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

[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 clear statements does the Bible make on the Trinity?

Do you believe this is not essential to believe for a Christian?

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?

I think most of them are matters of great import.

Saying that there are a whole bunch o’ things we can be unsure of is…well, kind of astonishing.

What it leads to is a theology that is akin to what my kids learned in 1st grade religion class: God made the world. God loves you. Jesus is God. Jesus died for our sins.

That’s pretty much bubble-gum theology, don’t you think?

NB: please do not misinterpret the above as I am dismissing those matters. They are of great, deep and sublime meaning.

However, to reduce our theology to the above 4 sentences is to have an 1st graders’ understanding of Christianity.

 

[Lek]

What clear statements does the Bible make on the Trinity?
Do you believe this is not essential to believe for a Christian?

The bible doesn’t make one clear, definitive statement concerning the Trinity. It does make clear statements abut God being the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe that if a person rejects the fact that anyone of the three are God, then he’s rejecting Jesus. What his specific concept of the Trinity is may be different than yours or mine.

I think most of them are matters of great import.

Saying that there are a whole bunch o’ things we can be unsure of is…well, kind of astonishing.

What it leads to is a theology that is akin to what my kids learned in 1st grade religion class: God made the world. God loves you. Jesus is God. Jesus died for our sins.

That’s pretty much bubble-gum theology, don’t you think?

NB: please do not misinterpret the above as I am dismissing those matters. They are of great, deep and sublime meaning.

However, to reduce our theology to the above 4 sentences is to have an 1st graders’ understanding of Christianity.

A new christian is often similar to that first grade class as far as the faith goes, but that doesn’t mean that he is not a christian or that he would not go to heaven if he died then. Paul addressed the Corinthian church as being “babies in Christ”, saying that he was not able to speak to them as adult christians. He chided them for not growing and maturing in the faith. That is what we should be doing. Some, however, don’t ever mature, but they are still members of the body of Christ and can still attain salvation. I’m fairly certain that you believe differently that many catholics about some items on your list, but that doesn’t mean that these people are not catholics. By the way, I clicked onto your blog–nice picture of you and your family.

 

[PRmerger]

The bible doesn’t make one clear, definitive statement concerning the Trinity. It does make clear statements abut God being the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe that if a person rejects the fact that anyone of the three are God, then he’s rejecting Jesus. What his specific concept of the Trinity is may be different than yours or mine.

Are all “different” concepts of the Trinity fine?

Also, per your own doctrine, since the Bible doesn’t make a clear definitive statement regarding the Trinity, this belief is not necessary for our salvation?

 

[PRmerger]

A new christian is often similar to that first grade class as far as the faith goes, but that doesn’t mean that he is not a christian or that he would not go to heaven if he died then. Paul addressed the Corinthian church as being “babies in Christ”, saying that he was not able to speak to them as adult christians. He chided them for not growing and maturing in the faith.

Indeed. If you have been a Christian as an adult and still have a 1st grade theology, then Paul would be certainly justified in admonishing you.

Which is why disagreements on all of those issues I already cited ought to be very troubling to you. Very troubling, indeed.

That is what we should be doing. Some, however, don’t ever mature, but they are still members of the body of Christ and can still attain salvation.

Everyone “can still attain salvation”, Lek.

I’m fairly certain that you believe differently that many catholics about some items on your list, but that doesn’t mean that these people are not catholics.

But what it means is that the one who divorces herself from the faith given once for all to the saints is the one who is wrong.

In your paradigm,everyone is right, because she read the Bible and came to that conclusion. Even the person who was that God embraces abortion. Or the person who says she can divorce and re-marry without it being adultery.

By the way, I clicked onto your blog–nice picture of you and your family.

Thank you. But did you mean you clicked on my Profile Page? My blog does not have any personal pics on it.

 

[PRmerger]

The bible makes strong statements concerning homosexuality?
I don’t think so…….

.

That’s exactly right. Jesus spoke not a word for or against homosexuality.

 

[Lek]

Indeed. If you have been a Christian as an adult and still have a 1st grade theology, then Paul would be certainly justified in admonishing you.

Which is why disagreements on all of those issues I already cited ought to be very troubling to you. Very troubling, indeed.

Do you believe that if I disagree with the magisterium on one of these issues that I am not a true christian or will go to hell because of it? Or can we hold different views on these and still be true christians?

But what it means is that the one who divorces herself from the faith given once for all to the saints is the one who is wrong.

I agree.

In your paradigm,everyone is right, because she read the Bible and came to that conclusion. Even the person who was that God embraces abortion. Or the person who says she can divorce and re-marry without it being adultery.

No. There is only one correct doctrine. We’re striving to gain an understanding of that doctrine as we mature as christians. Also, If you have the Holy Spirit and you are truly seeking his will, you will make the right decisions concerning moral matters.

Galatians 5:16New International Version (NIV)
16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

Thank you. But did you mean you clicked on my Profile Page? My blog does not have any personal pics on it.

Yep.

 

[Lek]

That’s exactly right. Jesus spoke not a word for or against homosexuality.

Okay. If you want to get technical, the bible condemns homosexual acts.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you believe that if I disagree with the magisterium on one of these issues that I am not a true christian or will go to hell because of it?

I believe what the Catholic Church teaches about who will go to hell–that it is above our paygrade to determine who is going to hell.

Or can we hold different views on these and still be true christians?

Let me ask you this: can someone believe that Jesus was not born of a virgin and still be a “true Christian”?

What about believe that the the epistles of St. Paul are not inspired–can someone believe this and still be a “true Christian”?

But to answer your question: the Catholic Church believes that anyone who is baptized using the Trinitarian formula in water is a Christian. But, like determining whether someone is destined for hell or not, whether he is a “true” Christian is above our paygrade.

 

[PRmerger]

Okay. If you want to get technical, the bible condemns homosexual acts.

But Jesus says NOT A WORD about homosexuality–acts or people who do these acts–right?

So following your doctrine (which is, BTW, not found in the Bible) that things which are “clear statements” in the Bible are “essential” doctrines, wouldn’t it follow that if Jesus doesn’t even mention it, that it’s not an essential?

 

[PRmerger]

No. There is only one correct doctrine.

Well, now you’re sounding like the Catholic Church.

And isn’t that exactly what you’re objecting to in the CC? That she says there are certain ways to interpret Scripture that are correct?

 

[Lek]

But Jesus says NOT A WORD about homosexuality–acts or people who do these acts–right?

So following your doctrine (which is, BTW, not found in the Bible) that things which are “clear statements” in the Bible are “essential” doctrines, wouldn’t it follow that if Jesus doesn’t even mention it, that it’s not an essential?

I’d say the following are pretty clear statements:

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.”
1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

Jesus also didn’t talk about child molestation, bestiality, and many other things.

 

[Lek]

Well, now you’re sounding like the Catholic Church.

And isn’t that exactly what you’re objecting to in the CC? That she says there are certain ways to interpret Scripture that are correct?

I’m not disagreeing that there certain ways to interpret scripture that are correct. I’m contending that the church magisterium doesn’t have the authority to determine what the correct interpretation is.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d say the following are pretty clear statements:

Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.”
1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

But the point is that you are making a rather arbitrary assignation of homosexuality being an essential doctrine.

Jesus also didn’t talk about child molestation, bestiality, and many other things.

But you do understand how I am a bit confused as to how you can make something an “essential doctrine” when Our Lord never mentioned it once, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not disagreeing that there certain ways to interpret scripture that are correct. I’m contending that the church magisterium doesn’t have the authority to determine what the correct interpretation is.

Wait--what?

You are saying the magisterium can’t do this, but you can?

Really?

 

[PRmerger]

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

Lek–could you please address the above?

What is this list of essential beliefs, and where are they limned in the Bible? (These are “clear statements” per your doctrine that essential beliefs are those which are clearly delineated, right?)

 

[Lek]

But the point is that you are making a rather arbitrary assignation of homosexuality being an essential doctrine.

But you do understand how I am a bit confused as to how you can make something an “essential doctrine” when Our Lord never mentioned it once, yes?

I’m not saying that homosexual behavior is an essential doctrine. I am saying that the scripture makes clear references to the immorality of it. It’s my opinion (yes, my opinion) that someone who knows the scripture and willingly engages in homosexual behavior is not following Christ in that matter. I’m trying to think of something I would consider “essential doctrine” that Jesus didn’t mention in the gospels and can’t think of anything at the time.

 

[Lek]

Wait--what?

You are saying the magisterium can’t do this, but you can?

Really?

Listen. I understand the point you’re trying to make about private interpretation of the bible. There is really only one correct interpretation of the bible. One question is must the church have a completely correct interpretation of every scripture or did God mean for us to be continually seeking out the truth in scripture? When Peter was asked how we are to be saved, he told the crowd to believe and be baptized. He didn’t say “believe and be baptized, and follow the teachings of the church magisterium.” Believers are promised the gift of the Holy Spirit, who will guide us to the truth. If we faithfully rely on the Holy Spirit will he lead us incorrectly, or will he lead us to what God wants each of us to know? I take it by faith that the Spirit will not mislead me because he dwells in me. You take it by faith that the Spirit will lead you through the church. Both positions come from a certain interpretation of scripture and a leap of faith.

When the church came together for councils or other such things and decided on official positions concerning certain doctrines, the opinions presented were not unanimous in favor of whatever position was eventually adopted. Does that mean that there was no merit in the other positions submitted during these councils? I’ll tell you that I don’t claim to necessarily be right in my views, and you may be totally right, but I think we need to be free to be open to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Please don’ take this to be insulting. It’s simply my own personal view, or maybe just my feeling. Paul spoke of christians being freed from the law, but it seems that catholics have given up their christain freedom and have traded one set of laws for another.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not saying that homosexual behavior is an essential doctrine.

Ok. Then help me out here.

Read this exchange we had and tell me how else to interpret your response, except that you were saying homosexuality (belief that it is wrong) is an essential doctrine?

First, I said:

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”?

You responded with:

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.

It really *sounded *like you were making the point, in response to my question about where the Bible tells us something is essential, that “strong statements” = essential beliefs. Homosexuality (is bad) is an essential belief because the Bible makes strong statements about it.

That wasn’t your point?

 

[PRmerger]

Listen. I understand the point you’re trying to make about private interpretation of the bible. There is really only one correct interpretation of the bible.

Well, that’s not the Catholic position. The Catholic position is that there are numerous interpretations.

One question is must the church have a completely correct interpretation of every scripture

This is also not the Catholic position.

or did God mean for us to be continually seeking out the truth in scripture?

It depends. I can read the Scriptures and come to a new truth about my life through a prayerful insight.

But I can’t constantly change my views about revealed truths. There is only One Faith and One Baptism.

When Peter was asked how we are to be saved, he told the crowd to believe and be baptized.

Amen!

But one ought not take just 1 piece of the Word of God and ignore the rest.

We ought to take the Word of God in its entirety, no?

Here is how Catholicism proclaims we are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By his Cross (Eph 2:16; Col 2:14)

 

[PRmerger]

Listen. I understand the point you’re trying to make about private interpretation of the bible. There is really only one correct interpretation of the bible. One question is must the church have a completely correct interpretation of every scripture or did God mean for us to be continually seeking out the truth in scripture? When Peter was asked how we are to be saved, he told the crowd to believe and be baptized. He didn’t say “believe and be baptized, and follow the teachings of the church magisterium.” Believers are promised the gift of the Holy Spirit, who will guide us to the truth. If we faithfully rely on the Holy Spirit will he lead us incorrectly, or will he lead us to what God wants each of us to know? I take it by faith that the Spirit will not mislead me because he dwells in me. You take it by faith that the Spirit will lead you through the church. Both positions come from a certain interpretation of scripture and a leap of faith.

When the church came together for councils or other such things and decided on official positions concerning certain doctrines, the opinions presented were not unanimous in favor of whatever position was eventually adopted. Does that mean that there was no merit in the other positions submitted during these councils? I’ll tell you that I don’t claim to necessarily be right in my views, and you may be totally right, but I think we need to be free to be open to the leading of the Holy Spirit. Please don’ take this to be insulting. It’s simply my own personal view, or maybe just my feeling. Paul spoke of christians being freed from the law, but it seems that catholics have given up their christain freedom and have traded one set of laws for another.

But, Lek, none of the above addresses this very important point: you object to the Catholic Church making some assertions regarding Scripture–she says, “This is the correct way to interpret Bible Verse A”.

You don’t think the Church should do this.

And yet you also say, “Lek believes that there is a correct way to interpret Bible Verse Z”.

Why do you reserve for yourself what you object to in the CC?