-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S
Oh great Jimmydiggs- I accept thee as my personal Savior for thou art the greatest and the wisest. Please bestow upon me thy teachings. I walk to your table of discussion as thou hast placed thyself as a better Christian than me.
Whatever.
Now.
How is it any different that telling people that they can't pick and choose from the Scripture?
Whatever.
Now.
How is it any different that telling people that they can't pick and choose from the Scripture?
J
This is getting much better. Thank you. I greatly appreciate it.
Now, regarding the issue of picking and choosing and the authenticity of one's claim to being a Christian.
It would be inconsistant for a person to say, "you are not a Christian due to picking and choosing."
That is not what brings about nor what negates ones salvation.
The problem is much more nuanced than that though. In other words, it's much more delicate.
The problem in and of itself isn't the picking and choosing, although it is a problem in and of itself of antoher sort. The problem is what specifically you are dealing with. For example, you want to be able to believe that homosexual relations are perfectly permissible before God, or so it seems based on your previous posts. In doing so, you seek to harmonize scripture with what you want to believe. This is wrong regarding seeking an understanding of the text. The question we should be asking ourselves is, "What does the author say?" rather than, "so, what can I make it say?" The problem specifically with homosexuality is that it would be advocating willful unrepentent sin. This does not feed into, but rather extends out of a lack of regeneration in most cases.
EDIT:I'm not asking you to agree with me, but does that make sense?
Now, regarding the issue of picking and choosing and the authenticity of one's claim to being a Christian.
It would be inconsistant for a person to say, "you are not a Christian due to picking and choosing."
That is not what brings about nor what negates ones salvation.
The problem is much more nuanced than that though. In other words, it's much more delicate.
The problem in and of itself isn't the picking and choosing, although it is a problem in and of itself of antoher sort. The problem is what specifically you are dealing with. For example, you want to be able to believe that homosexual relations are perfectly permissible before God, or so it seems based on your previous posts. In doing so, you seek to harmonize scripture with what you want to believe. This is wrong regarding seeking an understanding of the text. The question we should be asking ourselves is, "What does the author say?" rather than, "so, what can I make it say?" The problem specifically with homosexuality is that it would be advocating willful unrepentent sin. This does not feed into, but rather extends out of a lack of regeneration in most cases.
EDIT:I'm not asking you to agree with me, but does that make sense?
S
And I understand where people read parts and say "God says this is wrong, so it's wrong" but within that same book, they ignore countless other rules because "they don't apply anymore" and THAT's where I have a huge problem with it. If the Lord truly doesn't want us to eat shellfish, wear clothes of 2 fibers, cut our lawn, eat, then fine. I will oblige, but to say "God didn't mean follow those rules because.....shut up." doesn't make sense.
If you don't agree with part of it, then how can you agree with other parts. Again, not YOU specifically, but Christians in general. Hence why I stated that No, Peter would not be Christian if he disagreed with parts of the Scripture. You can't agree with half of what God says and not the other half. Either it's ALL law EXACTLY as it's written, or it's ALL able to be interpreted and picked to pieces to determine which ones we actually HAVE to follow.
It was never an issue of being a troll. And I'll be honest, the fact that it took this long for you to answer a simple question- yes, it pissed me off to no end. Don't assume people are trolls just because they don't understand the entire universe and exactly how God's mind works.
If you don't agree with part of it, then how can you agree with other parts. Again, not YOU specifically, but Christians in general. Hence why I stated that No, Peter would not be Christian if he disagreed with parts of the Scripture. You can't agree with half of what God says and not the other half. Either it's ALL law EXACTLY as it's written, or it's ALL able to be interpreted and picked to pieces to determine which ones we actually HAVE to follow.
It was never an issue of being a troll. And I'll be honest, the fact that it took this long for you to answer a simple question- yes, it pissed me off to no end. Don't assume people are trolls just because they don't understand the entire universe and exactly how God's mind works.
J
I concede that it is a very difficult issue to deal with, and I in times past (and probably in the future as well) have been guilty of the very thing you criticize.
There are "laws" of the OT that do apply, and some that do not. It is a difficult and complex issue though, because it deals with a system of Covenants.
It's also an issue not all Christians agree with each other on, which compounds the issue even further. It gives the atmosphere that it is totally arbitrary, and in many cases it unfortunately is.
I have the same attitude.
If they do just say, "because, shut up"... that is a problem, absolutely. I think this compounds the issue further yet, because often people do decide arbitrarily, which leaves them with little to no explanation. On top of that, those who arn't totally arbitrary often refuse or simply do not posses something (whether it be knowledge or safistication, etc) to explain the matter.
It depends on the "guiding principle" as I would call it, as far as approaching it from a logical stand point.
For example, if I say people should be able to eat pork because all food is okay to eat... then turn around and say, "hey, you can't eat beef! that's not okay to eat!" without any further explaination as to how that is not a contradiction, then I am just as puzzled as you are most times.
I assumed as much, but thank you for the clarification.
Some of this is valid, and some of it is not.
Your concern and criticism of picking and choosing in general, yes, totally agree. I do not believe, however, and I believe scripture supports my belief, that all disagreements of scripture disqualify a person from being a Christian.
The easiest way I can put it is this:
There are primary issues, these are ones that if a person denis (such as the deity of Christ), then they are not a Christian.
Regarding deity of Christ:
1 John 2:23
No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
That I think should be a pretty clear cut verse, maybe tempered by it's context a bit more I will concede. That would be an example of a primary issue where scripture declares, "If you do not believe this, you are not a Christian."
There are secondary issues, these are issues that are very, very, very important but not necessarily at the point of disqualifying a person as a Christian.
An example of that would be some issues concerning soteriology, such as the old Calvinism Vs. Arminianism debate. Depending on how wrong someone is regarding soteriology (basically the mechanics of how one becomes saved), it could become a primary issue.
Then there are tertiary issues, that are important but not generally worth splitting a church over. What were the Nephilim? Is it pre-trib. or post-trib? Etc. etc.
I will take your word for it and apologize. The problem is that whether you intend it or not, you often seem rather strongly to be trolling in certain issues. Especially those dealing with human sexuality and the like.
That was not my intention, for what it's worth.
I did not assume you were a troll for this reason.
There are "laws" of the OT that do apply, and some that do not. It is a difficult and complex issue though, because it deals with a system of Covenants.
It's also an issue not all Christians agree with each other on, which compounds the issue even further. It gives the atmosphere that it is totally arbitrary, and in many cases it unfortunately is.
I have the same attitude.
If they do just say, "because, shut up"... that is a problem, absolutely. I think this compounds the issue further yet, because often people do decide arbitrarily, which leaves them with little to no explanation. On top of that, those who arn't totally arbitrary often refuse or simply do not posses something (whether it be knowledge or safistication, etc) to explain the matter.
It depends on the "guiding principle" as I would call it, as far as approaching it from a logical stand point.
For example, if I say people should be able to eat pork because all food is okay to eat... then turn around and say, "hey, you can't eat beef! that's not okay to eat!" without any further explaination as to how that is not a contradiction, then I am just as puzzled as you are most times.
I assumed as much, but thank you for the clarification.
Some of this is valid, and some of it is not.
Your concern and criticism of picking and choosing in general, yes, totally agree. I do not believe, however, and I believe scripture supports my belief, that all disagreements of scripture disqualify a person from being a Christian.
The easiest way I can put it is this:
There are primary issues, these are ones that if a person denis (such as the deity of Christ), then they are not a Christian.
Regarding deity of Christ:
1 John 2:23
No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
That I think should be a pretty clear cut verse, maybe tempered by it's context a bit more I will concede. That would be an example of a primary issue where scripture declares, "If you do not believe this, you are not a Christian."
There are secondary issues, these are issues that are very, very, very important but not necessarily at the point of disqualifying a person as a Christian.
An example of that would be some issues concerning soteriology, such as the old Calvinism Vs. Arminianism debate. Depending on how wrong someone is regarding soteriology (basically the mechanics of how one becomes saved), it could become a primary issue.
Then there are tertiary issues, that are important but not generally worth splitting a church over. What were the Nephilim? Is it pre-trib. or post-trib? Etc. etc.
I will take your word for it and apologize. The problem is that whether you intend it or not, you often seem rather strongly to be trolling in certain issues. Especially those dealing with human sexuality and the like.
That was not my intention, for what it's worth.
I did not assume you were a troll for this reason.
C
1.i think their line of logic is Jesus is god, Mary is the mother of Jesus, therefore, Mary is the mother of God, it sounds odd to me too, but you can't really criticize them
2. I'm sure if god told a catholic Mary wasn't perfect, they'd belive him
3.no rebuttal
4. Hypocritical because you said Catholics trust men, then you place your trust in martin luther(a man)
5. They dont( see#2)
2. I'm sure if god told a catholic Mary wasn't perfect, they'd belive him
3.no rebuttal
4. Hypocritical because you said Catholics trust men, then you place your trust in martin luther(a man)
5. They dont( see#2)
K
This is what I wanted to focus on. The CC teaches that it is the recipient of truth from Christ. This truth includes all of Scripture properly interpreted, as guided by the church and its traditions. It also believes that anyone who does not accept the traditions is not fit to be listened to on those items.
The traditions include such items as Mary never had any other children, and that she is now in heaven in her body. Also, that the the bread and wine used in communion, are upon words of the priest, changed into the physical body and blood of Christ, and only continue to look, feel, smell and taste like bread and wine. The traditions include also that all of these statements can be proven from Scripture, by methods that are not used by Protestants. The methods themselves are part of the extended "truth", since the truth includes that those methods are valid. The methods take different forms, but include that every doctrinal statement must be proved by multiple quotes, from Scripture, Fathers of the church, Papal directives if possible, and "sensum fideles" or "that is what we have always believed".
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm trying to translate between the two types of people here. I am not saying I disagree or agree with any of this.
Now, my question to Protestants, can you prove any of the methods themselves wrong? Until you do or are prepared to use the same methods, you have no audience among loyal Catholics.
My question to Catholics is, why should I not translate this whole business about Scriptural interpretation as "the Bible doesn't say what it looks like it says, but it says what we say it says"?
The traditions include such items as Mary never had any other children, and that she is now in heaven in her body. Also, that the the bread and wine used in communion, are upon words of the priest, changed into the physical body and blood of Christ, and only continue to look, feel, smell and taste like bread and wine. The traditions include also that all of these statements can be proven from Scripture, by methods that are not used by Protestants. The methods themselves are part of the extended "truth", since the truth includes that those methods are valid. The methods take different forms, but include that every doctrinal statement must be proved by multiple quotes, from Scripture, Fathers of the church, Papal directives if possible, and "sensum fideles" or "that is what we have always believed".
Again, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm trying to translate between the two types of people here. I am not saying I disagree or agree with any of this.
Now, my question to Protestants, can you prove any of the methods themselves wrong? Until you do or are prepared to use the same methods, you have no audience among loyal Catholics.
My question to Catholics is, why should I not translate this whole business about Scriptural interpretation as "the Bible doesn't say what it looks like it says, but it says what we say it says"?
W
(sorry I don't know how to copy/ paste quotes/ msgs) SantoSubito said: "Easy, does it line up with what the Church teaches."
That is the main problem you have, as do other denominations. This comment of yours, points out that you have been taught to replace the teachings of men with the FACTS of the Bible. You should be taught to believe & say instead, "Easy, does it line up with what the BIBLE teaches".
On another subject that was mentioned, in defense of Catholicism, The Bible does have Scripture pertaining to praying to the saints to intercede for us in prayer.(sorry I don't know where.) But the problem even with that is, the Catholic church teaches that SOMETIMES we are not worthy to pray directly to God, & I've never seen a Scripture to support that theory.
ALL DENOMINATIONS & CATHOLICS INCLUDED, SHOULD BE CHECKING THE BIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT IS BEING TAUGHT IS BIBLICLY TRUE. MOST CATHOLICS RELY ON THE CHURCH TO TEACH THEM, INSTEAD OF THE BIBLE & HOLY SPIRIT.
I think it's a good idea to pray for guidance, then start reading the Biblle, KJV only, then start at page 1 & don't go back to church till u r done.
Is the FOUNDATION of your beliefs the Bible? If not, then how can you call yourself a "Christian"? (not u specifically, everyone).If your denomination is the foundation of your beliefs, then .......
That is the main problem you have, as do other denominations. This comment of yours, points out that you have been taught to replace the teachings of men with the FACTS of the Bible. You should be taught to believe & say instead, "Easy, does it line up with what the BIBLE teaches".
On another subject that was mentioned, in defense of Catholicism, The Bible does have Scripture pertaining to praying to the saints to intercede for us in prayer.(sorry I don't know where.) But the problem even with that is, the Catholic church teaches that SOMETIMES we are not worthy to pray directly to God, & I've never seen a Scripture to support that theory.
ALL DENOMINATIONS & CATHOLICS INCLUDED, SHOULD BE CHECKING THE BIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT IS BEING TAUGHT IS BIBLICLY TRUE. MOST CATHOLICS RELY ON THE CHURCH TO TEACH THEM, INSTEAD OF THE BIBLE & HOLY SPIRIT.
I think it's a good idea to pray for guidance, then start reading the Biblle, KJV only, then start at page 1 & don't go back to church till u r done.
Is the FOUNDATION of your beliefs the Bible? If not, then how can you call yourself a "Christian"? (not u specifically, everyone).If your denomination is the foundation of your beliefs, then .......
I believe in your recitation, also. But I don't go around calling Mary the mother of God and directing my prayers and the prayers of my family towards her.
You see how that can be counterproductive in the fight against Arianism?
What you call heresy and what I think are heresy are two different things. We should probably try to come up with a different word for it.
Verified by whom? No one except your church. Pretty convenient...
I'll say it to anyone who places more importance on their physical building and their physical leaders than they do the Lord Jesus.
I actually like the structure and rigidity. That way I don't wonder if it is a trick of the pastor playing on my feelings. I know it must be the Holy Spirit.
What I don't like is the sense of superiority the catholic church and her parishioners seem to have over everyone else in the world. You know, "we can do it because we are infallible but everyone else is in error" attitude.
Problems will arise when you call your church and its leaders infallible. I suppose that was the biggest error that Martin Luther showed the world. Your church is not infallible. It is made of men. I know you want it be. I wanted to be a professional football player. Some things we just have to let go.
Of course you are going to play down Luther, you have to, its what you were taught.
That is exactly the distinction I was trying to raise.
The catholic church has placed themselves in the position of the Lord Jesus.
The only authority that can supply an authoritative answer is the Lord and His Word. Anything else is true heresy, and not the definition of heresy your church uses.
You see how that can be counterproductive in the fight against Arianism?
What you call heresy and what I think are heresy are two different things. We should probably try to come up with a different word for it.
Verified by whom? No one except your church. Pretty convenient...
I'll say it to anyone who places more importance on their physical building and their physical leaders than they do the Lord Jesus.
I actually like the structure and rigidity. That way I don't wonder if it is a trick of the pastor playing on my feelings. I know it must be the Holy Spirit.
What I don't like is the sense of superiority the catholic church and her parishioners seem to have over everyone else in the world. You know, "we can do it because we are infallible but everyone else is in error" attitude.
Problems will arise when you call your church and its leaders infallible. I suppose that was the biggest error that Martin Luther showed the world. Your church is not infallible. It is made of men. I know you want it be. I wanted to be a professional football player. Some things we just have to let go.
Of course you are going to play down Luther, you have to, its what you were taught.
That is exactly the distinction I was trying to raise.
The catholic church has placed themselves in the position of the Lord Jesus.
The only authority that can supply an authoritative answer is the Lord and His Word. Anything else is true heresy, and not the definition of heresy your church uses.
Are you sure you're not catholic?? Maybe orthodox or something along those lines?
1. I can and I do.
2. He has, they don't.
3. ...
4. I brought up Luther, not because I trust in him, but because he showed the catholic church that they are not infallible. That believing that they are infallible leads to corrupt men with corrupt minds taking advantage of the innoccent.
5. See #2
1. I can and I do.
2. He has, they don't.
3. ...
4. I brought up Luther, not because I trust in him, but because he showed the catholic church that they are not infallible. That believing that they are infallible leads to corrupt men with corrupt minds taking advantage of the innoccent.
5. See #2
C
1. Why? If Jesus is god, and Mary is the mother of Jesus( do you disagree with either of those?)
2. You were there? Please tell me all the details of how God appeared to the pope, did he come out of the sky, or speak from the clouds maybe? Or did he send a prophet on a chariot of fire perhaps?
3.
4. Well, a catholic could always say Luther was wrong
5. See2
Yes, I'm not catholic, see number 3 not orthodox either, though I find them closer to truth then the Catholics.( they don't have the more dangerous of the Mary doctrines, though they do keep some)
2. You were there? Please tell me all the details of how God appeared to the pope, did he come out of the sky, or speak from the clouds maybe? Or did he send a prophet on a chariot of fire perhaps?
3.
4. Well, a catholic could always say Luther was wrong
5. See2
Yes, I'm not catholic, see number 3 not orthodox either, though I find them closer to truth then the Catholics.( they don't have the more dangerous of the Mary doctrines, though they do keep some)
1. Like I said earlier, I don't have any problems with Jesus or Mary being the mother of Jesus. I have problems with people who pray to Mary calling her the mother of God and queen of heaven. Do you see?
2. We have the bible. We have lots of verses that contest what the catholics say about Mary.
3. I still agree with you agreeing with me on this one...
4. Ok. Which of Luthers 95 theses do you find incorrect?
5. see #2.
2. We have the bible. We have lots of verses that contest what the catholics say about Mary.
3. I still agree with you agreeing with me on this one...
4. Ok. Which of Luthers 95 theses do you find incorrect?
5. see #2.