and developing new doctrines. Doctrines based not on what the original apostoles taught, but their interpretations of the bible.

 

[stray bullet]

My question is simply this: accepting the premise that the doctrine professed as Christianity has a large number of facets (the trinity, the rapture, essentially all the individual doctrines that make up the whole canon) of which many were produced at came into being at different times. Accepting this premise, I have a few queries. 1) Do you believe that each of these doctrines, for example, the idea of of the trinity, circa 4th century, or the notion of a Pope, were always true, and were simply revealed at different times, and if so, why? 2) Also, at what point are new doctrines no longer valid? For example, could a doctrine claiming God existed in 5 forms, building on the trinity, come to be accepted if it was introduced now? If not, why not? Thanks.

All doctrines in Christians were taught by the apostles. Thus, anything new or different can not be doctrine, because it was not taught by them.

 

[heron]

Apostolic succession can appear such a mystical practice,
but I think it was just the appostles' logical way of making sure the respected leaders were teaching the same gospel.... like passing down stories through oral tradition. Some denominations now are making a strange deal of apostolic issues.

 

[Calminian]

God bless the reformers for taking us back to the authority of the Bible. I don't agree with everything they taught (though probably most) but they brought the church back to the Bible and away from strange doctrines of men.

 

[heron]

God bless the reformers for taking us back to the authority of the Bible. I don't agree with everything they taught (though probably most) but they brought the church back to the Bible and away from strange doctrines of men.