'Bible believing' church communities and their differences

  • Thread starter Thread starter Contra_Mundum_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benjohnson said:
Pushing your friend to denounce others is not prudent, will only lead to less unity in my opinion. I would hope that it would be better to draw each other closer to Christ.
Click to expand...
I’m not out to get her. I just want to have a few questions ready next time she starts throwing nonsense at me. Maybe my questions will make her think. Maybe not. Maybe not yet. I know her ‘church’ was started by some random guy who was enlightened by the Hily Spirit and a small group of people was meeting for prayer in his home. This is the level we are talking about here. I think they are now aligning themselves with the Evangelicals, but I’m not 100% sure. I will ask her next time for clarification.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
I’m not out to get her. I just want to have a few questions ready next time she starts throwing nonsense at me. Maybe my questions will make her think. Maybe not. Maybe not yet. I know her ‘church’ was started by some random guy who was enlightened by the Hily Spirit and a small group of people was meeting for prayer in his home. This is the level we are talking about here. I think they are now aligning themselves with the Evangelicals, but I’m not 100% sure. I will ask her next time for clarification.
Click to expand...
Contra,

Dont forget that St Paul began his ministry in the same manner. No one appointed him. (Gal 1.1) S not being part of a known denomination does not necessarily disqualify her pastor.

Best way to encourage others to investigate your own church is simply to invite them to come. I say “Come and see.”

Rob
 
Usige said:
The one that goes to a “bible chapel” said that the Holy Spirit indwells in her heart and guides her to accurate understanding of the bible. She believes that the Holy Spirit will not let her interpret the bible wrong. The Calvinist was willing to admit that they could interpret the bible incorrectly, but mainly because of his own biases.

So here are two examples of places where contradictions showed up between them. (…)

When I asked my friend that went to the bible chapel how Christian could disagree, her only possible explanation was that they had not truly accepted Jesus and therefore the Holy Spirit was not keeping them from misinterpreting the bible.
Click to expand...
OK, this is what I’m talking about. Very different beliefs, both based on taking the Bible at face value. Thank you for the examples, this is what I need.

So basically, the ‘bible chapel’ friend explains differences through the lack of faith of others. My guess is that if they sin that means the person never really accepted Jesus into their heart, right?

It all sounds awfully naive and I genuinely can’t understand how anyone can buy into that. My friend is a fallen away Catholic btw. She converted in high school but never learned her faith, so left a few years later when something more convenient came along. I don’t doubt her faith and love for God at all, but I’m so sad that she has gone so far into error.
 
submariner2 said:
Contra,

Dont forget that St Paul began his ministry in the same manner. No one appointed him. (Gal 1.1) S not being part of a known denomination does not necessarily disqualify her pastor.
Click to expand...
Really? No one? 😃
Maybe this thread will be educational for you too. God bless.
 
Contra_Mundum said:
I’m not out to get her. I just want to have a few questions ready next time she starts throwing nonsense at me. Maybe my questions will make her think. Maybe not. Maybe not yet. I know her ‘church’ was started by some random guy who was enlightened by the Hily Spirit and a small group of people was meeting for prayer in his home. This is the level we are talking about here. I think they are now aligning themselves with the Evangelicals, but I’m not 100% sure. I will ask her next time for clarification.
Click to expand...
If she starts going nuts on you - ask if it would be ok to pray. Don’t do anything daunting, but something in her language that would speak to her. Something like “Jesus, We pray that us close friends will become closer in you, that you guide our friendship together, and that both of us continue to love each other. In your name we pray.”
 
Contra_Mundum said:
OK, this is what I’m talking about. Very different beliefs, both based on taking the Bible at face value. Thank you for the examples, this is what I need.

So basically, the ‘bible chapel’ friend explains differences through the lack of faith of others. My guess is that if they sin that means the person never really accepted Jesus into their heart, right?

It all sounds awfully naive and I genuinely can’t understand how anyone can buy into that. My friend is a fallen away Catholic btw. She converted in high school but never learned her faith, so left a few years later when something more convenient came along. I don’t doubt her faith and love for God at all, but I’m so sad that she has gone so far into error.
Click to expand...
Contra,

Based on being a fallen away Catholic then you should know and be ready to explain the Book of Romans. This is the book that is most distorted by Protestants and used to snare uncatechized Catholics. I do not have time now but later today will provide you the usual scenario that sounds good and looks good however fails when properly understood…

The usual sequence actually begins with some sort of understanding that the Bible is the word of God, that the OHCAC teaches, and that the Bible is all you need. That starts with an improper understanding of Timothy.

The next step is to discredit Mary in Romans…and then when that succeeds…the Church lied to you…what else did the Church lie to you about…and then your friend is Protestant…

I have had experience with this tactic that as you may see failed and should fail when someone understands that the errors that are propagated in this Protestant discipleship.🙂
 
Coptic,

that would be great, thanks.

My friend wasn’t even swayed by bad theology, but by an emotional experience she had at a prayer meeting. Her boyfriend at the time was into that. So she stayed and I guess ended up indoctrinated. 10 years on and we are still friends, but the elephant in the room is getting more obvious because I talk about my faith more than I used to. 🤷
 
Usige said:
This is the danger of* Sola Scritura*, everything is up for debate,
Click to expand...
That is a danger. But my two catholics friends have differing views on SSPX and contraceptives - everything is up for debate with those two. I say that to point out the dangers of personally interpreting the Bible, as well as personally interpreting the Magisterium.

I’d remind your “Bible” friend that Luther’ s idea of Sola Scriptura doesn’t turn the bible into a “chose your own adventure.” It was only a intended to be a safety valve for when the Church starts to say crazy stuff contrary to the word of god. As far as I know, Lutherans have only used Sola Scripture twice in 1700 years.
 
Ben,
that’s interesting about the Lutherans, I didn’t know that.

As for Catholics who do not follow the church teaching, it is a different problem. There is a church teaching, objective theology, but some people will reject it. That makes them heretics, and not a valid option or an alternative view that is tolerated. With protestantism there is no central authority (the pope and the magisterium). Some groups see that as a good thing because they believe whatever suits them. With “make up your own Bible adventure” groups this goes to the extreme. My guess is that my friend loves God so much and has a lot of faith so it is inconceivable to her that what she believs is possibly nonsense.
 
“Bible believing” really means “solo scriptura” which is a poorly veiled slam against Catholics for believe in scripture and tradition. I’ve found the best defense for catholic reliance on both scripture and tradition is the very last verse in the Gospel of John.
 
mikelionheart said:
A remarkable achievement considering Lutheranism has only existed for 500 years.

Well done that man.
Click to expand...
Not speaking for Ben, but I think he means that going back before the Reformation to the early councils, there isn’t much we dispute. Of the 7 councils, we essentially agree.

Jon
 
Contra_Mundum said:
So basically, the ‘bible chapel’ friend explains differences through the lack of faith of others. My guess is that if they sin that means the person never really accepted Jesus into their heart, right?
Click to expand...
That’s essentially correct. I asked her the following:

Lets says someone accepts Jesus when they are 18. Through bad decisions they end up living on the street after a few years. To live they start steeling and during one break in they come across someone in the house and accidentally kill them. They get away and instead of feeling guilty they feel elated. Because of that sense of power they start to kill and rape for the elation. Let say they are caught and sentenced to death. At their execution they rail against an unjust God that would let them be put to death.

I asked her in this situation did she think they would go to Heaven or Hell? She said given the evil in their soul they were surely go to hell. But when I brought up that they had accepted Jesus when they were 18, she said they obviously hadn’t because we are saved through our acceptance and that can never be lost. If one were destined for hell they could never have been saved in the first place.
 
benjohnson said:
That is a danger. But my two catholics friends have differing views on SSPX and contraceptives - everything is up for debate with those two. I say that to point out the dangers of personally interpreting the Bible, as well as personally interpreting the Magisterium.

I’d remind your “Bible” friend that Luther’ s idea of Sola Scriptura doesn’t turn the bible into a “chose your own adventure.” It was only a intended to be a safety valve for when the Church starts to say crazy stuff contrary to the word of god. As far as I know, Lutherans have only used Sola Scripture twice in 1700 years.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100%. I think many people have used Sola Scriptura to completely reject any teaching they disagree with. Many Catholics attempt to do the same thing by looking for “loop holes” in the Magisterium and start playing word games to justify what they want. Both are certainly a danger.
 
As far as I am aware the major points of contention are:
  1. Whether or not baptism is required at all to be saved.
  2. Whether or not infant baptism is effective or only adult baptism.
  3. Predestination versus ‘becoming saved’.
  4. Some believe ‘once saved always saved’ others that grace can be lost.
  5. The ‘real presence’ - some believe in a kind of real presence (some Anglicans and Lutherans) others that the bread and wine (or grape juice depending on denomination) are purely symbolic of Jesus presence.
  6. Some believe that miracles and the gifts of the Holy Spirit are available today (notably Pentecostalists), others that the ‘age of miracles’ ended with the Apostles (e.g. Presbyterians).
  7. Some reject the Trinity (Unitarians and some Pentecostalists).
  8. Some believe in the Rapture, some do not.
    etc, etc, etc,
 
Usige said:
I was just talking with a couple Protestant friends about this. One was from a mainline church (Calvinist tradition) and another goes to a “bible chapel” church.

The one that goes to a “bible chapel” said that the Holy Spirit indwells in her heart and guides her to accurate understanding of the bible. She believes that the Holy Spirit will not let her interpret the bible wrong. The Calvinist was willing to admit that they could interpret the bible incorrectly, but mainly because of his own biases.

So here are two examples of places where contradictions showed up between them. The Calvinist believed that a physical baptism was required to go to heaven; the lady from the bible chapel said it didn’t matter; only belief that Christ died for our sins was required. My Calvinist friend basically believed that people are predestined for heaven or hell; while my other friend said that we are guaranteed salvation purely through accepting Christ as our savior. Both were sure of their position based on their interpretation of the bible (n the case of the Calvinist it was also study of other writers). I asked how they dealt with the fact that the there are different translations of the bible that imply different things and their only conclusion was that their bibles were inerrant and other translations must be incorrect.

This is the danger of* Sola Scritura*, everything is up for debate, You pick and chose the bible translation that meets your beliefs. When I asked my friend that went to the bible chapel how Christian could disagree, her only possible explanation was that they had not truly accepted Jesus and therefore the Holy Spirit was not keeping them from misinterpreting the bible.

One side note, I asked them both what happens when their pastor starts preaching about something the don’t believe. The Calvinist said the council of elders could fire them or they would just go to another church that is more faithful to that church’s teachings. The bible chapel friend said they could fire them or if there was just a small group of them they would start a “home church” and share teaching duties among themselves.

The one thing they both seemed to agree on was that Catholics a) don’t read the bible (why would we since we can’t understand/interpret it on our own), b) do what the pope tells them, without thought or question, and c) are being lead astray with “all those silly rules.”
Click to expand...
You might want to point out to your friend that in John 16:13 where Jesus says he will send the Paraclete who will “guide them in ALL truth.” …that Jesus is speaking to the apostles AND NOT to everyone. They are to be the leaders of the Church and that is whom the Holy Spirit will be guiding into all truth…So when we look to the bishops today…we see that it is the Holy Spirit that is guiding the Church…not man. She has taken that verse out of context and, as a result, has applied it to herself. The reason we know that this verse is not speaking to each individual person is because there are so many different opinions on what the Holy Spirit is leading one to call “Truth”.
 
mikelionheart said:
A remarkable achievement considering Lutheranism has only existed for 500 years.

Well done that man.
Click to expand...
Remember the history of the Lutheran church includes 1500 years of being happliy Catholic. Up until the reformation, your history is my history. We also hope for a reconciliation with the Catholic church in God’s time as well.

In the time after the Reformation, I think we’ve only had one other dogmatic question with the Catholic church, and that’s with Papal Infallibly. Oddly enough, we don’t disagree with what the Pope has said “ex cathedra” - in fact I personally find the pronouncements add to my faith.
 
submariner2 said:
Contra,

Paul plainly says no man appointed him in Gal 1.1. Any info refuting him on that?

Rob
Click to expand...
Rob,

2000 years after the fact, why don’t you tell me what you think it means as you have been led by the Spirit and why it is important.
 
StevieD said:
As far as I am aware the major points of contention are:
  1. Whether or not baptism is required at all to be saved.
  2. Whether or not infant baptism is effective or only adult baptism.
  3. Predestination versus ‘becoming saved’.
  4. Some believe ‘once saved always saved’ others that grace can be lost.
  5. The ‘real presence’ - some believe in a kind of real presence (some Anglicans and Lutherans) others that the bread and wine (or grape juice depending on denomination) are purely symbolic of Jesus presence.
  6. Some believe that miracles and the gifts of the Holy Spirit are available today (notably Pentecostalists), others that the ‘age of miracles’ ended with the Apostles (e.g. Presbyterians).
  7. Some reject the Trinity (Unitarians and some Pentecostalists).
  8. Some believe in the Rapture, some do not.
    etc, etc, etc,
Click to expand...
Thank you for this list.

My friend got ‘re-baptised’ when she joined her community, although she was 17 when she got baptised in the Catholic church. So my guess is that she was ‘saved’ and needed to be baptised ‘for real’ (wearing a white gown and by immersion in a lake, she told me later). Some people can’t get enough of a good thing I guess. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top