Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course. I even left it for over 25 years. Like Mark Twain who left home when he was 16 only to find out that, upon returning at 21, his parents had learned quite a lot while he was gone.
Anyway, Scriptural interpretation is very often personal opinion while the practices of the oldest churches that we know of are just a matter of historical fact.
OK, you might be surprised, though, in looking closer, that the CC and others aren't as far away from your position as you think, even within the variations of interpretation. Sacraments, for example, are thoroughly spiritual even as their form is physical. (The Eucharist is the recognition that we must partake of God, and partake of Him worthily, BTW-the theology is built into these simple physical acts which have served the faith of often simple and illiterate peoples for centuries and continues to now). But that's for another thread I suppose. Theology isn't bad. We all do it; we're doing it in this thread. It means to define the nature and will of God. The Church has a huge, rich wealth of this thought, pondering God's revelation, as well as direct grace-filled experiences in some case (another topic) for 2 millennia, and continues to, in both Protestant and Catholic camps, with great strides in better understanding of the faith resulting.I could count many steps which RC has taken that are far away from what the apostles teach us. However that would not help anyone because you have already heard it all and i see no reason to walk in the flesh. I know where my heart is and so does the Lord. Im content with Him being my judge.
OK, you might be surprised, though, in looking closer, that the CC and others aren't as far away from your position as you think, even within the variations of interpretation. Sacraments, for example, are thoroughly spiritual even as their form is physical. (The Eucharist is the recognition that we must partake of God, and partake of Him worthily, BTW-the theology is built into these simple physical acts which have served the faith of often simple and illiterate peoples for centuries and continues to now). But that's for another thread I suppose. Theology isn't bad. We all do it; we're doing it in this thread. It means to define the nature and will of God. The Church has a huge, rich wealth of this thought, pondering God's revelation, as well as direct grace-filled experiences in some case (another topic) for 2 millennia, and continues to, in both Protestant and Catholic camps, with great strides in better understanding of the faith resulting.
The whole enterprise of the Church, with its apparent megalithic structure, worldwide presence, sometimes wild and varied history, human foibles, et al is aimed at one thing: the establishment of relationship/communion of the individual with God. It's performed that task sometime better, sometimes worse, but that's the purpose. And I know Him better than I otherwise would as a result of all the witnesses that came and all the work that was done before me.
If you followed along, you'd know that Souldier was asserting that the RCC moved away from the practices of the original Church, based on his interpretation of Scripture, interpretations that in many case are at variance with your own. I had maintained that the practices of the oldest churches that we know of support a certain reading of Scripture, impacting some dogma of course. And those practices, at least, are a matter of historical fact, not opinion.How about you name some churches for us which have no doctrinal position but instead advocate that the members just use their "personal interpretations?"
Guess I'm still not sure of you're position then. Sorry. The Sacraments are very debatable among some circles. Apparently you believe in the Real Presence after all.Forget the sacraments. Thats non debatable. Everone agrees that the Lord gave us instruction to get baptized and to partake of the Lords supper. Lets not get into trying to promote these so called ancient churches because you just open yourself up to much needed criticism. Anyway, as you said, this is my opinion.
If you followed along, you'd know that Souldier was asserting that the RCC moved away from the practices of the original Church, based on his interpretation of Scripture, interpretations that in many case are at variance with your own. I had maintained that the practices of the oldest churches that we know of support a certain reading of Scripture, impacting some dogma of course. And those practices, at least, are a matter of historical fact, not opinion.
This really isn't at all complicated. Churches that rely solely on Scripture when supporting, say, the Real Presence using John 6, have to depend on their best educated exegesis, whereas a Church that also has its Tradition, its lived experience, uses the same Scripture in the same way but can also back that position up by saying, "This is simply the way we've always and everywhere done it."Yep. That's why I spent a little time explaining it.
I never said they do. Got any more diversions to try out?
Ah, you do indeed.
How so, considering that every denomination or communion that adheres to it, has a different set of doctrines and a different interpretation of Tradition from all of the others? Explain that.
If the word of God isn't good enough, how can "take your pick and call it 'Tradition?'" be an improvement?
No, that would be true only if you confine yourself to one denomination. But if you do that, you can find the same certainty with a Sola Scriptura church body. You still have no coherent argument about any system that improves upon a reliance upon the word of God.
I know-do you ever sleep?Hey, perhaps my manners were not what they should have been. Im sorry for that but i stick with what i said, and its true, no matter what you say it wont change the truth. I need some rest brother. Please have a blessed day.
If you'd followed along with the conversation you and I had been having, you'd know that I was referring to your comments, not his. So if this is not another dodge, answer my question, please.If you followed along, you'd know that Souldier was asserting that the RCC moved away from the practices of the original Church
That's what I thought, too.This really isn't at all complicated.
Churches that rely solely on Scripture when supporting, say, the Real Presence using John 6, have to depend on their best educated exegesis, whereas a Church that also has its Tradition, its lived experience, uses the same Scripture in the same way but can also back that position up by saying, "This is simply the way we've always and everywhere done it."
The Bible is not a dogma.
That's what I thought, too.
Well, you know, that sounds just great on paper, except that the facts are entirely to the opposite. You have yet to come up with a single reason why adhering to custom, etc. is more reliable than, or preferable to, reliance upon the word of God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?