Featured Arguing full circle.

I'd have to disagree on the first issue, whether doctrine should be uniform or not. But, I'd agree with most of your view. Not sure if a post or two will make you and I of one mind, but it's worth a shot, right?



I'd say first, wouldn't it be wonderful if Catholics gave heed to the above teaching?

Secondly, I take the view that each believer will be specifically judged according to his/her understanding of the Scripture and the will of God for their lives. This does not mean I include non-Christian cults and sects as valid, but, the following passage takes place within this Age:

Acts 11

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


Keep in mind that the New Covenant is in full effect, and this man is presented as one that God holds in consideration. Like most of us when we are born again, he knows nothing of Christian doctrine that we are told.

This is one thing.

Going back to the original issue (being of one mind), consider:

Romans 14
King James Version

14 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.

The chapter seems to make it clear that we are to receive those that are weak in the faith, but it points out—they are weak in the faith. And I think this first verse tells us not to receive their views. The wording here can be taken numerous ways, but one of the things we have to guide us in our interpretations is the rest of Scripture. At no time did Paul fail to correct in doctrinal matters. Nor, for that matter, in behavioral issues. Thus, we do not question their salvation, but we do not accept their views, meaning, we do not "agree to disagree."

Romans 16:17
King James Version

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Ephesians 4:14
King James Version
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

1 Timothy 1:3
King James Version
As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,

2 Timothy 3:16

King James Version
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


There is a difference, I think, in reproof and correction concerning the teachings we hold to. I don't read Scripture and come to the conclusion that it's okay for anyone to believe what they want to believe. Most don't. Scripture is the given standard, and it is because there is enough common ground between so many Christians that we can without controversy proclaim certain groups cults. Because they have gone beyond issues such as what day to worship on, or what they should eat or not.

Seeing I am getting long here, I'll just say on this point, I do see it as a matter of being in agreement on doctrine. Just because I don't have a problem with those that teach you must worship on Saturday, doesn't mean I am going to acknowledge this position as anything but error. This very passage makes that clear in itself.

I agree. But our goal is to edify our brothers and sisters, is it not? Can we do that by failing to address error? And when it gets bad enough, that we restore them? How do we do that? It is my view that the learning process in our lives helps avoid it getting to a point restoration is necessary.

No argument from me. But when a duck start barking I feel we have a duty to perform. Only truth can beneficial to us. I can't help someone with omission of truth and failing to point out obvious errors.

Some might take the same view of a lot of charismatic activity. You and I view certain Catholic Doctrine to be in error, but, the ratio of people who are Catholic that actually give the doctrines we disagree with is probably pretty low.

Not to mention Catholics are as varied as Baptists. Ranging from liberal to conservative. Then, let's throw on top of that the nominal.

So, what do we do, and why do we do it?

Because we should be of one mind.

I think for most who embrace Calvinism and Arminianism, if they were to put in enough effort, both would see the errors both views hold, and maybe come to a point where, even if they do not change their view, it would be more of a sabbath day disagreement, rather than salvific, as many that are fanatical about it make it to be.

That's a mixed bag. Some of these issues involve Christian Doctrine. Clothes? A man thinking he's really a woman and wearing a dress? Could, or should such be allowed to fellowship? Political views? Should one vote for a party hell-bent on making certain issues acceptable in the general public?

And, for Pete's sake, man—there are people that preach out of the Living Bible!

Just kidding on that one.

So we should be of one mind on certain doctrines, but not on others? It's just the important ones, right? To a certain extent I would agree, certain doctrines must be more in focus, but, my point is that, while we do not necessarily excommunicate those holding to questionable doctrines, I don't think we forget that Paul states they are weak in the faith. In other words, as I said, we don't agree to disagree, but seek to edify those brothers and sisters as best we can.

For what purpose? That we should be of one mind.

I'll be honest, I am sometimes amazed how some can maintain a view in light of Scripture. How hard is it to understand that if someone feels they should worship on Saturday, Scripture demands of them that they not impose this view on others? This is just one example.

In regards to Scripture, and its interpretation, again, we know that if someone believes something to be true, true or not, it is by that standard that they will be judged.

Romans 14:14
King James Version

14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Anyway, don't mind me, just trying to consider this issue in my own heart, and this is one of the best ways I know of doing that.

God bless.

 

Why would there be a perceived need to repeat an argument?

1) The reply was not a rebuttal, but rather a deflection from apparent truth. Usually the non-rebuttal is comprised of two elements, (1) "Taint So" and (2) the person putting forth the viewpoint is ignorant or evil.

2) Next we have the biblical viewpoint misrepresented to derail actual discussion of biblical doctrine, creating a train-wreck of restatements and denials.

3) Bottom line, believing Christians strive to treat others with dignity but that seems in short supply with many of our posts.

 

Yes, pride drives us toward refusal to acknowledge truth when we have put forth error. But another reason for the lack of acknowledgement is that the erroneous doctrine is well established in the beliefs of many devout Christians, dating back hundreds of years. They ask how could a viewpoint to so unbiblical if all these scholars did not come to the same conclusion?

However, none of these "scholars" post here so we cannot actually get an answer from the horse's mouth.

 

And I can respect your view, it shows a sincere fear of God, something that has gone the way of the dinosaur in America.

Now I ask, who decides something is a private interpretation? Is it defined as that which is not taught by the Catholic Church? Where in Scripture do we see justification for Apostolic Tradition? Wouldn't that be necessary for those of us that feel God has given His Word to all men (that they might know His will)?

But, I have no intention on trying to drag you into a discussion about this. I can see you are quite sincere in your view, and I don't have a problem with that.


God bless.

 

I'll just tackle this one, Jon.

The obvious answer here, for us to be of one mind on this issue, is to acknowledge a few things. For the Jewish Christian, for example, the Sabbath is holy. There is nothing in the teachings given to the Church that mandates a rejection of heritage for the Jews. Gentiles should respect that. Paul himself was partaker of a ceremony that involved a literal sacrifice.

For either to say it is or it isn't is found to be in error with the teachings of Scripture, as you pointed out earlier. Is this not an issue where the doctrine is clear, and that we should not be of one mind on?


God bless.

 

Right. If you have stated your point and cannot go any deeper in explaining why your point is the right one, then you should just agree to disagree. But on here, if someone says for instance that they believe the "T" in TULIP is wrong the reply is that it's right and ... then repeat. We could have good discussion on whether total inability means you can't even realize your inability, or to what extent the fall affected man, or whether it is a meaningful argument to point out that the inability is "moral" and thus still our own fault. Instead, we repeat our argument, this time with an added insult, and then go on. If someone points out that the primary adherents or even the inventors of the "T" preached in a way that indicates they may have had a more moderate or nuanced understanding than we think then that is not only discounted out of hand but you are now waffling, wishy-washy, and quoting too many other sources - even though the sources are exactly what is needed in order to go further than just repeating your dogma.

 

Just suffice to say, examine your interpretive tradition, see when each doctrine began to be espoused and believed.

If it’s new doctrine based on a human founders interpretation of scripture, avoid it. ie Symbolic Baptism, symbolic Eucharist, denying infants baptism. All these have a start date privately interpreted by human founders.

If it is an old doctrine that has been believed continually back to the Apostles, that’s what you are looking for.
Things like regenerative Baptism, Infant Baptism, the real presence in the Eucharist are doctrines that go back to the Apostles. These are easy find and are unanimously and continually held doctrines from the beginning by all the ancient Churches.

Subject all your doctrines to that scrutiny, to see if has legs, and goes all the way back to apostles.

Easy ones to start with is Luther’s Scripture Alone and Faith alone, human founder, new novel private interpretation and was not believed back to the Apostles. Give it the elbow.

It’s a good guide to start with, it eliminates a huge amount human founded doctrines, ie traditions of men.

Hope this helps mate.

 

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” 2 Thess 2:15

Here we see that we are to hold to both the Oral Tradition of the Apostles and the Written Tradition together. Not scripture alone.

Do we see this dual principle continuously held to in the Churches for the first 1500 years. Yes. Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic all the ancient Apostolic Churches unanimously hold to Apostolic Tradition.

” ‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by Epistle of ours.’ Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther.” John Chrysostom, Homily on 2nd Thessalonians, 4:2 (A.D. 404).

So the idea of Scripture alone is not Scriptural or have continuous and unanimous belief back to the Apostles.

Like I said it’s a great way to eliminate a whole bunch of human founded traditions. Submit each doctrine to this scrutiny.

“But beyond these [Scriptural] sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept.” Athanasius, Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1:28 (A.D. 360).

East and West we see unanimous adherence to Apostolic Tradition.

 

Jews are no longer under the Law, either. So we don't view their observance as a matter of necessity. They are beholden to the principles of the Law, as it expresses God's will for man. For example, Don't murder, commit adultery, steal, etc.

The problem for the Jew in that day (and probably for many today) is that they were brought up under Law, and it would be (I would guess) galling to see others do things they were forbidden and be told it was okay.

The Jews were told not to force adherence on them, though Gentiles were exhorted not to do certain things:

Acts 15:28-29
King James Version

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.


That they are already saved is not a question, so we don't then take these "necessary things" and make them elements of salvation, but of sanctification (Progressive). This was in response to the burden certain Jews were trying to lay on Gentiles:

Acts 15
King James Version

1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.


Making circumcision an element of salvation was in error enough that Paul and Barnabus "had no small" dissension and disputation with them.

The way I read it, it is a prime example of why, though it is acceptable for Jews to continue in their heritage, if they try to force it on Gentiles, it becomes a matter of stepping away from Christian Doctrine, and it is necessary to keep the record straight. Christian Doctrine must remain pure, thus is reproof and correction profitable.

I myself see it as a doctrinal matter.

Romans 16

17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

The divisions in view are based on the teachings they had received.

I think it has to be, again, based on the doctrine that is in question. We don't, for example, have to look too deep to know someone teaching that Christ was just a man is teaching contrary to Christian doctrine. But how about something not so blatant? My view is that if it is error, it should be addressed. The day someone worships, or what he eats or doesn't eat can't be placed in the same category, because we still have doctrine that gives us a definitive position on the matter.


God bless.

 

Agreed. Yet we still get back to, can the doctrine be justified by the teachings that are given us in Scripture. I would suggest to you that both Catholic and Protestant are going to have trouble in this area.

If it is a new doctrine that has no basis in Scripture (and by this I mean not directly taught us by the Apostles and Bible writers), regardless of denomination—reject it.

Goes back to the teachings of Scripture. Just as those partaking of John's baptism had already repented, those being baptized in the Name of Christ, or in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are already saved.

Cornelius' baptism is foundational to the establishment of the Church as a whole:

Acts 10

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.


What we must do in order to see if the falling of the Holy Ghost, which took place while Peter spake (and prior to their water baptism) is the moment when they are saved is simply keep reading:


Acts 11

13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;

14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.

15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.


It's not necessary to have a "private interpretation," because this is easy enough for anyone to understand. Peter was to speak the words (the Gospel, as seen in Acts 10) by which Cornelius (and his household) was saved, and Peter defines their salvation as "... the Holy Ghost fell on them."

He further defines the salvation experienced by Cornelius ...

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.


The Holy Ghost "falling on them" is equated to being Baptized with the Holy Ghost. When one is saved, the Holy Ghost falls on them, and they are baptized with the Holy Ghost.

But we aren't done yet:


17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?


Salvation is a gift for those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.


18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.


Part of that gift is repentance given by God. The result of salvation is life.

And if we take into consideration that Christ came specifically that men might not die, but have everlasting life, and that now we are baptized into Christ and He indwells us (the reason why we have eternal life, because we are now partakers of the divine nature by being in Him and He in us), it isn't difficult to understand the doctrine being taught us in Scripture.

When someone comes into conflict with this teaching of, not only Apostles, but by God through the revelation provided us, then we are commanded to, as you say, give the elbow to them.


Continued...

 

This view is taken because this is the view Christ Himself took:

Luke 22

17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:

18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Unless we want to divide the elements of Communion, we consider that the Lord means both body (bread) and blood (wine) are to partaken of in remembrance.

It is a memorial, just as the Passover itself was. Israel was not saved from death each year by observing Passover. And what is just as true, a believer is not "saved again" every time they take Communion. They do not receive the Baptism with the Holy Ghost again. They are not forgiven again (in an eternal context).

The Lord Himself taught that when the Comforter came to bring conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment, we would be indwelt on an eternal basis by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (John 14:15-23). Thus the concept of "losing" salvation (or even rejecting it after salvation) fails to regard the simplicity of this concept.

Now, can I point out another simple concept? In light of Scripture's teaching that one be convinced in their own mind, and that men will be judged according to their understanding, wouldn't it be better to be in obedience to those teachings and principles and, though you consider your Protestant and Evangelical brethren weak (in knowledge and/or faith) you still recognize them as brethren? That is, you don't deny their salvation, as both sides are inclined to do?

It is not for you, or them, to judge each other's view from a salvific standpoint. I do not take the view that those who believe they are actually eating Christ's flesh and drinking His blood forfeit their salvation or will be judged harshly because of their position on this. Regardless of the view taken. if the individual violates that which he believes, and does contrary to how he understands it to mean, then they will be judged.

But to be in error on doctrine is not a salvific matter, it is a matter of (Progressive) sanctification. Are there doctrines you have been in error on, that you have had corrected since you have been saved? So too, give space for your brethren to grow in knowledge of the Lord.

When we stand before the Lord, these matters will be cleared up, and we will do the best we can not to say "I told you so."

Just a little humor, lol.

So I ask you, do you not see a violation of the principles concerning judging others in this matter? Can we not say that both sides are in violation of Paul's teaching concerning holy days and what is eaten?


Continued...

 

This one has always stumped me: how exactly can a babe be brought to repentance, belief, and faith?

Mind you, I am one that believes God makes provision for those unable to comprehend the Gospel, He always has. The babe and those mentally incapacitated are not much different than the Old Testament Saints, who also received not the Gospel (because it was a Mystery unrevealed in their day).

And if you baptize that babe, you tell him/her they are saved by that baptism? Where in Scripture would you base your teaching? It simply isn't there. There has to be cognizant recognition of the Gospel in order to act upon it. While God could certainly grant understanding to a babe, I don't speculate about matters not specifically taught in Scripture (overmuch, lol, and when I do I usually keep it to myself).

Protestant fathers are not where I get my doctrine. I don't believe what I believe because other men believe it.

The doctrines I hold to can be traced back, not to the early church (not even the first century), but to the teachings the early church received of God. And this is balanced with the revelation God gave previously to men in other Ages.

For example, that we do no murder correlates to Old Testament teaching, thus few argue about whether this is an acceptable practice or not.

Tithing is not demanded of Christians as it was of those under Law, and practiced by some prior to the establishment of that Covenant. Thus, just like holy days or dietary restrictions, if my brother believes (erroneously) he must tithe, I will not judge him for his ignorance.

Precisely.

And this takes us into an area of interpretation that is, in my view, the most significant division between Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals: Eternal Salvation.

Within all three groups we can find those taking opposing sides, and one side is wrong. I have no doubts in my heart that salvation is eternal as Scripture teaches. I believe I can give an irrefutable presentation of why salvation cannot be lost or given away, walked away from or forfeited.

But do I think those who are embroiled in bitter dispute will listen? Not likely. Because for people like that, what Scripture teaches takes a backseat to the system they seek to defend (or vilify).

And this mindset stands in direct violation of the most basic teachings of God. It shows a lack of love for both God and our neighbor.


Continued ...

 

There is only one regenerative baptism, and that is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

This is actually the means of obtaining the life of God, and the reason we can say we are saved.

Baptismal Regeneration is not something that can be supported by Scripture. You can throw out a few proof-texts, but when the whole of relevant Scripture is brought to the table, to conclude validity in Baptismal Regeneration is error.

Christ is the Baptizer. And not once did He ever baptize with water (that we are told in Scripture).

When we see men saved, we see "the Promise of the Father" being fulfilled. The Baptism with the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God falling on men who have heard the Gospel, which must be distinguished from the filling of the Spirit. God still fills men and women today, but falls on only those receiving Christ. When He fills, He is with them. When He falls upon them, He is in them eternally.

And yes, I do believe Christ when He said His Spirit would be in us forever.

Again, I cannot see how anyone can embrace this view. There is no New Testament teaching, nor Old Testament principle or precedent outside of circumcision, which is a physical sign, not a spiritual event.

Some believe so, which is why serious doctrinal debate is necessary. It's hard to do this with people who base their position on what other men say. And I hate to say it, but that position is a bit circular: I believe in infant baptism because the church tells me to. Only my church has the right interpretation (and Catholics are by no means alone in this).

Which would take you outside of your own rules, because once you yourself teach other men, it is your interpretation. You have taken it upon yourself and agreed with it. Doesn't matter if you justify it by saying this is what my (or The) church teaches, I am just repeating it.

And that is called into question by those who do not embrace this teaching. I myself do not see an easily found basis for infant baptism. In fact, I am confident that no water baptism should be viewed as salvific.

Don't most feel as if they do?


Continued...

 

You say "easy," I'd have to disagree, because we have to wade to the many varying interpretations of Luther's interpretation, lol. We aren't just dealing with Luther's view, but how that is understood by the student.

Just as Catholics vary in their understanding of Mary, even so many Protestants and Evangelicals vary. The bottom line is that, because many are more interested in defending a position or a system they can tend to go to an extreme and fall outside of Scriptural teachings.

Many today have made Luther's view/s become, "We are saved by faith through grace."

Isn't that the obvious conclusion of sola fide?

Shouldn't be, but often is, and can be seen in the discussions.

Now, to be fair, Catholics (and many Protestants and Evangelicals) go to the other extreme, yet still miss the fact that we are saved by grace. You cannot deny that Catholicism is very much works-based oriented.

And that is the problem, many end up in extreme positions that do not rightly divide. The extremes are, in one corner, works save. And in the other corner, we have works are not necessary. Both are wrong.

And in regard to Sola Scriptura, you yourself have several times recognized the need to go back to the Apostles teaching. Allowing for men to come along at a later date and either add or change First Century Doctrine cannot be supported through a few proof-texts, and do not negate a traditional position of trusting in the Word of God itself over man's interpretations.

Only Christ has the authority to say, "You have heard it said ... but I tell you."


Continued...

 

Only Christ can build the Church. It is His, after all.

Granted, some get overly enthusiastic about early fathers, but are there no Catholics that do so? Should we be surprised? Should we let this be a matter of division between us? If so, then we can also find other matters for which we can hate our brothers and sisters. And that is the result for many.

Can you say there are no Catholics examples of this?

I find indulgences to be quite novel.

Agreed.

Famous last words ...



It's not just a good guide to start with, it's the Biblical Model. Because it is the Biblical Doctrine. Where in Scripture, for example, do we find Christmas? Does Catholicism take credit for establishing this tradition? If so, can you present it as Biblical?

No, it falls into an area that can be easily identified as, though not commanded by Scripture, in no way violates the principles we live by. Principles that are specifically taught in Scripture. But the moment one teaches one has to either observe or reject the tradition, they fall into violation of what is incontrovertible teaching.

Having discussions with other believers always helps me, lol.


God bless.