“That is the pattern set and since followed by the Church.”
The claim of the RCC isn’t that they are creating new doctrine, but that they are the heirs to the doctrines delivered by the Apostles, especially for all the ones allegedly not written down. If one is “developing” brand new doctrine, which even contradicts previous “tradition,” this cannot be something that they received from the Apostles.
I am sure that you follow word for word exactly the model of church development in Acts. Or are you making it all up as you go along?
Maybe my words should be copied and pasted in full so that what I actually said is here rather putting words in my mouth.
Again and again I have to remind you that I did not say what you say that I said.
Here again, I never said that development of doctrine was developing brand new doctrine.
The pattern was set and hasn’t changed.
There was a question regarding whether non Jews had to be circumcised before becoming Christian. There were some who said yes, some who said no and a council was called render a definitive answer.
Based on what had been revealed to them through Peter and then Paul and Barabbas, the council reached the conclusion that Gentiles were not to be forced to undergo circumcision.
That was not “new” doctrine, it was a development, a furthering of the doctrine that Gentiles were heirs also to the new covenant.
That is what the Church still does.
Revelation ended with the death of John, the last of the Apostles, but the issues and questions that arise have not. Therefore, doctrine does develop in that new issues arise that further the understanding of that which was given and received from the Apostles.