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.
Comparing theological divisions today within the CC to Protestant divisions among different denominations is hyperbole. I think it's interesting that so many here seem to down play these divisions and at the same time almost praise theological diversity. Or even more interesting exaggerate divisions within the CC.
Open both of your eyes and you'll get a more complete picture of the matter.
That's the real issue here--posters living in glass houses who throw stones. Catholic, Protestant, they all are victims of division, schism, etc.
If you feel that way, I'll simply say that your thesis--that the one denomination of your preference is more united than all other churches if they were to be treated as if they were a single church--is absurd.My eyes are wide open, some posters tend to get defensive and resort to sarcasm and/or character insults or categorize/label people eg those who live in glass houses and have closed eyes.
If you feel that way, I'll simply say that your thesis--that the one denomination of your preference is more united than all other churches if they were to be treated as if they were a single church--is absurd.
And as has been noted many times, the Catholic churches are probably less united than the Protestant churches. For certain, no two of the Catholic churches agree with each other.
Nothing else, I think you mean.I think it's fair to say that Christendom has undergone an accelerated fragmentation theologically since the Reformation of which nothing remotely comes close prior to.
Well, any church can be made to look united if all the dissenters are deemed to be miraculously outside it. The RCC itself has experienced a number of splits in just the last several generations, so it's certainly not united--and that's to look only at the formal splits. The internal factions and struggles between traditionalists and reformers are well-known.Today the RCC is not fragmented theologically, quite the opposite, as other groups have changed on a multitude of teachings eg contraception, same sex, female bishops etc the CC been unchanging. "Catholic Churches"?? Are you referring to EO? Surely your not claiming the RCC is less unified doctrinally than the different traditions of the reformation combined??? Now that would be absurd!
Noble words. The issue here is that the Word of God is made up of words... and those words at times translate to fact-based propositions. Said propositions are either true and reflective of God's will and desires or they are not.I would wager that it is because people like to read in between the lines and make huge theological decisions based on smaller parts of the text. Instead of coming together under the banner of Christ which is a beautiful, powerful, and a comprehensive theology, people succumb to the doctrines and traditions of men.
*sigh*Pagan Rome found its way into Christian traditions and even doctrine.
Any statement of fact you make is either factually true or it is not factually true. What middleground is there between truth and non-truth?Another reason there is division is that a particular topic has to be hot or cold, this way or that, but no middle ground.
Again, proposals are either true or they are not true. I happen to think we have (at the very least) an intellectual duty to ourselves to develop an opinion on the matter.Its like you have to make up your mind on the proposals offered even when it would be acceptable to just have it "undeclared".
I would wager that it is because people like to read in between the lines and make huge theological decisions based on smaller parts of the text. Instead of coming together under the banner of Christ which is a beautiful, powerful, and a comprehensive theology, people succumb to the doctrines and traditions of men.
This applies to everything from Calvinism to Pentecostals and everything in between.
I think it's fair to say that Christendom has undergone an accelerated fragmentation theologically since the Reformation of which nothing remotely comes close prior to. Today the RCC is not fragmented theologically, quite the opposite, as other groups have changed on a multitude of teachings eg contraception, same sex, female bishops etc the CC been unchanging. "Catholic Churches"?? Are you referring to EO? Surely your not claiming the RCC is less unified doctrinally than the different traditions of the reformation combined??? Now that would be absurd!
This statement is false. Many things are impossible for God.
For example: It is impossible for God to make Himself cease to exist. One of His divine attributes is eternal existence. He always was and always will be.
A true statement would be: God can do everything that is possible.
Although any simple answer is an oversimplification of the many reasons for doctrinal diversity within Christianity, however, I did want to add some personal beliefs as to why not all motivations underlying diverse beliefs are evil or even bad.
Ive come to the conclusion that some peripheral theological differences are almost inevitable due to our inherent differences in experiences, in knowledge and understanding. I do not think differences in opinion are completely avoidable but rather that they often are part of the moral milieu necessary for us to learn and gain moral qualities such as patience and empathy for those who are different than ourselves.
1) Regarding Changing doctrines due to changing knowledge and understanding within a single individual
Even single individuals do not believe the same as adults as they did when they were children since our own knowledge base enlarges and our understanding changes to reflect this constant change. We are, all of us, biased (dare I say tainted) to some extent by "local" cultural traditions weve inherited and been exposed to.
2) Regarding Changing doctrines due to changing life experiences.
We also become "philosophically re-directed" by certain life experiences. For example, if I am a mother of an infant who died a few hours after birth, then a prior held tradition that even infants who have not accepted Jesus go to hell; may seem completely unfair. Even attempts by others to support that doctrine by claiming God has the power to do what he wants to infants may not make damnation of the innocent infant seem just or fair to this mother. Such a doctrinal-moral dissonance may motivate and underlie the search for a better understanding or doctrine which may seem more fair.
Any new doctrinal understanding gained by such a search may be less correct OR more correct than the prior belief, and this search was motivated by a personal experience not all individuals will have and it may result in a differing belief that not all share. Still, this experience was a source of a differing doctrinal understanding of the actual justice (or unjustness) of God. Even if the new and better doctrine is more correct than the prior-held tradition one grew up with, still, it will be seen as and declared unorthodox by those holding to the prior tradition (whether correct or incorrect......).
Because of these and other reasons, I do not think we can maintain a single assembly-line level of understanding and beliefs on peripheral doctrines to the degree that we can agree on a central, core doctrine such as the claim that Jesus was in one way or another, a "redeemer.
3) There are many other reasons why beliefs in Christian doctrines we grew up with may change in a single individual.
For example, Religious Christian theists who become steeped in Judao-Christians history repeatedly experience doctrinal "shifts" as they are exposed to new historical discoveries regarding early Judao-Christian beliefs.
For example, as one becomes interested in early Judao-Christian texts such as early JudaoChristian diaries, hymns, written prayers, and other texts sacred to the earliest Judao-Christians, one will discover how beliefs in early Christianity differed from ones modern Christianity and belief. When faced with such discoveries, the discoverer is faced with a new doctrinal choice he did not imagine before the discovery.
If the discovery is a doctrinal or interpretational difference between an earlier ancient christian belief and the belief the discovering historian currently holds, he then may experience the discomfort of having to change his own belief, especially if the ancient belief is undoubtably authentic; and is superior; and leads to greater understanding; and is less doctrinally discordant than a modern belief or interpretation.
Initially, such a choice to re-align one's beliefs, is often somewhat uncomfortable. However, the experience of gaining a superior doctrine at the expense of having to give up a prior, but inferior tradition, is itself, a rewarding experience such that, when such experiences occur over and over and the experience of discovery and giving up a prior held belief for a superior and more correct belief becomes easier, then at some point the motivation towards discovery of authentic christianity and the change of opinion it forces upon the Judao-Christian historian, becomes welcomed, rather than discomforting.
However, another source of doctrinal friction may then occur when a more enlightened, but impatient and un-empathetical Christian historian-discoverer then tends to condemn another person's doctrines : Another person who is no more ignorant than the historian used to be; and is no more dependent upon mere tradition as the historian used to be. Our attitudes in discussions may cause as much argument as continued ignorance.
For example; while in this journey toward ever greater understanding of authentic early judao-christian religion, the discoverer often tends to overestimate the amount of knowledge he has achieved and becomes proud and arrogant and, though his knowledge might be superior, still, he may lack the needed christian qualities of love and charity and patience and empathy for others and become argumentative to the point that it is counterproductive and cause good but ignorant individuals to simply dig in their heels against his better information. This is not necessarily because the historian's new doctrine is inferior, but because of the antagonistic nature of many disagreements.
Clearly
eidrtwacmn
Love it simply Lo....well how can I not, it is a pretty good discription of my reality.
I can not tell you how many times a denominationalistic babe responded to a testimony of scripture that I was moved to share, with total disregard for what was being said, but expressed unwaranted fear that anyone would dare climb out of their diapers, and step away from their nursing bottle teaching, and quote scriptures precept upon precept, etc., which the denominations for one reason or another do not touch....
It's their concern that I have the basics down first, not knowing you can not get where I am in my faith and relationship with Elohym without embodying those basics, and unless I demonstrate otherwise, why go there?
They do not realize, it takes one to be able to recognize another of the same, thus if he fails to recognize that which is good and from on high, then it is because he is yet blinded by his own shortcomings of the basics, and is, (as it is for many) easier to superimpose our own disposition onto another, and suspect they are no better off than themself as it pertains to disposition, than to rely on scriptural principles so that they do not have to be found....so lacking!
1. Because God allows it.
2. Because "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?" Matthew 7:22
3. Because many claim and many believe that they have experienced the new birth who either knowingly have not or unknowingly have not.
Why are there so many varieties of other religions? Not all Muslims agree. And there aree Hindus, Hare Krishnas, Sikhs, etc. Why are there so many religions?
Even on CF, the icon a person uses may not be genuine. One can claim to agree with the Nicene Creed while secretly disagreeing with it.
I know this might be a controversial answer but I don't think any of them would fit that descriptor. People just don't think like they did in late Antiquity. Our collective psychology has changed pretty drastically and we can't go back there again.
Some define it the way I did. Others will tell you that it teaches everything you need to know to get to Heaven, though they don't say whether it's the only authoritative source to get it from here on Earth. In the list I'm quoting here from Bible.ca, it's hard to know what the writer means by the word "means." It could mean "implies" or something like, "a statement we make with a declarative sentence." But I doubt that it means, "a definition in a dictionary." The list author seems to tell us what sola scriptura excludes, not what it consists in.
Actually there is as much agreement within the various protestant denominations as there is within Rome.Because the Reformation opened the floodgates for anyone and everyone to pick and choose what bits of historical Christianity they wanted to adhere to, or in some cases, just make up new stuff. Schisms existed before that, but they were nothing like what came after the Reformation.
In the case of the reformation it was to run away from the false teachers that infiltrated the NT churchIts because of false teachers and false prophets! we were told they would infiltrate the flock, appearing as sheep but actually being wolves (see 2 Peter 2)
Actually there is as much agreement within the various protestant denominations as there is within Rome.
Protestants have agreement in the doctrines necessary for salvation.. they accept the Solas of the reformation and look to Christ alone for their salvation.. the differences do not negate that ..
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?