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.
The vast diversity in Christian doctrine cannot really be likened to the diversity of life. On Earth, organisms all have purposes in the environment. The ecosystem works because of the organisms present in it. Doctrinal division does not accomplish that in Christianity. All it does is create division and arguments. In the past, it also created violence.
So while I disagree with a lot of doctrines, I don't fight over them. I enjoy the diversity because I feel the Holy Spirit present with each group I've fellowshipped with.
But I don't think we will ever have a unity of doctrine. We wouldn't even come close. So while I disagree with a lot of doctrines, I don't fight over them. I enjoy the diversity because I feel the Holy Spirit present with each group I've fellowshipped with.
Uh huh. And I see much of value in the Protestant group, the Catholic group, and the two Orthodox groups (which I usually think of as one, the differences being too subtle for me). It seems to me that none of them has all of it right, but each of them has some of it right, and each has some parts that the others don't. You don't have the fullness of truth (contrary to Catholic claims) until you bring all the streams together.The disparity of doctrine today is a direct result of the Reformation. Prior to that, there were three main Christian groups:
1. Catholic
2. Orthodox
3. Oriental Orthodox
And it remained that way for hundreds of years. Two major schisms in 1500 years vs countless schisms in less than 500 years is what we are talking about.
Uh huh. And I see much of value in the Protestant group, the Catholic group, and the two Orthodox groups (which I usually think of as one, the differences being too subtle for me). It seems to me that none of them has all of it right, but each of them has some of it right, and each has some parts that the others don't.
You don't have the fullness of truth (contrary to Catholic claims) until you bring all the streams together.
And even with the proliferation of Protestant denominations, most of them are mostly the same, with only minor differences. Most of them would worship together and take Communion together.
Yes, it is. As are all perceptions and opinions, as opposed to facts.Seeming is subjective.
Um, no. You're taking what I experienced as an empirical, but personal and subjective observation in one situation and turning into a general principle, and that's not at all what I intended. I do not mean that as a matter of principle, all the streams have to come together for maximum truth.So you're saying no one can have the fullness of the truth until all "streams" (I assume that means denominations or traditions) come together. Phrased negatively, you're saying "There is more than one group of Christians, therefore none of them can have the fullness of the truth." That does not logically compute. Fullness of truth doesn't disappear just because there are people who disagree, nor is knowledge of the full truth predicated on there only being one group of Christians.
As an analogy, consider math. Math is absolute. There is no bending. The fullness of the truth of math can be known by anyone if they receive enough education. But let's say someone proclaims 2 + 2 = 3. We have a mathematical schism. Them saying 2 + 2 = 3 does not change the fact that the fullness of mathematical truth (that is, everything our mathematical schismatic claims, but including 2 + 2 = 4) still exists, and that people know it or can know it.
The only way to make your conclusion true is by saying that humans cannot know the fullness of truth in Christianity. For a religion that claims the existence of absolute truth and a fulfilled divine revelation, that's kind of meh.
Then there's the issue of figuring what exactly all the "streams" are. Where does the validity line begin and end? How do you even quantify the number? Or is that unknowable too?
To me, the only real essential is the Gospel of Christ. Like Paul, I am resolved to know but one thing: Christ, and Him crucified and resurrected.What are the minor differences? The answer varies from person to person. Real presence vs symbolic communion. Believer's baptism vs infant baptism. Belief in holy orders vs no holy orders. Belief that only men can receive holy orders vs women can also receive holy orders. Apostolic succession or no apostolic succession.
All of the above are completely contradictory beliefs that have been shoved under the amorphous, seemingly ever-growing "non-essentials" tent by various people and groups. Based on who you ask, some will say some or all of those beliefs are non-essential. Others will tell you some or all of them are essential.
Um, no. You're taking what I experienced as an empirical, but personal and subjective observation in one situation and turning into a general principle, and that's not at all what I intended. I do not mean that as a matter of principle, all the streams have to come together for maximum truth.
What do I mean? I guess I didn't explain at all, so I can see why you misunderstood. What I meant was that, IMHO, none of the three streams (I'm going to combine the two branches of Orthodoxy here because the differences between them aren't relevant to my point) have all doctrine correct, but all of them do have the bare essentials right, and are fully Christian, despite their differences.
Protestants (as a whole, though I know that's an oversimplification) are missing out on some things that Catholics have right. But Catholics don't (IMHO) have all of it right either. Orthodox have some things right that Catholics and Protestants don't. And Protestants (IMHO) have some things right that neither Catholics nor Protestants do. So, it seems to me that to arrive at fullness of truth in a Christian church, one would need to combine the best of Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. It is not a general principle, just one particular situation.
That is my subjective and highly personal opinion, and I don't claim anything more for it.
To me, the only real essential is the Gospel of Christ. Like Paul, I am resolved to know but one thing: Christ, and Him crucified and resurrected.
Of course, I do have opinions on those denominational distinctives, and my opinions on those matters will affect my choice of church. But none of would stop me from worshiping as a guest at a church that didn't agree with them, or taking communion with them (if they'd let me - some do practice closed communion, which I disagree with but understand the reasons why). There are, of course, differences that go beyond denominational distinctives - if they have cult-like practices or non-Nicene doctrine, I probably wouldn't even visit.
So, then it is your opinion that no Christian Church has it fully right. Is this, in your opinion, purely circumstance, or because of an ontological inability on part of humans to obtain the fullness of truth in Christianity? Or is it something else?
To you. So, that's another answer among the thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) on what is essential and what is non-essential.
And even in the phrase "non-Nicene doctrine" there is variance. The acceptable definition of what constitutes adherence to the Nicene Creed has widened considerably over the centuries. This website is a really good example.
When you have to asterisk "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" with "May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance," it's quite clear that the meaning of the Creed has taken a few twists and turns.
The point of my observations here is that without an authority to verify what is and what is not essential, anything goes. In Catholicism, that authority is the Magisterium. In Orthodoxy, it is the Ecumenical Councils and the collective will of the Church. In the various Protestant movements, it's generally the governing body of the denomination.
Of course, since Protestant groups just schism when disagreements become too much for one denomination to handle, the authority of the denomination in this area is basically pointless. On the other hand, the same thing tends to happen in Catholicism or Orthodoxy. If [a group, people, a person] cannot get their way within the confines of the Church, they just separate themselves from it and go their own way.
The cause, in this case, would be an individualistic culture and the reduced power of the Church to deal with such issues.
So, then it is your opinion that no Christian Church has it fully right. Is this, in your opinion, purely circumstance, or because of an ontological inability on part of humans to obtain the fullness of truth in Christianity? Or is it something else?
The hand of God is behind the limitation. The inability is already there in man. To put it simply , the limitation exists because man is not God. The Christian religion does not teach and never has taught that we become all knowing. Only God is all knowing.
In other words , we only know what God has chosen to reveal to us. No person in history had the ability to figure it out.
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?