Development of doctrine

[jonathan_hili]

Hi all,

I may be wrong here in my initial assumption, so am happy to be corrected if I am, but as there is no central authority in most (all?) Protestant denominations and Orthodoxy, is it possible for doctrine to develop in those religions? I understand that individual theologians or pastors can propose new ideas or refinements but can the denomination as a whole actually agree and move forward with developed doctrines in the way the Catholic Church can after an ecumenical council or papal pronouncement?

God bless.

Jonathan

 

[aidanbradypop]

Hi all,

I may be wrong here in my initial assumption, so am happy to be corrected if I am, but as there is no central authority in most (all?) Protestant denominations and Orthodoxy, is it possible for doctrine to develop in those religions? I understand that individual theologians or pastors can propose new ideas or refinements but can the denomination as a whole actually agree and move forward with developed doctrines in the way the Catholic Church can after an ecumenical council or papal pronouncement?

God bless.

Jonathan

I would say …yes.

You have Synods within Lutheranism, TECofUS has a Bishop(s), Orthodoxy has their Patriarch…etc.

They can vote on doctrine and establish it. They can even develop doctrine.

 

[aemcpa]

Hi all,

I may be wrong here in my initial assumption, so am happy to be corrected if I am, but as there is no central authority in most (all?) Protestant denominations and Orthodoxy, is it possible for doctrine to develop in those religions? I understand that individual theologians or pastors can propose new ideas or refinements but can the denomination as a whole actually agree and move forward with developed doctrines in the way the Catholic Church can after an ecumenical council or papal pronouncement?

God bless.

Jonathan

The Protestants just spin off into two different branches when there is a doctrinal disagreement that cannot be resolved. It’s a healthy, mature and deeply spiritual method of dealing with the issue. /sarcasm

 

[jonathan_hili]

Perhaps that is why Protestant denominations cave-in so easily to the current social trend because they don’t have the combined, integrated and accepted authority to authentically develop their doctrine and discipline to the ebb and flow of socio-historical circumstances.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Perhaps that is why Protestant denominations cave-in so easily to the current social trend because they don’t have the combined, integrated and accepted authority to authentically develop their doctrine and discipline to the ebb and flow of socio-historical circumstances.

Maybe. Some hold true (LCMS, Anglo Catholic…few others) and some simply change doctrine or “name” to draw in more people.

Ex: There is a big Evangelical Community here in Fargo. It is called Ignite. I called the pastor and asked what denomination they were. He explained that they were a member of the General Baptist Conference, but changed their name to draw in more people. He explained that Ignite Baptist Church was keeping people away so they made it more “friendly.” They changed the name and actually re-worded their statement of faith as to appear less Baptist and more Evangelical. Still preached the same message.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Maybe. Some hold true (LCMS, Anglo Catholic…few others) and some simply change doctrine or “name” to draw in more people.

Ex: There is a big Evangelical Community here in Fargo. It is called Ignite. I called the pastor and asked what denomination they were. He explained that they were a member of the General Baptist Conference, but changed their name to draw in more people. He explained that Ignite Baptist Church was keeping people away so they made it more “friendly.” They changed the name and actually re-worded their statement of faith as to appear less Baptist and more Evangelical. Still preached the same message.

Wow. Talk about PR.

Perhaps Prada Catholic Church or AC Milan Catholic Church might be more appealing?

 

[aidanbradypop]

Wow. Talk about PR.

Perhaps Prada Catholic Church or AC Milan Catholic Church might be more appealing?

Some friends of mine joined their congregation. They baptize people in a pool and anyone, as long as they are a Christian, can baptize you.

 

[aemcpa]

Some friends of mine joined their congregation. They baptize people in a pool and anyone, as long as they are a Christian, can baptize you.

And anyone, even if they are a Christian, can be baptized. I know one Protestant who was baptized 4 times. And yet you mention mortal sin and confession, which are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and THAT somehow isn’t Biblical.

 

[aidanbradypop]

And anyone, even if they are a Christian, can be baptized. I know one Protestant who was baptized 4 times. And yet you mention mortal sin and confession, which are explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and THAT somehow isn’t Biblical.

I know what ya mean…The female friend was baptized as a Catholic and then was baptized again when she joined the congregation. To them, it is merely a outward symbolic act…a developed doctrine with no foundation.

 

[SyCarl]

Many mainline Protestant churches do have a central authority. albeit not in a single man. For example the Westminster Confession of Faith describes the Pope as Antichrist.

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada decided in Declaratory Statement indicated that it does not believe the Pope is Antichrist thus removing that portion of the Westminster Confession from the beliefs of the church.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Many mainline Protestant churches do have a central authority. albeit not in a single man.

Many have a conference or convention. I believe that brings about chaos. If half believe one way and the other half disagree, they simply split and create their own denomination.

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada decided in Declaratory Statement indicated that it does not believe the Pope is Antichrist thus removing that portion of the Westminster Confession from the beliefs of the church.

Praise God!

 

[jpjd]

I believe several denominations have done this with the homosexuality issue. Their “elders” met to discuss the issues and then voted whether as a denomination if they will accept homosexuality.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Many mainline Protestant churches do have a central authority. albeit not in a single man. For example the Westminster Confession of Faith describes the Pope as Antichrist.

Really? How can they do that when John describes the Antichrist as someone who denies Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 1:7), which evidently the Pope does not?

 

[aidanbradypop]

I believe talking about the Pope or the Papal Office as being the Anti Christ is against forum rules. Probably should move on from that.

 

[SyCarl]

Really? How can they do that when John describes the Antichrist as someone who denies Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 1:7), which evidently the Pope does not?

I am not trying to justify the Westminster Confession which dates back to 1646. I merely gave this as an example of how beliefs can and have been altered.

 

[SyCarl]

I believe talking about the Pope or the Papal Office as being the Anti Christ is against forum rules. Probably should move on from that.

I am not suggesting that the Pope is Antichrist. The Westminster Confession, which is an historical Confession of the Reformed branch of the Reformation , set that out. I was pointing out that the Presbyterian Church in Canada was able to change that belief as a view of the denomination.

 

[aidanbradypop]

I am not suggesting that the Pope is Antichrist. The Westminster Confession, which is an historical Confession of the Reformed branch of the Reformation , set that out. I was pointing out that the Presbyterian Church in Canada was able to change that belief as a view of the denomination.

Oh I know…just do not want it to go in that direction.

 

[jrtrent]

I believe talking about the Pope or the Papal Office as being the Anti Christ is against forum rules. Probably should move on from that.

It’s not talking about it that is against forum rules, but using the phrase as a way of being disrespectful to another’s religion.

Members are not allowed to be disrespectful of anyone’s faith or religion, whether it is Catholicism or not. If a member is disrespectful, he will generally be counseled first and suspended if he persists in disrespectful postings.

If the nature of an initial posting is blatantly disrespectful to any religion (e.g., “the pope is the anti-Christ” or “Rome is the Whore of Babylon” or “Muslims are terrorists”), suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling.

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=162027

The OP of this thread asked, “How can they do that when John describes the Antichrist as someone who denies Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 1:7), which evidently the Pope does not?”

I think that’s an excellent question, and I’ve never bought into the idea of the papacy being anti-Christ. To come up with that idea, I think most add in references to the man of lawlessness (as does the Smalcald Articles, part II, article IV: “Of the Papacy”) and other ideas not strictly related to the very few references to anti-Christ, which John makes clear already existed when he wrote about it. The article linked to below has a lot more information.

issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/papacy.htm

 

[jonathan_hili]

The OP of this thread asked, “How can they do that when John describes the Antichrist as someone who denies Jesus came in the flesh (2 John 1:7), which evidently the Pope does not?”

I think that’s an excellent question, and I’ve never bought into the idea of the papacy being anti-Christ. To come up with that idea, I think most add in references to the man of lawlessness (as does the Smalcald Articles, part II, article IV: “Of the Papacy”) and other ideas not strictly related to the very few references to anti-Christ, which John makes clear already existed when he wrote about it. The article linked to below has a lot more information.

issuesetcarchive.org/issues_site/resource/archives/papacy.htm

Oh, I see!

So they rely on “man-made tradition” to come up with this conclusion.

Very biblical.

 

[jrtrent]

Oh, I see!

So they rely on “man-made tradition” to come up with this conclusion.

Very biblical.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say, but it doesn’t come across as being an attempt to understand their position. If you read the article, then you see that their conclusion of the papacy as anti-Christ involves more than just the scripture references that include the word anti-Christ:

“The doctrine of anti-christ (I John 2:18-19,22), the prediction of false messiahs (Mark 13:5, 21-23), and the “son of perdition” (II Thess. 2:1-12) is clearly taught in the New Testament. Those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture must believe in these things. They cannot simply be ignored. The difficult task is determining whether or not these predictions have been fulfilled and by whom, or whether they remain for the future.”

For reasons you can read for yourself, many Protestants found the fulfillment of these things in the papacy. You don’t need to agree with them–I don’t, despite being Protestant–but snide comments don’t seem helpful.

Oh I know…just do not want it to go in that direction.

I admit it. You were right!