Agreeing on "Major Things"

[TheButler]

Yeah, but in that context, He was talking about abandoning sinful acts. One would really have to make a stretch to try and assert that this applies to accepting or rejecting doctrine…

It depends on where the definition of sin comes from. Leviticus 18 19 says that sex during menstruation is a sin. A thread on this forum says that it is not. Three verses later homosexual sex is declared a sin. Doctrine says one is fine and the other not yet Leviticus 18 says both are sins. In fact verse 19 regarding menstrual sex is the only verse exempted from the whole chapter by doctrine. Shouldn’t doctrine be consistent? To the layperson such inconsistency would be like a deviant right hand and Jesus told us to cut it off.

Whether one chooses to or not is a different matter.

 

[lanman87]

But my question is why am I wrong if I add or take away from the list?

Well, you are going to think my answer is ironic, but one of the ways we determine what is essential is through tradition. Those things I’ve listed, while not exhaustive (they are just what I came with off the top of my head) are pretty much what have been the consensus of the universal church since the beginning and are pretty much the standard by which we, as Christians, have held for each other since the beginning.

I’ve been doing a lot of reading about church history and what struck me is how the followers of Christ have never been 100% united in everything, but that there always has seemed to be a measure of agreement that was accepted by Christianity at large and to fall out of agreement with those basic things was to lose fellowship with the rest of Christianity.

We see the same thing today. That is why Baptist and Methodist and Presbyterians will work together to advance the gospel, even though they disagree about things like mode of baptism and when to baptize and if you can lose your salvation, and yet those same three denominations will not fellowship with Mormons or Jehovah s Witnesses or Christian Scientist because the Christology of those groups is considered wrong by Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian (and the vast majority of Christianity).

 

[Gorgias]

Shouldn’t doctrine be consistent?

It is.

To the layperson such inconsistency would be like a deviant right hand and Jesus told us to cut it off.

Only if that layperson misinterprets Scripture and/or uses their own definition of ‘doctrine’. . Let’s take a look…

It depends on where the definition of sin comes from. Leviticus 18 19 says that sex during menstruation is a sin.

Actually, it doesn’t. Take a look at the text again.

It says that it is “an abomination” and it says that it “defiles” a person.

A thread on this forum says that it is not.

So, here’s the nuance: the part of Leviticus that you’re citing describes commandments of the Mosaic Covenant. Christians are not held to all of the prescripts of the Mosaic Covenant. So, although it was “law” for a certain group of people in a certain timeframe, it is not “law” for us (especially us Gentile Christians).

This is where it’s necessary to understand the distinction between the commands of a covenant, a law, and a Church doctrine. Each of these three is distinct from the other.

Church doctrine is based on Christ’s teaching. If something is declared as doctrine, then we believe that it’s so from Christ’s teaching (either during His ministry, or in the expression of His teaching in the Bible).

If something is declared as doctrine, then it fits this criteria. Let’s look at the example you gave – homosexual sex. We would say that this is a sin not because it’s part of the Mosaic law, per se, but because God declared the proper expression of physical love to be solely within marriage (see Genesis, as well as Paul’s description of sinners in Romans).

Just because something is part of the Mosaic law, it does not follow – for that reason – to expect that we’d call it “doctrine”.

So, I think it’s important to have a firm grasp on what the Church means by “doctrine” and how it understands it to come into existence. Once a “layperson” understands these concepts, there is no longer the possibility of an misunderstanding of “inconsistency.”

Finally, to take Christ’s discussion of “cutting off sin” and to interpret it as a command to “cut off a definition of sin” is really apples and oranges…

 

[masuwerte1]

Good point. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[MT1926]

Well, you are going to think my answer is ironic, but one of the ways we determine what is essential is through tradition.

Yes quite ironic.

Those things I’ve listed, while not exhaustive (they are just what I came with off the top of my head) are pretty much what have been the consensus of the universal church since the beginning and are pretty much the standard by which we, as Christians, have held for each other since the beginning.

Which (as you probably saw this coming) would lead me to ask how do you know this list is the consensus of the universal church “since the beginning”.

I don’t mean to be unkind here, but to me it is always about answering the WHY?

From my point of view, like I already said. I can historically see the Catholic Church being here since the beginning. I can also read documents produced by the Church councils, throughout the centuries confirming what She taught from the beginning. I can also read the early writings of the Church Fathers, to not only show what the Catholic Church taught but to see examples of what the early Church taught from the beginning. I can read the Bible for myself and say hey I don’t fully understand all of these teachings as of yet, but the Catholic Answers sure seem to make sense.

I can add all of these up, make a visual historical and Biblical map, back to the beginning, and feel confident that the Catholic Church knows what the essentials are.

Like I said earlier it’s about the WHY? So when I hear someone claim it is the consensus of the universal church from the beginning, just like I already asked of the Catholic Church, I automatically ask Why? How do you know?

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

I don’t think we “agree on the major things.” I think we agree on the MINIMUM requirements to be Christian.

The difference between protestants and the sacramental Churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, etc) is that most protestants feel that all you need to be a good Christian is to met what the sacramental Churches would consider the bare minimum.

To the protestants, the sacraments would be a “minor” thing, while it’s a major thing to the sacramental Churches.

HOWEVER: I do agree that we should use our commonalities (instead of differences) as a starting point.

 

[lanman87]

Which (as you probably saw this coming) would lead me to ask how do you know this list is the consensus of the universal church “since the beginning”.

Mainly by studying history and the development of the Christianity. We can see where different groups agreed and differed and at what point they broke fellowship.

 

[adf417]

Agreeing to disagree is the same thing as saying “we cant know for sure”. If we can’t know for sure whats the point of any of it? I have been asking this question for a while now, does anyone here actually profess to someone seeking truth and God, “we don’t really know for sure”? Is Jesus sort of the way, some of the truth, and kind of the life?

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

Seeing that the people that tend to make these claims are usually Sola Scriptura, I was wondering if someone could help me understand how the essentials and non-essentials are determined from the Bible Alone?

They aren’t. There is no list of essentials that all “Protestants” agree on, other than things generally agreed upon by all Christians.

 

[MT1926]

Good point. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.

Would that mean our discussion was non-essential then?

 

[MT1926]

Mainly by studying history and the development of the Christianity.

Could you point me to some sources you would typically use please?

We can see where different groups agreed and differed and at what point they broke fellowship.

If we are able to see the breaking off, shouldn’t we be able to historically put these pieces back together to find which group originally had the actual list of the essentials? My reason being, if it’s not traced the whole way back how would you know who broke fellowship with who, then it’s left up to which side “you believe” is right and not who was actually right and who was wrong on the essentials?

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[lilypadrees]

Gorgias:

I’ll go one better: where in the Bible does it assert “keep the essentials; ditch the non-essentials”? I don’t recall Jesus ever saying that about His teachings…!

I think Jesus said something along the lines of ‘If your hand deceives you cut it off’.

I don’t think that was meant literally.

 

[TheButler]

This is where it’s necessary to understand the distinction between the commands of a covenant, a law, and a Church doctrine. Each of these three is distinct from the other.

Christians are not held to all of the prescripts of the Mosaic Covenant.

I thought Jesus came to simplify things. At his tine there was only Mosaic law and he flaunted that which is what got him into trouble. Now we have bits of Mosaic law, covenant commands and doctrine?

but because God declared the proper expression of physical love to be solely within marriage

No He didn’t. Adam did.

Gen 2
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Matt 19
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Jesus was using a fundamental misinterpretation against his enemies. ‘He which made them’ said nothing. It was Adam who was hardly reliable. Even though Jesus highlighted it the error persists to the modern day in doctrine. And what does one do with something that errs?

 

[MT1926]

No He didn’t. Adam did.

Gen 2

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

These are two distinct statements, you are squashing them together.

Adam said this
23 Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,[c]
because she was taken out of Man.”[d]

God declared this…

24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed.

These are two distinct and separate statements. Why would you think Adam would declare he left his mother and father for Eve? They didn’t have parents, to leave, they were the parents of all future generations.

Matt 19

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Jesus was using a fundamental misinterpretation against his enemies. ‘He which made them’ said nothing. It was Adam who was hardly reliable. Even though Jesus highlighted it the error persists to the modern day in doctrine.

The He here is God. Why would you believe Jesus purposefully misrepresented the teaching in the OT?

And what does one do with something that errs?

We correct the one that errs?

My job is done.

God Bless

 

[TheButler]

These are two distinct statements, you are squashing them together.

Hebrew has no quote marks. It also doesn’t have verses. There is no ‘God declared’ in the Hebrew and also no ‘Therefore’.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[MT1926]

I know there are no quote marks or verses in the Hebrew. Thankfully Jesus gave authority to His Church to add them, this way we don’t make the mistake of squashing verses together.

The only ones present here in Genesis 2 are God, Adam and Eve. If it is highly illogical to try to say Adam is declaring he is leaving a father and mother he never had to cling to Eve, then the only logical conclusion is that God declared this.

Can you give an explanation why you believe Adam would declare he is leaving parents that he never had?

Sorry you are reaching way beyond the text here and it is causing you to misinterpret the NT.

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

I thought Jesus came to simplify things. At his tine there was only Mosaic law and he flaunted that which is what got him into trouble. Now we have bits of Mosaic law, covenant commands and doctrine?

No. We have doctrine. The Mosaic law and covenant has been fulfilled in Jesus. Simple!

No He didn’t. Adam did.

Gen 2

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

You realize that the quotation ends with “out of her Man,” at the end of v23, right? The rest is narrative. Which means, it’s part of God’s Word – God is ‘speaking’ it to us.

Matt 19

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Jesus was using a fundamental misinterpretation against his enemies. ‘He which made them’ said nothing.

You’re the one misinterpreting the text, here.

It was Adam who was hardly reliable. Even though Jesus highlighted it the error persists to the modern day in doctrine. And what does one do with something that errs?

You try to point out his errors to him on an internet forum when he makes a mistake of Scriptural interpretation.

 

[TheButler]

Can you give an explanation why you believe Adam would declare he is leaving parents that he never had?

What is the Creator to Adam?
“Let us create man in our image”
The Creator is Adam’s parents.

Do you not refer to the Creator as Father?

As a result of Adam abiding to Eve’s will and eating the fruit, ie cleaving to her, he separated himself from his Father, the Creator.

It was the first prophecy.

 

[TheButler]

No. We have doctrine. The Mosaic law and covenant has been fulfilled in Jesus. Simple!

OK. A covenant is a contract, right? When a contract is fulfilled what happens to the legal obligation of the parties? Once a contract is fulfilled there is no longer any obligation.

 

[MT1926]

As a result of Adam abiding to Eve’s will and eating the fruit, ie cleaving to her, he separated himself from his Father, the Creator.

You can’t be seriously?

You believe Adam prophecied him and Eve eating the fruit and being expelled from the garden on the day she was created?

Your joking right?