| Scripture,Tradition,Reason-Anglican & Old Catholic The forum for Anglican, Anglo-Catholic and Episcopal churches. |
 | | 
18th November 2005, 10:24 AM
| | Senior Veteran
    
| | Join Date: 30th June 2004 Location: UK
Posts: 3,065
Blessings: 129,730
Reps: 2,569 (power: 0) | | Well, then there are at least 30,000 different interpretations of Scripture...
Ok name them  and most of them are not "minor." Do you think it is minor to say that Jesus in in fact the archangel Michael? Or that baptism is/is not a sacrament? Etc, etc.
Yes but as I say Jesus says get baptised with water and the Spirit the rest is interpretation
peace |
18th November 2005, 11:05 AM
|  | listening
51    
| | Join Date: 22nd October 2005 Location: northern VA
Posts: 6,440
Blessings: 112,732
Reps: 49,825 (power: 63) | | | I question the goal of trying to "discern God's will for us in a way that can be proven to everyone's satisfaction". Everyone is different, with limited gifts and understandings. Everyone is not God. "The fact that reasonably intelligent people can interpret scripture and tradition in a million different ways in good faith and with deep thought" is due, I believe, to the fact that each one of us has only a partial understanding of who our Creator is. Our fallible and concrete answers to questions that, in thier totality, are beyond any one person's comprehension are going to be incomplete and cry out for dialog and continued revelation. I agree, "I think there is more that unites Christians than divides". I believe that is due more to the working of God's spirit among us than to the literal letter of church law. |
18th November 2005, 02:46 PM
|  | Future priest in the Holy Catholic Church...
27 
| | Join Date: 22nd July 2004 Location: Georgia
Posts: 2,777
Blessings: 113,980
Reps: 10,532 (power: 21) | | Originally Posted by ahab Ok name them
Go online and do a search for Christian denominations. Start at the Adherents website.
Yes but as I say Jesus says get baptised with water and the Spirit the rest is interpretation
peace
Interpretation that quite possibly can affect salvation! Peter said that baptism now saves. "Unless you are born of water and the Holy Spirit, you may not enter into heaven." The Catholic churches maintain that baptism is a necessity -- most of the protestant churches say that it is not. Surely it does indeed matter...
Start studying denominations and the differences between them... you will find that they don't have as much in common as you might think.
__________________ Glory be to the Father, who created me.
Glory be to the Son, who redeemed me.
Glory be to the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies me.
Blessed be the Holy Trinity, now and forevermore.
Adoremus In Aeternum Sanctissimum Sacramentum
|
18th November 2005, 02:51 PM
| | "The LORD Is My Banner"
30 
| | Join Date: 26th March 2003 Location: Birkenhead, on the Wirral.
Posts: 918
Blessings: 108,216
Reps: 250 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by gitlance Do you think it is minor to say that Jesus in in fact the archangel Michael?
Asside - I think you are refering to Seventh Day Adventist teaching here (appologies if I am wrong), and they do not teach that Jesus is the archangel Michael. They teach that Jesus is Jesus in a pretty much orthodox way, but that the references to Michael are actually coded references to Jesus. I disagree with this - but given that their teaching about Christ is orthodox I would say it is a minor point.
__________________ "Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:
And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood;
because he was zealous for his God,
and made an atonement for the children of Israel."
Num 25:12-13 [KJV] |
18th November 2005, 02:58 PM
|  | Senior Contributor
31
 | | Join Date: 31st January 2005 Location: PA
Posts: 11,084
Blessings: 70,266
Reps: 96,745,049,432,073,616 (power: 96,745,049,432,093) | | Originally Posted by gitlance While I don't believe that the Pope himself is this stable ground of truth (because there have obviously been some pretty corrupt popes), I do indeed believe that the Church is the pillar of this truth, and it is our job to believe as she teaches.
I think you have stumbled upon something good here. We Anglo-Catholics often quote the fathers to provide an interpretation for Scripture, but whom do we quote to provide an interpretation for the fathers (tradition)? I would say that one thing is definitely the councils, in which dogma was pretty much laid out in black and white.
I still can't get around Rome having all their authority vested in one man, though. It seems to me like they are just walking too thin a line... what if they get another bad pope one day? With that kind of papal power, there is no telling what he could do.
I just can't get around the fact that the councils stopped without explanation for all of the churches except Rome. If we're meant to have church councils every so often to infallibly clarify doctrines and dogmas, than certainly we'd have needed them after the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation. I don't see any reason for the Church to have had the authority to call councils until the 7th and not thereafter, or any reason for them to have failed to do so, since heresys did not cease to exist by any means.
Having all of the power in an organization invested in just one man seems like the definition of a bad idea, except for the fact that if that man truly can not error on ex cathedra matters of faith and morals due to the power of the Holy Spirit, it begins to make a tad more sense. There is precident for corrupt leaders who have done bad things in their personal lives or ordered people killed, etc., but whom were right on broader issues -- and many of them did not have the power of the Holy Spirit to help them with those broader issues. The problem for me is that ultimately a lot of the Vatican's doctrines and dogmas don't seem biblical, at least on the surface of things. It's not so much the concept of a Pope that bothers me as what the Pope says. I find it all quite hard to reconcile, but ultimately I'm increasingly finding that it may be the only way that makes sense to me.
John |
18th November 2005, 03:07 PM
| | not a nutter
51
| | Join Date: 10th September 2004
Posts: 8,161
Blessings: 1,192,183
Reps: 5,783,139,325,808,914 (power: 5,783,139,325,825) | | Originally Posted by Fish and Bread but ultimately I'm increasingly finding that it may be the only way that makes sense to me.
John
Huh? What might be the only way that makes sense to you?  |
18th November 2005, 03:11 PM
| | Senior Contributor
31
| | Join Date: 31st January 2005 Location: PA
Posts: 11,084
Blessings: 70,266
Reps: 96,745,049,432,073,616 (power: 96,745,049,432,093) | | Originally Posted by higgs2 Huh? What might be the only way that makes sense to you?
With a Pope. If the New Testaments isn't clear on it's own and subject to a zillion different reasonable interpretations, unlike the Old Testament, than God must have left us a method to discern truth (Afterall, truth seems like an important concept for him), and it can't be the Holy Spirit alone, because people come of with a million different interpretations of what it's saying. Church councils would make sense, except they suddenly stopped with the Great Schism, from the Eastern/Orthodox or Anglo-Catholic perspective, despite there being great need for them. As little as some of these Marian excesses and so forth in Roman Catholicism make sense to me, and as little as their perspective on faith versus works seems to jibe with the bible, I'm almost beginning to think that by process of elimination, they may just have something, despite how unbiblical it all seems.
John |
18th November 2005, 03:15 PM
|  | Aspirant
44
| | Join Date: 3rd September 2004
Posts: 8,376
Blessings: 185,628
Reps: 7,876 (power: 24) | | Originally Posted by Fish and Bread ...God must have left us a method to discern truth (Afterall, truth seems like an important concept for him), and it can't be the Holy Spirit alone, because people come of with a million different interpretations of what it's saying. John
Bishops are the method. |
18th November 2005, 03:18 PM
| | Senior Contributor
31
| | Join Date: 31st January 2005 Location: PA
Posts: 11,084
Blessings: 70,266
Reps: 96,745,049,432,073,616 (power: 96,745,049,432,093) | | Originally Posted by gtsecc Bishops are the method.
Which ones? The Roman Catholic ones? The Eastern Orthodox ones? The Anglican ones? If the Anglican ones, should I listen to Bishop Iker, Bishop Wright, Bishop Ilhoff, or Bishop Spong? They all teach dramatically different things in some respects.
John |
18th November 2005, 03:25 PM
| | Aspirant
44
| | Join Date: 3rd September 2004
Posts: 8,376
Blessings: 185,628
Reps: 7,876 (power: 24) | | Originally Posted by Fish and Bread Which ones? The Roman Catholic ones? The Eastern Orthodox ones? The Anglican ones? If the Anglican ones, should I listen to Bishop Iker, Bishop Wright, Bishop Ilhoff, or Bishop Spong? They all teach dramatically different things in some respects.
John
There is a clear teaching on most things that Eastern Orthodox Bishops and Roman Catholic Bishops hold in common.
On those things, we have certainty.
On teachings where they differ, I would look to the Eastern Orthodox as they have probably done a better job of preserving the faith than anyone else. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
