A Question For Separated Brethren

[the lumberjack]

what [edit] is so [edit] funny?

[img]http://www.cruftbox.com/cruft/images/dr_evil.jpg[/img]

[color=red][Edited by Ice Princess: edited for offensive language.][/color]

Edited May 26, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[Quietfire]

OH.... THAT CRACKS ME UP!!!!! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Anna]

Define [i]frikk[/i]?

Better yet, please don't.

[Katholikos]

Are [i]FRIKK[/i] and [i]FRIKKIN[/i] "careless words"? I can say them in Sunday School or church, can't I? Can I include them in my prayers? These must be words from a foreign language you learned at your mother's knee, so please tell me what they mean. But be sure to let me know whether they're "careless" or not.

Jesus speaks: "I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. Mt 12:36-37.

[the lumberjack]

a bit legalistic, aren't we?

[Katholikos]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 25 2004, 05:27 PM'] a bit legalistic, aren't we? [/quote]
Oh, those are legal terms? Are they used in court?

[Anna]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='May 25 2004, 07:27 PM'] a bit legalistic, aren't we? [/quote]
I think Likos was basing his standards on teachings straight from the Holy Bible...isn't that the method you claim to follow? The method you think we Catholics don't live up to?

Where is FRIKKIN in the Bible?

When speaking with your pastor, do you use the word FRIKKIN'?


*I digress* Reminds me of a story I once told on this phorum already: An AofG lady I once knew attended a wedding reception and drank copious amounts of the spiked punch. When she saw her pastor entering the banquet hall, she remarked to my cousin, "Oh, here comes my pastor! I'll have to switch to the un-spiked punch!" My Catholic cousin remarked dryly, "Why switch now? God has been watching you all afternoon!"

Pax Christi. <><

[mulls]

TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY TRINITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



that's not in the bible either.......excommunicate me!! (please?)

[the lumberjack]

I could call you a pencil sharpener and have it mean something evil...does it make it any less worse that I was calling you a pencil sharpener?

is it the words, or the context and content of the words?

if I say to my "homies", "what up fool"...am I sinning because I called him fool?

[theculturewarrior]

[quote]I never said that there was a visible doctrine of unity...but the slight differences in most of the Protestant denominations (at least the one's that are out here), aren't so big that you can't go and fellowship with them.

if thats relativism, then sure, why not...but those brothers that have a solid doctrine, go to them and exhort them to correction.

as I've said, most people don't know that their beliefs have actual names/tags associated with them, so to say OSAS to them would be fruitless.
[/quote]

Finally, the light is dawning on my neanderthal mind.

Is it that....a consensus on biblical interpretation is sufficient? Do evangelicals believe that they have received the keys to the kingdom, and that whatever the consensus is among like minded evangelicals is "bound in Heaven?" How do gelicals interpret that passage, anyway?

My next question would be, re: relativism...what about changes in doctrine throughout history? What about birth control, which was once universally prohibited? What about the "Curse of Ham" theology, which was once prevalent. Were people who subscribed to these beliefs your brothers in Christ? If you could go back in time, would you recognize your spiritual ancestors, and if not, would you be able to reconcile your beliefs with theirs, the beliefs you hold dear with their progenitor?

Edited May 26, 2004 by theculturewarrior

[the lumberjack]

[quote]Finally, the light is dawning on my neanderthal mind.[/quote]

you kinda know how I feel about some of the things you guys try to 'splain to me...hahaha...

[quote]Is it that....a consensus on biblical interpretation is sufficient? Do evangelicals believe that they have received the keys to the kingdom, and that whatever the consensus is among like minded evangelicals is "bound in Heaven?" How do gelicals interpret that passage, anyway?[/quote]

if by consensus you mean that most of us evangelical Christians (again, I only speak for those denominations that I know and have ever been affiliated with) are agreeing on our interpretation of the Bible, then you are right. our doctrine is the same, except for a few minor things, such as speaking in tongues, or the gift of healing (to a very minor extent), or whatever else I can't think of right now.

keys to the kingdom...all churches that have a good solid foundation of faith and doctrine Christ have the keys to the kingdom, being that they are part of the body of Christ. we all have our different parts in it...whatever it might be, we are there, working for Christ and living for Him too.

as for that passage at the end, "bound in heaven", if you look at the context of the verse,it says iff one among the church is adamantly unrepentant, they are to be removed from fellowship. The circle of people in the situation only becomes wider as the guilty party refuses to repent; if the unrepentant attitude remains, they are to be refused fellowship.

This sense of being refused full standing and participation in the body of Christ is what Paul meant when he said to deliver such a one to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:1-8); there is a sense in which the unrepentant one is chastened by their being placed outside of the "protection" of fellowship.

Even so, the unrepentant one must be treated just as we should treat a heathen and a tax collector: with great love, with the goal of bringing about a full repentance. If this process is done according to the Word, this is quite binding in the eyes of God, even if the unrepentant just go to another church.

but thats if you're talking about the one in Matthew 18...if you mean the one in Matthew 16, we'll have to get back into on who or what exactly Christ founded His Church. and while most of us prots DO believe that Peter was used to start the spreading of the word and of the church and make sure it was founded in Christ, the church was not founded on peter...this is our stance, not a point I want to debate here...we can start another thread if you want, CW.

[quote]My next question would be, re: relativism...what about changes in doctrine throughout history? What about birth control, which was once universally prohibited? What about the "Curse of Ham" theology, which was once prevalent. Were people who subscribed to these beliefs your brothers in Christ? If you could go back in time, would you recognize your spiritual ancestors, and if not, would you be able to reconcile your beliefs with theirs, the beliefs you hold dear with their progenitor?[/quote]

changes in doctrine...hmmm...it would seem to me that as much as the Catholic Church doesn't want to admit to it, there have been changes in its doctrine as well. else why would there be different groups of Catholics that believe one thing and not another? yes, your foundation of faith and doctrine may be largely the same, but there are things which the SSPX Catholics don't see eye to eye with others. you've got the UltraTraditionalists who see it thru the 1960, preVatican II eyes...and the more modern, more liberal Catholics...

curse of ham? could you splain this more? I may have heard of it, but don't know it by name...and if I were to go back in time, I'm sure that I would recognize my spiritual ancestors, and even more so easily distinguish them from the fakes that were also so prevelant at the time.

and as for birth control...I'll see if I can't dig up the old thread on it, and give you some more info.

God bless.

[theculturewarrior]

The curse of ham theology taught that african americans had descended from Ham, whose father (Shem?) cursed him for seeing him naked. This was used by KKK (who were once upon a time a powerful voting block) to justify subjegation of blacks.

[the lumberjack]

Ham (and Shem's) father was Noah...

and yeah I had heard of that...and I really don't see any basis for it...else the Africans would have been slaves to the Jews also...and I don't ever recall any of that happening in the 17-1800's.

at least not in my neighborhood.

[theculturewarrior]

I guess what I'm asking is that, if this was once the consensus, and the same method of discerning doctrine was applied in both instances, (the one that developed the curse of ham theology, and the one that condemned it), then isn't that method fallible?

[the lumberjack]

1. we aren't out to push our own gain
2. we (most of the time) don't take bits and pieces of Scripture and magnify them to absurd levels.
3. we DO look back on history and context of the Bible and other things.
4. we pray and pray and pray and pray...and pray.
5. we pray.

so while, yes it CAN be fallible, (and is SO often proven to be, when looking at any of the cults out there, Mormons, JW's...etc) so can leaving the interpretation of the Bible in the hands of a group of men you don't know and probly never will meet...isn't it?

God bless.