Roman Catholic and The Bible.

[tom]

Tom,

You wrote:

If we can't know if we are right and we teach it and we are wrong...aren't we teaching false doctrine,(Titus 2:1)?

We certainly need to obey the scripture you gave (Tit.2:1), which tells us to teach sound doctrine. Fortunately, we have that scripture and the verses following it to tell us precisely what "sound doctrine" is—so that we can depend upon the scriptures, not the church authorities, to tell us what sound doctrines we must teach.

I don't see it! You say "sound doctrine", in Titus 2:1, is about conduct. The King James makes it seem like it , "sound doctrine", is continued on into the conduct verses, (Titus 2:2-5). Most other Bible versions end the verse, "But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine." But that doesn't really matter because Titus 2:2 says, "sound in faith". Now we have another matter of definition, what is sound faith?

1Timothy helps us with what is sound doctrine. 1Tim 1:3, "As I urged you when I went into Macedonia--remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine,..." Paul is talking about false doctrine meaning on the flip side there is sound doctrine!

1Tim 4:1-8, "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons,speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed. But reject profane and old wives' fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness. For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come."

Clearly Paul is talking doctrine and it's not just Christian conduct. Look at 1Tim 6:3 and 6:20-21. Don't teach false doctrine. Titus 3:9-11, don't listen to those preaching falsely.

I see sound doctrine as much more than just Christian conduct.

Tom

[Jill]

.

[popeman]

Dear Tom,

Just listening to the responses of everyone to you appears to that you really know little about scripture. You are but a little child amongst them scripturally who can barely suckle the milk, yet alone digest its truth compared to them.

Since you have them talking about “doctrine” then have one or two of them write down six points of Christian doctrine and see if everyone agrees on that? You’ll probably never get one to respond to that for fear they will start in-fighting.

Sorry, I dropped off. I got some nasty food poisoning as was doubled over for a while. Still not on top of things yet. Take care. Popeman

[Jill]

.

[popeman]

Dear Karen,

If I am to understand you....you feel that I mis-interpreted the response tone to Tom's points, ie, "suckling milk...inability to digest? It was not meant as an insult simply an observation. There appears to be tone of talking "down" to Tom/RCC as if he has no real grasp of Scripture. If anything, I am poking fun at Tom for his apparent "inability" to digest the scriptural milk that scripture eludes to and something that "we" all are hopefully reaching for.

My problem (Tom's?) is that when a point is brought up from the Protestant side, ie, now Christian "doctrine", as I told Tom he should be asking for six doctrinal points of Christianity. It would serve as a good foundation to reference. Heck, unless the word Doctrine is meant as something else, the dictionary states:

1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

We can throw out #3 (except Tom & I), but surely there a number of principles, positions, policies, collective teaching that some Christian can place in a row. Heck, the RCC has been doing that for some time. No need to do so since anyone can go to the RCC Catechism. It would be interesting from the Protestant Christian side because I would assume that Protestant "Doctrine" is not an an amorphous, ambiguous, fog of Christian teaching because then new Christians would have no real direction when in doubt about something, right?

Karen, even though I do not agree with the LDS theology let me state I have the some of the highest regard for you and the LDS church because you do have and recognize a need for an earthy authority (in and through Jesus/God). The LDS has one of the highest health populations because of your faith. They also have one of the lowest divorce rates and strongest family bonds. The LDS are absolutely super people to live with, next to and work with...and sadly, better sometimes than many Catholics and Protestants. So, Cudos to you and your church. Ironically, I also find the LDS the least offensive in their evangelization techniques when they come to my door and are probably more "open" to discussion points when they leave my home. The opposite is true with my Protestant evangelization techniques where I have heard directly and indirectly that Catholics are non-Christian, of the devil...etc. For this reason, after leaving the Protestant Evangelical church I started to significantly read a bit more about the history of the Christian Church, its writings, the earliest Christians and then compared it to today's "modern" Christians which appears to have changed significantly. Therefore, when I take on the "tone" of a Paul or Barnabus at Antioch and I get scorned for it then I simply do what they did....keep on keeping on. It served a good purpose in Scripture, so I am sure it will do the same here.

So, does anyone have any six Christian doctrinal points they can write down like one...this, two...that, three...etc? It would be nice to see from the vast amount of the forum use of the word "doctrine" that I have read. PAX Popeman

[steve]

It is not hard to list six or more doctrines that evangelicals will agree upon. In fact, I can take more than that number from the very verses where Paul gives examples of sound "doctrine" (a word that simply means "teaching").

The following are said to be "sound doctrine" (that is, literally, "healthy teachings") in 1 Timothy 1:9-10:

1. Do not murder your father
2. Do not murder your mother
3. Do not murder anybody
4. Do not fornicate
5. Do not sodomize
6. Do not abduct children from their parents
7. Do not be a liar
8. Do not be a perjurer

All the above sins are said to be "contrary to sound doctrine" (no surprise!).

Earlier in the same chapter (vv.3, 5), Paul appears to identify the goal of proper doctrine as "love" which arises from a "pure heart, a good conscience and sincere faith." I know of no evangelicals who would find themselves divided over this "sound doctrine"—with or without the intervention of a magisterium to dictate Christian teaching.

Those who do not "endure sound doctrine" are said to opt, instead, for teachers who teach them things agreeable to "their own lusts" (2 Tim.4:3). This must mean that what Paul defines as sound doctrine is teaching that is in conflict with the unhampered expression of lust.

In 1 Timothy 6:1-3, Paul refers to the "doctrine which is according to godliness" and seems to give as an example of such "doctrine" the teaching that servants should honor their masters.

In Titus 1:9-10, an example of those who need to be refuted by "sound doctrine" are "those of the circumcision." Apparently, the false doctrine with which he is here concerned is the doctrine that Christians must live under the Jewish ceremonial laws. "Sound doctrine", then, would be teaching that the rule for Christian living is independent of the Jewish legal code.

In Revelation 2:14 and 20-24, we have some examples of bad "doctrine." Bad doctrine would include teaching that Christians are permitted to:

1. participate in idoltrous feasts
2. commit fornication

The following are said to be "sound doctrine" in Titus 2:1ff:

1. Older men should be sober
2. Older men should be reverent
3. Older men should be self-controlled
4. Older men should be sound in faith, love and patience
5. Older women should be reverent in behavior
6. Older women should not be slanderers
7. Older women should not drink more wine than is appropriate
8. Older women should teach younger women how to behave
9. Young women should be discreet and chaste
10. Young women should be homemakers
11. Young women should be good
12. Young women should be obedient to their husbands
13. Young men should be sober-minded

Now, you may find some people who attend evangelical churches who disagree among themselves about some of these issues (just as you will find some in the Catholic Church who disagree both with these passages and with the Catholic teachings on certain things), but no one can claim that these things are unclear to anyone who wishes to let the scriptures decide their doctrine for them. It requires no higher teaching authority to make sense of these "doctrines."

It is also clear that what Paul refers to as "sound doctrine" is a collection of moral and practical teachings about how Christians should live—not a set of theological mysteries to be comprehended. I am not aware of any scripture that places Christians under obligation to conform to any elaborate theological system of beliefs in order to follow Christ. If such an obligation existed, it might be very well to have one authority telling us all how to think about the Trinity, about the manner in which the two natures of Christ are joined, about life after death, about the meaning of the eucharist, about the way Christ's atonement saves us, about predestination and free will, about what standard God may use in judging those who had less opportunity to believe, about end times scenarios, etc. Since it is not necessary for anyone to understand any of these mysteries in order to properly understand how to live a life pleasing to God, we are at liberty to disagree in our personal perceptions on such esoteric issues, while waiting for the faithful teaching of the Holy Spirit to instruct us individually (1 John 2:27), until we all come into a complete unity of beliefs (Eph.4:13).

[popeman]

Dear Steve,

OK, as I mentioned to Sam, I think you have been a liar (real or imagined). I would like to take you to Scriptural task for this in Matt18. You evidently do not see it and if Tom and I agree you are still a liar and, not doubt, you still do not see it ....then, I want to take you to that Church that can treat you as a tax collector/pagan. Whether you ever are or not, I would simply like to know where this church is that has such authority over you or me (all Christians). Semper Fi, Popeman

[steve]

Hi Popeman,

I do not see how a person can be a liar without knowing that he is one—since lying involves telling a known falsehood (if one does not know that what he is saying is false, he is not a liar. He is mistaken). If someone is telling people things that he knows to be false, then he is a liar—and he knows it! If he thinks he is telling the truth, then he is not to be disciplined as a liar, he is to be corrected. If his errors are scriptural, then he should be corrected from scripture. This isn't rocket science.

Feel free to take up my case before your own church. Their decision is the only one you recognize anyway.

By the way, are you going to admit that you were wrong on the definition of "sound doctrine," or do you just move on from such corrections as if nothing had happened? If the latter, maybe we should be reassessing who is the one deliberately fudging on the truth?

[Paidion]

Why do you think Steve to be a liar, Popeman? Is it simply because he expressed the truth about "sound doctrine" and "false doctrine" in I Timothy and Titus? If you want to influence anyone positively, why not quote the scripture and expound it rather than expressing your thought that those with whom you disagree are liars. By doing so, you are indicating to your readers that you have been defeated, and have no recourse except to lash out.

[darinhouston]

Somehow I don't think popeman thinks Steve is a liar. I could be wrong, but it seems he is simply trying to be clever and to pretend there is such a dispute to prove his point that he has no one to take correction to (a eldership/church authority) like he thinks he would with his fellow Roman Catholics.