The Holy Spirit's guidance in the creation of doctrine throughout history

[mmmcounts]

How would you describe the role of the Holy Spirit in the formation of doctrine throughout history? I tend to think of this with three rough divisions:

The early church doctrine like the hypostatic union and early Trinitarian dogma (the seven ecumenical councils pretty much cover this),
The Great Schism seems like another logical dividing point (along with a change in the way authority was defined and perceived),
And of course, the Protestant Reformation.

The primary issues I'd like to address are as follows:

What is the general sense in which you would describe the Holy Spirit's role in the formation of doctrine, and in what sense is His activity unchanging throughout Church history, even as the shape of the Church changes?

How do you know when doctrine is being created without the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

What is your perspective on Christians who hold to different doctrines and/or creeds than you, particularly as it relates to the role of the Holy Spirit in various "church communities" other than your own?

How does the activity of the Holy Spirit (as He pertains to this topic) compare between these kinds of groups- your own church community, those that are very similar to yours, those that are different, and those that you're at odds with?

That's a lot of questions on a complex topic, but the main one I want to focus on (at least for now) is the first issue.

What is the general sense in which you would describe the Holy Spirit's role in the formation of doctrine, and in what sense is His activity unchanging throughout Church history, even as the shape of the Church changes?

Thanks, guys. I'm looking forward to some valuable insight from a variety of perspectives.

 

[wayseer]

How would you describe the role of the Holy Spirit in the formation of doctrine throughout history? I tend to think of this with three rough divisions:

The early church doctrine like the hypostatic union and early Trinitarian dogma (the seven ecumenical councils pretty much cover this),
The Great Schism seems like another logical dividing point (along with a change in the way authority was defined and perceived),
And of course, the Protestant Reformation.

The primary issues I'd like to address are as follows:

What is the general sense in which you would describe the Holy Spirit's role in the formation of doctrine, and in what sense is His activity unchanging throughout Church history, even as the shape of the Church changes?

How do you know when doctrine is being created without the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

What is your perspective on Christians who hold to different doctrines and/or creeds than you, particularly as it relates to the role of the Holy Spirit in various "church communities" other than your own?

How does the activity of the Holy Spirit (as He pertains to this topic) compare between these kinds of groups- your own church community, those that are very similar to yours, those that are different, and those that you're at odds with?

That's a lot of questions on a complex topic, but the main one I want to focus on (at least for now) is the first issue.

What is the general sense in which you would describe the Holy Spirit's role in the formation of doctrine, and in what sense is His activity unchanging throughout Church history, even as the shape of the Church changes?

Thanks, guys. I'm looking forward to some valuable insight from a variety of perspectives.

Wow! That all?

Let me ask you a question - the answer to which might help answer some of your questions. What is the church?

 

[mmmcounts]

Wow! That all?

Let me ask you a question - the answer to which might help answer some of your questions. What is the church?

Depends who you ask. I'd imagine that would have an effect on the content of a person's response.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

The Church is the body of Christ-- All Christians from Catholics to the most bare walls Protestant. I think one of the reasons for so many denominations is that God talks to humans in differnt ways. God knows we are all different and gives us a free will therefore not every D appeals to everyone. I am catholic and love the beauty of the Church I can't imagine not being Catholic, however I respect a lot of Portestants and their adherence to scripture, and some amazing faith.

 

[cubinity]

What is doctrine?

Is it our working knowledge with the expectation we will discover more as we move forward, behaving similarly to theories in the scientific community?

Is it stuff we treat as deal-breakers, about which we think we have it completely figured out and now refuse to learn anything new about the subject and reject all ideas that fall outside our stated conviction?

Is it an attempt to describe supernatural stuff we admit we don't actually know anything about, but have found that working principles help us connect the dots and make the most of life?

Is it our way of labeling and stereotyping truth in a restrictive insistence that our beliefs are somehow superior to the beliefs of everyone else?

How do you and your local church use doctrine, and to what end? This answer also heavily shapes a person's response.

Then again, how do you understand the Holy Spirit? How do you understand the church's relationship to the Kingdom and its Lord? How do you understand authority in this post-modern age?

They are good questions you've asked, but the answers we can give will be as diverse as the landscape of Christianity itself. We could argue our position over someone else's, but that argument is not original to us, and will not end with us.

Therefore, for those of us that see it, we refrain from answering because, like the trapping questions the Pharisees brought to Jesus, our answers will be used as fodder against us whichever way we answer (not necessarily by you, but by someone on this forum).

My answer is something like this: The God of the Bible, who interacts with the cosmos via His Spirit, is the creator and controller of all things. Therefore, He is accredited with, or at least associated to everything, including the church's development of doctrine, and every wacky idea that has sprouted up in the process.

 

[mmmcounts]

What is doctrine?

It's pretty broad. I'm trying to look more specifically at certain major groups of doctrines that have easily recognized names, though. The Trinity and the hypostatic union in one group, the five Solas in another, and then maybe something like the filoque and papal supremacy in another. I'm trying for a relatively short list that includes the really important stuff, even if it doesn't cover the full use of the word "doctrine."

Is it our working knowledge with the expectation we will discover more as we move forward, behaving similarly to theories in the scientific community?

For some people, that description seems to describe something that's broader and more individualistic than what you see with things like Sola Scriptura or the hypostatic union. But others might want to say it's the kind of framework that describes the creation of the majors as well as the minors, all of it taken together. Which would you go with? Do you think there's different things going on with the formation of really major doctrine than with the minor points?

Is it stuff we treat as deal-breakers, about which we think we have it completely figured out and now refuse to learn anything new about the subject and reject all ideas that fall outside our stated conviction?

Some are deal-breakers, in a certain sense. For example, if you reject Sola Scriptura, it's awfully hard to be a Protestant. I don't think there's too many Catholics who side with the EO position on the filoque. These are the kinds of doctrines where your decision to accept or reject them is a deal-breaker in terms of which church body you can belong to, but perhaps that's the extent of it. Depending who you ask.

But then there's doctrines like the Trinity and the hypostatic union. The whole of orthodox Christianity (which I think I may be describing in the loosest possible sense) tends to agree that rejection of these doctrines results in heresy, and I would tend to describe that situation as a "deal-breaker."

Is it an attempt to describe supernatural stuff we admit we don't actually know anything about, but have found that working principles help us connect the dots and make the most of life?

Is it possible to describe major doctrines in this way while still referring to them as "indispensable"? I might lean toward this description in some ways, but I also might want to poke at the description of "what doctrine does" a little. It is helpful in connecting the dots, that's true. But helpful how? Helpful like an expert in medicine is helpful for your health (ie., indispensable)? Helpful like someone who gives you a hand moving into your house (makes it easier to get things done, but it would be possible without the help)? Or maybe more like a spotter who helps you out on freeweights?

Is it our way of labeling and stereotyping truth in a restrictive insistence that our beliefs are somehow superior to the beliefs of everyone else?

I don't think anyone would describe their own doctrine in this way, but I could see how you might want to say that of someone else.

How do you and your local church use doctrine, and to what end? This answer also heavily shapes a person's response.

For me and my local church...it kind of depends on which doctrines, now that I think about it.

Then again, how do you understand the Holy Spirit? How do you understand the church's relationship to the Kingdom and its Lord? How do you understand authority in this post-modern age?

Very good questions

They are good questions you've asked, but the answers we can give will be as diverse as the landscape of Christianity itself. We could argue our position over someone else's, but that argument is not original to us, and will not end with us.

Thanks I'd like to get a little more familiar with the diversity of Christianity. I don't think it necessarily has to lead to verbal combat. There's certain groups of people where I wonder how it is that they get stuff done, and sometimes I wonder about their point of view regarding people who do things another way.

Therefore, for those of us that see it, we refrain from answering because, like the trapping questions the Pharisees brought to Jesus, our answers will be used as fodder against us whichever way we answer (not necessarily by you, but by someone on this forum).

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised.

My answer is something like this: The God of the Bible, who interacts with the cosmos via His Spirit, is the creator and controller of all things. Therefore, He is accredited with, or at least associated to everything, including the church's development of doctrine, and every wacky idea that has sprouted up in the process.

Now that I think about it a little more, I guess my questions have as much to to with the nature of God's unseen activity as it does with how people are getting stuff done. That kind of thing is difficult to answer, and any sort of answer lends itself to critical questions implying that you think you know more than you really do. Still, though, I think it's pretty important even if it is kind of tricky.