why do some Christians reply to the question "What denomination are you?" with...

[GaryTaylor]

So when its suggested; “why do some Christians reply to the question “What denomination are you?””

This is an interesting point [two actually]

doesn’t say not to read the bible on your own.

It also doesn’t say not to read the bible on your own.

So when we say why do we even suggest or ask…“What denomination are you”

Really all it means is whos confirmed reading do you believe as we stroll down the Avenue of flashing neon lights of the “True ministry of God”

Listen, its no secret we have “Catholics” with this gift of divine revelation and mystical comprehension in the Church also who would also suggest their “sole” interpretation of the entire ball of wax, is “par excellent”…many prophets among us. . I know many who astonish me with their concocted “sola” view of salvation, and while “assuming” communion with God in ego perhaps.

Just saying, isn’t this what we all do in our search for “salvation”?

 

[Lek]

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.

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.

 

[Lek]

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.

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.

The traditions that existed before the new testament scriptures were based on what came from the mouths of the apostles. These traditions were written down in the documents that later became the new testament of the bible. These traditions didn’t include the doctrines concerning Mary, for instance, or the precepts of the church. In order to accept the authority of the magisterium, you need to interpret scripture to allow for that. Also, nothing in the bible says that the bishops that followed the apostles had the same authority as the apostles. Somehow, you must find a way to interpret the bible to allow for that or to just reason that was they way it was. Then there were the traditions of the elders, which Jesus condemned because they had ignored the words of scripture and had created their own traditions which they followed more stringently than the words of the bible. I believe that the words of the scripture are to be studied and explored and that we probably will not understand them totally until we are with God, and then we may spend eternity discovering those truths. Even the catholic church allows for different interpretations of many parts of the bible by its members, such as the creation account, thus admitting that there can be different interpretations of the same accounts.

 

[PRmerger]

The traditions that existed before the new testament scriptures were based on what came from the mouths of the apostles.

Indeed.

These traditions were written down in the documents that later became the new testament of the bible.

But not everything was written down, Lek. St. Paul preached in the temple for 3 months. It would be a rather unwieldly book we had if everything he proclaimed in just those 3 months were contained in the Bible.

Unless you have an inspired source which states that all the apostolic oral tradition was contained in 1 book?

 

[PRmerger]

Also, nothing in the bible says that the bishops that followed the apostles had the same authority as the apostles.

But the Bible also doesn’t state that the bishops had a waning or lesser authority either.

And when the Bible is silent on something, what does your pastor say we are to do? Do we believe, “Where the Bible is silent on an issue we conclude that it’s prohibited”? Or do we believe, “Where the Bible is silent on an issue it’s permitted”?

I believe that the words of the scripture are to be studied and explored and that we probably will not understand them totally until we are with God,

Indeed.

Even the catholic church allows for different interpretations of many parts of the bible by its members, such as the creation account, thus admitting that there can be different interpretations of the same accounts.

Indeed. As long as our personal interpretations do not contradict that which has been revealed as a teaching of the Apostles, we are certainly free (and commanded!) to interpret the Scriptures.

 

[alphomega]

that’s because they want to find a church that fits their personal belief system. the church of ‘me’.

Bingo!!! Relativism: “what’s good for you isn’t necessarily good for me” however Christ’s teachings didn’t come with an expiration date.

I believe that’s the reason there are thousands of protestant denominations and one Catholic church (albeit a church with two lungs).

Hell’s theme song: I did it my way.

 

[Lek]

Indeed.

But not everything was written down, Lek. St. Paul preached in the temple for 3 months. It would be a rather unwieldly book we had if everything he proclaimed in just those 3 months were contained in the Bible.

Unless you have an inspired source which states that all the apostolic oral tradition was contained in 1 book?

Good point. But I assume that what was needed to be written down was written down. I’m sure Paul did a great a great deal of repeating and expounding during his time in the temple.

 

[Lek]

But the Bible also doesn’t state that the bishops had a waning or lesser authority either.

And when the Bible is silent on something, what does your pastor say we are to do? Do we believe, “Where the Bible is silent on an issue we conclude that it’s prohibited”? Or do we believe, “Where the Bible is silent on an issue it’s permitted”?

Where the bible is silent we are to make no judgement.

Indeed. As long as our personal interpretations do not contradict that which has been revealed as a teaching of the Apostles, we are certainly free (and commanded!) to interpret the Scriptures.

What is in the scriptures is the teaching of the apostles. The question is who is equipped to interpret the scriptures. Does the Holy Spirit work only in the church magisterium, or does he work in all christians? Are we required to interpret all the scriptures in the same way?

 

[Lek]

Bingo!!! Relativism: “what’s good for you isn’t necessarily good for me” however Christ’s teachings didn’t come with an expiration date.

I believe that’s the reason there are thousands of protestant denominations and one Catholic church (albeit a church with two lungs).

Hell’s theme song: I did it my way.

It isn’t relativism. It’s different interpretations of scripture. What God requires of us is that we put our faith and trust in Christ and follow him as our Lord. All christians of any christian denomination believe this and are in solidarity with other christians. We’re not doing it “our way”. We’re doing it Christ’s way. Jesus never said we had to interpret every verse of scripture exactly the same in order to follow him.

 

[PRmerger]

Good point. But I assume that what was needed to be written down was written down.

That’s a rather large assumption, don’t you think, Lek? It’s something you believe that is found…no where in the Bible?

And do you permit Catholics to make assumptions regarding our belief? For example, do you allow that Mary was a perpetual virgin–an assumption we might make based on the Divinity of her Son?

 

[PRmerger]

Where the bible is silent we are to make no judgement.

Firstly, since the Bible is silent on what we are to do when it is silent on an issue…isn’t your statement above rather contradictory and self-refuting? If the Bible is silent, we…don’t know what we do. We can’t “make no judgement” because the Bible is silent on what we do.

Secondly, if we are to “make no judgement” then isn’t your judgement that the bishops have less authority than the Apostles also contradictory to your doctrine?

 

[PRmerger]

It isn’t relativism. It’s different interpretations of scripture. What God requires of us is that we put our faith and trust in Christ and follow him as our Lord. All christians of any christian denomination believe this and are in solidarity with other christians. We’re not doing it “our way”. We’re doing it Christ’s way. Jesus never said we had to interpret every verse of scripture exactly the same in order to follow him.

The problem, Lek, is that from the mantra that the Bible Alone is all you need, there comes tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each claiming that their own pastor’s interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.

Here’s just a cursory(non-exhaustive) list of different doctrines which Protestants have multiple teachings on:

Abortion
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Baptism—in Jesus’ name only, or Trinitarian? In a river? Sprinkling? Immersion? Sacrament or ordinance? Adult or infant?
Can men and women sit together during services?
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
Church leadership, or no leadership
Death/Soul Sleep
Divorce
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Hell, or no hell
Homosexuality
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?
Judge others, don’t judge others
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Once saved, always saved
Ordination
Predestination
Rapture
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
The Eucharist (Communion)
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
What is original sin and its effects on humanity
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Women pastors, no women pastors

 

[PRmerger]

What is in the scriptures is the teaching of the apostles.

This is correct. We received it handed down orally, through the Catholic Church, to the bishops of the CC.

The question is who is equipped to interpret the scriptures. Does the Holy Spirit work only in the church magisterium, or does he work in all christians?

We all must interpret the Scriptures. But since we are fallible, we must conform any differing interpretations to what the Church, the Body of Christ, has proclaimed.

For example, here’s an example of some individuals following some fallible pastor’s interpretation of the Bible. He told them that to be true believers they must eat grass.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

In the Catholic paradigm we can say: you are not permitted to interpret the Bible that way. It contradicts the faith given to us.

In your paradigm, all you can say is: yes! That is your right to personally interpret the Bible that way. And I suppose that’s just fine to tell your flock to eat grass.

Are we required to interpret all the scriptures in the same way?

No. Just as long as what we interpret isn’t contradictory to the Word of God and the faith, given once for all, to the saints.

 

[Lek]

That’s a rather large assumption, don’t you think, Lek? It’s something you believe that is found…no where in the Bible?

And do you permit Catholics to make assumptions regarding our belief? For example, do you allow that Mary was a perpetual virgin–an assumption we might make based on the Divinity of her Son?

I guess you’re right about me making an assumption here. Actually, my whole belief that the bible is the inspired word of God is an assumption based on faith. I’ve found no physical proof that the bible is inspired, but based on the working of the Holy Spirit, I’ve been drawn to that conclusion. I believe the words of Jesus and the apostles whom he has chosen to be his infallible voice to his church. There voices are recorded in the scriptures for us to have with us until he comes again. Why did the apostles not record that their infallibility in this regard would be transferred to others who followed them, so they could continue to reveal what was not recorded in the scriptures? Even Jesus didn’t proclaim new revelations from the old testament, but rather referenced the old testament writings.

As far as assumptions about Mary, I don’t connect Jesus’ divinity with Mary’s perpetual virginity. You can make that assumption if you like, but I find nothing solid to back it up, and I don’t view it as a belief necessary for salvation. Prophecies only predicted that he would be born of a virgin.

 

[Lek]

The problem, Lek, is that from the mantra that the Bible Alone is all you need, there comes tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each claiming that their own pastor’s interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.

Here’s just a cursory(non-exhaustive) list of different doctrines which Protestants have multiple teachings on:

Abortion
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Baptism—in Jesus’ name only, or Trinitarian? In a river? Sprinkling? Immersion? Sacrament or ordinance? Adult or infant?
Can men and women sit together during services?
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
Church leadership, or no leadership
Death/Soul Sleep
Divorce
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Hell, or no hell
Homosexuality
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?
Judge others, don’t judge others
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Once saved, always saved
Ordination
Predestination
Rapture
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
The Eucharist (Communion)
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
What is original sin and its effects on humanity
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Women pastors, no women pastors

 

[PRmerger]

I guess you’re right about me making an assumption here. Actually, my whole belief that the bible is the inspired word of God is an assumption based on faith. I’ve found no physical proof that the bible is inspired, but based on the working of the Holy Spirit, I’ve been drawn to that conclusion. I believe the words of Jesus and the apostles whom he has chosen to be his infallible voice to his church. There voices are recorded in the scriptures for us to have with us until he comes again. Why did the apostles not record that their infallibility in this regard would be transferred to others who followed them, so they could continue to reveal what was not recorded in the scriptures? Even Jesus didn’t proclaim new revelations from the old testament, but rather referenced the old testament writings.

As far as assumptions about Mary, I don’t connect Jesus’ divinity with Mary’s perpetual virginity. You can make that assumption if you like, but I find nothing solid to back it up, and I don’t view it as a belief necessary for salvation. Prophecies only predicted that he would be born of a virgin.

Well, I’m glad you acknowledge that you are making assumptions regarding the Scriptures containing ALL of the Apostles’ teachings. And it is an assumption with nothing solid to back it up.

In fact, common sense tells us that 3 months of preaching could NEVER have been contained in the epistles of St. Paul. So common sense tells us that your assumption is actually contrary to what is true.

I hope that you will *never *object to Catholics making assumptions since you have made a rather large one!

 

[Lek]

The problem, Lek, is that from the mantra that the Bible Alone is all you need, there comes tens of thousands of differing Christian denominations, each claiming that their own pastor’s interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.

Here’s just a cursory(non-exhaustive) list of different doctrines which Protestants have multiple teachings on:

Abortion
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Baptism—in Jesus’ name only, or Trinitarian? In a river? Sprinkling? Immersion? Sacrament or ordinance? Adult or infant?
Can men and women sit together during services?
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help
Church leadership, or no leadership
Death/Soul Sleep
Divorce
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed)
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Hell, or no hell
Homosexuality
Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
Is it permissible for women to teach Scripture?
Judge others, don’t judge others
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Once saved, always saved
Ordination
Predestination
Rapture
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
The Eucharist (Communion)
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Trinity vs. Unitarianism
What is original sin and its effects on humanity
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
When to celebrate the Lord’s Day
Women pastors, no women pastors

All but 3 of those on the list are minor and are not clearly addressed in the bible. Homosexuality and divorce are clearly addressed, and I see no evidence to support either of these–exceptions for divorce being those mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 5:32, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:13. Although scripture indicates that God knew us in the womb, some say that we haven’t assumed personhood until we are born. I don’t agree with that belief, by the way. Catholics also have various opinions on many of these matters. What it comes down to is whether or not the Holy Spirit is working in you to lead you to the truth. All denominations do not espouse correct biblical doctrine, but a person who has the discernment of the Holy Spirit and “tests the spirits” can identify these discrepancies.

 

[PRmerger]

You can make that assumption if you like, but I find nothing solid to back it up, and I don’t view it as a belief necessary for salvation. Prophecies only predicted that he would be born of a virgin.

I’m not trying to be a troublemaker here…but, you’re now making, er, *assumptions *about what is a “belief necessary for salvation” and what’s a belief that’s secondary.

The Bible doesn’t tell us what’s a necessary belief and what’s a secondary belief.

Unless you have a list of “essential” beliefs for salvation, and the Bible verses which tell us that these verses are “essential”?

 

[Lek]

I’m not trying to be a troublemaker here…but, you’re now making, er, *assumptions *about what is a “belief necessary for salvation” and what’s a belief that’s secondary.

The Bible doesn’t tell us what’s a necessary belief and what’s a secondary belief.

Unless you have a list of “essential” beliefs for salvation, and the Bible verses which tell us that these verses are “essential”?

Okay. You got me on that one. I do assign greater importance to certain beliefs. This comes from what importance the bible assigns to certain beliefs. The ten commandments directly refer to adultery, murder, stealing etc. The bible also makes strong statements concerning homosexuality. Concerning other issues, it makes no clear statement about the necessity of knowing for sure, or the morality–such as, method of baptism, soul sleep, what day to worship on, etc. If the bible makes no clear statement, I consider those minor and not effecting salvation. What do you think concerning the items on your list? Do we need to know for sure one way or another on all of those issues or can we be christian brothers and sisters and still believe differently about them?

 

[PRmerger]

Okay. You got me on that one. I do assign greater importance to certain beliefs. This comes from what importance the bible assigns to certain beliefs. The ten commandments directly refer to adultery, murder, stealing etc. The bible also makes strong statements concerning homosexuality. Concerning other issues, it makes no clear statement about the necessity of knowing for sure, or the morality–such as, method of baptism, soul sleep, what day to worship on, etc. If the bible makes no clear statement, I consider those minor and not effecting salvation. What do you think concerning the items on your list? Do we need to know for sure one way or another on all of those issues or can we be christian brothers and sisters and still believe differently about them?

So why don’t you give me your list of essential beliefs.