F
Faxero
Guest
Are you referring to the book, film, or an event which happened in 1984?
why do some Christians reply to the question "What denomination are you?" with...
- Status
Are you referring to the book, film, or an event which happened in 1984?
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
Cat, Itwin and Daddy Girl gave insightful answers.
Some of the other responses just make me shake my head, too. Where’s the respect for your fellow human beings, folks?
Some of the other responses just make me shake my head, too. Where’s the respect for your fellow human beings, folks?
B
boar2roar
Guest
Some might be nondenominational which basically means they don’t practice specific things but still consider themselves christian“I’m Christian, I don’t believe in a label, I’m Christian and believe in Jesus.”, sometimes they seem defensive.
L
Lek
Guest
I consider myself to be non-denominational because I don’t totally agree with all the beliefs which any denomination claims. If I fully commit to the beliefs of, say, the Baptist denomination, then I can’t freely pursue the truth in scripture, as I would try to interpret scripture in line with the Baptist belief system. When I study the bible I want to be open to what God intended it to mean, and not what some denomination has decided it means. There’s only one christian church, and it carries no denomination name. If someone wants to belong to a specific denomination because they believe that it’s interpretation is correct, that’s fine also.
L
Lek
Guest
I don’t know that Jesus said specifically to do that, but Paul made the following statement concerning scripture:
2 Timothy 3:16-17New International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
I am a servant of God and want to be “thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
I was baptised and confirmed in the episcopal church. After the age of 18 I did not belong to any church for maybe the next 25 years.
I still considered myself a Christian, but had no desire to belong to a church community. I was distrustful of church communities and just led my life trying to give to charity, love my neighbor and love God.
I have been a Catholic now for 6 years and although I love Catholicism and the Catholic faith I still feel like I don’t fit in and feel uncomfortable.
So I can easily understand why people respond that way.
I still considered myself a Christian, but had no desire to belong to a church community. I was distrustful of church communities and just led my life trying to give to charity, love my neighbor and love God.
I have been a Catholic now for 6 years and although I love Catholicism and the Catholic faith I still feel like I don’t fit in and feel uncomfortable.
So I can easily understand why people respond that way.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
What I find interesting is that many Catholics actually seem offended when the Catholic Church is called a “denomination”.
P
pablope
Guest
But you missed entirely v14, which speaks of oral instruction:
2Tim3:
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
So it is not just you and your Bible…know who you learn from also…
And as 1john4 says…from 1John 4… Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world……………6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.
To know the truth…it does not say to read the Bible on your own.
F
Faxero
Guest
:sad_yes: This is because we Catholics view our Church as the church which Christ founded. When we are referred to as a denomination, it makes us seem like a branch of Christianity, rather than its root.
K
KLM789
Guest
Yes, it goes both ways.
One of our priests talked briefly about this issue reminding us that if a group calling itself Christian does not recognize and acknowledge the Cross (meaning acknowledging Christ died for us and was resurrected on the third day) it is not a Christian group, even if very spiritual. That sweeping and simple declaration of our belief cohesively says it all, I think.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Good answer!
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
L
ltwin
Guest
I think you are misdiagnosing the root of heresy in the Mormon Church. It is because Joseph Smith and his followers rejected Sola Scriptura and embraced the doctrine of Progressive Revelation that it has a non-biblical understanding of Christ. To say that a “theory of Bible only” led to this is laughable considering that Mormons believe in the Bible (as edited by the LDS Church), the Book of Mormon as revealed to Joseph Smith, the Doctrines & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price. All of these are considered Scripture by the LDS Church.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Hi Itwin, perhaps, and perhaps both are plausible.They accept the Bible as the word of God as long as it is translated correctly and interpreted to fit there understanding, perhaps I’m seeing that as the root of the problem.
L
ltwin
Guest
Well, you really can’t have it both ways. Either it’s “Bible only” or it isn’t.
But seriously, my perspective is that once you claim the right to change edit passages in the Bible that you don’t like, you no longer are reading a faithful translation of the Bible. And once you add other texts and revelations alongside the Bible, you making those text equal to the Bible. So,you get error from the “Bible” and error from non-biblical authoritative texts.
This is not an acceleration of Sola Scriptura, as you seemed to be arguing, but a complete rejection of it.
L
Lek
Guest
L
Lek
Guest
It also doesn’t say not to read the bible on your own. I didn’t say that I just read my bible and go on from there. I attend a church and bible studies, and interact with other christians. I listen to the sermons of the church pastor as well as other bible teachers. When I do, I don’t automatically accept their word as totally in line with scripture, although that is usually the case, but I test their words against scripture. We are directed to do this in the following verse:
1 John 4:1New International Version (NIV)
4 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Yes. I’ve learned much abut my faith from teachers and from other christians who don’t necessarily have the gift of teaching. Timothy learned much orally from his mother. I mean no disrespect, but even if the pope instructed me about the faith, I would need to verify that instruction through scripture.
N
NotAllHere
Guest
Its my experience many people who ask that question are simply looking for what pigeon hole to put you in, so they have an idea how to relate to you. I thinks the best answer you can give is, I agree with you on major theology … still thinking about non-essentials which is true because I have often changed opinions on minor theology over the years.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Scripture alone, isn’t scripture alone if we interpret it many different ways. And if I do this then compile a guide to what I think every passage is saying, then while a literal change explicitly doesn’t occur in the Scriptures. its implicitly suggested what the passages read. The only difference in sola scripture as opposed to prima scripture. Sola scriptura rejects interpretation authority and makes itself the authority which is subject to its own reform with teaching of the Bible, Councils etc. In the Prima scriptura view it acknowledges that, besides canonical scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe. In which case “both” are subject to their own “authority” the latter accepting traditions, but again the authority is the issue. This of course extends further in both with revelation. Of which we can see with sola scripture and prima scripture.Well, you really can’t have it both ways. Either it’s “Bible only” or it isn’t.
But seriously, my perspective is that once you claim the right to change edit passages in the Bible that you don’t like, you no longer are reading a faithful translation of the Bible. And once you add other texts and revelations alongside the Bible, you making those text equal to the Bible. So,you get error from the “Bible” and error from non-biblical authoritative texts.
This is not an acceleration of Sola Scriptura, as you seemed to be arguing, but a complete rejection of it.
All this never takes into account that the tradition existed before the canonized Scripture. In the early Church there was liturgical tradition before there was a creed and before there was an officially sanctioned biblical canon. These liturgical traditions provided the theological framework for establishing the creeds and canon. And in this sense the Scripture is part of the Church already established. Which really gets back to how we know where the true Church is and what it is in understanding it, and who has the authority to interpret the Scripture.
The Scriptures like the Keys are deposited into the Church, so it was rather easy for someone to remove the Scriptures and lose sight of their origin in understanding thus contest their meanings and verse by verse be it prima or sola.
- Status