Would you surrender your own beliefs in the cause of doctrinal unity?
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
If I had a wine and cheese party, and you were invited (and loved wine, for sake of the example), and I told everyone that we had the world's finest, most expensive wine to share. Would you drink it? Of course! But.. What if right before serving it, I put one tiny teaspoon of sewerage into each bottle and shook it up. Then, poured everyone a serving. Would you drink it then? No! Why?! Because now, instead of being a glass of the world's finest, most expensive wine, it's just a glass of sewerage.
The faith is similar. It is an integrated whole. Like mathematics. If I said I loved mathematics and believed everything about it...well, except for addition, what would I have with respect to mathematics? Nothing! Why? Because addition is an integral part of mathematics, without which you cannot perform mathematics.
Jesus brought us the entirety of Divine Revelation. He trained twelve Apostles, who trained their successors the bishops, etc., for 2000 years now. SOME of what was orally taught was eventually written down. We call this the New Testament. Together with the Old Testament, this comprises what we call the Bible.
The faith is similar. It is an integrated whole. Like mathematics. If I said I loved mathematics and believed everything about it...well, except for addition, what would I have with respect to mathematics? Nothing! Why? Because addition is an integral part of mathematics, without which you cannot perform mathematics.
Jesus brought us the entirety of Divine Revelation. He trained twelve Apostles, who trained their successors the bishops, etc., for 2000 years now. SOME of what was orally taught was eventually written down. We call this the New Testament. Together with the Old Testament, this comprises what we call the Bible.
Last edited:
The priests can now bless those in homosexual marriages....they can't bless the marriage itself but those in it can receive blessings.
If only this notion of apostolic succession was true. But the book of Samuel tells a different story...so does the books of Judges, Chronicles, and Kings. The Old Testament is full of the Old Testament Church/Temple leaving behind the Torah for illicit practices and the Levites promoting these practices. Elijah on Mt Carmel is a showdown between Levites and Elijah. So with what more modern history is known...the notion of apostolic succession is not viable. Between the "Dark Ages" and the Crusades....nope. let's not forget the inquisition or Martin Luther having to discover the scriptures again. Or how the Psalter and Book of Prayers usurped the scriptures. Then there's the numbering system currently in the scriptures when they were getting proliferated. Up to that time no one would dare to measure God's word or anything of God's.
Why does that strike you as wrong? Should anyone be exempt from a blessing?
Maybe we need to define what "blessing" means in this situation?
WWJD with LGBTQ?
/
Good post, thanks.
I wonder what other clues we have in history that indicate that apostolic succession is not viable.
How many of the 12 apostles ended up in the Latin/Roman Church, and how many were OUTSIDE the RCC.
Especially in the Orthodox Church of the east. The RCC claims that anyone outside the RCC is outside the Church.
/
I dunno exactly what they mean by blessing either. Used to be those who live sinful lifestyles were out of the church and couldn't receive any blessing whatsoever. This is a huge thing for Catholics....it's crossing lines already established.
And this was one of the questions raised in the WWJD with LGBTQ? topic.
It seems that the church is very selective about what constitutes a sinful lifestyle.
--- Parody ---
Conversation between Christian protester and doughnut shop patron. (customer)
Patron: What are doing picketing a donut shop?
Protester: I'm protesting the sin of gluttony.
Patron: Why on earth would you do that?
Protester: Gluttony is a sin, this has to stop.
Patron: Not everyone who buys a donut is a glutton.
Protester: We can't say that for sure.
Patron: Don't you have gluttony at your church?
Protester: No, we kicked them all out, unless they would repent.
Patron: Wow, for eating donuts?
Protester: No, gluttony takes many forms.
Patron: Right, like a church pot-luck dinner?
Protester: Exactly, they are banned at our church.
Patron: Did you know that some people are born with
weight-gain issues they will never get ahead of?
Protester: That's no excuse. Sin is sin.
Patron: You look exhausted, can I buy you a donut.
Protester: Sure, just don't tell the church.
Patron: Your secret's safe with me.
/
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
Then you misunderstand the analogy. Let me try to clarify for you... The wine and sewerage are the beliefs (doctrines). If your beliefs line up perfectly with what has always been taught, from Jesus teaching the Apostles, who taught their successors the bishops, etc., then your beliefs are like the wine. If, however, you make up any belief that is contradictory to any of the original beliefs, then that's sewerage.
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
In the Old Testament, God kept trying to make covenants with the Jews. And, the Jews were always breaking them. Finally, Jesus Christ came, and established the final covenant with mankind. It is for each individual to either live in accordance with this covenant or not. Life is all about choices and consequences....eterntal consequences.
The Crusades, the Inquisition, etc., are often taken out of context, usually for polemical reasons by Protestants. But, even if they weren't they are not matters of doctrine. They are administrative decisions, which are not protected by God to be right. Doctrines are.
The chapters were not set in the Bible until the 13th century by Stephen Langton, an Archbishop of Canterbury. The verse numbers for the Old Testament were developed in the 15th century by by a Jewish rabbi by the name of Nathan. And the New Testament verse numbers for the New Testament were developed in the 16th century by a sixteenth-century French printer named Robert Estienne (better known as Stephanus, the Latinized version of his surname).
The Chapters and verse numbers are not an official part of the Bible. They were added much, much later. In fact, the original New Testament had neither paragraphs, capital letters, punctuation, etc.
Keep in mind, too, that the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate until sometime in the 1900's. That would have excluded a Sola Scriptura approach to the faith for the vast majority of humanity. I would argue this is not what Christ would have wanted. That's why He commanded the Apostles to go out and preach and teach everything He taught them. (Matt. 28:20)
What do you suppose these admonishments were about?
2 Timothy 2:15 KJV
Study to shew thyself approved unto God,
a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
/
Illiteracy was in large part due to the Church refusing to teach people how to read. (See the preface of the 1611 KJV)
The St. Valentines day is a day to venerate the Priest who would marry others in defiance of the church....
This is an ongoing thing....there's a LOT of evidence to not support apostolic succession.
Now I'm not here to throw rocks at the church...i simply want to just state that apostolic succession is not viable or worthy from a completely scriptural standpoint. I happen to actually like the Catholics and some doctrines they hold. European Catholics are usually very very different from American Catholics....it's kinda nuts.
Agree.
I asked the question earlier about the 12 Apostles not all ending up in the Western/Latin Catholic Church of Rome.
Not sure how many remained as part of the Eastern/Greek-speaking Orthodox Church and its offshoots.
(Greek, Russian, Oriental...) ???
Was also reminded yesterday of the Ethiopian Eunuch that returned to Ethiopia and established the church in Africa. (Coptic?)
It seems that the church in Rome discounts all these offshoots, or at least any differing doctrines from their own.
'
Where is this "entirety of Divine Revelation" that was NOT recorded in the New Testament to be found?
/
Hobie
Well-Known Member
Well, most church members have done that in unity with a particular religious entity and not even noticed.......
Actually the Coptics in Egypt are descended from Mark, Peter's cousin who wrote the Gospel of Mark....
Mark's Gospel is actually a recounting of the many stories Peter told before he was Crucified upside down. And I personally believe that most of John 8 belongs in Mark where Jesus addresses marriage and divorce and remarriage.
Coptics are a great group of believers...different from Catholics but similar in many ways. They have many fasts to the point of only eating meat 50 days a year. And they do love their hot sweet tea!
Well, of course.
But this does not equate to doctrinal unity across the board for all of Christianity.
As you write, "unity with a particular religious entity".
You are VERY familiar with the range of views on the Sabbath, correct?
Not everyone agrees.
/
Dunno....I haven't run into a church based heavily upon Phillip....
Similar threads
