Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone

[mark46]

I don't disagree. But as the NT writers demonstrate on many occasions, prophecy can be (and is) interjected retroactively into texts where it may have never been recognized before.

Yes, indeed. If the prophesies were clear, then most rabbis of the time would have accepted Jesus.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yes, indeed. If the prophesies were clear, then most rabbis of the time would have accepted Jesus.

This is a good point, and I was thinking about this very thing, not just prophesies, but Scripture as a whole. If everything was clear (no mysteries) as many would have it to be, none of us would have to "work" at our faith; and I think faith would become stagnant.

 

[MKJ]

It is interesting that you consider that Gnostics interpret outside the community. To what degree is their situation different from the different groups today (on ion the 16th Century)?

I wouldn't have said that was something that I came up with - it's what the early Church said about them. However, I am not sure how we could possibly say that they were within the Church, they were quite clearly separate.

As far as today and in the 16th century, I think the position of the Gnostics outside the community is also true in many ways of those groups, to varying degrees. When schism occurs, one of the primary results is the formation of different interpretive communities. So - Lutherans have a separate interpretive community than Catholics, or Baptists, do. While they may borrow from each other, or even respect each other in some cases, they do not generally consider the other group as members with standing in their interpretive community. Where this is less so, it is typically where a group sees the groups as less divided - Anglicans to Lutherans or Catholics, for example.

And in some cases I would say the principles of the faith accepted are different enough that the separation of the groups is fully as significant as that of the Gnostics from the early Church.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes, indeed. If the prophesies were clear, then most rabbis of the time would have accepted Jesus.

When a good look is taken, scripture makes most of the people believing, whereas it just states the ruling class from Herod to those in charge of the temple (Saducess) and those in charge of the law (scribes) and those in charge of interpretation (Pharisees) as being opposed. It says nothing of Rabbis, but I would think they would be included in the group, the people.

 

[mark46]

And in some cases I would say the principles of the faith accepted are different enough that the separation of the groups is fully as significant as that of the Gnostics from the early Church.

\And yes, today, almost all Christian communities accept all baptized Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ. At least since Vatican II, Catholics teach that we are all part of the bod of Christ. We don't kick out other churches from Christianity because of they disagree with us on the role and authority of the Bishop Of Rome.

 

[Grafted In]

\And yes, today, almost all Christian communities accept all baptized Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ. At least since Vatican II, Catholics teach that we are all part of the bod of Christ. We don't kick out other churches from Christianity because of they disagree with us on the role and authority of the Bishop Of Rome.

You'd never know that by listening to what some in prominent positions in catholicism have to say.

 

[Albion]

\And yes, today, almost all Christian communities accept all baptized Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ. At least since Vatican II, Catholics teach that we are all part of the bod of Christ. We don't kick out other churches from Christianity because of they disagree with us on the role and authority of the Bishop Of Rome.

These churches are still regarded as not being part of Christ's 'one true church' or as part of the 'church that Christ founded,' however.

At least that's what's posted on these threads all the time, and I believe that these posters are technically correct. In fact, the reason that the Roman Catholic Church considers all baptized Christians to be genuine Christians is because the church considers them all to be under the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome whether or not they know that or agree to it.

 

[mark46]

I wouldn't have said that was something that I came up with - it's what the early Church said about them. However, I am not sure how we could possibly say that they were within the Church, they were quite clearly separate.

As far as today and in the 16th century, I think the position of the Gnostics outside the community is also true in many ways of those groups, to varying degrees. When schism occurs, one of the primary results is the formation of different interpretive communities. So - Lutherans have a separate interpretive community than Catholics, or Baptists, do. While they may borrow from each other, or even respect each other in some cases, they do not generally consider the other group as members with standing in their interpretive community. Where this is less so, it is typically where a group sees the groups as less divided - Anglicans to Lutherans or Catholics, for example.

And in some cases I would say the principles of the faith accepted are different enough that the separation of the groups is fully as significant as that of the Gnostics from the early Church.

Perhaps, I might be a bit clearer. There were many, many different sets of beliefs in the Christian communities, especially before Constantine and the later book burning. Saint Paul cautioned against the influence of other teachers. Saint John dealt with this issue clearly. Jesus seemed to have dealt with the issue when he prayed that we all might be one. There were many, many writings being read in home churches throughout the first three centuries. There were many, many beliefs. To be clear, the Egyptian monks (the desert fathers and mothers) knew little about the niceties of theology. If they were better organized and more vocal, they probably would have kicked out also.

The approach of the very early Church was to debate and then kick out those who didn't agree. We have a different approach today. Many think that accepting those who disagree as fellow Christians.

ONE EXAMPLE - ARE MAN'S ACTIONS RELEVANT TO SALVATION -Must there be some cooperation with the Will of God?

The GNOSTICS taught that we needed to accept God in our hearts. The Word was inscribed in our hearts, and it was the condition of our hearts that was important. As individuals, we needed to become more conformed to God. It was not the Church that determined our eternal life; rather, it was God and our acceptance of Him. The Church was not very relevant to the Gnostics. Gnostics were kicked out of the Church and their books burned. Although the Gnostics had many misunderstanding of the faith, we do not kick out modern day Gnostics.

PELAGIUS and his followers taught that man must cooperation with God's gift of salvation. Salvation required more than the Will of God and the actions of the Church. Man's actions could affect our salvation. We were able to affect when we go to heaven or hell. Pelagius and his followers were kicked out of the Church. And through this day, it is almost an anthem to call someone a Pelagian or even a semi-Pelagian.

LUTHER agreed that we are saved by Grace. However, he also taught that man's actions were important. Man was saved by Grace through his faith in Christ Jesus. Excommunication was the penalty for these views.

WESLEY taught that we must have free will to choose or reject God. He was called a semi-Pelagian. Since he was a bit alter, he was not ex-communicated. After all, he was an Anglican priest his entire life.

And NOW the Roman Catholic Church understanding on this subject are really not all that different from the past heretics on the subject. To put it another way, the views of Pelagius, Luther and Wesley on this subject are well within the bounds of Orthodoxy, even if Catholics now understand the doctrine a bit differently.
=======
If we are to be true to the very early Church, we should consider almost all Christian faith groups as non-Christian. I think that this would be folly. Perhaps, just perhaps, it was folly then as well.

 

[Grafted In]

There is only one true church. It is invisible and non-denominational.

 

[Albion]

....but not to be confused with "non-denominational" congregations. That's probably close to being pointless of me to say, but it's why I tend to say "not denominational" or something else like that when discussing this matter.

 

[Grafted In]

....but not to be confused with "non-denominational" congregations. That's probably close to being pointless of me to say, but it's why I tend to say "not denominational" or something else like that when discussing this matter.

Correct. I should have chosen words that left no doubt what I meant.
I like you're idea of the term "not denominational. I think I'll use it in the future.

 

[mark46]

You'd never know that by listening to what some in prominent positions in catholicism have to say.

Perhaps, you need to listen more to the statement of the popes and less from the posters on OBOB.

All Christian communities have a measure of the Truth. All baptized Christians are our brothers and sister in Christ.

Catholics have spent decades in discussions and prayers with others trying to understand our differences. Obviously, much is misunderstanding, since there is but one Spirit and one Faith.

For example, there have been extensive discussions with Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans. There have been many joint declarations. In 1986, there was a joint statement with Lutherans on justification.

Another example is the effort of Evangelicals and Catholics Together in the 90's. Evangelicals and Catholics understood that we were all Christians. Almost all elements of the Apostle's Creed were accepted by all. There were a couple of books of summaries of their conclusions after much prayer.

To be clear, the Vatican considers Lutheran Christians to be part of the body of Christ, our separated brothers and sisters in Christ.

In my lifetime, some have taught that all non-Catholics will go to hell, with the minor exception of invincible ignorance of the gospel. This teaching was considered so bad and evil that Father Freeney was kicked out of the Church in the 50's.
============

 

[Grafted In]

Perhaps, you need to listen more to the statement of the popes and less from the posters on OBOB.

All Christian communities have a measure of the Truth. All baptized Christians are our brothers and sister in Christ.

Catholics have spent decades in discussions and prayers with others trying to understand our differences. Obviously, much is misunderstanding, since there is but one Spirit and one Faith.

For example, there have been extensive discussions with Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans. There have been many joint declarations. In 1986, there was a joint statement with Lutherans on justification.

Another example is the effort of Evangelicals and Catholics Together in the 90's. Evangelicals and Catholics understood that we were all Christians. Almost all elements of the Apostle's Creed were accepted by all. There were a couple of books of summaries of their conclusions after much prayer.

To be clear, the Vatican considers Lutheran Christians to be part of the body of Christ, our separated brothers and sisters in Christ.

In my lifetime, some have taught that all non-Catholics will go to hell, with the minor exception of invincible ignorance of the gospel. This teaching was considered so bad and evil that Father Freeney was kicked out of the Church in the 50's.
============

Well clearly much residue was left behind. Not a day goes by that I don't read or have a catholic tell me I'm not a member of The Body of Christ.

If the church thinks differently about it today you'd never know it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well clearly much residue was left behind. Not a day goes by that I don't read or have a catholic tell me I'm not a member of The Body of Christ.

If the church thinks differently about it today you'd never know it.

We must speak to very different groups of Catholics. I cannot ever remember being told this by any Catholic, as a Protestant or as an Orthodox Christian, in real life or online. And there has been plenty of discussion on such topics to provide opportunity.

 

[Grafted In]

We must speak to very different groups of Catholics. I cannot ever remember being told this by any Catholic, as a Protestant or as an Orthodox Christian, in real life or online. And there has been plenty of discussion on such topics to provide opportunity.

Then we exist in separate universes.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

We must speak to very different groups of Catholics. I cannot ever remember being told this by any Catholic, as a Protestant or as an Orthodox Christian, in real life or online. And there has been plenty of discussion on such topics to provide opportunity.

That may be how you think you come across but these are your exact words:

But we are not in fact in communion with one another, and for some of us, Eucharistic communion is essential.
So like it or not, we are in a sense "separated"...

You yourself have placed the Eucharist as a dividing point, so it's not just a catholic thang.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Then we exist in separate universes.

Forgive me. Just in case, I wanted to say that I did not intend that in any kind of snarky way. I am sincerely surprised if you run up against such comments daily.

It may not be a matter of separate universes. Perhaps you frequent a forum with a different set of expectations, something as simple as that. But you did surprise me. I am reminded of an "interview" by my Catholic SIL almost 20 years ago (I was a conservative Pentecostal at that time) where she questioned me closely, but then proclaimed that I was indeed within the Body of Christ (or however she worded it - I don't remember).

I have been reassured by Catholics a few times that they did indeed consider me Christian/saved/sister, etc. Sometimes they disagree deeply with my beliefs, but never have I been ejected from the Body in their minds.

(Though I am clearly not of their Church - if they were to say I'm not, I would agree with them.)

So I did find it unusual. But if you spend much time in an antagonistic environment, that may be why. I am sometimes amused (but more often grieved) that I have been proclaimed a non-Christian by my former Protestant brothers and sisters more times than I like to remember. So I can sympathize with being upset at such treatment.

God be with you.

(I'm not Catholic, btw, but as far as our Church is concerned, your particular salvation can be judged only by God. If you claim Christ, though some beliefs might be different, I will call you brother. It is certainly not my place to judge your salvation!)

 

[~Anastasia~]

That may be how you think you come across but these are your exact words:
You yourself have placed the Eucharist as a dividing point, so it's not just a catholic thang.

Ah, Cassia, I do not mind discussing it with you. But you are going back to conversations about conversations.

No, we are not in Eucharistic communion. But that does NOT translate into "I don't consider you a Christian". If that's what a person perceives from that fact, they are drawing conclusions that are incorrect.

We simply do not judge the salvation of others. Ever. Period. (I am speaking of Orthodox, and speaking in the ideal. Of course individuals might fail, but that is the ideology of the Church.)

Communion for us means complete agreement in dogma and practice. If someone agrees with the Orthodox Church on these, they are more than welcome to be received into the Church. If they reject them, by their God-given free will, that is their right.

Words sometimes mean different things, and it can cloud things when we try to discuss with those who use them differently. I am not a member of the Catholic Church. You and Grafted-in are not members of the Orthodox Church (I presume). These are statements of fact. By not being a member of those Churches, we do not share Eucharistic communion.

If you and Grafted-in hear the word "Church" and assume it means "the invisible body of Christ on earth" then you are going to hear something different when we say "you are not a member of our Church" when what we mean is "you are not a part of our communion".

The fact that we (and Catholics, and most denominations) view our particular Church/fellowship as the true one, or the one established by Christ, or whatever, does not enter into the definition one might place upon it.

After all, I'm not a member of your church, am I? And you likely consider it to be the truth? Does that mean you don't consider me a Christian? Maybe you don't, or maybe for some reason these statements don't apply to you, but most people might answer that I'm not a member of their church, their church is true, but still recognize me as Christian.

I hope that all makes sense.

 

[Grafted In]

Forgive me. Just in case, I wanted to say that I did not intend that in any kind of snarky way. I am sincerely surprised if you run up against such comments daily.

It may not be a matter of separate universes. Perhaps you frequent a forum with a different set of expectations, something as simple as that. But you did surprise me. I am reminded of an "interview" by my Catholic SIL almost 20 years ago (I was a conservative Pentecostal at that time) where she questioned me closely, but then proclaimed that I was indeed within the Body of Christ (or however she worded it - I don't remember).

I have been reassured by Catholics a few times that they did indeed consider me Christian/saved/sister, etc. Sometimes they disagree deeply with my beliefs, but never have I been ejected from the Body in their minds.

(Though I am clearly not of their Church - if they were to say such a thing, I would agree with them.)

So I did find it unusual. But if you spend much time in an antagonistic environment, that may be why. I am sometimes amused (but more often grieved) that I have been proclaimed a non-Christian by my former Protestant brothers and sisters more times than I like to remember. So I can sympathize with being upset at such treatment.

God be with you.

(I'm not Catholic, btw, but as far as our Church is concerned, your particular salvation can be judged only by God. If you claim Christ, though some beliefs might be different, I will call you brother. It is certainly not my place to judge your salvation!)

I'll give an example i've used here before.
While flipping through channels I stopped to listen to Fr.Caroppi (sp) and got to liking his sermons. So whenever I'D see him on I'D watch. One day he gave a sermon I especially enjoyed. Near the end he got real serious and said "....and if you do not believe that Mary was eternally sinless and remained a virgin, then you are going to hell.

That's pretty blunt.

 

[Grafted In]

I do not nor have I ever believed that the one true church is a denomination. There are probably saved and unsaved people in every church building on their day of worship. There are saved people hiding in plain sight of those who believe their church is the one true church.
A Christian is a Christian whether he attends catholic mass or attends services at a protestant gathering or milks cows on Sunday. Everything else is foolishment of men.