Non-catholic Christians!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tGette
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tGette

Guest
I find it unnerving that threads stray way off topic. My request is that answers are given in light of this original post. I would greatly appreciate it!

Let us assume that non-Catholics are correct and the Catholic Church is wrong on certain doctrines. There is all this focus on the Catholic Church being wrong but we need to remember every other divided church cannot be correct.

Each non-Catholic church teaches theological “truths” which are contradicting to one another, so…
Of all the non-Catholic denominations/non-denominations which one is the one to be trusted with correct Scriptural interpretation and Christian practice?

A simple love for Jesus is not a sufficient answer for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormon’s deny the divinity of Christ but still have a fervent love for Christ.

Simply saying “mine” is not enough. I would appreciate an explanation of why one is above all correct and the others wrong.

Examples:
  • Christ said to baptise, but why?
  • Christ said to remember him by celebrating communion, of which he said “this is My body”, but why?
Thank you!
 
Catholics have one set of Doctrines that are consistent for all to follow. they can be seen at the CCC.

Protestants have the same thing, but ours is much much shorter.

Things that do not fall under the Catholics deposit of Declared Doctrines are things Catholics are allowed to differ on since they are not Doctrine.

Things that do not fall under the Protestants deposit of Declared Doctrines are things Protestants are allowed to differ on since they are not Doctrine.

here is what all Protestants should adhere to, with “catholic” meaning Universal:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Naturally, the more doctrines that must be adhered to, then the more unified a group will be. No group has defined the meaning of every scripture verse/passage and the why behind every meaning. Every group must at some point deal at least on an individual member basis with the undeclared information. once people have personally decided what they think of that information they are left with only a few choices of how to deal with it.
  1. they can ignore it, after all it’s not in the deposit of declared doctrines.
  2. they can attempt to get the appropriate people to declare it a doctrine
  3. They can teach it and discuss it among others who agree on the defined meaning, in order to try and know the will of God better.
I may have missed some options but this is what I see most people choose. Most protestant choose #3 in a quest for knowledge about God.
Of all the non-Catholic denominations/non-denominations which one is the one to be trusted with correct Scriptural interpretation and Christian practice?
Click to expand...
If they do not adhere to the creedal believe system of Christians, don’t go there. For the rest, the most “correct” one cannot be known 100% till we arrive in Heaven. You just devote your life 100% to seeking and following Gods will. If you sincerely do that you can’t go wrong. if people disagree on things, you study and pray and love them anyhow.

God is not so cruel as to see you seeking him in your life 100% and purposely steer you to hell. He is not up there waiting for me to make a mistake so He can smite me. If everyone sought God 100% in their lives, there’d be no disagreements at all. Period. I don’t see that happening this side of Heaven.
 
Hi;

One should believe that his/her religion is the true one. God is a God of order. So either a believe is true or not true. For example; there is a hell fire or there is not. Also we must keep in mind that not every commandment is subject to interpretation, for example " Do not commit adultery" (and many others). How much explanation does one need to understand that?
Jesus said to his Father" Your word is true",therefore we must make sure that what we believe is in harmony with God’s Word. If we find that the organization we belong to is not teaching what the Bible says,then we have to make an important decision. Before labeling others religions as false or sects we have to make sure we are practicing what the Bible teaches. Our salvation depends on what we believe compare to the Bible not what someone else believes. As an illustration I can say that someone is wrong because he said that 4 plus 4 is seven,while I believe it is nine.
 
Syele said:
Catholics have one set of Doctrines that are consistent for all to follow. they can be seen at the CCC.

Protestants have the same thing, but ours is much much shorter.

Things that do not fall under the Catholics deposit of Declared Doctrines are things Catholics are allowed to differ on since they are not Doctrine.

Things that do not fall under the Protestants deposit of Declared Doctrines are things Protestants are allowed to differ on since they are not Doctrine.

here is what all Protestants should adhere to, with “catholic” meaning Universal:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Naturally, the more doctrines that must be adhered to, then the more unified a group will be. No group has defined the meaning of every scripture verse/passage and the why behind every meaning. Every group must at some point deal at least on an individual member basis with the undeclared information. once people have personally decided what they think of that information they are left with only a few choices of how to deal with it.
  1. they can ignore it, after all it’s not in the deposit of declared doctrines.
  2. they can attempt to get the appropriate people to declare it a doctrine
  3. They can teach it and discuss it among others who agree on the defined meaning, in order to try and know the will of God better.
I may have missed some options but this is what I see most people choose. Most protestant choose #3 in a quest for knowledge about God.

If they do not adhere to the creedal believe system of Christians, don’t go there. For the rest, the most “correct” one cannot be known 100% till we arrive in Heaven. You just devote your life 100% to seeking and following Gods will. If you sincerely do that you can’t go wrong. if people disagree on things, you study and pray and love them anyhow.

God is not so cruel as to see you seeking him in your life 100% and purposely steer you to hell. He is not up there waiting for me to make a mistake so He can smite me. If everyone sought God 100% in their lives, there’d be no disagreements at all. Period. I don’t see that happening this side of Heaven.
Click to expand...
Have you checked if that “Creed” is in harmony with the Bible?
It mentions “One God, the Father the Almighty” then you mention two more.
You mention the Resurrection then you hope to go to heaven after you die.
You mention a Kingdom, I suppose the one Jesus told us to pray about, where is it going to be?. Why do you need it, if you are going to heaven?
Jesus said;" By this all men will know that you are my disciples,if you love one another" ( John 13:35)
Should this one be included?
 
Noreb said:
Have you checked if that “Creed” is in harmony with the Bible?
It mentions “One God, the Father the Almighty” then you mention two more.
You mention the Resurrection then you hope to go to heaven after you die.
You mention a Kingdom, I suppose the one Jesus told us to pray about, where is it going to be?. Why do you need it, if you are going to heaven?
Jesus said;" By this all men will know that you are my disciples,if you love one another" ( John 13:35)
Should this one be included?
Click to expand...
o.O haven’t you seen the Nicene Creed before? Ever heard of the Trinity?
 
tGette said:
I find it unnerving that threads stray way off topic. My request is that answers are given in light of this original post. I would greatly appreciate it!

Let us assume that non-Catholics are correct and the Catholic Church is wrong on certain doctrines. There is all this focus on the Catholic Church being wrong but we need to remember every other divided church cannot be correct.

Each non-Catholic church teaches theological “truths” which are contradicting to one another, so…
Of all the non-Catholic denominations/non-denominations which one is the one to be trusted with correct Scriptural interpretation and Christian practice?
Click to expand...
Why do you think that there has to be one church that is completely correct?

You mention the JWs and Mormons–but not all theological issues are of as much importance as those that divide these two groups from orthodox Christianity. In fact, the problem with JWs and Mormons claiming a “love of Jesus” is that they embrace serious errors about just who Jesus is. This is not an issue among Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox.

Edwin
 
tGette said:
I find it unnerving that threads stray way off topic. My request is that answers are given in light of this original post. I would greatly appreciate it!

Let us assume that non-Catholics are correct and the Catholic Church is wrong on certain doctrines. There is all this focus on the Catholic Church being wrong but we need to remember every other divided church cannot be correct.

Each non-Catholic church teaches theological “truths” which are contradicting to one another, so…
Of all the non-Catholic denominations/non-denominations which one is the one to be trusted with correct Scriptural interpretation and Christian practice?

A simple love for Jesus is not a sufficient answer for Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormon’s deny the divinity of Christ but still have a fervent love for Christ.

Simply saying “mine” is not enough. I would appreciate an explanation of why one is above all correct and the others wrong.

Examples:
  • Christ said to baptise, but why?
  • Christ said to remember him by celebrating communion, of which he said “this is My body”, but why?
Thank you!
Click to expand...
I believe the Bible to be innerrant. I believe it to be 100% correct. In the Bible, I see errors in actions and beliefs and people correct errors all throughout the NT. For the most part, when I see those errors being called out, like Paul, or simply warned, the churches in Revelation, I do not see them as “not Christian”.
I have a point here.
If the churches back then had some error, I see nothing to think that would have suddenly stopped when the last book was written.
So I do not agree with the premise of your questions. Those who think they are 100 percent correct are not following a biblical example in that mindset. I do not believe that any denomination is 100 correct.
 
Hi;

Agree that the early Christians made error, it was because of ignorance or misunderstandings, and that continues to happen . But as soon as they knew of their error, they corrected it. Paul mentions to the Corinthian Congregation that before they knew God some were fornicators,liar,et,. however they changed when they learned that God does not approve those who practice those things. ( 1Co 6:9-11;18).Also in 1Co 5:13 the Bible states what the Congregation must do with someone who willfully keeps practicing what is bad.
Yes,we are all imperfect,but that is not an excuse to practice sin; we can also change.
Today we have the complete Bible which the Early Christians did not have.
 
My original post is still not being addressed.
The Bible does not say that it itself is the only means to Christianity. It seems odd to think Jesus told His Apostles to spread the word and that they were not true Christians because they did not have a New Testament to guide them.

Jesus gave us a New Covenant (Testament) through His Church not a collection of letters and books called the New Testament (Covenant) to add to the Old Testament. The New Testament part of the Bible is there to explain Jesus’ ministry and how he instructed His Apostles.

In this New Testament he told us to baptise . . . which of the non-Catholic churches practice baptism correctly?
In this New Testament he told the Apostles that the in the Passover meal the bread is “My Body” and the wine is “My Blood”.

If you take the Bible so seriously…which is good…then why do you not take what He says here seriously? Which non-Catholic church (besides Orthodox) teach that the bread and wine become “His Body”?

If he said this…why do non-Catholic churches not teach this?
 
Rightlydivide:

If you do believe the original Church was in error at the time of the letters being written how can you trust that these letters were written exactly according to what Jesus intended and how can you trust that Church to compile those letters into the New Testament?

You are saying they were wrong on a lot of stuff, but right enough to compile the New Testament. If they were in such error, how were they trustworthy to take on this task? A Church in such grave error compiled a book that you believe to be 100% Truth!

Let me get this right: a church with not 100% truth was able to compile a book that gave 100% truth?

I apologize…this comment is not in light of the original post, but a comment I felt that needed to be said
 
tGette said:
My original post is still not being addressed.

In this New Testament he told us to baptise . . . which of the non-Catholic churches practice baptism correctly?
In this New Testament he told the Apostles that the in the Passover meal the bread is “My Body” and the wine is “My Blood”.

If you take the Bible so seriously…which is good…then why do you not take what He says here seriously? Which non-Catholic church (besides Orthodox) teach that the bread and wine become “His Body”?

If he said this…why do non-Catholic churches not teach this?
Click to expand...
Lutheran baptize correctly (even the Catholic response to the Augsburg confession said so)
Lutherans believe in the real presence, the aurgument about transubstantiation notwithstanding (Orthodox don’t accept it, either)
 
tGette said:
My original post is still not being addressed.
The Bible does not say that it itself is the only means to Christianity. It seems odd to think Jesus told His Apostles to spread the word and that they were not true Christians because they did not have a New Testament to guide them.

Jesus gave us a New Covenant (Testament) through His Church not a collection of letters and books called the New Testament (Covenant) to add to the Old Testament. The New Testament part of the Bible is there to explain Jesus’ ministry and how he instructed His Apostles.

In this New Testament he told us to baptise . . . which of the non-Catholic churches practice baptism correctly?
In this New Testament he told the Apostles that the in the Passover meal the bread is “My Body” and the wine is “My Blood”.

If you take the Bible so seriously…which is good…then why do you not take what He says here seriously? Which non-Catholic church (besides Orthodox) teach that the bread and wine become “His Body”?

If he said this…why do non-Catholic churches not teach this?
Click to expand...
In order to understand better what you are saying,would you please explain what you mean by "practicing baptism correctly " and in regard to the bread and wine; if it was meant to be literal,how can the wine is still wine and the bread bread? Besides God said to Noah that he should not drink real blood.
Finally a covenant is an agrement ,not to be confused with the Scriptures. It is mentioned in the Scriptures but at most it takes half a page. There were other covenants made with Noah,Abraham,David,etc. The old covenant with Israel was made through Moses and the new covenant for a kingdom through Jesus the night before he died.
Regarding the early christian you can verifies that the first book in the christian scriptures was written about 41 BCE. The early christian did not have the Bible as we know it now. Years after the death and resurrection of Jesus the Apostles Matthew and John put the teaching of Christ in writing.
The Word of God is the ONLY source of truth, please read 2Ti 3:16,17
 
tGette said:
My original post is still not being addressed.
The Bible does not say that it itself is the only means to Christianity. It seems odd to think Jesus told His Apostles to spread the word and that they were not true Christians because they did not have a New Testament to guide them.

Jesus gave us a New Covenant (Testament) through His Church not a collection of letters and books called the New Testament (Covenant) to add to the Old Testament. The New Testament part of the Bible is there to explain Jesus’ ministry and how he instructed His Apostles.

In this New Testament he told us to baptise . . . which of the non-Catholic churches practice baptism correctly?
In this New Testament he told the Apostles that the in the Passover meal the bread is “My Body” and the wine is “My Blood”.

If you take the Bible so seriously…which is good…then why do you not take what He says here seriously? Which non-Catholic church (besides Orthodox) teach that the bread and wine become “His Body”?

If he said this…why do non-Catholic churches not teach this?
Click to expand...
Jesus said; " your word is true"( John 17:17; Psalms 119:160) .Everything else is “commandments of men” (Matt 15:9),of NO VALUE
 
tGette said:
Rightlydivide:

If you do believe the original Church was in error at the time of the letters being written how can you trust that these letters were written exactly according to what Jesus intended and how can you trust that Church to compile those letters into the New Testament?

You are saying they were wrong on a lot of stuff, but right enough to compile the New Testament. If they were in such error, how were they trustworthy to take on this task? A Church in such grave error compiled a book that you believe to be 100% Truth!

Let me get this right: a church with not 100% truth was able to compile a book that gave 100% truth?

I apologize…this comment is not in light of the original post, but a comment I felt that needed to be said
Click to expand...
I believe that God’s will had nothing to do with humans. Just like his OT, God accomplished his will through sinful flawed men and that is how we got the Bible we have today. God used murderers and adulterers to write some of his books for goodness sakes. It has NOTHING to do with us and all to do with him. Our best righteousness is like filthy rags to him. God’s words were destined to be scripture the minute they were written, they were God breathed praise God!!!
 
Thank you JonNC!
So far you are the only one who has addressed the question I put forth in the original post.
I ask though, how do you feel about the founder of your Lutheran church adding words to his translation of the Bible as he saw fit because his free will deemed it fitting?

Noreb:
The Word of God is the source of all Truth. The Bible says that in the beginning was the Word and that the Word was God. So the Bible was not in the beginning. We could say that the Bible is the word of The Word. The Word is Jesus, this Truth (Jesus) was given before it was written down. This Truth given as Words to His Apostles and later written down for us.

Rightlydivide:
Romans 16:17 “I urge you brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions. Keep away from them”
How are individual Bible churches not divided among each other? Why do none of them believe the inspired Word of God in the new Testament that the bread is “My Body”? Since the Apostles did not have a New Testament were they aimlessly being Christian? Does God only inspire the Holy Spirit in us to create Scripture and not carry on a Church founded by Christ?

The Apostles were carrying on the Church founded by Christ. The Bible (New Testament) came from the Christians living the Truth tought in this Church founded by Christ.
 
tGette said:
Thank you JonNC!
So far you are the only one who has addressed the question I put forth in the original post.
I ask though, how do you feel about the founder of your Lutheran church adding words to his translation of the Bible as he saw fit because his free will deemed it fitting?
Click to expand...
First, thank you.
In light of the growing convergence on the doctrine of justification, I’m beginning to believe the word “alone” in Luther’s translation is soon no longer needed. Perhaps it was 500 years ago for him to make his point. In the same vain, if scripture and tradition share an equal footing, and if Catholic doctrine is never changing, how do you feel about the filioque being added to the Nicene Creed?
BTW, Lutherans use the Nicene Creed with the filioque, also. So this is just a question.

Just one small thought off your op, I consider myself a reformationist, and therefore part of the Church Catholic (though currently, and hopefully temporarily, separated), and I consider Christ the founder of the Church, not Luther. The success of the reformation depends on reunification, lead by the Holy Spirit.

Blessings,
Jon
 
Rightlydivide:
Romans 16:17 “I urge you brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions. Keep away from them”
How are individual Bible churches not divided among each other?
Click to expand...
They are. Divison is all over the place. No group is immune.
Why do none of them believe the inspired Word of God in the new Testament that the bread is “My Body”?
Click to expand...
I have posted on John 6 in another thread.
Since the Apostles did not have a New Testament were they aimlessly being Christian?
Click to expand...
I do not think that the Apostles teachings were different than the Bible. Not to mention, since I adhere to the two-Gospel hypothesis, I believe in a very early dating of the gospels.
Does God only inspire the Holy Spirit in us to create Scripture and not carry on a Church founded by Christ?
Click to expand...
I do not believe anyone “created” scripture outside of God.
The Apostles were carrying on the Church founded by Christ. The Bible (New Testament) came from the Christians living the Truth tought in this Church founded by Christ
Click to expand...
If you can find any teachings of an Apostle that is not in the Bible, let me know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top