Trent Horn - Does it matter which Christian denomination you belong to?

[friardchips]

Well I know for a fact that these churches do not have the same doctrines as the Roman Catholic Church. The Coptic Church, for example, has a different Christology and did not accept the Chalcedonian Creed: it “has been a distinct Christian body since the schism following the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, when it took a different position over Christology from that of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.”

Please familiarise yourself with this document.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

‘DECREE ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCHES
OF THE EASTERN RITE
ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964’

 

[opulumpu]

Not even close , join a church based on teaching , not by laying of hands , that is a poor reason.

Even if the teaching of the church is in error such as reducing the number Sacraments which had been accepted up to the time of Luther?

 

[Thorolfr]

Nope. Their doctrines are the same as ours, essentially.
As well as their sacraments.

Even the office of the Papacy is recognized and respected–they just believe in “first among equals” rather than supreme.

Between 1938 and 2008, the Coptic Church allowed divorce under nine circumstances including “irreconcilable differences”. That church law was changed in 2008 to make it more difficult to divorce, but they still allow divorce in cases of adultery or if one of the spouses converts to another Christian denomination or another religion such as Islam (which has caused some people to convert to Islam or to another denomination so that they can divorce). There is already considerable pressure in the Coptic Church to go back to the more permissive 1938 church law. So I guess their doctrines aren’t quite the same or as resistant to change as those in the Catholic Church.

cruxnow.com/faith/2015/06/29/francis-is-not-the-only-pope-facing-a-divorce-dilemma/

 

[benjamindt]

I enjoy threads that are sidetracked into a general bashing of catholicism. I think in this case it isn’t really being sidetracked but answering the OP very well. Of course it matters what you believe as a Christian.

I think it’s evident in the fact that even the Lutheran sects have split into even more “churches” that division is not of the Lord.

I guess we can’t ignore Christ’s own words when he said “Go out and make churches of every individual and allow them all to believe what they want and interpret what I said however they want. Just so long as they feel good about it”

 

[PRmerger]

Between 1938 and 2008, the Coptic Church allowed divorce under nine circumstances including “irreconcilable differences”. That church law was changed in 2008 to make it more difficult to divorce, but they still allow divorce in cases of adultery or if one of the spouses converts to another Christian denomination or another religion such as Islam (which has caused some people to convert to Islam or to another denomination so that they can divorce). There is already considerable pressure in the Coptic Church to go back to the more permissive 1938 church law. So I guess their doctrines aren’t quite the same or as resistant to change as those in the Catholic Church.

cruxnow.com/faith/2015/06/29/francis-is-not-the-only-pope-facing-a-divorce-dilemma/

Let me disabuse you of your erroneous belief that “church laws” equal doctrine.

They do not, Thor.

Church laws can change.

And the Church (that is, Canon) laws which govern the RCC are NOT the same as those which govern Ruthenian, Chaldean, Maronite Catholics.

And you can be assured that the Canon law which govern the Coptic Church is not the same as what Catholics are bound to obey.

So there’s nothing at all scurrilous about the Coptic Church having different “church laws” than my RCC.

Just like there’s nothing malicious whatsoever about my Canon Law being different than the Ruthenian Church.

 

[Thorolfr]

Let me disabuse you of your erroneous belief that “church laws” equal doctrine.

They do not, Thor.

Church laws can change.

And the Church (that is, Canon) laws which govern the RCC are NOT the same as those which govern Ruthenian, Chaldean, Maronite Catholics.

And you can be assured that the Canon law which govern the Coptic Church is not the same as what Catholics are bound to obey.

So there’s nothing at all scurrilous about the Coptic Church having different “church laws” than my RCC.

Just like there’s nothing malicious whatsoever about my Canon Law being different than the Ruthenian Church.

So you’re saying that the Catholic Church could eventually change church law (i.e. canon law) and allow divorce and that the current prohibition against divorce in the Catholic Church is only a possibly changeable church law and not a doctrine?

 

[PRmerger]

So you’re saying that the Catholic Church could eventually change church law (i.e. canon law) and allow divorce and that the current prohibition against divorce in the Catholic Church is only a possibly changeable church law and not a doctrine?

Canon law is transient. Doctrines are not.

Why don’t you cite the canon law to which you’re referring, and then we can chat.

Also, can you please cite what 100 or more historians disagreed with my assertion, and what official Catholic narrative you’re referencing?

Thanks.

 

[Thorolfr]

Also, can you please cite what 100 or more historians disagreed with my assertion.

I doubt that there are more than 100 professional historians who specialize in early Christianity.

 

[PRmerger]

I doubt that there are more than 100 professional historians who specialize in early Christianity.

In the history of the disciple of history? Really? Since the Catholic Church started the university system, you don’t believe that there have been 100 professional historians?

And why are you adding “who specialize in early Christianity”?

You didn’t add that qualifier when you first posited this:

But most professional historians do not agree with the official Catholic narrative of early Christian history.

And, what “official Catholic narrative” are you claiming “most professional historians” don’t agree with?

 

[benhur]

So your church can be historically traced by to the Apostles?

Can you offer a timeline, with some data to support it?

Otherwise, I respecfully say, it would seem that your church was started by a man, NOT the son of God.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb4.htm

f you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," “Pentecostal Gospel.” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

And if you are just a "Christian’, somewhat non denominational ?

 

[PRmerger]

And if you are just a "Christian’, somewhat non denominational ?

Probably your church is about 70 years old, started by a man who disagreed with his pastor’s (fallible) interpretation…so, given the paradigm of “Me and My Bible Are All I Neeed”, left this church to start his own church.

And I’m pretty sure that in the 70 years that this nondenominational church has been around, there have been about 100 men who have left this church to start their own, over doctrinal differences because “Me, and My Bible tell me that this pastor is wrong about verses, A, B and C”.

 

[Thorolfr]

And, what “official Catholic narrative” are you claiming “most professional historians” don’t agree with?

That Peter was the first pope or even a bishop or a priest, that priests are mentioned in the New Testament, that there were no female apostles, etc.

 

[PRmerger]

That Peter was the first pope or even a bishop or a priest, that priests are mentioned in the New Testament, that there were no female apostles, etc.

Ok.

Can you give 25 “professional historians” who deny that
-Peter was the first pope
-that priests are mentioned in the NT
-that only males were apostles.

Please cite your sources.

Thanks.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Ok.

Can you give 25 “professional historians” who deny that
-Peter was the first pope
-that priests are mentioned in the NT
-that only males were apostles.

Please cite your sources.

Thanks.

Well on female apostles , look no further than the Apostle Junia .

 

[estesbob]

Well on female apostles , look no further than the Apostle Junia .

You would have to look a lot farther than Junia to find a female apostle but this is a perfect example of how people try to twist a single line in Scripture to arrive at absurd theological assumptions. Paul mentions a woman (or perhaps a man)at the end of a letter and 2000 years later people exclaim “see this means women should be priests”

 

[PRmerger]

Well on female apostles , look no further than the Apostle Junia .

Can you give some Scriptural proof that Junia is a woman?

 

[PRmerger]

You would have to look a lot farther than Junia to find a female apostle but this is a perfect example of how people try to twist a single line in Scripture to arrive at absurd theological assumptions. Paul mentions a woman (or perhaps a man)at the end of a letter and 2000 years later people exclaim “see this means women should be priests”

Not to mention that “prominent among the apostles” doesn’t mean that these folks are apostles.

“Bobbi Brown is a makeup artist prominent among the actors”

That doesn’t mean that Bobbi Brown is an actor.

And, incidentally, Bobbi is NOT a member of the gender that is typically associated with the name Bobbi. Bobbi is a woman.

 

[estesbob]

Can you give some Scriptural proof that Junia is a woman?

Or an Apostle?

 

[benhur]

Probably your church is about 70 years old, started by a man who disagreed with his pastor’s (fallible) interpretation…so, given the paradigm of “Me and My Bible Are All I Neeed”, left this church to start his own church.

And I’m pretty sure that in the 70 years that this nondenominational church has been around, there have been about 100 men who have left this church to start their own, over doctrinal differences because “Me, and My Bible tell me that this pastor is wrong about verses, A, B and C”.

Are you excercising the gift of knowledge here, seeing into things specifically via the Holy Spirit ? Would the most spirit filled priests/pastors then be in the oldest of parishes and cathedrals ?

Looks like God can only raise a legitimate teacher and presbyter if he eneters the church mechanism of your particular belief. Kind of like God set things in motion and steps back and says “only thru these fixed channels will I operate and move in the hearts of such gifted men”. Ok I think He has parameters also,but a little bit less visibly mechanistsic(needing the physical touch succesively).

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Are you excercising the gift of knowledge here,

Er, yes. I do have the gift of knowledge. It is nothing supernatural, though.
It is simply applying logic and reason.

I see the logical consequences of the belief of not deferring to any man/church when it comes to reading and interpreting the Bible.

And you cannot deny that what I described–men starting their own Protestant churches when they disagree with their pastor–is not a phenomenon.

And you cannot deny that this is the fruit of the Protestant Reformation put into practice.

Either you all had permission to divorce yourselves from the authority of the Catholic Church…and that means that every man can divorce himself from his authority/pastor…

OR

Men in your church cannot simply say, “I disagree with what my church says. The church is wrong and if they don’t correct it, I will have to leave and start my own church”…and that means that Fr. Martin Luther et al were wrong…and the Protestant Reformation is repugnant to God.