Religion The breakdown of doffrences between Christian denominations

[King Arts]

Here in South Africa in the old days, when it came to the question of what the law actually meant, the final and infallible authority on the matter was the Appelate Division of the Supreme Court of Bloemfontein.
To quote one of those judges: "Our judgements are not final because we are infallible. No, they are infallible because they are final."

When it's man-made laws, what the court is really ruling on is not "What did the people who wrote this really mean?" but rather, in practical terms, "What interpretation of this document are we going to declare to the one the state will actually base its actions on?"
It's one thing to do that with man-made laws.

But when it comes to Divine revelation? No, we are not going to accept that whatever interpretation a bunch of corrupt old men in robes and funny hats invented just to get money out of people must be the true one. Especially if the people in robes and funny hats cannot even get their act together and agree all the time.
To quote Martin Luther: "I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other in the past."

Doesen't this just hurt the credability of the court and government? After all why should we not pull an Andrew Jackson if they say something we don't like "The court has made it's decision now let it enforce it."

Also I think you might be misunderstanding my oppinion. I'm not saying the individuals in the Church are infallible no priest, Bishop or Patriarch is infallible. However they DO have authority. And the ecumenical councils themselves are infallible because the holy spirit presided over them, just like how it presided over the compiling of the Bible(Protestants are missing books in the Bible though so they don't even have a complete Bible)

Speaking of Martin Luther, why should we trust what he says, he wanted to take books out of the Bible did he not? Who determines what the Biblical cannon is what books are actually inspired by God. It was the Church that compiled the bible so why would God make them infallible for that one purpose but not the councils that interpreted parts of the Bible?

In fact the early reformers like Calvin or Luther accepted the outcomes of the Councils while disparaging them this makes no sense. Why should we accept the trinity as an article of faith if we only have the Bible and not Church tradition?

Also Martin Luther's quote just leads to heresy. For instance let's say I read the Bible and I say

"You know what after reading the Holy Bible and praying to God I've found out that Jesus is not God. Don't get me wrong Jesus is God's greatest creation above all mankind. BUT he is not God and any who say that are freaking polytheists. Why would God pray to himself? Why would the devil try and tempt Jesus to worship him by giving him the world, if he is God he already has the world and can take it when he wants? Why would the Bible say Jesus does not know the hour of his return only the father does? God is all knowing, this trinity stuff just sounds like Polytheists sneaking stuff in to make a heresy it's not true Christianity. We are monothests the God of Isreal is ONE."

You'd probably say I was a heretic at best and not Christian at worst right? But all of those arguments come straight from the Bible nothing about Church tradition or anything like that. Without Church tradition why should protestants not consider unitarians as just another sect of Christainity like Anglicans, Lutherans, or Calvinists?

KA you come across as horribly ignorant about Protestant Christianity in general.
What makes you think we don't have teams of intelligent trained individuals?
We do. We have Bible collages where people go to study in order to qualify for ministry, and there they must learn to read the Bible in the original Greek, learn a lot of other things etc etc.
But no sane person thinks any of that makes them incapable of error. And they certainly don't get to treat the Bible as something that they have the right to make mean whatever they wish, which is what the RCC implicitly claims for its people in robes and funny hats.

Well I understand that I am being a little uncharitable and comparing all Protestants to Baptists or non denominationals. But there is a kernal of truth to what I'm saying because while Lutherans aren't that crazy, their ideas of sola scriptura directly led to the people with no education just picking up a Bible and being a Pastor and saying what they want.(Pastor Jim)

 

[stephen the barbarian]

Speaking of Martin Luther, why should we trust what he says, he wanted to take books out of the Bible did he not?

no he did not, he was openly critical of the book of James and the Apocrypha, but he never acted to remove any book from the scripture. it was the Catholics who added the Apocrypha to the Bible as the Deuterocanonical books as part of their own reformation.

 

[King Arts]

no he did not, he was openly critical of the book of James and the Apocrypha, but he never acted to remove any book from the scripture. it was the Catholics who added the Apocrypha to the Bible as the Deuterocanonical books as part of their own reformation.

I never said he did, I said he WANTED to.
Also no the Catholics did not add them. Those books are part of the Bible, in fact Catholics are missing some.

Can you tell me why you think parts of Daniel shouldn't be in the Bible? What is unchristian about the story of Susana and the Elders that warns against adultery and rape, or Bel and the Dragon that warns against idolotry?

 

[LordsFire]

You'd probably say I was a heretic at best and not Christian at worst right? But all of those arguments come straight from the Bible nothing about Church tradition or anything like that. Without Church tradition why should protestants not consider unitarians as just another sect of Christainity like Anglicans, Lutherans, or Calvinists?

That's a good question, isn't it?

Why don't you answer it for yourself, since Protestants do not consider Unitarians, Theological Aryans, Mormons, or Jehovahs Witness, to be Christians?

 

[King Arts]

That's a good question, isn't it?

Why don't you answer it for yourself, since Protestants do not consider Unitarians, Theological Aryans, Mormons, or Jehovahs Witness, to be Christians?

Honestly my answer is that protestants are being inconsistent.
They like the trinity and traditions that the Church gave them but they don't want to honor the Church.

Because if you are a Protestant who believes other protestants are fellow Christians and people don't have to subscribe to every one of your positions to be a Christian. Why do you not hold the same for the trinity and the divinity of Christ? Because under Sola Scriptura Unitarians, Arayans, and JH's are valid. There is no one to say they are not valid. What you are going to say your oppinion matters and we should decide if someone is a heretic or not because of what you think?

Note Mormons are in a seperate category since they have another book besides the Bible.

 

[LordsFire]

Honestly my answer is that protestants are being inconsistent.
They like the trinity and traditions that the Church gave them but they don't want to honor the Church.

Because if you are a Protestant who believes other protestants are fellow Christians and people don't have to subscribe to every one of your positions to be a Christian. Why do you not hold the same for the trinity and the divinity of Christ? Because under Sola Scriptura Unitarians, Arayans, and JH's are valid. There is no one to say they are not valid. What you are going to say your oppinion matters and we should decide if someone is a heretic or not because of what you think?

Note Mormons are in a seperate category since they have another book besides the Bible.

You clearly have no idea how Protestants actually think, or study the Bible, or understand scripture, or... pretty much anything about us, really.

Until you're willing to actually understand how other people think, instead of just projecting 'like me, except worse,' on them, you're going to be terrible at convincing anyone of anything.

 

[King Arts]

You clearly have no idea how Protestants actually think, or study the Bible, or understand scripture, or... pretty much anything about us, really.

Until you're willing to actually understand how other people think, instead of just projecting 'like me, except worse,' on them, you're going to be terrible at convincing anyone of anything.

Please explain to me then how you can say arians are not Christian without indulging in a no true Scotsman fallacy?

 

[Cherico]

You clearly have no idea how Protestants actually think, or study the Bible, or understand scripture, or... pretty much anything about us, really.

Until you're willing to actually understand how other people think, instead of just projecting 'like me, except worse,' on them, you're going to be terrible at convincing anyone of anything.

You Protestants are much like us Jews, you rarely agree on anything, and on the things you do agree on you will still bicker about it upon force of habit.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

They like the trinity and traditions that the Church gave them but they don't want to honor the Church.

the Vatican is not the Church. the Church is every person who excepts Jesus the Son, God the Father, and The Holy Sprit. it predates the Vatican by over 5 centuries.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

Also no the Catholics did not add them. Those books are part of the Bible, in fact Catholics are missing some.

those books were and are apocryphal, and not a part of the original cannon. by raising them to the status of Deuterocanonical status the Catholics added them to cannon.

 

[LordsFire]

Please explain to me then how you can say arians are not Christian without indulging in a no true Scotsman fallacy?

Really going to lay up the easy ones for me, aren't you?

John 1:1-3.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. "

John 1:14:
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."


Like, this one isn't even hard. It's right there in the one chapter.

 

[Scottty]

Please explain to me then how you can say arians are not Christian without indulging in a no true Scotsman fallacy?

There are central, core tenets of Christianity - like Jesus being both Divine and human, His death and resurrection, and so on.
And there are non-central things on which sincere believers can have do differ. For example, how to we understand Revelation chapter 20?
Premillenialism or Postmillenialism?

To quote a preacher who was discussing this: "There are truths I will die for, truths I will contend for... and things where if you disagree, that's okay".

 

[Scottty]

the Vatican is not the Church. the Church is every person who excepts Jesus the Son, God the Father, and The Holy Sprit. it predates the Vatican by over 5 centuries.

Indeed. The RCC - and maybe also the Orthodox - play a bait-and-switch sometimes with the word "church". Sometimes they use it the way we do - it means all Christian believers. But other times they mean just the bishops, or something like that.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Make a thread for ot

If he waits twenty one years, he can make a special thousand year anniversary of the Great Schism of 1054 thread to discuss such things within. Obviously an anniversary of the 1517 Protestant Reformation would be more appropriate but we missed the last one so it'll be a bit of a longer wait for its next benchmark anniversary.

 

[King Arts]

This is an open forum of essays if need be for arguments to be made and overall discussion.
My second religion thread I have made on this forum.

From what I have seen recently there is hotly contested on Bible understanding based on depending on which section of it one follows.

Seeing the arguments by @King Arts and @LordsFire Have made this obvious thT there is some debate on the matter, and to make a proper thread here it is.

Now, I want to start off by going off the fact that Christianity has had multiple schism in its history, with even at one point having two separate popes.

So the prior argument can be contained here as well as more going into the differences between the sects

Oh thanks you beat me to it. I was planning on doing this tomorrow.

 

[Curved_Sw0rd]

You'd probably say I was a heretic at best and not Christian at worst right? But all of those arguments come straight from the Bible nothing about Church tradition or anything like that. Without Church tradition why should protestants not consider unitarians as just another sect of Christainity like Anglicans, Lutherans, or Calvinists?

You need to understand what time it is. I can tell you the time to get into knife fights over denominations is well and truly over, and it's been that way for a while.

As a Catholic in today's moment in history I'd take a thousand of the wildest Protestants out there rather than a single danger-haired genderqueer Discord mod. People are sterilizing their children, and teaching pure evil self-hate. The problem is not other Christians and if you think there is time for such infighting you are a damn fool.

 

[Zachowon]

Oh thanks you beat me to it. I was planning on doing this tomorrow.

I was invested in the debate and wanted to see it contuine.
Plus it allows for other ideals to be added for discussion

 

[King Arts]

the Vatican is not the Church. the Church is every person who excepts Jesus the Son, God the Father, and The Holy Sprit. it predates the Vatican by over 5 centuries.

I will agree that the Vatican is not THE Church. They are a Church, that has schismed from the true Chruch though. Also what do you mean when you say Vatican? Like do you mean the Pope usurping power he does not have? Then yes for 1000 years he has done that. But unlike Protestants Eastern Orthodo do acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome is descended from Peter, who is descended from Jesus.(Not a literal blood descent but you know what I mean laying on hands)

those books were and are apocryphal, and not a part of the original cannon. by raising them to the status of Deuterocanonical status the Catholics added them to cannon.

Actually that's false. Determining what the canon is, is hard since there appears to be disagreements among the early church fathers, on if even the Book of Esther was to be part of the Bible.

Biblical canon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Council of Rome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gelasian Decree - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Synod of Hippo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Councils of Carthage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Council of Laodicea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Really going to lay up the easy ones for me, aren't you?

John 1:1-3.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. "

John 1:14:
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."


Like, this one isn't even hard. It's right there in the one chapter.

I mean are they easy if I can pull out Bible passages that show the opposite?

1. Matthew 24:36
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only.
Here Jesus makes a distinction between what he knows and what the Father knows.

2. Matthew 26:39
My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me, yet not as I will, but as Thou will.
Jesus' will is likewise autonomous from God's Will. Jesus is seeking acquiescence to God's will.

3. John 5:26
For as the Father has life in Himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.
Jesus received his life from God. God received his life from no one. He is eternally self-existent.

4. John 5:30
By myself, I can do nothing: I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who has sent me.
Jesus says, "by myself, I can do nothing." This indicates that Jesus is relying upon his own relationship with God. He is not trying to "please myself" but rather is seeking to "please the one who sent me."

5. John 5:19
The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does also.
Jesus declares that he is following a pattern laid down by God. He is expressing obedience to God.

6. Mark 10:18
Why do you call me good? No one is good, except God alone.
Here Jesus emphatically makes a distinction between himself and God.

7. John 14:28
The Father is greater than I.
This is another strong statement that makes a distinction between Jesus and God.

8. Matthew 6:9
Our Father, which art in Heaven.
He didn't pray, Our Father, which art standing right here!"

9. Matthew 27:46
My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Inconceivable if he is God the Creator.

10. John 17:21-23
. . .that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. . ..that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me.
In this prayer Jesus defines the term "to be one." It is clearly accomplished through the relationship of two autonomous beings. Christian believers are to model their relationship (to become one) after the relationship of God and Christ (as God and Christ are one). Notice that "to be one" does not mean to be "one and the same."

11. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28
For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Paul declares that God put everything under Christ, except God himself. Instead God rules all things through Christ. (remember: "through him all things were made.")

12. Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being.
Jesus is the exact representation of his being. I send my representative to Congress. He is not me, myself. He is my representative.

13. Hebrews 4:15 (compared with James 1:13)
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet without sin.
Jesus has been tempted in every way, just as we are, yet he never sinned. See

James 1:13: When tempted, no one should say, God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt.
Jesus was tempted in every way, but God cannot be tempted. This is why Jesus said, "don't call me good, none are good, only God."

14. Hebrews 5:7-9
During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
Jesus had to walk a course of faith and obedience in order to achieve perfection. By achieving perfection, Jesus "became" the source of eternal salvation

There are central, core tenets of Christianity - like Jesus being both Divine and human, His death and resurrection, and so on.
And there are non-central things on which sincere believers can have do differ. For example, how to we understand Revelation chapter 20?
Premillenialism or Postmillenialism?

To quote a preacher who was discussing this: "There are truths I will die for, truths I will contend for... and things where if you disagree, that's okay".

What makes them a central core tenant of Christianity? Where does it say the trinity is in the Bible, let alone it is important?

Like if we take the Bible as true and we base our religion on it, but say there will be diffrent sects and there is no hierarchy to interpret scripture then what makes a certain article of faith neccesary for salvation instead of secondary or tertiary issue?

I mean there are obvious things you can point to that are not Christian. Those who worship many Gods and don't see the Bible as true for instance. You can say those are not Christian, but what about those who claim to be Christian yet are very divergent like the Mormons? This is more tricky but I still think that under a protestant mode of thought you could keep them out the same way we keep Islam out(ironically Islam is closer to Christianity than Mormonism) they have a new prophet and added a new book and don't just have the Bible.

But how under a sola scriptura "scripture alone" mode of thought could you keep the Jehova's witnesses out? It does seem to be playing no true scotsman I mean the JH have just the Bible and that is where they claim to get all of their doctrines.(I obviously disagree with them) But without Church authority without the councils you can't have a body that gate keeps that says "No this is heresy and is not true Christianity. And well if you accept the councils you also have to accept Church authority and apostolic succession. This does not mean submission to Rome since the Catholics are not the only ones who have apostolic descent.

Indeed. The RCC - and maybe also the Orthodox - play a bait-and-switch sometimes with the word "church". Sometimes they use it the way we do - it means all Christian believers. But other times they mean just the bishops, or something like that.

I mean everyone who believes is part of the Church, but not all believers have an equal voice. God's nation is a kingdom it has a hierarchy(Jesus is king, not the Pope) but Bishops DO have authority. I mean while Jesus did advocate helping the poor he never said that new Israel is a communist nation where no one is above others.

You need to understand what time it is. I can tell you the time to get into knife fights over denominations is well and truly over, and it's been that way for a while.

As a Catholic in today's moment in history I'd take a thousand of the wildest Protestants out there rather than a single danger-haired genderqueer Discord mod. People are sterilizing their children, and teaching pure evil self-hate. The problem is not other Christians and if you think there is time for such infighting you are a damn fool.

This is a religious debate mostly for fun. This isn't saying "raghh evil heretics burn them all!"

 

[Poe]

I will agree that the Vatican is not THE Church. They are a Church, that has schismed from the true Chruch though. Also what do you mean when you say Vatican? Like do you mean the Pope usurping power he does not have? Then yes for 1000 years he has done that. But unlike Protestants Eastern Orthodo do acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome is descended from Peter, who is descended from Jesus.(Not a literal blood descent but you know what I mean laying on hands)


Actually that's false. Determining what the canon is, is hard since there appears to be disagreements among the early church fathers, on if even the Book of Esther was to be part of the Bible.

Biblical canon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Council of Rome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gelasian Decree - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Synod of Hippo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Councils of Carthage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Council of Laodicea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I mean are they easy if I can pull out Bible passages that show the opposite?

1. Matthew 24:36
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only.
Here Jesus makes a distinction between what he knows and what the Father knows.

2. Matthew 26:39
My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me, yet not as I will, but as Thou will.
Jesus' will is likewise autonomous from God's Will. Jesus is seeking acquiescence to God's will.

3. John 5:26
For as the Father has life in Himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.
Jesus received his life from God. God received his life from no one. He is eternally self-existent.

4. John 5:30
By myself, I can do nothing: I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who has sent me.
Jesus says, "by myself, I can do nothing." This indicates that Jesus is relying upon his own relationship with God. He is not trying to "please myself" but rather is seeking to "please the one who sent me."

5. John 5:19
The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does also.
Jesus declares that he is following a pattern laid down by God. He is expressing obedience to God.

6. Mark 10:18
Why do you call me good? No one is good, except God alone.
Here Jesus emphatically makes a distinction between himself and God.

7. John 14:28
The Father is greater than I.
This is another strong statement that makes a distinction between Jesus and God.

8. Matthew 6:9
Our Father, which art in Heaven.
He didn't pray, Our Father, which art standing right here!"

9. Matthew 27:46
My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Inconceivable if he is God the Creator.

10. John 17:21-23
. . .that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. . ..that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me.
In this prayer Jesus defines the term "to be one." It is clearly accomplished through the relationship of two autonomous beings. Christian believers are to model their relationship (to become one) after the relationship of God and Christ (as God and Christ are one). Notice that "to be one" does not mean to be "one and the same."

11. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28
For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Paul declares that God put everything under Christ, except God himself. Instead God rules all things through Christ. (remember: "through him all things were made.")

12. Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being.
Jesus is the exact representation of his being. I send my representative to Congress. He is not me, myself. He is my representative.

13. Hebrews 4:15 (compared with James 1:13)
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet without sin.
Jesus has been tempted in every way, just as we are, yet he never sinned. See

James 1:13: When tempted, no one should say, God is tempting me. For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt.
Jesus was tempted in every way, but God cannot be tempted. This is why Jesus said, "don't call me good, none are good, only God."

14. Hebrews 5:7-9
During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
Jesus had to walk a course of faith and obedience in order to achieve perfection. By achieving perfection, Jesus "became" the source of eternal salvation


What makes them a central core tenant of Christianity? Where does it say the trinity is in the Bible, let alone it is important?

Like if we take the Bible as true and we base our religion on it, but say there will be diffrent sects and there is no hierarchy to interpret scripture then what makes a certain article of faith neccesary for salvation instead of secondary or tertiary issue?

I mean there are obvious things you can point to that are not Christian. Those who worship many Gods and don't see the Bible as true for instance. You can say those are not Christian, but what about those who claim to be Christian yet are very divergent like the Mormons? This is more tricky but I still think that under a protestant mode of thought you could keep them out the same way we keep Islam out(ironically Islam is closer to Christianity than Mormonism) they have a new prophet and added a new book and don't just have the Bible.

But how under a sola scriptura "scripture alone" mode of thought could you keep the Jehova's witnesses out? It does seem to be playing no true scotsman I mean the JH have just the Bible and that is where they claim to get all of their doctrines.(I obviously disagree with them) But without Church authority without the councils you can't have a body that gate keeps that says "No this is heresy and is not true Christianity. And well if you accept the councils you also have to accept Church authority and apostolic succession. This does not mean submission to Rome since the Catholics are not the only ones who have apostolic descent.


I mean everyone who believes is part of the Church, but not all believers have an equal voice. God's nation is a kingdom it has a hierarchy(Jesus is king, not the Pope) but Bishops DO have authority. I mean while Jesus did advocate helping the poor he never said that new Israel is a communist nation where no one is above others.


This is a religious debate mostly for fun. This isn't saying "raghh evil heretics burn them all!"

According to your definition Islam is a sect of Christianity. I do believe it was considered such by Christians up until the 18th century or more.

 

[King Arts]

According to your definition Islam is a sect of Christianity. I do believe it was considered such by Christians up until the 18th century or more.

No you misread. I said that Islam would be in the same category as Mormons. Since they have an new prophet and a new holy book instead of just the scriptures they are new. So a protestant can say that Mormons and Muslims aren't Christians.

But they can't say Jehova's Witnesses are not Christian.