What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Comming to an agreement

T

thessalonian

Guest
Below you will find the short list of issues that non-catholic members of this board who claim christianity as their religion hold. I left out the Catholic beliefs for now. Now Acts 15 gives us the method the early church used to resolve issues in the Church. So go to it folks. Let's use that method and resolve all of these. We should be able to do it in a day or two according to the time it took to resolve things in Acts 15. Have fun.

Church buildings are idols - worship only in home churches
Church buildings are fine
Jesus is God
Jesus is not God
Jesus is God but a lesser God than God the Father
God is a trinity
God is only the Father
God is modalist
Go to church on Sunday
Go to Church on Saturday
Don't go to Church at all
Salvation by grace alone
Salvation by faith alone
Salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone
faith + works
Everybody is saved
Only the Elect are saved
Free will
predestination
soul sleep
soul goes to heaven directly at death
taught by pastors
taught only by the Holy Spirit
Baptismal regeneration
regerated by sinners prayer
repentence neccessary for salvation
repentence is a work and not neccessary for salvatoin
Wine should be used for the Lord's Supper
Grape Juice should be used for the Lord's Supper
Once Saved Always Saved
Eternal Security
One can fall from grace
The law was abolished and we don't need to follow commandments
We need to obey the commandments because obedience is neccessary
The Lord's Supper is the body and blood of Christ
The Lord's Supper is spiritually Christ
The Lord's Supper is just symbolic of Christ's body and blood.
All tradition is bad
Some tradition is okay
Pre-trib
Post-trib
No-trib
Amill


:oops:
 
What values do you choose to hold out of that list?

I don't think that either of these are biblical:

Everybody is saved
Only the Elect are saved
 
Below you will find the short list of issues that "catholic and eastern orthodox" members of this board who claim christianity as their religion hold. I left out what the Bible has to say for now. Now Acts 15 gives us the method the early church used to resolve issues in the Church.

So go to it folks.

Let's use that method and resolve all of these. We should be able to do it in a day or two according to the time it took to resolve things in Acts 15. Have fun.

Old calendar
New calendar
Latin Mass
New Order Mass
Pope as head of the Church
Pope as first among equals
Tradition, Bishops and Scripture
Tradition and Bishops
Transubstantiation
Consubstantiation
Purgatory
No Purgatory [but maybe toll houses]
Immaculate Conception
No Immaculate Conception
Baptism by Sprinkling
Baptized by full immersion (thrice)
Priests can’t marry
Priests can marry
"Filioque"
Traditionalists disagree on the dates of Christmas and Easter, the Orthodox claim the council at Nice was inspired but it rejects the canons of Nicea on the date of Easter which the Catholics accept.

Good luck!

JM
 
Here are some of my beliefs:

Jesus is God
You can't lose your salvation
I don't mind traditions, as long as they don't dishonor God
Rock music is not a sin
You can use either grape juice or wine for communion (the Lords Supper)
The Law was fulfilled by Jesus but the 10 commandments are still in effect
You must repent from your sins
Church buildings are okay for fellowship, but they don't save you
I believe Salvation is both by grace and faith, and that Christians will do works because they are saved, not so they are saved.
The Wine and Bread are Jesus body and blood, Jesus said it was real food and drink.
Most denominations are saved

Note: In this case, please no one respond to any of this (to debate it, I mean), the author of this thread just wants to know what we all believe so I am telling him. Thank you
 
JM said:
Below you will find the short list of issues that "catholic and eastern orthodox" members of this board who claim christianity as their religion hold. I left out what the Bible has to say for now. Now Acts 15 gives us the method the early church used to resolve issues in the Church.

So go to it folks.

Let's use that method and resolve all of these. We should be able to do it in a day or two according to the time it took to resolve things in Acts 15. Have fun.

Old calendar
New calendar
Latin Mass
New Order Mass
Pope as head of the Church
Pope as first among equals
Tradition, Bishops and Scripture
Tradition and Bishops
Transubstantiation
Consubstantiation
Purgatory
No Purgatory [but maybe toll houses]
Immaculate Conception
No Immaculate Conception
Baptism by Sprinkling
Baptized by full immersion (thrice)
Priests can’t marry
Priests can marry
"Filioque"
Traditionalists disagree on the dates of Christmas and Easter, the Orthodox claim the council at Nice was inspired but it rejects the canons of Nicea on the date of Easter which the Catholics accept.

Good luck!

JM
Click to expand...

JM,

Your post is someone distorted and shows your lack of understanding.

Calendar is hardly a doctrinal matter.

I am fine with both latin and NO mass. Do you have someone who is not on the board? I don't know of any.

I'll give you the one about the Pope.

Tradition Bishop's and scripture vs. Tradition and Bishops? Who might that be. Actually there is no difference here because if you read 2 Thes 2:15 Scripture is a TRADITION!

Orthodox do not believe in Consubstantiation. That's the Lutheran doctrine. Their doctrine on the Eucharist is no different than ours. They just don't like the word transubstantiation.

Purgatory, vs. no purgatory? Well you really don't understand the issue. They don't like the word purgatory but do believe in an intermediate cleansing. Once again it is a distinction without a real difference.

IC - Actually as I understand they believe she was immaculately concieved. They just don't know about the sinless part. Some as I understand do believe it.

Baptized by sprinkling? Don't believe either of us do it. We certainly don't.

Baptism by immersion? Straw man again dude. We do baptisms by immersion as do they.

Preists can't Marry? Actually once again you display your lack of understanding. Preists are married in the western Church. They can marry in the Eastern Rites in communion with rome. Doctrinally we have no disagreement with them that it is allowable for priests to be married and I don't think this would be a point of contention in unification at all. So it is not a dividing issue.

Filoque. I'll give you that one though it is not as big an issue as some think.

Dates are not matters of doctrine. So I'll give you 1 for the Pope, 1/2 for the Filoque and 1/2 for the IC. That's two in your list. Let's add another one for the minor issues with the rest. I can tell you that reconciliation between them and Catholicism is far less a problem than reconciling all those issue on your list. :o
 
as long as we keep it light...

what about Rome vs. New Rome vs. 3rd Rome?

Thess, I was hoping you'd see how both of our lists include the fringe of Christianity along with the norm, both lists are not correct but contain "some" and maybe a little truth...but in general do not represent either Catholic [my list] or Prot [your list] doctrine in general.

JM
 
JM said:
as long as we keep it light...

what about Rome vs. New Rome vs. 3rd Rome?

Thess, I was hoping you'd see how both of our lists include the fringe of Christianity along with the norm, both lists are not correct but contain "some" and maybe a little truth...but in general do not represent either Catholic [my list] or Prot [your list] doctrine in general.

JM
Click to expand...

I agree. From my perspective and I am sure yours there are some on that list I have included that simply aren't Christian. But this is about this board. The point of the thread is how does all of this get resolved. In all honesty I see complete purity of doctrine in scripture. If not then the scriptures must contradict eachother. No indication of toleratoin for false doctrine among the Apostles. Something is not working the Biblical way in Christianity is the point. My belief is the matter is authority. Since the leaders of the Church got together in one place and hashed this issues out and came to a conclusion. That is the model we are given in scripture. Many on this board even deny there are leaders.

Blessings
 
ChristineES said:
Here are some of my beliefs:
Click to expand...

I do not mean to offend, but this is the problem with Christianity I am sorry to say Christine. It is a submission problem. Everyone wants to come up with their own set up beliefs based on their understanding rather than be taught by scripture, the Holy Spirit, and the Church which is the pillar and support of the truth, upon which the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Note: In this case, please no one respond to any of this (to debate it, I mean), the author of this thread just wants to know what we all believe so I am telling him. Thank you
Click to expand...
[/quote]

Actually, no, that is not the purpose of the thread. Qute the opposite, we plenty of opinoins on this board. I don't want personal opinions about what is true and who is saved. That is the problem that I think this board makes obvious. Debating each persons individual opinion is futile. Authority is the root of the issue. We are told to obey and submit to our leaders who have concern for our souls and that God will give us shepherds after his heart who will GIVE US knowledge and understanding. We are told by Paul that there is a teaching witness that is to be passed along (2 tim 2:2). We are told that the Church is the pillar and support of the truth. Peter tells us that no scripture is of personal interpretation. Yet that's what everyone wants to do. Give their own opinion. Everyone becomes instant theologians the day they declare Jesus their PLS. I have on guy telling me that Paul contradicts Jesus in calling himself father. He has not studied the greek, hebrew, literary types, or history. He is simply a Christian with another of the great multiplicity of "opinoins" of what is true. Yet Chrsit tells us "you shall KNOW the truth and the truth shall set you free".

Blessings
 
Hi guys!

Thess, I know we disagree about quite a lot, but I always enjoy reading your stuff: this 1 really made me laugh - JM too

What you raise, very usefully, is the issue of proper authority

It's come up several times, in several threads, but it's worth clarifying that the classic evangelical position - whatever the denomination - is that the Bible is the final authority on all matters of faith & conduct

Several times, the Bible contrasts the Almighty, All-Knowing Creator with the very finite wisdom, knowledge & strength of mere man

Time runs out, but it's worth highlighting how today's news spotlights the problem of authority

Just before I came on, I read all the UK press furore about staunch RC Ruth Kelly being made Minister for Equality & being now responsible to intro the Equality Act, which will make it illegal for a hotel to refuse same-sex couples on the grounds of sexual orientation - all linked by http://www.christianitytoday.com

Their main link that caught my eye was the heading of the article in http://www.telegraph.co.uk - 'Ruth seeks to serve both God & Tony'

It's punchline wittily focusses on Ruth's difficulty in trying to 'render unto Tony that which is Tony's'

Briefly, it's because she consistently has absented herself from all votes about 'gay rights' but will have to pilot the Equality Bill

Anyway, here's a taster from the CT blog:-

1. U.K.'s Minister for Women and Equality hounded on Catholicism

Devoutly Catholic British Labor MP Ruth Kelly is at the center of a national fight on homosexuality. Critics say that Kelly's religious views make her incapable of supporting equal rights for homosexuals in her new post as Minister for Women and Equality. Among the complainers is fellow MP Evan Harris, who told the gay U.K. news site PinkNews, "It doesn't help that the cabinet sponsor for gay rights who, through her religious views, does not support full equality."

Kelly told the same site, "People should be allowed to decide how they live their lives. I believe in a tolerant, diverse, multicultural society where everyone is protected from discrimination. I will fight discrimination, whether it be on the grounds of race, gender, disability or sexual orientation."

But it wasn't enough that Kelly said she would fight discrimination. For the last day or so, she has been hounded with one question: Does she believe homosexual behavior is sinful?

According to The Times, Kelly didn't respond directly, but turned the question around:

Is it possible to be a practicing Catholic and hold a portfolio in government. The answer is yes. Why? Because I am collectively responsible for Cabinet decisions, I firmly believe in equality and that everyone should be free of discrimination and I will fight to the end to make sure that's the case. I think everyone in society should be given the opportunity to fulfill their potential.

When asked again whether she thinks homosexual behavior is a sin, Kelly said, "I don't think it's right for politicians to start making moral judgments about people, it's the last thing I want to do or want to get into." The British press will likely be giving this saturation coverage for another day or so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's important enough to start a Current Events thread on

I'm praying she puts God's Word first

Worth saying, again, that we evangelicals are closer to classic RCs than we are to 'liberal' Protestants who don't believe in evan a Personal God, let alone the literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ

Worth saying also that I read online on Thurs that MTV is to screen a cartoon series called 'Popetown', featuring a pope on a pogo stick, & I just prayed for RC friends rather than start a thread on it - I don't believe that anything anti-RC is OK

Nor do I believe that anyone calling themselves evangelical or pentecostal are automatically right: the enemy of souls plants false teachers etc wherever he possibly can

& whatever the label over the church door, the Bible makes it crystal clear that 'all have sinned and fall short...'

As Jesus said, "The truth will set you free"

Not deliberate distortions

Back to link Ruth Kelly thread...

Must go!

Ian
 
I think my point should be clear from the OP. It's not the Bible alone that is the final authority no matter how many times you tell yourself that. It's the exalted me and my thinking of what the Bible says. Many do this with all sincerity but sincerity doesn't often make for truth.
 
I found nothing wrong in what Christine posted. If you care not to discuss it with her, that is your prerogative, but please be mindful of who the Mods are here. We don't want to see this steered in any one direction, i.e. RC dogma, er, I mean doctrine. . 8-)

So you want to discuss this like they did in Acts? That's cool. Let's discuss an actual Acts verse:

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Lets keep in mind Jesus was an observant Jew, or does RC doctrine not teach that? When we agree He was an observant Jew, lets discuss Leviticus 3:17, Leviticus 7:26-27, Leviticus 17:10-14 and a whole host of other scripture.

Then maybe we can put this transubstantiation dilemma to rest, heh?
 
vic said:
I found nothing wrong in what Christine posted. If you care not to discuss it with her, that is your prerogative, but please be mindful of who the Mods are here. We don't want to see this steered in any one direction, i.e. RC dogma, er, I mean doctrine. . 8-)

So you want to discuss this like they did in Acts? That's cool. Let's discuss an actual Acts verse:

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Lets keep in mind Jesus was an observant Jew, or does RC doctrine not teach that? When we agree He was an observant Jew, lets discuss Leviticus 3:17, Leviticus 7:26-27, Leviticus 17:10-14 and a whole host of other scripture.

Then maybe we can put this transubstantiation dilemma to rest, heh?
Click to expand...

:-D
 
As a matter of opinion Christine's post is fine but it is off topic. Since I created the topic, I think I am the best one to judge that. Aren't you mods concerned about that.

I am simply stating an obvious problem with sola scriptura. If you don't think that type of discussion should be allowed then I'll just leave.

As for your passage from Acts, once again you are doing the very thing that this thread is about. Putting your own understandings to scripture and developing an arguement that is not used in scripture against the Lord's Supper. Thus you have no real basis for applying from a sola scriptura point of view. In Matt 5 Jesus shows that he is Master of the Law in saying "you have heard it said thou shalt not committ adultery, but I say if any man lusts after a woman he has committed adultery....". Jesus is Lord of the Law! Tell me, would Jesus tell us to use a sexually lustful act in a symbolic way, it being immoral and all? How about symbolic murder or worship of false gods? Then why do you think he would tell us, even symbolically, to eat his flesh and DRINK HIS BLOOD if your arguement is valid. The problem with drinking the blood of animals is that it contained the life of animals. The life which was corrupted and fallen. Yet the blood of Christ containing his life is pure and holy. It is the life of Christ that we want in us.

So you see, not much can be settle with your dogmatic rendering of your opinion on the scriptures you sited and the impass continues as it does with the rather large list I presented at the beginning of this thread, held by those who hold to Sola Scriptura, claiming the Bible is the soul rule of faith. :sad Thanks for playing.

Blessings
 
Vic,


By the way. looking at my posts on this thread I did not express a Catholic view per se but only presented my thinking on a problem I see on this board as it applies to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Your knowledge of me as a Catholic clearly tainted your criticism of my posts and the discussion I was asking for. I did make comments that were specifically Catholic when JM challenged the validity of my OP. But my intent is not specifically to address Catholicism in this thread. In fact the OP was posted in such a manner to avoid that. If it leads you to obvious conclusions and you feel you must defend them by bringing up arguements against Catholicism, then that is a definite weakness in your arguement. It is a logical fallacy to say "Catholic doctrine x is false, therefore sola scriptura is true and Thessalonian's OP is invalid". Oddly enough whenever a Catholic speaks his mind on these threads this is the most common way of attempting to refute his position on the issue at hand. Oh, well the assumption of Mary is obviously false and popes are horrible sinners so they can't be infallible so Catholic go away with your beliefs on justification.


Blessings
 
Fine carry on, but I noticed you disregarded the first of my post. :o

Also, I was RC for 18 years, nothing but my own experiences and the lack of the RCC's ability to teach from the scriptures is what 'taints' my thoughts. Sure, they read scripture, but they don't teach it. When they do offer up an 'explanation' to a verse or a passage, it is laced in RC catechism.

one more thing:

"Baptized by sprinkling? Don't believe either of us do it. We certainly don't. "

YOU have GOT to be kidding me! :o If you really want us to believe that, I question your understanding of your own church, or... you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

What do you call those little drops of water that come off the tips of a priest's fingers, if not a sprinkle?
 
From this point on, I have disengaged myself from moderating in this thread.

I found nothing wrong in what Christine posted. If you care not to discuss it with her, that is your prerogative, but please be mindful of who the Mods are here. We don't want to see this steered in any one direction, ...
Click to expand...
 
vic said:
Fine carry on, but I noticed you disregarded the firrt of my post. :o

Also, I was RC for 18 years, nothing but my own experiences and the lack of the RCC's ability to teach from the scriptures is what 'taints' my thoughts. Sure, they read scripture, but they don't teach it. When they do offer up an 'explanation' to a verse or a passage, it is laced in RC catechism.

one more thing:

"Baptized by sprinkling? Don't believe either of us do it. We certainly don't. "

YOU have GOT to be kidding me! :o If you really want us to believe that, I question your understanding of your own church, or... you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

What do you call those little drops of water that come off the tips of a priest's fingers, if not a sprinkle?
Click to expand...

You man when the priest goes around with that little metal thingy, don't know what it is called and sprinkles holy water on the people? You were Catholic once? No wonder you aren't now. I have to say that ignorance (not intended to offend but you simply don't know what you are talking about) is how most people are drawn out of Christianity by the Davinci Code. Apparently you didn't know Catholicism too well. That WAS NOT baptism that that was about. It is usually done at a renewal of our baptismal vows (do you reject satan....." and is to be a reminder of our baptism but it is not baptism, which is only allowed to be done once in Catholicism.

1: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1668 (555 bytes ) preview document matches
accompanied by a specific sign, such as the laying on of hands, the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls Baptism


As for sprinkling in baptism, apparently you know nothing of canon law. It forbids baptism by sprinkling. Pouring and immersion are the only proper forms with immerision being the preferred (though not the most used unfortunately) method as the fuller sign. You would also know this if you had actually listened to what they said about the Catechism. Though oddly enough in my lifetime, I don't often hear them quoting the Catechism in Mass. This causes me to wonder a bit more at your knowledge of Catholicism you got in those 18 years? Maybe you would have done well to listen?

I challenge you to find anywhere in Catholic teaching, catechism, Catholic Encylopedia, the Ruberics, or canon law, that says that baptism by sprinkling is a licit means of baptism! You are simply wrong.

From the CCC

1278 The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

hmmm. No sprinkling.

3: CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1239 (448 bytes ) preview document matches
the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.

Don't see it here either. Maybe I am the one pulling the wool over my eyes. Perhaps someone is pulling it over their whole body, trying to pull catholics from the flock. :o That seems to be allowed on this board. :-? Even at the expense of bearing false witness on what Catholicism believes, practices, and teaches, and Protestants not taking a Catholic's word for anything.
 
I challenge you to find anywhere in Catholic teaching, catechism, Catholic Encylopedia, the Ruberics, or canon law, that says that baptism by sprinkling is a licit means of baptism! You are simply wrong.
Click to expand...
Then there seems to an inconsistancy in the practices of the RCC across the board. Several years ago, my sister asked me to be "Godfather" to her youngest son. Sure, he poured water over the child's forehead, into a bowl under his head, then preceded to dip his hand into the water in the bowl three times, allowing it to drip off his fingertips, back onto the child's forehead. If that's not part of the Christening ritual, then what is it?

There also seems to be some revisions to the catechism since the late 60's/early 70's that I am not aware of. Maybe it is ignorance on my part but the question begges to be asked, if they needed to revise their catechism, doesn't that mean some-thing(s) in it were wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top