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.
Those who must ignore some passages of scripture to get their doctrine to work are not really holding to Sola Scriptura.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-new-covenant.7924984/page-2#post-69512599
.
Would that not be the far majority of denominations out there then, but not YOUR denomination?
What I mean by this is that there aren't many SS churches who believe that THEY are ignoring passages in Scripture, but rather everyone else is who disagrees with their position.
Would that not be the far majority of denominations out there then, but not YOUR denomination?
I see on #157 you accuse someone besides me of a Red Herring. So I'll let pass your similar accusation of me elsewhere as just your standard of discourse.hedrick,
You stated: 'I believe that every Christian tradition considers Scripture authoritative, and that differences are really in how the interpretive tradition works. How willing is the community to change interpretations? How tolerant is it of dissent? How much attention to individual members and teachers actually pay to the current interpretation of the tradition?'
I think you could be pulling my leg when I consider the USA Episcopalian Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), Uniting Church of Australia, much of the Anglican Church in Australia, United Church of Canada, and heterodox Presbyterian promoter such as emeritus NZ Presbyterian professor, Lloyd Geering, now aged 98.
Oz
Well we aren't saved by knowledge are we. That would be a gnostic position I believe. In my opinion is more important for the Church to have the right knowledge than the people to have it. The Church needs to know how to save people, to guide people to God, and to help them grow in sanctity; but the person in the pew? Well I think that is a different matter altogether. I think for the layman it is more important to have faith in the God, that their Church is teaching them, and to be obedient to that Church, than it is for us to know every single thing our Church teaches. For us Catholics obviously that would be impossible to know the full Deposit of Faith wouldn't it? How many lifetimes would that take!?!That's the problem. Most times when folks make such a charge, they don't think it applies to themselves. The lenses through which people view Scripture are necessarily limiting.
But then again, I don't like to be too hard on folks (and I'm not saying you or anyone else are, Erose). I am just concerned that some folks - if they take off their current lenses and try on lots of different ones in search of TRUTH - well, you never know the makeup of someone's faith. There are some folks who could be damaged by that.
And while I'm not God, and I can't know His judgement, I'm less inclined to think that having ALL the right answers just-so is as important as having a true faith and right heart. What I mean by that is that I'm not sure if a person might not be in danger by having false beliefs. Maybe they are. So if we ever have a chance to help in any way, I think it's our duty to do so. BUT - I am pretty sure it's possible to have every bit of correct knowledge regarding one's theology, and yet have a wrong heart (pride, unforgiveness, what-have-you) and be in serious danger at judgement. This is one reason I put spiritual well-being above argumentativeness.
Some people's faith could be shipwrecked by having their errors proven at a certain point of weakness. I don't want to be responsible before God for that! I think gentleness is less likely to have that effect. God protects and guides us all, if we let Him.
Sorry - I seem to be taking this in a different direction than I'd intended. Combination of recent conversations, recent experiences, and recent reading. I'm still trying to consolidate some things myself. Forgive me please.
I do not have a denomination. That is the point.
The name of the local body that my wife and I attend is "Cross Community Church".
Our only source of doctrine is the Bible, instead of manmade confessions.
1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
.
Well we aren't saved by knowledge are we. That would be a gnostic position I believe. In my opinion is more important for the Church to have the right knowledge than the people to have it. The Church needs to know how to save people, to guide people to God, and to help them grow in sanctity; but the person in the pew? Well I think that is a different matter altogether. I think for the layman it is more important to have faith in the God, that their Church is teaching them, and to be obedient to that Church, than it is for us to know every single thing our Church teaches. For us Catholics obviously that would be impossible to know the full Deposit of Faith wouldn't it? How many lifetimes would that take!?!
With all due respect .... an assembly that is in particular communion with no other is for all intents and purposes still just a denomination of one congregation.
There is still a lens by which they view Scripture.
EVERYone says "we just follow what the Bible says" .... and I don't doubt the sincerity of any of them. Yet they all manage to come up with different interpretations of this matter or that.
There hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians in the world who all have the exact same doctrines, passed down from the Apostles. We find our Church to be something that unifies us all, not something that causes divisions.
Based on your first statement, each of the first century church bodies found in the New Testament would be a different denomination.
I have not been able to find infant baptism in the New Testament.
After the day of Pentecost we find water baptism only after a person came to faith in Christ.
We find Jesus referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit in John chapter 3 during His conversation with Nicodemus.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Here Jesus is using the word "water" in reference to the amniotic fluid of the womb, because Nicodemus had just referred to natural child birth. Christ places the emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, instead of the water. This is confirmed by verses 6 and 8.)
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
We find this interpretation confirmed throughout the New Testament.
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Therefore, the doctrine of infant baptism was not passed down from the Apostles because it is not found in the text.
.
Based on your first statement, each of the first century church bodies found in the New Testament would be a different denomination.
I have not been able to find infant baptism in the New Testament.
After the day of Pentecost we find water baptism only after a person came to faith in Christ.
We find Jesus referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit in John chapter 3 during His conversation with Nicodemus.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Here Jesus is using the word "water" in reference to the amniotic fluid of the womb, because Nicodemus had just referred to natural child birth. Christ places the emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, instead of the water. This is confirmed by verses 6 and 8.)
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
We find this interpretation confirmed throughout the New Testament.
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Therefore, the doctrine of infant baptism was not passed down from the Apostles because it is not found in the text.
.
I of course disagree with you - on Scriptural grounds as well.
Matthew chapter 16 does describe a unified Body of Christ. Acts is one of the best places to look in Scripture to see how that Body of Christ interacted.The point I am attempting to make is that all of us should be willing to have our doctrine examined and questioned by other members of the Body of Christ, which is the only Church found in Matthew chapter 16.
If there is no clear text which proves a particular doctrine, then it can not be a focus of Church doctrine.
The only way to get into the Body, based on the clear teaching of the New Testament, is through faith in Christ.
John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
A clarification - most people who accept infant baptism do not believe that all who are baptized will be saved. We need to choose to follow God and have faith in Him every day.A ceremony performed by the parents of a child cannot do the same thing.
The parents of Judas had him circumcised on the 8th day.
It is your interpretation that "water" is a reference to amniotic fluid. I do not share that interpretation. It is complete eisegesis that Jesus is putting emphasis on the Spirit over water. Such emphasis simply does not exist in the text.Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (Here Jesus is using the word "water" in reference to the amniotic fluid of the womb, because Nicodemus had just referred to natural child birth. Christ places the emphasis on the baptism of the Holy Spirit, instead of the water. This is confirmed by verses 6 and 8.)
As a Lutheran though - you do believe in infant baptism, correct? I'm assuming you agree with BABerean2's sola scriptura philosophy but not with the baptism theology?Traditional theology is certainly that the water is the water of baptism, and each of us here at Traditional Theology should be in agreement with that, but theologically, philosophically speaking I agree with BABerean2. (I just wonder why he's here in Traditional Theology.)
The point I am attempting to make is that all of us should be willing to have our doctrine examined and questioned by other members of the Body of Christ, which is the only Church found in Matthew chapter 16.
If there is no clear text which proves a particular doctrine, then it can not be a focus of Church doctrine.
The only way to get into the Body, based on the clear teaching of the New Testament, is through faith in Christ.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
A ceremony performed by the parents of a child cannot do the same thing.
The parents of Judas had him circumcised on the 8th day.
Sure it does, but not for Traditionalists. And it actually goes back to Christ Himself.Scripture alone, Sola Scriptura, goes back long before the time of the Reformation.
Sure it does, but not for Traditionalists. And it actually goes back to Christ Himself.
So are you including the doctrinal concept in your assessment? Sola Scriptura is impossible to prove explicitly from Scripture. So why is this teaching given an exception?
Erose,
That is not the view of scholars and researchers, Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie in 'A Defense of Sola Scriptura' (CRI).
I suggest that you investigate the biblical material in support of this doctrine from Scripture itself.
Seems like a little myopia on your part.
Oz
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?