Two posters say their opinion is from God, yet disagree. Now what?

[Saint Steven]

But where do you draw the line-and who draws it? Are Muslims included? JWs? If we have a faith that differentiates itself by its very nature, by what it claims to be true, which of those differences matter enough to cause a line to be drawn?

Most denominations center there beliefs on the creeds.
There are a few for whom this is only lip service, but the majority rally around the creeds.

 

[Saint Steven]

Well if we all only know in part why can't they both be correct?

In some cases that would be a very real possibility.

 

[Saint Steven]

Do you think God supports denominations that contradicts what he intended his doctrine to be?

How do you know what God intended his doctrine to be?
It seems that the Protestant Reformation was a corrective measure.
And frankly, what does God need doctrine for? Doctrine is manmade, as I understand it.

 

[fhansen]

Most denominations center there beliefs on the creeds.
There are a few for whom this is only lip service, but the majority rally around the creeds.

I don't know. Just to give one example, I'm not sure how many debates I've been in about the need for baptism, while the Nicene Creed maintains that it's necessary for the remission of sins, part and parcel of justification/regeneration/salvation.

 

[fhansen]

How do you know what God intended his doctrine to be?
It seems that the Protestant Reformation was a corrective measure.
And frankly, what does God need doctrine for? Doctrine is manmade, as I understand it.

Doctrine is just the teachings based on God's word, hopefully. If you believe that Jesus is God, that's doctrine. JWs would assert that it's a man-made doctrine BTW, while we would maintain that it's God's word. Either way the churches produce doctrine as a means to state the truths of the faith. Creeds are doctrine. And if the Reformation made corrections, its only because someone had to believe that their particular beliefs or interpretations of God's word-their doctrines-were superior to those of the RCC.

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't know. Just to give one example, I'm not sure how many debates I've been in about the need for baptism, while the Nicene Creed maintains that it's necessary for the remission of sins, part and parcel of justification/regeneration/salvation.

This is just my opinion, but to me, baptism is a ceremony. A ceremony is supposed to be an outward sign of an inward reality. There is no regenerating power in baptism itself. IMHO

I don't believe in infant baptism. The decision to be baptized should be an informed choice by the one being baptized. It should come with a profession of personal faith. And it symbolizes an identification with the church as a public confession of faith.

 

[Saint Steven]

Doctrine is just the teachings based on God's word, hopefully. If you believe that Jesus is God, that's doctrine. JWs would assert that it's a man-made doctrine BTW, while we would maintain that it's God's word. Either way the churches produce doctrine as a means to state the truths of the faith. Creeds are doctrine. And if the Reformation made corrections, its only because someone had to believe that their particular beliefs or interpretations of God's word-their doctrines-were superior to those of the RCC.

Right. But the Bible is not a book of doctrines. The doctrines are a manmade statement of what we believe the Bible is saying to us.

 

[fhansen]

Right. But the Bible is not a book of doctrines. The doctrines are a manmade statement of what we believe the Bible is saying to us.

Yes, and yet the doctrines are nothing more or less than our understanding of what the bible says. In a very real sense all interpretations are man-made, simply because they're necessarily filtered through our little brains. We hope for guidance by the Holy Spirit, but so does everyone else, who may well disagree with our interpretation.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Ignore both until you dig out the Truth on your own. You see, I came up with a saying, "One man's proof texts are another man's cherry picking." Translations work the same way, as one will have a bias one way, and another version may lean another. Pay attention to the theology of the translators. That is why two people consult the Bible, do not bother to cite what translation they are using, and (surprise!) they disagree.

Amen! I always look up almost every verse for myself.

Love the phrase “One man’s proof text is another man’s cherry picking”.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, and yet the doctrines are nothing more or less than our understanding of what the bible says. In a very real sense all interpretations are man-made, simply because they're necessarily filtered through our little brains. We hope for guidance by the Holy Spirit, but so does everyone else, who may well disagree with our interpretation.

That's a good word. Thanks.
The guidance of the Holy Spirit is something we should expect.
It is a ministry aspect of the Holy Spirit and promised to us.

John 16:13-14
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you.

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't know. Just to give one example, I'm not sure how many debates I've been in about the need for baptism, while the Nicene Creed maintains that it's necessary for the remission of sins, part and parcel of justification/regeneration/salvation.

That's interesting what you are saying about the Nicene Creed and "... one baptism for the remission of sins..."

I wonder about the biblical basis for that statement.
Baptism has always been optional, a personal choice, in every church I have been a part of. I still maintain that there is no salvation in baptism, in and of itself. Especially infant baptism. Which is not by consent of the baptized. Not "believer's" baptism.

I suppose this is it. "... be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." With the obvious problem being the "... " at the beginning of the quote. Where's the "Repent and..." part?

Acts 2:38-39
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

 

[Not David]

How do you know what God intended his doctrine to be?
It seems that the Protestant Reformation was a corrective measure.
And frankly, what does God need doctrine for? Doctrine is manmade, as I understand it.

Just take a look at the Early Church and you will see how was the Church.
Also if you are going to say doctrine is man-made then the Bible is man-made too since people decided which books should be part of it.

 

[fhansen]

That's interesting what you are saying about the Nicene Creed and "... one baptism for the remission of sins..."

I wonder about the biblical basis for that statement.
Baptism has always been optional, a personal choice, in every church I have been a part of. I still maintain that there is no salvation in baptism, in and of itself. Especially infant baptism. Which is not by consent of the baptized. Not "believer's" baptism.

I suppose this is it. "... be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." With the obvious problem being the "... " at the beginning of the quote. Where's the "Repent and..." part?

Acts 2:38-39
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Well, in the ancient churches, in both the east and the west, baptism has been considered necessary, in obedience to the Lord's command, as a practice that has been performed since time immemorial. Same for infant baptism. As for faith and repentance, those are called for, of course, for an adult or person who's reached the age of reason. In fact, baptism is known as the "sacrament of faith", being the first formal public profession of faith. Without faith the sacrament is considered to be inefficacious.

For infants, the faith of the community and family is said to stand in for the child, salvation being not only an individual but also a corporate thing with believers able to play a role in other's salvation with prayer, sacrifice, witnessing, etc. Either way, for adults or infants, the person must go on to fulfill their baptismal vows, taking up their cross, faithfully following and remaining in Christ.

 

[Saint Steven]

Just take a look at the Early Church and you will see how was the Church.
Also if you are going to say doctrine is man-made then the Bible is man-made too since people decided which books should be part of it.

That's a leap.
Do we consider doctrinal writings to be inspired by God?
Hopefully they are inspired by God's word, which is inspired. But...
it's quite a leap to carry that inspiration forward and claim that doctrine is inspired.

 

[Saint Steven]

Well, in the ancient churches, in both the east and the west, baptism has been considered necessary, in obedience to the Lord's command, as a practice that has been performed since time immemorial. Same for infant baptism. As for faith and repentance, those are called for, of course, for an adult or person who's reached the age of reason. In fact, baptism is known as the "sacrament of faith", being the first formal public profession of faith. Without faith the sacrament is considered to be inefficacious.

For infants, the faith of the community and family is said to stand in for the child, salvation being not only an individual but also a corporate thing with believers able to play a role in other's salvation with prayer, sacrifice, witnessing, etc. Either way, for adults or infants, the person must go on to fulfill their baptismal vows, taking up their cross, faithfully following and remaining in Christ.

My experience with the church has been very untraditional.
The church I was raised in was more traditional than what I have been doing the last 30 years. But in essence the same.

Even with the orthodoxy you are describing. If you cut away a lot of the trappings there is at the core the essence of what the church and faith should be about. But perhaps you value the things I see as "trappings". (the heavy baggage of tradition)

 

[fhansen]

My experience with the church has been very untraditional.
The church I was raised in was more traditional than what I have been doing the last 30 years. But in essence the same.

Even with the orthodoxy you are describing. If you cut away a lot of the trappings there is at the core the essence of what the church and faith should be about. But perhaps you value the things I see as "trappings". (the heavy baggage of tradition)

We all have to decide for ourselves what constitutes a trapping, excess baggage, and what does not. There are many things that churches do that are acknowledged as being practices, subject to change, nothing to do with essential doctrine or dogma. Sometimes we can hold onto that stuff too tightly, for tradition, which we should not. But that can be very human behavior for whatever reasons.

For myself I left the RCC for over 25 years, having thrown out everything including the Christian faith and starting over. I searched in various philosophies and religions, etc, looking to see if there really was such a thing as a higher Truth in life that was worth finding. I ended up a conservative Protestant, to my own surprise, and much later a Catholic again, to even greater surprise. Anyway, endlessly debating Scripture was one reason I decided that Sola Scriptura could not be the answer. The only thing left in terms of authority was the church, itself, which makes much sense from both a logical and Scriptural viewpoint. And that basically meant either the EOC or the RCC. It's a very long story. Either way the trappings don't bother me much now as long as I'm satisfied with the teachings on the essentials. I'm also not too interested in what the person next to me in the pews does or believes, or the priest for that matter even though each of us should, hopefully, be held to higher standards by our faith.

But I just know too much, having participated in Protestant membership and learning much about human nature in general over the years, to expect that Original Sin and its effects (concupiscence) won't continue to have its way in us all in one manner or another. Holiness, IOW, is not monopolized by any one denomination or individual, much as we might like to think that at times. So the older churches are just fine with me. As for baptism, the way its been historically practiced, the input of the Nicene Creed, and the command of Jesus, simply make it one of the orders of the day.

The sacraments, BTW, are theology in action, physically worked out. Think about the largely illiterate and uneducated masses down through the centuries and how the sacraments give a person a way to live out the faith in basic ways. Can God override them? Is He pleased with faith in whatever form He sees it? Yes. I just think sacraments have their place in our faith and I no longer object to many of the things that used to give me pause. Not speaking of abuses here, of course. The RCC actually teaches that continuous renewal is critical for the church and its membership, including leadership. And that's certainly proven to be the case.

 

[Saint Steven]

… Anyway, endlessly debating Scripture was one reason I decided that Sola Scriptura could not be the answer. ...

Hey, thanks for that terrific post. I always love to hear someone's testimony. And I always want to encourage that here.

I isolated one comment here to ask a question. Since you have been on both sides of the fence, so to speak, this should a good question for you.

What is the motivation for someone who was raised Catholic or Orthodox to be strong in their Bible knowledge and doctrinal understanding?

I mean, if the Church is handling that, why would a parishioner even concern themselves with such things? Especially with so many other distractions. Like knowing which Saint to pray to when you lost your car keys. lol

 

[Not David]

That's a leap.
Do we consider doctrinal writings to be inspired by God?
Hopefully they are inspired by God's word, which is inspired. But...
it's quite a leap to carry that inspiration forward and claim that doctrine is inspired.

They were inspired by God, the Bible mentioned oral tradition so the word of God is not just written.

 

[Saint Steven]

They were inspired by God, the Bible mentioned oral tradition so the word of God is not just written.

Doctrines were inspired by God? The Bible "mentioned oral tradition"? Please explain.

I agree that the word of God is not just written. But I go a different direction on that point than you would. (correct me if I am wrong) I believe that the prophetic gifts are still in use. God still speaks through prophets. And even to the common believer who hears God's voice.

 

[Not David]

Doctrines were inspired by God? The Bible "mentioned oral tradition"? Please explain.

I agree that the word of God is not just written. But I go a different direction on that point than you would. (correct me if I am wrong) I believe that the prophetic gifts are still in use. God still speaks through prophets. And even to the common believer who hears God's voice.

So you believe there are still prophets nowadays but you canbca believe that the Church is infallible?