Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

If Protestantism is true then . . .

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
    Bottom line is the minister only arrives at his own private interpretation of texts, and nowhere in the texts, does the text teach private interpretation of the text as the means to derive doctrine. The text does contain content concerning a teaching church in Acts 15 and the binding nature of oral tradition in several other passages. The many Protestant notions of private interpretation are all unbiblical and unhistorical.

    JM
    I just stated two reasons why this isn't the case:
    1: Protestant ministers rely upon commentaries, each other, tradition and so forth when interpreting Scripture.
    2: Your approach completely ignores the role of the Holy Spirit.

    Your definition of private interpretation is not something I've seen in practice anywhere inside of mainstream Protestantism.
    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

    Comment


    • #17
      Does John ask his priest for the interpretation of every verse he reads? Or does he just interpret it himself?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Ana Dragule View Post
        The Orthodox church is here when you are ready. Here doors are always open.
        I showed up at 5:00AM this morning and the doors were locked.
        Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
          The Roman Catholic Church is a joke now. I wouldn't be surprised if it were outright disbanded within the next 50 years. They hardly even pretend to be Christian anymore.

          https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatic...inalizing-them
          I don't think so. I'm no fan of the RCC but I know enough of its history to know it has survived poor Popes in the past and will survive this one.
          "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

          "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
            I just stated two reasons why this isn't the case:
            1: Protestant ministers rely upon commentaries, each other, tradition and so forth when interpreting Scripture.
            2: Your approach completely ignores the role of the Holy Spirit.

            Your definition of private interpretation is not something I've seen in practice anywhere inside of mainstream Protestantism.
            The method you espouse is not in the bible, or is only based upon the private interpretation of some texts by believers. There is no guarantee given to an individual believer that the Holy Spirit will assist the believer in correctly understanding any individual text. There is no instruction in the bible to consult sources other than the bible. And there is no instruction in the bible that the believer must, or can only come to know Christian doctrine through reading, or studying the bible.

            There is plenty of evidence in the bible and church history that Christians are to consult the Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church for Christian doctrine.

            There is also strong evidence that the method you claim is used within mainstream Protestantism is unworkable anyway, simply because mainstream Protestantism is full of doctrinal contradictions. So the Holy Spirit, is definitely not a guarantee that the believer will not come to one or many errors.

            Also the method that claims to consult tradition, is a failure, for church history is Catholic and contains much Catholic doctrine. Most of which must be ignored by the Protestant to come to the conclusion that Christian doctrine is not Catholic.

            Consulting each other will inevitably only lead to denominationalism, or doctrinal indifference.

            The so called method used by mainstream Protestantism is really only an artificial construct invented by the Reformers who had to have a new method as an alternative to the Catholic hierarchy, with its doctrines propounded through councils.

            The method is a failure for many reasons.

            JM

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Does John ask his priest for the interpretation of every verse he reads? Or does he just interpret it himself?
              John regularly consults Church documents such as the catechism to learn catholic doctrine, which is certain, for it has its source in the one true church instituted by Christ.

              JM

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk
                I don't think so. I'm no fan of the RCC but I know enough of its history to know it has survived poor Popes in the past and will survive this one.
                The most basic idea behind the Catholic Church is supposed to be that the Pope is infallible. Otherwise, there would be no reason for uniting behind him, and hence no unified "church."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                  The most basic idea behind the Catholic Church is supposed to be that the Pope is infallible. Otherwise, there would be no reason for uniting behind him, and hence no unified "church."
                  Speaking as a non-RCC, I think you're slightly incorrect. I think their basic idea is the claim of papal succession from Peter to the current pope. They are the true church because Christ founded them.

                  I think non-RCC make a bigger deal of papal infallibility than there is. On the other hand being non-RCC, I could be wrong.
                  "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

                  "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk
                    Speaking as a non-RCC, I think you're slightly incorrect. I think their basic idea is the claim of papal succession from Peter to the current pope.
                    Which is why, supposedly, the Pope is infallible. If the Pope is an idiot and a false prophet, like I think he is, then the whole system breaks down and you may as well just read your Bible and go to a Baptist church.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                      There is strong biblical basis for the binding nature of oral tradition -
                      Oral tradition is reason NOT to believe any of it. It is the word of fallible men and not the word of God.


                      There is also evidence for the binding authority of the church in Acts 15, and Matt 16, and 18.

                      JM
                      You might explain what you mean in each reference. I have no disagreement with the holy scriptures. But I disagree with the false claims of oral tradition.
                      . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                      . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                      Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                        John regularly consults Church documents such as the catechism to learn catholic doctrine, which is certain, for it has its source in the one true church instituted by Christ.

                        JM
                        You didn't answer my question. I have seen plenty of threads here on tweb where you are debating scripture. Do you check with the pope every time to make sure you are interpreting those scriptures in the proper way? If so, from now on I would like you to provide a link to the official Catholic churches interpretation of every verse you reference or discuss.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          You didn't answer my question. I have seen plenty of threads here on tweb where you are debating scripture. Do you check with the pope every time to make sure you are interpreting those scriptures in the proper way? If so, from now on I would like you to provide a link to the official Catholic churches interpretation of every verse you reference or discuss.
                          RRC doctrine is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Such doctrine is an assistance in understanding the scriptures. The magisterium of the RCC has never taught that it has interpreted every verse of scripture. It has taught that its doctrines are binding on the faithful. Your request is your own invention based upon a false understanding of what the magisterium of the RCC does.

                          Even if the magisterium has given one or some meanings of a text to expound a doctrine, the magisterium has not ever taught that such an understanding of the text is exhaustive. The Catholic is permitted to use scripture in a manner that does not contradict doctrine. Hence the Catholic need not cite magisterium documents every time scripture is cited, or used.

                          JM

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Oral tradition is reason NOT to believe any of it. It is the word of fallible men and not the word of God.
                            Oral tradition is the word of the Lord and hence inspired by the Holy Spirit.

                            1 Peter 1:25 . . .but the word of the Lord endures forever." And this is the word that was preached to you.

                            You might explain what you mean in each reference. I have no disagreement with the holy scriptures. But I disagree with the false claims of oral tradition.
                            Acts 15, and Matt 16, and 18 are passages where Jesus gves the apostles the power to bind and loose. Acts 15 is a historical record of how that power was used by the early church. The church was granted the power to bind and loose and acted to loose the church from men having to receive circumcision along with baptism. The same principle applies in church history whereby the church acted to bind the faithful to many doctrines and practices for the sake of the faithful.

                            JM

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                              RRC doctrine is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Such doctrine is an assistance in understanding the scriptures. The magisterium of the RCC has never taught that it has interpreted every verse of scripture. It has taught that its doctrines are binding on the faithful. Your request is your own invention based upon a false understanding of what the magisterium of the RCC does.

                              Even if the magisterium has given one or some meanings of a text to expound a doctrine, the magisterium has not ever taught that such an understanding of the text is exhaustive. The Catholic is permitted to use scripture in a manner that does not contradict doctrine. Hence the Catholic need not cite magisterium documents every time scripture is cited, or used.

                              JM
                              So your answer is no, you don't check with the catholic church before interpreting scripture. You do the exact same thing that protestants do, you interpret scripture yourself.

                              So your point of argument is wrong.

                              You logic fails.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                "No prophecy of scripture is a matter of private interpretation"
                                Even if the translation were correct.
                                The idea that the passage says "no scripture is a matter of private interpretation" would be a misinterpretation.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X