Sound Doctrine?

[nativeastral]

I think the problem is that even when we try to make a short list of what we should all believe in, that list is too long. Though I appreciate the benefits of tradition as Thomas stated before, I think that even simple traditions complicate matters.

And traditions and doctrines get overlaid and more complicated over time nullifying the initial simplicity intended; must be nothing worse than empty formalised rituals; did Jesus not rail against this?

At the same time, there can never be any oneness if there is nothing to bring Christians together... "Great, because it doesn't matter how you follow Christ as long as you follow him."
I have no answer to this conundrum, by the way.

In this day and age don't most searchers know the message of J.C. and connect through his life/teachings and choose or feel impelled via inner revelation to follow in his footsteps? Exactness isn't mandatory for contingent beings.

Personally, I think the only way that Christians can ever become one is through the Bible. Jesus led the first Christians personally, and they were one, but now the only shepherds we have belong to different clubs and believe in different things. The only physical thing that we share now is the Bible itself, but more and more Christians are turning their backs on it because it's not fashionable in our cynical Western culture to put faith in scripture.

The language figuratively speaking probably is a put off for the young in the world; once you know how to ride a bike do you have to keep referring to
the instruction manual?
Yes when it is a source of inspiration understanding and continual spiritual succour for both the natural and spritual man in this 'mortal coil'!
But not as a point of debate and disagreement in the detail?
As a badge of grades and competitiveness-again the life of the shepherd was simple no?

 

[Dream]

GlorytoGod said: "is there such a thing as sound doctrine" and it is a question I share. 'Sound' in this sense refers to 'Soundness' -- that is to how sturdy something is.

Soundness is comparable to Jesus' parable of building houses upon rock instead of upon sand, and it is a terrific analogy whether or not you believe in Jesus. He said that doctrines, like houses built upon rock are sturdy only if the foundation they are built upon is. You may have a solid house to live in, a plan for living and a way to rear your family, however it does not tell you how sturdy (or sound) your foundation is. Only the storms, winds & water can tell you that! If your foundation is poor, the storms will tear your life apart. By this definition, what doctrine has proven to be the most sound?

 

[Netti-Netti]

And traditions and doctrines get overlaid and more complicated over time nullifying the initial simplicity intended; must be nothing worse than empty formalised rituals; did Jesus not rail against this?

There is nothing wrong with ritual. It can be beautiful, uplifting, and empowering if it's sincere and grounded in gratitude and devotion. What bothered Jesus, I think, were smug attempts to substitute some formulaic ritual for the substance of faith and then failing to show real commitment in everyday life. That's dead, externalistic religion.

Jesus' focus was consistent with OT revivalist prophets before him who called for renewal and rededication through mindfulness of the essential. In Isaiah, we find out how G-feels about sacrificial rites: He considers them vain and meaningless. NETBible: Isaiah 1:11-14

Likewise Amos:

I absolutely despise your festivals!
I get no pleasure from your religious assemblies!
Even if you offer me burnt and grain offerings, I will not be satisfied;
I will not look with favor on your peace offerings of fattened calves.
(Amos 5:21-22)

​

 

[Nick_A]

Sound doctrine can only be defined in relation to the goal of the teaching. Once the goal is established, then sound doctrine will further it and false doctrine will deny it.

Of course the trick is in appreciating the goals of Christianity in contrast to those of Christendom since without it sound doctrine is only relative.

 

[nativeastral]

There is nothing wrong with ritual. It can be beautiful, uplifting, and empowering if it's sincere and grounded in gratitude and devotion. What bothered Jesus, I think, were smug attempts to substitute some formulaic ritual for the substance of faith and then failing to show real commitment in everyday life. That's dead, externalistic religion.

I agree totally, l meant the empty formalized ones where meaning is lost/overlaid and had been reading #5 by wil and imagined people yawning, you know?!

Ritual/intent is one of the most powerful dimensions in religions and why they can and are elaborated with each new generation..

doctrines, too, are like the above but even more so are considered authoritative and cause of much strife within the same religion no?

​

 

[Thomas]

Just a couple of thoughts:

People today equate 'tradition' with 'authority' and as this age is so focussed on the cult of the self (individual autonomy above all else), then so often does tradition get thrown away.

Tradition is not merely authority, tradition is what is handed down. What vexes me, as a Catholic, is too often 1500-odd years of philosophical investigation also gets tossed out. The prevalent mindset in the West is post-Enlightenment, which was by its very nature anti-religious. Everybody criticises Catholic (or other) doctrines, rarely question their own.

Take 'communion', as mentioned — from the Reformation on, the rite was step by step emptied of any supernatural meaning or possibility. Today communion is determined by what someone thinks is credible. The Catholic claims for the Eucharist are rejected solely on the grounds that they infer a supernatural element, and since the Enlightenment, the supernatural has been relegated to the superstitious.

So religious doctrine today is governed by the presupposition that there is no reality to the supernatural, its rites are determined by human credibility and God is reduced to a mute by-stander.

Like many voices here, Christianity is reduced to 'the critical minimum', with an eager uptake of every devaluating statement of biblical criticism — which has become for many a fact, rather than simply a thesis — and often a very shajy thesis at that.

Modern Christianity is a belief in the least, whilst asserting one's right to the very most.

It is a hypocrisy.

Thomas

 

[nativeastral]

Though every religion can be said to be a proclamation in the supernatural [even buddhism] the emphasis is on the individuals constituting the body of that institution and of their personal salvation [cult of the self in other words] in which the part [self] wishes communion/union with the whole [G-d/absolute reality]; hence the doctrines/rituals etc that maintain/establish theories and practice to engender love and care of the whole [of humanity] to counteract the selfish concern of the part.

 

[Dondi]

Take 'communion', as mentioned — from the Reformation on, the rite was step by step emptied of any supernatural meaning or possibility. Today communion is determined by what someone thinks is credible. The Catholic claims for the Eucharist are rejected solely on the grounds that they infer a supernatural element, and since the Enlightenment, the supernatural has been relegated to the superstitious.

So religious doctrine today is governed by the presupposition that there is no reality to the supernatural, its rites are determined by human credibility and God is reduced to a mute by-stander.

Like many voices here, Christianity is reduced to 'the critical minimum', with an eager uptake of every devaluating statement of biblical criticism — which has become for many a fact, rather than simply a thesis — and often a very shajy thesis at that.

Are you of the opinion that Protestant communion has no meaning or is shallow because we do not consider the 'supernatural element' of the ritual? Or have you considered that the 'supernatural element' is in Protestant communion based on the spiritual communion among their members and the Lord through the very act of a shared experience, rather than necessarily the physical elements on display? That God's Presence is very real in the hearts of those who participate?

Rather than 'the critical minimum' perhaps we are taking on the 'simplicity that is in Christ' (II Corinthians 11:3). How much faith did Christ say we needed? Ah, yes, the grain of a mustard seed.

 

[Dream]

The only thing you get when you try to have meetings to bring opposing sides together is the opportunity for stubborn persons to make trouble. Traditional councils have only led to fractures. Yet, every now and somebody calls councils & makes pronouncements. Is this not ignoring tradition? The latest pronouncement is to call everyone without vestments the West. That cannot promote unification. I think it is significant that Jesus rather than suggesting regular council meetings prayed for unity among his followers! He made no distinction between his good disciples and his bad disciples, and they all ate together. The only divisions happened whenever some of the disciples wanted to be placed over the others, which caused unrest among them.

 

[seattlegal]

The only thing you get when you try to have meetings to bring opposing sides together is the opportunity for stubborn persons to make trouble. Traditional councils have only led to fractures. Yet, every now and somebody calls councils & makes pronouncements. Is this not ignoring tradition? The latest pronouncement is to call everyone without vestments the West. That cannot promote unification. I think it is significant that Jesus rather than suggesting regular council meetings prayed for unity among his followers! He made no distinction between his good disciples and his bad disciples, and they all ate together. The only divisions happened whenever some of the disciples wanted to be placed over the others, which caused unrest among them.

Now if you get all the factions unofficially together for a pizza party, I think you just might see some unofficial unity happening...

 

[Netti-Netti]

Thomas,

Today communion is determined by what someone thinks is credible. The Catholic claims for the Eucharist are rejected solely on the grounds that they infer a supernatural element, and since the Enlightenment, the supernatural has been relegated to the superstitious.

Who is doing the rejection? Where do I find a statement of the position you are responding to?

So religious doctrine today is governed by the presupposition that there is no reality to the supernatural, its rites are determined by human credibility and God is reduced to a mute by-stander.

The Church has to some extent been guilty of this by insisting on being a mediator of the individual's relationship with G-d.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Netti-Netti —

Who is doing the rejection? Where do I find a statement of the position you are responding to?

C'mon, this is hardly new ...

The Reformation began limiting the the idea of Real Presence in the Eucharist, Luther half-allowed it, the others refuted it. The Enlightenment refutes it utterly.

Most people in the West today are not even aware that their thinking is framed and shaped by the philosophy of the Enlightenment ... but perhaps 'rejection' is too strong a word, most people are not even aware of the idea in the first place, so are in no position to reject it. So they reject the idea of Real Presence, but support the idea of the supernatural ... a contradiction ... but a contradiction based on the fact they are unaware of the position they're arguing from.

As in all cases of 'thinking outside the box' — the very term implies the presupposition of certain conditions, which is a box in itself. So thinking outside the box means inside the box I'm in, but am unaware of.

The Church has to some extent been guilty of this by insisting on being a mediator of the individual's relationship with G-d.

Well I would argue your terms, we transmit, we mediate only in the sense of enable, and we intercede on your behalf ... without the Church there is no sacrament, now you might not believe in them, but millions do, and the Mystics insist on the efficacy, both of Church and Sacrament ... so I tend to listen to those who know, rather than those who don't.

It's those who don't know who insist they don't need anything from anyone. It's those who do know who know they do.

Thomas

 

[seattlegal]

Hi Netti-Netti —


C'mon, this is hardly new ...

The Reformation began limiting the the idea of Real Presence in the Eucharist, Luther half-allowed it, the others refuted it. The Enlightenment refutes it utterly.

Most people in the West today are not even aware that their thinking is framed and shaped by the philosophy of the Enlightenment ... but perhaps 'rejection' is too strong a word, most people are not even aware of the idea in the first place, so are in no position to reject it. So they reject the idea of Real Presence, but support the idea of the supernatural ... a contradiction ... but a contradiction based on the fact they are unaware of the position they're arguing from.

As in all cases of 'thinking outside the box' — the very term implies the presupposition of certain conditions, which is a box in itself. So thinking outside the box means inside the box I'm in, but am unaware of.


Well I would argue your terms, we transmit, we mediate only in the sense of enable, and we intercede on your behalf ... without the Church there is no sacrament, now you might not believe in them, but millions do, and the Mystics insist on the efficacy, both of Church and Sacrament ... so I tend to listen to those who know, rather than those who don't.

It's those who don't know who insist they don't need anything from anyone. It's those who do know who know they do.

Thomas

My take--much simpler:

Luke 22:19
And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.


​

 

[Dream]

I think that calling us 'The West' may seem justified, but its also seems like giving up on us. Despite the enlightenment or the Protestant denial of the RC, there remains a connection with the descendants of the Protestants. Is 'The West' an official PR distinction or just some scholarly tinkering? Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly, but it is extreme.

 

[seattlegal]

I think you've hit on something here, Wil. Our actions reflect who we are, and what we most value. When we act in accordance to what Christ taught, our actions naturally reflect our submitance to the instructions given. by Him.

GK

Mark 7

1 The (A) Pharisees (B) and some of the scribes (C) who had come from Jerusalem (D) gathered around Him. 2 They observed that some of His disciples were eating their bread with unclean (E) —that is, unwashed—hands. 3 (For the Pharisees, in fact all the Jews, will not eat unless they wash their hands ritually, keeping the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, (F) they do not eat unless they have washed. (G) And there are many other customs they have received and keep, like the washing of cups, jugs, copper utensils, and dining couches. (H) [a] ) 5 Then the Pharisees (I) and the scribes (J) asked Him, "Why don't Your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders, (K) instead of eating bread with ritually unclean [b] hands?"

6 He answered them, "Isaiah (L) prophesied (M) correctly about you hypocrites, (N) as it is written: (O)
These people honor (P) Me with their lips,
but their heart is far from Me.
7 They worship Me in vain,
teaching (Q) as doctrines (R) the commands (S) of men. (T) (U)
8 Disregarding the command of God, you keep the tradition of men." [c] 9 He also said to them, "You completely invalidate God's command in order to maintain [d] your tradition! 10 For Moses (V) said:
Honor your father and your mother; (W) (X) and,
Whoever speaks evil of father or mother
must be put to death. (Y) (Z)
11 But you say, 'If a man tells his father or mother: Whatever benefit (AA) you might have received from me is Corban ' " (that is, a gift (AB) [committed to the temple]), 12 "you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 You revoke God's word (AC) by your tradition that you have handed (AD) down. And you do many other similar things." 14 Summoning (AE) the crowd again, He told them, "Listen to Me, all of you, and understand: (AF) 15 Nothing that goes into a person from outside can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, he should listen!" [e] 17 When He went into the house away from the crowd, the disciples asked Him about the parable. 18 And He said to them, "Are you also as lacking in understanding? Don't you realize that nothing going into a man from the outside can defile him? 19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into the stomach (AG) and is eliminated." [f] (As a result, He made all foods clean. (AH) [g] ) 20 Then He said, "What comes out of a person—that defiles him. 21 For from within, out of people's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immoralities, (AI) thefts, murders, (AJ) 22 adulteries, (AK) greed, (AL) evil actions, deceit, (AM) lewdness, (AN) stinginess, [h] blasphemy, (AO) pride, (AP) and foolishness. (AQ) 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a person."
​

 

[wil]

Mark 7:15 Nothing that goes into a person from outside can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.

I've always thought this was one powerful statement.

one that we didn't mention yet discussed here http://www.interfaith.org/forum/the-power-of-words-5105-3.html

 

[Marsh]

Rather than 'the critical minimum' perhaps we are taking on the 'simplicity that is in Christ' (II Corinthians 11:3). How much faith did Christ say we needed? Ah, yes, the grain of a mustard seed.

If simplicity is where we're heading, then I think we're on the right track. But I don't think that's where we're heading, Dondi.

I'm going to take Thomas' thoughts a step farther, and say that one of the post-Enlightenment values that's being fused to Christianity today is the concept of Democracy. I see Christianity as being democratized to the extent that God becomes anything people want God to be. Thomas' description of 1500 years of thinking being disregarded in a moment is, I think, an astute observation and a troubling trend-- particularly with regard to the relative ease with which believing Christians set their Bibles aside and substitute their own visions and desires in its place.

Rather than getting a simplified version of our faith, I see us ending up with WikiChristianity: spirituality in its most democratic form where people not only get to choose to accept or reject Christ, but also get to decide what Christ taught.

 

[Dream]

...Thomas' description of 1500 years of thinking being disregarded in a moment is, I think, an astute observation and a troubling trend-- particularly with regard to the relative ease with which believing Christians set their Bibles aside and substitute their own visions and desires in its place.

Rather than getting a simplified version of our faith, I see us ending up with WikiChristianity: spirituality in its most democratic form where people not only get to choose to accept or reject Christ, but also get to decide what Christ taught.

Rather than ending up with believing what ever, most of us started in the US in different sects. The departure from the tradition really took place hundreds of years ago. Not saying this to you Marsh, but what you said made me think about the 'West' label again. You know, Christians here are trying to do the right thing. Even if Protestants were in the wrong, did some wrong things, I do not think it is fair to associate the people here with everything materialistic or wicked (calling them the West), especially now while they are saddled with the rap for all of the world's financial woes. This whole idea of labeling Protestants 'The West' is repulsive to me and seems a lot like saying 'Raca' to them. It actually appears like political distancing to me. The more this label is used, the more I feel like attaching the libelers to the labeled. If these are 'Left behind' how should they care about the RC? How should they become interested in Traditions hidden behind polished gold? The Protestant exodus would be justified.

 

[Marsh]

I do not think it is fair to associate the people here with everything materialistic or wicked (calling them the West), especially now while they are saddled with the rap for all of the world's financial woes. This whole idea of labeling Protestants 'The West' is repulsive to me and seems a lot like saying 'Raca' to them.

Good post. FYI and to add support to the distinction between protestant Christianity and the West: Three of the largest protestant congregations in the world-- Anglican, Pentecostal, and Presbyterian-- are located in Seoul, South Korea. Last time I checked my map, they're still in the Far East