Development of Doctrine

[GodsGrace]

Oh for goodness sake, wondering...

You wrote "No Crusades except in Europe!!" which is simply not true. You didn't say the crusades began in Europe, you said there were no crusades elsewhere.

I'm the only member here allowed to say two statements:
1. Oh for goodness sake!
2. Uffa

Yeah.
I have them copyrighted.
I think you infringed!

 

[GodsGrace]

Again, baptism, by definition, necessitates water. Yet water by itself is not a baptism and exercises no power on its own; for it is but a material sign of what is communicated spiritually. It is only with the Holy Spirit does it become baptism. For baptism requires water and the Holy Spirit. (cf. John 3:5)

In Christianity, matter...matters.

Of course.
I think I already replied to this.
(trying to catch up).

Can't remember if I ever told you what Don Alex said once at Mass...which also explains what you've stated above.

An infant is baptized with water and the Holy Spirit but he must, at some point in his life, activate the Holy Spirit.

I like this explanation because, otherwise, it would mean that all Catholics are saved.

 

[Walpole]

Of course I knew you'd say this.
If we all understand Christianity our own way, it will descend into chaos.
I do believe it's the strength of the CC that kept our faith stable and together in doctrine.

But I have a problem...
I don't really understand how anyone could accept ALL the dogma/doctrine of the CC.
In a way those that say that Catholics check their brain at the door can be seen to be correct.
This does not mean that Catholics do not own a brain or could think with it...
It means that no other thoughts can be accepted except those that the church stipulates.

Not every Catholic agrees in the perpetual virginity of Mary,
Nor do they believe in going to confession to a priest,
Or that they will go to hell for missing one Mass...(can't think of anything else right now).

I believe the first 2 are dogma and the 3rd doctrine (not sure).
They'll be told to pray about it...
but it's difficult to come to believe in something you just can't accept.

So I guess I'm not too sure about development of doctrine.
I think I like what the Early Fathers taught.



I think you know that the idea has been pushed around that would separate the OT from the NT.
Since Christians are under the Covenant of the New Testament, perhaps the OT is just causing us some confusion and/or grief.

But regarding the scriptures...you can't believe that all Protestant theologians are just plan dumb??
Scholars, after much study in language, culture, etc. come to slightly different conclusions.
This would be true even of Catholic theologians that might slightly disagree with each other.


Agreed. There does seem to be some chaos there, doesn't there?
I guess I'm on a fence...Am I Anglican?? LOL JK

Again, if you don't accept all of the faith, then what's the point?

The fact that there are "Cafeteria Catholics" means that there is a clear set of beliefs that must held by a Catholic. This by itself shows the precarious position of Protestantism, as once again, they do not have this clear set of beliefs. The individual evangelical can thus to choose for himself what is or is not the faith he wants to accept. His religion is one that is subject to his own opinions. In Protestantism, there is no body, organ or mechanism to declare what is or is not the faith. It is entirely subjective. Hence "Cafeteria Protestant" would be an oxymoron.

 

[GodsGrace]

Again, if you don't accept all of the faith, then what's the point?

The fact that there are "Cafeteria Catholics" means that there is a clear set of beliefs that must held by a Catholic. This by itself shows the precarious position of Protestantism, as once again, they do not have this clear set of beliefs. The individual evangelical can thus to choose for himself what is or is not the faith he wants to accept. His religion is one that is subject to his own opinions. In Protestantism, there is no body, organ or mechanism to declare what is or is not the faith. It is entirely subjective. Hence "Cafeteria Protestant" would be an oxymoron.

I don't know Walpole.
What is the point?
I think the point is that I don't care for on-going development of doctrine.
As you must know by now, I respect and mostly agree with the ECFs.
(before 325AD). And even by then there were some changes...

Before Vat II there were some doctrine (teachings, for those reading along) that were different and were changed by Vat II. So which was correct? The teaching before or the teaching after?

I just wish we could practice what the early Christians taught.
Beginning to also believe that maybe Luther was more wrong than right...
not sure yet.

As Larry of U2 said...it's a musical journey.
I guess I've been on a religious journey since the early 70's.
The CC let me down...
Wish it was then like it is now.

 

[Walpole]

I don't know Walpole.
What is the point?
I think the point is that I don't care for on-going development of doctrine.
As you must know by now, I respect and mostly agree with the ECFs.
(before 325AD). And even by then there were some changes...

Before Vat II there were some doctrine (teachings, for those reading along) that were different and were changed by Vat II. So which was correct? The teaching before or the teaching after?

I just wish we could practice what the early Christians taught.
Beginning to also believe that maybe Luther was more wrong than right...
not sure yet.

As Larry of U2 said...it's a musical journey.
I guess I've been on a religious journey since the early 70's.
The CC let me down...
Wish it was then like it is now.

All doctrine develops. Perhaps you are unaware that it took the Church over three hundred years to develop the dogma of the Trinity? Or that it took over four hundred years for the Church to develop her Christological dogmas?

There is no verse in Scripture which explicitly defines the dogma of the Trinity as defined at the Council of Nicea. Likewise there is no verse in Scripture which explicitly defines the dogma of the hypostatic union of Christ as formulated by Pope Leo the Great and the Council of Chalcedon. These form the core tenets of the Christian faith and they developed over time, across several centuries.

One of the beauties of the Catholic faith is its authority. Not to get too philosophical on you (as a Thomist I can't help it!), but a definition in the true sense defines, that is, it puts limits. These limits are necessary because they distinguish the thing defined from all other things. For example, the definition of a dog limits it in such a way that it cannot be used to define a cat. So when the Church defines something, she is stating - with certainty - what is or is not the Christian faith.

Christianity is a religion of revelation. We do not invent the truth, but rather discover it and conform our will to it. With Protestantism, you have no such certainty. In Protestantism, the faith becomes whatever I choose it to be. In Protestantism, I choose what is or is not the faith. It says God must conform to me and my will, rather than I conform to Him and His revelation.

 

[GodsGrace]

All doctrine develops. Perhaps you are unaware that it took the Church over three hundred years to develop the dogma of the Trinity? Or that it took over four hundred years for the Church to develop her Christological dogmas?

There is no verse in Scripture which explicitly defines the dogma of the Trinity as defined at the Council of Nicea. Likewise there is no verse in Scripture which explicitly defines the dogma of the hypostatic union of Christ as formulated by Pope Leo the Great and the Council of Chalcedon. These form the core tenets of the Christian faith and they developed over time, across several centuries.

One of the beauties of the Catholic faith is its authority. Not to get too philosophical on you (as a Thomist I can't help it!), but a definition in the true sense defines, that is, it puts limits. These limits are necessary because they distinguish the thing defined from all other things. For example, the definition of a dog limits it in such a way that it cannot be used to define a cat. So when the Church defines something, she is stating - with certainty - what is or is not the Christian faith.

Christianity is a religion of revelation. We do not invent the truth, but rather discover it and conform our will to it. With Protestantism, you have no such certainty. In Protestantism, the faith becomes whatever I choose it to be. In Protestantism, I choose what is or is not the faith. It says God must conform to me and my will, rather than I conform to Him and His revelation.

I agree with you.
Protestantism has a big problem.
No authority to declare the truth.
I believe God will not judge us by our doctrinal beliefs, but by our faith in Him and how we lived our life.

As to the hypostatic union and the Trinity,,,
I did say to 325, the council of Nicea.
I should Really study the councils, but so much reading, doubt I could handle this anymore.

Or, I could just trust the church.

 

[Walpole]

I agree with you.
Protestantism has a big problem.
No authority to declare the truth.
I believe God will not judge us by our doctrinal beliefs, but by our faith in Him and how we lived our life.

As to the hypostatic union and the Trinity,,,
I did say to 325, the council of Nicea.
I should Really study the councils, but so much reading, doubt I could handle this anymore.

Or, I could just trust the church.

Reading the Council documents is not that difficult since they are easily accessible online. (Newadvent.com)

I find praying and reading the Scriptures to be a better use of time than reading Council documents though!

Go make a visit to our Blessed Lord in the tabernacle. He is sure to guide you.

 

[jaybo]

"Jesus [said], “I am the way, and the truth, and the life." John 14:6a

I am a Protestant, am a part of Christ's body, and have received the Holy Spirit. Therefore I have the truth within me. I do not need "an authority" to declare the truth that I already have.

I also believe that God will not judge us by our doctrinal beliefs, but by our faith in Him and how we lived our life.

 

[Walpole]

"Jesus [said], “I am the way, and the truth, and the life." John 14:6a

I am a Protestant, am a part of Christ's body, and have received the Holy Spirit. Therefore I have the truth within me. I do not need "an authority" to declare the truth that I already have.

I also believe that God will not judge us by our doctrinal beliefs, but by our faith in Him and how we lived our life.

You ---> "What don't you understand about this: Abortion is not murder! I will not discuss the issue with anyone who takes that position. ???"

God ---> "Thou shall not kill."

Claiming you have the truth in you while publicly supporting the murder of innocent children is the ultimate evidence of the veracity of my assertions about Protestantism.


The new atheism: "I have the truth and God agrees with me."

 

[jaybo]

You ---> "What don't you understand about this: Abortion is not murder! I will not discuss the issue with anyone who takes that position. ???"

God ---> "Thou shall not kill."

Claiming you have the truth in you while publicly supporting the murder of innocent children is the ultimate evidence of the veracity of my assertions about Protestantism.


The new atheism: "I have the truth and God agrees with me."

Since you have "gone off the deep end" I will be ignoring you from now on.

 

[Cooper]

"Jesus [said], “I am the way, and the truth, and the life." John 14:6a

I am a Protestant, am a part of Christ's body, and have received the Holy Spirit. Therefore I have the truth within me. I do not need "an authority" to declare the truth that I already have.

I also believe that God will not judge us by our doctrinal beliefs, but by our faith in Him and how we lived our life.

It is my view and my view alone, that after the new believers left the Temple and worshipped in their own homes, the Pharisees who plotted against Jesus and were a powerful force in the Temple, developed the new Christianity to their own liking, and raised up Mary above Jesus.
.

 

[Cooper]

I agree with you.
Protestantism has a big problem.
No authority to declare the truth.
I believe God will not judge us by our doctrinal beliefs, but by our faith in Him and how we lived our life.

As to the hypostatic union and the Trinity,,,
I did say to 325, the council of Nicea.
I should Really study the councils, but so much reading, doubt I could handle this anymore.

Or, I could just trust the church.

Isn't Jesus the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the father but by me.
.

 

[Mungo]

It is my view and my view alone, that after the new believers left the Temple and worshipped in their own homes, the Pharisees who plotted against Jesus and were a powerful force in the Temple, developed the new Christianity to their own liking, and raised up Mary above Jesus.
.

If that is your personal opinion, and you have no evidence for it, then it just looks like another conspiracy theory.

 

[Mungo]

"Jesus [said], “I am the way, and the truth, and the life." John 14:6a

I am a Protestant, am a part of Christ's body, and have received the Holy Spirit. Therefore I have the truth within me. I do not need "an authority" to declare the truth that I already have.

I also believe that God will not judge us by our doctrinal beliefs, but by our faith in Him and how we lived our life.

Why does the Holy Spirit teach thousands of people contradictory "truths"?

 

[Mungo]

Isn't Jesus the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the father but by me.
.

And how does Jesus teach that truth to people now?

 

[jaybo]

It is my view and my view alone, that after the new believers left the Temple and worshipped in their own homes, the Pharisees who plotted against Jesus and were a powerful force in the Temple, developed the new Christianity to their own liking, and raised up Mary above Jesus.
.

Interesting theory.

 

[GodsGrace]

Isn't Jesus the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh to the father but by me.
.

Could you explain the following to me?
They are contradictory statements:


John 12:32
32“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

John 14:6
6Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

John 6:44
44“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.


Also, I don't know why you're quoting John 14:6 to me...

 

[Walpole]

Since you have "gone off the deep end" I will be ignoring you from now on.

If defending the law of God is deemed "going off the deep end", it only further makes my point.

 

[Walpole]

Why does the Holy Spirit teach thousands of people contradictory "truths"?

Exactly. And why is this "spirit" he claims to be filled with teaching him to declare the "truth" that murdering the most innocent of all is permissible and defendable?

His "spirit" sounds an awful lot like my Devil.

 

[jaybo]

Why does the Holy Spirit teach thousands of people contradictory "truths"?

I have been waiting for someone to ask this question! The "truths" that you refer to are mental and/or logical truths. but => they are not spiritual truths <=

In John 14:6, Jesus said "Jesus replied, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life." What do you think that he meant by that? Hint: He did not mean doctrine.

This goes right to the heart of what I believe as a Christian, so it should make for an interesting (and friendly!) discussion.