Protestant/Catholic megathread

antiskeptic

Went off topic in another thread.

hinault wrote:

St.Matthews gospel chapter 16

... is something that can be interpreted this way or that way. Whether you interpret it yourself or chose to accept the interpretation of another which is given to you, makes no difference.

It's your choice which interpretation you end up with.

I think you and I are done here now.

I think you have just revealed the components of the very thing I have been pointing out to you this last while.

a) a piece of evidence (a verse)

b) your choice as to how that evidence is to be read.

So when you assert x,y,z about the RC church, all you are doing, in effect, is presenting your conclusions (or the conclusions you chose to receive from another and repeat onwards) about the bits of evidence we all get to conclude about.

Asserting and reasserting doesn't hide you from the undergirding choice you've made. And it's the fact you chose which we're focusing on. You, the authority as to what you believe.

You can't forward the conclusion you've drawn as a way of supporting your having drawn that conclusion in the first place. That would be circular reasoning.

lazybones32

antiskeptic wrote: »

Went off topic in another thread.



... is something that can be interpreted this way or that way. Whether you interpret it yourself or chose to accept the interpretation of another which is given to you, makes no difference.

It's your choice which interpretation you end up with.

Yes and no. In Mt 23, at the start, Jesus references the "Seat of Moses" or the binding authority of the Teachers of the Law. Jesus acknowledged their authority to definitively interpret scripture and to convey the message, instruction or teaching that God wanted to give. He even said you must do as they tell you but don't do as they do.
So, it would seem that scripture has a definitive meaning and choosing to accept one interpretation or another does make a difference - the difference between right and wrong. Having the power to choose is something most adults are aware of, so emphasising the primacy of choice is foolish when dealing with such an important issue. I can choose to believe my own version of what I want God to have said but that doesn't make it right and if there are no consequences or no benefit to what we believe about the Trinity, then what does any of it matter? A user here believed Jesus was a sinner - so what? If I believe that Jesus, the Word of God wasn't actually crucified but only the 'bad', material body He used when on Earth was - so what? It's my choice to believe that and it makes no difference.
Christianity isn't a Democracy where everyone's opinion on the interpretation of scripture is of equal value and equally correct. But what does it matter...

antiskeptic

lazybones32 wrote: »

Yes and no. In Mt 23, at the start, Jesus references the "Seat of Moses" or the binding authority of the Teachers of the Law. Jesus acknowledged their authority to definitively interpret scripture and to convey the message, instruction or teaching that God wanted to give. He even said you must do as they tell you but don't do as they do.

As regards teaching life by the Law, fine. But the Christian isn't under Law but under Grace.

That's the central conclusion the schismites have drawn from the whole of scripture - including that which was to follow the OT scriptures.

So, it would seem that scripture has a definitive meaning..

..that's a bit of a broad brushstroke. I'd be confident that aspects of scripture speak into each individuals personal circumstances - and was intended so. It's not a technical manual where each word has a single specific intention to convey.

and choosing to accept one interpretation or another does make a difference - the difference between right and wrong.

The above said, scripture (or those elements that are intended to have a specific meaning) ought to be approached with the intention of arriving at their meaning. The difference is indeed between right and wrong and the paths followed as a result.

Having the power to choose is something most adults are aware of, so emphasising the primacy of choice is foolish when dealing with such an important issue. I can choose to believe my own version of what I want God to have said...

That isn't what's being said. I want to uncover what God himself has to say and I apply what I feel are the most appropriate tools in doing so. Sure, I can project my own desires and make God in my own image - and so fall short of the mark. Point is, everyone is in the same boat - they can only apply what they think are the most appropriate tools in ascertaining what God intends to say. Whether "appropriate" is deemed to involve private conclusion or adopting the conclusions of the RC church doesn't matter - the choice is personal and private.

but that doesn't make it right and if there are no consequences or no benefit to what we believe about the Trinity, then what does any of it matter?

It probably does matter. If, for example, salvation is by grace and a person supposes salvation by works then that might matter alot.

A user here believed Jesus was a sinner - so what? If I believe that Jesus, the Word of God wasn't actually crucified but only the 'bad', material body He used when on Earth was - so what? It's my choice to believe that and it makes no difference.
Christianity isn't a Democracy where everyone's opinion on the interpretation of scripture is of equal value and equally correct. But what does it matter...

The only point being made was that each person is responsible for their own take. That you chose to receive your take from the RC church puts you in the same basic boat as everyone else. Own choice. Hinault denies this and simply (re)asserts RC the church Christ set up

Certainly the one approach will have more merit than another (in the sense of being better able to arrive at message scripture is intending to convey). But value lies really only in the eye of the beholder. It is the beholder who is going to live by their decision.

lazybones32

antiskeptic wrote: »

As regards teaching life by the Law, fine. But the Christian isn't under Law but under Grace.

I hear that bandied about quite a bit but the fact remains that Christians use the Gospel as a source of law to govern their spiritual life. The words of the King would be considered (what) in his Kingdom?

antiskeptic wrote: »

..that's a bit of a broad brushstroke. I'd be confident that aspects of scripture speak into each individuals personal circumstances - and was intended so. It's not a technical manual where each word has a single specific intention to convey.

But is the primary purpose of the scriptures to guide the flock of God's people as a whole - by declaring His intentions, decrees and desires - or to enlighten specific individuals at certain moments throughout history? Given that scripture and the ability to read it is a fairly new new thing in history, I'd go with the bible being a guide for all first and an illuminator for particular situations as being a secondary benefit.

antiskeptic wrote: »

... Point is, everyone is in the same boat - they can only apply what they think are the most appropriate tools in ascertaining what God intends to say. Whether "appropriate" is deemed to involve private conclusion or adopting the conclusions of the RC church doesn't matter - the choice is personal and private.

Yet we had the case of Jesus himself acknowledging the authority of the Teachers in interpreting the Word of God, yet now, He has left us to come to our own conclusions regarding His Word? 'The Spirit will enlighten' you may say, but what guarantee is there that the Spirit is the one who is advising?

We have God assigning a teaching authority in OT times and neglecting to do so in NT times? He's assigned hierarchy and different functions but leaves His eternal word at the users discretion.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It probably does matter. If, for example, salvation is by grace and a person supposes salvation by works then that might matter alot.

A few points: 1) I was being ironic 2) it does raise an issue with other's belief that intellectually assenting to Jesus being the Christ is sufficient for Salvation. Does it matter what they believe about Jesus or who He was? Why does it matter if believing in your heart and speaking with the lips is all that's needed (despite scriptural evidence to the contrary) and 3) I don't know of any denomination that espouses salvation by works alone. If you were referring to RC's, please use the 'faith and works' tag when describing to avoid confusion - p's + q's.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The only point being made was that each person is responsible for their own take. That you chose to receive your take from the RC church puts you in the same basic boat as everyone else. Own choice. Hinault denies this and simply (re)asserts RC the church Christ set up

Certainly the one approach will have more merit than another (in the sense of being better able to arrive at message scripture is intending to convey). But value lies really only in the eye of the beholder. It is the beholder who is going to live by their decision.

I can't speak for anyone else but I think most adults understand that choice is involved. People choose to accept the authority of the RCC/Bishop/Pastor/Self in relation to these matters, so why the need to keep chasing it?

Nick Park

antiskeptic wrote:

But the Christian isn't under Law but under Grace.

lazybones32 wrote: »

I hear that bandied about quite a bit

Bandied about? You mean by that Paul chappie?

The Apostle Paul wrote:

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

antiseptic, stop quoting Scripture. You're confusing the foot soldiers. :pac:

antiskeptic

lazybones32 wrote: »

I hear that bandied about quite a bit..

For good reason - if you want something to differentiate Christianity from religions generally (which require your performance to obtain a "positive afterlife outcome") then this is hard to beat

... but the fact remains that Christians use the Gospel as a source of law to govern their spiritual life. The words of the King would be considered (what) in his Kingdom?

The law (not Law, which refers to the OT law) applicable to a Christian is the law of love. Love isn't selfish, love isn't envious, love isn't a whole bunch of distasteful things. And it is that law which is elaborated upon in the NT. We obey it not because we fear what happens if we don't (in the sense of being threatened with Hell for non-adherance). We obey it (or are motivated to obey it) because it's attractive to us*

*It's the same for worship. This is frequently caricatured as a bunch of hand wringers grovelling before God singing his praise day and night like those smiling/grimaced North Koreans flocked at a military parade. The opposite is the case: we worship because we recognize how fantastically WOW God actually is. I mean, take a look at the universe and tell me that if there was a Creator of it then he wouldn't be something to behold in a very positive sense (in the event he was also a benevolent Creator). I mean, your talking stupendously, overwhelmingly BIG in a positive sense. And he's my Dad?

My son worships me. Why is my similarly worshiping of my father automatically so negative Ignorance is the only answer

But is the primary purpose of the scriptures to guide the flock of God's people as a whole - by declaring His intentions, decrees and desires - or to enlighten specific individuals at certain moments throughout history? Given that scripture and the ability to read it is a fairly new new thing in history, I'd go with the bible being a guide for all first and an illuminator for particular situations as being a secondary benefit.

The best description of the Bible's intent (that I've heard of) is thus: it is Gods revelation concerning his plan for the redemption of mankind. Within that come his ordinances and guidance but by understanding the larger picture, the sense and justice behind the ordinances becomes clearer, more desirable and so, more do-able.

People are individuals and there can be no one size fits all set of rules to which all must adhere. People are at different stages, people have different cultures, intelligence, background, upbringing. And so the guiding principle is love (or as much love as you/his Spirit within are able to produce at a given moment) rather than fixed ordinances.

Yet we had the case of Jesus himself acknowledging the authority of the Teachers in interpreting the Word of God, yet now, He has left us to come to our own conclusions regarding His Word? 'The Spirit will enlighten' you may say, but what guarantee is there that the Spirit is the one who is advising?

He did appoint apostles who produced scripture. Scripture which "makes patent what was in the Old Testament latent" as someone put it

The guarantee that the Spirit will guide is given by God - there ain't none more cast iron than that. This doesn't mean (and never meant) that man's own will is overridden or that other forces won't be involved. But the Spirit guides, and we follow or not and what will be will be - regarding God's desired progression for us.

We have God assigning a teaching authority in OT times and neglecting to do so in NT times? He's assigned hierarchy and different functions but leaves His eternal word at the users discretion.

You touch on another great theme:

Old Covenant: God distanced from man by man's sin (remember him walking in the cool of the garden in Eden then Adam being ejected?

Installing a system of fixed Law, a priesthood, sacrifices, places of worship* .. through which to deal with and communicate with man. God separated from man behind a curtain in the temple through which only the priest could pass.

Therein a teaching authority and the need for same

New Covenant: the temple curtain ripped in two (remember, when Christ died) and the barrier between God and man torn asunder.

Now God dwells not in temples made of stone but in temples made of flesh.

It's not discretion alone. It's man working in intimate harmony with God - for God dwells within. That's the potential. That's the mechanism. It doesn't produce perfect understanding but it's not perfection God is after (in this life), its coworking, it's opportunity**.


*interestingly and somewhat revealingly, the layout of a modern day RC church is right along the lines of the Old Covenant. You have the great unwashed separated from the altar by a barrier. You have a priesthood intervening between God and man. You have the body of Christ locked up in a safe at the very head of the church. Where is the New Covenant in that?

** It appears there will be greater and lesser in the Kingdom of God. A saved man is given the opportunity to cooperate with God and there is heavenly reward for his cooperating in Gods mission for him. Salvation isn't the reward but reward there is.

it does raise an issue with other's belief that intellectually assenting to Jesus being the Christ is sufficient for Salvation. Does it matter what they believe about Jesus or who He was? Why does it matter if believing in your heart and speaking with the lips is all that's needed (despite scriptural evidence to the contrary)

A couple of points to open this up:

1. There is a difference between intellectual assent and believing in your heart.

2. I was saved on a day back in 2001 (the day I was born again). I am saved. I will be saved come the time when my case comes before the Judge. If you are saved you will believe in your heart and be able to truly confess with your lips. I think this verse is aimed at those who are saved - telling them as much. I mean, it is necessary and helpful for a saved person to actually know that that's the case. Like, I didn't know I was saved the day I became saved. I knew something significant had happened but what that was I didn't know. I subsequently came to know I was saved - by the likes of that kind of verse. It unpacked the consequences of my having been saved for me.

3. Further to the above point (aimed at informing the saved regarding their salvation). I don't suppose a person need to have heard of Jesus Christ in order to be saved - Abraham never heard of Jesus and the mode of his salvation is the very one used by Paul to describe how all are saved.

3) I don't know of any denomination that espouses salvation by works alone. If you were referring to RC's, please use the 'faith and works' tag when describing to avoid confusion - p's + q's.

F&W it is so. I don't understand how the latter doesn't force the former into being though.

I can't speak for anyone else but I think most adults understand that choice is involved. People choose to accept the authority of the RCC/Bishop/Pastor/Self in relation to these matters, so why the need to keep chasing it?

Ask Hinault - he (like many who suppose the RC church the One True Church) comes to the trough of this simplest of logic and balks from drinking from it. I don't suspect he'll divert from reverting to simply reasserting his belief about the church but part of the fun here is constructing your argument, to try to deconstruct the others.

hinault

Nick Park wrote: »

You still haven't answered my question. Don't you think it is unreasonable to expect all other Christians, in order to stop being schismatics, to submit to the authority of a man who (according to you) hasn't the spiritual discernment to spot the difference between 'a good reformer' and the spawn of Satan?

I think it's entirely reasonable for those who claim to be Christian to convert to the only Church founded by Jesus Christ who gave authority to St.Peter and his successors, and to submit to the Papacy.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

... is something that can be interpreted this way or that way. Whether you interpret it yourself or chose to accept the interpretation of another which is given to you, makes no difference.

No.

There is only one truthful interpretation and the Church has declared that truthful interpretation.

Any alternative interpretation is your choice containing no authority.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

I think it's entirely reasonable for those who claim to be Christian to convert to the only Church founded by Jesus Christ who gave authority to St.Peter and his successors, and to submit to the Papacy.

Guys there has to come a time when a conversation goes beyond reasonable and becomes a waste of time.
Pearls and pigs comes to mind.
How can anyone further a discussion when this is hinaults repeated views ?
The irony is that he's the one who is lost and need of saving!
As most of us know, it's being born of God that is important not the group we belong to.

I'm on ignore so sadly he won't see this!

Nick Park

Atlas Gorgeous Shutterbug wrote: »

Guys there has to come a time when a conversation goes beyond reasonable and becomes a waste of time.
Pearls and pigs comes to mind.
How can anyone further a discussion when this is hinaults repeated views ?
The irony is that he's the one who is lost and need of saving!
As most of us know, it's being born of God that is important not the group we belong to.

I'm on ignore so sadly he won't see this!

He will now! :pac:

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

No.

Because? ...

.. the Church has declared that truthful interpretation.

And the basis for supposing the Church an authority in these matters?

.. the Church is the one true Church established by Jesus himself*

And the basis for supposing the Church is the one true Church established by Jesus himself?

.. the Bible says so

And what is the basis for supposing the Bible says so?

.. Matthew 16

But isn't Matthew 16 open to interpretation?

No. The Church has declared on this

But what gives the Church the authority to declare so?

The Church is the one true Church established by Jesus..

This is a discussion forum hinault. You can expect to be asked why you assert as you do. When you find your position is a circularly reasoned one you can either..

a) Escape by adding your interrogators to your ignore list. You lose the discussion.

b) Kick the can down the road by continuing in a circle until everyone gets bored. You lose the discussion.

c) Face the consequences of breaking out of the circle. You lose the discussion battle but face potential gain by being forced to progress towards a position that is more reasoned and thus, personally sustainable.




The only person that loses by continuing in a circular holding pattern is you. One day that pattern must run out of fuel.


As ever.. it's your choice.


* all quotes hereunder are paraphrases of what you've already said a million times over. I just couldn't be bothered tracking back to dig the actual statements up from your posts.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

And the basis for supposing the Church an authority in these matters?

Ask that of the only Church founded by Jesus Christ.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But isn't Matthew 16 open to interpretation?

No, it's not open to interpretation.

The Church has declared upon the matter.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But what gives the Church the authority to declare so?

More a question of who gives the Church authority.

Jesus Christ conferred that authority.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is a discussion forum hinault.

Tell us something we don't know for a change.


What protestant denomination do you belong to?
Who conferred authority upon you to make up your own private interpretations of Jesus Christ's teaching?

antiskeptic

Tell us something we don't know for a change.

Knowing it and adhering to the norms of it are two different things. You don't do the latter, you circular-reasoner you.

What protestant denomination do you belong to?

None. I'm a denomination of one (in the sense that I doubt anyone else has exactly the same theology as me)

Who conferred authority upon you to make up your own private interpretations of Jesus Christ's teaching?

Me. I've no option but to decide what I'm going to believe. Which places me in the same boat as you.

Who gave you the authority to decide the Church is correct in what it says.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Ask that of the only Church founded by Jesus Christ.



No, it's not open to interpretation.

The Church has declared upon the matter.



More a question of who gives the Church authority.

Jesus Christ conferred that authority.



Tell us something we don't know for a change.


What protestant denomination do you belong to?
Who conferred authority upon you to make up your own private interpretations of Jesus Christ's teaching?

Sigh!!!!!!!!!!!!

antiskeptic

Atlas Gorgeous Shutterbug wrote: »

Sigh!!!!!!!!!!!!

Suffering leads to perseverance, perseverance to character, and character to hope.

My personal, private interpretation anyway...

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Knowing it and adhering to the norms of it are two different things.

Nope. In order to adhere to something one would first have to know that same something.

antiskeptic wrote: »

None. I'm a denomination of one

Another self appointed protestant.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Me.

Spoken with all the authority of you.:D

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who gave you the authority to decide the Church is correct in what it says.

I don't claim personal authority, unlike you.:p

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

I don't claim personal authority, unlike you

Claiming or not isn't the issue. You exercise personal authority in your deciding the Church is correct in it's claims.

Or else you're a robo-Calvinist of sorts - supposing God to have predestined your beliefs for you. It's about the only escape left for you.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Claiming or not isn't the issue. You exercise personal authority in your deciding the Church is correct in it's claims.

Nope.

The Church declares itself to be correct independent of my affiliation to it, or not.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Nope.

The Church declares itself to be correct independent of my affiliation to it, or not.

Maybe someone can quote me so he sees this.

Is that the same "church "which sanctioned the murder of those who disagreed with it during the reformation?
Or the one which sanctioned child abuse and mass murderer?
The fact that it knew about these things and moved people is no different to sanctioning them.
For the record, I'm not tarring all its members with the same brush!
Sadly the Protestants were as guilty!
I'm just glad having left Catholicism 30+ years ago that I never became a Protestant:)

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Nope.

The Church declares itself to be correct independent of my affiliation to it, or not.

Agreed. But your affiliation (or deciding to sustain an affiliation done unto you by virtue of infant baptism) is the result of your choice. It is your choice also, to believe their declarations about themselves/itself are true.

Restating "the RC church is true ...because it's true" is kindergarden territory. My 5 year old, when asked why orange is his favourite colour replies "because it's my favorite colour". It's sweet from a 5 year old, somewhat disconcerting from an adult.

For I do note your retreating from an attempt at rationalising your position. You dumped history, the opinion of scholars, the lineage .... in favor of this child like circular reasoning.

It seems clear why you've done so.

You see, a rationalisation is a product of YOU : your evaluation, your search, your choice, your conclusion, your responsibility. That would, howver, destroy the core basis for your 'attacks' on us 'schismists' who follow that exact same process (even if arriving at different conclusions)

So damaging would that fact be to your faith - a faith which sustains itself by diminishing all others, you have no alternative. You must sell yourself out, yourself I say, and become a 5 year old.

I don't, for one second, suppose a God of Love would require you to debase yourself so. So ask yourself "for whom am I doing this? " It's certainly not for God.

keano_afc

Atlas Gorgeous Shutterbug wrote: »

Maybe someone can quote me so he sees this.

Is that the same "church "which sanctioned the murder of those who disagreed with it during the reformation?
Or the one which sanctioned child abuse and mass murderer?
The fact that it knew about these things and moved people is no different to sanctioning them.
For the record, I'm not tarring all its members with the same brush!
Sadly the Protestants were as guilty!
I'm just glad having left Catholicism 30+ years ago that I never became a Protestant:)

In hinaults eyes not Catholic = Protestant.

antiskeptic

Double post

uck51js9zml2yt

keano_afc wrote: »

In hinaults eyes not Catholic = Protestant.

I know he thinks that but he's alone in his thinking on this one!

He ignores the fact there there was always a stream outside of denominationalism whose church is that of the Firstborn One.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Agreed. But your affiliation (or deciding to sustain an affiliation done unto you by virtue of infant baptism) is the result of your choice. It is your choice also, to believe their declarations about themselves/itself are true.

Nope.

The Church declares itself to be correct independent of my affiliation to it, or not.

My affiliation to the Church doesn't add to, or subtract from, the declaration of the Church.

The Church exists independent of my belief or otherwise therefore.

Unlike your so-called church, given your earlier claim:D

Oh, and I'm not attacking anyone here.
You're perfectly entitled to believe in whatever you choose to believe in - even when what you believe is heretical.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Nope.

The Church declares itself to be correct independent of my affiliation to it, or not.

I'm not disagreeing with that. Read what you quoted of my post again - the subject is you and your choices. I'm not commenting on the churches claims

My affiliation to the Church doesn't add to, or subtract from, the declaration of the Church.

I agree with that too. The Church declares what it declares and you chose to affiliate / take as true what they/it declares to be the case.

Your choosing ... is the point made in what you quoted of me. I'mean not commenting on the Church declaration outside that context.

The Church exists independent of my belief or otherwise therefore.

Unlike your so-called church, given your earlier claim:

My (rather His) church doesn't require everybody to adhere to or hold an identiki the set of belifs. The theology is the individuals, the church is his.

You're perfectly entitled to believe in whatever you choose to believe in.

Are you? And do you chose?

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are you? And do you chose?

There but for the grace of God.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

There but for the grace of God.

A vacuous way to conclude what has been a hollow, evasive, intellectually offensive defence of your position.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

A vacuous way to conclude what has been a hollow, evasive, intellectually offensive defence of your position.

I disagree on all counts (but then you know this already)

J C

hinault wrote: »

Nope.

The Church declares itself to be correct independent of my affiliation to it, or not.

My affiliation to the Church doesn't add to, or subtract from, the declaration of the Church.

The Church exists independent of my belief or otherwise therefore.

Unlike your so-called church, given your earlier claim:D

Where two or more Christians are gathered together in Jesus Christ's name, He is amongst them ... and they are part of His Church on Earth.

hinault wrote: »

Oh, and I'm not attacking anyone here.
You're perfectly entitled to believe in whatever you choose to believe in - even when what you believe is heretical.

Heretical from the Roman Catholic religion ... and heretical from the Christian Faith are not synonymous.

hinault

J C wrote: »

Where two or more Christians are gathered together in Jesus Christ's name, He is amongst them ... and they are part of His Church on Earth.

Heretical from the Roman Catholic religion ... and heretical from the Christian Faith are not synonymous.

Anything outside of the only Church founded by Jesus Christ runs the risk of being labelled heretical, JC.

There is no other Church, anywhere, founded by Jesus Christ. He founded only one church. It's time to come home.

Why accept something which has not be founded by Jesus Christ? Of course you can decide to accept whatever you wish, but in doing so you choose to reject the full truth.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Why accept something which has not be founded by Jesus Christ?

Acceptance is involved

Of course you can decide to accept whatever you wish, but in doing so you choose to reject the full truth.

Decision is involved. As is choice.

At last. An admission of own authority over what one is to believe. I knew we'd get there in the end.

��

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Anything outside of the only Church founded by Jesus Christ runs the risk of being labelled heretical, JC.

There is no other Church, anywhere, founded by Jesus Christ. He founded only one church. It's time to come home.

.

I'm glad I'm part of it...the bit in bold..I mean:D

keano_afc

Atlas Gorgeous Shutterbug wrote: »

I'm glad I'm part of it...the bit in bold..I mean:D

Amen!

uck51js9zml2yt

I just had a thought ....was hinault referring to himself when he referred to their being only One Church and it was time (for him) to come home???

lazybones32

antiskeptic wrote: »

For good reason - if you want something to differentiate Christianity from religions generally (which require your performance to obtain a "positive afterlife outcome") then this is hard to beat



The law (not Law, which refers to the OT law) applicable to a Christian is the law of love. Love isn't selfish, love isn't envious, love isn't a whole bunch of distasteful things. And it is that law which is elaborated upon in the NT. We obey it not because we fear what happens if we don't (in the sense of being threatened with Hell for non-adherance). We obey it (or are motivated to obey it) because it's attractive to us*

*It's the same for worship. This is frequently caricatured as a bunch of hand wringers grovelling before God singing his praise day and night like those smiling/grimaced North Koreans flocked at a military parade. The opposite is the case: we worship because we recognize how fantastically WOW God actually is. I mean, take a look at the universe and tell me that if there was a Creator of it then he wouldn't be something to behold in a very positive sense (in the event he was also a benevolent Creator). I mean, your talking stupendously, overwhelmingly BIG in a positive sense. And he's my Dad?

My son worships me. Why is my similarly worshiping of my father automatically so negative Ignorance is the only answer






The best description of the Bible's intent (that I've heard of) is thus: it is Gods revelation concerning his plan for the redemption of mankind. Within that come his ordinances and guidance but by understanding the larger picture, the sense and justice behind the ordinances becomes clearer, more desirable and so, more do-able.

People are individuals and there can be no one size fits all set of rules to which all must adhere. People are at different stages, people have different cultures, intelligence, background, upbringing. And so the guiding principle is love (or as much love as you/his Spirit within are able to produce at a given moment) rather than fixed ordinances.







He did appoint apostles who produced scripture. Scripture which "makes patent what was in the Old Testament latent" as someone put it

The guarantee that the Spirit will guide is given by God - there ain't none more cast iron than that. This doesn't mean (and never meant) that man's own will is overridden or that other forces won't be involved. But the Spirit guides, and we follow or not and what will be will be - regarding God's desired progression for us.




You touch on another great theme:

Old Covenant: God distanced from man by man's sin (remember him walking in the cool of the garden in Eden then Adam being ejected?

Installing a system of fixed Law, a priesthood, sacrifices, places of worship* .. through which to deal with and communicate with man. God separated from man behind a curtain in the temple through which only the priest could pass.

Therein a teaching authority and the need for same

New Covenant: the temple curtain ripped in two (remember, when Christ died) and the barrier between God and man torn asunder.

Now God dwells not in temples made of stone but in temples made of flesh.

It's not discretion alone. It's man working in intimate harmony with God - for God dwells within. That's the potential. That's the mechanism. It doesn't produce perfect understanding but it's not perfection God is after (in this life), its coworking, it's opportunity**.


*interestingly and somewhat revealingly, the layout of a modern day RC church is right along the lines of the Old Covenant. You have the great unwashed separated from the altar by a barrier. You have a priesthood intervening between God and man. You have the body of Christ locked up in a safe at the very head of the church. Where is the New Covenant in that?

** It appears there will be greater and lesser in the Kingdom of God. A saved man is given the opportunity to cooperate with God and there is heavenly reward for his cooperating in Gods mission for him. Salvation isn't the reward but reward there is.





A couple of points to open this up:

1. There is a difference between intellectual assent and believing in your heart.

2. I was saved on a day back in 2001 (the day I was born again). I am saved. I will be saved come the time when my case comes before the Judge. If you are saved you will believe in your heart and be able to truly confess with your lips. I think this verse is aimed at those who are saved - telling them as much. I mean, it is necessary and helpful for a saved person to actually know that that's the case. Like, I didn't know I was saved the day I became saved. I knew something significant had happened but what that was I didn't know. I subsequently came to know I was saved - by the likes of that kind of verse. It unpacked the consequences of my having been saved for me.

3. Further to the above point (aimed at informing the saved regarding their salvation). I don't suppose a person need to have heard of Jesus Christ in order to be saved - Abraham never heard of Jesus and the mode of his salvation is the very one used by Paul to describe how all are saved.



F&W it is so. I don't understand how the latter doesn't force the former into being though.





Ask Hinault - he (like many who suppose the RC church the One True Church) comes to the trough of this simplest of logic and balks from drinking from it. I don't suspect he'll divert from reverting to simply reasserting his belief about the church but part of the fun here is constructing your argument, to try to deconstruct the others.

A bit evasive...there was a structure in place for the interpretation of scripture - and still exists in both Judaism and Christendom today. Christ acknowledged it in His day and didn't do away with it but reiterated people's need to submit to their legitimate authority on what God wished to convey via scripture..
Saying you are under grace and not law is irrelevant to this issue: you never were under Mosaic law to begin with, were you? That phrase gets thrown around when something from the OT is put to people and they want to dismiss it - as if the Word of God somehow cancels out the Word of God (I'm not talking about shellfish or linen here)

Christ founded the Church, empowered and gave authority to it. The Church produced scripture through its members and the Church decided the Canon of scripture. It follows that the Body who has the authority to decide what is and isn't scripture, also has the authority to give the definitive or primary meaning of what God wanted to convey to mankind through it. A personal interpretation is only an opinion and has no guarantee.

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

There is no other Church, anywhere, founded by Jesus Christ. He founded only one church. It's time to come home.

Why accept something which has not be founded by Jesus Christ? Of course you can decide to accept whatever you wish, but in doing so you choose to reject the full truth.

You know, this church, founded by Jesus, has behaved pretty badly. The latest revelations from Tuam don't refer to the protestant church. It was the church's lack of Christianity which led to all those poor girls being in that place. Is that the action and teaching which Christ would have supported? Poor girls who were pregnant having to give up their precious babies?

Give me the heretical church anytime.

J C

hinault wrote: »

Anything outside of the only Church founded by Jesus Christ runs the risk of being labelled heretical, JC.

There is no other Church, anywhere, founded by Jesus Christ. He founded only one church. It's time to come home.

Why accept something which has not be founded by Jesus Christ? Of course you can decide to accept whatever you wish, but in doing so you choose to reject the full truth.

I sincerely hope that you are not claiming that 'the only Church founded by Jesus Christ' is the Roman Catholic Church, complete with it's pagan Pontifex Maximus ...
The fact of the matter is that, it was founded by the Emperor Constantine by synthesising the pagan Roman religions of the time with a form of Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus

J C

hinault wrote: »

It's time to come home.

... I'm already at home ... with Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit, thank you very much.:)

hinault

J C wrote: »

I sincerely hope that you are not claiming that 'the only Church founded by Jesus Christ' is the Roman Catholic Church

There is no other Church founded by Jesus Christ.

hinault

J C wrote: »

... I'm already at home ... with Jesus Christ and His Holy Spirit, thank you very much.:)

I'm delighted that you've joined the Catholic Church, JC.

J C

hinault wrote: »

I'm delighted that you've joined the Catholic Church, JC.

I'm in the Christian Church, founded and maintained by Jesus Christ ... not the Roman Universal one, founded by Constantine.:)

hinault

J C wrote: »

I'm in the Christian Church, founded and maintained by Jesus Christ ....

You might be in a Christian Church. It certainly isn't one founded by Jesus Christ.

You're as deluded as the other non-Catholics here, sadly.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

You might be in a Christian Church. It certainly isn't one founded by Jesus Christ.

You're as deluded as the other non-Catholics here, sadly.

Are we surprised he's not responding to the historical references to Constantine

Can anyone direct me to the nearest wall so that I can talk to it please:D

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

There is no other Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Compare:

There is no other Church founded by Jesus Christ / la-la-lala-la



There is no God but Allah / la ilaha illa'llah

antiskeptic

lazybones32 wrote: »

A bit evasive...there was a structure in place for the interpretation of scripture - and still exists in both Judaism and Christendom today. Christ acknowledged it in His day and didn't do away with it but reiterated people's need to submit to their legitimate authority on what God wished to convey via scripture..

Where did he say that regarding the New Covenant. Which authority did he identify and how are we to recognize it as the authority?

If you are in doubt about there being a New Covenant (so very different to the Old but with parallels / notes everywhere then perhaps we should establish that fact first.

Saying you are under grace and not law is irrelevant to this issue: you never were under Mosaic law to begin with, were you?

Which sets aside the authority being the one charged with conveying the Old Covenant (the Mosaic Law and the Prophets contained in the OT). We appear to be clear on that.

That phrase gets thrown around when something from the OT is put to people and they want to dismiss it - as if the Word of God somehow cancels out the Word of God (I'm not talking about shellfish or linen here)

The NT law expands on the OT law (and I'm not talking shellfish here either). The OT law told the Jews not to covet another mans wife (adultery). The NT law says to lust after after anyone at all: whether neighbours wife or anyone else .. is adultery.

I don't dismiss either but consider myself beholden to the New.

Christ founded the Church, empowered and gave authority to it.

Indeed. The question then is "what is the church?" The answer I consider the correct one is the body of believers. They as individuals form the building blocks for the structure. There is no other church in my view.

Fine if people want to congregate and out of that form denominations. But I don't see that kind of structure as the one Christ ordained.

The Church produced scripture through its members

Through the apostles actually. People who had seen the risen Lord with their own eyes.

the Church decided the Canon of scripture. It follows that the Body who has the authority to decide what is and isn't scripture, also has the authority to give the definitive or primary meaning of what God wanted to convey to mankind through it.

These are two quite separate things. Deciding there is apostolic provenence for writings is quite a different matter to deciding what the writings mean. It would be worth looking up how the canon of scripture was decided upon at btw. It's not as if the RC church is a monolithic structure which traces it origins back to the very start without there being evolution / schism / offshoots all the way through. It wasn't the RC church which decided upon the canon of scripture for example.

As I have pointed out to hinault, the decision to accept the canon of scripture is the decision of an individual. The self-decision extends to every aspect of one's belief whether you decide to interpret something yourself, use the wisdom of others you figure are in a position to understand better than yourself, or farm out the whole kit and kaboodle to e.g. the RC church

A personal interpretation is only an opinion and has no guarantee.

The only guarantee you have is your own judgement - irrespective of the direction you chose to exercise that judgement in.

Which is kind of fair. It means we all stand before God by ourselves, unable to point the finger at another for the beliefs we held and what arose on account of those beliefs..

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't dismiss either but consider myself............

antiskeptic wrote: »

I consider the correct one is the body of believers.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see that kind of structure as the one Christ ordained.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The self-decision extends to every aspect of one's belief whether you decide to interpret something yourself,

antiskeptic wrote: »

The only guarantee you have is your own judgement

All of the above is Heretic Martin Luther central.

Astonishing statements when you read them.
No attempt to temper the self aggrandisement. Boastful.

Dreadful stuff, and deliberately misleading.

Pride is the root of all evil.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It wasn't the RC church which decided upon the canon of scripture for example.

Look at this. Another attempt to deliberately lie. Keep reading your Martin Luther edition "bible" instead.

hinault

The canon of the Bible refers to the definitive list of the books which are considered to be divine revelation and included therein.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions concerning a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon.
The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

Pride is the root of all evil.




d.

I thought it was the "love of money" that was the root of all evil!

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

Acceptance is involved

Decision is involved.

As is choice.

At last. An admission of own authority over what one is to believe. I knew we'd get there in the end.

I refer you to the admission you made above

You chose, accepted and decided what you would believe. There is as much 'I' involved in what you chose to do as there is in what I chose to do.

People in glass houses


You can, if you like, argue why you think your choice is the better one. But no longer that you have done other than what I and others have done. Make a choice / be own authority as to what you chose to believe.

LordSutch

hinault wrote: »

You might be in a Christian Church. It certainly isn't one founded by Jesus Christ.

You're as deluded as the other non-Catholics here, sadly.

Just to clarify ... Are you saying that those of us who are not alined to Rome are not true Christians?