The Church: Doctrinal disunity or unity?

[sculleywr]

I've already answered that for you. The Bible is his word. It is reliable or nothing in this life is! It is timeless. Repair to it at any time in history and the path back to truth is there.

What do you think the consequences of the Fall were??

Man was created in a wonderful state. Adam and Eve fumbled it away--with many unfortunate consequences that we all now are forced, as their descendents, to endure. We are NOT perfect. We are NOT sinless. We are NOT all-wise. We, therefore, needed a Savior. You and I, years later, have a new start because of the cross and have the script right there in the Bible...if we'll only stop thinking that we mortals are the masters of our own fate.

Which interpretation is correct? You have the word but no way to discern which interpreting is correct? Apparently God is not strong enough to preserve His Truth completely.

 

[sculleywr]

I didn't say anything about the truth being unavailable. What I said is that it is not the private possession of any one denomination and that any church can make mistakes.

I didn't say anything about truth being relative.

Your interpretation is a valid as mine. We use the same book, so nothing else is important. I choose to believe that God is a huge beast with four heads because of revelation.

 

[Albion]

Your interpretation is a valid as mine. We use the same book, so nothing else is important.

Not necessarily. It could be that I have misinterpreted whatever it is that we are discussing. But you don't normally counter with your interpretation. Instead, you turn from the Bible and put your trust in a denomination or human opinion instead, i.e.. Tradition.

I choose to believe that God is a huge beast with four heads because of revelation.

Then you've misunderstood that part of Scripture, is all. You having misunderstood Scripture doesn't prove that Scripture is wrong.

 

[Albion]

Which interpretation is correct?

That would depend on what the question asked of it is, wouldn't it?

You have the word but no way to discern which interpreting is correct?

Of course there are ways to interpret Scripture, and I know you know that.

Apparently God is not strong enough to preserve His Truth completely.

That makes sense only if you think that NO ONE understands God's will and revelation. I see no reason to conclude that this is the case.

 

[sculleywr]

That would depend on what the question asked of it is, wouldn't it?

Without a True Interpretation, then there is no basis by which to measure a church. The Scripture is used in them all. Without true Interpretation, there is no measuring stick to tell if your denomination is any more valid than Joseph Smith's or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Of course there are ways to interpret Scripture, and I know you know that.

Which way is THE right way to interpret and how do you know? Some intangible feeling that doesn't require evidence? If you aren't even sure if your church has the right interpretation, then what point is there to it?

However, if the Rock upon which Christ said His Church would be built upon was solid, permanent FULL Truth, as described in Jude 3 as being passed down ONCE for ALL the saints; then you have basis, then you have foundation. Without the right Interpreting of Scripture, the right Scriptures are completely useless.

For instance, God is described using the following animals without indication of simile:

several strange beasts with quite exotic characteristics.
Eagles
various birds

A person, taking a literalist view on it, would be fully justified in saying that these were literal descriptions of God, at least by modern, western standards. There are some who have done that. There are some who, going by Sola Scriptura, claim that Christ is a created being, and are yet members in good standing of Baptist churches (I know this because I currently attend Tennessee Temple University and know several of them).

The Twelve Tribes Community has interpreted the Bible to mean that the true Church is a group of people who have cloistered together and given all of their earthly goods quite literally to join their community. All others who do not do this are damned by God because they have not embraced the life of true Christians.

This is the doctrinal anarchy with which you claim God established the Church. This is not only speculation, but sad, bitter reality.

 

[sculleywr]

Not necessarily. It could be that I have misinterpreted whatever it is that we are discussing. But you don't normally counter with your interpretation. Instead, you turn from the Bible and put your trust in a denomination or human opinion instead, i.e.. Tradition.


Then you've misunderstood that part of Scripture, is all. You having misunderstood Scripture doesn't prove that Scripture is wrong.

I never said it was wrong. I said that would be as valid an interpretation as any other, because no matter how you try, it is still based on what Scripture said. If being closer to the interpretation of the people who died so that you could have a Bible is not important, then my rhetorical interpretation of it is valid.

 

[Albion]

I never said it was wrong. I said that would be as valid an interpretation as any other, because no matter how you try, it is still based on what Scripture said.

You are missing the point. Scripture is either correct or it is not. It does not become correct--or, more to the point, INcorrect--depending on what any of us thinks of it. And the same is true of your suggested alternative, Tradition.

If being closer to the interpretation of the people who died so that you could have a Bible is not important, then my rhetorical interpretation of it is valid.

LOL. Well, your interpretation does not become correct just because someone else is incorrect. I think you can appreciate that if you think about it for a moment.

As for the interpretations of those who lived in the first centuries, they are both more likely of accuracy and less likely--all at once. Primary witnesses are more persuasive than those who speak from a distance and were not primary witnesses. However, we are now able to discern many linguistic, scientific, and historic facts that help us understand Scripture and which those people were unaware of.

 

[Albion]

This is the doctrinal anarchy with which you claim God established the Church. This is not only speculation, but sad, bitter reality.

Why do you take such satisfaction from accusing other churches of "doctrinal anarchy" as though your church is not one of them itself?

If you were a Jehovah's Witness, you'd be saying the exact same thing--and this is not mere talk on my part because the JW actually DO say the same thing you are saying about the Orthodox churches. And so do a dozen other church bodies that easily come to mind as saying everyone is wrong but them.

It's just talk. It's nothing that can be decided objectively, much as you try.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Having read through the first part of another thread, I realized that the biggest problem we have that caused people to look elsewhere is the very obvious division in the Church. I, myself, have brought it up several times in various topics.

So the question I put up is: Is the Church established as a physical reality with real doctrinal and practical unity? Or was the Church established as independent congregations with a loose governmental structure in which agreement was not as important as mutual respect?

Please, give actual support to your statement.

I am tired of writing, please forgive me of taking the short cut and posting something from another thread, but it does fit well here:



"Do Christians accept all Christians?

Did the early Christians accept all the other churches and their varied beliefs? No, neither did Apostle Paul, nor should you. However, Apostle Paul reminded us to respect these other brothers and sisters in God's salvation family. I do, do you?

The problem today is that people don't have faith. Remember Jesus asking when he came back would he find faith on the Earth. He was talking about us, Christians! Remember Apostle Paul, saying:

Romans 14:4
American Standard Version (ASV)

4 Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand.

Shouldn't we have faith in God's ability to save those who serve and trust him (not by their theologies or traditions, but by the author of their faith)?

Ask God the very tough questions and he will give you your answers. Have faith my brothers and sisters in Christ."




The church was varied in the beginning, but respecting each other and conforming into the accepted organizational traditions when together, even with visitors from outside. The absolutes (hierarchy beliefs systems) that have emerged were around with the Apostles to some extent. The problem is the authority issue. We don't have Jesus' chosen ones as in the early days. We are on our own and have to work out our own salvations while loving and respecting others with very different views. It can be done, but we need to stay within God's will in doing so, obeying the commands and teachings of Christ Jesus, God's human son, first born.

We were created, but are we not now born through Christ as him to become one in God's big family? Christ was not created, but born of God. We cannot be saved unless we too are born again, no longer created, but born of God as his son was. We inherit life forever like God's own son, with no beginning or end, as being in God's own family?! Any thoughts?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Having read through the first part of another thread, I realized that the biggest problem we have that caused people to look elsewhere is the very obvious division in the Church. I, myself, have brought it up several times in various topics.

So the question I put up is: Is the Church established as a physical reality with real doctrinal and practical unity? Or was the Church established as independent congregations with a loose governmental structure in which agreement was not as important as mutual respect?

Please, give actual support to your statement.

The picture I think we get from the totality of Paul's epistles and Acts is that the church respected the authority of the apostles and their appointed representatives such as Timothy, and that they were responsible in large part for maintaining a common doctrinal front against Judaism and the Roman state religion. That very quickly evolved into a defense of the canon and its doctrinal interpretation by bishops who succeeded the apostles, as testified to by Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon. However the line between doctrine believed everywhere, by everyone, at all times as testified in the church fathers and their individual theological speculations are not always clear. Not is the line clear between very early doctrines that were there but implicit but would not be fully developed until later and doctrines that were later laid out not as explicit manifestations of early doctrines but as codifications of later speculations. Drawing those two lines makes up, I would contend, 90% of the work of theologians whether Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, or otherwise.

 

[sculleywr]

Why do you take such satisfaction from accusing other churches of "doctrinal anarchy" as though your church is not one of them itself?

If you were a Jehovah's Witness, you'd be saying the exact same thing--and this is not mere talk on my part because the JW actually DO say the same thing you are saying about the Orthodox churches. And so do a dozen other church bodies that easily come to mind as saying everyone is wrong but them.

It's just talk. It's nothing that can be decided objectively, much as you try.

The fact that other people say it is doctrinal anarchy does not change that fact. And if doctrine cannot be determined objectively, then we serve a subjective god who is just like the other idols.

I mean really, why is it that the modern western concept of the church is so much like the Hindu concept? Since when was the Church that way?

You have done nothing to prove me wrong, and honestly, the logic that God established doctrines to be subjective instead of objective is both preposterous and heretical. God is an objective God. Truth is objective. And unless objective truth can be come to, we do not have real communion with God. Real communion with God is based on real knowledge of God. Real knowledge of God is based on objective truth about God.

Could you truly have communion or fellowship with me if you lived under the persuasion that I am a Baptist, despite the evidence to the contrary? Basing it simply off of my past affiliations, you could subjectively state that I was a Baptist, and so could say that by those affiliations I still am. However, if you tried to develop friendship with me based on that assumption, it would not be real. It would be based off of your personal opinion on me instead of the real opinion.

That is what denominationalism is. In its essence, Protestantism, especially the branches of Protestantism which developed in the Pietistic movement, such as your apparent division within the Anglican Church (judging by the stance of your statements, you are not Anglo-Catholic), the Baptists, Pentecostals, and other groups; Protestantism is attempting to approach God on our own personal opinions of Him rather than Who He is.

The different views on God are so vastly different that in reality, the way the Baptist God would respond in a situation is going to be different than the Pentecostal God. They all CLAIM to be worshiping the same God. But in reality, if the picture you paint of God in doctrine is different, then isn't the God not the same? If He were the same, then He would respond in the same way no matter what.

But the hindu concept of "many views, one God" has infected the western Church. And I'm sorry if this grates on anyone, but I am going to call it what it is: heretical. There is only one Truth about God. We can only have Communion if it is True Communion. Therefore, we must obtain the FULL Truth. If we cannot obtain that, then we are damned to false communion with a subjective idea rather than a real communion with an objective God.

 

[sculleywr]

You are missing the point. Scripture is either correct or it is not. It does not become correct--or, more to the point, INcorrect--depending on what any of us thinks of it. And the same is true of your suggested alternative, Tradition.



LOL. Well, your interpretation does not become correct just because someone else is incorrect. I think you can appreciate that if you think about it for a moment.

As for the interpretations of those who lived in the first centuries, they are both more likely of accuracy and less likely--all at once. Primary witnesses are more persuasive than those who speak from a distance and were not primary witnesses. However, we are now able to discern many linguistic, scientific, and historic facts that help us understand Scripture and which those people were unaware of.

You mean the people back then who wrote in the language of the classicaly trained Greeks were unable to know their own history????

Have you ever actually studied the methods of education they used back then? You know, the same methods that are still used in Ivy League colleges? The Socratic method of education which is still, to this day, the most effective method of education ever developed?

Are you going to have the audacity to tell me that these people who WROTE the history to which you refer were not aware of the history?

Are you going to tell me that the people who spoke Koine Greek have less knowledge of the language they spoke than we do?

That's so funny I'm tempted to put it in my signature as an example of :head-desk: moments.

 

[sculleywr]

I am tired of writing, please forgive me of taking the short cut and posting something from another thread, but it does fit well here:



"Do Christians accept all Christians?

Did the early Christians accept all the other churches and their varied beliefs? No, neither did Apostle Paul, nor should you. However, Apostle Paul reminded us to respect these other brothers and sisters in God's salvation family. I do, do you?

The problem today is that people don't have faith. Remember Jesus asking when he came back would he find faith on the Earth. He was talking about us, Christians! Remember Apostle Paul, saying:

Romans 14:4
American Standard Version (ASV)

4 Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand.

Shouldn't we have faith in God's ability to save those who serve and trust him (not by their theologies or traditions, but by the author of their faith)?

Ask God the very tough questions and he will give you your answers. Have faith my brothers and sisters in Christ."




The church was varied in the beginning, but respecting each other and conforming into the accepted organizational traditions when together, even with visitors from outside. The absolutes (hierarchy beliefs systems) that have emerged were around with the Apostles to some extent. The problem is the authority issue. We don't have Jesus' chosen ones as in the early days. We are on our own and have to work out our own salvations while loving and respecting others with very different views. It can be done, but we need to stay within God's will in doing so, obeying the commands and teachings of Christ Jesus, God's human son, first born.

We were created, but are we not now born through Christ as him to become one in God's big family? Christ was not created, but born of God. We cannot be saved unless we too are born again, no longer created, but born of God as his son was. We inherit life forever like God's own son, with no beginning or end, as being in God's own family?! Any thoughts?

So God apparently stopped choosing people after the Apostles, at least as far as organizational leaders in the Church...

Yeah. I'll believe that the day that I believe my 4'6" friend can make a slam dunk on an NBA rim without assistance.

 

[Albion]

You mean the people back then who wrote in the language of the classicaly trained Greeks were unable to know their own history????

Believe it or not, knowledge is constantly expanding. Many ancient peoples had creation stories that we now consider comical and had very little knowledge of geography, for instance. The world was thought to be flat or some shape other than we NOW know it to be. I almost feel that you are arguing this line just for the sake of disagreeing.

Are you going to have the audacity to tell me that these people who WROTE the history to which you refer were not aware of the history?

It's not even debatable. And it's not only those people. We have found, through research, that many of our own ideas about the culture, capabilities, and history of our ancestors living only two or three centuries ago were not at all what we taught in our schools during our parents and grandparents' own lifetimes.

That's so funny I'm tempted to put it in my signature as an example of :head-desk: moments.

Do you seriously think it helps your cause to close every post to me with a promise to hurt yourself?

 

[sculleywr]

Believe it or not, knowledge is constantly expanding. Many ancient peoples had creation stories that we now consider comical and had very little knowledge of geography, for instance. The world was thought to be flat or some shape other than we NOW know it to be. I almost feel that you are arguing this line just for the sake of disagreeing.

Like Irenaeus? or maybe Ignatius? Did you not realize that the Scripture shows that a spherical understanding of the earth has been around since the time of Job?

It's not even debatable. And it's not only those people. We have found, through research, that many of our own ideas about the culture, capabilities, and history of our ancestors living only two or three centuries ago were not at all what we taught in our schools during our parents and grandparents' own lifetimes.

Yeah, because our knowledge of the culture of that time is based on these people who you claim were not aware of it, I tend to think your argument laughable.

Do you seriously think it helps your cause to close every post to me with a promise to hurt yourself?

really??? Sarcasm is lost on you in that case.

 

[Albion]

Like Irenaeus? or maybe Ignatius?

Like "the people back then." That was your claim.

Did you not realize that the Scripture shows that a spherical understanding of the earth has been around since the time of Job?

Do you not know what the prevailing views of "the people back then" were? THAT was your argument before struggling to find some exception somewhere.

 

[sculleywr]

Like "the people back then." That was your claim.

Do you not know what the prevailing views of "the people back then" were? THAT was your argument before struggling to find some exception somewhere.

I was not "struggling to find some exception". The evidence want necessary until you challenged the statement. I also assumed that you would know who I spoke of. I didn't think specifying the who that I spoke of would be necessary.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The fact that other people say it is doctrinal anarchy does not change that fact. And if doctrine cannot be determined objectively, then we serve a subjective god who is just like the other idols.

I mean really, why is it that the modern western concept of the church is so much like the Hindu concept? Since when was the Church that way?

You have done nothing to prove me wrong, and honestly, the logic that God established doctrines to be subjective instead of objective is both preposterous and heretical. God is an objective God. Truth is objective. And unless objective truth can be come to, we do not have real communion with God. Real communion with God is based on real knowledge of God. Real knowledge of God is based on objective truth about God.

Could you truly have communion or fellowship with me if you lived under the persuasion that I am a Baptist, despite the evidence to the contrary? Basing it simply off of my past affiliations, you could subjectively state that I was a Baptist, and so could say that by those affiliations I still am. However, if you tried to develop friendship with me based on that assumption, it would not be real. It would be based off of your personal opinion on me instead of the real opinion.

That is what denominationalism is. In its essence, Protestantism, especially the branches of Protestantism which developed in the Pietistic movement, such as your apparent division within the Anglican Church (judging by the stance of your statements, you are not Anglo-Catholic), the Baptists, Pentecostals, and other groups; Protestantism is attempting to approach God on our own personal opinions of Him rather than Who He is.

The different views on God are so vastly different that in reality, the way the Baptist God would respond in a situation is going to be different than the Pentecostal God. They all CLAIM to be worshiping the same God. But in reality, if the picture you paint of God in doctrine is different, then isn't the God not the same? If He were the same, then He would respond in the same way no matter what.

But the hindu concept of "many views, one God" has infected the western Church. And I'm sorry if this grates on anyone, but I am going to call it what it is: heretical. There is only one Truth about God. We can only have Communion if it is True Communion. Therefore, we must obtain the FULL Truth. If we cannot obtain that, then we are damned to false communion with a subjective idea rather than a real communion with an objective God.

Very well. Using your argument, there is but one and only one truth on every doctrinal matter and all other ideas are errors, at best, and heresies, at worst, no?

Let us take an example. What is the exact truth concerning how a woman should cover her head? Should it be a starched white linen cap, or a lace mantilla, or a bandana, to mention but three possibilities? Because truth is completely objective there can be but one answer to this question. Please enlighten us so that we might obtain the unity of faith for which we all strive.

 

[Albion]

I was not "struggling to find some exception".

That's how it appeared.

 

[sculleywr]

Very well. Using your argument, there is but one and only one truth on every doctrinal matter and all other ideas are errors, at best, and heresies, at worst, no?

Let us take an example. What is the exact truth concerning how a woman should cover her head? Should it be a starched white linen cap, or a lace mantilla, or a bandana, to mention but three possibilities? Because truth is completely objective there can be but one answer to this question. Please enlighten us so that we might obtain the unity of faith for which we all strive.

On doctrinal matters, there is only one truth. That isn't a doctrinal issue.