Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Reformer Joe | 48498 | ||
"I don't know the answer to your question." Well, if I were Catholic, it would trouble my sense of papal infallibility if I couldn't even point out with certainty WHO was the Pope for seventy years. "Now, which one of the 30,000 Protestant human leaders and teaching authorities is correct." On every point? Probably none of them. The church is not infallible. There are many denominations that are more reliable than others, and those are the ones which adhere to the unique infallibility of Scripture and recognize the reliable creeds that have been developed by the early church based on that infallible apostolic revelation. " And, don't tell me that all 30,000 groups are basicly one, because we all realize that one Protestant denomination will not have any problem testifying to another Protestant (of a different denomination) that their denomination is the truer way to Christ.' I wouldn't dream of telling you that, because it simply isn't true. There are a number of different reasons for different denominations, many of them good ones. Here are a few: 1. Geographical or ethnic differences (e.g. Presbyterian bodies in Scotland and the U.S. which are technically different denominations but hold to the same standards). 2. Differences in styles of worship. 3. Differences in non-salvific issues (forms of church government, use of the sacraments, the familiar Calvinist/Arminian debate, etc.). Yes, at least one group has to be wrong, but we can still call each other evangelical Protestants. 4. Denominations are often formed as a result of a split caused by modernist/liberal tendencies within a previously existing denomination (such is the case with the denomination to which I belong, which holds to the infallibility of God's word and to the historic confessions of the denomination, but split off from a denomination that has largely abandoned biblical truth for more liberal, humanistic traditions). 5. And yes, denominations also form from biblical error and petty and personal reasons. As stated previously, the church is not infallible. I will happily deny that all Protestant denominations are basically one. However, many of them have no trouble calling each other members of the true church of Christ. At the same time, many of them have abandoned doctrinal distinctiveness, booting the infallibility of Scripture, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the Trinity, and a whole host of other important key biblical truths. My problem with such groups is not due to different interpretations of Scripture, but on the fact that they have abandoned Scripture as a binding authority altogether. And has been stated in previous posts, there is not a monolithic view of truth in the RCC, either. Historically we have seen both internal controversies and major splits over matters of doctrine. I have already mentioned the Great Schism, but we can look at controversies surrounding other reformational orders within the Catholic Church, such as the Fransiscans and the Jesuits. Both of these groups have faced fierce opposition in ages past from other Catholics. The very notion of papal infallibility was first put forward by a member of the Order of St. Francis in order to keep succeeding popes from opposing the concessions made to the order. In addition, we have seen other large groups completely sever ties with the church over matters of doctrine. The Protestants were preceded by the Eastern Orthodox church, and the Monophysite Christians (such as the Coptic churches) and the Arian party (the sizeable Visigoth forces were Arians, complete with their own bishops and priests). Even today there exist differences of opinion among Liberation Theologists and those who oppose their interpretations of the Bible, among those who support homosexuality and abortion rights within the church and those who oppose them (both groups remaining in fellowship with the Mother Church). The bottom line is where one finds one's ultimate authority. I agree with your position on many of the issues above, but the ULTIMATE authority on those issues is not a papal pronouncement or church council. The early church councils looked to Scripture for their authority, and that is why I can gladly adhere to the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon. The writings of the apostles all attest to the truths found in these church pronouncements. Once we start looking at issues on which we disagree (and over which the Catholic Church has changed its official stance in the ensuing centuries), we find little solid biblical basis for such statements. When the traditions of the visible church and the traditions set down in Scripture are not moving in precisely the same direction, inevitably one has to choose which horse to ride. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Brian.g | 48525 | ||
OK Joe, Let's narrow the field from 30,000 down to two. Calvinist and Arminian Oh, by the way, non-salvific issues - (ie: Sacrements) - I almost forgot. Some Protestant denominations say zero, some say two... And, aren't there Protestants that think sacrements are important - maybe not seven, but some? So, on both points: Which Protestant denomination is right - and which is wrong. Why and by what authority Brian |
||||||
3 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Hank | 48536 | ||
Brian, if your object is to show that there isn't complete harmony among the various denominations of Protestantism, you really don't need to work at it so hard! Most of us Protestants are all too keenly aware of the fact, concede it, and walk away not feeling especially proud of it. But isn't it something like the pot calling the kettle black when Catholics disparage Protestants on account of their denominational differences? Come, come, Brian, are you asking anyone to believe that all is sweetness and light within the Roman church, that there is complete accord on every issue, that there are no schisms or splinter groups within the RCC? Do you think every Roman Catholic on the face of this earth believes the same way on every issue concerning the Christian faith? I believe you know perfectly well that that is not true, and if you don't, you certainly should..... Let me tell you a story. I have a relative who is a Catholic and who lives in Boston. Two years ago he visited us at Christmas time. We went as a family to Christmas Mass at a local Catholic church, Immaculate Conception by name. I said to my relative, "I don't believe in the immaculate conception." Whereupon he replied, "Hank, are you telling me you don't believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?" Said I: "I'm saying I don't believe in the immaculate conception of Mary." Said he: "Well, I don't believe that either, but immaculate conception doesn't have anything to do with Mary, it's about Jesus." Said I: "No, it's about Mary." But knowing he wouldn't accept any theological talk coming from a Southern Baptist, and not wanting to promote family strife by debating the issue, I advised him on his returning home to Boston to take the matter up with his parish priest. He did. And he later informed me that I was right, immaculate conception did refer to Mary. And added, "That's what we believe, all right." I have always thought it odd that after having told me he didn't believe in the immaculate conception of Mary either, he later said, after talking with his priest, "That's what we believe, all right." This may be an atypical example in the Catholic church; I have no way of knowing. On the other hand it may be the norm that the priest tells the parishioner what the parishioner believes and the parishioner believes it. --Hank | ||||||
4 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Emmaus | 48621 | ||
Hank, Your story about the Immaculate Conception being confused with the Virgin Birth of Jesus is interesting and not uncommon, among Protestants and poorly catechised Catholics who often both mistake the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception with Jesus's Virgin birth or even Mary's wrongly supposed virgin birth. Not only does it say something about a bad understaning of basic theolgy in both camps, but an even more basic lack of understanding of the English language. Conception and birth are not synonyms, no matter how many seem to make that mistake, even some who have practical and personal experience in themselves concieving and giving birth. Close in space but distant in time. Your story seems to suggest the relative was saying he did not believe in the Virgin Birth of Mary, since his question as you phrased it seems to indicate he thought the Immaculate Conception referred to Jesus' virgin birth and he mistakenly thought you were saying you did not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. You knew what you were saying but he did not. And I must say you handled the situation with great wisdom and charity. Emmaus |
||||||
5 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Hank | 48626 | ||
Emmaus, thank you for your decorous remarks. You write with clarity and felicity, and though some of your theological views differ from mine, it's always a pleasure to engage in dialogue with you on the forum. In your post you touched on the subject of the English language and how the lack of understanding of the exact meaning of English words can and does affect even one's religious views. I concur without reservation. I've loved to hang around words since first I learned to speak a few of them. This affinity for the spoken and written word led me no doubt to major in English and its literature. I know and appreciate good writing when I see it and, conversely, know and deplore bad writing when I see it; and these days one sees far more of the latter than of the former. So there is a possibility that few users of this forum become nearly as exercised as I by the appearance of so many carelessly written, often incomprehensible, posts. And the irony of it is that those who dash off a sloppy and obviously hastily-written piece of theological gobbledlygook are the very ones who have the most imperfect understanding of their subject and of the words they use in an attempt to address it. Yet chances are better than even that it will be they who are most adamant that the only right view is their view, that anyone opposing them is a knucklehead at best or an infidel at worst. Much of this confusion and invective could be averted by learning basic English usage and communication skills. Day after day we see on the forum some shade-tree Greek or Hebrew scholar attempting to parse those ancient tongues while failing in his attempt to write a clear sentence in English. There is no royal road to proficiency in English. It takes time and hard work. But it is absolutely necessary to learn how to read before one can learn the Bible. And it is equally necessary to learn how to write before one can contribute anything of value on this forum or any other medium that depends on understanding the exact meanings of English words and their relationship to each other in a sentence. So ends, Emmaus, Lesson 1 of English 101, directed not to you who does not need it, but to some of the other users who do. --Hank | ||||||