Does your Non-Catholic religion teach any theological errors?

[JonNC]

no.

Which no?

No. Although it doesn’t matter because what is most important is what the Bible says.

or

No. And it does matter because the believers in the church should agree on the teachings of Christ.

Jon

 

[allischalmers]

No, there are no errors in God’s Word.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

No, there are no errors in God’s Word.

But does it matter whether or not the believers in your church are one in their understanding of the inerrant Word of God? How much, if any, is acceptable divergence in opinion of the meaning of the inerrant Word of God?

 

[Kansasdad]

I have heard it stated many times that it is impossible for any church to be 100% correct and given human capacity this is correct. However this begs the question. Do we have faith in God to keep his promise, even when it makes no sense to us; even when we think it an impossibility. In fact is this not what faith is? Many people “claim” to have great faith yet they don’t have enough faith to trust God to keep his promise.

God Bless,
K.D.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I think you are probably right about the stances of the three synods. And yes, the LCMS had limited participation.

However, I am disappointed with LCMS for not signing on (I’m LCMS, so this is my opinion). I don’t think the JDDJ misstates Lutheran theology on Justification, either. My view is that the document, to the extent that it goes, confirms the areas of agreement. If it had solved all of the issues between us, we’d be sharing the Eucharist next Sunday. But just because it isn’t complete doesn’t mean we shouldn’t support what convergence we do have.
Triuneunity, I think, has a view more in line with the LCMS, and will probably beg to differ with me.

Jon

Ohhh I won’t say nary a word ahem, alone instrumental cause of justification conspicuously absent from JDDJ

 

[SIA]

What errors do you believe are in the Catholic Church? Isn’t there a serious split happenning right now in the Anglican church over the decision to allow women bishops? Is that an error in your Church.?

No. There isn’t a split going on in the Anglican Communion and this seems to be a huge misconception amongst many Catholics. And you accuse Protestants of being ignorant of Catholic teachings? Anyway, the problems are going on in the Episcopal church and the church of England. They are two branches or primates of the AC, but they in no way have any bearing upon other Primates such as the Diocese of Uganda and the Southern Cone which is the Diocese of South America. My bishop is Archbishop Orombi of Uganda. Obviously not a woman.

I believe that the RCC has incurred many errors in theology over the centuries including the Marian dogmas, and Purgatory. Those discussions are for another thread for sure but those are a couple examples.

 

[JonNC]

**Ohhh I won’t say nary a word ** ahem, alone instrumental cause of justification conspicuously absent from JDDJ

You just did!

• “This affirmation, like the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone, serves as a criterion for judging all church practices, structures, and traditions precisely because its counterpart is ‘Christ alone’ (solus Christus). He alone is to be ultimately trusted as the one mediator through whom God in the Holy Spirit pours out his saving gifts. All of us in this dialogue affirm that all Christian teachings, practices, and offices should so function as to foster ‘the obedience of faith’ (Rom. 1:5) in God’s saving action in Christ Jesus alone through the Holy Spirit, for the salvation of the faithful and the praise and honor of the heavenly Father” (USA, no. 160).

TU,
Our insistance on the word “alone” is similar to the insistance by some Catholics on the the phrase “faith and works”, which, as I recall (I could be mistaken), also isn’t present in the document (the above quote is in the appendix). Aside from that, what portion of the document do you not agree with?

To the OP, if you want us to take this off the thread, let me know.
Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

TU,
Our insistance on the word “alone” is similar to the insistance by some Catholics on the the phrase “faith and works”, which, as I recall (I could be mistaken), also isn’t present in the document (the above quote is in the appendix). Aside from that, what portion of the document do you not agree with?

To the OP, if you want us to take this off the thread, let me know.
Jon

That it doesn’t agree with this:

“Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.” (Augusburg Confession of Faith, Article IV)

It doesn’t agree with this because the Roman Catholic side did not deviate from the condemnations of this Article in the Council of Trent; they did not state that the Tridentine formulation of justification was biblically incorrect. Of course, being faithful Roman Catholics, they couldn’t. The Lutheran side, being represented by the nearly secular Lutheran World Federation, essentially repudiated the Lutheran understanding by mutually affirming the doctrine taught by Rome. The word “alone” added to “faith” as being the instrumental cause of our justification, grounded on the merits of Christ alone, is absolutely essentially for any form of unity.

 

[JonNC]

That it doesn’t agree with this:

“Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.” (Augusburg Confession of Faith, Article IV)

It doesn’t agree with this because the Roman Catholic side did not deviate from the condemnations of this Article in the Council of Trent; they did not state that the Tridentine formulation of justification was biblically incorrect. Of course, being faithful Roman Catholics, they couldn’t. The Lutheran side, being represented by the nearly secular Lutheran World Federation, essentially repudiated the Lutheran understanding by mutually affirming the doctrine taught by Rome. The word “alone” added to “faith” as being the instrumental cause of our justification, grounded on the merits of Christ alone, is absolutely essentially for any form of unity.

Hi TU,

15.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.[11]

If we look for one side or the other to repudiate statements of the past, we set up a quite impossible chance for unity. If, on the other hand, we seek new language and understandings of past statements, the HS can draw us together.

I just can’t find any conflict with Augsburg specifically or the confessions in general in the JDDJ. I trust and respect your judgement, so I’ll study some more. But I’ll tell you, brother, it seems like a pretty solid document.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

This question is for non-Catholics only please.

The Catholic Church teaches that it does not have any theological errors in its teachings in faith and morals. I am wondering how many non-Catholic adherents agree with their denomination’s teachings in faith and morals 100% or is there an item or items where you are at odds with that faith tradition?

Please respond and then identify (if you wish) what faith tradition you come from and how you voted.

Thanks!

The question is: what does it mean to say that a church “teaches” something? You guys have a fairly sharp definition, but it’s still fuzzy around the edges. In fact, I have heard very different responses from Catholics as to whether papal encyclicals, for instance, can teach error.

Like you, we do not think that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches error. But we do not claim that the Catholic Church subsists fully within our particular communion. We do not believe that the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds contain error, because they are statements of faith belonging to the Catholic Church as a whole. Anything less than that–anything produced by Anglicans acting on our own, and still more by the Episcopal Church (one national expression of the Anglican Communion) or an individual priest or bishop, may well contain error.

Whether or not the 39 Articles contain error is a point on which Episcopalians probably differ. I think that some of them need a good deal of interpretation if they are not to be seen as erroneous. And certainly the statements and actions of the Episcopal Church are often erroneous–as no doubt are some of the statements and actions of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (the closest equivalent to the Episcopal Church in your Communion).

Edwin

 

[allischalmers]

But does it matter whether or not the believers in your church are one in their understanding of the inerrant Word of God? How much, if any, is acceptable divergence in opinion of the meaning of the inerrant Word of God?

Everyone in our Baptist Church all agree on what the Bible teaches, also everyone in other Baptist Churches all agree with each other on what the Bible teaches.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

"JonNC:

To the OP, if you want us to take this off the thread, let me know.

Carry on.

The discussion helps enhance our common (or not so common) understanding of what it means to teach (or not teach) theological error. If we keep the discussion(s) within that context that would be great.

I think it might be time for me to put in another batch of popcorn.

Everyone in our Baptist Church all agree on what the Bible teaches, also everyone in other Baptist Churches all agree with each other on what the Bible teaches.

Maybe you could expand on this a little. Here’s what wikipedia says regarding Baptist teachings (I know wiki should not necessarily be trusted completely thus the reason I am looking for further clarification):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist

Theological, cultural and political controversies
As with all major denominational groups, Baptists have not escaped theological, cultural and political controversy. Baptists have historically been sensitive to the introduction of theological error (from their perspective) into their groups.

• The older Baptist associations of Europe, Canada, Australia and the northern United States have assimilated influences of different schools of thought, but not without major debate and schisms.
• In England, Charles Haddon Spurgeon fought against what he saw as challenges to his strongly conservative point of view in the Downgrade Controversy.
• As part of the continuing fundamentalist/liberal controversy within the Northern Baptist Convention, two new associations of conservative Baptists were formed—the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches in 1932 and the Conservative Baptist Association of America in 1947.
• Landmarkism, with its emphasis on ecclesiastical separation and doctrinal rigidity and its cultural foundation in the South, deterred Southern Baptists from being influenced as strongly by aberrant points of view as were the Baptists in the northern United States and other countries. Old Landmarkism held to the traditional Baptist historical consciousness that traced Baptists through dissenters—Donatists, Cathari—back to Jesus, Jordan(although it is not believed that ALL Donatists, Cathari, etc.were Baptist theologically) and the “First Baptist Church” of Jerusalem. Popular Landmarkism contributed to a historical consciousness implicit in the idea that Baptists were an extension of the New Testament community, perpetuating the true church in every age.[11]
• Beginning in the 1980s, there was a concerted effort among a determined group of theologically orthodox Southern Baptists to purge modernist theological influence from its seminaries. This highly publicized SBC Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover occasioned two schisms of theologically modernist Baptist churches: the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and the Alliance of Baptists.

 

[JoeBlow]

This question is for non-Catholics only please.

The Catholic Church teaches that it does not have any theological errors in its teachings in faith and morals. I am wondering how many non-Catholic adherents agree with their denomination’s teachings in faith and morals 100% or is there an item or items where you are at odds with that faith tradition?

Please respond and then identify (if you wish) what faith tradition you come from and how you voted.

Thanks!

Obviously, I don’t think that it teaches any errors or I would not be a part of it. An individual may teach errors, but there are safeguards in place to protect against that.