Why do Christians disagree? Part 2

[Monk Brendan]

It seems like you are pointing out that the closest followers of Jesus denied him. What I wonder is, do members of the Catholic church today disagree with each other about the interpretations of the holy texts?

For the most of us, the Catholic Church speaks with one voice, the voice of Truth. Yes, individual Catholics can and will disagree about everything and anything. But most of us are seeking to know God better, and to love Him more, and through Him, our neighbors. The Orthodox Churches are doing much the same.

 

[JacksBratt]

While this is mostly off topic, I also appreciate the time and effort you clearly put into your post, thank you.

As for the topic in this thread it seems that you fall into the, it is a problem caused by sinful humans not understanding or willfully misinterpreting the Holy Spirit. Is that accurate? Please nuance that if I am misrepresenting you

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

Well, to some extent, you are correct. I do not believe that it is a case of you being "too sinful". I do believe that it is do to the fact that, like others have said, you need to believe by faith and accept Christ before you will understand.

There are people who are extremely nice people, caring, helpful, serving and abide by the moral standards that would make Abe Lincoln proud. They are not nearly as sinful as some Christians. However they are still "of this world" and, some, may not even believe that God exists. They are not gong to understand the ways of God.

You, a self proclaimed atheist, are trying to understand the ways of a God that you don't believe exists. Or doubt such a truth.

That is like a person who has never played chess trying to understand the moves people are making at a chess tournament.

To do this, you must accept that Chess is the game for you. Start slow and work your way up as you grow in the aspects of the game.

Then and only then will you understand why all the top chess players have conflicting views of the strategies of the game.

They all understand the basics.... "take the king" by moving pieces of different strengths and abilities around the board. Yet they argue over the intricacies.

You are asking these chess players why they argue, yet you have never learned or studied or accepted the game to understand the concepts they are discussing.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Maybe I misrepresented my question. I was not asking of the telephone chain was broken rather I was asking , if the message was mistaken somewhere along the line, would the holy Spirit be able to step in and get things back on track in your view?

Yes. All you have to do is go back to the original Greek of the Septuagint. This was the original Hebrew translated by 70 learned elders some two centuries before Christ. Then, the New Testament was also written in Greek. Don't try looking in a Strong's Concordance to find these things. Seek out a Greek scholar who loves God and ask him if the message was mistaken.

 

[Monk Brendan]

In other words what I'm saying is that, what you heard, isn't necessarily the case. If you were in a Catholic study group, you wouldn't be discussing "when a believer reads the bible the truth of it will be revealed to them by the Holy Spirit" you would be discussing how the truth of the bible is revealed by the hierarchy of the church. There are myriad churches that would inform you that "you heard wrong"

Please, read the rules. There is a rule about saying that a particular group (INCLUDING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH) are not Christians.

 

[Monk Brendan]

It depends on what you mean the "Catholic Church". Do you mean the Catholic religion or a Universal Church of believers? The definition of Catholic. We also had to break off from the Catholic Religion because heresy was being preached and practiced. Satan forced the the division of the church here by evil men leading the Catholic Church.

Where in Scripture does it say Peter started the Catholic Church? Are you referring to the Mother Church?

The Catholic Church is NOT the mother church. This is false doctrine. The Catholic Church does not fit the profile of Acts.

Catholicism has its origins in the time of Emperor Constantine in the fourth century.

So much hatred among "Christians" about Catholics. So many lies. Peter did not start the Mother Church. That was started by Jesus when He said, "Thou art Peter..."

The Catholic Church fits exactly the profile of Acts. Constantine did not start the Catholic Church.

Here are the RULES again.
The flaming rule is this:

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not personally attack other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
● Do not maliciously ridicule other people or groups of people (e.g., members and non-members, public and non-public figures, political figures and political groups). Constructive criticism is allowed, but destructive and cruel criticism is not allowed.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad. Quoting and then editing another members post to change the original meaning, commonly referred to as "fixed it for you" (FIFY), is considered goading.
● Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.

 

[seeking633]

I feel I must speak up.

So much hatred among "Christians" about Catholics.So many lies.

He was referring to the well documented acts of some of the leaders of the Catholic Church which can easily be interpreted as "un-Christian". I don't see this as hatred.

Peter did not start the Mother Church. That was started by Jesus when He said, "Thou art Peter..."

This is a matter of conjecture and a very specific interpretation of the original text. There are many Christians such as myself who will disagree with you on this.

 

[Monk Brendan]

There's much more detail to this I am leaving out, and feel free to ask. But the largest division occurred during the protestant reformation. The actions and sins of the Catholic Church caused many believers to split off into Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. The persecution from the Catholic (universal) church, that Satan penetrated during those times caused division that, in my opinion, had to have happened as the Catholic church during those times were evil. So we are beginning to see Satan's plan in a way. Divide and conquer which he cannot conquer the church. So divide and harass.

First of all the largest split (called schism) came in 1054, when Orthodox and Catholic Churches walked away from each other, because of little, tiny things. If it had not been Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael, the split would never have happened. But those two men rubbed each other the wrong way, and as a result, the Schism.

The Schism of of the reformers was not caused BY the Catholic Church. It was caused because wicked and greedy men (some in the Catholic Church, most not) pulled apart believers, and preached a false gospel of "Faith alone" or sola scriptura (if it isn't in the Bible I won't believe it, even if I do see it).

The Catholic Church had it's problems too, don't get me wrong. I will not defend the selling of indulgences, etc. that Luther nailed to the door of the Whittenberg Church. So don't go there.

 

[jinnettepickford]

Note:
I am re-posting this discussion after the former was closed. I have been informed that I did not transgress the rules so I am hoping this one will be allowed to continue. The following is the OP from that first thread.

Hi all,

I am an atheist, married to a wonderful Christian woman. In hopes of coming to belive what she believes I have started attending a bible study group with some cool guys from our church.

One question that keeps coming up in our discussions is this notion of the indwelling of the spirit as it pertains to interpreting the Bible.
I have often heard that when a believer reads the bible the truth of it will be revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. If that is the case why do so many Christians disagree about interpreting scripture?
The most common response in our group was that people supress/make errors even though the holy Spirit is teaching them the truth . If this were the case wouldn't we expect broad agreement on any particular issue as the supression and error would be idiosyncratic to any particular believer but the consensus would remain (same principle as poll the audience in Who Wants to be a Millionaire , all the people who know the right answer pick the same one, everyone who doesn't spreads their votes out over the possible choices leaving the truth clearly indicated.
In our group this ended with the guys just saying they don't really have a good answer for this problem, which while intellectually honest is not super helpful
Looking forward to your thoughts on this.

Note: This is not supposed to be a debate thread so as you respond I will try to simply ask questions to clarify rather than offer rebuttals. As such if you can think of a counter argument to your own position please include it and also include why you don't find that counter argument compelling

Thanks for your time and intellectual effort.

Peace

I'm glade to read about your journey.
Firstly just be you- your thoughts and ideas are important- all of them. Christ missed nothing and was also fully human and fully divine. This is the general confession that all Christians believe. Christians do vary in their tridition and understanding of faith. This has many reasons and not about who is right or wrong but about how and why they believe. The reformation is really interesting example of this- so is America history when the states were actually reflecting denominational territory.
I like your honesty. My experience of Christ is very reflective of the Bible where I am a mere human and powerless I see according ti the Bible the power of Christ in my life and my actions. I suffer as Christ suffered and I party like Christ parties- with the sinners who he came to reveal himself to...my atheist friends see my faith and I see them getting close to a revelation- but that's between them and God nothing to do with me - I just need make sure I reflect who Christ is.
Your not the only one who is on the journey and at the 'gate' which is very narrow- you have a lovely wife by the sound of it who is waiting on you.
I encourage you to read some of the literature especially from the scholars who have been on a journey like yours and there are heaps!! Jole Green is also very good.
It is your own response to the experience and encounter of the Holy Spirit that matters. I would call this the election process- but God is radical and complete 'slays' us- yes totally wins us by death. We cannot say a thing of it because it is the work of Christ.
I pray that you find the space to reflect and the moment you are receiving Christ know that there is much rejoicing in heaven because of your faith!!
Blessings and love in Christ
Jinnette

 

[Monk Brendan]

He was referring to the well documented acts of some of the leaders of Catholic Church which can easily be interpreted as "un-Christian". I don't see this as hatred.

Oh? I don't see you posting the dirty laundry about YOUR church. Starting with some of the early church Reformers. Henry VIII was a lecher, and was so concerned about having a son to rule England that he split from the Catholic Church became the head of the Church of England, deposed Cardinal Wolsey and replaced him with Cramner, who granted him a divorce from Catherine. Henry then killed his second wife, Ann Boleyn, so he could marry a third, and so on until his SIXTH wife buried him.

John Calvin described such a vengeful and evil God who only loved certain people to bring them into Heaven, and the rest were damned for eternity.

Zwingli had thousands of Catholics killed because they didn't agree with him.

I could go on, but I think you've got the idea.

 

[jinnettepickford]

First of all the largest split (called schism) came in 1054, when Orthodox and Catholic Churches walked away from each other, because of little, tiny things. If it had not been Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael, the split would never have happened. But those two men rubbed each other the wrong way, and as a result, the Schism.

The Schism of of the reformers was not caused BY the Catholic Church. It was caused because wicked and greedy men (some in the Catholic Church, most not) pulled apart believers, and preached a false gospel of "Faith alone" or sola scriptura (if it isn't in the Bible I won't believe it, even if I do see it).

The Catholic Church had it's problems too, don't get me wrong. I will not defend the selling of indulgences, etc. that Luther nailed to the door of the Whittenberg Church. So don't go there.

I like that you are separating sin from faith as you did in the metion of the reformation. Sometimes we cannot see the sin until you have been freed from it! We are utterly sinful in our own agenda.
But Christ truly is the way- all Christians must confess Jesus is lord.

 

[seeking633]

Oh? I don't see you posting the dirty laundry about YOUR church. Starting with some of the early church Reformers. Henry VIII was a lecher, and was so concerned about having a son to rule England that he split from the Catholic Church became the head of the Church of England, deposed Cardinal Wolsey and replaced him with Cramner, who granted him a divorce from Catherine. Henry then killed his second wife, Ann Boleyn, so he could marry a third, and so on until his SIXTH wife buried him.

John Calvin described such a vengeful and evil God who only loved certain people to bring them into Heaven, and the rest were damned for eternity.

Zwingli had thousands of Catholics killed because they didn't agree with him.

I could go on, but I think you've got the idea.

Yes, I see your point. And whatever judgement Christ has against all of these individuals will suffice. But we make the mistake of stating a distinction of this or that church, your church, my church. Does it matter? It's the church of God, of Christ.

 

[Monk Brendan]

f I may .. the Roman Catholic Church was started by Constantine in an attempt to unite the Roman Empire. He was partially pagan and christian and encouraged christianity adopting pagan holidays so other religions would join the church. We left the Catholic Church because of persecution, murder, and false doctrine, and heresy being preached. There was no choice but to split into another "denomination".


I am not trying to target you, but the Catholic Church is not Biblical. I apologize if you feel like I am being rude or anything of the sort.

Please re-read the rules on flaming.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

did it never occur to you that every church that has left the Catholic Church has used the same reasoning; that they are the ones who are right and the church that they left is the one that is wrong?

So how is it that they never thought to go backwards to find the original Truth if every church before them was wrong?
Did they somehow miss the lesson that was contained in the parable of The Prodigal Son?

My point is that your church has no more logical reason to claim a higher standing in relation to other churches than any other. It must be validated in the heart of the believer through the Holy Spirit, through conforming to Scripture, to being logically consistent, just like any other and is prone to make errors just like any other.

I suppose that never did occur to you.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Yes, I see your point. And whatever judgement Christ has against all of these individuals will suffice. But we make the mistake of stating a distinction of this or that church, your church, my church. Does it matter? It's the church of God, of Christ.

But that Church is the ancient Churches from before the Reformation. We all believe the same things, we all profess the same Christ. Some of us have come from so far away that Rome never had any say over what we believed.

All of the Protestant (yes, even Pentecostal churches, snake handlers and others) are at the most Crypto-Papist, because you all hear what the Catholic Pope has to say, and do just the opposite

 

[Monk Brendan]

Is Constantine your God? Where in Scripture does Jesus say he founded the Roman Catholic Church? Where in Scripture does Paul say appoint me a pope to be my successor? When the Bible does it say a priest absolves you of sins?

And where does it say in Scripture that you are to murder other Christians--or even those who profess to be Christians but don't agree with your doctrine--as Zwingli did?

 

[Monk Brendan]

Is Constantine your God?

Where in Scripture does it even mention Constantine? Where did you get that idea from? From listening to angry haters who know nothing of the beauty of any of the Catholic Churches.

First--re-read the rules about flaming. Then look at the actual teachings of the Church. Where in the Vatican Archives (I am not allowed to post the address of the site, but you can find it) does it state that Constantine is God? Where does it say we crucify Christ at every Eucharist? Where in the Vatican archive does it show that we believe anything that you hate us for?

 

[Monk Brendan]

So the holy Spirit whispers to those who want to listen but some portion of those still don't hear?
Do you think that it is possible for the holy Spirit to communicate something to a sinful believer in such a way that they can discern the actual truth of the matter or does their sinfulness preclude that possibility entirely?

Yes Athée, He can. His is God. With God, nothing is impossible. So yes, it is possible that the Holy Spirit can (and does) communicate something to a sinful believer in such a way that they can discern the actual truth of the matter.

As a matter of fact, he has done so to every sinner that comes to the Cross of Christ.

 

[Aryeh]

So if two Christians who both believe they have correctly interpreted the scriptures find that they disagree, how could they resolve that tension. How could they determine who in fact is correct?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

The Holy Spirit.

In the case of the disciples, notice that they began their fighting and turned each other into their respective spiritual pariahs after Christ left.

When He was with them, they inherently and outwardly submitted to His authority, so it was Christ who determined who was right between them (believers.)

However, when Christ resurrected to life, He was given authority to give us an "on loan" spirit of truth, wisdom, knowledge, fruits of spirit, and everything else Godly. In other words: He gave us the Comfortor/Holy Spirit in the mean time until He returns. For now, that is what determines who is right between two people, for example.

Remember the verse, "where two or more are gathered I am in the midst of them..."? Christ is in the midst of two true believers when they fellowship together. And, through their faith in that and Christ, and God, and with humility of a child the holy Spirit will guide them. Even if they err, the other will reproof the error in love and with providence.

But, you have to have a mind like a child - open, executing common Godly sense, etc. Between two typical adults, there will likely be too much ego to burrow through before one gets to the humility kernel. But, two or more humble adults would have little to no problem acknowledging the Holy Spirit in wisdom or correction.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Athée,

Let me help you pick up those apples. I'd hate for them to go to waste.

Way to upend the apple cart my friend! How do you think people have misread the passages that usually get cited to supper this notion that the holy Spirit illuminates scripture for the believing reader?

Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk

The extent to which the "misreading" of the Bible can take place will typically, in my estimation, be dependent upon individual Christians themselves. But if we want to break it down to a simpler metric of sorts, I think we'll find that people in general, whether Christian or not, are unaware of literary patterns and intentions when they read much of anything, not just the Bible.

Much of the time, the verses in question which are often misused, and over which debates between Christians ensue, are misunderstood because people harbor the notion that because they have the individual privilege to read the bible for themselves, that by corollary, they should also be able to assume the full legitimacy of their individual understanding, which they also think should be permitted to stand apart from interaction and accountability with other people (or other Christians, as in this case). That's one reason why Christians disagree, despite the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

A second reason is that Christians are sometimes guilty of bandying these notions about within the church, whether locally or at large, because they never question their understanding of Scripture, nor do they see how their overarching interpretive conclusions originated or became constructed. If they were to look at these interpretive conclusions, then many times they might realize that the prized idea, the main notion--such as the Guaranteed Illumination by the Holy Spirit--is really nothing more than an amalgamated misconstrual made from various verses. Underlying all of this is the additionally vague notion that some of the verses associated with the support of the main notion in some way support the main notion, when in fact, those verses don't, specifically.

Let's look at an example of a verse that often gets used to support the supposed universal Illumination of the Holy Spirit for all believers, John 14:26, "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Now, on the face of it, it looks like this verse asserts the advocacy of the Holy Spirit. And that is because it does, on a basic level. But, here's the catch. We have to ask questions as to the full meaning of this verse because straight off, it isn't quite clear as to the nature of the verb and object discussed. Who is Jesus speaking to? His disciples. Which disciples? His immediate disciples. Okay, so far so good. But why would we automatically assume that the context applies also to us the readers? The verse itself doesn't say, "...and apply this to all believers everywhere at all times." And what does Jesus say the Holy Spirit will do? He will teach His (immediate) disciples "all things." What "all things"? Is this to mean all the things Jesus said? Or is this to apply to all the things in the Scriptures of the Old Testament? Or is it all the things that fall from the lips of leaders of the Church? Or is it all the things a person could want to know about spiritual reality from God's point of view, etc., etc.? It's not clear. Moreover, Jesus tells the immediate disciples that He will remind them of everything "I have said to you." Does this mean that the Holy Spirit will reestablish in the disciples' brains every single word ever spoken by Jesus during his earthly ministry, verbatim? Or does it mean that the disciples will be privy to recollecting the basic ideas that Jesus taught so they can live effective Christian lives? Does it mean they should be able to record on paper every word that ever left the lips of Jesus?

If we were to take John 14:26 in a simple, non-contextual fashion, it isn't clear how and to what extent even the immediate disciples of Jesus were to be enabled to recollect the teaching of Jesus, let alone non-immediate disciples living 2,000 years later. Yet, this verse gets man-handled as a promise beyond measure, and it is used by individual Christians to bolster their supposed understanding of the Illumination of the Holy Spirit.

Then, we take the general notions that we create and marry these to other verses, like those in chapters 1 and 2 of 1 Corinthians, where Paul states the general idea that God reveals hidden wisdom to His people, especially connoting a reason why some people don't accept certain spiritual truths, "...These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches..." Okay, hold up! Why would we assume that in this instance Paul is talking about an identical spiritually induced epistemic phenomenon parallel in function to that which Jesus implied in John 14:26? Well...it isn't parallel, although it may be related. The point is, the topics, inferences, implications, and connotations between just John 14:26 and 1 Corinthians are not exactly clear, but Christians often take these and run, asserting along the way that the meaning and application is clear, clear, clear, when it really isn't. And thus, we have Christians who run about too confident that they have clear notions as to the meaning implied regarding the manifestation of Holy Spirit Illumination and then they go on to disagree with each other, and at times almost choke each other over contentions about this, that and the other regarding what they think the Bible "really says."

More could be said, and other verses could be tapped...but I think I've lost my breath at this point. The point being, we still need to do hermeneutical work, even if illuminated by the Holy Spirit.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Monk Brendan]

Do you think that genuine Christians can read the same text, say the KJV as you use, and disagree about what it means?

Unfortunately, yes.

But that won't stop anyone from telling you what they believe to be the truth. Here is a test. Read Matthew 22:35-40. If what someone says answers these two conditions, you can be pretty sure that what they say is true. However, if they pepper their perorations with hate, you know that they may very well be wrong.