Calling all non-Catholic Christians!

[deacon_d]

Oh, and Deacon D, I apologize to you too. I obviously misunderstood, but you see, you say:

No need to apologize. Maybe I wasn’t being careful enough in my statements

And you gave me some interpretations of scripture. I just assumed reading and interpreting scripture were a part of those daily actions you mention, and therefore you meant the Holy Spirit was guiding you there too.

Was giving scripture as a starting point for our look at history. You mentioned the eucharist so I added my spin on John Chapter 6. I thought we would look at history to apply it and see what the reasonable interpretation is. If I’m wrong I’m wrong. Our Pastor actually gave a very interesting history on this. I’ll share if you’re interested. You may disagree but that’s OK.

As far as guidance from the Holy Spirit I didn’t mean HE guides me perfectly through scriptural interpretations Boy don’t we all wish for that Just through my daily life in choosing right from wrong.

But then you say you do not assume your interpretation of scripture is right. So now I’m confused. Are you saying the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide you in your interpretation of scripture? Or he does but somehow you’re not sure you got it right?

Correct. I believe HE helps because I pray alot for GOD to help me understand the Bible (HIS Word). Sometimes I will reason something out in my head and wonder how I figured it out. But that doesn’t mean I’m right I’ll admit that. So I’m not going to say I got this great revelation from the Holy Spirit and it is infallible. It could just be my own deductive reasoning. I do study it alot along with the historical settings.

What I will say is that the Bible reveals Jesus. I believe if you commit your life to HIM and truly let HIM in your heart, the religious labels don’t matter. I don’t believe HE sees us as Catholic / non-Catholic. I think he sees HIS true believers. Some over here, some over there. There are people from both sides Catholic/Non-Catholic that I would say Jesus doesn’t see as HIS believers. If Jesus returned now he wouldn’t go to a building to look for us. He would stay in one place and we would all be running to HIM.

PEACE

 

[Publisher]

So, you would say that the true expression of the Church is the Friends (Quakers).

Now we’re getting somewhere.

No, for me the best expression of Christianity that has made the most sense to me is among the Friends.

Among those who call themselves Friends, we meet together in His name and experience His Presence in our midst. Through the Society of Friends I have found the most meaningful expression of what it means to me to be a Christian. Among Friends I have found like minded individuals that sees our salvation as not necessarily in some far off “unclouded day” but right now is where Eternity begins…right now is where the Rule of God begins…for me to be numbered among those who are called Friends, Eternal Life which the author of John wrote about, I find the most meaningful expression of what it means to be a follower of Jesus of Nazareth.

But the Society of Friends is not the Church…at Friend’s Meetings the Church gathers to seek the will of God in our individual lives, and be the Body of Christ in our world.

 

[deacon_d]

“Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.”

It is the work of the Holy Spirit which makes us One.

You and I do not agree on many things concerning doctrine, but we share in the redemption that comes through Christ. We are led into Truth, a life lived in Truth…a life through whom Christ lives…“it is not I who live but Christ who lives within me…” This is the Life we share, and it is this Life in Christ that unifies us in Him…we are His redeemed People…and I and those with whom I worship with who join together in His Name is the visible Church…it is “universal” in scope, His salvation which He so freely bestows upon those who come to Him in repentance and faith to be His Body in this world.

As a Friend, we seek to “live in that virtue of life of which the apostles lived”…it is in Christ we live, He is our all and in all…we are a visible people…a congregation of the redeemed…a royal priesthood of believers in this world…we are His very presence…it is our hands which He uses to reach out and touch the broken…it is our feet He uses to go where there is darkness…it is our voices He uses when we speak love and kindness to those who need it the most. We are His Body…I’d say we’re pretty visible.

Beautiful :clapping:

 

[jmcrae]

No, for me the best expression of Christianity that has made the most sense to me is among the Friends.

If for you, then for all, right? There cannot be different truths for different people. We are all made of the same stuff. What cuts me cuts you; what is good for you is good for me.

But the Society of Friends is not the Church…at Friend’s Meetings the Church gathers to seek the will of God in our individual lives, and be the Body of Christ in our world.

What is the difference between saying that the Church meets at the Society of Friends, and that the Society of Friends is the Church?

 

[khutcheson]

I don’t understand how the Holy Spirit guides you to the truth in your daily actions while guiding another sincere Christian to the opposite action. For example, some Christians find it perfectly acceptable to use contraception. Others regard it as a sin. Who is right? Shall we depend upon the Holy Spirit to guide these Christians in their daily actions–including the use of contraceptives?

Yes. Who better to depend on?

So you listen to him but other sincere Christians don’t? If another Christian disagrees with you, how do you settle which one of you is truly listening and which one of you is tuning him out?

It’s not up to me to settle. Do you think that someone who isn’t convicted that using a contraceptive is sinful is committing a sin?

2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.

3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

 

[jmcrae]

It’s not up to me to settle. Do you think that someone who isn’t convicted that using a contraceptive is sinful is committing a sin?

Isn’t it an objective evil? They are still harming their bodies by interfering with their reproductive functions, are they not? (I find it mind-boggling that that’s not self-evident, personally.)

2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.

3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

I don’t think it’s possible to compare dietary preferences, or disciplinary practices around the Liturgy of the Hours to things like the use of contraception.

 

[khutcheson]

Isn’t it an objective evil? They are still harming their bodies by interfering with their reproductive functions, are they not? (I find it mind-boggling that that’s not self-evident, personally.)

I’m not aware of any evidence that all contraceptives harm the body, nor has it ever occurred to me that contraception is objectively evil. In fact, I’ve never understood the Catholic Church’s objection to contraception. I doubt that most Christians, Catholic or Protestant consider it objectively evil either.

I don’t think it’s possible to compare dietary preferences, or disciplinary practices around the Liturgy of the Hours to things like the use of contraception.

Actually I didn’t think that text referred to dietary preferences. I’ve always understood it to refer to food offered to idols.

 

[Publisher]

If for you, then for all, right?

No, because my life that is hidden in Christ is not based on the organization I belong to, or the “pet doctrines” I might find important to help me understand in my own fragile and finite mind the will of God for my life, but my life is dependent on Him alone…it is He and He alone that begins this work of transforming us into “new creatures”. The Society of Friends is a very finite tool for me to work with…someone else may find that my “screwdriver” won’t fit their hand when they need a “saw”.
There cannot be different truths for different people.

True, He alone is our Truth…and Truth is lived out in our lives…the finite words we use to try to define eternal concepts are just that…finite words…the words you use and concepts/constucts your faith tradition seeks to define the Eternal, simply don’t make a lot of sense to me. Like the Orthodox, I simply believe that somehow, someway, in some manner I cannot quantify or qualify, God was made known in Jesus of Nazareth as the Incarnate Word. I might not use the words you use…but Truth is greater than our words…Truth is lived out in our daily lives.

We are all made of the same stuff. What cuts me cuts you; what is good for you is good for me.

**Not really, I can’t take pennicillian…MSG gives me the worst headache…bad wine makes me throw up…some things you could eat would make me deathly ill…what cuts me DOES NOT necessarily cut you…what is good for you, would make my life unconfortalbe…but these are things of the physical.

Those things which we so desparately want to define in the realm of the spiritual, I place myself in the Best Hands there are…I place myself in the Hands of One who can see beyond my small finite mind and into my heart which has “groanings which cannot be uttered”. I “see through a glass darkly”…one day I will See “face to face.”…**

What is the difference between saying that the Church meets at the Society of Friends, and that the Society of Friends is the Church?

The difference, the Church is not the Society of Friends, there are Friends who are not part of those redeemed by grace…they are simply “Friends” in name only, the work of God is not in them. The Society of Friends is an organization…the Church is made by God’s Hands.

The Church might meet at the meeting house with the name “St. Stephens Catholic Church” out in front of it…but it’s not the building made of stone and mortar that is the Church…it is those redeemed that meet at this building that comprise the Church…or some of God’s people may meet together at the meeting house with the sign “Church of the Nazarene” out in front…the Church exists “where two or three are gathered together” in His name becasue HE is in the midst of them. He alone is what makes the Church…the Church…not an earthly organization…but the work of God in Christ makes the Church the Church by the regeneration of His Holy Spirit in the heart’s and lives of those who’s trust is in the Lord.

God’s Church…God’s Congregation,…God’s Holy Nation of Priests…God’s People are His People because of the work He has done by regeneration through His Spirit…it is by His Spirit we are baptized into His Body…One Lord, one Faith, One Baptism…it is God’s work in us.

 

[Deacon110]

Okay. So, what Church do the redeemed go to? (Keep in mind: They can’t disagree with each other on things like who Jesus is, or how to enter into His Church, or on issues of morality, because they are protected by the Holy Spirit into all TRUTH; not into all personal opinions.)

Also, we know from the book of the Acts of the Apostles that it is a visible church with a visible leadership.

JMCRAE I would like to make 2 quick points to you:

First regarging contraception. My sister and her husband are devout Catholics. They believe they are. Now they have different opinions when it comes to church doctrine. My sister doesn’t subscribe to the infallibility of the Pope nor confession. My Brother-in-law doesn’t believe in the real presence in the Eucharist. He believes in a spiritual presence. Yet they attend mass every sunday, volunteer, the whole nine yards.

2 years ago they had a difficult pregnancy. The doctor recommended for health reasons that they not try to have another baby. They use contraceptives now and more specifically condoms (pardon my explicit language). Condoms don’t alter anything bodily. They merely stop the little guys from getting in So is that a sin? Help me with this one.

Now the other point. A previous poster referenced the Jews and complimented my idea for Faith. You made a point that the Jews never had a reformation. I would respectfully disagree. GOD HIMSELF instituted a reformation. The north split off from the south. 2 tribes were split off to the north and the remaining 10 to the south. Or did I reverse that?? Oh well. Israel was in the north and Judah was in the South. Now why did GOD do this. Because of corruption within King David’s line. But because GOD promised a decendant from King David would always rule, HE left 2 tribes under their control.

Some reformers would submit to you that Rome had become corrupt and GOD sent the reformers to make a course correction. The reformers don’t disagree with everything but there are some things which got out of control. Alms giving for instance.

Now also remember this. We started off as a big church. Let’s say the Catholic church. Then political corruption, pagan beliefs, and Greek philosophy got all mixed up into the church. Church and state were joined. The Bishop of Rome takes the title of Pontifex Maximus and 4 of the Patriarchs revolt citing Jesus explicit instructions that no one would have authority. Now we have Catholic 1 and Catholic 2. Rome and Orthodox but still Catholic.

Then the reformers come along from within Rome. Now remember the reformers were also Catholic (Roman Catholic). Luther was a monk. So now the reformers split off and we’re left with Roman Catholic Senior and Roman Catholic Junior if you will. Roman Catholics but still Catholic no less.

Then Roman Catholic Junior has several splits. Now we have Catholic 1 and 2. Roman Catholic Senior, Roman Catholic Junior, and Roman Catholic III, IV, V, VI, VI etc. Everyone takes their own title like lutheran, methodist calvinist etc. But still Catholic none the less.

So this begs the burning question we all have. Who is responsible for these splits? Just as GOD split Israel he could have surely split the Catholic church. Just something to think about.

PEACE

 

[Non_Serviam]

So this begs the burning question we all have. Who is responsible for these splits? Just as GOD split Israel he could have surely split the Catholic church. Just something to think about.

PEACE

Interesting point, it got me to thinking about Jesus and the woman at the well. The Jews were certain that the Samaritans were mired in heterodoxy and not part of God’s plan, and yet surprise, surprise they were!

I guess that’s what I’ve found most interesting about this thread as I’ve mellowed a bit-the divergence of thinking on the nature of the church between Catholics and protestants. It seems that the first generation of reformers were still looking to form a church using many of the Catholic presuppositions: founded with an emphasis on correct doctrine, strong leadership, etc, so it is relatively easy for Catholics, Lutherans and Reformed to debate and discuss their differences with each other.

What I’m seeing here is a “reformation” (for lack of a better term) that questions more of the Catholic ecclesiastic presuppositions than the “reformers” did. Is visible unity necessary? Is God bigger than mistakes or errors? What is the church?

As is evident from the discussion here, it takes more mental flexibility to bridge these two understandings, but doing so seems to be producing some interesting insights.

Personally, I’ve never been that interested in the spiritual practices of the Friends, but what Publisher has written resonates with me to a certain degree.

Also, it seems to me that when a “church” has constructed a complete moral/spiritual/theological framework that it can present to its members that it may have the effect of short-circuiting God’s attempt to bring elements of truth to an individual in a certain order.

In other words, someone may not have the work done in their heart to understand and/or accept teaching about contraception (or any other belief) and trying to emphasize this prematurely might hinder their growth. It would seem to me that God would be more able to do so working through a local church and its leadership than through providing someone with a systematic theology or catechism. It also seems similar to the Catholic concept of spiritual direction.

(still thinking these last two paragraphs through-don’t pounce on me yet)

There seems to be some really good food for thought here, now that there’s some diversity of opinion.

Thanks to all who are contributing.

 

[guanophore]

You can’t respond because you were flat out wrong.

No apostles were there and I can demonstrate that to you. The Psst is kindo of cute but again you stand corrected. It was not Peter or any apostles. Let’s re-visit shall we. This is real simple.

13:1 Now there were in the church at Antioch **prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, [1] Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. **2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

Now where does that say Apostles?? Psst: It doesn’t The Apostles were in Jerusalem not in Antioch. I guarantee if it was Peter, Luke would have written it was Peter. You really think Luke would take the time to mention specifically Simeon, Lucius, Manaen, Saul, and Barnabus and not mention the Apostles or even specifically Peter? Come on!! So someone other than Peter and the Apostles had the authority to send them. The people I named were the ones laying on the hands. Isn’t that an amazing discovery? Seems the church has some power to send without the Apostles. So where were Peter and the apostles??

Acts 15:1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the** apostles **and the elders about this question.

Seems like they were in Jerusalem. And notice they were always referred to as the apostles in either plural form or by name. Apostles were never referred to as Prophets and teachers. Like the ones who sent off Barnabus and Saul.

So exactly where was Peter??

12 When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. 13 And when he knocked at the door of the gateway, a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer. 14 Recognizing Peter’s voice, in her joy she did not open the gate but ran in and reported that Peter was standing at the gate. 15 They said to her, “You are out of your mind.” But she kept insisting that it was so, and they kept saying, “It is his angel!” 16 But Peter continued knocking, and when they opened, they saw him and were amazed. 17 But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Tell these things to James and to the brothers.” [1] Then he departed and went to another place.

So this is in Acts 12. The question is what was the other place?Couldn’t be Antioch. His name is never mentioned. Peter was on the run and hiding from Herod. After Herod died he returned to Jerusalem when it was safe.

You really need to read Acts carefully and further understand the laying on of hands.

PEACE

I think I will have to disagree with both you and jmcrae (which I hardly ever do). Paul was made an apostle by Jesus, and although his call was confirmed by the other Apostles, at no time did he need to be made into a “bishop”.

Barnabus was also well known to the Apostles, and was Paul’s ticket in, because they were all suspicious of him:

Acts 9:26-29

26 And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, 29 preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.

Once again, consult a Catholic you trust who is knowledgeable in NT Greek, the passage would not have been written as it was without mentioning an additional group if there was one.

I’ve just grabbed my copy of the Navarre Bible commentary on Acts and it describes the event as sending them on a Missionary journey, not an ordination to the Episcopate. (pps.140-141)

Likewise, if Peter was ordaining Paul as a Bishop in Antioch, what does that do to the claim that Peter ordained him during Paul’s visit to Jerusalem? (Galatians 1:18)

Paul, like the other Apostles, was ordained by Jesus.

Rom 1:1-2
1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God

Rom 11:13
Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles,

1 Cor 1:1
1:1 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus,

1 Cor 9:1
9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?

Gal 1:1
1:1 Paul an apostle - not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father,

1 Tim 2:7
7 For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle

 

[Deacon110]

I think I will have to disagree with both you and jmcrae (which I hardly ever do). Paul was made an apostle by Jesus, and although his call was confirmed by the other Apostles, at no time did he need to be made into a “bishop”.

Just to clarify where did you disagree with me?? You seemed to be making my point that Paul was commissioned directly by Jesus. I didn’t say he was a bishop. The points you made were similar to what I was saying. Maybe you missed the earlier part of the thread

Barnabus was also well known to the Apostles, and was Paul’s ticket in, because they were all suspicious of him:

Yes indeed.

Acts 9:26-29

26 And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, 29 preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.

Paul, like the other Apostles, was ordained by Jesus.

Rom 1:1-2
1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God

Rom 11:13
Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles,

1 Cor 1:1
1:1 Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus,

1 Cor 9:1
9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?

Gal 1:1
1:1 Paul an apostle - not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father,

1 Tim 2:7
7 For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle

I think we’re on the same page. JMCRAE was trying to assert that Paul was not only commissioned by Peter but that Peter and the Apostles also sent he and Barnabus from Antioch which is incorrect. The Apostles were in Jerusalem and Peter was on the run from Herod until he died. The he returned to Jerusalem.

 

[guanophore]

Just to clarify where did you disagree with me?? You seemed to be making my point that Paul was commissioned directly by Jesus. I didn’t say he was a bishop. The points you made were similar to what I was saying. Maybe you missed the earlier part of the thread

I think I may have, so I am going to to thru it again.

No apostles were there and I can demonstrate that to you.

Paul is an Apostle, and he was there.

Now where does that say Apostles?? Psst: It doesn’t The Apostles were in Jerusalem not in Antioch.

Paul was in Antioch.

Seems the church has some power to send without the Apostles.

I don’t think so. I think Paul was sent BECAUSE he was an Apostle.

So this is in Acts 12. The question is what was the other place?Couldn’t be Antioch. His name is never mentioned. Peter was on the run and hiding from Herod. After Herod died he returned to Jerusalem when it was safe.

Actually Peter did hide out in Antioch. Most of the time he was there, though, Paul was out on journeys.

I think we’re on the same page. JMCRAE was trying to assert that Paul was not only commissioned by Peter but that Peter and the Apostles also sent he and Barnabus from Antioch which is incorrect. The Apostles were in Jerusalem and Peter was on the run from Herod until he died. The he returned to Jerusalem.

Yes, that is the part I am in disagreement with jmcrae about.

 

[guanophore]

This would eliminate the Roman Catholic church though.

There is no need to take pot shots here, ja4. The Catholic Church was eliminated by the OP. If jmcrae can avoid defending it :knight2: the thread will stay on track.

 

[graceandglory]

What do you do when all the Protestant churches you investigate claim they do this–yet teach doctrines contrary to each other? Then what?

Well, for me, that’s when I decided that maybe, just maybe, I might have been wrong. And then I snuck into a Catholic Church without anyone knowing.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Yes now we’re getting to some good stuff. I don’t believe the Holy Spirit would guide true Christians to opposite actions.

Yes, since God doesn’t lie. Good, we agree about this.

I think what happens is someone decides not to listen to the Holy Spirit because they either think they know better or just refuse to listen.

Okay, this I’m not so sure about. While this may often be true, I don’t think a lot of Christians say to themselves, “I think I won’t listen to the Holy Spirit in this case.” I especially think that doesn’t happen when a church, working on a doctrinal statement, opens a conference with prayer and sincerely tries to determine what is correct.

Contraception is dicey. The church can define contraception as a sin because of the power to bind and loose.

Can it, under the same circumstances, be a sin and not be a sin at the same time? I ask is because some Christian denominations have flip flopped on the issue. They once condemned it but now support it.

As for binding and loosing, years ago my local paper had an article about a denomination having a conference and deciding abortion is up to the woman. These folk did not think they were going against either God or scripture. (They figured the unborn weren’t persons, therefore “Thou shalt not kill” did not apply.) I think if you had asked these folks, they sincerely would have told you they were in line with God and scripture. I can’t imagine them thinking they weren’t listening to the Holy Spirit or lining up with scripture. I can’t imagine they didn’t start their conference with a prayer for guidance.

This is why I don’t think invoking the Holy Spirit is a guarantee of getting a right answer. Yes, He never lies. But I’m not sure He just up and provides answers every time we ask. Otherwise, what am I to think about Christians who sincerely seek to do God’s will coming up with opposing doctrines?

But usually contraception is associated with pre-marital relations which is a sin. So in that case it’s not the contraception that’s the sin it’s the sexual immorality. In married Christian couples they may disagree with the church and say they feel it’s OK. But they still would be committing a sin in the churches eyes. Since the church binds it here it’s bound in heaven. It really comes down to that couple reconciling themselves with GOD. Just my opinion but would like to hear yours

I threw out contraception as an example of a change in doctrine. Discussing it would be going off topic, and I promised to try to keep my posts on topic. You’re free to open a thread about this if you want.

I believe there’s no denying that moral compass. I just know in my life I’ve always known what’s right and wrong. I didn’t need the church to tell me. I’m not discounting the church by the way But I chose to do the wrong thing anyway. Why?? Why else do we do stupid things. Selfish attitude, immmediate pleasure, you name it. If someone truly feels that the Holy Spirit is moving them we may never really know. I’ll give you a great example. There’s a nun who competes in the Ironman triathlon in Hawaii every year. Additionally she competes in numerous events all over the place. She’s started her own little ministry and is spreading the Gospel that way. The Roman Catholic church said she was wrong. That she was ignoring her other responsibilities as a nun. She disagreed saying she knows the Holy Spirit is moving her to do this. 3 of her nun friends support her emphatically. So does her priest. But Rome does not. They actually showed footage of her ministering to other competitors before and after the race. Now who is right and who is wrong??

True and un-true. I’m not sure of your age but they’ve re-defined free will a few times. Actually in opposite directions. You’re right that just because you don’t know it exists doesn’t mean it doesn’t. But people choose not to believe it. I can show you so many Catholics that don’t believe in going to confession. Who don’t believe in the real presence. I would say that if you put all Catholics in a room, I bet less than 50% of them know all doctrine. And what they do know I would say they don’t agree with 100%. This is just my opinion. But that’s been my experience growing up Catholic and now. I remember the meat on fridays thing changing almost yearly as a child.

I promised not to discuss Catholicism, so please move this to another thread.

Maybe I mis-spoke. My apologies. But what good is having doctrine if you’re not going to follow it? I got the impression that you were assuming the reformers have no official doctrine. That’s not true. We can go into another thread and discuss that if you like. There is a sound set of beliefs for Reformers. Unfortunately some denominations probably add their spin or delete or who knows what. With freedom of religion you will always have groups starting their own religions and giving themselves a title. We see this more now where cultural lines are drawn like with AME, Hebrew Pentecostal etc. But I wouldn’t automatically place them all in the category of the reformers. To the contrary many actually are not. They’ve developed their own set of beliefs. This is what is so unfair when Protestants get jumped on here about thousands of denominations. Anyone can call themselves Protestant or Christian. But if you say I’m a reformed Christian you are in a very specific set of beliefs.

I’m aware of sola scriptura and sola fide. However, when those topics have been discussed on this forum, I get differing definitions about them from different Christians. Also, some believe in OSAS, some don’t. Some believe Christ is present in the Eucharist (like Lutherans), some don’t. Some believe in a rapture, some don’t. I’m speaking here of official doctrines in certain denominations.

cont.

 

[Kay_Cee]

This is where I have the problem: how does a sincere Christian looking for the truth discover which denomination is teaching the truth? They all claim to go by scripture and be guided by the Holy Spirit. What does this Christian rely on to discern true doctrine from heresy?

True we can do that. What I meant was I liked your idea of going outside the Bible and the labels of Roman Catholic and Protestant and taking a strict look at history. What I merely asked was could you show documentation where any of the 12 apostles actually peformed the mass and believed in the real presence?? This singularly would bring me back to the church and would confirm that I’m wrong about John chapter 6. That’s all

PEACE

I’m afraid I have to decline, at least in this thread, since I promised not to discuss Catholicism. You are free to open a thread about this, and I’m sure those much more knowledgable about history than I am will be happy to discuss it with you.

 

[guanophore]

Well, for me, that’s when I decided that maybe, just maybe, I might have been wrong. And then I snuck into a Catholic Church without anyone knowing.

Good for you! But try to keep the focus on this thread. Read the OP. The Catholic Church is not an option for the sake of this thread.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Was giving scripture as a starting point for our look at history. You mentioned the eucharist so I added my spin on John Chapter 6. I thought we would look at history to apply it and see what the reasonable interpretation is. If I’m wrong I’m wrong. Our Pastor actually gave a very interesting history on this. I’ll share if you’re interested. You may disagree but that’s OK.

I’m sure it would prove to be an interesting discussion, but it would be getting off topic.

As far as guidance from the Holy Spirit I didn’t mean HE guides me perfectly through scriptural interpretations Boy don’t we all wish for that Just through my daily life in choosing right from wrong.

St. Paul does say the law is written on our heats.

Correct. I believe HE helps because I pray alot for GOD to help me understand the Bible (HIS Word). Sometimes I will reason something out in my head and wonder how I figured it out. But that doesn’t mean I’m right I’ll admit that. So I’m not going to say I got this great revelation from the Holy Spirit and it is infallible. It could just be my own deductive reasoning. I do study it alot along with the historical settings.

What I will say is that the Bible reveals Jesus. I believe if you commit your life to HIM and truly let HIM in your heart, the religious labels don’t matter. I don’t believe HE sees us as Catholic / non-Catholic. I think he sees HIS true believers. Some over here, some over there. There are people from both sides Catholic/Non-Catholic that I would say Jesus doesn’t see as HIS believers. If Jesus returned now he wouldn’t go to a building to look for us. He would stay in one place and we would all be running to HIM.

PEACE

Okay, I agree with your last sentence, but I have to argue that doctrinal unity is important. Jesus did pray that we would all be one *as He and the Father are one. *I can’t imagine Jesus and the Father disagreeing about doctrine.

And I can see where false doctrines (even though sincere Christians believe them) cause problems. Haven’t we all heard stories of someone making a prophecy about the Second Coming or a rapture, and folks selling their homes and businesses? I’ve heard about people who don’t plan for the future, since they believe Jesus is coming back any second. And what about Christians who try to persuade politicians that the US should boot Muslims out of Jerusalem and help rebuild the temple so the Second Coming will occur?

Jesus said the truth will set us free. Looking for doctrinal truth is extremely important.

 

[Kay_Cee]

It’s not up to me to settle. Do you think that someone who isn’t convicted that using a contraceptive is sinful is committing a sin?

2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.

3The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.

4Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.

6He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.

14I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

It’s not what I think about contraception that’s the issue here. It’s that Christianity can be divided about moral issues.

How does one rightly discern which side is correct? *That’s *what we’re trying to figure out.