BB influence for good?

[Matt Black]

No, it 'doesn't work like it used to ' - because after 1054 the Church has no longer spoken with one voice. But there is a sufficiency of doctrine up to then to guide us...

 

[BobRyan]

No, it 'doesn't work like it used to ' - because after 1054 the Church has no longer spoken with one voice. But there is a sufficiency of doctrine up to then to guide us...

As noted here even baptism was not agreed upon between the east and the west prior to 1054. One can not argue that there were no disputes in practice prior to 1054 and apparently you also can not argue that the traditionalism doctrine-from-tradition model used prior to 1054 was "sufficient to prevent differing opinions" which is the ONLY argument that has ever been made so far against "Sola Scriptura".

Baptism in the Eastern church and Sabbath keeping in the Church of Africa PRE-1054 differred from the "practice" of the Roman church PRE-1054!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

Disputes over practice do not amount to doctrinal differences.

 

[BobRyan]

The notion that there is no "doctrine" in the RCC or the Eastern churches regarding baptism, Sabbath, Priesthood etc can not survive even a cursory review.

The idea that these conflicting traditions do not conflict - does not wash either.

The notion that traditions pre-1054 were all the same does not float.

And the result is that all arguments of the form "there were no differences in doctrine or tradtion prior to 1054 because tradition alone was sufficient to cause all church groups to agree" simply die in infancy. They never get off the ground.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Disputes over practice do not amount to doctrinal differences.

Doctrine dictates Practice.

 

[D28guy]

"And the result is that all arguments of the form "there were no differences in doctrine or tradtion prior to 1054 because tradition alone was sufficient to cause all church groups to agree" simply die in infancy. They never get off the ground."

Whew. Isnt that the truth.

Anyone that believes that there was complete doctrinal unity for 1000 years.....I've got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell them. :laugh:

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Doctrine dictates Practice.

Not necessarily. I take it you are aware of the concept of the 'hierarchy of truth' ie: dogma, doctrine and discipline? Examples of the first two would be matters pertaining to the Trinity, Christology and soteriology and are 'non-negotiables'. Examples of discipline would include whether priests are to be married or celibate, whether women should have head coverings, or whether baptism should be by affusion or immersion.

 

[BobRyan]

It is clear that water baptism, Sabbath observance, celebacy of the priests etc were NOT examples of a pre-1054 Christian church "speaking as one voice".

Given that tradition never solved this problem of "differences exist" -- why use that as an argument against "Sola Scriptura".

BTW - when differences did arise from within the RCC prior to 1054 the way it was settled was persecution - not tradition.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

There was no RCC prior to 1054. Persecutions like the Inquisitions again didn't really get going until after the Great Schism and again were largely a feature of the RCC. As to the rest, see my post on the Scripture and Tradition thread re doctrine -v- discipline.

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

So, in other words....

"Prior to 1054 they all spoke as one voice, except for those times when they didnt, so those times dont count". :applause:

Mike

 

[Ed Edwards]

// I take it you are aware of the concept of
the 'hierarchy of truth' ie: dogma, doctrine and discipline? //

Doesn't ring a bell.

I do know:

dogma + discipline - charity = abuse

Good doctrine leads to good practice;
good practice displays good doctrine.

 

[BobRyan]

There was no RCC prior to 1054. Persecutions like the Inquisitions again didn't really get going until after the Great Schism and again were largely a feature of the RCC. As to the rest, see my post on the Scripture and Tradition thread re doctrine -v- discipline.

Persecution started in the 4th and 5th centuries EVEN by RCC standards.

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

"There was no RCC prior to 1054."

Actually, the false church of Rome began around the 3rd century.

Its been proved...documented...probably hundreds of times on these boards.

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,

So, in other words....

"Prior to 1054 they all spoke as one voice, except for those times when they didnt, so those times dont count". :applause:

Mike

Try the Vincentian Canon again...."antiquity and universality"

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,



Actually, the false church of Rome began around the 3rd century.

Its been proved...documented...probably hundreds of times on these boards.

Mike

:sleeping_2: No it hasn't