Articles on "Separated Brethren"

[dronald]

Then perhaps you should tell the Seventh Day Adventists that they have no right to their interpretations of the Bible.

And that there is indeed a correct interpretation of the Bible–and that they must conform their views to the correct one.

Is that your position, ronald? They can’t interpret the Bible differently than you do?

I’m speaking to you as an Evangelical to a Catholic. If I was speaking to an SDA I too would mention how unbiblical it is to observe days post Christ’s resurrection.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m speaking to you as an Evangelical to a Catholic. If I was speaking to an SDA I too would mention how unbiblical it is to observe days post Christ’s resurrection.

I don’t know what that means in bold. Could you please re-phrase?

 

[benhur]

Can you give a list of things the Bible says fall into the “legalism” category, ben?

That way we can know for sure whether Saturday vs Sunday worship falls into legalism.
And whether baptism saving us or being merely an ordinance falls into legalism.

Please give us this list of legalistic issues which we may dismiss.

I thought i did

 

[PRmerger]

I thought i did

I need Bible verses, ben.

Which verses say that it’s a legalistic issue and which ones say it’s not?

You simply gave a list of your man-made ideas of what’s legalistic.

I don’t want man-made answers. I want Bible answers from you.

 

[dronald]

I don’t know what that means in bold. Could you please re-phrase?

Sure, sorry if I wasn’t clear.

You mentioned Sunday vs Saturday worship. I then mentioned that it’s okay to observe days, but it doesn’t really matter and we shouldn’t make a big deal out of that argument. Some want to, some don’t, whatever; each will be fully convinced in their own mind.

If an SDA pushed the idea that the day of Worship must be Saturday, I would disagree that it’s unbiblical; same for Sunday. So both can be right, while neither is necessarily better, but even Paul admits that you’ll never convince someone else to agree.

 

[PRmerger]

If an SDA pushed the idea that the day of Worship must be Saturday, I would disagree that it’s unbiblical; same for Sunday.

So they are not permitted to interpret the Bible the way they see it?

They should conform their views to yours?

How is this different than what the CC tells you? And to which you bristle and profess, “I do not have to conform my interpretations of the Bible to your views. I am certainly free to read the Bible and come to my own conclusions!”

Which one are you asserting now, vis a vis the SDAs?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Sure, sorry if I wasn’t clear.

You mentioned Sunday vs Saturday worship. I then mentioned that it’s okay to observe days, but it doesn’t really matter and we shouldn’t make a big deal out of that argument. Some want to, some don’t, whatever; each will be fully convinced in their own mind.

If an SDA pushed the idea that the day of Worship must be Saturday, I would disagree that it’s unbiblical; same for Sunday. So both can be right, while neither is necessarily better, but even Paul admits that you’ll never convince someone else to agree.

What about celebrating holidays vs. avoiding them? Some sects refuse to celebrate Easter, Christmas, etc calling it pagan… is it legalistic to explain that we celebrate together as one Body and it is no such thing?

What else is up for ‘do it if you like’ ‘no big deal’?

 

[dronald]

So they are not permitted to interpret the Bible the way they see it?

They should conform their views to yours?

How is this different than what the CC tells you? And to which you bristle and profess, “I do not have to conform my interpretations of the Bible to your views. I am certainly free to read the Bible and come to my own conclusions!”

Which one are you asserting now, vis a vis the SDAs?

I think you are trying to get me to say what I never said; seems Syro gets what I said though, so I must not be crazy.

What about celebrating holidays vs. avoiding them? Some sects refuse to celebrate Easter, Christmas, etc calling it pagan… is it legalistic to explain that we celebrate together as one Body and it is no such thing?

What else is up for ‘do it if you like’ ‘no big deal’?

I never said legalistic; someone else did.

However, it would be legalistic to say “You must celebrate it and/or celebrate it this way.”

It’s also legalistic to say “Do not celebrate it for it is pagan.” However, if someone chooses not to celebrate it in the same way or at the same time then it does not matter.

Celebrating the birth and death of Christ can be done whenever, and however. If someone thinks the way Catholics do it is pagan then it’s certainly advisable to correct him, and at the same time reassure that one does not have to celebrate Christ’s birth in the exact same way.

 

[dronald]

I don’t know what that means in bold. Could you please re-phrase?

Okay, I apologize; I see where I goofed.

What I meant to say is that it’s not biblical to force others to conform to a view regarding observing days or not observing days.

There’s nothing unbiblical about an individual or a Church observing days.

Sorry again.

 

[PRmerger]

I think you are trying to get me to say what I never said; seems Syro gets what I said though, so I must not be crazy.

Actually, no.

I am simply confused about what your paradigm is.

Is this your paradigm: there is a correct way to interpret Scripture?

Or is this your paradigm: everyone is free to read the Scriptures on their own and come to their own understanding of it?

 

[dronald]

Actually, no.

I am simply confused about what your paradigm is.

Is this your paradigm: there is a correct way to interpret Scripture?

Or is this your paradigm: everyone is free to read the Scriptures on their own and come to their own understanding of it?

For the sake of what we’ve been discussing, I do not think it’s right to quarrel over opinions as Paul would say.

However (and I think this is more to your question) when the topic of Salvation comes up, then I believe it’s of utmost importance; regardless of who makes the claim. If a Catholic, Protestant, SDA says “You must believe/do this for Salvation” it is then imo a big deal.

Sunday vs Saturday, fish or no fish means nothing to me because it doesn’t save me. Jesus and His finished work on the cross saves me.

But if a Catholic says “Baptism and the Eucharist save you” then I believe we can/should discuss it because it has to do with Salvation and not Christmas trees.

 

[SyroMalankara]

However, it would be legalistic to say “You must celebrate it and/or celebrate it this way.”

I don’t think so, I think it would be practical for a community worshipping together.

When non-denoms or aliturgical folks do praise and worship, aren’t the musicians/organizers making song and music decisions for the crowd? Is it legalistic for them to play music you didn’t give (name removed by moderator)ut toward, or for them to tell or encourage you to sing along?

It’s also legalistic to say “Do not celebrate it for it is pagan.” However, if someone chooses not to celebrate it in the same way or at the same time then it does not matter.

To what extent? If I abhore the Christmas tree but ‘celebrate’ by shopping, is that enough?

Celebrating the birth and death of Christ can be done whenever, and however.

Doesn’t sound very Apostolic to me. Christ and the Apostles took part in all the liturgical Jewish celebrations, Christ transformed many of them toward Himself but never said any can be ‘done as one chooses on their own’.

If someone thinks the way Catholics do it is pagan then it’s certainly advisable to correct him, and at the same time reassure that one does not have to celebrate Christ’s birth in the exact same way.

Yes and no, however there is such a thing as ‘the wrong way’, isn’t there?

 

[PRmerger]

For the sake of what we’ve been discussing, I do not think it’s right to quarrel over opinions as Paul would say.

However (and I think this is more to your question) when the topic of Salvation comes up, then I believe it’s of utmost importance; regardless of who makes the claim. If a Catholic, Protestant, SDA says “You must believe/do this for Salvation” it is then imo a big deal.

Sunday vs Saturday, fish or no fish means nothing to me because it doesn’t save me. Jesus and His finished work on the cross saves me.

But if a Catholic says “Baptism and the Eucharist save you” then I believe we can/should discuss it because it has to do with Salvation and not Christmas trees.

I noticed you didn’t answer the question as to what your paradigm is.

For I think you see the very big problem you have now.

And I think that is one reason why you keep getting drawn to Catholicism. You realize it is untenable to hold the position that you do not need to conform to the CC’s interpretation of Scripture, yet also profess that some folks must conform to your interpretation.

 

[Bballer32]

Sounds boastful Bballer.

Boastful in the Lord

1 Corinthians 1:13 - That, as it is written: He that glorieth, may glory in the Lord.

Jeremiah 9:24 - But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, for I am the Lord that exercise mercy, and judgment, and justice in the earth: for these things please me, saith the Lord.

I meant it to be said in more of a confident way (which means “with faith”) rather than cocky one. It’s hard to get the voice fluctuations over the computer

But I can not prove for my faith but have only evidences.

Same thing?

Is that your stand, that a different interpretation is no interpretation of our Lord’s words ? Like an ostrich sticking his head in the sand , or cafeteria style doctrinal selection? My way or the highway ? That is OK. I am sometimes that way. However, some times legalism is a sin, not to mention the pride associated with it. (Been there done that-Lord help us).

Blessings

A different interpretation is, in its essence, an interpretation. However, one cannot believe that different interpretations of the Lord’s Word hold the same amount of Truth. There is one full truth, some half-truths, and some with no truth. No two interpretations that differ are considered equal. It’s like the Constitution of the US: when people try start redefining marriage they interpret the Constitution differently than those who see marriage as one man and one woman. Both of them cannot be right (it’s impossible to have two opposing views be true because of the Law of Contradiction).

So, yes, it’s either the Church’s way, or the High Way.

 

[Bballer32]

I do not think so.

We disagree on plain scripture, we should surely disagree on plain ECF’s right after the apostles. I find the next generation or two of church writings to be very “universal”, to C’s and P’s and O’s.

Exactly, we do disagree on plain scripture, and the Church Fathers also disagree on Scripture with Protestants. Therefore, they do disagree with you.

Now, if we were to move to let’s say morality, then the Church Father’s would probably be in accordance with most Protestants.

If anything what they write is 99% ok with P’s.

See above

 

[dronald]

I don’t think so, I think it would be practical for a community worshipping together.

I’m not saying it would be practical for a community to sometimes conform to certain Traditions; I’m saying it would be legalistic to force a person to if they don’t believe they have to.

When non-denoms or aliturgical folks do praise and worship, aren’t the musicians/organizers making song and music decisions for the crowd? Is it legalistic for them to play music you didn’t give (name removed by moderator)ut toward, or for them to tell or encourage you to sing along?

Encouragement is fine. Saying “you must” is legalistic. I can’t imagine my worship leader saying, “Now everyone has to do this no matter what!”

To what extent? If I abhore the Christmas tree but ‘celebrate’ by shopping, is that enough?

??

Doesn’t sound very Apostolic to me. Christ and the Apostles took part in all the liturgical Jewish celebrations, Christ transformed many of them toward Himself but never said any can be ‘done as one chooses on their own’.

I’m just going by what Paul often wrote about regarding observing days and condemning others.

Yes and no, however there is such a thing as ‘the wrong way’, isn’t there?

Sure.

 

[Peter_J]

If someone thinks the way Catholics do it is pagan

What? If someone thinks the way Catholics do, it is pagan??

Heh. JK, though I did read it that way for a moment – guess my perception is a little warped by all the times that people have told me that Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism are three different religions.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’m not saying it would be practical for a community to sometimes conform to certain Traditions; I’m saying it would be legalistic to force a person to if they don’t believe they have to.

An example, I grew up in my mom’s reformed church but as a teenager came to believe the Orthodox/Catholic faith regarding Mary, the Saints, and praying for the dead. They ‘forced’ me not to do so during the Sunday worship they held. Although stating belief in Jesus is the common thread to all Christians and this belief makes one incorporated in the Body, they rejected praying for the deceased and prayers to Mary and the Saints - forcing me, on Sundays to join their non-veneration. In addition, they removed prayers in the Liturgy asking for intercession by Saints, forcing me not to be able to pray them. Know what I mean?

Encouragement is fine. Saying “you must” is legalistic. I can’t imagine my worship leader saying, “Now everyone has to do this no matter what!”

It’s a matter of perspective, isn’t it? When everyone is looking at you, expecting the tongues or some sort of reaction, it’s more forceful than saying you must.

I’m just going by what Paul often wrote about regarding observing days and condemning others.

Which verse and context?

 

[Peter_J]

I suppose many P’s are anti catholic, and I would hope only towards doctrine and not members also.

Hi again. I read your post some hours ago, but decided to hold off a bit on responding, so as to have a little time to think of how best to word this.

I most definitely recognize that anti-Catholic Protestants are not all alike. But even a valid distinction can at times lead to skewed perspective. I’ve seen this happen in many different areas, but the relevant point here is that a “moderate” anti-Catholic can be made to seem reasonable by being juxtaposed with a more extreme example – e.g. supports of Jimmy Swaggart can compare themselves favorably with Jack Chick.

 

[benhur]

Exactly, we do disagree on plain scripture, and the Church Fathers also disagree on Scripture with Protestants. Therefore, they do disagree with you.

It’s is all in the eye of the beholder for now.

Now, if we were to move to let’s say morality, then the Church Father’s would probably be in accordance with most Protestants.

Well thank you, I think ,but I was speaking doctrinally.