I generally agree with this, Itwin, except it seems to me that “non-Trinitarian Protestants” seems a contradiction in terms.
Jon
- Status
Jon
C
cheese_sdc
Guest
When arbitrarily filtered through man, yes. Yes. A thousand times yes.
The US isn’t a theocracy.
M
MarcoPG
Guest
You then see God’s will is not inflicted. But I don’t see by whom it is filtered. Why defending morals makes of a state a theocracy? The Catholic Church was founded by the Christ, and has to cherish the doctrine and preserve it. Isn’t that meant for all Christians (universally, catholically)? And Catholics did not force politicians nor citizens to vote. But we have been given morals, which should be reflected in our society.When arbitrarily filtered through man, yes. Yes. A thousand times yes.
The US isn’t a theocracy.
R
R_C
Guest
This doesn’t sound right to my ears
C
Corki
Guest
Well, at a more elemental level, a Christian is one who has been baptized into the larger universal Church.a fellow Physician at our Hospital is very active in the Unitarian Church-he proudly states that he is a Christain and believes in the teachings that are the core of Chrisianity -he referred me to a web site and this document:
A Unitarian Confession:
We believe in one God, the Creator and Preserver of all things,
And in Jesus Christ, the one Lord of the Church,
whose teachings and life form the standard of our faith and practice,
And in the holy spirit, the influence of God within us;
We believe in the divine element in conscience,
In free will and the responsibility that comes with it,
In the inspiration and sanctity of Scripture,
In the forgiveness of sins,
In God’s universal love for all humankind,
And in the future advancement of the whole human family to holiness and happiness.
given the confession above do you feel that they ( this belief group in the wider Unitarian community ) are really Christians-?
According to this document, the Unitarians do not have valid baptism.
archbalt.org/evangelization/worship/rcia/upload/Validity-of-Baptisms-and-Confirmation.pdf
P
PRmerger
Guest
It would have been better if you had offered some caveats, such as: I don’t really mean people can believe ANYTHING. And I don’t really believe that their sincerity is what’s of great import. And, in fact, I do believe that there are SOME THINGS that people ought not believe because it’s WRONG.And part of the problem here is that you are taking an informal, conversational statement and boring down on it as if it were a papal document that takes months to craft.
Actually, it has a very rigid belief system. It just doesn’t have as many “rigidities” as the CC does.
So it would appear that you are not opposed to rigidity, but merely how many theological doctrines a particular denomination espouses.
I find that quite, well, rigid.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So in order to be a good UU one has to espouse certain beliefs and doctrines, yeah?
Egg-zactly, cheese. Egg-zactly.
P
PRmerger
Guest
What about, say, my right to throw my beer can in the ocean?He can believe what he wants. I’m concerned with how he acts on those beliefs.
What the Catholic Church believes makes no difference to me. What concerns me is when the Church inflicts those beliefs on others (by entering into the political process to deny basic legal rights to LGBTQ couples). I don’t care if the Catholic Church never theologically sanctions gay marriage. I do care when they work to deny rights to others.
Are you opposed to that?
S
SteveVH
Guest
Not as long as you share one with me!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Not as long as you share one with me!
R
R_C
Guest
Well, you said that salvation doesn’t come from the intellectual acceptance of correct doctrine, but from from the act of faith that is the acceptance of the offer of Grace from God.
That to my ears rings two bells: danger of sola fide and danger of indifferentism. Meaning: we are not saved by an act of fiduciary faith, and in any case the faith that saves is the true Faith, which is either accepted whole and entire, or entirely rejected.
The true Fatih is that handed down by God through His Word, in Scripture and Tradition, as witnessed by the Apostles (in writing and by word of mouth), the Early Church Fathers (who laid the foundations of the Church), and the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church on faith and morals - that which is unchanging always, everywhere, forever.
Any distortion of this faith seems to me that could only lead to another type of faith whereby man could be saved merely if Christ recognizes in their heart the desire to have the true Faith. In particular, Baptism is commanded by the living God to be “in the [one] name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”. The Church - Catholic and Orthodox - recognizes since the day of the apostles that the true Faith worships the Undivided Trinity. Baptism of those who do not believe in the true God is not valid merely because someone calls it “baptism”.
L
ltwin
Guest
Yeah, I should not have used the word Protestant. When I wrote that I was thinking about the history of the Unitarians. They started out as Congregationalists (the descendants of the Puritans) who came to reject the doctrine of the Trinity.
So, they have Protestant origins, but they do not currently fall outside of what most people consider Protestantism by not believing in the Trinity.
P
Publisher
Guest
Unitarians tend to be more “Christian” without their trinitarian beliefs than many trinitarian Christians I have known in my life.
As a Friend, I too am not considered a “Christian” because I have not/do not participate in “outward signs and rituals”, my “outward sign” and “rituals” consist things no ritual could ever encompass.
Truth is how one lives, not necessarily how one “believes”. A “belief” that in no way causes one to speak more gently to others, a “belief” that in no way causes one to show mercy and forgiveness when wronged is of no use to anyone. A “belief” that does not consider the stewardship of the Earth to be a God-given responsibility has no use in our real world.
There are all kinds of “doctrines” and “dogmas” out there that may “faithful” claim MUST BE BELIEVED to attain salvation…yet their behavior and their words don’t bear out the fruit of those beliefs, is of no use.
One of the fundamental reasons Friends have no outward ordinances, sacraments or rituals is because practicing those outward ordinances, sacraments or rituals doesn’t necessarily change hearts and lives to be more like Christ and make their world a better place, has no “Reality”.
One may be sprinkled with water on a Sunday and pronounced “clean”, but during the next week “live like the devil” is just being “sprinkled with water”. One may receive the eucharist on a Sunday and have a hangover on Monday and call in “sick” does not necessarily change lives within.
If we can enter into our new Life in Christ without ordinances, rites, rituals or sacraments, and without these “outward signs” find God, then we see no reason to practice them if no “change” truly outwardly occurs…are of no use, but may offer a “false hope” that by performing, receiving, and trusting in the ritals, rites, ordinances and sacraments one is “saved” or somehow more pleasing to God than the unbaptized non ritualistic meal Christian who’s outward life does not reflect the inward change, is of no profit to a man…salvation is shown by how one lives, not by what one believes.“even the devils believe” but their “lives” indicate anything but “salvation”.
New Life, abundant Life, begins now…not only when we float in some ethereal place of the dead.
I don’t have to change the whole world…just my little piece of it, one day at a time.
As a Friend, I too am not considered a “Christian” because I have not/do not participate in “outward signs and rituals”, my “outward sign” and “rituals” consist things no ritual could ever encompass.
Truth is how one lives, not necessarily how one “believes”. A “belief” that in no way causes one to speak more gently to others, a “belief” that in no way causes one to show mercy and forgiveness when wronged is of no use to anyone. A “belief” that does not consider the stewardship of the Earth to be a God-given responsibility has no use in our real world.
There are all kinds of “doctrines” and “dogmas” out there that may “faithful” claim MUST BE BELIEVED to attain salvation…yet their behavior and their words don’t bear out the fruit of those beliefs, is of no use.
One of the fundamental reasons Friends have no outward ordinances, sacraments or rituals is because practicing those outward ordinances, sacraments or rituals doesn’t necessarily change hearts and lives to be more like Christ and make their world a better place, has no “Reality”.
One may be sprinkled with water on a Sunday and pronounced “clean”, but during the next week “live like the devil” is just being “sprinkled with water”. One may receive the eucharist on a Sunday and have a hangover on Monday and call in “sick” does not necessarily change lives within.
If we can enter into our new Life in Christ without ordinances, rites, rituals or sacraments, and without these “outward signs” find God, then we see no reason to practice them if no “change” truly outwardly occurs…are of no use, but may offer a “false hope” that by performing, receiving, and trusting in the ritals, rites, ordinances and sacraments one is “saved” or somehow more pleasing to God than the unbaptized non ritualistic meal Christian who’s outward life does not reflect the inward change, is of no profit to a man…salvation is shown by how one lives, not by what one believes.“even the devils believe” but their “lives” indicate anything but “salvation”.
New Life, abundant Life, begins now…not only when we float in some ethereal place of the dead.
I don’t have to change the whole world…just my little piece of it, one day at a time.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Just curious–what do weddings look like in Quaker churches?
P
Publisher
Guest
Like any other Meeting for Worship, except we are gathering in worship to witness the marriage that God has joined.
The couple sit where the “elders” usually sit, on the “facing bench”…and like any Meeting for Worship any one moved to bring “vocal ministry” may do so…and when the time is right, the couple stand, and face one another and say “In the Presence of God and these friends, I take thee to be my “spouse, husband, wife, partner” for as long as we both shall live”. Everyone shakes hands and those present at the meeting then signs the wedding certificate, and the Meeting for Worship for Marriage is complete.
No “ritual” or “special words” need to be spoken, nor does the Meeting for Worship for Marriage bestow any “grace” upon the couple, it is a recognition publicly that God has joined two people together.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So it would not be correct to say “They were married in a Quaker ceremony”?
M
manualman
Guest
The way I said it could perhaps be argued to lean in those directions. But the way you are saying it suggests Feeneyite-ism, which the church has rejected as a proper interpretation of ‘no salvation outside the church.’
For example, you are correct that someone baptized ‘in the name of Jesus’ who later converts to Catholicism is baptized when received into the faith as his original baptism was invalid sacramentally. But if that same man never does formally become catholic, it does not follow that he is automatically doomed to hell. The church has always understood the sacraments to be gifts from God to man, not shackles on the Grace of God. This has been expressed for millennia in the ideas of Baptism of Desire, for example.
So while I’m open to theological correction in the precise phrasing of how I say it, I stand by the assertion that it is not knowledge and intellectual assent to doctrine by which we accept God’s offer of Grace, but by the faith that is borne out in how we behave. That in now way repudiates the efficacy of the sacraments, it merely understands them as gifts from God to man to be accepted, not as magical entities to be manipulated for gain. Nor does it repudiate the value of correct doctrine and truth. Those things are ordinarily necessary for growing in faith, but they are a poor substitute for it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This post prompted some curiosity for me, so I googled “Quaker wedding” and found this very lovely Quaker wedding video.
youtube.com/watch?v=owT7CUWxRks
It does appear that there are quite a few rituals involved in this activity. They mention “the custom of marriage”, which seems to be a reference to a ritual. The bride walks down an aisle. Rings are exchanged. Vows are made. Bells are rung. Music is played.
Those seem to be quite…ritualistic.
- Status