M
michaelp
Guest
Very insignificant issue.The one that believes in the rapture or the one that does not?
Finally, we agree. Welcome.
For Evangelicals/Protestants: Are there really 30,000 denominations? (RCs read also)
- Status
M
michaelp
Guest
Let me ask you this question. Would it make you all happy if we just created some type of institutional name like The United Evangelical Church of God and all fall under it? I don’t get this stuff.
We (evangelicals) are already unified. We find different expressions and different belief on few (very few) issues when you look at the big picture. We like the unity among diversity.
We don’t think that God has required that we believe EXACTLY alike on everything. We can have different names . . . it is ok, I promise. Things are not that bad over here. In fact, they are the same as over there, we just don’t have one name.
The biggest thing we lack is the realization that we are already unified. I think that the Church will realize this soon. It is one nice thing that the Postmodern world has brought us–that we are more unifed than monderism proposed.
Thanks all.
M
michaelp
Guest
I never said it was a Church. Don’t you get it. Their is a local church which is the expression of the invisible body of Christ. The ETS is just many memeber from the body of CHrist comming together in agreement. Who said they had to be a local Church.
ETS illustrate the unity that the invisible body of Christ expressed by Evangelicals has even though people belong to separately named local churches that express their worship differently.
WE ARE ALL ONE by virtue of our identification with Christ. We are all unity by the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is what I am trying to show you.
Michael
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
The kkk and their doctrine are bound by scripture alone, so are the Jehovas witnesses(the don’t even believe Jesus is divine).With that said these groups believe firmly every thing in scripture and will sware by it.They will take scripture and use it to confirm their beliefs.So If the Bible is the only standard and they belive the way they do"who" says they are right or wrong?Furthermore,by whose Authority do they correct them.Since they use the Bible to justify their doctrine?God Bless
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Yes, I would say that all Catholics confess one faith. To be a member of the Catholic Church, one must accept every infallible teaching of the Magisterium. If one knowingly rejects even one infallible teaching of the Magisterium of the Chuch, one is a formal heretic.**Catechism of the Catholic Church
2089** … "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same …
The sin of formal heresy causes one to lose one’s membership in the church that Christ founded, which is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Thus, it is quite impossible to knowingly reject what the Catholic Church teaches, and to be a member of the Catholic Church. The “cafeteria Catholics” who pick and choose what they will accept among the doctrines of the Church are, in fact, not Catholics at all – they are Protestants. A Protestant is, by definition, a Christian that rejects at least one doctrine of the Catholic Church.
- Your disagreements fall under the interpretation of the Magisterium, ours under the interpretation of the Scripture. I will stick with the Scripture.*
- I was just saying that we are not as divided on doctrine as you think. When it comes down to it, Evangelicals agree on about 95% of all issues, RCs, I would guess 96%. You make a mountian out of a molehill. It is not that significant.*
- Hope you understand. I was just trying to clear up the 30,000 buisness that is SO mischaracterizing*.
M
michaelp
Guest
This is not good argumentation. It is called “guilt by association” (look it up). It is attributing falshood to an argument simply because other groups that are not orthodox have held it before or hold it currently. It would be like if Roman Catholocism is wrong. How do I know. Because they believe God is immaterial. The Greeks believed that God is immaterial. Therefore, you are wrong because you are like the Greeks.
Many groups hold good things and bad things. We would find identification with the good things but not the bad. It does not work.
Guilt by association is a common argumentative fallacy. But, hey, we all do it sometimes. It carries a stong force to the ignorant. (Not at all saying you are ignorant)
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
This is not good argumentation. It is called “guilt by association” (look it up). It is attributing falshood to an argument simply because other groups that are not orthodox have held it before or hold it currently. It would be like if Roman Catholocism is wrong. How do I know. Because they believe God is immaterial. The Greeks believed that God is immaterial. Therefore, you are wrong because you are like the Greeks.
Many groups hold good things and bad things. We would find identification with the good things but not the bad. It does not work.
Guilt by association is a common argumentative fallacy. But, hey, we all do it sometimes. It carries a stong force to the ignorant. (Not at all saying you are ignorant)
Michael
F
Fidelis
Guest
I looked it up and this is what I found:
This isn’t the same thing the previous poster was getting at, which was: since these abberant groups start with the exact same world view as orthodox Protestants do (that is. more or less, personal interpretation of the Scriptures), who is to say that the conclusions they draw from them are right or wrong?
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
I told you I was no theologeon.But I was not assigning guilt either, neither was it argumentation.It was a question, how do you know that you are able to interperate scripture correctly?The Holy Spirit is not suffering from multiple personality disorder.Since Truth is not relevant,I am just asking how do you know if your interpretation is right?God Bless,no insult taken
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Thankyou,you do a much better job than I. I understood what I was asking, and you did,I just hate that he didn’t he seems to be open and quite sincere, I would hate to offend him.I certainly didn’t mean to,I also was not trying to associate him with those groups. God Bless
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Of course my discussions with Evangelical Protestants informs my understanding of what Evangelical Protestants believe! Talking to Evangelical Protestants will show anyone how little unity of belief actually exists among Evangelical Protestants. But I understand why many Evangelical Protestants think that they have a “unity” of belief on the “essentials”, and the reason they think that way is because many Evangelical Protestants believe in OSAS. Since many Evangelical Protestants accept with out question the false doctrine of OSAS, they sincerely believe that once a person gets “saved”, that person will go to heaven no matter what they do, or what they believe. From this perspective, it is easy to see why OSAS believing Protestants can so blithely dismiss Christian doctrine – for they really have only have ONE doctrine that must believed – the false doctrine of OSAS, which is the “essential” doctrine that forms the “unity” of belief. As long as one believes in the OSAS heresy, belief in correct doctrine will never be that important an issue, since formal heresy is not a mortal sin that can bring damnation to a “saved” man.
M
michaelp
Guest
Once again, most of Scripture is very clear. The important things are very very clear. It is not that hard.
But your question is like asking me “How do you interpret the Bible.” I have given you the short answer. Now, I would encourage you to go here and take the Bible Studies Methods course www.thetheologyprogram.com. It will give you much more confidence in your interpretation and understanding that most of Scripture is pretty clear.
If you cannot do this, at least watch the first and the last class to Introduction to Theology.
Here is another online lesson on how to study the Bible.
biblicaltraining.org/classes/hermeneutics/frame.html
You will see that you have alot of misconceptions concerning this. I think it will be of great help, though I don’t really expect anyone to do this.
Either way, hope it helps answer your question.
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
Thank you. I just don’t like the guilt by association argument or any implication of it. I would not do that to you, but many have done it to me here on this site.
But then again, I don’t make up the rule!! Expecially since I am graciously allowed to be on your site!!
C
Contarini
Guest
:Let me ask you this question. Would it make you all happy if we just created some type of institutional name like The United Evangelical Church of God and all fall under it?:
Well, my basic problem is the old Lone Ranger joke: who’s we? But yes, if all evangelicals could form one visible body then I’d take all this business about “united in essentials” much more seriously. You act as if this would be trivially easy, but I don’t agree. You can dismiss the idea of organized unity all you like, but it forces you to face real disagreements and form concrete ways of working together.Of course, that would mean splitting the mainline denominations in which many evangelicals currently live. Again, this would force you to ask what unity really means.
: I don’t get this stuff.:
I know you don’t.
:We (evangelicals) are already unified. We find different expressions and different belief on few (very few) issues when you look at the big picture.:
Well no, I think that looking at the big picture produces exactly the opposite result. You think that because you all agree on a narrrow set of soteriological issues you have real unity. And to those of us from a more high-church/catholic perspective, it’s particularly disturbing that you value that agreement more than you value the ecclesiological and sacramental doctrines that bind some of you to us as opposed to each other. (I’m not even sure how I should be using “we” and “us” here. I consider myself an evangelical but am probably not one by your definition.)
: We like the unity among diversity.:
Everyone has unity with diversity. That’s a cliche. The question is: on what issues do we need to have unity and on what issues should we have diversity? As long as you think unity is mainly a matter of doctrine, this is an insoluble issue, while all the while you believe it isn’t an issue at all.
:We don’t think that God has required that we believe EXACTLY alike on everything.:
Does anyone? That’s not an issue.
: We can have different names .:
You really think this is about names? It’s about structures of accountability that force people to get along with others with whom they may not agree and whom they may not like. Without those structures, doctrinal agreement is hopelessly inadequate.
: . . it is ok, I promise.:
I try not to claim “ex-pertise,” since I don’t trust ex-Catholics or ex-mainliners. But I assure you that I have quite a good deal of experience with a number of different corners of evangelicalism. I’m not speaking out of ignorance (though you are free to believe that I am speaking out of the bias of disillusion). Your promises don’t mean much. I’ve tried to live out this unity that evangelicals claim, and for me at least it was utterly insufficient.
: Things are not that bad over here. In fact, they are the same as over there, we just don’t have one name.:
That’s just not true. This isn’t a question of whether things are “better” or “worse.” But they certainly are not the same. You have unity, but you don’t have the kind of unity that Christians have traditionally regarded as necessary. And I see no reason to abandon the traditional view.
:The biggest thing we lack is the realization that we are already unified. I think that the Church will realize this soon.:
But what’s the Church? Do you mean the churches to which members of ETS belong? Do you mean all baptized Christians? Do you mean all Christians who confess the truths of the Nicene Creed? Who are this “we” who are already unified? And if evangelical Methodists are one with Baptists but not with other Methodists, why are they still part of the UMC?
And Protestants have been claiming for five hundred years that the divisions were temporary and would “soon” be overcome. For the coming of Jesus I’ll wait. Protestant unity isn’t worth it.
In your other post, you imply that the only visible church in which you believe is the local church. I think that’s the reason we are talking past each other (although I don’t think even the claim of “invisible unity” of congregations is without problems). This raises a further question about the “unity” of the ETS. If you have Presbyterians and other classical Protestants among you (as I’m sure you do), they presumably adhere to the teaching of such confessional statements as the WCF, which explicitly teaches that there is a universal visible Church made up of all those churches where the Word is preached and the Sacraments are administered. In other words, you claim that the ETS represents the unity of the Body, when it contains people who have fundamentally opposed notions of what the unity of the Body means in the first place.
The question is whether a purely invisible unity means anything. I can’t see that it does. An invisible unity is utterly meaningless to everyone but God.
In Christ,
Edwin
Well, my basic problem is the old Lone Ranger joke: who’s we? But yes, if all evangelicals could form one visible body then I’d take all this business about “united in essentials” much more seriously. You act as if this would be trivially easy, but I don’t agree. You can dismiss the idea of organized unity all you like, but it forces you to face real disagreements and form concrete ways of working together.Of course, that would mean splitting the mainline denominations in which many evangelicals currently live. Again, this would force you to ask what unity really means.
: I don’t get this stuff.:
I know you don’t.
:We (evangelicals) are already unified. We find different expressions and different belief on few (very few) issues when you look at the big picture.:
Well no, I think that looking at the big picture produces exactly the opposite result. You think that because you all agree on a narrrow set of soteriological issues you have real unity. And to those of us from a more high-church/catholic perspective, it’s particularly disturbing that you value that agreement more than you value the ecclesiological and sacramental doctrines that bind some of you to us as opposed to each other. (I’m not even sure how I should be using “we” and “us” here. I consider myself an evangelical but am probably not one by your definition.)
: We like the unity among diversity.:
Everyone has unity with diversity. That’s a cliche. The question is: on what issues do we need to have unity and on what issues should we have diversity? As long as you think unity is mainly a matter of doctrine, this is an insoluble issue, while all the while you believe it isn’t an issue at all.
:We don’t think that God has required that we believe EXACTLY alike on everything.:
Does anyone? That’s not an issue.
: We can have different names .:
You really think this is about names? It’s about structures of accountability that force people to get along with others with whom they may not agree and whom they may not like. Without those structures, doctrinal agreement is hopelessly inadequate.
: . . it is ok, I promise.:
I try not to claim “ex-pertise,” since I don’t trust ex-Catholics or ex-mainliners. But I assure you that I have quite a good deal of experience with a number of different corners of evangelicalism. I’m not speaking out of ignorance (though you are free to believe that I am speaking out of the bias of disillusion). Your promises don’t mean much. I’ve tried to live out this unity that evangelicals claim, and for me at least it was utterly insufficient.
: Things are not that bad over here. In fact, they are the same as over there, we just don’t have one name.:
That’s just not true. This isn’t a question of whether things are “better” or “worse.” But they certainly are not the same. You have unity, but you don’t have the kind of unity that Christians have traditionally regarded as necessary. And I see no reason to abandon the traditional view.
:The biggest thing we lack is the realization that we are already unified. I think that the Church will realize this soon.:
But what’s the Church? Do you mean the churches to which members of ETS belong? Do you mean all baptized Christians? Do you mean all Christians who confess the truths of the Nicene Creed? Who are this “we” who are already unified? And if evangelical Methodists are one with Baptists but not with other Methodists, why are they still part of the UMC?
And Protestants have been claiming for five hundred years that the divisions were temporary and would “soon” be overcome. For the coming of Jesus I’ll wait. Protestant unity isn’t worth it.
In your other post, you imply that the only visible church in which you believe is the local church. I think that’s the reason we are talking past each other (although I don’t think even the claim of “invisible unity” of congregations is without problems). This raises a further question about the “unity” of the ETS. If you have Presbyterians and other classical Protestants among you (as I’m sure you do), they presumably adhere to the teaching of such confessional statements as the WCF, which explicitly teaches that there is a universal visible Church made up of all those churches where the Word is preached and the Sacraments are administered. In other words, you claim that the ETS represents the unity of the Body, when it contains people who have fundamentally opposed notions of what the unity of the Body means in the first place.
The question is whether a purely invisible unity means anything. I can’t see that it does. An invisible unity is utterly meaningless to everyone but God.
In Christ,
Edwin
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
But the study methods are man made as well. The same arguments that are made against the magisterium are being done by theologeons, bible proffessors ect. You are told how you must study. Oh, and I really was not trying to associate you with one of those groups at all. As a Catholic I believe what Jesus said about communion was absolutely true,but most protestants don’t believe what Jesus said and neither did the people in His time.We have had Eucharistic miracles throughout history, even up to present day.But, I don’t believe because of miracles I believe because Jesus said it.God Bless
M
michaelp
Guest
I do agree with your assessment. Thanks.
.:
It may be cliche to you, and yours, but not to me. I will do all I can to teach this, even if the majority of Christianity, Protestants and Catholics, do not believe it.
I think that the rest of this will turn into a “am not” “am too” arguement.
I just want everyone to see that all of us who have trusted in Christ are already united and one by virtue of the Holy Spirits Baptism. That is all. You may disagree, but that is ok.
I have never tried to say there is not creedal disunity. This would be a dilusion for both Protestant and Catholics to think there could be. The history of the Church shows that there is much disagreement. This must be OK to some degree since God is soveriegn and in control (Eph 1:11) There will always be, as there always has been, disunity. But the article and this web-site shows that we both suffer from disunity. Sure we do have more
I hope to have corrected the misconception and clarified what it means to be one and united according to Jn. 17.
I will have to leave it at that since that was the only purpose of this thread and since I am spending too much time on this thread.
Let the reader decide either way.
I do respect many of your arguments and clarification. As usual, I have learned alot. Until next time, on the next thread . . . (maybe we will be on the same team there!!)
Michael
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Michael that was beautiful and true we all Love Jesus and we can find common ground there.God Bless You
- Status