The key to settling doctrinal differences when they occur...

[joe370]

When Christians cannot resolve their differences, what’s the next step? Did Jesus leave the world (Christianity that is) - with a way to in-errantly resolve differences when they arise? If so then what is it, if not His one church (I am pretty sure Jesus founded just one) - forever guided by the holy spirit? Right off the bat, we can rule our scripture as the Christian final authority, for by itself, scripture, as the sole means of arbitration, resolves nothing when doctrinal differences arise, as can be aptly proven time and time and again. I know what the catholic answer is; what’s the protestant answer?

 

[JRKH]

When Christians cannot resolve their differences, what’s the next step? Did Jesus leave the world (Christianity that is) - with a way to in-errantly resolve differences when they arise? If so then what is it, if not His one church (I am pretty sure Jesus founded just one) - forever guided by the holy spirit? Right off the bat, we can rule our scripture as the Christian final authority, for by itself, scripture, as the sole means of arbitration, resolves nothing when doctrinal differences arise, as can be aptly proven time and time and again. I know what the catholic answer is; what’s the protestant answer?

Actually there is a way to resolve these differences and the model is contained in Scripture and church history bears it out.

I call your attention to Mt 18:15-18 where Christ gives instruction on what to do when a brother sins against you…(and teaching false doctrine is definitely a sin)
Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Next I call your attention to Acts 15, the issue at Antioch and the Council of Jerusalem.
At antioch the issue arose about circumcision between the Gentile Chrisitans and the Jewish Christans. The issue was so contentious that not event he great teacher St Paul was able to resolve it. Thus he and others were sent to Jerusalem where a council was held, all sides listened to and a decision made…

Thus, in these two passages we have a) the Instructions, and b) the example, of how to handle conflicts - including doctrinal differences.
The Instructions give authority to The Church (ekklesia) and the example shows a councilior model of multiple church locations acting in concert (universal authority).

This model was repeated numerous times and at many levels in the church from the early church onwards.

The confusion seen today stems from the flawed protestant model of Sola Scriptura coupled with private interpretation and the notion of an invisible, non-authoritative church. None of which is biblical and the fruits of which are fracturing and confusion.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

Actually there is a way to resolve these differences and the model is contained in Scripture and church history bears it out.

I call your attention to Mt 18:15-18 where Christ gives instruction on what to do when a brother sins against you…(and teaching false doctrine is definitely a sin)
Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Next I call your attention to Acts 15, the issue at Antioch and the Council of Jerusalem.
At antioch the issue arose about circumcision between the Gentile Chrisitans and the Jewish Christans. The issue was so contentious that not event he great teacher St Paul was able to resolve it. Thus he and others were sent to Jerusalem where a council was held, all sides listened to and a decision made…

Thus, in these two passages we have a) the Instructions, and b) the example, of how to handle conflicts - including doctrinal differences.
The Instructions give authority to The Church (ekklesia) and the example shows a councilior model of multiple church locations acting in concert (universal authority).

This model was repeated numerous times and at many levels in the church from the early church onwards.

The confusion seen today stems from the flawed protestant model of Sola Scriptura coupled with private interpretation and the notion of an invisible, non-authoritative church. None of which is biblical and the fruits of which are fracturing and confusion.
Peace
James

James,
Do you think there is also confusion revolving around the millennia-old dispute between east and west as to the nature of that authority and the primacy of the Pope?

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

James,
Do you think there is also confusion revolving around the millennia-old dispute between east and west as to the nature of that authority and the primacy of the Pope?

Jon

Blessings my brother in Christ. Well I obviously cannot speak for our Eastern Orthodox brothers,but part of the problem I see today with the issue you mentioned stems from the view of today and less of how it was viewed prior to the Great Schism. The split between West and East was a process based on many factors: language,culture,politics, geogrpahy,and the understanding of ecclesiastics.

 

[JonNC]

Blessings my brother in Christ. Well I obviously cannot speak for our Eastern Orthodox brothers,but part of the problem I see today with the issue you mentioned stems from the view of today and less of how it was viewed prior to the Great Schism. The split between West and East was a process based on many factors: language,culture,politics, geogrpahy,and the understanding of ecclesiastics.

Indeed, probably true. But again, you would agree, I think, that the schism represents differing views of authority. And it seems to me that, as they (east and west) both come from the practice of using Scripture and Tradition for doctrine, this may be at least as wounding to the unity of the Church and the settling of doctrinal disputes as either sola scriptura or personal interpretation.

Peace, my friend,
Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Indeed, probably true. But again, you would agree, I think, that the schism represents differing views of authority. And it seems to me that, as they (east and west) both come from the practice of using Scripture and Tradition for doctrine, this may be at least as wounding to the unity of the Church and the settling of doctrinal disputes as either sola scriptura or personal interpretation.

Peace, my friend,
Jon

Yes different views which added up over the years and centuries. Likewise, the human error of pride, arrogance and ignorance. However, I honestly believe both sides are to blame and need to let-go of the past and overlook it. The focus should be now,the present and the future,not what happened 1,000 years ago and who said this and that and so on. Dialogue,prayer and meditation and guidance of the Holy Spirit is what ALL Christianity needs for unity. To be honest, I’ve grown tired of the bickering,disputes,same ole rhetoric,biased beliefs,bigotry,ignorance,arrogance,and pride from ALL Christians. I just want unity for all of us. It is time we focus more on the love for God and His for us and less about us and who is right and wrong.

God Bless and pray for unity.

 

[JonNC]

Yes different views which added up over the years and centuries. Likewise, the human error of pride, arrogance and ignorance. However, I honestly believe both sides are to blame and need to let-go of the past and overlook it. The focus should be now,the present and the future,not what happened 1,000 years ago and who said this and that and so on. Dialogue,prayer and meditation and guidance of the Holy Spirit is what ALL Christianity needs for unity. To be honest, I’ve grown tired of the bickering,disputes,same ole rhetoric,biased beliefs,bigotry,ignorance,arrogance,and pride from ALL Christians. I just want unity for all of us. It is time we focus more on the love for God and His for us and less about us and who is right and wrong.

God Bless and pray for unity.

Very well said, my friend.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

James,
Do you think there is also confusion revolving around the millennia-old dispute between east and west as to the nature of that authority and the primacy of the Pope?

Jon

Jon - (sigh)…
Indeed there is confusion and also pride at work in the schism…But that has nothing to do with what the OP asked. The OP asked if God left us a way to settle matters. He did and it is the councilior model shown in Holy Scripture and Practiced by the Church.

As to the matters of East West…
For a thousand years the Church existed (albiet with tensions) as a single unit. Then there came the great Schism and there were just two Churches for another 500 years. Both of these Churches agreed on the model of Scripture And Tradition and the teaching office of The Church and the importance of the councilior model. 1500 years of this model with one split.

Then came the reformation…And the rejection of:
First, Church authority,
then the councilior model,
and finally Tradition.
Leaving only Scripture and personal interpretation.

And how many doctrinally independent churches have come about in the last 500 years?
And never mind about the "nature and authority of the pope being a confusion,
How about
The relationship of faith to works,
The real presence in the Eucharist
The necessity of Baptism,
The canon of Scripture,
Once Saved Always Saved,
Even the Nature of Christ and the Trinity…

Sorry if I appear to have “gone off on you” Jon. It’s just that when these things come up, the East West split is brought up like it is suppose to somehow disprove…what… I dunno - the biblical model of councilior action?

I only know that for 1500 years the Church (east and west) followed the Scriptual model of councils and “tell it to The church” to resolve differences and clarify teaching and there was one major,and as yet unresolved, split.
Then, in the last 500 years a different model has been used by some and the result is - - greater doctrinal confusion - - - and multiple splits starting with Luther Calvin and Zwingli themselves.

I guess I just get frustrated.

Sorry my friend.

Peace
James

 

[joe370]

Jon, if neither the EOC nor the CC is the one church founded by God forever guided by God into all truth in spite of the sinners belonging to either church, then you make a great point. However, if one of these churches is in fact the one church founded by God on Pentecost, forever guided by God into all truth in spite of the sinners belonging to one of these churches, then what conclusion should one draw?

Indeed, probably true. But again, you would agree, I think, that the schism represents differing views of authority. And it seems to me that, as they (east and west) both come from the practice of using Scripture and Tradition for doctrine, this may be at least as wounding to the unity of the Church and the settling of doctrinal disputes as either sola scriptura or personal interpretation.

Peace, my friend,
Jon

 

[JRKH]

Indeed, probably true. But again, you would agree, I think, that the schism represents differing views of authority.

The schism represents a different view on one piece of authority but not on authority in general. In each case they see a similar heirachy of clergy and bishops leading up to a patriarch. likewise East and West recognize the authority and binding nature of councils. It is only on the issue of the primacy of the Roman “Patriarch” where there is a difficulty.

And it seems to me that, as they (east and west) both come from the practice of using Scripture and Tradition for doctrine, this may be at least as wounding to the unity of the Church and the settling of doctrinal disputes as either sola scriptura or personal interpretation.

It is indeed wounding - any schism is wounding. And yet, eventual reunification will be much more easily attained by having to deal with only two churches than with a thousand…
And Frankly - in a number of discussions I have observed between protestants SS and PI Don’t settle doctrinal disputes…Unless you consider “agreeing to disagree” as a legitimate solution to whether Baptism is necessary, or Christ is Truly present in the bread and wine (for example)…

Peace
James

Peace, my friend,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

James,
Please accept my apology. It was not my intent to somehow use the east-west schism as a way of undermining the councilior approach to solving doctrinal differences. I was simply trying to point out that this, too, has added to the wounds of the Church’s ministry.
In fact, I pray regularly for that schism to end in reconciliation, which I believe would have a positive impact in resolving ours.

=JRKH;7638304]Jon - (sigh)…
Indeed there is confusion and also pride at work in the schism…But that has nothing to do with what the OP asked. The OP asked if God left us a way to settle matters. He did and it is the councilior model shown in Holy Scripture and Practiced by the Church.

As you can see from above, I think it does have a role in the OP’s question, despite the fact that I framed it poorly. I actually think the model of Acts may be, in fact, the way to solve our current schisms.

Sorry if I appear to have “gone off on you” Jon. It’s just that when these things come up, the East West split is brought up like it is suppose to somehow disprove…what… I dunno - the biblical model of councilior action?

I understand.

I only know that for 1500 years the Church (east and west) followed the Scriptual model of councils and “tell it to The church” to resolve differences and clarify teaching and there was one major,and as yet unresolved, split.
Then, in the last 500 years a different model has been used by some and the result is - - greater doctrinal confusion - - - and multiple splits starting with Luther Calvin and Zwingli themselves.

While virtually no splits have come from Lutheranism, (except some of the internal :slapfight: that crop up once in a while), I agree that this splintering further wounds the Church’s ministry.

I guess I just get frustrated.

Sorry my friend.

I understand, and no need to apologize.

Peace
James

And His peace also with you,
Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon, if neither the EOC nor the CC is the one church founded by God forever guided by God into all truth in spite of the sinners belonging to either church, then you make a great point. However, if one of these churches is in fact the one church founded by God on Pentecost, forever guided by God into all truth in spite of the sinners belonging to one of these churches, then what conclusion should one draw?

Actually, I think they both are - part of the one true Church, as am I. The conclusion I draw is that the sin of division and schism is a shared one, by all of us, and we must together do a better job of listening to the Holy Spirit as He guides us back to unity, and regularly seek His forgiveness and the forgiveness of each other.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

James,
Please accept my apology. It was not my intent to somehow use the east-west schism as a way of undermining the councilior approach to solving doctrinal differences. I was simply trying to point out that this, too, has added to the wounds of the Church’s ministry.
In fact, I pray regularly for that schism to end in reconciliation, which I believe would have a positive impact in resolving ours.

As you can see from above, I think it does have a role in the OP’s question, despite the fact that I framed it poorly. I actually think the model of Acts may be, in fact, the way to solve our current schisms.
I think that the problem has little to do with the biblical model though. It has more to do with the sins of pride, anger, averice, etc. of which both sides were guilty. The split did not occur through councilior action but on the presumptuous actions of individuals that were then compounded by other individuals…The hardening that occurred fairly sabotaged later efforts to overcome the difficulties through councilior action.
Yet we are hopefull that fruit of reunification will eventually come.

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

I think that the problem has little to do with the biblical model though. It has more to do with the sins of pride, anger, averice, etc. of which both sides were guilty. The split did not occur through councilior action but on the presumptuous actions of individuals that were then compounded by other individuals…**The hardening that occurred fairly sabotaged later efforts to overcome the difficulties through councilior action. **Yet we are hopefull that fruit of reunification will eventually come.

Peace
James

I can understand you take on this. As regards the part I bolded - the hardening of hearts and positions (pride, anger, etc) these were clearly a part of the Reformation era, as well.
Sad, isn’t it, how human sin has caused these divisions amongst us. And I am also prayerfully hopeful that reunification will come.

Peace also with you,
Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Hi JonC!..

Sorry if I am redundant…both the Eastern and Western churches have apostles as their founders, and thus draw on faith based on oral tradition of Jesus Christ.

The lady who does icons, is beautifying our local church. I have had to study what the symbolism means as Byzantine understanding is very new to me. She told me one of her parents is Roman Catholic and the other Orthodox, and as far as she is concerned, it is politics…and that means pride.

The Latin church has a penchant for defining anything and everything…the Orthodox have very beautiful liturgies…the Orthodox reflect more their native regions and cultures, where the Latin church works on the universality of faith, working to integrate basic tenants of faith into the local culture.

Over a period of time, Latin liturgies can be more plain, simple…universally recognizable yet not have the expression of depth the Orthodox have. I am really a beginner of studying Orthodoxy, but what I am discovering so far in regards to their theological differences – in terms of the big picture – not that important. So I tend to agree with the Byzantine artist/catechist.

The Byzantine icons, when you learn what the symbolism means in the art, are a great contemplative tool of communicating faith in a local parish church. People need to take the time, though, to study and alot of church going people are too busy to learn.
I wonder if we all did, if that would help bring the ‘two lungs’ as John Paul II called them, into greater unity and harmony, my wish for all of us.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Jon - (sigh)…
Indeed there is confusion and also pride at work in the schism…But that has nothing to do with what the OP asked. The OP asked if God left us a way to settle matters. He did and it is the councilior model shown in Holy Scripture and Practiced by the Church.

As to the matters of East West…
For a thousand years the Church existed (albiet with tensions) as a single unit. Then there came the great Schism and there were just two Churches for another 500 years. Both of these Churches agreed on the model of Scripture And Tradition and the teaching office of The Church and the importance of the councilior model. 1500 years of this model with one split.

Then came the reformation…And the rejection of:
First, Church authority,
then the councilior model,
and finally Tradition.
Leaving only Scripture and personal interpretation.

And how many doctrinally independent churches have come about in the last 500 years?
And never mind about the "nature and authority of the pope being a confusion,
How about
The relationship of faith to works,
The real presence in the Eucharist
The necessity of Baptism,
The canon of Scripture,
Once Saved Always Saved,
Even the Nature of Christ and the Trinity…

Sorry if I appear to have “gone off on you” Jon. It’s just that when these things come up, the East West split is brought up like it is suppose to somehow disprove…what… I dunno - the biblical model of councilior action?

I only know that for 1500 years the Church (east and west) followed the Scriptual model of councils and “tell it to The church” to resolve differences and clarify teaching and there was one major,and as yet unresolved, split.
Then, in the last 500 years a different model has been used by some and the result is - - greater doctrinal confusion - - - and multiple splits starting with Luther Calvin and Zwingli themselves.

I guess I just get frustrated.

Sorry my friend.

Peace
James

Hi James

I thought somethings over after reading your post. May I offer my thoughts?

You are probably right that many non Catholics over play and wrongly overemphasize the East/West schism. However, there are real differences between the East and West that make it an important point to the discussion. These disagreements have not been solved by “taking it to the church”. So I do believe it is germaine to the discussion.

I do not think non Catholics reject church authority, but have a differing view of it than the RCC does-mostly that the church must derive all doctrines taught as necessary for salvation from the scriptures. As for the doctrinal differences you point out, some are more troubling to me than others, so I am not doing to discuss them one by one. They could be who threads by themselves anyway. When a Catholic says “take it to the church” he or she means that it should be taken to the Pope and this bishops in unity with him, whereas the non-Catholic (or at least myself) would argue that when Rome does this, Rome is engaging in the private interpretation that she often chastizes Protestants for doing, because the church is more than the Catholic ecclesiastical institution.

Human pride and sin has caused disunity in the body of Christ. I pray that one day we will all be united-even if that does not mean 100 precent doctrinally uniform. I know many non Catholics and their leaders have contributed to this. I have yet to hear a Roman apologist even remotely entertain the idea that Rome has as well. During my hiatus from Catholic answers-self imposed, to focus on school. I came to the conclusion that inside I have alot of Catholic sympathies, so the purpose of being here has to be to learn and perhaps try to highlight the common things we share in our Christian faith.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

When Christians cannot resolve their differences, what’s the next step?

Paul and Barnabas went their separate ways when they couldn’t resolve their differences. (Acts 15)

 

[JRKH]

I can understand you take on this. As regards the part I bolded - the hardening of hearts and positions (pride, anger, etc) these were clearly a part of the Reformation era, as well.
Sad, isn’t it, how human sin has caused these divisions amongst us. And I am also prayerfully hopeful that reunification will come.

Peace also with you,
Jon

So here we have the key to the OP’s question about settling doctrinal diffeerences.
Get rid of the pride, and follow the biblical instructions and model.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hi James

I thought somethings over after reading your post. May I offer my thoughts?

Your thoughts are most welcome.
We are here to share and learn and grow in Christ.

You are probably right that many non Catholics over play and wrongly overemphasize the East/West schism. However, there are real differences between the East and West that make it an important point to the discussion. These disagreements have not been solved by “taking it to the church”. So I do believe it is germaine to the discussion.

I understand this, but what I am trying to convey is NOT the details of differences, nor the failure of the East and West to resolve things (yet).
What I wished to convey was that, for 1500 years, from the earliest times, as demonstrated in Holy Scripture, the model was a Hierarchal, Councilior, Patriarchal, and Authoritatve Church…Forms may have changed, but the model did not. Tell it to the Church, which is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth and resolve doctrinal matters in council as needed.
This is the biblical model that the OP was asking about.

I do not think non Catholics reject church authority, but have a differing view of it than the RCC does-mostly that the church must derive all doctrines taught as necessary for salvation from the scriptures.

Something quite foreign to the Church in the first 1500 years.
Bible only Chrisitans simply sidestep the issue by “redefining” church, and ignoring or redefining any passage that points to church authority and instead place SS and Private interpretation above the authority of The Church.

As for the doctrinal differences you point out, some are more troubling to me than others, so I am not doing to discuss them one by one. They could be who threads by themselves anyway.

Agreed.

When a Catholic says “take it to the church” he or she means that it should be taken to the Pope and this bishops in unity with him, whereas the non-Catholic (or at least myself) would argue that when Rome does this, Rome is engaging in the private interpretation that she often chastizes Protestants for doing, because the church is more than the Catholic ecclesiastical institution.

Not at all. When a Catholic takes it to The Church, they usually begin by local discussions that might involve a few folks, some talking and maybe some writing. The local Bishop might becoem involved as necessary, various churh documents trotted out and reviewed/discussed etc looking for a difinitive answer or take on a matter.
Usually this is enough.
If it is not and the issue spread, then more bishops become involved and eventually the curia and the Holy See might take up the matter. Then, after MORE discussion and MORE communciation among the various parties (taking council with one another) AND delving into historical teachings and viewpoints, the Holy See may issue a new teaching or modify or clarify an existing one.
BUT -
Once the Church in Rome - after ALL this time and effort - finally makes a decision, it is incumbant upon all Catholics everywhere to support the Will of the Holy Spirit in His Church. In acts 15 is stated in the letter to Antioch as “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and ours too…”(Acts 15:28)

I think you will agree that what I describe above is quite different from what many Protestants think occurs in the church and how teachings are devised…

Human pride and sin has caused disunity in the body of Christ. I pray that one day we will all be united-even if that does not mean 100 precent doctrinally uniform. I know many non Catholics and their leaders have contributed to this. I have yet to hear a Roman apologist even remotely entertain the idea that Rome has as well.

I have heard Roman apologists admit to this. In fact you are hearing one admit to it now.
I have even heard The Roman Pontiff admit to it and it is included in the Catachism…
817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”…
Not sure how much clearer the Church can be on the matter

During my hiatus from Catholic answers-self imposed, to focus on school. I came to the conclusion that inside I have alot of Catholic sympathies, so the purpose of being here has to be to learn and perhaps try to highlight the common things we share in our Christian faith.

I am most glad to hear it and Bless God for your presence here.
Indeed we need to highlight our commonality so that we see each others as brothers “wrestling” with each other instead enemies in battle.

I hope that my comments are of some help to you.

Peace
James

 

[CMatt25]

I just very briefly had Fr Corapi on and he was discussing the difficulty theologians once had with the Immaculate Conception. And he said the laity knew better and said uh uh theologians, try again.