Circle_Master Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 (edited) what the heck, this isn't a debate. well I guess it is not there is a difference in doctrine. maybe not for all these 30000 denominations, but there are at least 10 diffrent doctrines of how 1 is saved going out there, while the Church has only ONE. some protestants believe that you MUST HANDLE SNAKES in order to be saved. SOme believe once saved always saved. some believe it really doesn't matter, cauze it's all been discided already and nothing you do can affect whether or not you make it into heaven. oh yeah, did i mention the list goes on and on? The snake handling church you speak of does not believe handling snakes is necessary for salvation. They do believe the passage in Mark when it says "you will be immune to poison" (paraphrase) and play with snakes to show their faith. I did a study on them. There is really only one gospel message in protestantism. To say you could lose salvation is not part of that at all, that is another part of doctrine, I believe you are confusing the two. For Don John, that is fair enough. I personally hold mostly to the Calvinist understanding of salvation by faith - by grace. Well, to be most specific I would hold to Jonathan Edwards tweaks to it, but I'm thinking you'd be more familiar with how Calvin put it. and Anna, please keep your attacks out It really doesn't matter how many Masters degrees in Theology you assemble together to discuss and agree upon certain aspects of Scripture. They're not infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit against error. They're just men relying on their own human intellect and are therefore completely capable of misinterpretting what God has spoken. I never said having a lot of Th.M's meant anything. I was merely giving information about it. However, if you go for a masters you will understand some of the work involved! I never said they are infallible either. What they put down for rules on Bible interpretation are things that even a non-Christian pagan who doesn't believe in God will agree with. and blueflower - what Don John is talking about is deeper than the quote you gave. It involves logical reasons on how God is gracious and loving by what I believe He does, and how we chose Him, and what is our responsibility in salvation and other parts. Edited January 3, 2004 by Circle_Master Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 and now i'm going to bed. if someone posts something that is contradictory to what I said about the ETS, some Catholic please correct him for me so I don't have to do it tomorrow, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 i believe that Gospel is the sum of all doctrine relating to how one enters the kingdom of Heaven, for the Good News is that we may be reconciled to God, and the different Gospels come from different ways to be reconciled to God. w/e doctrine is essential to the Gospel message of a church. srry 4 gettin the snake handling church's teaching wrong, i only had limited knowledge of what they believed. nevertheless, all my other stuff as far as i know is accurate. different doctrines of gospel is different Gospels. yeah, yeah, the Gospel is the Jesus Christ reconciled man to God, but exactly how He did so and exactly what that means is also part of the Gospel, doctrines of a church affect the gospel message of a church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 what the heck, this isn't a debate. well I guess it is not The snake handling church you speak of does not believe handling snakes is necessary for salvation. They do believe the passage in Mark when it says "you will be immune to poison" (paraphrase) and play with snakes to show their faith. I did a study on them. There is really only one gospel message in protestantism. To say you could lose salvation is not part of that at all, that is another part of doctrine, I believe you are confusing the two. For Don John, that is fair enough. I personally hold mostly to the Calvinist understanding of salvation by faith - by grace. Well, to be most specific I would hold to Jonathan Edwards tweaks to it, but I'm thinking you'd be more familiar with how Calvin put it. and Anna, please keep your attacks out I never said having a lot of Th.M's meant anything. I was merely giving information about it. However, if you go for a masters you will understand some of the work involved! I never said they are infallible either. What they put down for rules on Bible interpretation are things that even a non-Christian pagan who doesn't believe in God will agree with. Phew. I am sure glad I am Catholic so I can rely on Christ rather than a group of men (and women). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." That sums it up what the message is at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Phew. I am sure glad I am Catholic so I can rely on Christ rather than a group of men (and women). actually you rely on a man (empowered sometimes by a council) that you believe is led by Christ. I rely on Scripture, and what it is to find the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 actually you rely on a man (empowered sometimes by a council) that you believe is led by Christ. I rely on Scripture, and what it is to find the truth. No it is led by Christ, and it is good to rely on scripture but you need a final authority on how to interpret the scripture that was given by Christ not to IBT or whatever they are called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 actually you rely on a man (empowered sometimes by a council) that you believe is led by Christ. That's just wrong, Circle, and you know it. What the Catholic Church teaches does not go against Scripture, just against what mere men, outside the graces God bestows through His Church, say. You choose men without certain grace over men that operate in the Church and avail themselves of the graces God chooses to bestow through it. Sheesh. Just because you repeat it many times, Circle, it doesn't make it true. What's the point of talking with you when you won't see reason. The only reason most here even respond to you, is that we don't want your misrepresntations to stand unchallenged lest some lurker read them and get the wrong idea. Please stop littering our Board with ignorance. There is (and have been) too many other non-Catholic Christians that post here and have been members for too long for you to give them a bad reputation with your sad antics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Circle master do you believe in double predestination or single predestination? Also just to put it simplyfor Scripture you rely on a book assembled by the authority of a council, and then mutilated by a single man. Unless of course you are useing a complete bible and not the edited version put forth by Luther. I have known Protestants who did use the entire bible but they where few and far between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 ooooo the Gospel that Paul preached to the Corinthians.. i'm shakin in my boots. yep, he just summed up the general Gospel. yet he preached the specifics there. the Gospel is not what Paul reminds the Corinthians about, the Gospel is the Good New Jesus Christ brought to us that we could enter the Kingdom of Heaven. doctrines affect our understanding of this Gospel. if we have differing understandings of the Good News, then we believe two different God Newses. :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleflower+JMJ Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 DONJOHN, welcome back!!! i've missed ya around these parts... good to see ya posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robyn Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 QUOTE (GodsPrincess @ Dec 31 2003, 10:06 PM) Interesting challenge Circle. I've been to many different churches who support each other, and the only real disagreements were so small they didn't bother arguing. hey i said that! I'll third that! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 single predestination. a logical conclusion is double predestination, but I believe it is man's choice alone which brings everyone else to destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 actually you rely on a man (empowered sometimes by a council) that you believe is led by Christ. I rely on Scripture, and what it is to find the truth. Such a short post, yet so filled with errors. Firstly, let me say, I wasn't "attacking," in my previous post, but merely pointing out that God may use a fool to lead His flock, but if that fool is the Vicar of Christ, then he's got the Holy Spirit guiding him, which trumps any level of intellectual biblical understanding. That guidance of the Holy Spirit was promised by Christ, to the Church which He founded upon Peter. The gates of hell shall not prevail. So, we may rely on the teachings of a man, but one ordained by God, representing Christ on earth, guiding the flock with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You do not rely on Scripture; you rely on the interpretations of Scripture of educated men and women, and you rely upon your own personal interpretations as well. However, these men and women had nothing to do with the writing of the Scriptures, nor of its compilation. The Catholic Church did. The Church infallibly interprets Scripture. Her interpretations of Scripture have not changed in 2000 years. In the protestant sects, the oldest of which is only about 500 years, there are many conflicting interpretations. But there will always be One True Faith. Pax Christi. <>< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 3, 2004 Share Posted January 3, 2004 Firstly, let me say, I wasn't "attacking," in my previous post, but merely pointing out that God may use a fool to lead His flock, but if that fool is the Vicar of Christ, then he's got the Holy Spirit guiding him, which trumps any level of intellectual biblical understanding. So you are saying that every pope ever had the Holy Spirit and led the flock correctly. That guidance of the Holy Spirit was promised by Christ, to the Church which He founded upon Peter. The gates of hell shall not prevail. a) for the gates of hell to not prevail, the Church merely needs to "survive" b) "hell" here may not be a proper interp. It is hades which frequently only means "the grave". For the gates of "the grave" to not prevail - Jesus would have to resurrection from the dead - He did. So, we may rely on the teachings of a man, but one ordained by God, representing Christ on earth, guiding the flock with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So you agree with my statement. I said you "believe" that you are led by a man led by Christ. You keep saying you disagree, but I said it was your belief, and you just reaffirmed it. You do not rely on Scripture; you rely on the interpretations of Scripture of educated men and women, and you rely upon your own personal interpretations as well. However, these men and women had nothing to do with the writing of the Scriptures, nor of its compilation. Aye, and neither did your tradition. Your tradition is what you believe has been passed down from the Apostles, and what you believe to be infallible in its teachings. The Catholic Church did. The Church infallibly interprets Scripture. Her interpretations of Scripture have not changed in 2000 years. None of them. You are saying 0 interpretations have changed on any passage from the Church in 2000 years. I musn't bring up "Augustinianism" for starters? In the protestant sects, the oldest of which is only about 500 years, there are many conflicting interpretations. Thanks, so is there in Catholicism. Except they are "sanctified disagreements" such as evolution. Of course, the Pope could just release a statement on whether the earth was millions or years old or a few thousand... nah. But there will always be One True Faith. Agreed. Christ has always promised a remnant to survive. Albeit in an organization or out of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now